Producers Seek to Limit Phony Credits

Zensteve

Zensteve

Probably won't affect anyone here, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

Well, actually it may affect you later down the line, if you ever want to make a break into mainstream filmmaking. What collected credits will they actually recognise, when you make the jump? :cool:

Article is from the NY Times. Direct link to original article here.


October 7, 2004

Producers Seek to Limit Phony Credits

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:29 a.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Hollywood producers said Wednesday they want studios to stop giving bogus credits to people as a bargaining chip and say they'll go to court to limit the use of the ``produced by'' title.

Kathleen Kennedy, president of the Producers Guild of America, refused to specify who in the past has received a phony producer credit, saying she would not ``name names'' even though the issue is murky for the average moviegoer.

At a Wednesday press conference, Kennedy and others from the guild said they were asking studios to limit the credit and include language specifying the duties necessary to receive it into every would-be producer's contract.

Kennedy, whose credits include ``Seabiscuit,'' ``E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial'' and ``Back to the Future,'' said too often a producer credit is given as a kind of compensation, boosting an actor, agent or manager's show-business resume and costing studios little or nothing.

Directors and writers have labor unions that dictate who can and cannot receive a credit, but producers don't have such regulation, she added.

``The studios did not set out to demean the producing credit,'' she said. ``They simply discovered they could use the unregulated producer credit as a form of currency. When counterfeit currency is allowed to proliferate it devalues the whole system of currency.''

If a credit is given unfairly, guild lawyers pledged to sue -- not for money, but to force a studio to remove the credit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's soooooo true. "co-produce", "associate producer", "executive producer", and "co-executive producer" get tossed off as free credits in exchange for something minor. The hair stylist who handed a script from director to Stallone once got "co-produced by" for that one thing. Kevin Smith and Scott Mosier are 'co-executive Producers" on GOOD WILL HUNTING becuase while shooting CHASING AMY, Kevin Smith called Harvey Weinstein and asked him to read Affleck's script. Neither guy ever visited the set, and yet that title was a gift.

There are no clear guidlines or definitions that are "absolute" on what the Producer titles mean and warrant. All the other functions do.
 
i just saw somewhere that a film was asking for 50k dollars, and if you donated, you'd be named executive producer.

lol... :)
 
Demosthenes X said:
I could be wrong, but isn't the "Producer" the person or studio that funded the movie? Or contributed in some other major way?
Click to expand...
In this case you are wrong. Partially.

The producer is the person who "initiates, coordinates, supervises and controls all aspects of a motion picture from inception to completion".

On a studio level a producer (say Joel Silver or Gale Ann Hurd) doesn't put up the money. The studio does - at the discretion of the studio head.

On an independent level a producer (say Christine Vachon) rarely puts up the money. She will put together the deal that attracts investors. Very often it's those investors that get Executive Producer credit.

The Producer Guild isn't trying to stop the person who put up the money from getting a producer credit - but attempting to curb credits like sonnyboo mentioned. Introducing a writer to a executive shouldn't make you a "producer".
 
Steve i read something about this before... Its like AOL padding the stock market with bogus claims.

it helps sell tickets for movie goers.


Its pretty sad i think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top