Film Twitter Credits

 

img_3238

Ever watch a movie or read the credits and notice no less than a dozen producers credited on the film? It happens all the time, and more often than not those reading the credits have no idea who was the “producing producer,” you know the guy or gal who made the project happen from development to the moment you watch the movie on screen. This upset a lot of folks who put in hard work only to wind up squeezed into a credits roll with a bunch of people who may have done as little as write a check. In 2012 the PGA sought to remedy this with a special designation – the producers mark. The guild set a list of requirements so that the “producing producers” would have a PGA designation after their name in the credits, like “PRODUCERS NAME, pga.” So now with the producers mark, suddenly everyone would know which folks are the real players and who just cut the check etc.

On Twitter there are no such designations. In fact there may not even be a credit list. Yet young filmmakers put in their bio “producer” “screenwriter” or any number of above the line titles with no accountability all the time. This post is about why you need to stop this or just never do it in the first place.

Saying you’re a producer on twitter with a single small indie under your belt and no theatrical release is in my and many other’s eyes extremely unprofessional. Unlike those folks dog-piling behind those with a producers mark, you’re likely not making any money as a “producer” nor do you likely have a distribution deal or any viable way of making money on your film.

But you produced a film, you may say. That’s a very low bar to set. Literally thousands of films are made every year, but few ever see a theatrical release. Making a small film released direct to video does not qualify you as a producer. Merely having done something – the task of a producer – does not make you a producer. It does not qualify you as a producer any more than drawing a doodle in a note book qualifies someone as an artist.

Ok but you still might introduce yourself as such. So why is this unprofessional? Simply because relatively speaking, it looks like bullshit. You’re probably a small timer – like me. You not only lack PGA affiliation, you lack a list of **theatrical** credits to call yourself a producer. So when someone browses your twitter – maybe even a producer looking to hire you as an assistant – you look like an idiot. You throw up red flags because you look like the person who will exaggerate their station in life, and frankly Hollywood has enough of these people.

What distinguishes a producer, writer or any other above line title is theatrical credits — not dubious IMDb credits — a film that was actually released, aka produced credits. Something people could go and see in theaters – no matter how small the release.

So when is it acceptable to put above the line titles in your bio? Apart from produced credits, there are a few acceptable instances:

1. Promoting your work. Perhaps you want to draw attention to something you recently did, “director of FILM NAME” is fine. I think this only works when you’re actively promoting a film in release or are trying to raise awareness. Also, I would never put “producer of FILM NAME” unless it was a financial or festival success. After it’s been out and failed to gain traction, I would just leave it off the bio altogether in all cases. Nobody cares that you made a film no one heard of.

2. Writer v working writer v screenwriter. What’s the difference? Working writer is a good way to differentiate yourself from the legion of folks in the film twitter community who call themselves writers. It implies your day job is writing. Screenwriter in my opinion is also a professional designation and unless you have produced credits, optioned properties, i.e you write for the screen in a professional sense, I would not include that in a bio. I personally see the value of having writer in my bio, because I do write. For networking purposes it is important to introduce myself as such but I would never introduce myself as a screenwriter even though my primary medium is script writing. That’s because once you do so the next logical question is “what have you written” and unless you can reply with produced credits or optioned scripts, it doesn’t look good. Writer allows you to discuss your medium, genre and what your goals are in a professional sense without giving the impression you already made it.

3. Finally, actor or comedian. Actors/comedians need to put themselves out there in a different way. From headshots to reels, I think it’s fine to include these titles in your bio because you’re actively recruiting interest in yourself for networking purposes. I would still be cautious of adding dubious credits or unknown projects to your bio. Personally I’d rather see a cleverly written bio than “actor in PROJECT” every time. It also helps if you have reels or things to link to, otherwise you too may look like little more than an aspirant.

I think the key in all this is that perception is reality. You can really cost yourself reputation points trying to make yourself look more professional than you are. In an industry full of bullshiters, it’s quite easy to spot bullshit. Don’t look like the person who takes themselves too seriously, adding unearned credits to their bio. Be the person people want to work with. Tell a joke, let your personality shine in your bio. Don’t be another kid with “director/screenwriter” and a link to their Vimeo, they’re a dime a dozen and the key to this business is sticking out.

Advertisements

Blue Zones

google-office-screenshot
Concept Image of Google Dome via Google

Blue Zone is defined as an area of the world where sociologists have concluded that people have a statistically higher chance to lead a longer life. When applied to discussions of future society, it means those with means and those without it. When automation leads to masse unemployment and historic wealth inequality, living in a blue zone could literally mean the difference between life and death.

A few months back, I discussed the pitfalls of various futurist visions, namely their inability to foresee problems — or more likely that they just don’t care. The post was titled Trickle Down Tech, a play on words inspired by trickle down economics.  In both cases, wealthy folks promise average working people that if they wait a little longer the profits, or technological innovation will increase their quality of life.

This promise of better quality of life is a faulty promise. Research continues to show warning signs about AI, and predicts that by 2025, a third of our jobs will be automated. By 2050, some researchers theorize the majority of our current workforce could be out of work. While many in Silicon Valley, like Google’s Ray Kurzweil, assure us AI will also create new jobs — this time is different than the rest of history.

It is smart for Silicon Valley elites to not ring the alarm bell. It would lead to revolt, and the potential to have their VC cut off, or have their inventions be subject to preventative regulations. These people are in it to make a profit and to test the limits of technology because they can.

Meanwhile within their circles, the Technorati have already begun to talk about future blue zones and how to prepare now for the coming societal unrest.

“They already know millions will suffer…the population of earth which is overpopulated will have to decline…it is a matter of resources, even if we can 3d print them, there is only so much space on earth.” This is what a friend of mine currently studying advanced artificial intelligence at a major west coast research institution told me. He had attended  a retreat with his peers, the term “blue zones” actually came up. All theorized that because of their jobs within the tech community, they would have the requisite skills to live within one of the planned blue zone communities — perhaps like the concept of Google Dome as pictured above.

In fact, while it isn’t revealed to the public as a blue zone, those familiar with the project have confessed to me that Google Dome is an early concept of a blue zone, similar to Peter Thiel’s proposed Sea Steading colony. Many tech companies know that history will repeat itself — when they say “let them eat cake,” people will be ready with pitchforks to storm the Bastille!

Only this isn’t a castle prison in 18th Century France, it is far more secure than that. These mini-Elysiums will have all the technology, resources and clean energy residents could possibly need. The dome would be entirely self sufficient. Most importantly it would be impervious to attack by the commoners.

Silicon Valley has given us a lot of great things — but what stuck out to me during the conversation with my Technorati friend was that in his industry, all know eventually many will suffer. A lot of folks in the tech community have grown almost aloof to this fact. They see it merely as a necessary moment in history for human evolution. They have developed almost a callousness to it. Eventually the course will correct itself, but not at their expense — but at the expense of the masses — so who gives a fuck?

It is time to take the threat of automation very seriously. Amazon just launched Amazon Go, a grocery store with no human employees. It won’t stop at retail, it will eventually bleed into technical and white collar jobs like law, finance and accounting too! It’s time to get government and labor unions involved. It is time to take the threat of mass unemployment seriously. Universal Basic Income isn’t the answer, because whatever money you get the Techonorati will have much, much more. The answer is fighting this before it is too late. Otherwise, it will be up to whether you can save enough to get into a blue zone. Most of us won’t get there, we’ll be stuck in the desert with no water like Mad Max.

What is Next for Gareth Edwards?

img_5925

Why has nobody been asking Gareth Edwards about his ‘Robot Star Wars’ original Sci-Fi film?

From recent Rogue One press conferences to a Twitter Q&A, the “what’s next for Gareth Edwards” is a question that hasn’t gotten much if any play in the press.

Gareth Edwards rose to prominence with his original science fiction thriller, Monsters in 2010. It was widely reported at the time to carry a $500,000 budget, and Edwards, a former VFX artist, was reported to have done all the special effects on his laptop.

That effort got the attention of Wanted producing-team Timur Bekmambetov and Jim Lemley. In 2010 fresh off the success of Wanted, it was revealed that they would be producing Edward’s next directorial/writing effort then titled Forever. However the project wound up on hold as Edwards went on to direct Godzilla.

The film has been described as ‘a robot Star Wars,’ a galactic adventure in which a young human child sought the origins of humanity in a world devoid of it. Producer Timur Bekmembetov in a recent interview this year (April, 2016) described the project as “a warm story” and expressed his desire to still make it. At the time, Gareth was still attached to direct the sequel to Godzilla 2.

In May 2016, Gareth dropped out of Godzilla 2 citing his desire to take a break from Blockbuster cinema and focus on smaller projects. Many journalists at the time speculated he might return to Forever, which is reported to carry a budget in the $35 million range. It was also alleged that Venom scribe Dante Harper had written a draft with Edwards, who also shot test footage for the film.

Since then, there has been almost no word on the project. The title is only available on IMDbPro, the paid subscription version of IMDb and it is not visible on the free site. A quick glance at the professional page reveals the project was again updated to script status on October 17, 2016. Of course the site is notorious for misinformation and it is unknown without verification from the filmmakers and producers if that is even the case.

What is clear is that despite it being the only other project in development on Edward’s page, nobody has seemed to ask him during the Rogue One promo “what’s next?” It is a question I and many others would like to see answered.

 

 

 

 

 

Bekmambetov and Lemley are represented by Mike Simpson (WME)
Edwards is represented by the Curtis Brown Agency (London)