Talk:Film producer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed Hyphenate

I've removed "Hyphenate" from the list of types of producer. I think someone was making a comment about punctuation. I also removed a line about producers needing to know languages. Don't they have people for that? Rojomoke 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So many citations

I don't know where to put it, alot of the references are in the same article. It would require the same one to be used over and over, which isn't really smiled upon. So many citations needed for proof of him being the head supervisor?--BobtheVila (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable List

It seems to me that the Notable Producers List should be split off into a different article. What does other people think? Jehorn (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it clutters up the main article and is really just miscellanea in this case. 64.222.94.132 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the list go, and I don't care where it goes. If a producer is so extraordinary, then that producer can be written into the prose section of the article with a sentence or three about what, why, where and when. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I created List of film producers and List of television producers. Some people appear in both. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable Producers

Howard is a line producer by the way

I don't want to start an edit war or anything, but does Howard Kazanjian really belong on a short list of "notable producers"? Personally, I would include Ridley Scott before him (no offense to any fans)... and notice how I didn't include Ridley Scott. - dcljr 02:13, 21 July 2004 (UTC)

It's probably because we're talking about producers, not producer-directors. Otherwise you would definitely include Hitchcock, Spielberg and Kubrick as notable producers. I've made a change here because I think this section is highly debatable: "Changes in movie distribution and marketing in the 1970s and 80s gave rise to the modern-day phenomenon of the Hollywood blockbuster, giving even more power to individual directors."

I would say the rise of the blockbuster has given more power to producers. Directors had a brief period in the 70s when they were king, but that's over now. These days the name of the director is a marketing tool, but in Hollywood films the producer is usually the one with the power, except in rare cases like Tarantino. JW 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There are four flaws in your argument: 1. You're ignoring the fact that many directors also produce their films, which is a development that only occurred recently.

2. Whatever control directors had in the 70's was only because producers allowed them that control. But producers still had the ultimate authority. Also, I would argue that the whole "In the 70's, directors were king!" statement is a myth. There were directors with a lot of power, but that was the exception, not the norm.

3. If producers had ultimate authority in the 30's and 40's, than the advent of the blockbuster didn't give them "more power", it simply returned to them the power they used to have. Your phrasing of events is a tad inelegant and inaccurate, to say the least.

4. How is the director a "marketing tool?" Unless the producer (a non-director-producer) somehow did all the actual directing, a films direction is still the result of a director. Next you'll be saying if an actor gives a great performance, it's really the producer who gave the performance because he or she has the real power! Also, a lot of films do use the producer of the film as a selling point, so the process is not as dishonest as you imply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by , so 68.205.57.121 (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Notable" producers

I have removed (twice) the line

• Ron Ormond Produced B Western films, starring Lash LaRue.

This is not because I doubt his existence (see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0650259/) but because a short list like this in an article cannot list every producer everyone likes. B western films don't sound especially notable as such things go, but above all I have removed it because Ron Ormond doesn't have his own Wikipedia entry, which would have subjected him to a community test of notability. Notinasnaid 10:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like you, are a movie critic. Ron Ormond produced several films,their posters are collectors items. Several people that became famous, starred in B Western Films. This included Ronald Reagan. In the next few months, i will write an article on Ron Ormond.

An article will be good. I'm not entirely sure that directing movies with people who later became politicians puts people up there with David O. Selznick, but I would not remove the entry on that account. I don't like to see redlinks in "notable" lists, that's all, and apply this idea from software companies to psychobilly bands. Partly because having an article is a test of notability, and partly because the entry is very little use to the reader without the link going somewhere. Ultimately, I suspect the titles of lists like this will have to change to something else, since how do you provide verifiability for who belongs in a list of notables? But that's somthing for another day. Notinasnaid 10:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, there needs to be specific inclusion criteria to define who should and should not be considered "notable". Being a movie producer in itself is potentially notable, and the list of all producers with articles on WP is potentially quite large; too large to make a complete list worthwhile on this page (that's what categories are for). If someone cannot come up with a specific criteria for notability, then I feel the entire list should be deleted. I personally have no idea what makes any given producer notable, such that they stand out from the rest. For more details, see WP:LIST and WP:SAL-Verdatum (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTChttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Film_producer&action=edit&section=2)

Specifically, I've removed Scott Vogel twice now. Please discuss here before readding him. -Verdatum (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"I personally have no idea what makes any given producer notable, such that they stand out from the rest.."

Really? You don't think producers like Bruckheimer, Frank Marshall, or Peter Jackson are more notable then little known producers like Lynda Obst, Robert N. Fried, or Neil Meron? The latter have made some successful films here and there, but they are not household names, but Bruckheimer, Jackson, et al are. Let's take one example of "any given producer". How about Albert Broccoli? He was the guiding force behind one of the most successful and longest lived franchises in history: The James Bond films. That doesn't stand out? That's not notable? The criteria for "notability" should be the same for any filmmaker: longevity, influence, success, appeal of work, etc. It's not rocket science, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk • contribs) 02:43, February 24, 2011

On Wikipedia, "notable" != "famous". See Wikipedia:Notability (people), in particular the Creative professionals section. --Geniac (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment

99% of Line Producers receive "PRODUCER" / "EXECUTIVE PRODUCER" credit simply because they received less money for their services and they want to appear as a person who can greenlight a project. Actually they are very good pencil pushers for the Real Producers in some instances they will work on a project doing such things as Budgets and Incentives without pay until the money is released in exchange the a given these title . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.119.195 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Above-the-line

It's not clear what are above-the-line or below-the-line personnel. 93.172.57.62 (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure either - I've removed and re-arranged the stuff about the producer role into a single section for future editors to expand.ChrisUK (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There are actually Wikipedia articles on this very subject. (Which the terms in that version of the article probably should have linked to, and which should still be linked to if in a future edit mention is again made of them.) --Smeazel (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

is this talk page actually an old school bulletin board... anyway..I can add to "Above the Line " info if you want.. I have a degree in film from Univ of So. Cal. /major in Critical Studies and minor in Production... Above the line in one line is ... all $ not spent on "filming" it includes salaries for actors/and esp. for producers ..this is where they write their OWN paychecks/ also pays for script and of course there is more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.119.195 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Er... no, the talk page isn't really supposed to be used like an old school bulletin board; it's supposed to be focused on discussion about improving the article. Anyway, the post you're replying to refers to an old version of the page; the term "above the line" isn't mentioned in the current version. And, while your willingness to share information is appreciated, as I noted in my previous post above there's already an article explaining this subject on Wikipedia. If you feel you can add more information to improve that article, you're more than welcome to, of course, but there's no need to discuss it on the talk page to this one. --Smeazel (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

New version

Hi, I have taken the liberty to give this article a brush-up. I have dropped all the detailled information on what an executive producer or a line producer does. If somebody wants to have that explained, they (I love modern English) can just use the internal link of the same name... (Or instead they use the internal link for film crew!) I don't recognise a necessity to blow the article out of proportion by adding any long lists because readers can just activate a category if they should crave for lists. Well, that's my point of view.NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 04:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It was useful having the Comparison to other producer roles section on here. This page is a natural place to expect to find such info. It's important to note that the various titles do not have strict definitions, however. For example, as the previous text said:

Since the 1980s, it has become increasingly common for the line producer to be given the title of executive producer, while the initiating producer takes the "produced by" credit. On other projects, the reverse happens, with the line producer taking the "produced by" credit. So the two credits have become effectively interchangeable, with no precise definition.

And you've introduced other problems in the article. Several of your refs don't back up what you're saying. The producer does not always have final say on which film director gets hired, although that happens, as with De Laurentiis. But it's not consistently true. In fact one of the refs used there shows how the newly hired director took over developing the script from producer De Laurentiis. Producers don't always have the last word when it comes to casting questions either. Your lead says producers prepare and then supervise the making of a film before presenting the product to a financing entity or a film distributor. That is self-contradictory. And a production will always have people functioning as line producer and unit production manager, whether it's being shot on location or not. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gothicfilm, thank you for your candour. The executive producer and the line producer have their own articles and of course all readers can follow up the given internal links. So they can draw their own comparisons if they want to go there. I agree that the distinctions between the different kinds of producers are fuzzy and that their responsibilities do often overlap. Moreover it is always possible that responsibilities are shifting during the making of a film. Anyway, how somebody is actually credited seems to depend a lot on demands and negotiations. I think the readers want a comprehensible definition which concentrates on clarity instead of stressing just all the fuzziness. Well, you are also right when you imply that a film producer is often also the film distributor. But that is not always the case. Even if a film producers is a distributor too, he might have to negotiate with other distributors. For example, Luc Besson negotiated recently with a Chinese distributor.

NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 23:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What I tried to explain is you cannot take one model of how a film was made, as with De Laurentiis or Besson, and then make it sound like it always happens that way in the article. You did not respond to most of the points above. And for the sake of re-writes, I'm all for a comprehensible definition that concentrates on clarity, but it should also be accurate. For example, people should not be left with the impression there is a precise definition for specific producer roles when there isn't. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gothicfilm, when I rewrote this article I had Artur Brauner in mind. He was a (famous) producer and just a producer. When I describe what he did as a producer, I certainly do describe what a producer does. Should you have further questions, please be specific. I am confident somebody has all the appropriate answers. If you want to make changes, you can do that as you see fit. Go on without my approval. We are both just equal members of the same community. [User:NordhornerII|NordhornerII]] (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)