Producers United: Some Of Hollywood’s Most Prolific Producers Are Taking A Stand To Protect Future Generations: “We’re Talking About Basic American Rights Here”

A group of 86 producers responsible for generating the lion’s share of film and TV in Hollywood have banded together to form Producers United. While acknowledging they have made a good living, the collective aims to address the fact that producers typically spend lengthy periods in development with little to no pay or benefits. This means that only tenured producers — those with enough personal assets to survive long, speculative stretches — can survive within the current system. And, without essential support, up-and-comers struggle to find a foothold. Producers United members want to open the doors for the future generations of producers-in-training, and they feel that inaction will not only hurt the producers, but surely whittle down the influx of creative minds in the business, and thus the quality of future projects.

“I don’t think what we are suggesting will be painless, but we believe it’s not wildly painful, either,” said Lorenzo di Bonaventura, one of the most prolific makers of big studio pictures and among the few left who still has an overall deal at a major studio. “We’re talking about basic American rights here. You have a right to work and get paid for it, and you should have healthcare.”

Hollywood is coming off a crippling strike with another potential labor standoff with Teamsters and IATSE in July, and yet, without the muscle of a union with collective bargaining behind them, producers stand alone.

“What we’re asking is to face up to a basic commitment,” Di Bonaventura says, “which is to pay people for their work and give them a little protection. This is not bone-breaking from a monetary point of view. We recognize that we’re asking them to take a step, but we don’t believe it’s that big a step. But it’s a huge step for the emerging producers.”

That’s why the 86 producers who make about 90% of Hollywood films are seeking reforms they say will head off an “extinction event” for future generations of producers. The cost seems nominal, mainly moving around money that will be applied to the fee that kicks in after a green light, and right before production begins.

It’s hard not to sympathize with the producers, especially during the crucial period of development that largely determines whether a film or pilot will be any good. While writers and everyone else get paid, career producers who oversee the whole process are expected to survive on half of a $25,000 development payment — the only thing sustaining them for a period that could may be anything from, say, nine months, to more than a decade. Studio overall deals are becoming rare, and those who don’t have one have to just hang on. Not to mention, the lack of healthcare.

Worse, these producers are the ones signing a paper that places them on the hook for budget overages and anything else that goes wrong, even a decade after the project’s release. At that point, studios certainly don’t want to hear about the results of audits that require extra residual payments. Producer fees might be generous when things work out, but if a project dies in development, all that upfront work is for naught. Small wonder they liken themselves to wildcatters, those who drill and only get rich when they strike oil.

Even if they hit the geyser, producer residuals have been capped. Plus, they’ll be the ones to take a haircut on their fees if budgets are crunched or extra producers are added, and the threat that refusal will kill a project in its tracks.

Producers United believes its coterie of career producers — those whose allegiance is solely to the project — are vital toward being the first line of defense against budget overruns and set safety. Of course, the latter is on everyone’s mind after the tragedy of Rust.

Producers United also believes that most of the CEOs don’t even know about their plight, and the hope is that by spreading awareness, the issue might be addressed.

So why don’t the producers have the muscle of a union behind them? It’s not for lack of trying. In 1950, they had the Screen Producers Guild, which in 1968 brokered a deal with AMPTP that put producers on par with the DGA. Except, the WGA challenged its authority to rep producers, because many had ownership stakes in the studios, and the California courts agreed. That situation no longer exists, but the PGA was denied another attempt to unionize in 1983. The National Labor Relations Board ruled that producers were still essentially an arm of the employers, and shared in the proceeds.

Producers United hopes to avoid that and persuade the bosses that these reforms will be best for their business. But many of the same producers last year petitioned the AMPTP to drop the word “producers” from that moniker, because it made them seem at odds with labor guilds like WGA, SAG-AFTRA, IATSE and Teamsters. While it would have essentially amounted to the cost of new stationery, their appeal so far has fallen on deaf ears.

One particularly intriguing part of this is that these producers should have allies among the studio chiefs. After all, it is inevitable they will eventually be former studio chiefs. Odds are, they will transition to producing, putting them in the same boat with those whose course they are currently well-positioned to change.