Life On The Bubble

KCRW's "The Business" (2/7/2011 Episode): Interview with Showrunner Shawn Ryan

Yet another great episode of KCRW's The Business this week:  Kim Masters interviewed Shawn Ryan, creator of The Shield, the late and lamented "Terriers" and the new Fox drama "The Chicago Code."  It's embedded below - enjoy.

 

 

JHRTS and The Hollywood Reporter's Next Generation Panel

Last night, JHRTS and The Hollywood Reporter hosted their annual Next Generation panel at CAA.  The panel featured some of The Hollywood Reporter's Top 35 Under 35:

Andrew Miller, 32 – TV literary agent, CAA 

Jocelyn Diaz, 33 – VP drama series, HBO Entertainment 

Kelly Luegenbiehl, 32 – VP comedy development, ABC

 Noah Pollack, 33 – VP series development and original production, VH1

Carolyn Cassidy, 32 - VP comedy development, 20th Century Fox TV

We figured since so many of our readers are aspiring entertainment industry pros, we'd post some of the highlights of the discussion.  

On getting promoted from assistant to executive...

• Be amazing at the job you have.  If you're an assistant, be the world's best assistant -- answering phones, etc.  If you excel at your current job, your boss will think that you will excel at any job you're given.
• Pick the right people to work for -- someone who will mentor you.
• Look for "enabling conditions" -- put yourself where you'll succeed.
• Outwork the competition.
• Figure out who supports you and ask what you can improve on, and TAKE THEIR ADVICE.
• Don't just do the assisant job.  Talk about projects, have personality, express an opinion.  
• Read. Read.  Read.  And let people know you're reading and you have an opinion on what you're reading.
• If you want to work in development, send your boss new material -- when you browse the web, send your boss blogs, twitter feeds, viral videos -- anything where they can find that new talent.
• Schedule informational interviews with people in various departments of your company.  
• A great boss will say "Get off my desk."  Two years as an assistant is enough.  But it's up to you to push the issue.  It's totally reasonable to approach your boss and express that you want to move on -- but stay invested in your job while you have it.  
• If you want to give feedback on a project but don't want to seem like a know it all to your boss, ask how they like to receive feedback.  This way you know you won't overstep your boundaries.

On networking...

• Your boss is your number one priority.  Yes, you need to meet other assistants and those relationships are valuable.  But drinks every night with assistants won't take you as far as reading after work.  Find that balance.  Do the schmoozing thing when you're a Jr. Exec.

On the biggest change in assistants from when they started out to now...

• Assistants can find new talent in ways they previously couldn't because of how connected they are on the internet.  Your boss is too busy for the internet, or not into it in the same way.  So send them what you find compelling.  
• Tracking boards - sharing information, networking, being online.

On the biggest mistakes assistants make...

• Not doing the assistant job.  Do your assistant job perfectly, and then add on the other elements -- going above and beyond with reading, opinions, development.
• There's a line between advocacy and entitlement.  Yes, you have to advocate for yourself to move ahead in the business and find that next job, but you can't be self-entitled to it.  Make sure you deserve it before you advocate.
• Actually follow through with the advice your boss gives you. If your boss says "read this extra script" and you don't ever tell them you read it, they won't know, and they won't follow up with you to check in.

 On looking for jobs...

• It's boss specific not company specific.  You can be at a tiny company but have that amazing mentor boss who will help you, or you can be at a huge company with an asshole boss, or a big company with a good boss.  It doesn't matter where you are, it matters who you're working for.
• Don't be afraid to drive interviews toward your point -- if you want to tell the interviewer something about yourself, work it in to your answers.  They don't know to ask you everything.
• If you're looking for a development job, a popular question is "What three websites do you go to every day?"

 

[UPDATED]: How to make AOL relevant again (plus the link to Spec Market Roundup)

I noticed the link FilmNewsBriefs.com included this morning in its post about the August 2010 Spec Market Roundup points to the main LOTB page rather than to the report itself.  So two quick things:  If you want to get on the list to receive the report when it publishes every other Friday, sign up using the form to the right (don't worry, I respect your privacy).  And second, here's a link to the PDF of the Roundup: http://bit.ly/dgVcsn

As you'll see, the intro is a bit off-topic -- as I was compiling the Roundup last week, I couldn't stop thinking about the prospect of AOL pursuing a proper filmed entertainment content strategy, and suddenly I'd written a mini-rant.  As promised at the end of the intro, below is my five-point take on how AOL can make itself relevant again.  I'm not going to spend any more time dissecting why it makes sense for AOL to strategize around TV-style original programming (it does), just how I think they should go about it.

Focus on what works (i.e., professionally produced, primetime network TV-style programming).

As AOL spools up its filmed entertainment venture, they're going to be tempted to go after quantity at the expense of quality, since their current frame of reference (not to mention their "print" content strategy) is all about pageviews. That approach would doom this initiative from the start; I think the company should ignore supershortform (under 5 minutes) and user-generated content altogether.

Sure, the odd Justin Bieber video can go viral and generate 175 million views, but you can't build a programming strategy around it. (Unless you do a Justin Bieber series. Which would be pretty smart, actually; see below.) Successful networks don't just aggregate eyeballs, they cultivate passionate viewers who return to their favorite shows week after week and talk about them at every opportunity.  By focusing on good stories, well told, AOL will be able to build a reliable, consistent audience around its programming.

Hire a team of development pros (and empower them).

Of course, the whole "good stories, well told" thing is far easier said than done.  And it's going to be impossible if AOL doesn't hire development executives who are currently in the TV packaging trenches. As I wrote in my Roundup, Jim Wiatt's a smart, connected guy, but he hasn't operated at that level in a long, long time.  I have my doubts that he even knows who's getting it done on a day-to-day basis in the TV business; when you interact exclusively with network and studio heads, you lose track of who's even on the roster below the EVP's.

Regardless, ultra high level strategic advice is all well and good, but it's pretty obvious that AOL needs to hire a czar of original programming, someone who's currently high enough in the TV development food chain to have been pulling the trigger for a bit, but not so high that she has started spending more time on internal politics than development.  I'd start by looking at VPs at the broadcast and cable networks, with an eye out in particular for someone with a reputation for good taste, demonstrably strong relationships all over town and an entrepreneurial streak.  

Once the ideal candidate has been poached, AOL's czar is going to need (at the very least):

• Greenlight authority (with oversight, obviously, but the czar needs to be able to go with her gut);
• A small, hand-picked team of seasoned executives (no one can do that job solo);
• To be based in Los Angeles (because this is where the bulk of the talent is); 
• A mid-term definition of success (Internet time is off the table; this initiative is going to take at least two and probably three or four years to gain traction); and
• A big enough development and production budget to make Hollywood take the venture seriously (this project will require the town's buy-in from the outset).

 

Don't just swing for the fences.

It would be foolish to ignore the star-driven nature of the entertainment business, and I think the czar should make a splashy deal or two at the outset in the time-honored tradition of all new studio heads. (For example, a non-scripted Justin Bieber show, plus big deals with a couple of hallowed TV names like Lorre, Whedon, Cowell and Burnett.) That said, you can't hit a grand slam if you don't have runners on the bases. So in addition to the headline-grabbers, AOL should make a series of smart (read: inexpensive) deals with seasoned TV writers and new-comers alike and give them an unprecedented amount of creative freedom in exchange for the inevitable small production budgets and limited series orders. Remember, though: Quality, not quantity. For reference, keep in mind the many cable networks that have successfully reinvented themselves over the past decade (think FX and Showtime, just to name two). 

Build apps (and give them away).

By this point AOL will have jumped into the TV business with both feet, the entertainment industry as a whole will be competing to do business with it, and the company will face another temptation:  Locking that great new content inside the AOL website. One would think they'd have learned their "walled garden" lesson a while back, but Apple's version is so successful that AOL will almost certainly think about reinstating it. I think this would be a fatal mistake; AOL is not Apple, and shouldn't try to be.  iTunes is a platform, first and foremost; AOL needs to be a content provider first and a distributor second.  

Rather than forcing people to view AOL content at AOL.com, the much smarter play would be to make that content as available as possible (short of torrents):  In addition to creating a dedicated environment for their shows inside AOL, the company should do deals with iTunes, Google TV, Facebook, Netflix, Hulu, on-demand cable and satellite and so on.  Ultimately, AOL's venture should be a library play, not an advertising play.

Further, apps are here to stay -- AOL should get busy building a set of intuitive and beautiful ones, and then make them free on iTunes and the Android Market (and the Blackberry's AppWorld, assuming RIM gets its act together in the next year). They should steal the Netflix model, in other words.

Get started.  Immediately.

And that's basically my prescription.  Simple, right?  At its core, the strategy has two prongs:  

• Embrace TV, stem to stern.  
• Go big or go home.  

As I pointed out in the Roundup, AOL is better positioned than most of its competitors to take advantage of this opportunity.  But they'll need to act quickly; Microsoft is almost as well positioned, and they've shown their willingness and ability to change strategic course dramatically. I think we're at as big an inflection point for online content as Microsoft was in 1995 when it started orienting the entire company around the Internet.  And I think it's not hyperbole to say the future of AOL could hinge on its strategies and tactics in this space over the next year or so.

In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing what AOL's CEO, Tim Armstrong, has to say on the subject next week at TheWrap.com's entertainment and media conference, TheGrill.  If you care about this stuff and you're not planning to go, you should -- the speaker line up is impressive.  Click here to check it out.

KCRW's "The Business" (8/16/2010 episode): Finding 'Salt;' Marketing 'Inception'

As I've said a few times before, I'm a longtime fan of KCRW's "The Business" show, which I listen to as a podcast.  I caught up to this week's episode this morning and thought it was worth posting.  I wish the conversation about "Salt" had discussed the script's multiple drafts and changing the lead from male to female, but it's still a very interesting window into the director's assistant's process. Enjoy.

Teaser: Spec Market Scorecard (July 2010)

I'm about to upload the Spec Market Scorecard for July to bit.ly and send it out to my email list.  If you're not already on that list and want a copy of the Scorecard, use the signup form for The Scoggins Report toward the top of the right-hand column of this blog.

In the meantime, check out the following (depressing) stats:

• Only half of the studios that bought scripts through mid-July 2009 have bought any this year (8 out of 16).
• Of the eight who’ve bought scripts so far in 2010, only 1 (Paramount) has bought more specs this year than last; four have bought fewer.
• All in, the studios have bought less than half as many scripts this year as they had by mid-July last year (13 vs 28).

I've broken out all of the details on the Scorecard, which should start making the rounds tomorrow.

 

Nellie Andreeva (deadline.com): Lynn Barrie and Stephanie Leifer In Talks To Head Current At ABC & ABC Studios

EXCLUSIVE: I hear ABC's plan to restore the current departments on the network and studio side is moving full steam ahead, and Lynn Barrie and Stephanie Leifer are in negotiations to head the current teams on the ABC and ABC Studios side, respectively. ABC folded current into the drama and comedy development departments a year ago as part of a major executive restructuring that also saw all non-creative divisions at the network and the studio being merged. But a month ago, ABC Entertainment Group president Stephen McPherson indicated that he was considering reverting to the previous setup of separate development and current departments, especially as the network is gearing up to launch 9 new scripted series next season that will need attention in their freshman year. The move follows a similar decision by NBC last month when the network reinstated its current department under EVP Vernon Sanders.

via www.deadline.com

Next up: Dozens of new mid-seven figure overall deals. And the resurgence of agency packaging fees.

TheWrap.com: Hollywood Unveils 'UltraViolet' -- the All-Platform Video Player

Get to know the name UltraViolet. By next year you'll be able to play all the movies and shows you download over almost any device -- from TVs to smartphones to tablets to PCs to Blu-ray players. You'll also be able to burn them onto DVDs and share them with family and friends.

Most significantly, making the vision happen has involved an historic collaboration among the major media and technology companies -- all united by common threats faced by piracy and a languishing home video market.

Plans have been under way since 2008, but on Monday, an actual name, logo and prototype for a website were revealed.

Among the stakeholders are five of the major Hollywood studios, cable companies like Comcast, technology companies such as Microsoft, big-ticket retailer Best Buy and online rental giant Netflix.

via www.thewrap.com

This feels like a pretty big deal...

Cynthia Littleton (Variety): Netflix cuts 'Nip/Tuck' deal

Netflix grabbed the TV biz's attention on Thursday with a deal that signals the company is open for business in the off-network syndication market in a way that could be particularly appealing to Hollywood.

In a first for Netflix, the company has cut a four-year deal with Warner Bros. Domestic TV Distribution for web streaming rights to all 100 episodes of "Nip/Tuck," which wrapped its six-season run on FX in March. The pact also gives Netflix streaming rights to selected other Warner Bros. skeins, including "Pushing Daisies," "Veronica Mars" and "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles."

Netflix has numerous TV series available for web streaming on its platform, but the Warners pact marks the first time the company has cut a traditional syndie-style off-network acquisition deal. And Netflix is paying cable-level off-net coin for the "Nip/Tuck" rights, said to be a little more than $200,000 per episode over the life of the deal. Warner Bros. has also sold "Nip/Tuck" rights to cabler Logo to bow in October.

via www.variety.com

Variety: '1 vs 100' on Xbox Live goes dark

Two years ago, Microsoft announced plans to compete against television programmers on their own turf. On Thursday, the company conceded the first round to the networks.

After two successful seasons, the Microsoft has cancelled "1 vs. 100," an online adaptation of the Endemol-created NBC gameshow. The game was the centerpiece of an experiment called Xbox Live Primetime -- a scheduled series of interactive games that represented the videogame industry's first serious foray into turf dominated by TV. It was a hit, too, setting a Guinness World Record for the most simultaneous contestants in a gameshow at 114,000.

"When we started on this journey, we knew we were creating an entirely new genre of entertainment that would be a continually evolving concept," Dave McCarthy, general manager of Microsoft Game Studios, said in a statement. "We're very proud of the '1 vs 100' team and their accomplishments, and are excited to apply what we've learned to future programming."

Microsoft did not give a more precise reason for its decision not to move forward with a third season of the gameshow, which from all outward appearances was successful. The show was highly dependent on advertising support and secured sizable sponsorships from Sprint over both seasons. (Samsung and Honda were also heavily involved with the game.) It's unclear, however, if the company was able to sign a sufficient number of sponsors for a third season to make the game profitable enough to continue.

The concept of "1 vs. 100" was unique in the gaming industry. Rather than compete solely against Sony's PlayStation or Nintendo's Wii for gamer attention, it aimed at the heart of the networks, with live programming scheduled during prime viewing hours.

The game, which was modeled after the NBC series, aired two live two-hour episodes each week -- during which auds played for real-world prizes, ranging from credits to download other content to cars. (Thirty-minute "extended play" sessions, which were formatted differently and meant as practice rounds for players, aired at other times throughout the week.)

Microsoft knew it wouldn't be in a position to top TV ratings anytime soon.

The game, however, marked a shift from the videogame industry being a passive competitor to an active one. TV executives have long been concerned about the possibility that viewers might be more inclined to play a game rather than watch TV programming. But this was the first time a game company directly targeted specific nights and time slots.

Research by Nielsen found that gaming has a primetime just like TV. Playtime is at a peak from 7-11 p.m. And 18-34 year olds made up 55% of the player base. Among Nielsen households, the ratings service found that 20%-25% of the trackers were using their Xbox 360 instead of watching television during primetime.

While in-game ads have always been a touchy subject among gamers, Microsoft integrated them into the game in a way that seemed to work, according to research gathered by the ratings service during the show's second season. "1 vs. 100" players averaged game times of more than 70 minutes. And they weren't abandoning the game when the ads played (after every 10 questions).

Microsoft's statement indicates it plans to launch similar programming at some point in the future. A spokesperson said the team behind "1 vs. 100" is "working on new projects," but declined to be more specific.

With nothing definite on the schedule, though, "Xbox Live Primetime" could easily fade away -- giving TV networks a little more breathing room.

via www.variety.com

I found a couple of interesting items in this article from Variety.com on Friday. I didn't know there was a primetime for gaming (7p to 11p), for one. And two, it's interesting that a company that invested huge into getting into the home entertainment space in the first place doesn't seem to grasp the TV business model.

It doesn't matter that their ratings couldn't compete head-on with primetime network and cable programming. Isn't the point to get gamers used to appointment gameplay (a la appointment viewing)? That seemed to be working -- 115,000 simultaneous players is pretty impressive. Keeping it going for another season or three would at least have kept a beachhead in that space.

What do you think? Should Microsoft have kept the experiment going a while longer?

Marion Maneker (TheBigMoney.com): Agents Behaving Badly

Last week, New York magazine excerpted agent Bill Clegg's memoir of his crack crack-up. The book is the curiously titled Portrait of an Addict as a Young Man and it got some heavy puffery from the New York Times over the weekend.

It may be a sign of the decline of the literary world that it appears in the Styles section. But, more importantly, the fact that Clegg is better known for his exploits than his authors says something about the role agents play—or want to play—in this new publishing environment. Houses make fewer deals, and it is harder to play editors off of one another on all but the biggest projects.

via www.thebigmoney.com

This is worth clicking through on principle (I'm a fan of TheBigMoney.com and the Goodnight, Gutenberg blog), but also because if you substitute "agent" for "publisher" it could be describing the movie business.

No need to substitute anything for "agent." Which makes it even more interesting...

Mike Fleming (deadline.com): Even Harry Potter Loses Money Because Of Phony Baloney Net Profit Accounting

Signing a deal that makes anyone a net profit participant  in  a Hollywood movie deal has always been a sucker’s bet. In an era where studios have all but eliminated first dollar gross and invited talent to share the risk and potential rewards, guess what? Net profit deals are still a sucker's bet. I was slipped a net profit statement (below) for Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, the 2007 Warner Bros sequel. Though the film grossed $938.2 million worldwide, the accounting statement below conveys that the film is still over $167 million in the red. (Text continues below...)

via www.deadline.com

Dave McNary (Variety): Story brightens for H' wood scribes

Hollywood scribes saw a 12% rebound in earnings last year -- recovering much of the 15.4% financial hit that they took in 2008 from the double whammy of the recession and the 100-day strike.

The Writers Guild of America West, which sent its annual report to its 8,000 members this week, disclosed that total earnings covered by WGA contracts hit $931.4 million in 2009, up $100 million from 2008. That gain, the report noted, was fueled largely by "strong" earnings by TV writers.

Despite the salary increases, the number of writers employed declined last year by 11 slots to 4,328. And guild leadership took pains to point out that the number of writers getting paychecks has declined by 4.7% from 4,542 in 2006 -- the most recent pre-strike year.

"While earnings have rebounded, the impact of macro-economic pressures is reflected in the number of writers reporting earnings," noted the report, which is traditionally released in the mid-summer.

TV earnings set a record with 10.1% rise to $502.4 million -- $31 million above the record set in 2006 -- but small-screen employment gained only 27 slots to 3,094 last year. And the number of employed writers was down by 241 from the record of 3,335 in 2007 when pre-strike stockpiling drove hiring.

Feature film earnings rebounded 14.5% to $426.4 million in 2009, recovering about half of the steep 29% plunge in 2008. Studio stockpiling had lifted feature earnings in 2007 by 20.5% to a record $525.4 million.

The WGA also disclosed that residuals edged down 0.7% last year, or less than $2 million, to $286 million. TV residuals rose 2.8% to $141.5 million and screen residuals slid 3.3% to $133.3 million.

New media residuals -- one of the key WGA strike issues -- jumped from $100,000 in 2008 to $2.1 million for TV last year, including some delinquent payments. New media residuals for film went from a negligible amount in 2008 to $690,000 last year.

via www.variety.com

Interesting spin, especially compared to the LA Times article I linked to earlier today.

R.I.P. Ed Limato – Deadline.com

Ed Limato had been ill from lung disease and awaiting a lung transplant that never came. He arrived home from Cedars Sinai this week and fell into a coma. In recent days the icon who'd spent four decades in showbiz guidng the careers of some of its biggest stars was surrounded by everyone he loved: his clients and his friends and his colleagues. The untimely passing of this legendary talent agent at age 74 will cast a pall over Hollywood this holiday weekend. But his reputation as one of the greats will live on.

via www.deadline.com

LA Times: Screenwriters find work is dwindling

This week the Writers Guild of America, West reported that while earnings for screenwriters have bounced back to pre-strike levels, there is a lot less work going around: employment has fallen 11% in the last three years, with 226 fewer screenwriters working in 2009 than 2006, the year before the 100-day walkout and the lowest level in at least six years.

via www.latimes.com

If you don't mind "glass half empty" articles, this one's worth reading.

I'm surprised the above number is only -11%. I would have guessed in the mid- to high teens.

Ben Fritz (LA Times): Cantor Fitzgerald abandoning box-office futures despite regulatory approval

Wall Street giant Cantor Fitzgerald's application to trade futures contracts based on box-office receipts was approved by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in a 3-2 vote Monday, but the news came too late to matter.

With financial reform legislation that would outlaw trading in box-office futures headed toward final passage, the company is giving up on its plans, said Richard Jaycobs, the executive heading the effort for Cantor Fitzgerald.

"The broader opportunity of motion picture finance is still something we have to evaluate, but we know now we're not going to do futures contracts," he said in an interview. "The bill is quite clear."

Though financial reform isn't yet law, its box-office futures provision was made retroactive to June 1 by the House-Senate conference committee that hammered out final language for the bill last week. That would put a stake into both Cantor Exchange and its main competitor, Media Derivatives, which received final approval from the CFTC on June 14.

via latimesblogs.latimes.com

Bummer.

Mike Fleming (deadline.com): Warner Bros Cracks Down On Screenwriter’s Late Delivery Dates

In a move that has writers and their reps buzzing, Warner Bros has just put out word that it will start to enforce delivery dates on first screenplay drafts. That means writers who signed contracts had better deliver on time, or risk the wrath of the studio.

via www.deadline.com

Interesting read.

Dave McNary (Variety): SAG, AFTRA prepping for talks

The last round of guild-AMPTP talks in 2007-08 were highly contentious over the issue of new media, leading to a 100-day strike by the Writers Guild of America.

In 2008 -- the last year for which figures are available -- SAG actors saw earnings decline 2.5% to $2 billion, mostly because TV earnings plunged 8.4% to $682 million as series went dark due to the WGA strike. Feature film earnings slid 2.4% to $620 million as studios cut spending after a pre-strike hike in production, while commercial earnings edged up 0.4% to $801 million.

The SAG-AFTRA negotiations will go ahead of talks for the Directors Guild of America, which announced a month ago that it would hold off on starting its formal talks until mid-November. The DGA's deal also expires on June 30, 2011.

The WGA has said it's in the process of determining its timetable for negotiations. The scribes' contract expires May 1, two months before those of its sister guilds. The DGA has traditionally gone first to the negotiations with the AMPTP, but SAG negotiated the seven-week bargaining period into its current contract.

via www.variety.com

Most of this article is about SAG and AFTRA gearing up for their negotiations, but I clipped the above because of the first paragraph, which has to be the understatement of the year.

Patrick Goldstein (LA Times): How Fox throws writers under the train: The real story behind 'The A-Team' script fiasco

At Fox, the process that led to the scrum of "A-Team" writers is routine, not out of the ordinary. With the exception of movies made for Elizabeth Gabler's Fox 2000 imprint, where writers are held in high esteem, nearly every movie at Big Fox is put together this way. Finke was apparently protecting a valued source when she made the preposterous claim that Fox co-chairman Tom Rothman "wasn't that close to the tortured 'A-Team' development process." As anyone who's ever worked at Fox can attest, the brilliant, hard-working and, well, often overbearing Rothman is at the center of every key decision -- and some not-so-key decisions -- made at the studio.

via latimesblogs.latimes.com

I missed this last week, and it's worth click through for another take on the topic. I have a selfish motive for linking to this tonight, though, too: The final paragraph includes a couple of lines that echo my own conclusions in the intro to the latest Spec Market Scorecard (out tomorrow afternoon to my email list).

Ben Fritz: Carl Icahn owns nearly 32% of Lions Gate stock as tender closes

Carl Icahn is now the largest shareholder in Lions Gate Entertainment with 31.8% of the company's outstanding stock.

A person familiar with the situation confirmed that the activist investor’s $7 per share tender offer, which expired at 5 pm Pacific Time Wednesday, brought him 15.6 million shares, or about 13.2% of Lions Gate stock. 9.2 million came from media entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who said last week that he would tender.

via latimesblogs.latimes.com

Click through for more details. And as the last line of the article reads, "for more details on what the results of Icahn's tender could mean for Lionsgate," click here.

Kurt Sutter: STAR BUCKS AND THE DEATH OF THE CREATIVE MIDDLE-CLASS

The globalization of America is impacting the film business as well -- the days of the 7-15 million dollar movie are dying.  Take a stroll into any movie theater complex, anywhere -- all you find are huge, 50-500 million dollar studio projects and small, 1-5 million dollar indies -- homogeneous mega-movies and quirky boutique films  -- nothing in between.

via sutterink.blogspot.com

Click through to read Kurt Sutter's interesting take on the death of the medium sized movie. I swear I didn't read this before writing the intro to my upcoming Spec Market Scorecard (out tomorrow afternoon to my email list -- sign up now if you want to get it when the cool kids do). You'll see what I mean tomorrow...

By the way, a hat tip for pointing out Kurt's post is due to my friend Courtney Rabada, who just started a blog called The Callsheet Report.  The idea of her site is to aggregate articles about the industry from sources you may not be reading on a daily basis.  It's a smart concept, and I'm looking forward to getting her RSS feed every day.