As Dave Rand says over at Soldier's Site:
I once was asked to bid some shots.
I replied that I don’t have a stash of funds to pay for the project when my bids were stomped on.
I proposed instead we do the work right in the middle of Hollywood. Twenty artists did a show on a cost plus basis as the director walked around amongst us like we were the set.
We rarely got passed version 3 or 4
We rarely worked long hours.
We all made 3k/week or over, trackers included.
We came in a 1/3 the lowest bid … and it was from subsidized Montreal –they were going to put 100 artists on it. That shop has since gone bankrupt twice.
We did three more projects the same way, then the director built his own facility and included the writers, editors, vfx, sound, and screening all under one roof with his office upstairs.
It’s highly profitable and all union.
Ever since then I have a hard time being a lead or any level of supervision as it all seems so foolish and frustrating. Removing the director from the real set and scattering the talent around the globe in an effort to lower costs actually raises them and lowers quality.
The emperor is not wearing any clothes.
I figured it out awhile ago: Efficient movie-making is not about "doing it at the lowest wage" or "doing it overseas." It's not about doing it non-union. All those things have some limited impact, but the BIG driver is ...
BLOATED and inefficient management.
First-hand example: When I started at Disney Feature in the seventies, the joint employed 150 artists and three production support people. There wasn't much in the way of a bureaucracy, the top kick was an animator turned director named Woolie Reitherman, and he and his staff did a feature every three or four years which cost $7 to $8 million.
Cross-dissolve to 1995. Disney Feature Animation now employed 1500 artists, 350 production support people, and 26 corporate Vice Presidents. Meetings were endless, administrative meddling was infinite, and for an artist to see his director, he had to schedule time a week in advance.
The pictures cost $60 million and were rapidly climbing to $100 million.
Historical example: Studio head Darryl Zanuck, year in and year out, oversaw a full production slate of features with four associate producers to assist him. (The '30s and '40s might have been "simpler times," but the making of movies was labor intensive even then. And Zanuck was engaged with every phase of production, from script to final edit.)
It's always been as Mr. Rand describes it: The killer isn't higher wages or health and pension benefits or civilized schedules. What drives up costs and lowers quality is disorganization, bloated bureaucracies and administrators who gum up the work with chronic second-guessing and unproductive meetings that feature flow charts for hierarchies that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Empire building didn't end with ancient Rome. It thrives in the modern age at most Hollywood studios.
Click here to read entire post