Topic: A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio.
“We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.”
The movie producer tries to convince the head of the movie studio about the extra funding that they'll be needing to make the movie, "Working Title" a success or ensure a good quality result. The author provides multiple reasons bolstering his claim for the increase in funding , which,however, are filled with doubts, flaws and assumpions. The following points give a better idea of the loopholes in the premises presented by the producer:-
Firstly, the producer claims that they would require an exact increase of 10% in the funding of the movie to ensure a better quality product. However, the producer does not give a measure or provide appropriate calculations to strengthen this point. Nowhere has he given a clear-cut calculation of why the movie requires only 10% increase and not a higher or lower quotation. Had the producer given more numerical and statistical values proving his points for the 10% increase in funding, would it make his justification and reasoning more lucid and convincing. The producer could also give values of salary given to the actors and other crew members, as he mentions that the money saved in hiring inexperienced director and producers compensates for the payment of the actors and crew. Therefore these points needed to be considered.
Secondly, the producer mentions that the director hired for the movie is not well experienced in directing movies as he had a short term experience in shooting advertisements which have no similarity to shoots of a movie. So the director might not understand the necessity to focus on individual scenes for the perfection of the takes and might end up in a onerous process of shooting take after take. The author fails to consider that even though the director had experience in commercials previously, his background study might be generic and that the director might have a considerable knowledge in shooting movies. Otherwise, why would someone hire him to shoot something on which the director did not have any knowledge? The producer also assumes that since the director has less experience in the line, they might cut a little on the salary and use that amount for a better purpose, but the producer can also pay the director well to get a better outcome and shoot the movie in a better way.
Finally, the author also says that the movie will be a virtually assured failure if the funding is not increased, but there can be multiple other reasons that can also contribute to the movie's failure apart from the increased funding. Factors like inappropriate setup, bad storyline, bad direction, improper acting etc can also contribute to the failure of the movie. The producer should mention the exact reason why he feels that the movie will not work if the funding isn't proper and must provide satiating reasons to support his point.
Hence, in conclusion it can be said that, had the author considered the above flaws in his memo to the head of the movie studio, and supported his points with the good clarity, cohesive premises bolstering his claim and convincing factors to increase the funding, the memo would have been much more clear and easy to convince the head of the movie studio to hike the funds and contribution costs for the movie.
“We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.”
The movie producer tries to convince the head of the movie studio about the extra funding that they'll be needing to make the movie, "Working Title" a success or ensure a good quality result. The author provides multiple reasons bolstering his claim for the increase in funding , which,however, are filled with doubts, flaws and assumpions. The following points give a better idea of the loopholes in the premises presented by the producer:-
Firstly, the producer claims that they would require an exact increase of 10% in the funding of the movie to ensure a better quality product. However, the producer does not give a measure or provide appropriate calculations to strengthen this point. Nowhere has he given a clear-cut calculation of why the movie requires only 10% increase and not a higher or lower quotation. Had the producer given more numerical and statistical values proving his points for the 10% increase in funding, would it make his justification and reasoning more lucid and convincing. The producer could also give values of salary given to the actors and other crew members, as he mentions that the money saved in hiring inexperienced director and producers compensates for the payment of the actors and crew. Therefore these points needed to be considered.
Secondly, the producer mentions that the director hired for the movie is not well experienced in directing movies as he had a short term experience in shooting advertisements which have no similarity to shoots of a movie. So the director might not understand the necessity to focus on individual scenes for the perfection of the takes and might end up in a onerous process of shooting take after take. The author fails to consider that even though the director had experience in commercials previously, his background study might be generic and that the director might have a considerable knowledge in shooting movies. Otherwise, why would someone hire him to shoot something on which the director did not have any knowledge? The producer also assumes that since the director has less experience in the line, they might cut a little on the salary and use that amount for a better purpose, but the producer can also pay the director well to get a better outcome and shoot the movie in a better way.
Finally, the author also says that the movie will be a virtually assured failure if the funding is not increased, but there can be multiple other reasons that can also contribute to the movie's failure apart from the increased funding. Factors like inappropriate setup, bad storyline, bad direction, improper acting etc can also contribute to the failure of the movie. The producer should mention the exact reason why he feels that the movie will not work if the funding isn't proper and must provide satiating reasons to support his point.
Hence, in conclusion it can be said that, had the author considered the above flaws in his memo to the head of the movie studio, and supported his points with the good clarity, cohesive premises bolstering his claim and convincing factors to increase the funding, the memo would have been much more clear and easy to convince the head of the movie studio to hike the funds and contribution costs for the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment