Hollywood producers say they are misunderstood. Here's what they're doing about it
After years of hustle, film and TV producer Stephen Love found himself in a situation many of his peers would salivate over: He was in four bidding wars.
Studios clamored to snap up his projects. Hollywood trade news outlets gushed about their merits, bolstering Love's career and reputation. But all the while, Love was shooting commercials and music videos and trying to get consulting gigs to make ends meet. He even drove for ride-share companies.
The son of a preacher and a teacher, Love, 35, grew up on a farm in York, S.C., almost 40 miles south of Charlotte, N.C.
He's come a long way from when he caught the film bug in his youth, which led him to start a videography business while still in school to shoot weddings and other occasions.
But even after the bidding wars, Love, who produced the 2016 drama "The Land" and 2023 sci-fi film "They Cloned Tyrone," has multiple jobs. He consults on the side while running a company that makes commercials and music videos and working on branded content and deals. He's far from the only one.
"You have to have these multiple things happening while you're also trying to focus on the thing you really love, which is getting in the weeds and making a movie," said Love, who splits time between his home in Hollywood and Atlanta, where a lot of production work and opportunities for newer creatives are located. "The idea that there's producers who have been in the game for 30 years-plus, having the same issues that I'm having just 10 to 12 years in the game, can be disheartening."
The job of a producer is largely misunderstood.
Movie and television producers have long tried to shed the stereotype of the "fat cat" — the cigar-chomping boss on set who rakes in big profits, has an extravagant vacation home or gives away cars as holiday gifts to buddies. That may have been the case for a few individuals decades ago, but today, many producers say their livelihoods and the future of producing as a career are at a crisis point.
Read more: Forget the celebrities. Meet L.A.'s small businesses that depend on the Oscars
The pandemic, dual writers' and actors' strikes of 2023, studio spending cutbacks and the recent Southern California wildfires all have contributed to a production slowdown that has squeezed producers' opportunities to get work.
In addition, there's the demise of so-called back-end profit participation deals — largely due to the changing business practices of the streamers — that once allowed producers to capitalize on a popular film or TV project and recoup their costs after production.
Overhanging all of this is the growing number of people who are getting producer credits, which has added to the confusion and the financial turmoil.
Producers often don't get paid for their years of project development — the work that happens before actual production — meaning they can make less than minimum wage when counting up all their hours of work, even when they create a hit.
"We're labor," said Jonathan Wang, 40, working out of offices on L.A.'s Eastside. A producer on 2022's Oscar-winning "Everything Everywhere All at Once," he says, "We are providing labor for studios, for buyers, and we are providing a real job that needs protections for it to continue."
There are multiple efforts underway to address these issues.
The Producers Guild of America, a trade group that represents more than 8,400 producers across various fields, has launched a campaign to define a producer's job. Meanwhile, a newer coalition called Producers United is pushing to get producers paid as they work. (Both groups advocate for including health insurance for producers and stopping the dilution of the producer credit.)
It's a bit of a running joke among producers that no one seems to know what they do.
"This is an age-old question," quipped Stephanie Allain, a longtime film producer and co-president of the Producers Guild of America, in a Zoom interview. "Like, 'What do you do?' How many times have you gotten that, Donald?"
Fellow producer and PGA co-president Donald De Line, who was also on the call, quickly answered, "Oh, a million."
That fuzzy understanding of the job — even among people on set — has contributed to the situation producers now find themselves in.
Though many people have an image of producers just passively writing checks, the role of an active producer is important for the making of a movie.
The role of a true producer can vary by the type and budget of a film and the skills of the individual. For Allain, it means identifying the material, finding the writers and director, helping with casting, securing funding, overseeing production, hiring heads of departments, spending time on set and in the editing room and being part of marketing efforts.
"Your arms are wide, and you're bringing everybody into the tent," Allain said. "And you're very judicious about who comes in that tent."
Put another way, "A producer is there at the beginning, the middle and the end," De Line said.
But unlike others on the set, producers are not represented by a union. The Producers Guild of America is not a union but a trade organization that also administers the p.g.a. mark attached to the main producers' names in a film's credits. (That process can itself be controversial; there have been disputes in the past over who can claim producer credits for the best picture Oscar.)
The lack of definition of a producer has opened the door to lots of people getting producer credits whose main role is a different function. Actors, financiers and others who are not working on set as the main point person can negotiate a credit, which then cuts into the money allocated to a project's producers.
Producers often are loath to push back against others who try to claim a credit because they're desperate to see their projects across the finish line after investing so much "sweat equity," said film producer Jennifer Todd, known for the 2000 thriller "Memento" and 2007's Beatles-inspired musical "Across the Universe."
Todd and producers Love and Wang are all part of Producers United, which has about 200 people signed on.
This group of so-called career producers — those who are the lead producers and hold no other roles on the set — also is pushing for making development fee advances the norm. Though that can typically be about $25,000, some producers said they rarely see that amount. Many will toil on projects for years with minimal payout.
Wang, of "Everything Everywhere All at Once," said he made $35,000 a year over the seven years that he worked on the film, which made $140 million globally on a $14 million budget. (The film was also the first time he had seen back-end profits in his career, but it was not a massive amount, he said.)
Part of the reason Wang and others in Producers United feel so strongly about making the career more sustainable is they're concerned about the next generation of producers in the industry and the longevity and health of the film business.
"The extinction event is real," said Wang. "Even at the highest level, it's still not going to be something where you're fully set."
Even if that development fee is granted, it is taken out of a producer's fee, meaning it's only an advance of sorts.
"If a real producer, who actually enables content to get made and be good, is something everyone wants to be, then we should protect the people who actually do that so that we can have the content," said Cathy Schulman, a producer on the best picture winner "Crash" and the Amazon Anne Hathaway drama "The Idea of You," who is part of the Producers United group. "Imagine if the word 'fireman' meant that 15 people could say they're the one, and only one has the hose."
Without these kinds of changes, producers say the ability to attract new people into the field and retain them is slim, especially those who are not independently wealthy.
Producer Love said he and his wife, a marriage and family therapist, hope to start a family soon, but he has to think about what that means when he still has to work multiple jobs.
"It's not super sustainable," he said. "It's really important to me to be able to support my family and start a family."
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Geek Vibes Nation
4 hours ago
- Geek Vibes Nation
'Materialists' Review - Celine Song Breaks Our Hearts (Again) With Her Tender Look At Love And Self-Worth
Materialists has a lot of talk about math for a romantic comedy. For Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a successful New York matchmaker who makes $80,000 a year before taxes and has secured her ninth wedding for a client, it is her primary language. Love is less about candlelit dinners than rows on an Excel spreadsheet. She and her coworkers identify clients by their first name and last initial. She can handily arrange them by the bare necessities: height, weight, build, age, annual income, and apartment size. But she's bilingual, fluent in the language of love that her clients want to hear over their stringent requirements, phrases like 'you will find the love of your life.' And yet, as she dazzles a group of wedding guests (and prospective clients) with claims that there are 'no industry secrets' to finding a love match, you sense that she doesn't fully believe what she's selling to these women. After all, if love can be broken into ones and zeros, why hasn't Sam Altman taken a generative AI crack at it and put Lucy out of business? Celine Song seeks the answer with her utterly charming and disarmingly astute follow-up to her Oscar-nominated debut film, Past Lives . She starts by presenting Lucy's guiding insight on love. At her client's ninth wedding, an army of bridesmaids ushers her (in formation, a brilliant visual gag) to the bridal suite to give the jittery bride a pep talk. Lucy gently coaxes the hilarious reason the bride wants to marry her husband and packages it up for her in a far more amenable package. 'He makes you feel valued,' she says. It's a stunning, deceptively simple line that speaks to a buried-deep need to be seen for who we are and what we want to be. Lucy's theory is that love and worth are intrinsically linked, which is why people would spend tens of thousands on it. Perhaps romance is something to be automated and anonymized. (L-R) Dakota Johnson Credit: Atsushi Nishijima Materialists toys plenty with the theory, leaning on the matchmaking profession for its humor instead of the rom-com genre's usual contrivances and conceits. We watch as Lucy has brilliantly absurd intake meetings with clients who have crafted rigid profiles of their perfect partner: from a closeted conservative woman seeking an openly gay conservative woman, to a mid-40s man who defines older women as 28. 'I'm trying to settle!' Sophie (Zoe Winters) exclaims after another failed date. (Sophie's match chastised Lucy for failing to find him a 'high-quality woman.') The matchmakers' language reinforces how this ostensibly human art can be boiled down to cool sciences. 'She's not competitive in the market,' Lucy laments to a coworker about Sophie, exasperatedly laying out her ordinariness. It's funny because you simultaneously believe that Lucy means well and doesn't take Sophie seriously; her world is molded by casual, lukewarm cynicism. Song tests Lucy's cynicism and her overarching theory with the arrival of two potential suitors at her client's wedding: the groom's brother Harry (Pedro Pascal) and her ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans). In Lucy's imagined spreadsheet, the men are polar opposites. Harry is a fabulously wealthy private equity investor with a $12 million penthouse, while John is a cater waiter and struggling actor with two roommates who can barely afford Manhattan parking. Given Lucy's desire for financial stability, the choice seems obvious, but there are complications that have more to do with her than them. She is baffled by Harry's charm offensive, seeing him as a prospective client rather than a lover. After all, as she explains during a consequential date for them, Harry is a 'unicorn,' a mythical match who checks every imaginable box. If he could have any woman he wanted — younger, richer, prettier, ready for kids — why pursue her? (L-R) Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal Credit: Atsushi Nishijima The core of Lucy's question is Materialists' driving force: the role of self-worth in informing one's romantic possibilities. Song deepens the classic love triangle set-up of head versus heart and passion versus practicalities by grounding it there. Lucy, Harry, and John are all keenly aware of the value they bring to their respective relationships. Lucy sees herself as unremarkable compared to who Harry could theoretically date, while doubting she can support John through his financial troubles. Lucy's doubt of her self-worth further contextualizes her professional reliance on rote practicalities. Harry's breezy but genuine pursuit of Lucy comes from his belief in his 'unicorn' status and that he and Lucy are compatriots in a utilitarian approach to love. Meanwhile, John is on the sidelines, deeply wounded by his inability to give Lucy what Harry can easily offer. These nuances build upon Song's remarkable ability to subvert, but not diminish, the genre's most enduring tropes. 'Snow White' (2025) Review - Where Has The Magic Gone? Also remarkable and refreshing is the lack of misdirects and mixed signals. Song elevates honest (or honest enough) communication between the trio, manifesting in some of the most mature exchanges in the history of the rom-com genre. At its best, the honesty is blissfully romantic in its own right, thanks to Song's remarkable script and tender lens. Her framing of Lucy and Harry's date before their first time, where Harry tells her she has value, is a fascinating blend of romance and negotiation, with gorgeous low-light and medium shots that position them as Harry sees them: equals. John and Lucy's dance at a barnyard wedding is startlingly intimate, even at a distance, with the camera circling and cutting closer as the gravity of their connection becomes undeniable. (What follows — John's declaration of love — is a genre masterpiece.) There are a few times, primarily in the first act, where the mark is slightly missed, with Song leaving space in scenes that aim to convey chemistry but can read as awkward. (L-R) Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans Credit: Atsushi Nishijima That awkwardness is a minor quibble in the face of Materialists ' most staggering hat trick, which shatters its ostensible frivolity with a shocking dose of reality. While it does have fun at its characters' expense — like a brutal cut to Harry offering Lucy a ride home to her riding in John's dingy car — it also treats them as flesh-and-blood people who must reckon with the dangers of dating. Sophie is initially positioned as comic relief, but one particularly upsetting experience is the film's shocking lynchpin, upending Lucy's worldview, career, and relationships with Harry and John. The results can be soul-shattering. Even with that gut punch, Song keeps a staggering command of tone and script, maintaining the graceful romance, blistering honesty, and even levity. She connects that searing narrative beat to the central insight about love and worth, evolving it into a beautifully sophisticated statement about love not defining one's value. Song pulls similarly sophisticated, nuanced performances from her strong cast. Lucy is an excellent vessel for Dakota Johnson to channel her cool unflappability through, undercutting it with a slight veneer of artifice through her dry delivery. Her best work comes when an external force, specifically John or Sophie, shreds Lucy's disaffection, leaving Johnson to convey the raw insecurity undergirding her cynicism. Pedro Pascal wears Harry's charming elegance very well, practically floating across the screen without slipping into off-putting arrogance. After years of leading action films, Chris Evans's rom-com return yields his best-ever performance and possibly one of the all-time great performances in the genre. As the frustrated, yearning John, he reveals stunning new depths of vulnerability and grace, his eyes and voice expertly balancing palpable ache, teasing cynicism, and heartrending warmth. Zoe Winters, of Succession fame, is a revelation as Sophie, shaping her comedic and dramatic moments into scene-stealing showcases with deeply affecting energy. ChatGPT hasn't put the matchmaker out of business because, as Materialists shows us, love can't be automated. Love is an achingly human, imperfect art, subject to all the blissful and painful nuances that make it all worth it. Lucy tends to boil love down to snackable lines that win clients over, but the film reveals that the complexities hidden beneath those simplicities are what we're ultimately responding to so strongly. In what seems like a slow death march, aided by algorithms encroaching on everything that makes us, Materialists is a salve that reminds us that we can't be replaced, not our jobs or our capacities to love ourselves and others. It's apropos that Celine Song, who has proven to be an essential voice in romance cinema, is the harbinger of such a vital, life-affirming message. Materialists will debut exclusively in theaters on June 13, 2025, courtesy of A24.


Buzz Feed
5 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
10 Positively Chilling Stories About Old Hollywood Stars
In 1981, West Side Story star Natalie Wood drowned after (officially) falling off the yacht owned by her and her husband, actor Robert Wagner. But despite her death being ruled accidental, many have speculated for decades that she was, in fact, murdered. Aboard the boat were her husband, Robert Wagner, as well as actor Christopher Walken, who has remained quite mum about the situation. In a rare 1997 statement, Walken maintained that "What happened that night only she knows, because she was alone.' In 2011, the case was reopened, and in 2018, Robert Wagner was named a person of interest in the case. At the time, Lieutenant John Corina of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department said that he thinks Wagner has, "constantly changed his story a little bit. And his version of events just don't add up.' But as of 2025, the case still hasn't been closed. Actress Lana Turner, ever-scandalous, was married no less than seven times; but her most famous relationship was with a boyfriend, Johnny Stomponato, who was murdered on the night of the Oscars in 1958 by none other than Turner's own daughter. Johnny Stomponato had a history of mental and physical abuse. That night, Turner attempted to end the relationship, and things terrified 14-year-old daughter, Cheryl Crane, was listening to the entire fight. She ran to retrieve a knife from the kitchen. In her later memoir, Crane wrote that Stomponato "was coming at her from behind, his arm raised to strike. I took a step forward and lifted the weapon. He ran on the blade. It went in. In! For three ghastly heartbeats, our bodies fused. He looked straight at me, unblinking. 'My God, Cheryl, what have you done?'" Stomponato's death was ruled a justifiable homicide. The mysterious death of celebrated director William Desmond Taylor is referred to by some crime fans as "Hollywood's first murder mystery." In 1922, Taylor was discovered dead in his apartment with a bullet in his back. The case remains unsolved. The scandalous story dominated Hollywood, but a suspect could never be nailed down. As the New York Times put it 70 years later, "Was the murderer a seduced virgin, her jealous mother, the gay butler, the drug-addicted actress, the blackmailing secretary, or someone from William Desmond Taylor's mysterious past?" A little over 100 years after the murder, it seems that Taylor's case will forever remain cold — but that doesn't mean that modern imagination isn't still infatuated by it. In fact, just a few years ago the case was the subject of a popular BuzzFeed Unsolved video!


San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Kim Novak to receive Venice Film Festival's lifetime achievement honor
Kim Novak, the glamorous and fiercely independent star of one of the greatest films ever made, Alfred Hitchcock's 'Vertigo,' will be honored with a lifetime achievement award at the Venice Film Festival this fall. Festival organizers said Monday that they will also host the world premiere of Alexandre Philippe's documentary 'Kim Novak's Vertigo,' which was made in collaboration with the actor. Alberto Barbera, the festival's artistic director, said that the award, 'celebrates a star who was emancipated, a rebel at the heart of Hollywood who illuminated the dreams of movie lovers before retiring to her ranch in Oregon to dedicate herself to painting and to her horses.' Novak, who is 92, left her Hollywood career behind long ago. But in recent years she has occasionally granted interviews around significant film anniversaries and made public appearances. After presenting at the 2014 Oscars many online, including Donald Trump, insulted her appearance. She responded with an open letter writing, 'I will no longer hold myself back from speaking out against bullies." Earlier this year actor Sydney Sweeney paid homage to Novak on the Met Gala red carpet. She's portraying Novak in a new film directed by Colman Domingo about her relationship with Rat Packer Sammy Davis Jr. Of this latest honor, Novak said she is 'deeply touched' to receive the award. 'To be recognized for my body of work at this time in my life is a dream come true,' Novak said. 'I will treasure every moment I spend in Venice. It will fill my heart with joy.' The Venice Film Festival runs from Aug. 27 through Sept. 6, but the full slate of films selected won't be announced until late July. 'The Holdovers' filmmaker Alexander Payne will preside over the main competition jury.