Re: Changling News
Do production companies/big movie companies (ie: WB or Universal) have long-term contracts
Production companies (like Imagine and Babylonian Productions) and studios (Warner Bros., Paramount, Fox, Columbia) are different critters. Production companies started out life as accounting gimmicks and tax-avoidance mechanisms when the old studio system (where everyone was under contract and drew a salary whether they were shooting a picture or not) was breaking down. They were a way to give stars (later star directors) a way to have some degree of control over a project and to defer payments to themselves by having the company paid for services rendered on a given shoot in a lump sum, while collecting a salary as an "employee" of the company, thus spreading out the payments and reducing the tax burden. Later still production companies became "packagers", which would buy the script, line up the actors, attach a director and bring the whole thing to a studio all wrapped up in a neat bow and with a single price-tag attached. Agents became famous as packagers since it was to everybody's advantage (especially the agent's) to make sure the director, the stars and (sometimes) the writer were all clients of the same agency, because then they got to collect fees from everybody.
Among the many other differences, production companies usually do not have a physical plant the way a studio does. They don't have enormous sound stages, massive aircraft hangers full of props, furniture and costumes going back to the start of the 20th century or recording facilities, commissaries or fire departments and ambulance companies. (Seriously, if you ever have a chance to visit a major film studio in the U.S. or Europe, do it. I spent a half day each touring the Warner Bros. and Paramount lots and a full day as a guest of the VP of Home Entertainment at Fox and believe me, until you've actually been there you have no idea of the sheer scale of a studio operation. And all three are much reduced from what they were in the 1940s.)
That said - yes, studios have contracts with directors just as they do with stars. Typically neither is what you'd call "long term" and you're right, they are generally set forth in terms of "X number of pictures" rather than a period of time. Paramount (for instance) might sign a three picture deal with Alan Smithee. In addition to the fees they will actually pay Smithee for directing the pictures, this generally obligates the studio to pay Smithee some kind of stipend while he's considering properties, provide him with office space on the studio lot (usually assigned to his personal production company - see "tax dodges", above) and various support services. Some contracts aren't even exclusive. Smithee (or Cruise) may owe Paramount 3 films, but that doesn't mean they can't go off and work on a picture at Universal if an offer comes in.
But production companies don' t have such deals because they themselves are owned by the talent, (Imagine - Ron Howard, Malpasso - Clint Eastwood, Amblin' - Stephen Spielberg) and because they don't have the space or necessarily the cash flow to offer things like office space and logistics support. They're more likely to be have such space on the lot at Paramount or Universal than to provide such space to others under contract.
Basically since the studio system collapsed and the unions moved in in force, everybody's been a worker-for-hire and the whole economy of the town is built around that model. So an "X" picture deal is as close as anybody gets to a "long term" contract.
And none of this helps us narrow the list of directors down, because I'm not even sure if the project is still going to be done by Universal. Don't forget, Imagine itself bought the script. Now Howard may have a multi-film deal going at Universal, and that may be his first choice of studio if
he were helming it (because it would count as one of the films he owes them), but if he selects someone who has a deal with Fox or Sony, the film could move there. Studios nowadays provide production facilities, sometimes financing and always distribution for major films, but they don't originate them as often as they used to, and with production companies and agents assembling packages projects that start out at one studio often end up at another, because the studio is often the most expendable part of the deal. (If you're building a home the location and the builder mean a hell of a lot more to you than the bank that's handling the mortgage.
)
Regards,
Joe
