Producing

Baron Rothschild I see, well then to answer your two specific questions:

Q1: When you’re packaging a project, how important is the underlying IP structure?

I am assuming in these answers that we are deciding to produce a property as the main producers so we can get it to market, on our own account, rather than being hired to produce it. In the latter case, we don't care about any of that stuff.

Still not sure what you mean specifically by "underlying IP structure" but it likely depends on the state of the IP we are looking at. If it's a script, that's literally all we care about aside from proof of copyright or chain of title. If it's a book still to be adapted, then we want very solid market numbers and we satisfy ourselves that the market the project wants is appropriate and real. If it's a biography or something that 3rd party personality rights might be affected by, that's a whole other thing but we again look for a legal assignment of life story (if necessary) and consider which 3rd party rights need cleared. We couldn't care less what the creator thinks about that and wouldn't rely on anything they have outside of legal documents. We're producing a script. World rules, continuity documents, etc. are relevant to production design, and the Director gets creative control of all that. That's the rule, because the Director is good at translating written story into a 90 minute or 2 hour screen experience, and writers are pretty awful at that. If a creator wanted to restrict that, then we would likely not take a project on, because we're concerned with audience and marketability first and we have to be able to craft a project so that people buy it. Of course if the marketability is related to production design, then that is part of the whole concept, but still the Director's idea must rule. Those things are the exclusive province of the Director or, in a series, the Showrunner, not the original writer, unless that person is the same person. In which case, we aren't likely involved as they are the producer and don't need us. There are exceptions, but they are inevitably tied to the existing market for the IP and/or the standing of the writer/creator of the IP.

There is a caveat to all that: We insist that the writer must normally sign off on changes to scripted dialog or significant scripted passages. Because the writer may have specific reasons for choosing specific phrasing, which potentially changes something else in the script. However, this writer may not be the actual creator of the IP, for example, when adapting a book to screen.

Q2: Do you look for creators who already understand ownership and long-term value?

Nope. If we are developing a show or a franchise, it is not as collaborative as other parts of the process. We ensure we have the rights to move forward regardless of the creator's ideas on ownership or long term value. To do otherwise almost always wastes a producer's efforts and resources because at some point the original creator will decide they want something new or different, or even lose interest. This is not just a common experience. It's almost a guaranteed experience. So our own understanding of the long term value is what rules. If the creator is experienced in the industry, then their opinion might be important and we do discuss that with them at the beginning and we will be informed by those opinions to the extent they are valid. If they are not experienced in the industry, then they are de facto not qualified to make the decisions we have to make. So it depends on the project, but we adjust accordingly.

Shadow, this is incredibly helpful — thank you for breaking down how producers evaluate IP. When I said ‘underlying IP structure,’ I wasn’t referring to creative control or production design. I meant the way a creator organizes and documents their world, rights, and continuity so that the chain of title is clean, the asset is cohesive, and the project is easier to evaluate from your side.

My interest is in how creators can prepare their IP so that when it does reach a producer, everything is already structured, documented, and clear. Not to restrict directors or showrunners — but to make the underlying rights and world architecture easier to understand and package.

Your perspective helps me refine that distinction, so I appreciate the insight. That makes complete sense, Shadow — especially the part about producers needing stability and long‑term consistency regardless of where the creator’s head is at. When I talk about creators understanding ownership or long‑term value, I’m not referring to them trying to control production decisions. I’m more focused on helping creators keep their rights, documents, and world materials organized so that when a producer like you steps in, everything is already clean, clear, and easy to work with.

In other words, I’m interested in the creator’s side of preparation — not in influencing the producer’s side of decision‑making. Your explanation helps me sharpen that distinction, so thank you for laying it out so clearly.

Baron Rothschild So your description of the "underlying IP" is clearer. Basically, anything other than the script is not needed and not wanted, unless it affects production design. If for some reason working papers are attached to a script and copyright registered (which would be very weird), then those are included. If it's a series, then the series bible will be part of the copyrighted work.

But take for instance Dune. No one cares about Frank Herbert's working papers or doodles or sketches or alternate stories or sequels. They are not what is being optioned. The book is being optioned and we hire a script writer to work from what is in the book. The vision of the creative team comes from the book and the script they develop from it.

So the writer needs (1) the script, (2) the registration of copyright (if it exists), and (3) if there are 3rd parties involved, the legally executed assignments and releases. Keeping in mind that (4) the writer is going to guarantee that the work is original to them and will indemnify the producer if turns out it breaches someone else's copyright. Anything else is irrelevant and distracting. Further materials can only raise questions, not make it easier to assess.

Shadow, I appreciate the clarity — and you’re absolutely right about what matters for optioning and production. The script, the registration, and the chain‑of‑title documents are the core assets a producer evaluates.

Where IPBSEs operate is a different layer of the ecosystem:

the financial layer, not the development layer.

When a creator structures an IPBSE, they’re not presenting extra materials for creative evaluation. They’re establishing:

- the existence of the underlying IP

- the ownership of it

- and the secured interest that allows it to function as a financial asset

The producer still only cares about the script and the rights.

The IPBSE is simply the financial wrapper that makes the IP recognizable in a collateral or entitlement context.

So your breakdown is exactly right for production decisions — and the IPBSE just sits upstream of that, in the asset‑structuring phase rather than the creative‑evaluation phase.

Shadow, your breakdown of what matters for production is spot‑on. What I’m exploring sits one layer upstream — where creative workflows and financial structures start to overlap. Most creators only think about their script in terms of pitching or optioning, but there’s a whole other conversation around how that same IP behaves as an asset before it ever reaches a producer’s desk.

I’d be interested in your perspective on where you see the legal/production side intersecting with the financial side as more creators begin structuring their IP earlier in the lifecycle. That’s the space I’m working in, and it’s where a lot of creators have blind spots.

Philip David Lee Judging from your post, I don't think anyone could know what you are looking for. Are you just angry that you haven't found the right producer? Or funding? Or that this cartel-controlled industry has gatekeepers everywhere? What are you seeking? There are real producers here, I am one of them, and I head the Independent Producers Guild as well. I am on S32 to locate and help mentor those very few creators who have the mindset and talent to become effective in this industry. I do find some. Most not, as this is a screenwriter's platform, not a producer's or director's platform.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg What are we talking here, Shadow? This shouldn't be a specific platform for anyone. It should be a networking platform, but charging people for a pitch session is like going to a batting cage. You pay for your swings, but in the end, none of the contacts you made, don't amount to much. We've all seen the photos of the stacks of screenplays that are piled up on someone's desk. What's the point? What is the goal of the film industry? It's to entertain people. You can't break it down an easier than that. As a producer, you should know what will work. I don't care about your politics. I don't care if you want to save or change the world. You're not going to. No one has up until now and they won't in the future.

I just want to find a producer that has access to smart investors and know how to package and promote entertainment.projects. With all the flops just this year, how can "the gatekeepers" be so dumb. You had Sydney Sweeny who got into the worldwide spotlight for doing a jeans ad that she didn't even write and you can't use that to get people excited and her $15M budget movie Christie enough to go and see it? The movie only grossed $2.09M worldwide? That is just stupid.

Can I find a producer out there that isn't stupid? Is that too much to ask?

Philip David Lee Well I feel your pain of course. But to you points, to my knowledge S32 is privately owned so they can focus on any sector they want to. They happen to make money offering courses and seminars mostly to writers. Pitch sessions are plainly labeled to be for education and practice - otherwise they could get into trouble. So long as the "producers" involved are actually NOT there to sign you up, then they don't cross the line into pay-to-play. S32 often notes that people have had their project picked up through the process. That's clearly marketing, and I don't see anything wrong with that, considering the clear caveats they also make. To your other points, why should ANY producer come here? I gave my reasons - because I am looking for talented creators who want to take control of their property. That's not your average writer. and no producer needs to network with your average writer. There's literally a million or more of them in this country. Most producers have too many to filter through without inviting more. That''s not S32's fault - I am sure they would love more participation by producers. Same with directors... And working writers or writer-directors, like my partner Diamond Monique Washington don't need the services S32 offers. She gives back to the community through Stage And Screen Innovations, where she's Artistic Director. As far as finding a producer - I note that you label yourself a producer. Why not run with that and produce instead of looking for someone else?

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg That's coming.

What does that mean?

Thanks for sharing the article, Sebastian Tudores. I look at photos online, videos, and Google Maps when I research locations for my scripts. I'm going to try Google Earth.

Sebastian Tudores We look at maps. Then photos. If a virtual walk-through is available we will use that to narrow down possible locations. Then visit them physically. Being in the spot and talking with the people highlights advantages and challenges that cannot be learned any other way.

that's great Maurice Vaughan - Google Earth has some nice planning features relative to lighting and time of day, etc.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg sounds like an efficient 'hybrid mode' - yeah, 100% agree about physically present assessment eventually for things as you cannot otherwise detect, as you point out. And probably also because places have their own personality, characteristics in which your actors will need to live, and breathe, etc. wishing you a wonderful Holyday and a kick butt 2026!

I think it's great news, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg! I didn't know about the things you mentioned in the second paragraph. Thanks.

"Interestingly, the studios whose trailers were being emulated did not ask for take down. They only asked that the ad revenue be turned over to them." I was confused when I first heard that, but then I remembered "profit."

Maurice Vaughan The arrangement Google has with Apple, Spotify etc. and the major studios is that when an account is "demonetized" for a copyright claim, they will usually let the video keep running and keep running ads. They just pay the "channel" portion of the ad revenue to the copyright claimant. If there is no outside copyright claimant, they keep it all. They just don't pay it to the channel. YouTube grew up encouraging copyright infringement, and has figured out a way to keep it working for them today.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg I’d be curious to see what that looks like if permitted. And if you ever need a voice actor, I’m here. I’m just starting out in that arena but nonetheless, my site has a reel.

Leonardo Ramirez 2 See the AI/animation, you mean?

Yes, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg. That's what I meant. Would love to see that.

Leonardo Ramirez 2 Well that will be a while, as it's integrating into films we are doing in 2026. As well, it's mostly ideation and anything created must be referenced directly to originally created assets (ie. actual footage we shoot or actual 3D or 2D models we create) - for both copyright issues as well as ensuring that the AI hasn't given the same or too similar renders to someone else (and it does so repeatedly, so AI storytellers beware...)

Makes sense Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg. Thanks for the clarification.

Congratulations on the showcase selling out, Michael Fitzer, MFA! I do all my networking online, but it'll be great to network in person and support the film scene in my community. Thanks for the idea.

Michael Fitzer, MFA You should join us in the Independent Producers Guild. We work to advance independent film... https://independentproducersguild.org/

Holly Fouche Disney being one of the most litigious companies ever - I bet the backroom discussion at least in part explored how hard they were going to hit OpenAI if they didn't get what they want. The horse already having bolted - no one can put the mouse back into the barn, so to speak. So money is the answer.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Well when you put it like that it sounds a bit like financial/legal blackmail(ALLEGEDLY lol)

It's important to understand the scope and context of this. Here is Iger's breakdown: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bob-iger-openai...

As a former Disney filmmaker I can completely understand why this was done, but I believe the rollout and the subsequent announcement was handled horribly.

I would bet that billion dollars also includes proprietary infrastructure for the animation studio to incorporate within the pipeline. And likely creating a VFX pipeline. Currently, most of the live action VFX is farmed out.

In a bit of kismet, I have been digging deep into a few older documentaries on the animation side, as I am producing and directing one about the shuttered animation studio in Florida. WAKING SLEEPING BEAUTY and INSIDE PIXAR both lay a lot of evidence as to how Disney has ALWAYS tried to stay ahead of technology.

Meanwhile they vehemently protect their IP, the Google/MidJourney/Gemini lawsuits aside, they are known for going after daycare centers that dare paint their characters onto murals.

Where I think Iger has lost his touch and hurt the company is in the core value of its artists and stories. This is what would have Walt rolling over in his Frozen bed more than the tech.

https://deadline.com/2025/12/disney-openai-deal-animators-sora-1236651227/ - Disney’s OpenAI Deal: Soulless Exploitation Or Necessary Innovation? Former Mouse House Animators Have Thoughts

Laurie Ashbourne This is very interesting and compare it to the backlash by game devs currently aimed at Larian over comments by their CEO about allowing the usu of AI for ideation in building their next game, Divinity: https://youtu.be/q2HU0OX0bxA

Disney is widely noted to be, if not abusive, callous about its employee futures (I only worked on Disney productions, never for Disney, so I don't know first hand. You perhaps do). And certainly about its ruthlessness in asserting and controlling IP. But I don't think anyone really understands their long term reasoning for this move, if they themselves understand it. Compare to the Larian cafluffle, which is to my eyes ironic because the same devs screaming now that concept artists could lose jobs (none of them have) are the same group who happily cut voice actors out of the equation as soon as possible. Even more ironic is attacking Larian for this in light of the fact that Baldur's Gate 3 featured amazing voice actors who were already prominent in the gaming space, and who are now (following Clair Obscur) now moving into star status - all because Larian insisted that the human experience was more important than production timelines.