We are already well into the second decade of the 21^st century and I still don’t have my own personal jet-pack or robot. Heck, I don’t even have a lousy iPhone.

But 2013 is almost here, and everyone is beginning to peek ahead at a coming year of changes within the film industry. Of course that means looking back at the immediate past in hopes of second-guessing the imminent future. It’s a tough call. 2012 feels a bit like the year when many of us were run over by a truck and we hadn’t even left the house.

Question: What does a producer do? Answer: 5 to 10 if he’s caught.

Putting bad jokes to one side, it ought to be a pretty simple question. After all, everybody knows that a director directs and a screenwriter writes. But credits for producers are often stretched out in various – and often confusing – ways.

For example, take my title (used occasionally) here at R&R Consulting. I am sometimes referred to as a Production Consultant. What does this mean? Got me. I have performed

What do the last election and modern Hollywood have in common?  I mean, aside from ridiculous out-of-control budgets and delusional assumptions.

The answer is data analytics. For example, Mitt Romney really thought he was going to win the election because of his polling data and his use of Orca, the database system that was supposed to do almost everything (including coffee, I suspect). However there were fatal flaws in their methodology on the polling data, and Orca blew up on election day morning.

According to the British philosopher Ebeneezer Scrooge, this is that time of the year when we balance our books and note our deficits.

So I guess the Huffington Post slide-show, Box Office Flops: 2012′s Biggest Turkeys, is the first step in the process. Going where much of the audience clearly feared to tread, the piece lists 22 of the most notable failures of the year. Actually, I’m not sure why they listed only 22 titles. It’s been a banner year for flops.

With any list of failures, there are lessons to be learned. For example, two titles on this list are both by Tim Burton. Both Dark Shadows and Frankenweenie failed to reach the break even mark. Heck, Frankenweenie didn’t even make enough to cover its lunch tab. Add in the Burton-produced film Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, and you have a perfect strike-out record for the guy.

More importantly, Burton amply displays three of the major fallacies of modern Hollywood. Dark Shadows is a redo of an old TV show. Frankenweenie is a elaborate remake of his old short film. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter gives us high concept, lots of vampires, and a chance to beat Spielberg to the Lincoln punch. Of the three, only the vampire flick almost broke even.

OK, this race to the bottom suggests that the old College Humor parody about Burton is still extremely valid. Burton’s macabre sense of whimsy may have run aground with viewers. It’s a given that Burton desperately needs a solid screenwriter (like Caroline Thompson). But, like most of current Hollywood, Burton needs more. Things like new ideas, new directions, new concepts. In his own weird way, Burton has become the poster boy for the recycling factory.

Sequels and politics took a hit with Atlas Shrugged: Part II. To be honest, I thought it took a pretty big hit with Atlas Shrugged: Part I (a major flop in 2011). The sequel is primarily a tribute to stubbornness as they did a complete re-cast of the actors, reduced the budget, upped the preaching and pressed ahead in making every mistake they made the first time out while achieving even lower returns. It’s such a stumble bum track record that I can’t wait for Part III.

The extreme right wing politics of Atlas Shrugged may not be the biggest problem (though the folks involved with these movies need to realize that a lot of the audience neither know nor care about Ayn Rand). One of the major indie hits of the year was 2016: Obama’s America, a full throttle wing nutter charge at its subject. Ironically, the movie’s producer was Spielberg’s old work partner Gerald R. Molen, who followed a very shrewd release pattern for the movie. Well, that and the fact that people at least know who Obama is, unlike either Ayn Rand or Atlas (I mean the mythological figure, not the tire company).

The folly of star power is also noticeable on the list. The box office failure of Tom Cruise in Rock of Ages isn’t really all that surprising. The age of the movie musical is largely past. Besides, Tom Cruise is not the name you think of when you hear the words Heavy Metal. Likewise, the inclusion of Eddie Murphy on the list simply confirms Murphy’s current role as king of the bottom. Murphy’s whole career has been a wild roller coaster ride and this isn’t the first time this guy has been down and almost out. He has an odd ability to reinvent himself. It may happen yet again. I doubt it, but who knows.

The same is true of Adam Sandler (Murphy’s chief rival for the bottom-of-the-barrel crown). Sandler has gone from being a crude hot talent to simply crude. With the tanking of That’s My Boy, he continues an epic losing streak that makes the Chicago Cubs look like the New York Yankees.

But the real modern Master of Disaster is Taylor Kitsch. Heck, with the double whammy of both John Carter and Battleship, this guy could drive the entire Hollywood system into Chapter 11. Add in the failure of Savages (a movie with a modest budget and an even more modest rate of non-return) and Kitsch could start working with Tim Burton. Let’s get Eddie Murphy and Adam Sandler to co-star.

So what does this tell us?  I mean aside from not investing in a film by Tim Burton. By itself, not much. Any list of failure is innately selective and is most useful for cheap laughs. Especially in the way it confirms the meaningless nature of star-power. Heck, Rock of Ages could have just as easily bombed with Taylor Kitsch as it did with Tom Cruise. They should have gotten Bruce Campbell. The flick would still be a bomb but would have instant cult movie status.

But it does give us a sneak peek at some of the real problems plaguing the film industry. For example, both John Carter and Battleship display the central flaw of the tent-pole movie business model. These films are being made with production budgets that in most cases can never be recouped. Hollywood has quite simply reached the point of no financial return. A few movies (for example, The Avengers) are capable of meeting this challenge. But they are the exceptions, not the rule. From any rational viewpoint, this business model is simply insane.

However, both John Carter and Battleship (and all of the films of Tim Burton) made more money overseas than in US release. The entire profit-end of the American film industry has shifted to Europe and Asia. Which is sort of OK, as long as the global economy doesn’t collapse again. At the moment, the crisis in Greece is causing big worries since it might spread across Europe. Add in the economic weight and ever- shifting parameters of the Chinese market, and you have both political and economic factors that defy any orthodox Hollywood analysis.

These issues are the emerging major factors. That, and the fact that most of Hollywood just doesn’t seem to get it. Earlier, I made fun of the folks who intend to do Atlas Shrugged: Part III. Sure, they could cut to the chase and simply flush their money down the toilet.

The same could be said about a lot of Hollywood.

Over the past several years, I have noted the raw and increasing power of digital media. A wide variety of sites have blossomed across the internet, covering everything from animation to household tips and vast new extremes in personal narcissism. The result is a digital landscape that is a strange and unpredictable mix of film, television, and stuff that looks like it just fell off of a truck.

To get a better sense of the growth of digital presentation, you can refer to the recent chart for YouTube as provided by ChannelMeter. At the very top of the list is the YouTube animation channel Mondomedia with a subscription list of more than 1.2 million and a worldwide viewership of 1.3 billion plus.

In an age of declining TV and movie viewership, these figures from the digital realm glow like a bright beckon piercing through a deep fog of despair. Of course, they also look a lot like potential cash cows ready for slaughter.

Which helps to explain why so many heavy players are currently making major moves. Just recently in the United Kingdom, the Chernin Group has bought a large stake of Base 79, a major YouTube network. Time Warner is seeking a sizable minority stake in Maker Studios. Meanwhile, Netflix and their VoD business is so desirable (despite their many ups and downs) that they are fending off takeover bids by both Amazon and Carl Icahn.

And this is barely the beginning. Everyone and their idiot brother wants to go digital. It’s the place to be because…OK, here is where we hit the gray zone. The vast global audience available online is incredible. This obviously represents an equally vast global market. But nobody exactly knows what that means or the most effective way of tapping it. The current commercial model is still based on advertising, as if the net were mainly an extension of radio.

Take for example the recent decline of Hulu.com. In a way, Hulu represents the prefect blend of online access and cable television, which are supposed to make it a win-win site. Unless it’s actually part of the problem: maybe people are going online to search for something beyond cable TV. Maybe, just maybe the analogy to TV is wrong. The parameters of digital online media are seemingly all over the map. For example, YouTube covers a range from UFOs to post-feminist satire as well as five zillion cat videos (special note to Henri the Cat) and everything else in between. It is completely unpredictable, totally chaotic, and has no working relationship to the cable TV model whatsoever. But the major companies (such as Time Warner) have so far persisted in seeing the digital zone as an extension of cable TV and appear to be utterly clueless to anything else.

Which is not surprising. I have said this before, but I am going to say it again. Corporate media operates as a relatively rigid, top down hierarchy. Because of this, they inevitable are locked into yesterday’s model of operation (because that is basically how the current head honchos got to the top in the first place). This sharply limits their ability to adapt to a radically changing environment. It is not because they are necessarily stupid (though some are). But they are essentially clueless.

The digital world is a completely new and ever shifting environment. Its only constant feature is that it doesn’t have one. It has no center. It has no real top or bottom. It is more sideways. A rapidly and infinitely expanding sideways. It is not television, though you can use it to catch up on shows. It is not film, though you can practically do film history through it. It is its own creature in the earliest stages of its own evolutionary development.

What the major companies can bring to this process is money. Lots of it. Almost everything else they have to offer will be potentially detrimental. Virtually all significant forms of change and development within the digital zone have been achieved through its decentralized structure. Though immense rewards are potentially available, it is not an area that responds well to heavy centralized management. Ho Hos, yes. Bossy CEOs, not quite (unless their name is Steve Jobs).

The current business speculation is that Time Warner will channel their move on Maker Studios through one of their TV subsidiaries. Of course this is exactly what I am talking about. The major companies see the digital world as merely an extension of standard corporate broadcast operations. Yes, you can now sit at any airport waiting for a plane and watch old episodes of Mr. Ed. Sometimes, that is even OK.

But it is barely the tip of the digital iceberg. One of the problems with the major companies is that they have neither the ability nor a vested interest in seeing beyond this extremely limited range. Instead, they have a predatory tendency toward wanting to control and limit digital development in an attempt to contain it within established mainstream production and distribution structures. In short, they think they have a vested interest in strangling the goose before it lays too many golden eggs.

Corporate media and the digital model are virtually two separate worlds, and they are in the process of colliding. It’s almost like that old science-fiction film minus the nerdy scientists and the grasping greedy plutocrat. Or is it?  Simply substitute the characters from The Big Bang Theory for the scientists and replace the plutocrat with any studio honcho and you got the set-up.

So the real question is: Which way will the debris fly?

Do you need music in your movie? I don’t know. Do you need salt and butter with your popcorn?  You can eat it plain. You won’t like that way but you can do it.

The same is true with music in movies. At its best, the intelligent use of a good soundtrack score enhances the emotional experience of the film. At its worst, it annoys the audience. But mostly it provides a companion to the visual experience.

For the indie filmmaker, the big question is being able to get music. When it comes to scoring a movie, there are many issues, both legal and monetary. So let me point out right now that I am neither a lawyer nor a composer. My musical experience is limited to a few years of piano and French horn and it was all so long ago that I have to think hard to remember the difference between D minor and F major. So everything I have to say on this subject has to be viewed as some very subjective and highly idiosyncratic opinions.

The first thing indie filmmakers must concern themselves with are the legal issues of using music in a movie. Ideally, they should consult with a lawyer who deals with copyright law (not somebody’s cousin who does whiplash cases). However, they tend to be expensive. But you can go online and learn about some of the issues involved, beginning with such sites as Law-Art.org and IndieProducer.net. Take your time exploring the legal issues. You will be glad you did.

The basic key is clearing the rights for both composer and performers (note to lawyers: yeah, this is an extremely simplified view; see the disclaimer above). This is especially a problematic issue for some very young and inexperienced filmmakers who might still think that they just need to download some tunes and slap them into the movie. No. It doesn’t work that way. Just because you bought the CD doesn’t mean you own the music. Same goes for movies on DVDs. I know a long list of people in academia who are hopelessly confused on this aspect of copyright law. So don’t bother listening to your professors. They are wrong.

To get a better understanding of this, you can go to ASCAP.com.You might also want to check out the Film & TV Music Knowledgebase. I would also suggest checking a site like the Boyenne Law Firm Entertainment Law where you can get some free legal tips. This means spending a lot of time on Google, but it’s worth it.

An alternative is to use royalty-free or some other form of canned music. Personally, I’m not a fan of this approach simply because the material often sounds like Mantovani performing Yanni with the 101 Strings Orchestra. But, to each their own. I would suggest checking out the advice at DIY Filmmaking Sucks and Vimeo.com. You might also want to explore the possibilities at Creative Commons.org, which provides material through an attribution share-alike license.

Or you might want to go another route, like finding someone who will do the music for you. Of course this means finding someone who is a composer. At the very least, a musician. OK, at the very least maybe they can whistle or something. If you are real lucky, you may have a buddy who knows what he is doing. If not, you might want to network through the nearest available music department at your nearest university. Music students, especially graduate students, are often looking for projects to use in their academic work. Composing the score for your movie could be a really major plus for them. It could be a big plus for you too, as long as you and the composer can work together. It helps (a lot) if the filmmaker and the composer have a shared sensibility about the aesthetic and emotional structure of the movie.

Of course, you could do it yourself. It’s not really advisable unless you have some sort of musical background and even then…well, don’t you think making the movie is already a handful?  A few people have done this, most notably cult director John Carpenter. His father had been the chairman of the Music Department at Western Kentucky University and Carpenter himself had been in a rock band. Most of his soundtracks tend to be highly rhythmic, pretty simplistic, but extremely driven and outrageously appropriate for such movies as Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween and Escape from New York.

Which also brings up the question of how you might wish to use music in your movie. There are two extreme positions: sparingly or wall-to-wall. In Jean-Luc Godard’s masterpiece Vivre sa Vie, the soundtrack was done by Michel Legrand. Actually, it was simply a short single track used in fragments as a punctuation to the movie’s 12 scenes as Godard presented his emotionally charged tale with extreme clinical detachment. At the other end of the spectrum, François Truffaut had composer Bernard Herrmann do a full symphonic wall-to-wall score for Fahrenheit 451. The music was to provide an emotional and psychological counter-point to Truffaut’s presentation of a world increasingly devoid of humanity. Since Herrmann was a genius, he successfully created an emotionally stunning soundtrack.

The importance of music to a movie is best demonstrated by the two versions of the opening to 2001: A Space Odyssey. We are all familiar with the opening shot of the Earth and the sun set to the first stirrings of Richard Strauss’ Also sprach Zarathustra. The effect is mythic and overwhelming. But there is also the other version of the opening credit as scored by Alex North, who was originally contracted to do the soundtrack. Nice music, but it sounds like the beginning of a Star Trek movie.

So you are going to want music for your film. As an indie filmmaker, you are working cheap. But you want it to be good, especially for the “feel” of your film. There are many approaches available and one of them just might work.

And by the way, my previous suggestion about having someone who can simply whistle was not really a joke. Heck, it worked for Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood.

Movies are irrelevant. It’s official. The New York Times says so.

Well, not exactly. But a recent article plays with the idea. For more than a year, countless bloggers (myself included) have been saying the same thing. The Times is a bit late to the party and seems determined to sneak in through the back door, basing part of their thinking on the Academy’s decision to have Seth MacFarlane as the next Oscar host. Note to The Times: the choice of MacFarlane actually makes more sense than the David Letterman fiasco back in 1995. At least MacFarlane’s movie made money (unlike the Letterman production of Cabin Boy).

But it is a valid question for reasons The Times article barely mentions.

Early this month, a quiet revolution started in movie theater management. Called Movie Pass, it is a rapidly emerging new system that links the box office straight to the digital universe. It is simultaneously ticking off theater managers across the country while developing a growing list of enthusiastic subscribers. Hollywood companies are roughly divided between opposition and support and are mostly waiting to see further developments. Some folks in the indie business thinks that it just might be the ticket to the future for low budget films.

Personally, I think everybody is half-right. That also means that they are half-wrong. I think I just covered all my bases.

The system was originally beta tested

In a coincidence that is almost as magical as a certain type of underpants, Mitt Romney inadvertently rounded off the recent release of the Women’s Impact Report 2012 with a reminder of why some folks in Hollywood thought it important to do the report.

Sure, Romney was trying to explain his approach to diversity in political hiring, whereas the Women’s Impact Report is exclusively focused on the entertainment industry. But it’s all the same thing.

This morning I talked to a group of about 50 early risers in finance at an NYSSA Friday career breakfast on the theme of “How to Succeed on Wall Street without Selling Out”! Polling the attendees, about half came to hear how to succeed on Wall Street and the other half, how not to sell out!

Caveat that I am not a paragon of Wall Street success. Still having managed to reinvent myself professionally several times, I continue to set new goals as a financial expert and (mostly) achieving them. Which leads me to further caveat about your success. You have the right to define success in your own terms. But not to expect automatic fulfillment by your choices. Fulfillment finds you.

To be successful on your terms and fulfilled, you need to be clear about whether you’re playing a finite or an infinite game. If you’ve read the definitive book by James Carse, you know finite games are linear: they have a beginning and an end, and are played with a goal of winning. The game outcome is resolved based on rules.

Infinite games are nonlinear. They do not have definite beginnings or endings, and are played with a goal of keeping it going and bringing in more players. Let me share with you R&R’s vision of how to transform credit in the 21C into a true infinite game that enhances our quality of life: