This week in In Development, I wrote about what may be the most important structural shift happening in entertainment right now: the emergence of a creator-driven ecosystem that increasingly overlaps with the traditional film industry.
Ted Hope’s essay below describes the same moment from a different vantage point — the disappearance of the infrastructure that sustained American independent film for decades.
Hope has produced more than 70 features, including “The Ice Storm,” “In the Bedroom,” and “Martha Marcy May Marlene.” His work has earned 44 Oscar nominations. When he reached out to ask whether IndieWire would republish the piece, I said yes. It’s a deeply personal reflection on the collapse of a system that defined a generation of filmmaking and an important perspective on the industry’s current transition. — Dana Harris-Bridson
Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared on Ted Hope’s Substack, Hope For Film. It is republished here with permission.
I have been working in the film business for over forty years. I worked my way up from complete zero (I knew no one) and being a production assistant to producing over seventy feature films, all of which I was very “hands on” on. I have built and run several production companies, a postproduction facility, as well as running a film society and its festival, a start-up streamer, and launching Amazon Studios movie program where I oversaw about sixty-five additional films to the ones I have produced. My films have received 44 Oscar nominations with 11 wins. I only state this so it is clear that no one is immune from current state of affairs.
For my first twenty years in the business, there were hundreds of scenarios of how a film could be financed; now there are very few. There used to be hundreds of ways for a film to be distributed, but now it is very limited. There used to be many opportunities to earn profits and success-based bonuses but now they are virtually non-existent. There used to multiple ways to cover overhead between films, but these too are now virtually non-existent.
As global streaming platforms replaced territorial licensing with worldwide rights acquisitions, regional distributors and broadcasters lost their role in the ecosystem. Without those buyers competing for rights territory by territory, one of the primary financing engines for independent cinema disappeared – international sales, and with it we lost a route that allowed for films that broke new ground be it in the filmmakers, subject, audience, or aesthetic.
After being intimately involved with over one hundred twenty-five films that shot in America, I do not think it currently makes sense to film in America, due to costs, reduction of resources, and limit of possible financing structures. It is clear to me that the system is not at all designed for the small business owner despite any success or track record they have.
In 2012, I first made the hard decision that due to the lack of a level playing field for independent producers, I was not going to be able to do what I most loved and excelled at – producing movies – for my living. I anticipated the potential for streaming earlier than many others and was able to maneuver myself to learn this new aspect of the industry; I ultimately was hired to launch Amazon’s movie development, production, and acquisition program. At Amazon, it was clear that our competitive advantage was capital and we used it to win.
I was at Amazon for five and a half years, that saw the subscribers and program grow significantly. What became clear was that decision-making was shifting away from traditional notions of taste and cultural impact toward data models designed to maximize subscriber acquisition and retention. Films were no longer evaluated primarily on artistic merit or long-term cultural value, but on their projected ability to reach massive global audiences immediately. I was told by the head of the studio that they didn’t even know how to respond or evaluate the type of films I was hired to do – and that was a problem.
When I left, Amazon gave me an overhead deal for three years, but at the end of those three years, the new head of movies explained to me that the kind of movies I did – typically called “prestige films”, or films for grown-ups – were no longer viable there because of the high number of subscribers each film was now expected to connect with. My films, despite winning Oscars and critical acclaim, were too niche.
The abandonment of the “prestige” sector and mature and sophisticated themes by the American system is well documented. It flourished when there was a market for physical media but not in the era of global streaming. Films that depend on word-of-mouth do not work well without media support or in opposition to saturation marketing tactics.
The consolidation of the major studios and their pivot toward global franchise economics have also eliminated the mid-budget film — historically the backbone of the American film business. These films, typically budgeted between $15 and $50 million, sustained producers, developed directors, and provided studios with steady returns. With the disappearance of this sector, the industry has effectively eliminated the sector where independent producers such as me built our careers.
Equally significant has been the disappearance of the independent distribution layer that once existed between filmmakers and the major studios. For decades companies like Miramax, Fine Line, October Films, Newmarket, ThinkFilm, and others created a competitive marketplace for independent cinema. As media companies consolidated and streaming replaced physical media revenue, most of these distributors disappeared or were absorbed into larger conglomerates. The result is far fewer buyers and far fewer paths for films to reach audiences.
Streaming fundamentally altered the economics of filmmaking by replacing long-tail revenue streams with a single license fee. In the past, producers like myself could build careers through profit participation and successive windows of distribution — theatrical, home video, cable, international sales, and television licensing. Streaming collapsed these revenue streams into a single transaction, eliminating the possibility of long-term participation and dramatically reducing the upside for filmmakers.
After leaving Amazon, I worked on “Invisible Nation,” a documentary my wife directed and produced, about Taiwan’s process to democracy. We were told by representatives at Disney and Apple that they could not do films that featured a position China would object to, like Taiwan’s democracy. During this time many films about democracy were made, but virtually none got acquired. I compiled a list of over 80 such films in 2023. As films deemed “political” are the most obvious to be polarizing for some segment of the audience, these films now rarely get picked up and there is no alternative system or distribution path for them to take, despite the fact that some political films – like Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” —have made over $100 million at the US box office.
This past year I confronted the not only was it next to impossible to make the sort of movies I excel at, but the opportunities to improve the environment for making them were also diminishing fast, primarily due to the amount of media consolidation. The plight of the producer is untenable. We have no health care, commencement wages, credit integrity protection, mandatory success-based compensation, training, or career sustainability and our ability to campaign for it is restricted by a forever contracting playing field. We have no leverage when the number of studios diminish every year.
If that wasn’t already enough to consider, not only do I find no traditional paths to make the sort of movies I have excelled at, no way to negotiate for — let alone sustain — a fair and sustainable working environment, but I also find it difficult to do the training of filmmakers and executives that I have had such great satisfaction doing throughout my career. This is primarily due to the challenge of making movies on a regular basis compared to how it used to be, but it is also due to the limited model that is fully dependent on a global streaming license. Former assistants of mine have built strong companies and are top producers and executives throughout the industry. Eighty percent of the team I built at Amazon is still there, six years later. Despite running training accelerators for several years, I have now ended them, as I see no future for such future producers and executives in traditional paths. Our current system denies new talent a livelihood, and the impracticality of such training, leads me to refrain from training them.
I entered the film industry because my great appreciation of cinema. Whereas the average American may see less than five films a year, I see close to two hundred and fifty. I play close attention to aesthetic and content trends globally, both at the festival level and distribution level. Bolstered by local incentives and a growing labor base supported by the Hollywood Studios overseas migration, international films have captured the “prestige” sector in cinema. Whereas there used to be a steady supply of new and bold voices from America, the international market now controls that space, which in turn limits the breath of films available for audiences to see and enjoy.
The modern streaming platforms are vertically integrated in ways the historical film business rarely was. The same companies now control financing, production, distribution, marketing, theatrical exhibition, and the platforms through which audiences discover films. This concentration of power leaves independent producers with little leverage and few alternative paths to reach audiences.
From where I sit, media consolidation has led to four core changes to my industry that together have led to what now feels like a producer extinction event: the death of the mid-budget film, the collapse of the independent distribution and the collapse of the international sales market, and the elimination of backend economics. Without producers able to sustain a career, we can anticipate the collapse of the industry… and worse.
Democracy requires small business owners to have a level playing field. Democracy and a healthy economy both require access to customers (audiences) and markets. We need regulation and competition. Media consolidation has destroyed once was America’s second strongest global industry, one that the world enjoyed because of its abilities to move both hearts and minds. I have had a great career in it, but I would no longer recommend it for anyone who had an alternative – but it is not too late to save it. We have to stop further consolidation and take action to level the playing field to make sure that the widest representation of audience and creator backgrounds and experience are provided for.
