Top Producers Seek Standards to Quell Movies’ Title Wave

Someone is finally doing something about the ridiculous proliferation of producers, executive producers, co-producers, co-executive producers, associate producers and other variations of that title littering the credits of just about every Hollywood movie these days.

A group of top producers, led by such people as Arnold Kopelson, Richard Zanuck and Kathleen Kennedy, have quietly formed something called “The Committee for the Creation of Feature Motion Picture Producer Credit Rules and Arbitration Board,” a mouthful of a name aimed at drafting plans for more rigid standards to determine just who is a producer and who isn’t.

Given that just about everyone in Hollywood seems to be a producer these days, that’s a daunting challenge.

As it is forming now, the plan would be somewhat similar to the way Hollywood decides who gets primary credit for writing a film in an era when a dozen or more writers can often have a hand in coming up with a script.

There would be limits to how many people get credit as producers, specific definitions of tasks a producer performs and an arbitration board set up to handle disagreements in the same way disputed writing credits are settled now. Overseeing the process would be a Producers Credit Board, which would have ultimate jurisdiction over determining who gets credit. Presumably, studios and other major players involved in films would have to be on board for all of this to work.

Other highlights include designating the primary person responsible for pulling the picture together as a “chief executive officer,” with no more than two CEOs per film. The CEO doesn’t have to share credit with people who have only a marginal role in putting the movie together. (A CEO would be designated for contractual purposes, but would not be listed as such in the screen credits.)

Credits would include only four designations: Producer (or produced by), executive producer, co-producer and associate producer, with a total of no more than three co-producers and associate producers on a movie.

All this is spelled out in a memo Kopelson wrote to Zanuck in late November that is making the rounds among producers, who sources say are expected to meet sometime this month to discuss the issue.

The push is clearly aimed at what the group is calling “third parties,” or people some long-established producers believe often glom onto a movie and get awarded a title despite doing none of the traditional jobs of a producer. Those tasks can include such things as organizing financing, setting up a film at a studio, hiring a director, cast and crew, developing material and participating in cutting a film.

The memo defines third parties as directors, writers, actors, agents, managers “or any affiliate of the same who are not engaged in the business of motion picture production as his or her principal occupation.” Of that group, some producers are known to be especially irked that personal managers often leverage their connections with sought-after stars to get listed in the credits as producers.

Producer proliferation isn’t a new development, but in recent years it reached absurd levels, veteran producers complain. “Assassins,” the 1995 Sylvester Stallone action film, boasted six producers, three co-producers, six associate producers and two executive producers. The Hollywood Creative Directory lists a fourfold increase during the last 10 years in the number of people who call themselves producers.

“Producers these days can range from Madonna’s hairdresser to the guy who raises money in Chile for a film,” jokes veteran producer-director Irwin Winkler, whose films include “Rocky,” “GoodFellas” and “Raging Bull.”

One problem is that the definition of a producer is a lot murkier than other professions. In general, the basic role of a producer is a lot like a CEO, overseeing the production.

But the actual definition has expanded to include people who help bankroll a movie, stars and directors who negotiate the title as a perk and even people who have only a loose connection to the movie. Producers relate stories of how one man was listed as a producer on a film because he loaned a writer money years earlier, while another got one simply for setting up a tax shelter scheme.

Among the ranks of film producers are computer entrepreneur Steve Jobs, fashion designer Carole Little and virtually every bankable star, because studios use it as a way to gain favor with them. Actor Matthew McConaughey, virtually unknown until the blitz of media hype that preceded “A Time to Kill” in the summer, last month was given a production deal at Warner Bros. Columbia Pictures awarded teen actress Alicia Silverstone a production deal on the strength of a single movie, “Clueless.”

Although some in Hollywood dismiss the concerns of producers as trivial gripes or ego-related, veteran producers complain that giving away the title has devalued their profession. In addition, some complain that it helps bloat already high costs because some of the “producers” can often take home a six-figure check for doing very little.

Although the efforts of the producer committee seem to make sense, whether it succeeds is another matter. It’s hard to imagine that studios will give up the bargaining chip--the ability to award the title of producer--although some producers believe that channeling disputes through an independent organization provides studio executives a welcome and convenient way to wash their hands of any disputes.

To get its point across with some clout, the fledgling committee has lined up some of the most prolific and best-known producers. In addition to Kopelson, Zanuck and Kennedy, a partial list of names includes Brian Grazer, Alan Ladd Jr., Arnon Milchan, Lynda Obst, Ray Stark, Mike Medavoy, John Davis, Steve Tisch, Dan Melnick, Doug Wick, Lauren Shuler-Donner, Lili Fini Zanuck and Winkler.

Still, producers have to face the reality that they have never had an organization with the status of a labor union that writers do, and they aren’t exactly about to go on strike over the issue.

What’s more, no studio executive--or producer, for that matter--is going to be the first to tell a Tom Cruise or a Kevin Costner that from now on they are going to be stingy when it comes to awarding the title of producer.

“The studio would sooner get rid of the producer,” Winkler says.