Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In reality, these lines are a lot blurrier. Executive producers usually are investors, but they're not necessarily the primary investors. Definitionally, they're responsible for the financing of the film. Producers on the other hand, are, in theory responsible for managing expenditure of the investment (making the film), very much like a CEO/President as you describe.


Not necessarily are producers involved in any budgeting. My First Wife and I were producers on a film that was made from a stage script of her. Our role as producers gave us vetoes on screenplay changes and gave us a hand in the production, plus royalties, but we had no hand in securing the budget or spending it.


Yeah, hence the "in theory". In practice, titles and roles are often weird on film sets. Don't even get me started on "associate producers"...


I would have thought producer is akin to a board of directors, and director is akin to CEO.


The director is responsible for what ends up on the screen, but not for ensuring the crew gets food.


The director is the person who actually crafts the movie. They don't necessarily have anything to do with managing the money. Sometimes you have producer-directors, but it's like a restaurant that is owned by the chef.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: