We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
Reports "»</ evaluates news, trends, opinions foi film buyers und tellers
FILM-SCOPE
10 AUGUST
Copyright 1957 SPONSOR PUBLICATIONS INC
More and more, it"* becoming pretty plain thai those gags ;■ 1 >< > u i "dropping the pilot*1 are premature.
I hi week al least one big packager (Screen Gems) was talking aboul reviving pilots, while sponsors and agencies continued their gripes about "blue prints*1 and "presentations*11 Even for "tailor-made" product* the} say, ;« pilol -till is a mniL
I'o get at the heart nf the matter, FILM-SCOPE contacted .1 group of »genc) Spotters among BBDO, Bates. Compton, Dancer-Fitzgerald-Sample, Ellington, Esty, Lennen A Newell, McCann-Erickson, Emil Mogul, and 5SC&B. This i what the) m
1. ABOUT OLD-STYLE PILOTS: Because the packager was able to gel hie crew
to take a risk with him, lie often could produce a terrific -ample at unrealisticall) low costs — a fact that sometimes fooled the agency about true prices. Moreover, pilots in prior Reasons were made to fit as broad a market as possible, thus dulling their value for a specific type of sponsor.
On the whole, though, agencies seem to think that — all thing considered the pilot is the least of all possible evils.
2. ABOUT "BLUE PBLNTS,,: The client general!) doesn't visualize a film from a mere presentation. This is had for everybody because the sponsor easily can grow "cold" on film when confronted with so skimp\ a sample.
3. ABOUT "TAILOB-MADE" FILM: Here you run the ri*k of asking the sponsor to make show business decisions — a field in which he's a total stranger. One agenc) cites the example of a sponsor who bad his cap -el for Ray Bolger and worked out a format for him. The trouble was that the format simply didn't suit Bolger, and the whole thine went sour.
\\ hat do agencies think is the answer? They have several ideas:
• They might run the risks of pilot-less "tailor-mades" IF the) have confidence in the producer and IF they get financial participation in rc-runs and Foreign ri^ht-.
• They might be interested in tailor-mades without the rights mentioned above IF the packager can produce a big enough visual sample to stimulate the sponsor. Rut this junior pilot would have to be at the packager's own risk.
To the packager's plea that all this costs money, agencies replj that they don't see much dollar difference between a pilot film and a pilot-less pitch. The latter, they say, still involves script costs and burns up extra time and money in consultation-. ITiey think it's a toss-up.
As this situation resolves itself. FILM-SCOPE will report the progress — meantime re. peating its findings of last week (3 August, page (>1 1 : It looks like a great year for re-runs.
TPA came into the news spotlight with the two moves:
1) President Milton A. Gordon bought out Edward Small's interest in the
company, with Small retiring from TP \'s board of directors.
2) Adoption of a plan giving stars and producers of new TPA scries not only a share in the profit of their own films but in the over-all profits of TP\.
SPONSOR • 10 AUGUST 1957 53