Interfacing with Hollywood brings opportunities, challenges

SAN JOSE--This afternoon in San Jose, five industry veterans with firsthand experience working with Hollywood discussed the future of collaboration between games and film. The panelists were Keith Boesky (International Creative Management), Matt Case (Blindlight), Charles Hirschhorn (G4 TV), Jason Rubin (Naughty Dog), and Larry Shapiro (Creative Artists Agency). Each of the panelists contributed some interesting insights, but the hour-long session produced little agreement on the future framework for cooperation between the two industries.

Naughty Dog President and Cofounder Jason Rubin acted as moderator. Rubin got the ball rolling by asking the panelists for brief comments on the current state of cross-industry collaboration. There was general agreement that the popularity of games is growing, and the film industry is developing an appreciation for the potential benefits of cooperating with game developers. Shapiro noted that studios and TV networks have recognized that a game comprises 30 to 40 hours of content, and they are starting to appreciate the talent that represents. Case summed things up by commenting "[working together] is definitely inevitable, but how do you make the relationships not predatory but complementary?"

In response to a question about the factors driving Hollywood's interest in game industry collaborations, Boesky focused on the different kind of storytelling expertise that game designers bring to the table. He contrasted game designers with screenwriters, describing them as "world builders, not just story writers." As he sees it, a game designer is used to defining the look and feel of his or her game, how characters interact with the environment, and even what rules of physics apply. "It's a very different mind-set," he concluded.

Next, Rubin asked what factors might discourage Hollywood interest in the game industry. This question kicked off a debate on the culture and structure of the gaming industry that wasn't resolved by the end of the discussion. Shapiro jumped in and described game industry culture as "insular," commenting that developers tend to not interact with other groups of creative professionals. Rubin agreed, saying "we really don't get out of our offices." Shapiro added that meeting more people outside the industry was precisely what was necessary, half-jokingly describing the Hollywood model as lunches that lead to drinks that eventually lead to deals.

Case took a more conservative stance. Though he agreed that a key priority is "for our industry to find out what it is and how it will grow," he saw the current industry model as fairly effective and didn't feel that discarding this structure and culture for a Hollywood-based model was the best path.

This debate highlighted the cultural gap between the game industry and Hollywood, prompting Boesky to comment that there was a real need for a new kind of producer who understands both parties and can facilitate communication between them.

One attendee followed up this comment with a question. "Warner Brothers is ramping up its game publishing. Will more studios get into this business?" Boesky nodded. "It's inevitable. Studios will see the game market like home video--it's another way to help launch properties." Shapiro added, "This makes a bigger market for developers, so it's to their benefit."

Case got the last word, with a comment that summed up the tension between game developers and filmmakers that was the crux of the discussion. He noted that after previous unsuccessful attempts at game publishing, studios have started bringing in people that know more about the game industry to run their game publishing programs. "But," Case asked, "is it possible to build a working game publishing organization inside a studio?"

Case's question went unanswered. Though the panelists brought a wealth of collective experience to bear on these issues, they reached few conclusions, suggesting that the answer to Case's questions, and the other questions raised this afternoon, won't be easy to find.