In Parts I and II, we identified the problem and laid out the evidence. The conclusion is unavoidable: film and television are not short on talent or ideas — they are short on systems that allow creativity to breathe. The creative recession wasn’t caused by audiences losing interest, or creators losing ambition. It was caused by how risk is structured, concentrated and punished. The good news? That means it can be fixed. The Core Problem Isn’t Money — It’s Risk Design The ind

In Part I, we named the problem: the Creative Recession — a period marked by shrinking ambition, fewer opportunities, and a growing sense of cultural stagnation across film and television. In Part II, we look at the evidence. Because this isn’t just a feeling. It’s measurable. Across film and TV, the data tells a consistent story: less is being made, fewer people are getting through the door and the work that survives is increasingly narrow in scope and risk. 1. Fewer Films A

The phrase “creative recession” struck a nerve. Not because it was provocative — but because it felt accurate. Across film and television, there’s a growing sense that something fundamental has stalled. Not just financially, but creatively. Fewer projects are being made. Fewer risks are being taken. And the work that does reach audiences often feels familiar, cautious and strangely hollow. This isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about output, opportunity and ambition. And it’s happe

For decades, independent cinema was financed by a delicate but functional ecosystem: international pre-sales and minimum guarantees (MGs). Sales agents would take a package — script, director and cast — to markets like Cannes or the AFM, and distributors would commit real money upfront. That capital was the engine that allowed thousands of independent films to be made every year. Today, that system has all but collapsed. And unless you attach an A-list star — a near-impossibl