What’s Your Christopher Nolan?

For an industry that operates on who you know, Hollywood has a hard time dealing with people. And who can blame them? They are incomprehensible, erratic, moody, complex, and often see little use for common sense.

This is one reason why sequels, then tentpoles, then franchises and universes, have dominated the back half of cinematic history: Bring in messy people to execute proven ideas that studios own, shape, and sell as they see fit. So much easier on revenue forecasts. Fewer annoying managers, rehab visits, or fits of artistic pique. 

That’s why I predict the peopling era — the moment where idea-based IP is still strong, but human IP is stronger — is going to be a rough one.

Composed about 2,800 years ago, you can argue that “The Odyssey” was the original IP but most moviegoers haven’t read it. Christopher Nolan’s 172-minute adaptation grossed $264 million on opening weekend — not only because he’s a brilliant, Oscar-winning filmmaker with a passionate fanbase, but also because he’s someone who saw a blockbuster in Homer’s 24-book epic poem, insisted on building a 35-foot, 8,000-lb. Trojan Horse, and shut down social sentiment screenings. His vision, his take, his very human demands.

For the industry, that’s probably not the most comforting insight. You can track new-model blockbusters by how their language penetrates pitch meetings, but no one can ask, “What’s your ‘Christopher Nolan’?” (We can only hope no development executive would try, “What’s your ‘Odyssey’?”) 

Certainly, studios can look for the more nascent Nolans who display raw filmmaking talent, a unique vision, and a distinct style, but generating box-office results can take years or may never happen at all.

We’re already seeing traditional blockbuster logic trying to penetrate another summer hit. Last week, a producer told me that every pitch meeting now starts with, “What’s your ‘Obsession’?” (She added, “It used to be, ‘What’s your ‘Reacher’?”) 

Old habits die hard, but asking for another “Obsession” is another way of missing the point. Sure, who wouldn’t want a horror movie that grossed $440 million worldwide on a $750,000 budget, but the thing worth replicating is Curry Barker, a talented filmmaker who proved his audience by building in public. 

Hollywood is trying to play along. Alex Kister is now developing his YouTube analog horror series “The Mandela Catalogue” with United Artists and Steven Spielberg. Trevor Henderson, creator of the meme-based “Siren Head,” will executive produce an adaption for Warner Bros. However, most opportunities will come from investing in people who are at earlier stages in their development and that takes us right back to messy, unproven humans. 

Even after Hollywood finds the person and the property, it must contend with yet more humanity. Audience builds community, which creates a sense of belonging, and that lives right next door to a sense of ownership. 

Kane Parsons is the most successful interpreter of the anonymous 4chan post that evolved into a public “Backrooms” mythology — so while “Backrooms” the movie is under copyright, “Backrooms” the concept is not. That distinction became very real last week when A24 filed a copyright complaint on RedBubble against Reddit member u/GnarlyNet, an artist selling “Backrooms”-inspired work. 

Parsons intervened — “Should not be happening,” he wrote on Reddit — and A24 withdrew the claim. “As Kane Parsons has made clear, Backrooms is one part of an infinitely bigger ecosystem, rife with creatives who have every right to tell their own version of the story,” A24 wrote in a statement. The studio hired the filmmaker and acquired rights to his adaptation, but it doesn’t have a claim on the culture that made either one valuable. 

This is the central contradiction of human IP: Its value often comes from the very things that make it difficult to own. The creator has judgment, agency, relationships, credibility, and an audience with its own sense of participation. Strip away that autonomy and you destroy the asset.

Hollywood will try to create instruments that return a measure of control. In June, CAA announced the creation of a $250 million investment fund and holding company targeting creators. It’s viewed as a signifier that creators have arrived, but what if that’s not where they want to be? The fund is designed to acquire and operate a portfolio of businesses, which may not make much sense for a culture built around ownership, autonomy, and strategies derived from direct audience interaction.

“Toy Story 5,” now on its way to $1 billion worldwide, doesn’t talk back. Kane Parsons does.