When Death Hits the Reset Button

Ron Watermon • January 4, 2026

When I saw the headline about Rob Reiner, I felt that familiar internal jolt. I stopped. I stared at the screen. I let the weight of it settle before my mind immediately went to reflection.


I have a photo of Rob Reiner on a shelf in my living room.


We met once, briefly, nearly two decades ago. It was one of those special moments that, with the passage of time, has become something else entirely. Not because of fame, but because of what that moment now carries with it: memory, absence, and the quiet accumulation of loss.


Even though he isn’t in it, the photo reminds me of my friend Marty Hendin who died shortly after.


The news of Reiner’s death triggered memories of Marty, a reflection on addiction, and sadly, in the weeks following a host of other complicated emotions compounded by our family coping with a profound loss of our own. 


On Christmas Eve, my father-in-law Mick McLaughlin died. 

It was a blessing that we were all together by his side at the hospital. 


Yet, watching my son and wife, as well as my wife’s family grieve has been hard. We all loved him so much and are coping with grief. 


Grief is a powerful primary emotion that carries unpredictable secondary emotions.


I’ve learned this over a lifetime of compounding losses. For me, death functions as a reset button. 


Death makes me stop. It makes me look at myself honestly.


It pulls my attention away from noise and puts it squarely on what matters.


It forces me to take stock of the past, the people I love, the choices I’ve made, and the ones I’ve been avoiding.


Often, it leads me to change something.


So, when I saw that headline about Reiner’s death, I didn’t want to add my voice to the churn of condolences, hot takes, or algorithmic grief.


I hate the race to chase visibility online.


In this context, it felt unseemly. Instead, I found myself looking at that old photo, seeing a version of myself I barely recognize anymore, and feeling the familiar pull inward, while at the same time feeling profound empathy for those who cared about him.


This is not a typical essay about a celebrity death.


It’s about what happens when death and grief force you to pay attention to what really matters.


 

The Meeting That Lingered


I met Rob Reiner once, in June of 2007, because my Cardinals’ front-office colleague Marty Hendin insisted that I should.


Marty handled celebrity visits for the Cardinals, and he loved that part of his job—not because of status, but because he genuinely enjoyed connecting people. I usually didn’t care much about meeting celebrities. It came with the territory.


But when Marty told me Rob Reiner was coming to town, something in me lit up.


Not because of All in the Family, though I had watched every episode, but because of the films he directed.


I started listing them to Marty—Spinal Tap, Stand By Me, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, Misery, A Few Good Men. Marty laughed and told me I was such a nerd. He couldn’t believe I thought of Rob Reiner first as a director rather than as “Meathead.” He insisted that I meet Rob. 


When he introduced us, he told Rob that I admired his work behind the camera. Rob seemed genuinely surprised. They both ribbed me for it.


We talked for maybe fifteen minutes—about baseball, growing up in New York, filmmaking. That was it. I’ve met hundreds of well-known people over the years, and I have very few photos to show for it. This one sits on a shelf in our living room.


Part of why it matters to me now has nothing to do with Rob Reiner at all. Marty died not long after that. He was the heart and soul of the team, and he died too young. When he was in the hospital, I went a few times and read the paper to him. I wish I had gone more. Marty’s death hit me much harder than I expected. 


That’s how these things work—you don’t know what will linger until it does.



My Relationship with Death: The Reset Reflex


I’ve come to understand that I have a different relationship with death than most people. It doesn’t paralyze me. It clarifies me.


When death enters my life, directly or indirectly, it forces a reckoning. I stop. I look around. I look back.


I look inside myself.


I take stock of what matters and what doesn’t. I reprioritize my life. Often, I change something.


It started early for me. I lost my father when I was five.


When that happens, you develop an awareness most children don’t have yet. You realize that anything can happen, and it isn’t all good.


You grow up fast.


There’s a profound sense of absence that follows me.


At times in my life it has felt like abandonment. At times,  it has felt like unfairness. The kind that breads a sadness or resentment. 


At its emotional core, it is a feeling of not belonging.


At other times it simply feels like a hole you can’t quite name. 


Labeling my emotions is skill I’ve failed to master despite more than half a century of effort.


I’m getting better, but I’m more tortoise than hare with this. 


With my dad, I’ve always been haunted by the feeling of not knowing him.


Growing up, I often felt like I didn’t belong because I didn’t have a dad.  Being asked to leave the scouts and other similar experiences in the 1970s and 1980s reinforced this phenomenon.   Empathy wasn't a defining characteristic of the post-Vietnam era. 


That early loss of a parent shaped me more than my young mind could comprehend at the time. Death became a forcing function. It stripped away illusion. It made me pragmatic. It also made me reflective, fueling my imagination and internal dialogue.   


My life and career advanced.  I graduated college, did a Coro Fellowship, started my career in public service, graduated law school, and went to work for the St. Louis Cardinals.   I was now older than my father was when he died. I had put that morbid milestone (29) in my mental rear-view window.   


Then in 2003, as we were working tirelessly to get financing to build the new ballpark, I lost someone who served as a mentor and father figure in my life.


Buzz Westfall was the St. Louis County Executive when he died at the age of 59 from a staph infection.


I had worked for him prior to joining the Cardinals. He was a larger-than-life personality. Funny. Engaging.


He was someone who was a joy to be around.  You counted yourself lucky to be his friend.   His death came out of nowhere.


I have replayed the last conversation I had with so many times in my head.


It was brief, humorous, and, like an episode of Seinfeld, not really about anything as he was headed to get a cortisone shot to help him manage his chronic back pain.


A few days later, he was in a drug-induced coma he would never awaken from.


His death hit me so hard that in the week’s following I had a panic attack, thinking I was dying of heart attack. 


It was like a scene out of the Sopranos.


My ambulance ride and time in the ER led me on a journey of stress tests, medication, and ultimately to my first visit to therapy. No, it wasn’t Dr. Melfi, but it allowed me to have more than a few “no shirt sherlock” sort of self-revelations - such as recalling the undiagnosed panic attacks I had in elementary school.   


The process helped me gain insight into myself.   


Then a few years later, my friend Marty died at the same young age of 59. 


While Marty wasn’t a father figure, he was someone I had grown close to professionally. 


I spent lots of time in trinket city trying to understand the business of baseball and internal politics of our front office.  Marty helped me get my footing and guide me to thrive in our unique organization. 


Grieving these losses shifted me personally and professionally. 


Then when my mother died in 2010, that reset button was pressed hard.


She had stage four lung cancer and was about to begin treatment, but it wasn’t the cancer that killed her—it was a pulmonary embolism.


I remember standing at her graveside, my wife experiencing a dangerous low blood sugar episode, and realizing with brutal clarity that something had to change.


I was obese. I was drinking. I wasn’t healthy. And in that moment, I decided.


I went on to lose over one hundred pounds. Later, in 2015, I stopped drinking altogether.


These weren’t cosmetic changes. They were existential ones.


Death has a way of demanding honesty.



Grief, Addiction, and the Stories We Flatten


One of the things that’s stayed with me in the aftermath of this recent reflection is how poorly we, as a society, tell stories about grief, addiction, and mental illness.


We still draw artificial distinctions between “mental” and “physical,” as though the brain were not part of the body. Addiction is treated as a moral failure rather than what it is: a dependence issue, a medical condition, a survival strategy gone wrong.


The stigma isn’t in drinking. The stigma is in admitting you have a problem. It’s in asking for help.


I know that stigma intimately.


When I first got sober, I hid it. I pretended to drink. That’s right, I pretended to consume alcohol, not the other way around. I bought root beer in bottles that looked like beer so I wouldn’t have to explain myself at a block party.   Crazy huh? 


I’ve come a long way in my sobriety since those days.


Today, I can enjoy social gatherings where people drink without feeling any need to explain myself.   


More than a decade of sobriety allows me to see how messed up my thinking was back then. Thinking I needed to drink to fit in or belong to group was dumb. But if you are surrounded by heavy drinkers, it is understandable.   We live in world where many see drinking as "normal" and not drinking as not normal. 


The biggest change I made thanks to my recovery journey is to stop being a people pleaser and caring about what others think. A friend of mine in recovery often says, “what you think of me is none of my damn business.”


But it’s impossible not to notice how often grief and addiction intertwine and how rarely we talk about that honestly.


Grief is the most complicated emotion there is. People reach for whatever helps them cope, and for many, that means alcohol.


Being sober, I do my best to keep my opinions to myself as I’m occasionally around those who are so dependent on alcohol that no occasion is without it. I focus on boundaries rather than judgment and being there for those I care about. 


 

Performative Grief and the Pressure to Speak


In the days following Reiner’s death, I noticed something else: the rush to comment. The posts. The tributes. The hot takes. The urge to be seen participating in the moment.


I felt that pressure too. And I resisted it.


There are times when speaking publicly is appropriate and necessary. And there are times when it feels unseemly, when the motivation is less about meaning and more about proximity to the news cycle.


Silence and listening, in those moments, can be a form of respect. God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. I feel the need to remind myself to listen more and talk less. While at times I feel compelled to offer my unsolicited thoughts with the world, this little mantra helps me refocus when I feel pressure – sourced internally or externally – to speak. 


Grieving is a process that takes time. Finding the right words to ease the grief of others isn’t easy. I believe timing matters. Reflection matters.  Knowing your audience and being intentional matters.


So instead of posting, I waited. I thought.


I stood in front of an old photograph and let it do its work on me before sharing my reflection on the remarkable filmmaker and storyteller I admired.



My Reflection: Storyteller First, Always


Reiner’s early fame came from acting, most notably as “Meathead” on All in the Family. That success earned credibility inside the system. But rather than stay in front of the camera, he moved deliberately behind it.


Reiner understood that acting could open doors, but story control lived elsewhere. Directing and producing were positions of authorship. They determined which stories were told, how they were shaped, and whose voices were elevated.


One of the most remarkable and underappreciated features of Reiner’s career was his range.  Very few directors have crossed genres so successfully without being typecast or sidelined.  Reiner understood that genre is a delivery system, not an identity. Story comes first.


Reiner’s films are also a masterclass in collaboration. He repeatedly aligned himself with elite writers and storytellers, including William Goldman, Nora Ephron, Aaron Sorkin, and adaptations of Stephen King.


Reiner consistently positioned himself as a story developer. He knew how to spot material, support writers, and protect the integrity of the narrative through production. In 1987, he co-founded Castle Rock Entertainment not to chase blockbusters, but to develop enduring stories.


Named after a fictional town in Stephen King’s work, the studio became known for writer-forward development, mid-budget, story-driven films. It was prestige without pretension. The studio also focused on long-tail television IP, including bringing us Seinfeld.


Castle Rock functioned as a story development engine, creating repeatable processes for identifying, shaping, and packaging narrative IP. That serves as a model for what we are developing with our studio. 


Eventually, Castle Rock was acquired, first by Turner Broadcasting, later by Warner Bros. Now it may become part of Netflix. 


With his storyprenuership, Reiner had converted creative authority into STORYSMART® enterprise value that endures beyond his life. That is the storyteller’s long game that I admire most. 



Being Charlie: When Storytelling Gets Personal


There is one film in Rob Reiner’s body of work that doesn’t fit neatly alongside the others.


In 2015, Reiner directed Being Charlie, a small, personal film about addiction, recovery, and the uneasy terrain between privilege and pain. The story was co-written by his son, Nick Reiner, drawing directly from Nick’s own experience with substance use disorder and treatment.


It was the only feature film Rob Reiner ever made with his son.


The film does not romanticize addiction, nor does it resolve neatly. It resists the kind of moral clarity Hollywood often demands.


Recovery is portrayed not as a finish line, but as a process, uneven, uncomfortable, and deeply personal. That honesty likely contributed to the film’s mixed reception. Stories like this rarely perform well when measured by conventional industry metrics.


 

What Death Keeps Teaching Me


If death has taught me anything, it’s this: clarity is a gift, especially when it arrives wrapped in loss.


Death has helped me let go of people-pleasing. It’s helped me understand that belonging and the nature of your relationship with others is revealed by those who show up, not by who promises to. It’s taught me the importance of boundaries, and the cost of ignoring them.


My grandfather used to say that funerals are for the living, not the dead. He was right.  You remember who comes. You remember who doesn’t. You learn where you stand. 


It is important to be there for those you care about to let them know they matter to you.


That lesson has stayed with me. I can personally attest to experiencing profound anagnorisis when another’s true nature is revealed in these key moments. 


Every encounter with death, real or imagined, reminds me that time is finite.


That stories matter.


That the way we live, the way we cope, and the way we show up for one another all count.


I don’t write this to offer answers.


I write it as an invitation to pause, reflect, and ask yourself what death has been trying to teach you.


Because eventually, it teaches us all.


By Ron Watermon May 19, 2026
What the Michael Jackson Biopic Teaches Us About Storytelling
By Ron Watermon May 5, 2026
Why "True Story" Horror is So Profitable
By Ron Watermon May 1, 2026
Why I'm Changing How I (and STORYSMART®) Tell Stories
By Ron Watermon April 26, 2026
How a Story of a U.S. Airman Shot Down in Iran is Already Becoming a Feature Film
By Ron Watermon April 21, 2026
Turning Photos into Cinematic Storytelling Assets
By Ron Watermon April 7, 2026
There are moments in your career that don’t feel particularly significant at the time, but years later, you realize they changed everything. The television show we started when I was with the St. Louis Cardinals, Cardinals Insider, is now heading into its 11th season. In an industry where most things don’t last, there’s something meaningful about building something that endures. While I've already shared the story of how the show almost didn’t happen, what’s been on my mind recently is what we were doing before it ever aired. For me the show was never the starting point, it was a destination on a journey that began seventeen years ago when I decided to fully commit to becoming a brand journalist. A Baseball Brand Journalist When I moved over to the Baseball Operations Department to work with our Media Relations team in September 2009, the media landscape looked very different than it does today. Social media was still in its infancy. We had exactly one platform we controlled, Twitter, and even that was a bit of a mess. Our account was @MLBstlcardinals, while Major League Baseball operated @stlcardinals out of New York. It was confusing for fans and limiting for us. But it also created an opportunity. Instead of waiting for others to tell our story, we decided to start telling it ourselves. Not as marketers, but as actual storytellers. More specifically, we adopted a mindset rooted in journalism. The fundamentals I learned years earlier in college—who, what, when, where, why, and how. The discipline of getting it right. The importance of clarity, structure, and credibility. We weren’t trying to spin the story. We were trying to tell it honestly, accurately, and from a clearly defined point of view. That point of view mattered. We made a promise to our audience: we would cover the team like journalists, but from the inside. We weren’t going to pretend to be something we weren’t. We were insiders. That was the advantage. And instead of hiding from it, we leaned into it. At the same time, we understood the responsibility that came with that position. We didn’t need to be first. We needed to be right. That meant establishing standards. It meant covering the good moments like the wins, the milestones, and the behind-the-scenes access fans couldn’t get anywhere else. But it also meant not ignoring the harder stories when they arose. Credibility was always at stake, and we treated it that way. I knew were building something. A system. A mindset. A way of approaching storytelling that went beyond promotion and into something far more durable. Over time, that approach evolved into a weekly TV show that’s still on the air more than a decade later. But none of that happens without what came first. The decision to think as brand journalists with a point of view. Brand Journalists with a Point of View What we were building in those early days didn’t look like much from the outside. There was no studio. No formal production schedule. No distribution strategy beyond posting to social media and linking out to photos and video. In fact, some of the earliest tools we used would feel almost laughable today.
By Ron Watermon April 2, 2026
St. Louis, April 1, 2026 - Last week I had one of those “ no shit, Sherlock ” moments where the obvious hits you all at once. I was thinking about Opening Day. Like I’ve done the past few years, I planned to share a throwback post from ten years ago. I dig into my photo archive, find a few cell phone images from seasons past, and put something out on social media. Posting doesn’t come naturally to me. I know that sounds ironic given what I do now, but I’ve never been particularly drawn to self-promotion or the performative nature of those platforms. After all, I’m a middle-aged introvert, not some Gen Z dude who grew up with social media and enjoys showing off. I hate shameless self-promotion and bragging. That said, I have a fellow Gen X friend who has been chirping at me for years to share more about my time with the St. Louis Cardinals. I headed her advice and started digging. What I found stopped me. As I worked my way through old photos, I realized that 2016 wasn’t just another season. It was the year we honored Lou Brock and the year we launched Cardinals Insider, the television show I developed and produced during my time with the club. That’s when it hit me. It has been a decade. And the show is not only still around— it’s thriving . I must tip my cap to my colleagues at the Cardinals as they have continued to invest in it, expand it, and build on the foundation we put in place back in 2016. It is truly remarkable. Seeing that now as I’ve transitioned my business into filmmaking, hit me in a profound way. It was literally an “aha” moment. Like a lot of entrepreneurs and creatives, I’ve wrestled with self-doubt. You question whether you’re on the right path. Whether the work you’re doing is building toward something. Realizing that this show that I fought to make happen has now run for more than a decade was affirming. Because the vision was never small. From the beginning, the goal was to build something self-sustaining that would continue to grow and evolve long after I was gone. And it has, big time. That realization couldn’t have happened form me at a better time.
By Ron Watermon March 25, 2026
For years, we’ve talked about the “creator economy” as if it exists somewhere outside of Hollywood. That distinction is collapsing. The recent partnership between TikTok and Tubi isn’t just another creator initiative or talent program. It’s more significant. It’s a signal that the infrastructure of the entertainment industry is being rebuilt quietly, efficiently, and right in front of us. And if you understand what’s happening here, you begin to see something I’ve been talking about for a long time through the STORYSMART® framework: The future of media belongs to those who originate, control, and develop their story IP—before anyone else does. The Headline Is Misleading—The Shift Is Not On its face, the announcement is straightforward. TikTok and Tubi are launching an incubator to help creators develop long-form series. Creators will lead the creative direction, TikTok will help identify talent, and Tubi will provide support and distribution. That sounds like a program. It’s not. It’s a system. What we’re witnessing is the formalization of a pipeline that has been developing organically for years: Short-form → Audience → Proof of Concept → Long-form → Monetization That pipeline used to be fragmented. It is now being institutionalized and that changes everything. A “New” Studio System Is Being Built To understand why this matters, it helps to zoom out. The traditional studio system operated like this. Studios sourced or acquired IP. Studios then developed the projects internally. They controlled production and distribution. Creators were hired to execute. In that model, power flowed downstream from the studio. What we’re seeing now is the inversion of that model. Today creators originate IP. They build audiences directly. Platforms identify what’s working and then invite creators upstream into long-form development. That’s not a minor shift. That’s a structural reorganization of the industry. Tubi isn’t just licensing content. It’s building a development pipeline fed by creators who already have validated ideas and audiences. They have built a following and are consistently engaging with that audience. TikTok isn’t just distributing content. It’s functioning as a global story testing engine. Put those together, and you don’t have a partnership. You have a modern studio system. Short-Form is the New Development Slate One of the biggest misconceptions creators still have is thinking of their short form content as the “end” product. It’s not. It’s the beginning. What used to be a script, a pitch deck, or a sizzle reel is now a feed. Every post is a test. Every series of posts is a proof of concept. Every engaged audience is a signal that there is an appetite for more. It is also validation of episodic entertainment. In Hollywood, development executives used to ask: Does this story work? Is there an audience? Can this scale and will we make money? Today, those questions are being answered in real time, publicly, on platforms like TikTok. The difference is speed and data. Instead of spending months developing a concept in a vacuum, creators are now essentially iterating ideas in public. They are refining tone, structure, and format. They are building an audience alongside the story, if you will. By the time a platform like Tubi gets involved, the risk profile has already changed. The story isn’t theoretical anymore. It’s proven. From Feed to Franchise This is where it gets interesting. Because once you understand that short form is development, you start to see the next phase: Episodic storytelling is the bridge from feed to franchise. Creators who succeed in this new ecosystem aren’t just posting content. They’re building narrative continuity. Think about it. They’re creating recurring characters, ongoing storylines, thematic consistency, and audience expectation. In other words, they’re doing what television has always done, just in shorter bursts. And that’s the key. The transition from short-form to long-form isn’t a leap. It’s an extension. When done correctly, a long-form series is simply a more expansive version of something that already works. That’s why this Tubi + TikTok model makes so much sense. It’s not about “teaching” creators how to make long-form content. It’s about identifying creators who are already thinking episodically and giving them the resources to scale. The Shift from Dependency to Leverage There’s another layer here that matters just as much. For years, creators have been dependent on platforms. Algorithms dictated visibility. Platforms controlled monetization. Distribution was the gate. That dynamic is shifting. What this partnership signals are that platforms are now competing for creators who bring something valuable to the table. They are looking for a built-in audience, fresh IP, and proven engagement. That’s leverage. All of this aligns directly with a core principle of our STORYSMART® philosophy. Don’t build your story on someone else’s platform. Build your story so platforms come to you. To be clear, that doesn’t mean ignoring platforms. It means using them strategically. I’m a big fan of the idea of non-dependent distribution. I’m inherently cynical about big monopolies and technology that touches us everywhere we go. But there’s a difference between being platform-dependent and being platform-leveraged. Creators who understand that distinction will be the ones who benefit most from these new models that are being pioneered. The STORYSMART® Lens: Why This Matters Everything we teach through STORYSMART® is built around a simple idea: your story is an asset. It is not content. It is not just a post or a one-off project. Your story is an asset that should be treated like any other asset. Like any asset, its value is determined by ownership, structure, how it is developed and how it is positioned in the market. What this Tubi + TikTok initiative validates is that the market is now actively seeking well-developed story assets originated by creators. But most creators aren’t prepared. They have content. They have audience. They even have momentum. But what they often lack is a clear story architecture and well-organized, copyright-protected source material with clear rights clarity and smart development strategy. That’s where the gap is. And that gap is exactly what the STORYSMART® framework is designed to solve. Because when a platform comes calling, the question becomes are you ready to scale your story or are you just reacting to the opportunity? The STORYSMART® Media Mogul Mindset This is where mindset becomes strategy. The creators who will win in this new environment are the ones who stop thinking like content creators and start thinking like media companies. That means treating short form as development, not output. It means building stories intentionally, not accidentally. Most importantly, it means understanding right and ownership from day one and structuring projects for long-term value. It’s the difference between “I have a following” and “I have an IP pipeline.” That’s the STORYSMART® Media Mogul Mindset. And it’s no longer optional. Because the industry is moving in that direction with or without you. Why This Moment Matters Right Now Timing is everything. We’re at a point where several forces are converging. Streaming platforms need cost-efficient, proven content. Creator platforms have massive talent pools and data. Audiences are already conditioned for episodic, bite-sized storytelling and technology has democratized access to quality production. That convergence creates opportunity. But it also creates competition. Because as more creators enter this space, the differentiator won’t be who can create content. It will be who can develop story. That’s a higher bar. And it’s where professionals such as filmmakers, journalists, and writers have an edge if they adapt. The Big Picture So no, this story isn’t really about TikTok or Tubi. It’s about the emergence of a new system where development starts in public, validation happens in real time, and platforms act as accelerators, not gatekeepers. Creators who understand story and smart deal structure will rise to the top. Hollywood isn’t going to disappear. It is decentralizing. And in doing so, it is creating more entry points than ever before. But access without strategy doesn’t lead to ownership. And ownership is where the real value is created. If you’re a creator, a filmmaker, a public figure, or someone sitting on a story that matters, this moment should feel both exciting and clarifying. Because the path is becoming more visible. Start with your story. Develop it intentionally. Build your audience. Structure your IP. Then scale. That’s how you go from feed to franchise. And that’s how you operate in a world where the new studio system isn’t coming. It’s already here. With the right media lens, you can see it hiding in plain sight.
By Ron Watermon March 24, 2026
I recently watched All the Empty Rooms, the Academy-Award winning documentary short film on Netflix and I haven’t been able to shake it. Not because it’s loud or dramatic. It’s not. In fact, it’s the opposite. It’s quiet. Patient. It lingers. It is honest and simple. And it is quite powerful. I think that is why it stays with me. Watching it, I realized that this wasn’t something that suddenly became a film. This was something that had been unfolding for years. Seven years, to be exact. It didn’t begin as a documentary project. That’s the part I think matters most, especially if you’ve spent any time in journalism. Because films like this don’t come out of nowhere. They come out of work that, in many cases, has already been done. I think there is a lesson here for all storytellers, but journalists especially. It Started the Way These Stories Often Start It started with reporting. It started with showing up, asking questions, and building trust over time. Sadly, the journalist at the center of All the Empty Rooms had been covering school shootings for years. Not just parachuting in for headlines, but returning, revisiting, staying in relationship with the people living in the aftermath. And over time, something shifted. When you cover enough of these stories, there’s a risk that sets in, not just for the audience, but for the person doing the work. A kind of cultural numbness. Another headline. Another mass shooting tragedy. Another news cycle. I think what began to take hold for the journalist was a discomfort with that rhythm. Because what he was seeing up close didn’t feel like headlines. It felt like lives that had been interrupted. Rooms that had been left behind. Families carrying something that doesn’t resolve. CBS journalist Steve Hartman started to realize that the way these stories were being told, fast, efficient, fact-driven, wasn’t capturing what he was experiencing. For him the question became: What would it look like to tell this differently? The Ethical Weight of Going Deeper That question isn’t just creative. It’s ethical. Because once you decide to go deeper, you’re asking something of people. You’re asking to enter their space. Their homes. And in this case, that wasn’t taken lightly. In fact, there was real hesitation. A kind of dread, even, about what it would mean to show up with a film crew and ask families, who had already been through so much, to open their doors again. There’s a line you don’t want to cross. As a journalist, you’re trained to be mindful of that. To not exploit. To not intrude. And yet, something unexpected happened. Families said yes. Not because they wanted to relive the worst moment of their lives. But because they understood what he was trying to do. He wasn’t there to document the tragedy. He was there to document the life. That distinction matters. He was interested in who their child was. What they loved. What filled those rooms before they were empty. In a way, he was helping them protect something that felt at risk of being lost—not just memory, but identity. Not just how their child died, but how they lived. The Power of Small Details That intention shows up in the way the film is constructed. There’s no rush to get to the point. No urgency to explain everything. Instead, the camera lingers. On photographs. On objects. On rooms that still hold the shape of someone who isn’t there anymore. And that’s where the film does something that reporting alone can’t. Because when you read an article, you move at the pace of information and your deadline. When you watch a film like this, you move at the pace of presence. You sit in it. You notice things you might otherwise pass over. A jersey on the wall. A bed that hasn’t been made. A photograph that suddenly carries more weight than it ever did before. Those details don’t just support the story. They are the story. A Deliberately Narrow Frame One of the most interesting creative decisions in All the Empty Rooms is how narrow it is. This isn’t a sweeping examination of school violence. It doesn’t try to cover every angle or offer a comprehensive analysis like college thesis. It stays focused. Photographing rooms. The elements are rooms. Photographs. Fragments of conversation. Personal video clips. A reporter carrying the weight of the story. And the reporting journey that ties it all together. That constraint is what gives it power. Because instead of expanding outward, the film goes inward. It doesn’t try to explain everything. It lets you feel something. And that’s a different kind of storytelling. Why This Became a Short Film I think this is where a lot of people misunderstand the role of short films. There’s an assumption that a short is just a smaller version of a feature. But in cases like this, the short format isn’t a limitation. Quite the opposite. This film works because it’s compressed. Because it doesn’t overextend. Because it trusts that the weight of what you’re seeing doesn’t need to be stretched into something bigger to be meaningful. In fact, doing so might have diluted it. What you have here is essentially a single premise: What remains after someone is gone. And instead of building that into a broader narrative with multiple arcs and threads, the film stays with that premise. It isn’t overthinking it. It is built with quiet observation. Verité. Silence. Detail. It is powerful because of that. It becomes immersive precisely because it doesn’t try to be expansive. And that’s a lesson in and of itself. Not every story needs to be bigger. Some stories need to be more focused. The Moment the Story Changed If you step back and look at this from a process standpoint, there’s a moment in every project like this where something shifts. Where the person doing the work realizes: This isn’t just an article. That moment doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes from accumulation. From years of interviews. From relationships that have been built. From material that has been gathered but not fully used. Because in journalism, you often collect far more than you publish. You distill. You compress. You extract what fits the format and your deadline. But the full story - the conversations, the pauses, the emotional texture— often stays behind. In filmmaking, that’s the raw material. And in this case, that material had been building for years. Seven years of it. At some point, the realization becomes unavoidable: There’s more here. Talk to any journalist and they will tell you they wish they had more time and space to go deeper and tell the more impactful story. I’m grateful that Steve Hartman and photographer Lou Bopp embarked on this journey together and decided to go the next step of bringing in Joshua Seftel to document the journey. What This Says About Journalism This is the part that keeps coming back to me. Because if you’re a journalist, none of this should feel foreign. You already know how to find stories. You know how to build trust. You know how to ask the questions that matter. You’re already doing the hardest part. What’s different is how that work gets developed. In journalism, the goal is to make deadline. In filmmaking, the goal is to build something that can be experienced over time. And that shift from output to development is where I see the biggest gap. Because most stories are treated as something you finish. You write them. You publish them. You move on. You’re on the deadline hamster wheel. That is how I felt working in baseball. After today’s game, we haven another game, and another and so on. But in the context of this story, what if that’s not the end? What if it’s the beginning? The Stories That Stay with You Every journalist I know has a few stories that don’t leave them. The ones that stick. The ones where the relationship didn’t end when the article was published or the story was broadcast. The ones where you know, deep down, that you only told part of it. Those are the stories I think about when I watch a film like All the Empty Rooms. Because those are the stories that have the potential to become something more. Not because they’re bigger. But because they’re deeper. From Reporting to Filmmaking When I talk about STORYSMART®, one of the core ideas I come back to is this: You’re not just creating content. You’re creating assets. And what you have, if you’ve been doing this work for any length of time, is a body of material that likely goes far beyond what you’ve published. Interviews. Audio. Video. Notes. Relationships. Access. Ideas that won’t leave your head. Probably multiple story angles and competing ideas fight for primacy in your brain. I know I get that way. It is almost like a March Madness bracket of ideas that pull at your heart. I’m here to tell you that all of body of work in your files are storytelling source materials. It might be the foundation of a film, but it only becomes that if you recognize it. If you treat it as something worth developing. If you think beyond the first version of the story and you are willing to collaborate with others to take it to the next level. Coming Back to the Rooms When I think about All the Empty Rooms, I don’t just think about what’s on screen. I think about everything that made it possible. The years of reporting. The relationships that were built. The trust that was earned. The hesitation that had to be worked through. The decision to go deeper. The willingness to give back and share a gift with the families you covered. And ultimately, the choice to tell the story in a way that resists the pace of everything else around it. To slow down. To sit with absence. To let the rooms speak. That doesn’t happen by accident. The Question I Keep Coming Back To If you’re reading this and you’ve spent time reporting, I think there’s a simple question worth asking: What story have you already told that isn’t finished? Not unfinished because you didn’t do the work. Unfinished because there’s more there than the format allowed you to share. Those ideas fighting to advance further. I can tell you this for fact: there are stories sitting in notebooks, in transcripts, in hard drives right now that have the potential to become something far more enduring than a single article. In some rare cases, it might be something like All the Empty Rooms. Something that doesn’t just inform. But stays with you. From reporting to something that lasts in the hearts and minds of your audience. And once you start to see your work through that lens, you begin to realize the story may already be there. The question is whether you’re willing to follow it a little further. About the Storytelling for ALL® Newsletter The Storytelling for ALL® LinkedIn Newsletter is a biweekly newsletter examining how stories are developed, protected, and brought to life in today’s evolving storytelling economy. Every other week, I explore the creative, ethical, and economic forces shaping books, films, documentaries, and other story work through the lens of development, rights, collaboration, and long-term value. Written primarily for creators and collaborators, the newsletter also serves story sources who want to understand how their true stories move from lived experience to finished work and how better structure early leads to better outcomes later. For deeper studio thinking, tools, and updates, The STORYSMART® Way is our monthly email newsletter for members of the Storytelling for ALL® community. About Our STORYSMART® Perspective We approach storytelling and filmmaking as a long-term, rights-first business rather than a project-by-project creative exercise. Our focus is on understanding how stories create value over time through ownership, disciplined development, and thoughtful risk management. The ideas shared here are intended to contribute to a broader conversation about sustainable, independent media, not to promote specific projects or investment opportunities.
By Ron Watermon March 9, 2026
In 1989, something unusual happened in Hollywood. An actor who was already one of the biggest stars in the world decided to take less money. That actor was Jack Nicholson. The film was Batman. And the role was the Joker. Nicholson could have demanded a massive paycheck. At the time, he was already commanding salaries around $10 million per film, extraordinary money in the late 1980s. Instead, he negotiated a different kind of deal. He took a lower upfront salary and asked for something far more interesting: A share of the upside. Specifically, Nicholson negotiated participation in the film’s gross box office, along with revenue from licensing and merchandising tied to the character and the film. While estimates vary, the consensus is that his deal ultimately earned him somewhere between $60 million and $90 million. For a film released in 1989, that was staggering. But the bigger story isn’t just how much money Nicholson made. The real lesson is how he thought about value. Nicholson wasn’t just negotiating as an actor. He was negotiating like a partner in a story. And that mindset of understanding the economic value of storytelling offers a masterclass for anyone working in the creative economy today. A Time When Batman Was a Risk It’s easy to forget how uncertain the project looked at the time. It was a different world then. It wasn’t a foregone conclusion that the film would be successful. Today, Batman is one of the most valuable franchises in entertainment history. But in the late 1980s, the character’s most prominent screen appearance was the campy 1960s television series starring Adam West that I watched in syndication growing up in 70s and early 80s. The darker, cinematic version we now associate with Batman didn’t yet exist. It was more “cartoonish” and cheesier. Rebooting Batman for the big screen was a risk. The studio taking that gamble was Warner Bros., and the director attached to reinvent the character was Tim Burton, who at the time had directed Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure and Beetlejuice, was considered talented but unconventional. The film was a major bet. But Nicholson understood something important about bets. They become less risky when the right people attach themselves to them. He understood the leverage he had, as well as impact his involvement would have in the production. When Nicholson agreed to play the Joker, the project immediately gained credibility. His involvement signaled to audiences, investors, and the industry that this wasn’t just another comic book adaptation. It was an event. That’s the power of attaching talent to a project. Certain names bring legitimacy. They bring attention. They bring marketing gravity. And they often bring audiences. In other words, they bring financial value. It is what they mean by “bankable name.” Nicholson knew that his name would dramatically increase the film's chances of success. So instead of treating the project as just another acting job, he negotiated accordingly. Like a vested partner. The Bet That Paid Off The gamble worked. Batman became a global blockbuster, grossing more than $400 million worldwide, an enormous number at the time. It launched a new era of comic book films and helped establish the modern superhero franchise model. But perhaps even more importantly, it helped unlock the long-term value of the Batman intellectual property. That value didn’t end with one movie. It became a massive money-producing story franchise with all kinds of derivatives springing from that success. Over the decades that followed, Batman became a massive portfolio of storytelling assets: films, animated series, television shows, merchandise, licensing deals, games, streaming content, and more. The cumulative value of that franchise now reaches into the multi-billions. That is the power of story-driven intellectual property. It compounds. Nicholson understood that dynamic before most people in Hollywood did. By negotiating participation in the story's success, not just his performance, he aligned himself with the long-term economics of the franchise. In effect, Nicholson traded short-term certainty for long-term participation. And he won. He won big. Why This Deal Changed Hollywood Nicholson’s deal didn’t just make headlines. It helped change how creative talent thinks about compensation. For A-listers, it became a template. It impacted the talent market like how a big free-agent deal in baseball impacts other players entering free agency. The market is always moving. The entertainment industry is no different. For decades, actors were largely paid salaries. The studio took the financial risk and the studio captured most of the upside. Nicholson’s agreement demonstrated something different. He learned a lot from his One Flew Over Cookies Nest back-end deal. “Do I look like the kind of clown that can start a movement?” the Joker once asked. Well, Nicholson wasn’t crazy or joking. He started something. Looking back now, it is a masterclass lesson for us. When key talent contributes meaningfully to a project's success, sharing in the upside makes sense. It aligns incentives. It rewards creativity. And it encourages collaboration. It creates more “ownership” in an agency and incentive context. Today, backend participation is common for top actors, directors, and producers. It’s now an expected part of major deals in Hollywood. But deals like that didn’t appear out of nowhere. They evolved because people like Nicholson demonstrated that creative talent could think like partners, not just hired hands. That shift changed the economics of filmmaking, and it reinforced a fundamental truth about storytelling businesses: The story is the asset. All who contribute to it should share in the rewards. Why Story IP Matters More Than Ever This idea becomes even clearer when you look at the broader business context of the entertainment industry today. Major studios aren’t valuable just because of their production capabilities. Their true value often lies in their libraries of intellectual property, the characters, stories, and worlds they own and control. Those catalogs have generated revenue across multiple platforms for decades. Smart stewardship of IP is a critical cornerstone of how creators should be approaching their work in our modern media landscape. Anything otherwise would be malpractice in my mind. While the world is buzzing about two other letters – “A” and “I” – Artificial Intelligence, the smart folks are focused on two letters that are much more important – “I” and “P”. Intellectual Property. Big catalogs of IP are one of the reasons companies like Warner Bros. Discovery remain attractive targets for mergers and acquisitions. Their balance sheets contain something incredibly valuable: vast collections of storytelling IP that can be exploited to create wealth for decades to come. Every time a classic property is rebooted, adapted, streamed, licensed, or merchandised, the value of those assets continues to grow. Batman is one of those crown jewels. And Nicholson recognized that long before most people were talking about “IP portfolios.” He understood that when you participate in a great story, you’re participating in an asset that can live far beyond a single production. It can live on well past you. It can create profound generational wealth. I think about that a lot. A kid from Missouri drew a cartoon mouse and built an empire that now carries my Mizzou basketball and football games. That is the power of creative IP. The Lesson for Creators Today Jack Nicholson’s deal offers several lessons for creators working today, especially independent filmmakers, writers, and producers. First, creative contribution has economic value. Actors, writers, directors, editors, and producers all contribute to the success of a project. When their work meaningfully improves the story, it increases the value of the final asset. Second, attaching talent changes everything. Projects gain legitimacy when respected collaborators join them. Investors feel more confident. Audiences pay attention. Momentum builds. This dynamic plays out constantly in the film industry. The right director, writer, or actor can transform how a project is perceived. Third, shared upside creates alignment. When everyone involved in a project contributes to its success, they show up differently. The energy shifts from “this is my job” to “this is our project.” That difference can be enormous. And that principle brings me to something I’m experiencing firsthand. Building a Film the Nicholson Way I’m currently directing a documentary film that I believe has the potential to reach audiences meaningfully. Like many independent projects, it’s being produced on a modest budget. But one of the ways we’re approaching the project is directly inspired by the philosophy behind Nicholson’s deal. Instead of trying to pay everyone large upfront fees, which would be impossible on an independent budget, we’ve structured agreements that combine modest compensation with generous backend participation. In other words, we’re sharing the upside. That approach allowed us to attach talented collaborators who believe in the story and want to help bring it to life at the highest level. The goal is simple: Produce a film that looks like it cost ten or twenty times what it did. That becomes possible when people care deeply about the outcome. When everyone has a stake in the project's success, the creative energy multiplies. The Philosophy Behind STORYSMART ® This idea of shared upside isn’t just a tactic for one film. It’s part of a broader philosophy that guides the work we’re building with STORYSMART ® . Storytelling is fundamentally collaborative. Great stories are rarely created by a single person working alone. They are built by teams of talented people bringing their skills together. When those collaborators share in the story's success, everyone wins. Creators feel valued. Projects attract stronger talent, and the resulting stories become more powerful. Jack Nicholson may not have used the language of “story IP strategy” when he negotiated his Batman deal, but he clearly understood the underlying economics. He recognized that the true value wasn’t just the paycheck for playing the Joker. The real value was the story itself and the franchise it could become. By betting on that story, Nicholson didn’t just play the Joker. He rewrote the rules of creative economics, and more than three decades later, the lesson still holds. When everyone shares the upside, everyone cares more about the outcome. That simple idea may be one of the most powerful tools storytellers have. About the Storytelling for ALL ® Newsletter The Storytelling for ALL ® LinkedIn Newsletter is a biweekly newsletter examining how stories are developed, protected, and brought to life in today’s evolving storytelling economy. Every other week, I explore the creative, ethical, and economic forces shaping books, films, documentaries, and other story work through the lens of development, rights, collaboration, and long-term value. Written primarily for creators and collaborators, the newsletter also serves as a resource for story sources who want to understand how their true stories move from lived experience to finished work and how better structuring early leads to better outcomes later. For deeper studio thinking, tools, and updates, The STORYSMART ® Way is our monthly email newsletter for members of the Storytelling for ALL ® community. About Our STORYSMART ® Perspective We approach storytelling and filmmaking as a long-term, rights-first business rather than a project-by-project creative exercise. Our focus is on understanding how stories create value over time through ownership, disciplined development, and thoughtful risk management. The ideas shared here are intended to contribute to a broader conversation about sustainable, independent media, not to promote specific projects or investment opportunities.
Show More