ATTACHING TALENT

[Enigma]

Anybody care to discuss the pros and cons of attaching talent to a script?

[Joe Calabrese]

Assuming you get an A list actor.
The good. 1. You have a bankable actor to create interest in reading the script. 2. The actor probably has their own prod co and will cobble in as one of the producers which in turn will help get a project shown to other companies and eventually greenlit.
The bad. 1. The producer may have others in mind or may have contractual obligations to use a certain actor for their next project. 3. The studio may not want that actor. 3. There are so many politics involved in casting a movie that having a lead already cast before the sale may hurt you.

If you have a B or C list actor.
Only the bad. The producer may want an A list actor.

Bottom line for me is that an actor with fame can bring attention to your script that otherwise wouldn't have had it. It can makes things easier to get a sale, BUT it can bite you on the butt too. Like many things we do, it's a gamble but I would only approach A list actors/directors who have their own prod co. I would never try and attach a lesser known actor.

[Enigma]

Interesting, and appreciated.

In looking at Letter(s) Of Intent, they are about as legally binding to either party as a political promise. Producers, agents and managers surely know that too.

[Boo_Radley]

If you have a B or C list actor.
Only the bad. The producer may want an A list actor.

This brings rise to a question of my own...

In the last few months, after completing a final draft of my screenplay Wrath of God, a filmmaking friend of mine in Georgia and I have been showing the script around to some indie/b-movie actors and actresses. We've got some amazingly wonderful responses from such "lower level" actors as Debbie Rochon (who emailed an emphatic reply of "I LOVED it! And yes, I want to play the wife!") and Brinke Stevens ("I loved Lonnie's [that's me] script, loads of tension and suspense, please keep me in the loop!") as well as folks like Linnea Quigley, Will Keenan and Trent Haaga, among others.

These actors being of the so-called B- or C-Level, would you recommend not including them in a query? And as clarification, I'm not being sarcastic at all...but if it's going to hurt my chance of selling my script on spec then I think it's good to know, no matter how big a fan of, or how friendly I am with, any of those mentioned above.

Incidentally, I'm both...so here's to hoping they don't read this LOL

[Joe Calabrese]

Going after the horror scream queens, heh?

If your film is a genre film, such as a low budget horror, then attaching these fine young women would be good. After all, these are the actresses who make these films and the fans go to see them as much as the film.

So, although I said stay away from B people, if your film is a B film then they are really A actresses for the genre.

Just make sure you pitch to companies that make these kinds of films.

Make sense?

[Boo_Radley]

Well, therein lies the dilemma...I have no intention at all of it being a b-movie cheesy horror flick. Those are just the only actors I have any kind of contact with. Trust me, if I was friendly with someone like Willem Dafoe (who I had in mind from the get-go as the protagonist) I'd have called him up from the get go lol

[NikeeGoddess]

do any of your contacts have contacts? if they love the script and have proven success even with low budget horror they may be able to help you get your foot in the door.

and yeah, everybody wants an A-list actor but there are many B-list actors who have their own production company. do some research. in fact, there is a post of mine somewhere on this board where i list about 10 of them and their companies. and hundreds of movies are made with B-list or tv actors. you've seen them. also many cable channels make their own movies too.

[Enigma]

Something to consider: all "A List" talent was, at one time or another, was on the "B List, and when they started out, the "No List."

Contrary to popular opinion, actors are humans too and they are mostly ambitious, and they want to do bigger and better films so they can make the "A List." No one starts out as the CEO of a major corporation, yet everybody wants to get there. So it is with acting? I think so.

A suggestion might be to approach a talent that is on his or her way up to the "A List" rung on the ladder. They have the incentive and might be more willing to take risks than would an "established star."

Agents only want to hear the word MONEY mentioned in a conversation but managers, well, they're looking at the long haul for their client and are far more receptive to listening to a writer, especially if he has a good script and a plan.

Case in point; anyone recall what Clint Eastwood got for doing those five or so "Spaghetti Westerns?" They were all "B" films and he was a "B List" actor at the time.

[Joe Calabrese]

While it is true that A's were B's and B's were C's at one time in their careers, a studio or producer, however, only cares about making the film the best they can and making the most money they can.

It's one thing to make a film with a B actor when an A won't or can't do it, but to limit themselves and forced to use a B or pay off a B to get an A is more trouble than worth and may cause them to pass on your script.

Producers want total control over a project and unless you are offering them something great (either by attachments or the script itself), they may not like what you have already forced them to do.

As for catching a rising star, that too is difficult to determine. What constitutes a rise? By the time they are on your radar, they may already be out of reach.

[Demonica]

I worked for a NYC indie producer for a while, and the maneuvering was all about getting a star attached, preferably someone on the A-list. I was amazed by his ability to let rejection roll off his back and just be incredibly persistent.

He was in pursuit of Samuel Jackson once. He had played pool with him at Sundance, but that was the extent of his acquantance. However, he knew SJ was working on location and that there were only a few hotels in the area. He called the most likely and said he was calling from a food company and had a gift delivery of fresh salmon for SJ. He just wanted to confirm they could sign for it because it was being sent Fed Ex. The helpful desk clerk said they could.

The "salmon" was a script and SJ was in fact hooked. Sadly, although he was attached to the project it has yet to be produced.

For all his efforts, the only film he actually produced in the two years I worked for him was funded by the filmmaker himself. Fortunately he also produced industrials which paid for the office and my services. It was an eye-opening time for me. I read so many mediocre or not-quite scripts that I started to doubt my own instincts. Very occasionally there would be one that read like a film. Writers would often suggest actors they had envisioned playing the roles in their cover letters, but saying they had "attached" someone would only read as "excess baggage."

If you want to direct or produce yourself, that would be a different matter. Otherwise, I think directing your energies towards attaching stars would be misguided, at least in NY. Maybe its different on the other coast where the real money is.

[Enigma]

Man, I don't know what you guys are reading into a Letter Of Intent but the one I have in front of me right now ain't a legally binding contract! There's nothing of value exchanged. No money is mentioned. No time, or a promise made that a contractual agreement must be worked out.

The talent simply states (paraphrasing), "... I like the story and the role and if it comes together and if the money offered is okay and if I'm available when you might want to shoot it, etc., etc., okay, I might consider it." The cotten'-pickin' thing is only 58 words long, not including the signature. It isn't notorized nor have witness' signed it. It's just a letter saying, "Sure, I'm interested," and nothing more.

In all fairness and decency, however, I wouldn't think of asking a talent to attach if I didn't honestly think they could do the role and I wouldn't think a talent would put their name to such a letter if they didn't agree.

But a legally binding contract? No way. Moral, yes. But that's just me and what I believe in doesn't count.

The good that can come of it is that the writer will attract attention to his script because a "name" is attached, which says it's worth a read. That and in raising money and/or possible financial interest - to go along with the attached talent and attached money (Letter Of Interest, which are equally non-binding, BTW).

I'm hearing all reasons a producer can pass on a project, and advice not to risk doing anything, because it might offend somebody. But what about the potential gains, reasons to take a look?

[Joe Calabrese]

There are several levels of attachments with a letter of intent being one and less binding. Even still, although a letter of intent is not legally binding and a producer can wipe his butt with it and tell the actor or attached person to take a flying leap, it would cause undue tension, in which, the producer would get a name for him/herself for screwing people. Using your Clint Eastwood example, if and when Clint becomes an A list actor, do you think he would ever want to work with that producer who dropped him from an attachment? Do you think Clint would tell others?

The entire industry runs on many levels on a handshake and a smile, but that is neither here nor there.

The more important issue is that the producer wants to read the script and say "I love this and I know someone who would be great for this part," not "Who is this nobody, presumptuous writer to tell me who I should consider hiring?" He's gonna read the script with some degree of contempt, if he even reads it.

Unless you got someone BIG attached that can guarantee 1000+ screens, you might as well not have anyone, because you are stepping on toes that would be better off unstepped, or that "name" means nothing to the producer. He might say, "So what if Joe Shmoe liked this and wants the lead, who is Joe Smhoe anyway?" You might as well have your neighbor who acted in communtiy theatre attached.

If your script is that good, it doesn't need atachments to get it read. Focus on that more and you'll be ahead of the game.

[Joe Calabrese]

I want to follow up with something that may offend but I feel it is the awful truth. Of course their are exceptions.

I believe there is this misconception on how revered and respected screenwriters are in the industry. Sure many have grown to power and respect and can dictate to the powers that be, but a vast majority of working writers are unsung and unknown. I know personally several working pros with real credits pitching everyday to producers just like us newbies. At least they have a track record and can get read more easily.

An analogy I use many times which brings a chuckle is:

Making a film is like a traditional nuclear family. The producer is the father who brings home the money and manages it. He is also the disciplinarian when things get out of hand. The director is the mother who guides and nurtures the children (cast and crew) to be the best they can be and also keeps the house organised and well run.

So you ask, "What family role does the writer play?"

He is the sperm donor. Without the writer there would be no family, but once the sample is obtained and the family is created, the mother and father quickly forget there ever was one and raise the family based on their own beliefs and vision.

All those rules about not telling the reader camera directions or pitching a script with attachments all fall under the family's roles. How would you like it if a surrogate mother or sperm donor knocked on your door with ideas for raising your family?

[Chesher Cat]

I want to follow up with something that may offend but I feel it is the awful truth. Of course their are exceptions.

He is the sperm donor. Without the writer there would be no family, but once the sample is obtained and the family is created, the mother and father quickly forget there ever was one and raise the family based on their own beliefs and vision.

All those rules about not telling the reader camera directions or pitching a script with attachments all fall under the family's roles. How would you like it if a surrogate mother or sperm donor knocked on your door with ideas for raising your family?

Ouch!

I guess that goes for the guys but what about us nurturing female screenwriters who are lacking sperm?

[IWrite]

I believe there is this misconception on how revered and respected screenwriters are in the industry. Sure many have grown to power and respect and can dictate to the powers that be, but a vast majority of working writers are unsung and unknown. I know personally several working pros with real credits pitching everyday to producers just like us newbies. At least they have a track record and can get read more easily.
Joe - So sad and so true. I know writer's who have not been invited to the premiere's of movies they've written. Pseudo-celebs like Paris Hilton get invites to premieres and the writer doesn't.

And the lack of respect can extend to known, successful writers as well. Read "Monster" by John Gregory Dunne or William Goldman's "Adventures in the Screen Trade."

[Enigma]

[QUOTE=IWrite]Joe - ... I know writer's who have not been invited to the premiere's of movies they've written. Pseudo-celebs like Paris Hilton get invites to premieres and the writer doesn't.QUOTE]

I attended one years back and the only way you'd get me to another, even if I wrote it, is, one, pay me a great deal of money, two, put a gun in my back or, three, if Paris Hilton is going to be there - stark naked! Naw, forget Hilton and her bare parts. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif As you might tell, I for one am not into this cult of celeb worship.

They're all staged and phoney as hell anyway, and painful, having to listen to sucking sounds being made all night.

Questions: do investors get an invitation? http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif And what is the reason writers are frequently not invited, wanted or even allowed to step foot on the set? I've witnessed the answer to that one too, and, brother, it sure ain't pretty.

[TheZenWriter]

This is such a broad and encomplassing question it's hard for me to pick a jump in spot. Talent is another engine for the script. There has been a number of movies that have launhed careers and resurected them on the image of a big name star.

Even B stars can get interest, or funding to get projects off the ground. At the spec level there is no need to coveat a star for your script.

A normal and on going procedure is directors finding talent for a script they like written from a spec level writer, (unrepped)

Best, TZW

[Joe Calabrese]

Writers are generally not on set (unless a spot rewrite is needed) for several reasons, the most important of which is that they are not needed, except for rewrites mentioned before.

Just as your primary care physician who initially discovered the lump in your belly wouldn't be invited to the surgery to remove your colon cancer, a writer is not invited on set because they can't help the director direct or the DP light the shot. They are at that point useless. And they may stick their nose in it-- something the director and producer doesn't want.

Something we all have to remember is that once you sell your script, it's their baby. Sure you will be in the development meetings during preproduction and hopefully do the rewrites too. There is where you will help the principals by explaining your script and characters, but then again, they have their vision and you have to live with it-- good or bad.

Now. Learn from my mistakes.

Years ago, early in my career, I wrote a low budget horror and it was sold and made. I made a decent amount up front but promise of a huge back end. I had so many problems with the director and producer that I eventually left the project on bad terms and told them to take my name off the project, which they happily did. I lost the back end money as well. Boy was that a mistake. Even though a direct to video, it still made almost a million profit and I lost about 75K. Although it was a sale and I do have an "uncredit" on IMDB, as a result, I burned some bridges with that bone head move. You got to be a player if you want to play in this business.

As for investors-- yes, they go to premieres.