agent or lawyer?

[preyer]

i corresponded very briefly with an author who i asked who his agent was because i was writing the same type of novels he got published. he said that since he switched to writing scripts, he got rid of his agent and went with an entertainment lawyer (not sure if i remember if he used the word 'entertainment' or not, but that was the upshot of it).

who, then, is best at getting me the best contract and protecting my interests, an agent or lawyer? what % do agents get for a script? different for a lawyer, or would that be more of an hourly fee? is a lawyer for those who are already established sellers?

[icerose]

I am really new at this so this is just my opinion, but a lawyer (in my eyes) has been for advice and helping you with contracts and such. I don't think I have ever seen a lawyer do what an agent does. An agent is the guy making contacts. Now if you had all your own contacts then a lawyer would make sense because they could make sure your contracts were on the up and up, but I don't really see how they could replace an agent.

:Shrug: Maybe Joe will know.

[JustinoXXV]

There are entertainment lawyers who shops scripts around for you. And a lot of agents used to be lawyers.

[icerose]

Wow, cool. Didn't know that. Kill two birds with one stone.

[NikeeGoddess]

the necessity for screenwriters vs novel writers to have a lawyer or an agent may not be the same. if you are a screenwriter then you should have an agent first, then a lawyer b/c your agent needs to find a buyer before you need the lawyer for the sale.

[Joe Calabrese]

Quick definitions.

Managers manages your career. He has contacts or makes contacts with agents and producers and introduces you to them. He almost always has fewer clients than an agent and can give you more time as such. He is a mentor to bounce ideas off of and see if they are marketable. They know a lot of the little fish (producers) and troll for contacts where ever they can find them. Managers also look for writing assigments and other money making oportunities. The take anywhere from 5% to 15%, usually 10%

Agents manage your work. He/she takes your individual scripts and gets them to the right people. Agents, especially larger ones, tend to have more studio connections and tend to also rep actors, directors as well which is a bigger contact list to get your workout there. Some do read your WIP and advise but most do not have timeor inclination to do so, unless your really established and have a relationship. They do and can negotiate a contract for you. They get 10% by law.

Laywers negotiate the contract. Some have connections and can get your work out there. None will mentor your your career as far as I know. Some work on an hourly rate ($100 to $300 and hour with the avarage contract costing you anywhere from a couple of hundred to a few thousand) some and/or take a percentage, usually around 10%

There's much more to this, but this is a generalized explaination.

A few good books to read:

How the Writer got Screwed
Breakfast with Sharks

[Mac H.]

I just came across a rather interesting discussion of the 'Agent .v. Manager' - from the point of view of Producers.

One beautiful quote :

[The manager] ... more often than not is given the pacifying title of co-producer to justify his position, much to the chagrin of the Agent - who in this modern era may well have not only represented the artist in obtaining the role with a sizeable fee, but quite possibly packaged all the other major creative elements for the picture, only to then find the manager pull rank and become a glorified irritant rather than a bona fide Producer there to support the film and the Agent.

A diplomatic Fred Gaines was discreet to the extreme, in trying to explain the role and influence of this superfluous character. Annabel Sheehan and Kate Richter were quick to stress that such a role did not exist in Australia, because there wasn't the financial infrastructure within the budgets to accommodate such a person, but they had enough personal experience of it outside of Australia to be thankful that it was not a problem in Australia. Yet.

See: http://www.spaa.org.au/display_news_item.cfm?item=809&dx=e7281R

It doesn't sound like independant producers are particularly fond of 'managers' !

Mac

[NikeeGoddess]

no one should be concerned about what percentage any of them get. what your main concern is who can get your script in front of the right producer. an agent is much more likely b/c that is there job. you don't need a lawyer until someone want to purchase your script and even then the agent may be all you need to get the right deal made. the larger agencies may be self contained with their own lawyers anyway.

[Enigma]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, Joe, but in California, Florida, North Carolina and New York, at least, managers can not (legally/technically) negotiate a SAG sig contract on behalf of his or her client. Agents can. So can lawyers of course.

In looking at what was sold during August, I noticed that more than half of the writers were represented by a combination of managers, agents and lawyers. Not sure why it would take three, but I can guess.

[Enigma]

In case someone doesn't know about "them," here's the URL;


http://www.scriptsales.com/DDScriptSales.htm

[NikeeGoddess]

anyone can call themselves a manager. but agents and lawyers must be licensed. managers have negotiating power and may have access power but you will eventually need a lawyer or an agent (who can produce contracts) along with a manager.

choosing between the three should be determined by what your needs are at the moment. ie - a manager can attach actors, directors, executive producers, etc... to your project. and agent's job is to sell your script and/or find you writing assignments.

[JERETHAL]

Where are all those guys? They're like ghosts. Everybody swears to have seen one but nobody can produce a real one. Everybody is looking for them. Some people become one when they can't find one. I wonder why none of those guys ever participate in discussion forums. I'd like to talk to one of them there ghosts and ask them wheere they hang out.

[JustinoXXV]

Managers don't necessarily do attachments (some do). Sometimes they just shop your screenplay around town. If the manager gets you an offer, the manager will refer you to an agent.

[preyer]

so i'm hearing more support for agents than managers, right?

i'm not sure about screenwriting, but i know that in most states all you have to have to be a literary agent is the mental capacity to state, 'i'm a literary agent.' there's no test, no schooling, no standarized set of ethics you scribble your name on, no oath, no nothing. in ohio, if i say i'm an agent, i'm an agent. hey, what the hell, i'm an agent then. why not. i don't even have to subscribe to anything, though reputable agents get their names published in the industry reference books. even then, you don't have to be reputable, necessarily.

so, when people get ready to send in scripts, do they just send 'em in to the studio or get an agent or manager first? (dumb question, but i don't know. yeah, i could research it and find out in an article, probably, but i like to balance that out with what real people actually do.)

[JustinoXXV]

Most states do not have literary agents. In the state of California, the agents representing screenwriters must work for an agency licensed and bonded by the state of California.

In the main states that have worthwhile agents, California and New York, agents typically spent some time working as agent trainees or assistants before finally becoming agents.

You cannot just declare yourself an agent and make sales. People who attempt this won't even know how to tell the difference between a good script, and a bad one, are unlikely to have sufficient contacts to submit, and even if they submitted since no one knows their names their scripts would likely end up on the slush pile.

[NikeeGoddess]

so, when people get ready to send in scripts, do they just send 'em in to the studio or get an agent or manager first?

newbies should not send their scripts to studios. it'll only end up in the trash. you should get an agent first but, you can send your scripts to a production company without an agent. however, most production companies will not take it unless you have an agent. in fact, most production companies will not take any unsolicited materials....only referrals which are hard to get. you have to know somebody who's somebody ;)

know that each company has their own submission policy. there are many ways to submit your work. find out what it is and follow it to keep your script from ending up in the trash.

[preyer]

for what it's worth, do a search on 'literary agents' and any state, and you'll find results. maybe not in a state like wyoming (though i'm sure there are). again, that's literary agents, which, like i said, just to have to declare themselves agents. not saying they're worth a damn, of course. agents in new york or california may have certain criteria, but those places aren't the norm.

this quote, 'And what is our message? To let authors know that literary agents should not charge up front fees. Ever. Further, publishing houses should pay AUTHORS. Authors should not have to pay PUBLISHERS to have a book published. Finally, we need legislation to insure that literary agents be trained, licensed and qualified,' from http://www.sfwa.org/beware/Deering.html, suggests there is no industry-wide licensing, bonding, or anything else which a *literary* agent *has* to do or be. just wanted to clear that up. :) if there's a literary agent diploma you have to get before practicing, i'm not aware of it, lol.

[JustinoXXV]

for what it's worth, do a search on 'literary agents' and any state, and you'll find results. maybe not in a state like wyoming (though i'm sure there are). again, that's literary agents, which, like i said, just to have to declare themselves agents. not saying they're worth a damn, of course. agents in new york or california may have certain criteria, but those places aren't the norm.


Literary agents out of Los Angeles (with the rare exception of New York) essentially never makes sales in the film industry.

[Joe Calabrese]

Literary agents out of Los Angeles (with the rare exception of New York) essentially never makes sales in the film industry. Tell that to Enigma, whose agent I believe is down south. I do beleive he had an option or sale recently.

[JustinoXXV]

Tell that to Enigma, whose agent I believe is down south. I do beleive he had an option or sale recently.

Joe, an exception is not the rule.

The above scenario is so rare I don't know why you even mentioned it.

If you want a career in the mainstream, Hollywood scene, you will need a Los Angeles agent. Period.

Mind you, I could live in Kansas, and my rich neighbor could decide he is a producer. I could come up with an option agreement or sale with him. Doesn't mean the movie will be made, doesn't mean it will be distributed, and it doesn't mean said writer has a career.

I sometimes think you avoid the truth on things which you think are negative, harsh, mean, etc. But I think it's important to tell the truth, period. Read any industry trades (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Script Sales, etc). In them you'll see that agents out of LA almost never make sales to Hollywood (most of the excepts are New York exceptions).

Outside of LA (and to a lesser degree NY), in the US most production companies make industrial films, commercials, educational films, etc. Some do dabble in indie production, but comparatively few succeed in it. And they typically won't be able to pay writers much money.

I obviously know as well as any of you that getting a LA agent is difficult. But if you ever want to step into the major leagues as a screenwriter, it has to be done.

[Enigma]

Tell that to Enigma, whose agent I believe is down south. I do beleive he had an option or sale recently.

Thanks a lot, Joe! http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif Why am I embarrassed?



You're right, where the instigator lives, at least when it comes to feature and MOWs, doesn't matter.

It’s a given: to get anything happening always begins with qualified and experienced investors.

INSTIGATORS, hungry producers and/or agents, and/or managers, and/or even writers, must, sooner or later, find and pitch those people, and more often than not, they don’t live (corporately) in California - nor do they give a rat’s *** where the instigator sleeps (most of the time).

A clue? Check out where most feature productions are chartered, and where the agent of record (not the assigned sub-agent) resides.

Think of it like Wall Street in New York. That’s the central point of the financial universe, but the people who drive the stock market, investors, live all over the world, even down south. New York gets all the credit, however. Same here; "Hollywood" gets the credit simply because everything (but the money) gets filtered through there, plus so many of them congregate there for other reasons, mainly television, production facilities and the corporations who do distribution gotta be somewhere.

Justenio, before you go ballastic, television is a different dog in a different race.

[Enigma]

... Mind you, I could live in Kansas, and my rich neighbor could decide he is a producer. I could come up with an option agreement or sale with him. Doesn't mean the movie will be made, doesn't mean it will be distributed, and it doesn't mean said writer has a career...

With that post, you sure bounced around like a golf ball hit in a tile bathroom.

Let's say we both have good scripts. You'll insist your's is better. Okay, maybe it is. Anyway, you have a hotshot Hollywood agent who even drives a Rolls Royce and has a nice place on the Pacific Coast Highway, and you live in LA and I live here in the cool, relaxing mountains of north Georgia and may or may not have a manager, but I come loaded with a few million in an escrow account and you don't (maybe because you moved away from your rich neighbor in Kansas and lost touch).

Which script is more likely to get an audience?

Oh, Kansas is a nice state, except when it gets windy in the Spring, and during football season, when they're not on NCAA probation.

[JustinoXXV]

With that post, you sure bounced around like a golf ball hit in a tile bathroom.

Let's say we both have good scripts. You'll insist your's is better. Okay, maybe it is. Anyway, you have a hotshot Hollywood agent who even drives a Rolls Royce and has a nice place on the Pacific Coast Highway, and you live in LA and I live here in the cool, relaxing mountains of north Georgia and may or may not have a manager, but I come loaded with a few million in an escrow account and you don't (maybe because you moved away from your rich neighbor in Kansas and lost touch).

Which script is more likely to get an audience?

Oh, Kansas is a nice state, except when it gets windy in the Spring, and during football season, when they're not on NCAA probation.

If all otherthings were equal, you. However, if my script was better than yours and if I had a track record of boz office hits, my audience would be greater.

However, the LA established screenwriter is on social networks and will have ties to actors, directors, producers, studio execs that an outsider from Georgia will not.

When film companies raise money (they have a variety of ways of doing this), yes, of course they look for investors from all around the world. However, the average investors likely doesn't want to be the controling force in the film. Most will not have sufficient knowledge to do so. Likewise, though shareholders in publically traded companies can vote on certain issues, generally major decisions are left to the CEO.

What does this mean? Most investors are passive. They want people who know the biz to make money for them.

And what do you mean by most featured productions? Oh, there are a ton of movies made (features) that are never distributed. There are also a ton of movies made (which are distributed) that were done by the screenwriter/director/producer.

Along those lines, you, in the North Hills of Georga (using your example), assuming you have the funds, could easily make your won movie. It has better be good to get in a festival or to get distribution.

Most movies made outside LA (even in New York and in London) are made by screenwriter/director/producer. Many of these movies do okay but that's neither here nor there. Still, a lot of writer/director/producers in New York or elsewhere out of LA have to take non industry day jobs in order to survive.

If you want to make a career solely as a screenwriter, Los Angeles is essentially the only place that has pure screenwriters (people who just have film writing assignments and/or sell specs). And essentially all of the agents you need are there.

For the actual investment banking work and the actual film work, it's concentrated in NY and in LA because those industries need concentrations of trained talent to function, and the businesses work better that way. You are unlikely to find many equities underwriters or special effects people in the hills of North Georgia.

I'm equating screenwriter with A list writer (the Simon Kinburg's, the David Koepps, the John August's, the Joss Whedon's, and the Susannah Grants.) People at this level (at the top of the film industry) are only found in LA.

[Joe Calabrese]

Joe, an exception is not the rule. Listen. In a perfect world, we would all live on Hollywood blvd, only look to be repped by ICM or WM, only talk to major studios and never even consider any deal worth less than a million.

The reality is that this is not a perfect world. People live in all parts of the country and cannot or will not move to the Industry Meccas for a variety of reasons. That is not to say they will never live in LA, but just not now. So what are they to do as a struggling writer trying to get noticed and some work?

A struggling writer will get any agent or manager that can further their dream/career, even if it only marginally better than having no representation. When they hit it big (or even medium) they can get a new rep. Agents and managers are not for life afterall.

A struggling writer will sell a script for less than scale is it will lead to more work, notoriety, credibility and reputation as a professional. They can get picky when they become the next Goldman, Black or Mamet.

Just because it doesn't fit in your neat little box called "norm" shouldn't be discounted. The alternative it to sit around waiting for Universal (and only Universal) to read and buy your great American screenplay. I assure you it will be a very, very, long wait indeed.

[JustinoXXV]

Listen. In a perfect world, we would all live on Hollywood blvd, only look to be repped by ICM or WM, only talk to major studios and never even consider any deal worth less than a million.

The reality is that this is not a perfect world. People live in all parts of the country and cannot or will not move to the Industry Meccas for a variety of reasons. That is not to say they will never live in LA, but just not now. So what are they to do as a struggling writer trying to get noticed and some work?

A struggling writer will get any agent or manager that can further their dream/career, even if it only marginally better than having no representation. When they hit it big (or even medium) they can get a new rep. Agents and managers are not for life afterall.

A struggling writer will sell a script for less than scale is it will lead to more work, notoriety, credibility and reputation as a professional. They can get picky when they become the next Goldman, Black or Mamet.

Just because it doesn't fit in your neat little box called "norm" shouldn't be discounted. The alternative it to sit around waiting for Universal (and only Universal) to read and buy your great American screenplay. I assure you it will be a very, very, long wait indeed.

I have never suggested that a writer not do an indie deal if the opportunity presented itself. I did say, however, if you expect to support yourself as a working screenwriter (that means without a day job, and without also directing and producing) then the LA film industry is the only one that allows you that. And to do business there you need LA representation.

[Joe Calabrese]

Justin. In the past, you have made statements that implied or almost came right out to say only look at the big boys, whether it be producers, companies, agents and such.

Your constant and very vocal notion of "got to be in LA" to succeed is an unrealistic and overly optimistic POV for a new writer who has never sold or optioned anything.

You are pretty much telling (or strongly insinuating) newbies to pack their bags and move out to LA, or else go to work at Burger King and forget about writing.

Yes, move out West or get an LA rep if you can, but until then, take what you can get, because it's most certainly better than nothing.

[JustinoXXV]

Justin. In the past, you have made statements that implied or almost came right out to say only look at the big boys, whether it be producers, companies, agents and such.

Your constant and very vocal notion of "got to be in LA" to succeed is an unrealistic and overly optimistic POV for a new writer who has never sold or optioned anything.

You are pretty much telling (or strongly insinuating) newbies to pack their bags and move out to LA, or else go to work at Burger King and forget about writing.

Yes, move out West or get an LA rep if you can, but until then, take what you can get, because it's most certainly better than nothing.

Can we stick to comments that I have made on this thread?

As for if and when someone moves to LA, I won't go there because we've already covered that ground.

Someone was asking about literary agents across the country. I basically said there are none outside of LA that can get you sales in Hollywood (the actual film industry). That is a fact. It may not be fair, but who ever said business or life in general is fair?

I'm not telling newbies to do anything. They can do whatever they want.

I think you have a tendency to take things personally, when you see comments like these. I think this issue is a sensitive issue for you. But you shouldn't allow your sensitivities to let you put out information you know is false (that someone is likely to get an industry deal from someone from Arkansaw or Pennsylvania who claims to be an agent).

[Enigma]

I have never suggested that a writer not do an indie deal if the opportunity presented itself. I did say, however, if you expect to support yourself as a working screenwriter (that means without a day job, and without also directing and producing) then the LA film industry is the only one that allows you that. And to do business there you need LA representation.

I get confused when you say "working screenwriter," because you don't say if it applies to feature films or television, and/or how it all relates directly to selling a script. You use "If," "Maybe," "But," "On the other hand," and so on to the point of distraction. Yeah, you have the mind of a writer, and that's good. If you're talking about television, you may be right.

It might serve a good purpose for you to call the Producer's Guild, or the WGA, or the Director's Guild and find out how many feature films (Indie and SAG sig) were actually shot in LA last year and how many out here in the boondocks - or 100 miles and 1 inch outside a SAG office. It might surprise you.

TRIVIA TIME: What city in the US has hosted more feature films than any other in the entire history of the business?














Answer: Jacksonville, Florida

[JustinoXXV]

I get confused when you say "working screenwriter," because you don't say if it applies to feature films or television, and/or how it all relates directly to selling a script. You use "If," "Maybe," "But," "On the other hand," and so on to the point of distraction. Yeah, you have the mind of a writer, and that's good. If you're talking about television, you may be right.

It might serve a good purpose for you to call the Producer's Guild, or the WGA, or the Director's Guild and find out how many feature films (Indie and SAG sig) were actually shot in LA last year and how many out here in the boondocks - or 100 miles and 1 inch outside a SAG office. It might surprise you.

TRIVIA TIME: What city in the US has hosted more feature films than any other in the entire history of the business?






Answer: Jacksonville, Florida

Why does the location that a movie is filmed at have to do anything? X-Men 3 is being shot in Canada. Plenty of films are shot in Canada, overseas, and in other states. That's no big news.

But where are the studios, prodcos, agents, etc that are majorly involved in these production? They are in Los Angeles. The talent is still concentrated there. The business people are still concentrated there.

For a variety of reasons, mainstream movies and sometimes tv shows are shot out of Los Angeles.

A working screenwriter is someone who can support himself from said activity, and said activity alone.

Similiarly, since you compared Wall Street to Hollywood, big financial firms outsource certain functions to India. But New York is still the financial capital, not Banglagore!

[Joe Calabrese]

Can we stick to comments that I have made on this thread? I am. An agent in Kansas is better than no agent at all.

Someone was asking about literary agents across the country. I basically said there are none outside of LA that can get you sales in Hollywood (the actual film industry). That is a fact. It may not be fair, but who ever said business or life in general is fair?Not true. Although it is easier to be in LA and there are more agents there, an agent or manager can have an office anywhere and still make deals. If your logic was true than there would be no agents elsewhere in the country, otherwise they would not be able to sustain themselves.

I'm not telling newbies to do anything. They can do whatever they want. You are telling them not to deal with any agent that isn't in LA. You are in fact limiting their potential for getting an agent.

I think you have a tendency to take things personally, when you see comments like these. I think this issue is a sensitive issue for you. But you shouldn't allow your sensitivities to let you put out information you know is false (that someone is likely to get an industry deal from someone from Arkansas or Pennsylvania who claims to be an agent).As you and others have pointed out before. an agent cannot claim anything, they must be licensed to be one. I take personally anyone who makes false or misleading statements and you just happen to do it far more frequently than others. Nothing personal.

And in other posts, you said;

I obviously know as well as any of you that getting a LA agent is difficult. But if you ever want to step into the major leagues as a screenwriter, it has to be done. You assume that the only way to get to the major leagues is to to this way only (start right from the top), whereas many writers start out with lesser works (commecials, TV, industrials, etc) and build their career up. Many writers start with small agencies and eventually get to the big ones if their work stands out and merits it.

If you want to make a career solely as a screenwriter, Los Angeles is essentially the only place that has pure screenwriters (people who just have film writing assignments and/or sell specs). And essentially all of the agents you need are there.Mamet started in Chicago and many writers live outside the inner sanctum. And although I am not the norm as you put it, I do not live in LA. My friends who have sold also do not live there. We're not big players, but if that day comes I'll buy a house in California.

Bottom line. You paint pictures in black and write, but there are grey areas and you cannot give advice to anyone without at-least acknowledging that those grey areas exist.

[Joe Calabrese]

Justin, (and all out there who are on the fence about taking on a small agent from outside LA) let me ask you something, hypothetically.

I assume you are not repped, since you never said anything to the contrary. I also assume you've been writing for a few years now and haven't made any major headway in your career.

If I am wrong about any of this, please forgive, but think of it anyway as a theoretical scenario.

Would you take on an agent in Wisconsin, who says he has some connections in Hollywood and other productions companies throughout the country and abroad and has had some sales you can verify, who is not charging you a dime (as they shouldn't), but gets 10% of everything you make after the fact?

After all. If you have had no luck in getting an LA agent in all these years what is the harm?

In the very least, queries you send out to prod co's and studios will state you are repped and will give you a slightly better edge than someone querying without any representation.

In the very least, you now have someone to negotiate any deals that come your way, without having to pay extra for a lawyer to look over the contracts.

In the very least, you'll have someone to bounce your ideas off of.

And in the very best, if you sell and start doing well, you are under no obligation to keep this person as your rep forever.

All it takes is a cool down period after firing him and then you are free to pursue that LA agent you've always dreamed of, who will be far more interested in you since you have already proven yourself by having a rep and selling some work.

Hypothetically, would you?

[NikeeGoddess]

....comments on this thread ;)

this year Justino is eating his words from last year when he swore using Final Draft was a crock and a waste of money!
next year (when he lands an agent in Nebraska LOL) he'll being eating foot in his mouth.

ok - BACK ON TOPIC

[Enigma]

... But where are the studios, prodcos, agents, etc that are majorly involved in these production? They are in Los Angeles. The talent is still concentrated there. The business people are still concentrated there.

All true, well, mostly true. BUT ... where are the investors in feature films? When they decide to make something happen with their money, they pick up the Yellow Pages and a phone, and they sure as heck don't call us little people. I think it may have been Hal Wallis who said he didn't know how to make a movie, but he did know how and where to find the people who do.

Sidebar: He once let me hold the Oscar he won for Best Picture - Casablanca. You know, I swear that thing was alive. Amazing. I want one!

Similiarly, since you compared Wall Street to Hollywood, big financial firms outsource certain functions to India. But New York is still the financial capital, not Banglagore!

Justino, you still don't get it, and probably never will. (BTW - where are you from, originally? And what do you smoke?) But, I'll try again. The two biggest trading boards are on Wall Street. The floor people are there. So are the traders, and the speculators, and the secretaries, lawyers, ITs, SEC investigators, con artists, PR firms, Martha Stewart (well, not now), etc. Yeah, it is the financial capital of the universe, for now, but where does the money come from? Kansas, for one place. Georgia for another. Please, don't say Inron. What would happen to Wall Street if the money suddenly went elsewhere? A clue: Wall Street would shut down and all those people would be out of work. I have no idea what India and outsourcing has to do with anything.

This may burst your ego, but people like you and me, and FX guys, and script girls (er, sorry. Script-persons), gaffers, grips, cutters, and on and on, well, we don't count because we're way down on the food chain. Nobody is going to read a script of our's and say, "... Man, I'll make that into a movie because it's so good." Movies begin and end with one word; money!

This will probably confuse you even more; if a film makes money, the accountant gets fired!

[WritingFool]

Justin, Im gunna speak up on this because what it all comes down to is your opnion you are giving to others who read this, who might be impressionable, and not know youre full of crap sometimes.

Joe is the moderator, and he does his job well, which is to understand that there are newbie writers who come to boards as this to get an awareness they dont know about writing and about the business. For someone who makes comments in the manner you have been saying, like you're an authority on the subject, well, that could influence some of the newbies that come on and read statements you make. Statements that have the cliched truth to them. But theres always the flip side, i.e. the smaller agents, managers, i.e maybe you never sell your scirpt or see your movie made big screen, but you might get writing contracts, make money on the options, etc. Even just being optioned and the way to profit from that is helpful and encouraging to people who have good stories, but still wont see their pictures made. Targeting network T.V., cable networks, etc. Theres more than the one way to make money is my point.

You are painting a negative, one dimensional picture of this is how things are, when Joe and a few others have opened up a new realm, where one can see theres more to just writing scripts where screenwriters can profit from. Although simple, Ill bet some people didnt know that.

Everyone wants to talk and give their opinion on things they think they know, but until you have aquired an agent, you have had that agent represent your work, and you have something to brag about in black and white, on the internet or at the movies, why dont you do the right thing, shut your pie hole, do what you can to hep people write better in your critiques of their work, and let the business advice come from the people that have actual experience within the business.

This board is about helping writers develop, helping someone make a buck here or there doing somethign they enjoy. Yes theres a harsh reality to deal with, but instead of fucusing on a negative, lets find ways to help eachother.

Plain and simple, show us what you have done, give us some credits that belong to you, otherwise HOPEFULLY this post will put you in the same category as the Gunnabefamous and the Vig guys who people by now should know dont know what they are talking about.

Let Joe and the others keep doing the good job they do. Plain and simple!

::wonders if Joes gunna modify this in anyway::

[preyer]

'Someone was asking about literary agents across the country. I basically said there are none outside of LA that can get you sales in Hollywood (the actual film industry). That is a fact. It may not be fair, but who ever said business or life in general is fair?' ~ i must have misunderstood what you were saying. i thought you were trying to say literary agents don't exist in most states when obviously they do. my bad, i thought you were saying something else.

'This will probably confuse you even more; if a film makes money, the accountant gets fired!' ~ lol. reminds me of the guy who wrote 'forrest gump.' man, the studio tried to screw him but hard. if i recall, he sued and got most of what he was owed. the studio claimed that after all the expenses, the movie didn't hardly make a dime, if i recall. you see the exact same thing in the auto industry: GM sold 47% more cars this year than in the same period last year with their 'employee pricing' (not so interesting sidenote: GM always used to spell 'employee' 'employe,' with only one 'e'. believe it or not, it's correct. that extra 'e' costs money, apparently. just look at how they spell 'gauge' 'gage', lol), yet still posted nearly a quarter of a billion dollars loss (actually, this figure ranges anywhere from $268 million to $1.2 billion depending on what you're looking at). GM would have us believe that they're making cars at a loss. this is from the same company who, say, projects 10 billion in sales, makes 8 billion in actual sales, and posts a 2 billion 'loss.' weird? funny? criminal?

y'all kinda harsh at times on ol' J there? true, i think he sometimes has a limited viewpoint (which he fortunately expresses pretty well overall), but far from someone i'd want to run off like a lot of folk try to run GBF and this vig person. or was this all a 'cruel to be kind b/c we all love ya, ya big lug' kind of thing?

[Joe Calabrese]

Pryer. You know all to well who Vig is.

[Enigma]

[QUOTE=preyer]... 'This will probably confuse you even more; if a film makes money, the accountant gets fired!' ~ lol. reminds me of the guy who wrote 'forrest gump.' man, the studio tried to screw him but hard. if i recall, he sued and got most of what he was owed. the studio claimed that after all the expenses, the movie didn't hardly make a dime, if i recall. [QUOTE]

I'm the one who posted that and it's obvious you don't know beans about accounting, or film financing!

And, not unexpected, you're also totally full of it on "Gump!" A real estate firm in La bought the rights from the writer - who couldn't sell it - and it took them four years to generate interest plus they ... oh, to heck with it, you wouldn't understand.

Tell you what; I'm a reporter and the next time you come up with one of these wild, cock-and-bull stories, e-mail me and if you have any facts to back it up, if it turns out to be true, we'll pay you a lead fee.

Oh, congratulations. You made my ignore list.

[Joe Calabrese]

Enigma. That was harsh. The Forest Gump story gets mixed up with the Coming to America story all the time.

[GonnaBeFamous]

Joe, an exception is not the rule.

The above scenario is so rare I don't know why you even mentioned it.



Funny how I argued the same logic about getting development deals which you contradicted by the logic of "such and such has done it so it must be common." At least be consistent. :rolleyes:

[Enigma]

Enigma. That was harsh. The Forest Gump story gets mixed up with the Coming to America story all the time.

I'm not familiar with the "Coming To America" story, but unless I've had a senior moment, I recall - because it was so odd - "Gump" being owned by a real estate broker, and I think that came from the legal page of the novel.

[Enigma]

The only war story about Hollywood I believe, and do so because I want to, concerns "On Golden Pond." As the story goes, nobody expected it to be finished because Henry Fonda was dying. People signed on the project simply to show their respect to the man who gave so much to the business. They couldn't get, or maybe didn't even try to get, a completion bond even though the budget was slightly more that it would cost to make a home movie. Everybody pitched in and the Unions bent their rules. It was a labor of love, a final tribute to Henry Fonda, the actor and the man.

Jane Fonda, whom I detest for political reasons, was asked by a reporter if she thought it was right that the producers kept her father going by using drugs. It was a crass, insensitive question that implied the producers maybe killed her father just to finish the film and make money. Jane Fonda replied, paraphrasing, "... My father was a pro and he went out the way he wanted - working."

He died, what, two weeks after the film was in the can?

[NikeeGoddess]

TANGENT ALERT:
you probably don't even know what jane fonda did and what her political positions have been in the past to make you hate her so much. you're just following a crowd of liberal haters. LOL!

OK BACK ON TOPIC:

oh no wait - notgonnabe, stop crying and start worrying about working the craft of writing screenplays. then when you get somewhere you can come back and "i told you so" to everybody ;)

OK, NOW BACK ON TOPIC:

[Enigma]

[QUOTE=NikeeGoddess]TANGENT ALERT:
you probably don't even know what jane fonda did and what her political positions have been in the past to make you hate her so much. you're just following a crowd of liberal haters. LOL![QUOTE]

I was a S/A, 902nd INTC, MDW, detached (TDY) to the 1st Air Cav Division, 'Nam classes of '68 and '72, and as long as I live, I shall not follow the crowd of vets who have no respect for that woman (and her ex husband, BTW) who aided and assisted the enemy, I will lead them!

So, yes, Nikee, I do know exactly what she did and what her political stance was then - because I lived and suffered through it, and her!

When she was dating Ted Turner, I did several stories on them for one of the tabs. In the restaurant at the Cuthutta (sic) Lodge on Fort Mountain, Georgia one night she came over and flat out demanded to know why I hated her, like I was supposed to be impressed by who she was and only write nice things about her. All I said was, "... Class of '68 and '72." Her eyes dropped. She started to say something and touch me on the arm, as women with silver spoons sticking out of some orfice are bane to do, but I stopped her. Turner saw it, and came over, and we sat and talked for well over an hour. I think Fonda regrets what she did to the men and women in uniform. I do know Ted Turner does.

[Enigma]

Enigma. That was harsh. The Forest Gump story gets mixed up with the Coming to America story all the time.

Didn't Art Burkwald (sic) come up with the original idea for "Coming To America?"

[Joe Calabrese]

Eddie Murphy was ordered by a court to give 19% of his earnings to co-writer Art Buchwald because Murphy did not give Buchwald credit for developing the story with him.

In addition to that, some creative studio bookkeeping kept the film from showing a profit and as such net points were never given out to those promised a cut, including the other screenwriters involved.

[Enigma]

... as such net points were never given out to those promised a cut, including the other screenwriters involved.

Anyone accepting any contract that starts with NET needs professional help, and a lesson in accounting! It was a dirty deal! Net is a four-lettered word - with the last one stolen.

[preyer]

'I'm the one who posted that and it's obvious you don't know beans about accounting, or film financing!

And, not unexpected, you're also totally full of it on "Gump!" A real estate firm in La bought the rights from the writer - who couldn't sell it - and it took them four years to generate interest plus they ... oh, to heck with it, you wouldn't understand.

Tell you what; I'm a reporter and the next time you come up with one of these wild, cock-and-bull stories, e-mail me and if you have any facts to back it up, if it turns out to be true, we'll pay you a lead fee.

Oh, congratulations. You made my ignore list.'

jeez, dude, lighten up. i said, 'if i recall....' obviously, i don't recall it correctly. can ya not find a better way to enlighten me without jumping down my throat? i made your ignore list? if that's the treatment i can expect, then that's perfectly okay with me. ignore the hell out of me then, preferably starting now.

[preyer]

btw, 'Even if you did not like the movie, few people question the financial success of Forrest Gump. Winston Groom, writer of both book and movie, did not see a dime of the profits until well after production.

'It seems movie industry accountants arranged the revenues in such a way that the movie made no money, thus making Groom's percentage of the revenue nothing. from

http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol62/34/OpEd/ed1/ed1.html

essentially, one method of saying a movie made no profits is my amortorizing losses from other movies into the profits of a hit. that is, you can take the losses from seven movies, two that broke even, and a huge hit, and count the losses against the hit's profits (apparently, disney is really good for this type of thing). sorry if that doesn't make much sense. i'm not sure that's changed, but i'm pretty sure that at one point there was a big push for tighter accounting methods for h'wood.

peter jackson had a tiff with new line over a potential $100 million he might have been owed. i haven't followed that, though. is that resolved, does anyone know?

anyway, apparently i recalled enough of it to not warrant a complete lambasting repleat with the explicit notion 'as usual, you're an idiot not worth reading'. i'm wondering who looks like the ignorant jackasss now, me or you? oh, just ignore me. i should really learn to be more civil when i just hand someone their asss on a plate.

[Enigma]

btw, 'Even if you did not like the movie, few people question the financial success of Forrest Gump. Winston Groom, writer of both book and movie, did not see a dime of the profits until well after production. (According to...?)

'It seems movie industry accountants arranged the revenues in such a way that the movie made no money (DON'T THEY ALWAYS?), thus making Groom's percentage of the revenue nothing. from

http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol62/34/OpEd/ed1/ed1.html

essentially, one method of saying (Do you mean proving, like during an audit?) a movie made no profits is my (sic) amortorizing losses from other movies into the profits of a hit. that is, you can take the losses from seven movies, two that broke even, and a huge hit, and count the losses against the hit's profits (apparently, disney is really good for this type of thing). (Usually that's done through the publicity budget - a big-budget bomb draws blood from a low budget hit.) sorry if that doesn't make much sense. (To me it does.) i'm not sure that's changed (it hasn't), but i'm pretty sure that at one point there was a big push for tighter accounting methods for h'wood. (You've got to be kidding! Hollywood created "creative financing and bookkeeping!" It's now an art form.)

peter jackson had a tiff with new line over a potential $100 million (Jezz!) he might have been owed. i haven't followed that, though. is that resolved, does anyone know? (Only der Shadow knows what evil lurks in the minds of men, and accountants.)

anyway, apparently i recalled enough of it to not warrant a complete lambasting repleat with the explicit notion 'as usual, you're an idiot not worth reading'. I didn't say that. When I do, I'll say so and I'll be able to prove it.) i'm wondering who looks like the ignorant jackasss now, me or you? oh, just ignore me. (I don't want to. You're a fighter and I like that in a person. Maybe I can teach you how to fight dirty.) i should really learn to be more civil when i just hand someone their asss on a plate. (Don't bother. I don't, never have, and I've handed more than a few over in my career. If you're the kind to roll over and play dead, I don't what anything to do with you.)

Actually, I loved the movie so much I went out and bought a copy, and on some of your other points, you're right, although I have no idea how you know some of this without having a mole in the IRS, or a copy of their 1040. Going through trash is a bummer, isn't it? Still, your basic point is on mark, film financing is so complex today that few outside of the accounting industry can ever hope to understand it, and even fewer, me included, want to. Let the hired help work out the details. The lady who is asleep on my sofa at the moment is a CPA and she's tried numerous times to explain the how's and why's of film financing, but, damn, I still can't understand it. What the public is told and what really happens are two different stories. Why she doesn't wear underwear also escapes me, come to think of it, and why her BMW has a seat warmer is not an explaination I can sign off on. Ah, the mysteries of women. God bless 'em all.

We're told one story by the media, by the Hollywood media in this context, a/k/a publicists, but the truth may be somewhere else, and it's always well hidden. It all depends on the flack and who gets there first and wants to look like the good guy - in court.

"Hollywood," the entire industry, is trying to survive in spite of the IRS and lawyers. Financing has already gone off-shore. The "Irish Connection," for example, will blow your mind, like it did mine. What's next? That's the problem.

[Joe Calabrese]

Will you two quit it?

[dpaterso]

I disagree with everyone on principle. Problem solved. Let's get some writing done before the day's over.

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57/scripts.htm)

[preyer]

i'm not an accountant, and my example is off-topic... you'd think i'd have enough sense to stop there, however, since i don't, onwards and sideways....

i recall a story, whether it's true or not i can't say, about alec guiness being offered 'points' instead of an upfront payment (i assume to defer production costs) to play obi-wan kenobi. all the actors were offered the same deal, yet guiness was the only one to accept the 'points' and consequently the only actor to walk away with millions simply from his one performance. just a kind of fun story to me, whether it's relevant or even equatable i won't say with any certainty. i only mention this because enigma said anyone who takes anything that begins with 'net' is a fool, net points being, i assume, an industry/accounting term designed to screw people out of their well-earned money. (i'm also pretty sure that if that guiness story is true, he'd probably have had to fought with anyone else were it not george lucas, who i personally feel is a better businessman than storyteller, but at least i've always considered him honest in his dealings. then again, i'm rather not sure who would have paid the 'points' to guiness, lucasfilm or fox. damn, it's cornfuddling, and that's just surface stuff: i'm sure it gets much, much murkier.)

so, by taking a net point deal with the promise that you'll make tons more if your movie is a hit (which is the only reason why i imagine anyone would ever consider it), are you being foolish/naive/idiotic? assuming the studio didn't give you a hard time about paying what it owes you, how much would that movie have to make for you to earn back what you should have gotten paid in the first place (just curious, averages are fine-- hell, i'd take wild guesses if it's entertaining enough)?

for those who know or who have sold scripts, do you have many options to choose from when your script is sold? is it a 'take it or leave it' thing most often? these may seem like basic, silly questions, but i don't know enough to know how ignorant i am of these things to know just exactly *how* basic and silly the questions are. obviously your agent or lawyer or manager should be able to help guide your course, but if you have no idea you're being screwed by your agent/lawyer/manager, you'll probably never have asked basic, silly questions, no?

[Joe Calabrese]

Slightlyin topic and because I'm to lazy to create a new thread.

here is a good article on managers vs. agents.

Managers vs. Agents

By Maria Mondavi

Over the past two years the industry has watched the role of the manager change. There was a time in Hollywood when the personal manager seemed like an actor's indulgence. Today not only do actors find managers essential to their careers but many writers and directors are represented solely by managers. It is becoming a common occurrence, so much so that there are managers who consider themselves 'literary managers'. Many agree that managers are thought to be essential for success in this ever changing, competitive industry. However, the increased presence of managers affects the client/agent relationship, as well as impacting the individual careers of talent and changing the way movies and television are produced.

Taking in to consideration the recently established management companies such as Steve Golin's Anonymous Content Management and Michael Ovitz's AMG, more than half a dozen agents have quit, taking their clients with them, to become personal managers. While some of their clients have continued alliances with their agency and their personal manager, how much do they really need both? It is debatable, especially in view of the service a large management company like AMG can offer. And more importantly, will agents continue to be as powerful as they were in the 80's and 90's?

The legal differences between managers and agents are still obvious. Agents are licensed by the state they work in (New York or California) and earn their money by negotiating contracts for their clients. They are regulated in agreement with industry labor unions, such as SAG, the WGA and DGA. Through those agreements, the commissions that agents charge their clients are bound by law to a maximum of 10%. Agents also may not produce film or television. On the other hand, managers are not regulated and can charge clients 15% and up. But the primary difference is that managers can produce. While managers may not solicit work for clients, (as to whether they do or not is another issue to be addressed at another time) they may and should advise their client on anything and everything and participate in negotiations with the client's agent and or lawyer.

Then there is the less obvious differences between agents and managers. Management is thought to be more lucrative. Not only are managers' commissions higher than agents (15% vs.10%) but many managers are making additional money by attaching themselves to their clients' projects as producers. For example, Bernie Brillstein and Brad Grey, of Brillstein-Grey, represent David Spade. They are also executive producers on Spade's television show 'JUST SHOOT ME'. The producing fees are absorbed by either the producing studio or network, thereby costing the client (David Spade) nothing. Some agents are infuriated by the managers who attach themselves as producers and argue that these "managers" are not legitimate producers and are driving up production costs. (Although what does it take to be a producer? Legally speaking, producers are just like managers. There is no formal training and they are not licensed. If you can call yourself a producer you may call yourself a manager, and vice versa). Managers argue back that it is no different than when an agency packages a television show, where agencies can earn hefty commissions into the millions.

In an effort to counteract the influx of Managers, Agents have put pressure on the industry guilds by lobbying to either deregulate agents or regulate managers. The agents' stance is that they agreed to the restrictions set by the guilds' in return for the exclusive right to represent their members. This is no longer their sole right. With a few major players doing away with their agents entirely, agents feel the need to protect their rights and urge the guilds and the state to implement regulations on managers. However, since the unfolding of AMG in 1998 the fear that was once felt has subsided due to the lack of any drastic change in agency power. CAA's roster still reads like the academy award invite list. If anything, managers acting as producers have had the most affect on the industry. While no resolution has exactly been reached on regulating managers, SAG did crack down on talent managers for soliciting work. There is definitely a greater awareness now for managers of all types to be careful in regards to the law.

MANAGERS AGENTS
Anyone can hang a sign in their window and call themselves a manager An agent is licensed by the state they work in.
Managers can and should advise clients in regards to deal offers. However, managers can not solicit work on behalf of their clients -- meaning they should not be able to negotiate or make deals. (Keep in mind managers do this anyway.) An agents job is to solicit work for their clients, as well as make deals and negotiate on their behalf.
Since managers are not licensed or regulated they can and do produce. Agents are legally forbidden to produce
Managers take 15% and up. Agents take 10%
For a talent that only has a manager they will also need a lawyer to sign off on contracts. Agents have their own in house lawyers so a talent wouldn't necessarily need a lawyer. However, most industry professionals recommend having your own lawyer review your contracts and deals.
Managers will typically have far fewer clients. Therefore they are thought to be able to provide their client with more "personal" attention. Agents, unlike managers, will most likely represent many talents, including some in competition with one another. This means agents provide less personal attention and may even put you in competition with their other clients.
A much less important difference between agents and managers but still a factor is the glamour element. Agents can never win an Emmy or an Academy but a manager can certainly find himself in the spotlight on awards night if he has attached himself as a producer to a clients' project. Managers essentially get to have their names in lights, i.e. receive screen credit. Not only are agents angry about this but "legit" producers (producers who are not managers) are resentful. They suggest some managers are demanding producing credits just for providing access to their clients. For the managers who have behaved in such a "cling-on" fashion it has caused the industry to cry, "Managers producing is a conflict-of-interest." Some of us might remember the Gary Shandling versus Brad Grey lawsuit. Shandling alleged Grey failed to protect Shandlings' interests while furthering his own. This has become the largest concern around why managers should not produce.

In speaking with agents and managers the consensus was: when the agent and manager are able to work together the client will benefit from having both representatives. It's hard to get a job in Hollywood, especially for a young, new talent. Any extra assistance and guidance may help and it's no secret that managers have fewer clients than agents, so managers can provide clients with more personal attention. Nor is it a secret that studios, producers and networks still rely heavily on agencies. It makes sense that a talent would find a manager/agent team to be most effective.

Since AMG has not shaken things up as much as once anticipated, agents are less inclined to preach the eradication of the personal manager altogether, but there is no denying that we have seen big changes in the representation business as a result. Perhaps the most significant phenomena are: One: agents becoming managers. And two: talent desiring a team of advisors rather than relying on one or the other.

[Joe Calabrese]

And to make matters worse.

I just found out that a guy (WGA as well) in my writers group just found out that his Agent (at a very large, well respected agency) has secretly formed a production company as a silent partner and was shopping his client's script as a producer of that script.

This is just plain wrong and borderline illegal.

My buddy contacted the WGA about this and they are very interested
in the situation and are now investigating.

[preyer]

that article makes me more cornfuddled than ever. i lean more towards the traditional agent route naturally, and reading things like this, while creating some doubt, doesn't ultimately sway my instincts. who that person actually is would have a lot to do with it: i'd rather have a manager who used to be with CAA than go with just any ol' run-of-the-mill agent, if thar be such a thing. correct me if i'm wrong on that or if my logic is loopy. and who wants to pay a total of 25% in fees for two people with no guarantees?

now, JC, i think you mentioned that your agent is retiring. that being the case, will you get passed onto another agent, or are you s.o.l. on that? since your agent retired, and i assume he'll write some sort of recommendation for you to pass around, will it be any easier to get another agent once they know the situation? or are you thinking about trying to get a manager and see how that works out?

as it is, i'm not quite sold on managers who are able to take fifteen percent and can't negotiate or solicit my script (though apparently they do anyway). deregulating agents... hm, that would be good and bad. probably mostly bad. i understand, too, why a person would want their name under 'producer': it's a forty-foot glowing business card... what that business is, i'm not sure, but there it is. (if anything, you'd think that there would be strict guidelines as to who gets a producer credit. maybe not as stringent on who gets a writers credit, just that there be some rules involved. as it is, 'producer' has absolutely no meaning for me. 'the guys who find the financing and sets things up' is about all i can come up with, but that's not even true in a lot of cases, no?)

agreed, that agent is wrong. illegal? hm. might be. happens all the time in the auto industry, where your union president and some investors (often retired managers) start up a small shop and essentially steal jobs from the main plant to put in theirs. retiress then go to work for the small shop and get paid lots of money for doing next to nothing while temps are worked like dogs. illegal? probably, but at the same time i'm sure that on paper everything is copasetic. so, while it's surely illegal for that agent and that union president to have their name prominently on the charter or deed or whatever, doing the investigation on it will probably only show that it's an 'investment in someone else's company' and by saying 'i didn't know what they were doing' is all you need to do to keep yourself clean. questions about conflict of interest would arise which possibly could result in someone having to remove their investment, though, yeah, like there aren't ways around that. gimme a break.

if that agent is smart and has his bases covered, what's the worst that can happen? they revoke his license? they wouldn't be able to legally, like i said, if that agent was smart, which i'm sure he is. 'legal' has no more to do with 'moral' any more than one should assume 'crooked' equates to 'stupid.' questions would be answered by the agent's lawyer and would go away. i think the real damage would arise by besmirching the agent's reputation, but isn't that part and parcel of being an agent to begin with? i mean, hearing about an agent's faux pas through the rumour mill has what affect on a potential producer if that agent has proven himself otherwise? as if 'producers' shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt sometimes.... if nothing else, this case would make for an excellent article.

attaching the agent to the production company shouldn't be impossible if he's involved as i'm sure that by law all the people who own a company (or in the case of a corporation has to have listed the board members) are publicly listed, just following the paper trail and keeping an eye out for friends and/or family members of the agent would be a chore. it might be tough if he's using his son-in-law's name. 'hey, boy, want to make some easy money? just sign here and attend a board meeting once a month for about ten minutes at 'hooters.'' (just making that stuff up, not sure how legit those things have to be other than someone taking minutes and following certain procedures.) meanwhile, that agent is collecting plenty of dinero as an 'outside contractor serving as business consultant' or some vague description which could mean anything, never an active employee. hired under yet another pile of paperwork, even the 'consulting firm' may just list the agent as a 'temp' on their timesheet. 'oh, who worked for production company X during that time? well, we usually don't keep those kinds of records because we hire outside the company, usually whoever's available. give us awhile to look it up and we'll get back to you.' the next week the company mysteriously closes its doors and nothing short of an act of gawd or the FBI will get those records, particularly since the 'consulting firm' is chartered in the bahamas. (like my ridiculous scenario so far? i laugh, yet wonder how true it is.)

technically illegal? probably not. immoral? you betcha. we're also talking about the WGA here, not the Secret Service, who'll say they've got better things to do (trust me on this, i've dealt with the SS before and a more worthless bunch of bostards i've never....). the likelihood of a gov't agency even investigating this is slim to begin with, knowing that they don't have a case based on anything other than circumstantial evidence. even if they did have a case, what's going to happen? throw that agent in san quentin for ten to twenty? hardly. a fine, probation, and watch as the disgraced agent moves right into being a producer full-time. aquitted, that agent will sue the WGA, win a lot of money, and get re-instated. there are, after all, silent partners, then there are deep throats, lol. and, yeah, we were real quick to discover who that guy was. this isn't even the sort of fraud that lands people in jail, anyway, it's more the variety that costs you your license to do business.

all outlandish, made-up scenarios aside, honestly, this agent will most likely get away with it. even if his involvement is objectionable in the very least, it's probably not illegal to the point where the WGA itself could legally do anything without getting is own arse in a sling. it's not fair and it's not right, but nor is it fair when a vietnam vet who served in the marines and worked his entire life just to have his identity stolen and become bancrupt and stressed out to the point of a heart attack be told by the SS that they don't normally investigate identity theft under $200,000, and his was 'only' $125,000. this is what happened to my father-in-law last year. (as an aside: i.d. theft isn't investigated by the FBI as one might think, but the SS.) no police department wanted the case because it involved so many jurisdictions, so, justice, yeah, whatever, good luck with that. and we're expecting this agent to somehow go down? possible, possible. not likely, but possible. hard to say what exactly will happen in the l.a. justice system if the WGA could prove some kind of fraud happened. i imagine if your license is suspended in the interim then found legally 'innocent', there's an appeal process to get your license back... not to mention a hefty lawsuit for damages. not sure how that would play out, but it sure sounds interesting. there's a story there. there's a story there for i.d. theft if anyone would get off their duff and write one. maybe i will once i learn this craft. :)

someone correct me if i'm wrong, but does the WGA go after small-time individuals as much as companies and try to pass legislation? the WGA couldn't collect damages to distribute to its membership in this case, no? knowing the WGA could possible be on his back, he'd have to be the definition of stupid not to protect himself. i'm not sure how much of the $21 million or so the WGA has that it invests in legal actions and attempting legal reforms, but it seems there's very little pay-off here unless a member can prove he's been harmed by his agent also ostensibly working for or owning a production company. if there's a case to be had, the WGA should be able to find it in about a minute. beyond that, i have to wonder if it becomes a cost issue for them to pursue.

how exactly is your friend being harmed by the agent shopping it around as a producer? despite it being wrong and potentially illegal, ah, can't that also be a good thing for the writer?

[Joe Calabrese]

A lot to reply, but here are some of the more important questions/answers.

correct me if i'm wrong on that or if my logic is loopy. and who wants to pay a total of 25% in fees for two people with no guarantees?
Who would want to pay 20 million dollars for a house? Someone who could afford to. Having both a manager and agent theoretically doubles your chances of leads, contacts and sales, thus justifying the extra percentage. Also, you know you can claim your manager/agent fees on your taxes as part of your operating expenses? That drops 15% effectively down to 11%. Or 25% down 18%.

now, JC, i think you mentioned that your agent is retiring. that being the case, will you get passed onto another agent, or are you s.o.l. on that? since your agent retired, and i assume he'll write some sort of recommendation for you to pass around, will it be any easier to get another agent once they know the situation? or are you thinking about trying to get a manager and see how that works out?He's a manager and I already have six agents/managers reading my work right now, with most of them reading it because I was repped already. Whereas it took me many years to get repped before, I believe I can get one now in less than six months. I am looking for either an agent or manager. I'd love a big one but will settle if the mood is right. I think anyone tooting your horn is better than no one or just yourself.

how exactly is your friend being harmed by the agent shopping it around as a producer? despite it being wrong and potentially illegal, ah, can't that also be a good thing for the writer?No. The agent has it for free and it shopping for financing/coproducing/distribution and as such he should have at least optioned the script first. Second, there is a big conflict of interest. How can the agent best represent the client if the agent is also the buyer?

[preyer]

i never thought about being able to write off your fees on your taxes. good point. clearly, i'm not a WGA member. can you write those fees off, too? why would someone buy a twenty million dollar home? beats me, that utterly disgusts me, all that money you could save thousands of lives with and spend it on themselves. if by having both were proven to drastically improve your odds of selling a script, something to consider. i wonder, too, if your agent found a buyer, is the manager entitled to his cut?

i'd imagine if an agent bought a script while acting in a production company capacity, like you said, optioned at least, yes, there could potentially be a conflict of interest if, as an agent, he tried to screw the writer, which would, or at least should, bring the wrath of the union down upon him. in other words, knowing he's already taking a risk, wouldn't he try not shining a light on his own indiscretions by screwing over his client? (then again, he asks for problems by not optioning the script first.) problem here is obvious: writer turns down a crappy deal, agent doesn't push to sell the script like he should to anyone else with the attitude that it's his prodco or nothing. on the flip-side, someone like this might buy the script when no one else would. possibly. i agree, though, it's not a situation one would want to be in.

good to know that if something happens to your agent, if he retires or has a heart attack or something, having your foot in the door already gets you looked at probably before most others, which is the way it should be.

[Enigma]

... i never thought about being able to write off your fees on your taxes.

I hope you're aware that you can, as a writer, write off anything that is even remotely related to your work. I have for years, and I've survived in tact several personal and company audits by the IRS.

As a reporter, I/we even write off bribes(!) and in the usual forms; cash, gifts, prostitutes and even cocaine, although my company put a stop to that one several years ago.

Just keep a notebook in your car, so you won't forget. The deductions do add up.

[Joe Calabrese]

Of course speak to an accountant before taking things off your taxes, but these are things I take off every year (sometimes more than I make and claiming a loss, but you can only report a loss three out of five years). Make sure to save those receipts.

- Paper, postage, ink and other supplies.
- WGA and/or Copyright fees for registering work.
- Magazines, books, Variety, HCD.
- Subscription fees for Online databases, tracking sites, etc.
- Competition fees.
- Software related to writing.
- Any computer upgrades or replacements. (you can also write of a depreciation of current equipt).
- Air, hotel and $50 a day for meals for any business related trip (if your researching a script that takes place in Cancun you better have a script to show the IRS or better yet a check for selling that script.)
- Fees for trade shows, pitch fests, expos.
- classes, online or otherwise.
- Coverage/Consulting I pay to have done.
- Half of my internet bill.
- my cell phone bill.
- My safety deposit box.
- business cards.
- Web design, domain reg and site maintenance (since I do it myself, I charge a fair market value)
- Manager's fee from any payment I recieve.
- Lawyer's fee from looking over contracts.

[preyer]

wow, that's quite a list. i'm in the process of buying a convenience store, so, yeah, we'll be taking advantage of every tax break we can, but we haven't discussed all what we can deduct just yet. i'm glad you mentioned the lawyer, because i've an appointment with one next week and wonder if i can deduct that. hm....

this is a thread i'm glad i started and hope people bear in mind if they really and truly want to become a professional. talk to an accountant, see what you can deduct. it can add up, especially if you keep your gas receipts. that'll really help me out. i've yet to search for a CPA, will probably use the one the previous owners used for now until i find one i get along with.

can a person deduct if you work on their script, JC? to me, that would be one of the first things i'd mention in trying to drum up work.

i know it's a pain and there can be some costly people you have to pay, but it's something you can't really take just anyone's word for in that tax laws may change from state to state, so not only do you need to speak with a CPA but also a lawyer. in the long run, they pay for themselves, or at least mostly if you do what they say, or at least make good decisions based on their advice.

[Joe Calabrese]

can a person deduct if you work on their script, JC? to me, that would be one of the first things i'd mention in trying to drum up work.
I have no idea what you mean by that.

[preyer]

can a screenwriter deduct your fee for consultant work you do on their script? if so, were i a consultant, i'd definitely mention that your fee can be used as a deduction for their taxes as a business expense.

[Joe Calabrese]

can a screenwriter deduct your fee for consultant work you do on their script? if so, were i a consultant, i'd definitely mention that your fee can be used as a deduction for their taxes as a business expense.Does the WGA mention it or Final Draft? It os not something I would do. Goes n the realm of being "used car saleman" gimmick.

[preyer]

i suppose that's true. it could look tacky depending on how it's done. don't you know there are no 'used cars' anymore? they're 'previously owned.' i'm not saying half of your bandwidth should be taken up with fancy spinning strobing graphics saying, 'hey, hey! don't forget to ask me about your tax break if you chose to use me as a consultant!!' though under a tasteful list of why someone would use a consultant, slip in there 'potential positive tax advantage'. i mean, if it's a real benefit, is there harm in mentioning it? that is, unless, it's assumed anyone using the service should already know that and doesn't need to be reminded.

[preyer]

addendum: would, do you feel, adding that be any more tacky than listing testimonials off to the side?

[NikeeGoddess]

i'm no accountant or lawyer but, methinks until you make some money (or devote 50% of your working life to it) with your writing that it may be considered a hobby and not a business expense.

[Enigma]

... so, by taking a net point deal with the

Think GROSS, as in income, when talking points. NET, as in profits is .. well, always equals nothing, cause there ain't never no profits left over when you're down on the food chain.

[GonnaBeFamous]

i'm no accountant or lawyer but, methinks until you make some money (or devote 50% of your working life to it) with your writing that it may be considered a hobby and not a business expense.

Joe???

[Joe Calabrese]

Again, speak to an accountant as I am not qualified to give such advice but this is my understadning.

You must make more than a certain amount in a calendar year for it to be a valid business. I believe that figure is around $2,000. (I could be wrong about that number.) As such, you must pay income taxes on that amount.

At that point you deduct expenses as I listed previously.

You must show a profit three out of five years and pay takes on those years of profit.

I also have a tax id for my state and have registered as a business.

So, for me to tell prospective clients that they can save on their taxes would be under the assumption that they are a business and doing taxes and in that event would already know of the deduction types, (just as home mortgage lender do not advertise that the interest is tax deductible to a home owner since they would know that already).

If a prospective client is not a business and still starting out with no income to show, then my saying it would be a tax benefit only causes problems for them and make me look bad when they find out they can't.

[Chesher Cat]

Of course speak to an accountant before taking things off your taxes, but these are things I take off every year (sometimes more than I make and claiming a loss, but you can only report a loss three out of five years). Make sure to save those receipts.

- Paper, postage, ink and other supplies.
- WGA and/or Copyright fees for registering work.
- Magazines, books, Variety, HCD.
- Subscription fees for Online databases, tracking sites, etc.
- Competition fees.
- Software related to writing.
- Any computer upgrades or replacements. (you can also write of a depreciation of current equipt).
- Air, hotel and $50 a day for meals for any business related trip (if your researching a script that takes place in Cancun you better have a script to show the IRS or better yet a check for selling that script.)
- Fees for trade shows, pitch fests, expos.
- classes, online or otherwise.
- Coverage/Consulting I pay to have done.
- Half of my internet bill.
- my cell phone bill.
- My safety deposit box.
- business cards.
- Web design, domain reg and site maintenance (since I do it myself, I charge a fair market value)
- Manager's fee from any payment I recieve.
- Lawyer's fee from looking over contracts.

Don't forget your car and gas...and the cost of going to the movies...and your cable tv bill, internet access, etc. You can also write off the portion of your home you set up as an office - coffee is also an office supply.

On your website design, if you deduct fair market value for your work on it, don't you have to claim that as personal income?

[Joe Calabrese]

Don't forget your car and gas...and the cost of going to the movies...and your cable tv bill, internet access, etc. You can also write off the portion of your home you set up as an office - coffee is also an office supply.

On your website design, if you deduct fair market value for your work on it, don't you have to claim that as personal income?If I were with the IRS, you would bring up a red flag at this point. Home office is tricky to justify as would be movies and cable and coffee.

I do claim web work as income and pay taxes on it through that business. Comes in handy on the really slow years when I need to show a profit.

[Chesher Cat]

If I were with the IRS, you would bring up a red flag at this point. Home office is tricky to justify as would be movies and cable and coffee.

I do claim web work as income and pay taxes on it through that business. Comes in handy on the really slow years when I need to show a profit.

Home office is totally legit but my accountant does't deduct it because it will come back to bite me if I sell my property. Cable and movies are also okay because they are research - you have to know what movies are being made if you are going to compete. And you can't very well hold your own in a meeting when potential buyers are referencing other movies and you have to say, "Sorry, didn't see that one." Coffee, maybe not, unless you are renting an outside office.

[preyer]

the art of cheating the IRS, eh? lol.

this is why it's good to ask these questions, cuz i doubt you'd find this in any book.

what JC said about making two grand a year sounds about right. seems i heard that somewhere years ago, probably when i half slept through a tax seminar. getting that ID number is easy enough, it's just an application, pay a fee, and send in a monthly tax statement, which may even be done online by now for all i know. way back when, i want to say the fee was about $25, certainly more now and probably depends on where you're at, yet priced as to not break your piggy bank.

check with the small business administration in your area for free seminars if you're so inclined. while they may not be able to directly help you, they may be able to turn you onto some people and free stuff.

anyone ever see that commercial for a book with methods to get 'free' gov't money being hawked by that skinny weirdo in a suit with question marks all over him? somewhere in there there's supposed to be a section on how to get paid like ten thousand bucks for writing a book. i wonder if that's true.... i chanced upon a wealthy dude once in a bookstore while i was reading 'the robb report,' and he said he made all his money by using methods in that book. just at something like $30, i was hesitant. i just thought it was very strange to be approached in a bookstore merely because i was reading a particular magazine. (were i reading fangoria and approached by a chick, this would be a different story.)

i think there is some validity to it being considered a hobby, too, but i think that's where the dollar mark comes in. the hobby thing rings a bell.

good point about the gross and net difference, too. in anything, get a gross percentage as opposed to net.

[Mac H.]

Just as a slightly different perspective on the tax issue:

Here in Oz one of the main differences between 'hobby' & 'business' is whether it is carried out in a 'business-like' way.

Part of 'business-like' includes using an accountant & lawyer, working on things you don't like but might pay the bills, etc, etc. (Getting an ABN (Our Australian Business Number) etc is expected)

The Tax department here has reached an understanding with the Writer's Guild that allows members to write off half the cost of movie tickets, etc, as a work expense. (On the assumption that you probably might see half of the movies anyway) If you have more than about $300 of expenses in the year, then you need to keep a diary and/or receipts.

Again, this is just a perspective from across the pond to compare.

Mac
(PS: Relying on legal and accounting advice from a free internet message board would definitely put you in the 'hobby' category!)
(PPS: Oh, and Preyer, advertising a 'potential positive tax advantage' would seem really bizarre. [Almost] any expense a business generates would be tax deductable, so I could justify charging them $1 million, on the grounds that it would give them a $200k tax advantage? I'd hardly claim thats 'an advantage'...)

[preyer]

no, just if you pay $300 for script consulting, it might be a small thing to consider if you're the type who waits to buy paper clips until they go on sale. seeing as how you can only deduct so much, it might be a more legitimate deduction than 'ritilin to help me focus on the script' or 'viagra to do research about the porn industry.'