Project similar to produced feature

finding another flick similar to your own story is nothing new or unusual. in fact it's quite common as not many people can come up with a logline or synopsis that doesn't remind people of a movie they've already seen.

the only thing you'll need to be concerned about (in regards to the similarity issue) is finding a producer who hasn't done that already or doesn't want to copy what's been done and is looking for what you have to offer. it's a catch 21!

The main character played by Bruce Willis was somewhat similar to Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan in which a soldier was sent on a rescue mission, and while trying to save lives, it actually resulted in deaths. Saving Private Ryan was a commentary on the irony of war, the uselessness of war, the madness of war, and the stupid politics of the high-ranking generals. Tom hanks said: "The mission is always more important than the man," to which another character retorted: "But in this instance the man IS the mission." After private Ryan was rescued, he returned to the States haunted for the rest of his life by the knowledge that all of Hanks' men died just to save his life. The overriding point of SPR was: irony, irony, irony.

The Bruce Willis film seems somewhat less a commentary about ironic politics in war and more meant to be an expose of the brutalities in Nigeria. And yet I compare it to the Tom Hanks/Stephen Spielberg film because Willis' role was likewise of a soldier sent on a rescue mission.

Your story, however, is about a carefree couple in love who go to Aftrica on safari. Neither of them are soldiers and neither of them have war on the brain.The commonality of the Hanks character and the Willis character is that they were both soldiers totally expecting combat and totally prepared to die. There is (amongst a movie-going audience) a quite and somber respect for that kind of awareness of and acceptance of the potential for death on the part of a soldier. But a young couple who are just looking for a vacation is not the same at all.

You secondary protagonist, Richard, is also not a soldier--not anymore. He's retired now. And what does he do for a living now? Did you say he's now a journalist? (Might be kinda cooler if you make him a tour guide for big game hunters, but that's just my two cents.) None of your characters are looking for trouble. None of them have voluntarilly set themselves in harm's way by donning a soldier's uniform and venturing into a combat zone. That LACK of willingness to be a part of a fight sets your story into a whole different dynamic. (This is the part of the story I loosely call the "emotional fabric" or the "emotional coloring," and it's the part of story crafting that I operate in with the higherst degree of intuitivenss. That's my way of saying that I set about weaving my story's emotional fabric without being able to fall back upon very much formal training at all. But quite sadly I wish I had the formal training of maybe an MFA in film studies because then I believe I could be a whole lot more adept at it. I currently lack that training and the rich vocabulary and historical background that goes with such training. So for now I just grope along with my basic yet very unrefined instincts as a natural born story teller. So I do it all very intuitively rather than expertly, and the result is I am unable to recognize when I'm doing something utterly cliched or else half-way to genius. And I'm also unable to microscopically analyze the sub-elements of a tale and deftly manipulate them oh so slightly to achieve a far better result. So all of what I am offering you here is an intuitive analysis of your story rather than an educated analysis. )

None of your characters were looking for combat (not even your former soldier!), so they are all far more sympathetic, and the sense of peril is far greater. As well as the sense of injustice. So I don't believe the similarities to Tears of the Sun are quite as blatant as you might think. If anything, your story might be somewhat akin to a cross between Hotel Rwanda (the peril and the noble choices of a civilian hotel manager) and Blood Diamond (the peril of a civilian villager fighting to get his family back). The icing on the cake is that even your soldier (Richard) is no longer even a soldier anymore. He's essentially a civilian now, so the underlying dynamic of your tale is: civillains unwittingly and unfairly caught up in a horrible war situation in Africa. That emotional fabric is NOT the same as Tears of the Sun.

we-ll....I respectfully disagree. I'd move away from the project. Unless you are married to it, passionate about it and committed to following through with it...I work in the world of producers and executives and up-and-coming writers and my gut is that I would avoid anything about Africa right now because it's been done recently. If you really like your story, why not simply choose a different setting and/or era? Who wants to spend the ten minutes that you probably won't even get explaining how this is different from THE CONSTANT GARDNER, HOTEL RWANDA, TEARS OF THE SUN and BLOOD DIAMOND? Many of the decision-makers in Hollywood make their initial decision in a relatively quick, category-driven way. Africa? Guy rescuing people? I've seen it.

say it won't be released for another two years, i'd say that gives you some distance, eh? i mean, would you feel bad if it 'only' got optioned? true, there've been some 'africa' movies in the last several years. of them all, i've seen 'blood diamond.' i meant to see the others, but, you know, other movies to see and all. if your's came out and it looked interesting (i have to balance what i think looks interesting with what i think my wife would enjoy, too, thus i've not seen 'hotel rwanda'), i'd rent it (due to excessive work schedules, we rarely get to see movies in the actual theatres anymore. such is the life of business owners).

i think julie and plot both have good points. i'm on the fence here, especially having not seen those other movies.

since you asked about where in the states you could set it, my knee-jerk reaction is the south immediately after the civil war, and i'm talking just a week or two where not everyone would necessarily know the war is over, and the 'rescue mission' involves freeing slaves from a particularly stubborn slave owner, the rescuers being an errant band of union soldiers perhaps returning home and really not wanting much to do with battle anymore. alternately, the slave owner's son returns from college a liberal man and has to deal with his newfound convictions, and takes action to rescue the slaves on his own. the implications of the themes there are pretty clear, imo. (not knowing how the ivory trade plays a role in your story, but that does remind me of the diamond trade angle in 'blood diamond.' not that it's equatable, or maybe it is?, but you'd obviously supplant ivory for slaves in this example. if you ever did put an entirely different spin on your story, the ivory is dropped for anything that's symbolic of greed, corruption and money, enough to kill people for. whatever ivory is really symbollic of in your story will be universal in whatever version you come up with, so it sounds as if you've a solid thematic basis as far as that's concerned, imo.)

but, your idea is probably better. since you asked, though, there's my two cents. i figure there's got to be a dozen ways to spin the basic story and set it in america. i once had an idea, oh, twenty years or so ago, where an average guy saves a group of foreign women being held and used as prostitutes. i thought the guy should have been in love with one of them for it to work. then i just happened to see an obscure movie called 'taxi driver' and, well, i think that idea went poof after that. is that a servicable story? maybe. could i have made it different enough that there was no real connections? easily. was my enthusiasm snuffed? yep.

i can't pretend to tell you what you should do, ry, other than watch those other movies and if you still feel the need to write it then do it. if you never sell it, you've got a sample to show a potential agent, no? if it doesn't sell, maybe then you can retool it and try the new version? (this isn't necessarily an endorsement to write it: it sounds as if you've got your mind made up, lol. that being the case, that's me supporting your decision, such support as it is.)

RylenolFlu said:

Thanks for the response, I've noted it.

Well, I mean I could relocate the story but I was heavily influenced by a safari I went on, no one was kidnapped or anything like that, but the landscape blew me away. While I was in Kenya I was actually unaware of how close some of the regional conflicts actually were to me (Chad and Sudan to the North).
Anyway, I don't know where I could transplant this story to in the States. I realize production wise that it would be easier to make domestically but the ivory trade is a pretty big part of my story.
There are some similarities to the films you have mentioned but this is really a redemptive father type story whose life has been spent caring for this reserve (more than his family) So when the story twist occurs he is forced to chose between the land or his family (daughter) along with the well being of a few natives he has dragged into this mess.
My logic in proceeding is this, "Africa" films, even though I hate categorizing these types of films, aren't going away. There will be another Africa film and if I feel passionate about this one I think it might be one of them (hoping and wishing) later down the road.
Anyway, thanks again for the producer perspective response.

Click to expand...

I always hesitate to tell anyone *not* to write something if they really feel passionately about it -- but in terms of marketability, I would tend to agree with the previous poster.

After Hotel Rwanda, which was a modest commercial succes and a major critical success, there were a number of Hollywood "African" projects -- and they all bombed.

What you have to remember is that whoever reads this script is going to have to walk into the office of his boss -- the head of the studio, and convince that guy to spend -- what? Fifty, eighty, a hundred million dollars to make this thing?

And how does he begin his pitch. "Okay, it's Africa, and there's this --"

At which point the studio boss says, "What another Africa movie? Forget about it."

That's why the average studio exec, when he opens a script to page one and it says, "EXT. AFRICA - DAY, is pretty much saying to himself -- forget about it.

Obviously, if Stephen Spielberg (or if Oprah Winfrey) wakes up one morning and decides to make a movie in Africa, then maybe it happens.

But that's a very different situation.

NMS

I agree - if you are really passionate, that in fact is the single most important determining factor. You might be writing the Best Picture of 2012, a movie which we'll all cherish and remember for generations - I mean, truly, it's nuts to quash passion in a writer. But we all do have to bear in mind the commercial viability factor when we're trying to break in to the spec market. You might want to break in with something less expensive to make while working on your masterpiece set in Africa.

the other thing about marketability. it may not be marketable today but in 10 years it could be. ten years is not unusual to get any project off the ground. you could write it now while you're passionate about it. write others that are more marketable now and if you get anywhere with them then you could bring this one back up; rewrite it; and now that you have your foot in the door...

NikeeGoddess said:

the other thing about marketability. it may not be marketable today but in 10 years it could be. ten years is not unusual to get any project off the ground. you could write it now while you're passionate about it. write others that are more marketable now and if you get anywhere with them then you could bring this one back up; rewrite it; and now that you have your foot in the door...

Click to expand...

I have to add my support to this.

If you were a working screenwriter, writing your next spec, my advice might be differerent, but especially given the stage you're at right now, you're not writing to put food on the table. All of this can be viewed as a learning experience in any case, so it might just as well serve you not to worry so much about what's "saleable" in today's market but simply write the story that you want to tell.

In any case, I recently sold a screenplay that I wrote over ten years ago and in the intervening years movies like it have come and gone.

NMS

RylenolFlu said:

Definitely taking in all the advice.

I'm not exactly writing to put food on the table, but I do want to break into the industry. I'm on page 15 of this current project and have 80 pages written on another Iraq war themed script.

NMS, your explanation of how producers might react to the next "Africa" script did knock some sense into me. It seems, like you said, a matter of falling into the right hands, like a Spielberg.

Ultimately, the scripts I'm writing right now would most likely have to be high budget, but I'm passionate about them but realize the contradictory nature of what I'm doing (passion for story/high budget for production. Does this lessen my chances of getting read and breaking in?

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't want you to think that writing a low budget movie would necessarily increase your chances. It's a different kind of movie for a different kind of audience.

But certainly you have to realize that the bigger the budget, the bigger the risk -- and studios are exceptionally risk averse. They make very few movies a year. Their choices tend to be quite conservative and they tend to hedge their bets -- thus the star system. Thus movies based on best-selling novels and television series. Thus the plethora of sequels and remakes. Thus the emphasis on special effects and action.

Those things may not be guarantees by any means, but they are quantifiable elements that increase the chances of success. More than that, for executives who are looking to keep their jobs, they are things that can be pointed to in the event of the inevitable failure. Yes, the movie didn't make money but look -- it starred X, it was directed by Z, it was based on Y, it had all of those lovely explosions.

But what does the exec say if it bombs and it was written by you, and doesn't have any of those sure-fire things going for it other than, "I'll pack up my desk"?

With lower budgeted movies, you are often dealing with smaller companies that get their financing from different sources. While they ultimately must deal with the studios -- they deal with them at the level of presenting them with a finished film -- the risk involved is different.

Dealing with a lower budget movie (on the order of ten to thirty million or thereabouts) you can be dealing with companies that, while they certainly are making decisions based on commercial considerations, because their initial investment is much less, the risk they are prepared to take is greater.

So if you have reached a point where you want to start marketing your work, then you have to start looking at your work as a commodity.

If it's a movie that's going to cost a hundred million dollars to make but is not really a big commercial movie at heart, then there's a real mismatch.

We see movies sometimes that really seem as if they ought to be low budget movies -- and the only way they became big budget movies was because a star, for whatever reason, chose to attach himself to it.

But then you have to look at your movie and ask yourself -- is this a star vehicle? Is it "star bait?" An irresistible part for a male lead, a female lead (preferably a male lead -- it's hard to get movies set up these days with female leads, I'm afraid).

If it's some version of Erin Brokovitch, or something like that -- then maybe you've got something.

But what about a big-budget script that has no really great star part (and you have to distinguish between a part that's "great" simply because it comes with a twenty-million dollar paycheck and one that's great because, well -- it's a great part).

Who's going to want it? Most stars won't even look at a project unless it's already "set-up" -- that is, unless the financing (and thus their potential pay) -- is in place. They only want to be involved in things that are real. They don't want to be involved in taking things that aren't real and making them real.

So if you've got something that's a spec script - not based on some successful pre-existing property, and it's not "star bait" -- that is, it doesn't have a big star part at the center of it, and it's big budget, plus, it's not "four quadrant" -- not designed to appeal to all audiences -- young, old, teen, family. It has limited appeal.

What do you do with it?

Now understand -- it's okay to have limited appeal. No Country for Old Men has limited appeal. There Will be Blood has limited appeal. Juno has limited appeal.

But all of those movies are moderately budgeted. None of them are "star vehicles" -- in the sense of requiring a major Hollywood star to justify their existence. Thus they can make their money back and justify the cost of making them with a far smaller return than a big budget Hollywood movie.

That's why Hotel Rwanda -- moderate budget, mid-range star -- moderate success.

Blood Diamond -- big budget, big stars -- big flop. The potential market for that movie didn't justify the upfront costs, neither the investment of money, nor the investment of the "stars" -- because there's there's a finite market for movies of this kind, just as there's a finite market for movies like "Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood."

If There Will Be Blood had been made for a hundred and fifty million dollars, with Bruce Willis, it would be a huge bomb -- not because Bruce Willis is a bad actor, but because the nature of that movie simply has a cap to its natural audience.

If you want to approach marketing your material, these are the sorts of things that you are bound to think about.

NMS

many a-list actors will work for a small salary just to do the role they want to do. these are actors who are passionate about there work and not their celebrity status and money. some actors make deals where they'll star in several tentpole flicks so they can do that one serious role that the studio would otherwise never make.

some projects can only get made with an a-list attachment and this may have been one of them. if your project has need for an a-list actor then you might be able to go this route to get your foot in the door.

for some reason hollyweird believes that if your story is set in africa that your leading role must be a white guy to get the audiences to go see it: blood diamond, out of africa, etc... it's only been quite recent that they've realized that it's not always necessary: the last king of scotland, hotel rwanda - both received oscar nominations

The entire film would pretty much take place in a game reserve

Click to expand...

the fewer the locations the less expensive it is to make. and being filmed in africa is a lot cheaper than most places in the US.

somewhat as an aside, now i'm trying to think of all those movies with an african base. 'zulu dawn,' 'out of africa,' 'gladiator' if you count the stop-over between spain and rome, 'the african queen,' 'the lion king,' there was one with michael douglas as a lion hunter ('the ghost and the darkness'?), one with matthew mcconnoughey (sp?) where they go and search for that confederate civil warship, 'the mummy,' i want to say a lot of 'lord of war' was set in africa... probably dozens of other movies set in africa or have a strong african sense about it (if that's not vague enough of a term, let me know, i can do worse). and i don't think any of these lacked a decent budget and/or stars. (i can't remember if 'the four feathers' had a setting in africa or india, sorry.)

it's been suggested that africa isn't in vogue at the moment. that's how i took it. if we're burned out on africa, that'll be reflected in the box office, right? of course, not every 'african' movie can be a winner, but maybe if you can find some trends that might help you decide. maybe there's been a shift from africa to china or japan settings? (the list is probably pretty long on that one, too, though it seems to me that we've been seeing a lot of 'orient' movies, and not just kung fu and anime movies, but horror (and japanese horror adapted for american audiences) and some fare that's less than awesome storytelling, such as the incomprehensible effects-laden korean film 'dragon wars.' so, it's not all 'kundun' and 'memoirs of a geisha.' i mean, we've been seeing 'orient' movies for quite awhile now, and i have to wonder if we're getting 'burned out' on those, too, or some producer would react the same way were it an 'african' movie? i don't know if one is a hotter backdrop than the other. 'the mummy III' will be out this year unless i'm mistaken, and it's set in china.)

i'm not sure if there's anyone else's market research you could refer to, so you might have to do your own. since i suggested that, does anyone take issue with the idea of seeing what 'african' movies there've been and taking notes? if you know the name of a movie, there are sites with production costs, domestic and foreign grosses, cast and crew lists, that kind of thing (which i'm sure you're aware of ). would this market research be a case of, 'well, that's nice to know, but it's really a colossal waste of time'? or would it be handy to know if you're lucky enough, for lack of a better term, to be called in for a pitch meeting?

can the world stand one more african movie? i'd say if we can stand another orient movie, they yeah. i think we can stand another movie of any kind that's good. do i need another african movie today? can't say for sure... ask me in a few years. that's why i like the idea of considering it a labour of love while working out some ideas that may be more apt to sell. if nothing else you'll have a nice sample to show an agent (assuming you don't realize down the road the story needs substantial help and by no means should it be represenative of your best work). based on what i'm reading, if you do write this up and shop it around, it's my understanding the readers, aka 'story analysts,' will make notes on your script that will last for years, long after that reader has moved on, so maybe it's a good idea to really limit the number of places you're submitting to.

what's the criteria on low and high budget, anyway? i keep seeing different numbers. what's WGA's definition, and is that *really* the last word? i've a list of ideas and they're ALL great movies to be (aren't they all?), but realistically there are some that's more likely than others (realistically, if any at all are 'likely') that, based solely on watching the last season of 'project greenlight,' are probably under $6 million if you wanted to go nuts with them. is that low-budget?

ry, there's a period dramedy i want to do. it started as a novel, but it wasn't working out well stylistically and structurally for me. it's just a story that's meant to be a movie. but it's definitely an expensive-ish movie, imo. am i going to wait until i do a hundred scripts before tackling this love of mine? hardly. then again, i don't want to screw it up, either. so, at some point, i *will* knock out a first draft and see where i stand and attempt some kind of judgement on how i've progressed and, hopefully, be a lot clearer on far i've left to go. i don't care if i don't win an oscar for 'haunted hospital' or 'super hero man,' but others i really want to make shine. so, i think we're sort of in the same boat. it sucks that our ideas are probably no less marketable, even 'four quadrant' marketable, but we usually have to earn that right to be noticed on that level. and i'm sure there must be a helluva lot better ideas than mine by a helluva lot of writers whose names people actually recognize who don't get their ideas off the ground, too.

sorry, i've rambled on long enough.

'some projects can only get made with an a-list attachment and this may have been one of them. if your project has need for an a-list actor then you might be able to go this route to get your foot in the door.' ~ unless i'm mistaken, a lot of actors have their own production companies. it's funny, i was just reading about this today, but the material is about ten years old, so i'm not sure about how valid it is right at this moment. at any rate, in this case you'd find out that person's production company and approach them through their agent (assuming what i read was right and i understood it correctly, but i have no reason to think j. michael straczynski feels the need to lie about this stuff). the odds are still pretty astronomical, i'd say.

preyer said:

'some projects can only get made with an a-list attachment and this may have been one of them. if your project has need for an a-list actor then you might be able to go this route to get your foot in the door.' ~ unless i'm mistaken, a lot of actors have their own production companies. it's funny, i was just reading about this today, but the material is about ten years old, so i'm not sure about how valid it is right at this moment. at any rate, in this case you'd find out that person's production company and approach them through their agent (assuming what i read was right and i understood it correctly, but i have no reason to think j. michael straczynski feels the need to lie about this stuff). the odds are still pretty astronomical, i'd say.

Click to expand...

Most A-list actors (and many actors who are not quite A-list) have development deals with some studio or other. That means that they have their own development companies that are financed by the studio in question and those companies exist for the purpose of finding and developing projects -- potentially -- both for the actor to star in, and also for the actor to produce or direct, if the actor in question is interesting in doing that.

So a big star might have their own company and one might -- in principle -- submit a spec script to that company, cold -- but if you're intending to submit a spec script to that company, you still have to understand that, barring some special *in* -- that the rules still apply.

When producers are trying to cast the leads in their movies they'll work up "lists" -- names of potential leads for their movies.

And if these are big A scale productions, then you can bet that the names of the top stars are pretty much going to show up on every single list, if they're available.

Everybody wants them. Everybody wants Will Smith. Everybody wants Brad Pitt. Their problem isn't finding material -- it's filtering material.

That's why they'll say things like -- we won't even look at a script unless it's already set up -- or comes with a firm offer.

There are actually a number of stars who literally charge a "reading fee."

If you want us to even look at your script, you'll have to pay us. Pay us to even consider being in your movie.

The cold hard truth is -- top ranked stars who are getting twenty million dollars and a percentage of the gross aren't looking at spec scripts from unsold writers for their next movie -- unless that spec script happens to have been written by their spiritual advisor/significant other/secret gay lover/fill in the blank.

With stars that are lower down on the pole, it's going to be easier to get to them, especially if they are stars that are, potentially, looking for transitionally material.

Maybe it's a TV actor looking to break into features. A younger actor looking to break into more adult roles. Someone who's done mostly comedy and you're offering them a serious part. Or someone who's known primarily in supporting roles and you're giving them a chance, potentially, for leading role.

But the whole "casting" thing is a very tricky thing, since casting at this level isn't so much a matter of art as of money. Different names have different value -- and I mean monetary value. For moderately budgeted movies, very often the name of the star you've cast can mean the difference between getting the budget you need from foreign and not.

And what names "work for foreign" and what names don't can be very surprising. And those overseas financing sources can be very specific. You need a certain amount of money -- you've got to be able to deliver a name from a certain list of names. Can't do it? Can't get the money.

NMS

so, do they still do 'package deals' (where the star/script/producer/whomever else is already set before approaching the studio)? this question is probably more appropos in regard to agents, but if you're a name in HW and go to the brass and say 'me and director X are ready to roll and here's the script, give us lots of money and distribution, please,' does that happen?

how is that these A listers agree to do a small indie roll?

preyer said:

so, do they still do 'package deals' (where the star/script/producer/whomever else is already set before approaching the studio)? this question is probably more appropos in regard to agents, but if you're a name in HW and go to the brass and say 'me and director X are ready to roll and here's the script, give us lots of money and distribution, please,' does that happen?

how is that these A listers agree to do a small indie roll?

Click to expand...

Very often these things happen through the various parties being represented within the same agency.

It's happened that my agent will say -- take a look at this book, is it something you think you might be interested in. Yes? Well, why don't you come up with a take and then we'll set up a meeting -- oh, let's set up a meeting with this producer who happens to have a relationship with this other company that this director's development company.

Now -- what agency do you think reps the me, and the writer of the book, and the producer's company and the director's company?

The fact that the overall enthusiasm, on everybody's part to make this thing happen was really lukewarm overall didn't keep the agency from pushing as hard as they could to make this all come together -- because if it had, they'd have gotten a percentage of the book deal, my deal, the director's deal -- and the producer's deal -- a big payday for the agency.

But it didn't happen.

And every agency is always looking to put together deals like that.

Regarding stars saying -- Hey studio, I want to make this movie -- yeah, it does happen sometimes. In fact, sometimes a studio will, quite literally, finance a star's "vanity" movie -- something that a star wants to make for "artistic reasons" if a star agrees to star in some big commercial film.

How is it that these projects land in a star's lap? Often these are based on personal relationships -- people that the star has worked with or knows professionally (remember "big star" today often worked in smaller movies or on the stage yesterday) or whose indie work he's seen and admired.

It might be that the star has optioned a book, or found a "real life" story.

The point is -- just as studios and producers and networks have systems set up to "vet" material -- because you've get X tens of thousands of people trying to get material across the transom with the overwhelming majority being junk, and you need a system to keep at least the vast bulk of that junk out -- so do the stars and their development companies have comparable systems designed to keep all of those people who are trying to shove their projects over the transom away from the star.

And at the very, very tippity-top of the stuff that everyone wants to keep away from the star are spec scripts written by unknown, unagented, unsold writers. That's because the chances of any given script of that category being good, while not zero, is so close to zero, it might as well, from their point of view -- be treated as zero.

They don't even want to cover it. They don't want it coming across the transom. They don't want to have anything to do with it.

So unless you have some real personal connection to the star, or a personal connection to someone who can get to the star as an active champion of your script, the liklihood of it getting into the star's hands (and I'm talking here about a major star -- an A-list star) is virtually nil.

Let me be clear. I couldn't do it with a spec script of mine. My agent, on my behalf, wouldn't be able to do it.

A script of mine that's already under option -- the producers were trying to get a particular star to read it, hoping to get him attached in hopes of securing foreign financing -- they couldn't get him to read it without a firm commitment to pay his rate prior to his opening the script.

So have no illusions about this. Stars talk passion, but they work for money, and unless the money is there, the star won't be.

NMS

that's rather how i imagined it, except for securing a particular star for their foreign financing... i'm still learning about screenwriting, the finer points of financing are, shall we say, not quite inside my realm.

occasionally you do hear of a star foregoing a salary to play a certain role. now, i imagine this can't be with a signatory, no? i wonder, too, how this is possible and their agent not throw a holy conniption fit. last i looked, 10% of nothing is still nothing. or does an agent just accept the fact that an 'artist' at some point will do something like this between $10M paychecks?

anyway, trying to bring ry's question back into the light, what are your current thoughts, ry, about keeping the setting in africa?

sure, i think a producer could go, 'ah, jeez, another african movie?' and promptly opt for the round filing cabinet, but isn't that the chance you take with any script really? a script won't just land in the hands of a producer without being read by *someone* or some pretty savvy writer circumventing the normal chain of command, so aren't they likely to at least look at it to some degree before completely dismissing it? what are ry's chances if he's agented? what kind of heft does being agented carry in this case (or any case, i guess)?