Screenplay standards?

WritingFool said:

First post...greetings everybody. Im shy so I wont formally introduce myself.

Heres a quick question that I hope someone can save me time in investigating.
Is there any type of standarization with regards to selling screenplays.
Full length feature, big budget, action flick.

And, is income from gross profits negotiable?

thanks

Click to expand...

Writing -

Guild signatories have to follow the WGA Minimum Basic Agreement whether the writer is a Guild member or not - so the guild Minimums are good place to start -


BUT keep in mind- that producers who are not signatories do not have to follow those guidelines and especially independent producers will pay significantly less. Some producers will try to pay as little as possible for the script. Some producers will take advantage of writers and there are lots of desperate writers out there willing to sell a script for $2,500 when they should be getting 20x that much.

On the other hand - both signtories and non-signatories will often pay more than guild minimums for a script.

As for gross profit participation. Unestablished writers don't get gross points as part of their deal. If a producer is offering you gross points on a big budget commercial script INSTEAD of paying you upfront I'd be more than skeptical. If he's able to come up with 50 mil to shoot he's able to compensate the writer out of that 50 mil.

As for net points - they're often offered - but don't exist.

If you can't get an agent, then hire an entertainment attorney to negotiate for you. The fact that you are even asking about gross profit tells me that you don't know a lot about how all this works and you are better off having someone who does know representing you - otherwise you are likely to be screwed.

I agree with Iwrite that no writer gets a cut of the gross, especially the new writer.

The following is my opinion based on years of observations. You don't have to agree or disagree.

However there have been exceptions and ways around the system in place. It all depend on how badly they want your work. The more the desire the greater chance your agent can rake them over the coals vs. them you.

Simon Kinberg is a good current example of ways a writer can get more than the usual. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was his first script sold, even though XXX part 2 was made first, and was actually his thesis script at college. He sold it for mid against high sixes with no points but managed to get attached as a co-producer (in name only) so he could get a cut.

In many cases writers only get compensated an amount equal to 1 to 2 percent of the below the line budget with a floor and a ceiling. Such was the case with my last sale.

When you hear low against high six, the low is the floor and the high is... you know.

So as an example: Let's say the deal is 1% of the below the line budget with a 100K floor 500K ceiling . If greenlit at 50 million, the writer would get 500 thousand. If it ends up a 100 million dollar film to make, it still is 500K to the writer.

Plus it is fairly common to get an extra bonus if the budget hits a certain number above and beyond the ceiling. Less common is a distribution bonus whereas if the film makes a ton of money the writer gets a small bonus. Even less common is points on the film's gross.

As for Gump (and many other films) making a ton of money and the writer getting very little. Oh well. Get used to it, unless you become a producer.

The risks were taken by the producers. They put up the money and recourses to get the film made, not you.

A producer thinks: If you were to get more for a box office success, then so would the DP who made the film look so good, or all the actors for making the performances come alive, or even the grip, who made sure the electricity flowed well. Who do you think you are?

For the most part, producers regard writers as just another member of the crew. You got paid for your job.

Most Directors only get a cut of the net as well. Only the big, well established box office people, or people with clout-- whether actors, directors and/or writers, get a real percentage of a film.

But then again, it all boils down to how hot the script is, how good your agent is and who the buyers are. Trust that your agent will get the best deal for you.

Apparently Joe felt the need to lock the other thread - probably to prevent a bash WF party. But I don't want to let this go by without some comment from someone.

WritingFool said:

But guess everyone needs to be compensated for their precious time.
At least some people do.
As far as any attitudes to be dealt with, well, hey guess there are some writers who have attitudes and others that dont, some that can work as a team, and apparently some that wouldnt want to try. No big.
Ill still get the same joy out of finishing my masterpiece.

Click to expand...

You're the one coming off with the attitude - a snarky, jealous attitude that is quite a turn-off. There are quite a few who contribute to this site who have very little (if anything) to gain from the conversations and critiques. They come here to offer their knowledge and expertise for no other reason than they want to help those with less knowledge and expertise. They owe you nothing.

Your expectation that those who have a combination of talent and a knowledge of the craft should contribute their time, efforts and energies into a collaboration with those who have neither shows that you

a) have not the slightest clue as to what is involved in the type of collaboration you are suggesting (it's a logistical, time-consuming nightmare) and
b) have no concept of what a real collaboration entails.

Ideally you want to collaborate with those near (or hopefully slightly above) your level and you also want to try to collaborate with those whose strengths are your weakenesses. There is a huge gap between the DPat and Joe's and the true beginners on this site. It is also clear that DPat, Joe, etc. have no shortage of their own ideas - so for them there is really nothing in the type of collaboration you are advocating.

And yes, time is precious and this board and the people on it are certainly not a life priority for any of us - even if our own writing IS a major priority. For those of us fortunate enough to support ourselves in this business - the paid writing gigs come first, as they should. I assume that the rest of the writers on this board hope to one day make money at it as well. Perhaps you are the exception to that rule, WF.

You seem to be implying that those who are not interested in your collaboration idea are selfish. What bull. But you were right about one thing, WF - I for one have absolutely positively no desire to be on your team. And because of your attitude have no desire to take my precious time to help or advise you in any way at all.

dpaterso said:

Aaah c'mon, let's hold virtual hands and sing kumbaya, WF's reply made me smile, hopefully mine gave him a little smile too. Don't mistake enthusiasm or disappointment for attitude. It's only a board, think of your blood pressure. Onward, next topic.

Click to expand...

Derek - maybe you didn't see WF's final reply on the other thread (see page 2). if you did then you and I have different definitions of the word enthusiasm - and unless he's under 12, his communication of his "disappointment" is nasty, rude and immature.

As for my blood pressure - it's fine. My precious time being at a premium - I've become more discriminating about the type of help i give and who I give help to. For now at least I've decided to point out what it is that makes me choose not to help so those who may in fact desire my feedback will do things like proof their work before posting and show a little respect if not appreciation for those, like you and Joe who participate despite the fact that there's very little quid pro quo for them on the site.

Another response to the closed thread...

WF wrote:
" Oh, and Pat. Loosen up. Wondering if Pats a dame.
Only a dame would read so much into something that they shouldn't
::grins mischieviously knowing what theres going to be comments coming in now::"

Hey, Joe, I vote for the "banned" button.

I voted for a warning.

From now on, I will only give the "be nice or else speech" once to a person before handing out a temporary ban. After that ban is lifted, another indiscretion will result in a permanent ban of that person's user name.

I'm not naming names, but if you act like a Vig, you'll be treated as such.

Now that we all know the rules, play on....

Joe
Your benevolent dictator.

Cheer up everyone! Screenwriting is a serious business, but we don't want anyone's head to pop.

As for the wave, I always wanted to use it. I got my chance. I feel better.

Carry on.

Steph