Reader Question: What are the advantages / disadvantages of script attachments?

From Malibo Jackk:

How can you avoid agents, managers or consultants from attaching themselves to your script? Or a producer who is only interested in attaching himself to the script?

Reading between the lines, it sounds like, MJ, either you have been burned before by having someone attached to one of your scripts or you have read one or more horror stories in that vein. Even if that is the case, broadly speaking while there can be disadvantages to certain types of attachments, on the whole writers should want attachments, especially those which are presumably advantageous.

As long as we’re here, let’s make sure everybody knows precisely what an attachment is. In the parlance of script acquisition and development, an attachment is anybody who is considered to be part of a scripted project. That is if the project goes forward, the attachment goes along with it. But there are attachments and there are attachments.

Your standard fare attachments are agents and managers. In 99% of the cases of a script sale, there will be someone representing the project on behalf of the writer. In the rare case where a script somehow slips through the cracks and is unrepresented at the point of sale, as in the case of the recent spec “Non-Stop”, chances are they will be signed soon by an agent or rep.

More substantive attachments are producers for a variety of reasons: relationships with studios, relationships with actors and directors, connection to independent financing, history and reputation as producers, etc.

Depending on the project, the next step up the attachment food chain could be actors or director. If the project is less actor dependent and more technically oriented, maybe the choice of a director is a more critical choice. On the other hand, if the project is most fundamentally about its characters and their interrelationships, perhaps actors are more important.

There are all types of attachments as well ranging from an actor or director lending their name to a project to see if that can help solidify a deal or financing to pay-or-play deals where the studio agrees to pay the talent whether or not they make the movie, obviously a big incentive for the studio to produce the film.

All of this feeds into what is known as packaging which is what has traditionally been the focus of agencies, preferably loading up the project with people the agency represents, thereby taking 10% of a bigger slice of the revenue pie.

For a writer just breaking in or starting out, their general attitude should probably be openness to wanting to get talent attached to a script as that can give the project a sense of heft and make it easier for a studio or financing entity to pull the trigger. It’s not just about this script, it’s this script with these actors and this director.

But of course, there’s a downside, too, if the people attached to the script are not perceived as bringing much heat to the project or worse they have a problematic reputation. Or because Hollywood likes to pigeonhole people, if you have, say, a comedy, and the director and/or actors attached are known as drama types, that could make it harder for someone to greenlight the project.

After making sure you sign with a manager and/or agency who you feel get you as a writer, probably the next most important attachment is the producer. I have known lots and lots of writers whose scripts have foundered and gone nowhere because they had in effect ‘bad’ producers attached. Not bad in like an evil sense, more like a bad fit. The producer didn’t really have passion for the script, really didn’t get the material, was too busy with other projects to give attention to the script, and so on.

But circling back to your question, MJ, my basic point is you want an agent, a manager and a producer attached to your script. Why? Because you want someone in the industry championing your project. These people only make money on the project if you make money, and in the case of the producer, only when the movie moves forward into active pre-production or production. So what you’re hoping for is a team of advocates to become attached to your script — agent, manager, producer — all of them committed to selling the project.

Yes, you pay 10% to your agent, 10% to your manager, and the producer gets whatever deal they can negotiate, but you should look at that as money well-spent if they help you get your movie made.

So bottom line, the writer’s focus should be on agent, manager and producer in terms of script attachments. If you have made the right choices there, chances are much better what happens with actors and directors will align with your desires and expectations, although heaven knows movies crash and burn at that point… and you have no say over how those decisions are made.

[cough ** “Trojan War”** cough]

GITS readers and writers, what’s your take on attachments? Any more advice for Maliboo Jackk?

Comment Archive