Dealing with idiot agents

Truth be told. Those shows are eye candy. Where is the character development in that episode of Black Scorpion? Two movies on showTime won Roger Coreman a TV series deal with SyFy.

My cast will tell you we have a story and characters like the old classics of sci-fi, which is a big reason why they like the production and believe that is what we should promote.

Interesting enough id FB and YT data os showing us our viewers are and will be teenage girls.
 
Last edited:
To shed some light on the television market and our challenge I will do my best to remember the exact words of the reply when I asked my friend a Hollywood producer about selling to television. Her answers are always abrupt and can be mistaken as rude. But, she makes you think and she gives valuable information.

"Why should a TV network buy content from you when they have their own television studio to support? Try cable TV. ShowTime and HBO buys filler content from independent producers at different times of the year. Try every quarter."

Her statement cleared up some of the mystery for me.
 
Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
Two movies on showTime won Roger Coreman a TV series deal with SyFy.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah - that's one way of looking at it. Another is that after a 60+ year career of producing over 300 films, many of which have become cult classics and have launched the careers of major film directors, his name is enough to get him a meeting with executives at just about any television network. SyFy is a perfect fit for his specialty - low budget genre work - so it's a natural place for him to take a show he was producing based on the films. It's not like he's an unknown filmmaker who somehow got discovered by SyFy and 'won' a tv deal. In fact, I'd be surprised if SyFy actually put any money into the production itself - they may have simply bought the broadcast rights after Corman produced the show.
 
Great thread. Thanks for the posts EuropeanDistributor. A question to you regarding the 10 percent deposit on name-salaries, if I may. Are those contracts typically play-or-pay? So the producer raises 50K to sign 500K worth of name-talent. If the project should fall apart that 50K is gone, but is the producer still bound to pay out the remaining 450K in name-salary anyway?
 
slapshot said:
Great thread. Thanks for the posts EuropeanDistributor. A question to you regarding the 10 percent deposit on name-salaries, if I may. Are those contracts typically play-or-pay? So the producer raises 50K to sign 500K worth of name-talent. If the project should fall apart that 50K is gone, but is the producer still bound to pay out the remaining 450K in name-salary anyway?
Click to expand...

Because of the deposit, technically every contract you make with an actor is pay or play.

No, the producer doesn't have to pay the remaining 90% if the project falls apart, unless of course something like that is stated in the contract.

Nobody should hire any expensive name talent before they have the budget in place and know for sure they can make the movie, or if they know the talent they are hiring is good enough for pre-sales etc. so they know they can raise the budget with those names, otherwise if the movie falls apart you might risk losing the 10% deposit.

It should be said that one mistake I see filmmakers do all the time in addition to overpaying actors is hiring names they think are valuable who later turn out to be almost worthless.
That's why it's important to only hire names who are recommended by sales agents and distributors and not go by your gut feeling.
 
slpashot,

Your example would be a foolish thing for any producer to do.
I know you aren’t planning to do this or suggesting anyone do
it - it’s just a question. But the answer is yes, the producer who
does that would lose the entire 50k.

There are very few agents who would even agree to a deal like
that. A good agent does not want their client’s name to be what
is driving the financing of a movie. Imagine the scenario from
their point of view: A producer without a track record pays for the
actors name in order to get financing and the financing does not
come through. Now that “name” is a name that cannot secure
financing. A really poor career move.

An agent who would agree to a deal like that is not thinking of the
long term career of their client. And as E.D. says, the chances are
that “name” is most likely not a name that will attract investors.
I see it often - a project with a “name” attached who I don’t even
know. The producer then shows me a resume of several TV guest
spots and an independent film that was reviewed well but didn’t
make much money. that’s not a “name” that will drive investors
or distributors.

It’s damn difficult, isn’t it?
 
Thanks EuropeanDistrib and Directorik. No, don't worry, I'm not planning on doing this myself, I just asked because I know two separate producers who did just that and I don't think either case turned out well. Neither producer was terribly forthcoming with me about what exactly happened, but one project never got made. The other project did get made, but the producer was being sued by agency of the first actor they had made an offer/deposit to. The reason? The producer had revoked the offer to the first actor after paying deposit and offered the role to a higher-level actor who expressed interest (and ended doing the part). So first actor's agency was suing producer for remainder of offer. Not sure if there would have been a suit if the film had simply not been able to finish raising funds. I imagine the first actor was pissed and insulted and wanted some payback.

I do understand how trying to raise funds or pre-sell on one actor's name alone when he/she is already signed is risky for that actor's career. But what's the order then? Would you first go to a sales agent or distro and say "If I get actor X and Y for this here script, will you give me a pre-sale contract?" If the answer is yes, you call the actors' reps and say that you have a production is fully funded and we would like to make an offer to your clients for this much money. Once you bank your pre-sales you can certainly at least cover the actors' 10 percent deposit, and you are in a decent position to go look for equity and of course get some tax credits. Is that a decent blueprint?
 
I doubt it’s about “pay back”. It’s rare for an agent to sue for spite.
Of course neither of us know the details but in my experience the
deal made was most likely a “pay or play” offer. the producer agreed
to pay, say, 20% of the full fee as a deposit or “good faith” agreement
with the remainder being paid upon full financing. The producer got
a bigger name and went with that actor (a good business move) but
did not fulfill the remainder of the contract with the previous actor.
So the producer is being sued for not fulfilling their end of the contract.
But you’re probably right that if the film had not been funded there
would be no lawsuit because the contract most likely hinged on getting
the financing.

Your scenario might happen with an established producer - but would
not happen with a producer with no track record. few agents will agree
to a deal like that for the very reason we have discussed. The producer
may get a “bigger” name and dump the original actor. That’s bad for the
original actor even if they are paid in full. The “name” mean more than
audience recognition.

It’s a tricky business juggling funds like that.

A more likely scenario is a producer raises the funds then approaches an
actor with a deal. If the actor accepts then the movie goes into preproduction
and everything else is put into place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top