We took a spec out last week, Part 2

Last week, I discussed the initial steps involved in taking a spec screenplay out “wide.”

RESET is a bigger film, so it is largely going through the conventional studio model first. There are other, more complicated financing possibilities, but those tend to come later when the easier avenues don't come so easily.

So, to recap last week:

1. There are buyers who actually pay for the screenplay and finance the movie. These are the studios and streamers.
2. Primary producers are the ones who bring the screenplay to the buyer. These are the producers the studios trust the most.
3. Independent producers will often be the ones who bring the project to the primary producer.

This is an oversimplification, of course, so see last week’s email for a deeper explanation.

Our project, RESET, has an independent producer. I’ve worked with him for 30 years; he is an old mentor, and the concept is his idea.

He works with my agents and my manager on strategy to sell the project to a buyer.

Their job right now is to decide which primary producers will take the project to which buyer. We can pick a different producer for each buyer, or mix and match.

But only one producer can take the project into any one buyer.

When we left Part 1 last week, we asked the question:

Do we seek to add attachments first?

A couple of years ago, the answer would be a definitive yes. Get a director and actor on board and THEN take it out to buyers.

An attachment makes it more likely to sell the project and more likely to get an upper-range offer as well.

RESET has a $20 million-plus budget, and that is the SUPER low-end version. Buyers want some assurance they will be able to get the right cast and director on board.

For years now, buyers rarely even consider a project without attachments.

These days, however, you are starting to see a willingness of buyers to pick up projects “naked.” That is, without any attachments at all.

So the choice is not as clear as it once was.

Getting the right attachment takes a long time.

This is the major downside. While it feels like no one wants to read anything, it’s more about the volume than anything else. Everyone has a pile, and new scripts are added every day.

If your project isn’t demanding attention, it’s working its way DOWN the pile, not up.

In addition, agents are VERY hesitant to put a client on a project that hasn’t already been set up at a buyer!

If a project goes to market with an attachment and does not sell, that reflects poorly on the actor or director. In turn, the talent will look poorly on the rep who allowed it to happen!

Are you starting to see the dilemma here?

Packaging is a little easier with a packaging agency.

That’s the Big 3. CAA, UTA, and WME (which used to be the Big 5). But even with a packaging agency, it’s not a slam dunk. I remember a whole lot of “packaging meetings” when I was a CAA client that went absolutely nowhere.

That said, if you got the attention of a senior agent, things could move fast. You could get an A-list attachment one day and sell the script in two weeks.

My current agency, Gersh, is not a packaging agency.

I love being there, I love the clients they do have, and it is positioned as the best alternative to the Big 3. But it just doesn’t have the A-list actors and directors to mix and match across multiple big-studio packages.

They can help, certainly, but they can’t do it all in-house.

You could hand it over to a primary producer.

Theoretically, a big producer should make this go a little faster. They have stronger relationships that span more places. That said, the right relationship at the right time is more important here, so you can’t just go with anyone.

The downside of going with one single primary producer at this stage is that this locks you in. You need to love this producer; they need to be worth it. If they lose interest or energy, you may be stuck with them.

In addition, they have to choose you, too!

No matter the case, the timeline is long.

Between submissions to possible attachments, waiting on multiple reads before it gets to the actor or the director, and then waiting for them to read… and then starting the whole thing over with someone else if anyone in that chain passes… Even then, maybe someone comes on board, demands changes, but then drops out anyway…

You are looking at months to years before you get an attachment.

People who are juggling dozens of projects are usually more willing to wait. Those with fewer projects, like the writer, find this less appealing.

How long it takes to get a project going is something that continually blows newcomers’ minds.

The attachment-producer shortcut.

This strategy focuses on producers that ARE the attachment. That is, the company was created by the actor or director to produce their own projects. Actors like Brad Pitt, Ryan Gosling, Margot Robbie, and Ryan Reynolds, and directors such as Ryan Coogler, Lord-Miller, Ridley Scott, etc.

There are also less expensive names for lower-budget films that are a good idea to target for smaller movies.

These companies have their own workflow.

They are actively developing projects for their talent, so they will move much faster than their agents will. At least when it comes to getting to a “yes.” (Everyone can pass on a project equally fast when they want to.)

When your reps or the producer submits to them, there is an understanding that we are taking it to buyers, and time is not unlimited. Because of the talent involved, these companies are still very much in the power position, but there is at least something nudging them along.

Taking it out to producers.

Who gets which buyer? This becomes the big question. This used to be very easy, as each producer had a deal at a certain studio.

But not every company does anymore, and even when they do, those deals can be flexible.

The first thing we have to know is WHO ACTUALLY LIKES THE SCRIPT.

We sent RESET to 20 different producers. Only one had permission to submit to a buyer.

This was because the executive at that company has been all over this project from the beginning; we go way back with him, and he goes way back with the executive at the buyer.

Again, relationships help. And these relationships started because at some point, somebody read a spec script.

If that buyer wants to take the screenplay off the market before anyone else has a chance, they will have to pay a premium for it.

That is, of course, a good problem for us to have.

For the other producers, we will wait to see whether they want to be involved in the project.

This is usually where you discover who on your team genuinely loves the script and who just “likes” it.

It doesn’t cost a company anything to take a screenplay to a buyer. After all, you’re just asking someone else to pay for it. Different companies have different philosophies about this.

Some only take in projects they absolutely love; others will play more of a volume game and will take a flyer just to see what the buyer says.

But either way, if producers start passing on the opportunity to take a project into a buyer, agents get nervous. Independent producers lose faith.

People worry about their reputation. They don’t want to be the one who submits subpar material.

If my manager LOVES a project, she will not stop until she sets it up. She is remarkable like that.

But I have also had agents and managers who will send something out to five people, and if they don’t get the response they want, that project might as well be dead.

This is when spec tracking begins as well.

Spec tracking is a way for development folks to keep track of a spec script once it goes out to market. This used to be a bigger deal because specs used to be a bigger deal, but once your spec goes out, it gains a reputation in development circles.

Development assistants and junior execs talk to each other. Sometimes directly, sometimes in group chats, and even on private websites.

They share information about where a spec has been submitted, who has read it, who likes it, who is passing, and who is about to make an offer.

This tracking can influence how much “heat” a spec has, how fast people should move, and what their expectations should be.

Again, this used to be a bigger deal back in the day, but it’s still something to keep an eye on.

Which producer to which buyer?

After a week or two, you usually start getting responses. Again, this used to happen a lot quicker, but right now there really isn’t enough energy behind the project to push people.

People can move at their own pace because nothing is happening to make them think they might miss an opportunity.

This is the case for most of us, anyway. Other, more prominent writers or projects with strong attachments can generate a bidding-war atmosphere, in which they can force offers within a matter of days.

That’s just not where most of us are. So we have to be more patient.

Let’s say 15 of the 20 producers want to take it into a buyer.

That’s a good number! I would be very excited about that.

Let’s say Company X loves the project. Their deal is with New Line. They want to take it in.

That sounds like a no-brainer, right?

But what if Company Y comes back and says they love it, and their director wants to actually direct it? They want to take it to Sony, where their deal is, but if Sony passes, they want it for the whole town.

And that director attached sounds great, but WHEN? What’s their next movie? How many do they have lined up after that one?

But now PRODUCER Z comes in and says she loves it, and she thinks she can get an A-list actor attached, but needs an extra week or two to get an answer. If she can get that actor, SHE wants New Line because they’re dying to make a movie with them.

This is all crazy good news, and it will not happen, but the point is that it can get complicated quickly. Complicated is always good.

Bad is everyone passes. That’s simple. Complicated means there is enough interest for moving parts.

In a bidding war scenario, you could have one package going into one studio, another package going to another studio, and those studios competing with each other.

I have never had anything remotely like this happen to me. I have always been in the “it only takes one” camp, and I am proof that you can forge a career that way.

But it would be nice to get one of those bidding wars one day!

Your team figures out the strategy.

You could end up with a different producer for every buyer, or multiple producers get multiple territories.

A few things to consider: Is the producer just bringing their first-look deal to that buyer? Or do they bring an actor or director as well?

If a different producer has a more valuable package, do you give them that territory instead? Do you just give them all the territories?

What’s the timing? Do you want to go into buyers all at once? Or do you go in as producers come back to you?

What is most likely going to get the movie set up and get it made?

And is the highest bidder the one most likely to make it?

It’s impossible to really know the answer to any of this until you get more information.

Things move slowly until there are two parties interested.

If a buyer knows they’re the only one in the game, they can, and will, take their time. They can also set the price.

It won’t be so low that it’s a terrible way to start a business relationship, but you’re not fantasizing about the new house either.

Through all of this, the most likely result remains the same.

The most likely outcome is that no one will make an offer for the script. This sucks, but those are the odds. Sometimes that’s the screenplay’s fault, but often it’s just the wrong time for this story.

Chances are, people will like the screenplay. It’s likely pretty good, after all; otherwise it would not have gotten this far to begin with.

People who haven’t read me before will get introduced to my work; others who have will be reminded of it.

This may lead to more relationships and another project. Maybe an assignment, maybe even another spec where we start the whole thing over again.

Next steps for me.

I write the next screenplay. I've already started. And I continue pushing ahead with projects that are already written. I just keep doing what I do. That’s teach and write.

Next steps for the project.

Hopefully, it sells, and Kristy Dobkin and I are paid a good amount of money to rewrite it. Hooray! Maybe even a production bonus.

If it doesn’t sell, the script is not dead. No screenplay is ever really dead. It always depends on how much time passes and how much the team really loves the project.

It will keep being submitted as “targets of opportunity” pop up. Maybe an actor is looking for a sci-fi piece, or a director mentions their love of CHINATOWN and BLADE RUNNER.

You can resubmit to any buyer with a whole new package.

Maybe it finds a home as a version of itself with 1/3 the budget.

Good scripts linger. Good scripts stay alive.

If someone hasn’t read the screenplay, it will be new to them.

My friend Jamie Blanks (1971-2026)

Jamie Blanks, director of URBAN LEGEND (1998) and VALENTINE (2001), passed away last week. Jamie was one of my first Hollywood friends back in the day. We had reconnected a few years back and hoped to finally make that movie together. Sadly, it will not happen. ​I wrote about Jamie and our friendship on Substack.​

That's a wrap for this week!

It was a sad week following Jamie's loss. I am still in disbelief.

Next week is the Story and Plot Weekly Email's 3rd birthday. Hard to believe it's been three years! I have yet to miss a single week. I hope you've been getting as much out of these weekly lessons as I have.

If you appreciate the value I bring week after week, I think the courses and the one-to-one consultations will knock your socks off.

My Coogs are in the Sweet 16 and playing here in Houston, just a couple of miles from campus!

Prices are CRAZY, so it's hard to know what the fan makeup will look like at the Toyota Center. One would think mostly Coogs, but those prices are more about which fanbase has the deeper pockets!

I am hoping next week brings nothing but good news for us all.

See you then.

Tom