Click here for Done Deal Pro home page

Done Deal Pro Home Page

Loading

Go Back   Done Deal Pro Forums > Business > Agents, Lawyers & Managers
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2006, 07:30 PM   #31
Hamboogul
Member
 
Hamboogul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Leavenworth Penitentiary
Posts: 2,302
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

Some people like to be managers because they want to have a greater involvement in the guidance of their clients. Why do you assume that they need to aspire to producing credits?
Hamboogul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2006, 09:32 PM   #32
BROUGHCUT
Member
 
BROUGHCUT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,058
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

I do not. You misunderstand the issue.

Since when does a development fee constitute producing "credit"? As for Oscars etc... last I knew, Producers' Guild was talking about assessing entitlement to Guild credit on the basis of involvement in development, pre-production, physical production, and publicity--studios were concerned that this would compel bonafide producers to impose themeselves on projects at all stages in order to qualify for Guild recognition; imagine if a 'manager' did that....

It's not about credit, it's about how managers are paid for their 'greater guidance'. As far as I'm aware, agents can give greater guidance to their heart's content--but they are forbidden from paying for it by increasing commission or producing client's projects. Hence, the emergence of the lit manager.

Can you give one reason why a manager who does not attach to 'produce' (i.e. earns a development fee and perhaps producing fee -- forget about screen credits/oscars) in lieu of 10% commission can not be an agent (i.e. state bonded and regulated and signatory to the WGA AMBA)???
__________________
The Complete IfilmPro DEVELOPMENT FORUM (PDF)
BROUGHCUT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2006, 09:37 AM   #33
argo
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 214
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNoir3k
Why would that quickly kill the deal?

I'll amend that and say it "might kill the deal". While some manager/producers are great and can get projects going (like Benderspink), some managers can be seen as a liability when they’re attached as a producer to a movie—either the movie producers don’t want to give away even more profits to yet another “producer” (who doesn’t contribute much while actually in production) or they might see this manager as a potential headache during production (especially if the manager has never had any real producing experience).

My own manager has seen many deals fall apart because the manager insisted on producing. This is why he doesn’t want to attach his name to produce; he doesn’t want the writer to fail because he’s trying to get a credit on a movie. And really, if they can’t get the movie produced w/ them attached, what good is the producing fee?
argo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2006, 01:33 PM   #34
BROUGHCUT
Member
 
BROUGHCUT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,058
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

argo forgets about the development fee....

and there is no reason for argo's manager not to be an agent if he is not 'producing': ergo, argo's manager is most likely producing certain client's projects unbeknownst to argo....

It's all about relationships and flexability. But managers who do not 'produce', ever, 'on principle' (this probably excludes all established managers) should be shut down as they are acting as unlicensed talent agents for kicks and that can ONLY be bad for writers. There is NO upside (...well, perhaps the abilty to clawback 12 month's worth of technically ill-gotten commissions if there is a disagreement.)
__________________
The Complete IfilmPro DEVELOPMENT FORUM (PDF)
BROUGHCUT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2006, 03:43 PM   #35
Hamboogul
Member
 
Hamboogul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Leavenworth Penitentiary
Posts: 2,302
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

brough,

is this from your personal experience that you have these views?
Hamboogul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2006, 04:04 PM   #36
Hasil Adkins
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 508
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

Both Brough and Ham are a little bit right.

There are managers who do not produce, legitimate ones. I've met with several. But ususally it's not out of any principle or because they will never produce, it's because they haven't found a project they want or are able to get behind. Or, they aspire to move into studio exec positions, though I'd guess this is more rare.

I don't agree that managers who do not produce are necessarily bad for writers, nor are they out to screw writers.

And, I think, it's not the Producer's Guild who determines credits, It's probably the AMPTP.
__________________
==========
Hasil Adkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 10:09 AM   #37
BROUGHCUT
Member
 
BROUGHCUT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,058
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

Ham, I notice you failed to address the simple question I asked above. Don't think you really know the detail here?

Hasil:

Quote:
There are managers who do not produce, legitimate ones. I've met with several. But ususally it's not out of any principle or because they will never produce, it's because they haven't found a project they want or are able to get behind.
Thanks for your 'little bit' of support because I have consistently said that if the manager is not an agent because he or she wants to retain the flexability to produce that's a good enough reason for not becoming an agent.

Hasil again:

Quote:
And, I think, it's not the Producer's Guild who determines credits, It's probably the AMPTP.
I think that's probably why I said "Guild credit". AFAIK, Producers' Guild determines credits for the Oscars. Someone keeps implying that I am claiming managers ought to want to become actual producers (potentially disastrous, one of a mutitude of reasons why mentioned above re PGA and Academy Awards); when I say 'produce' I mean attach 'to be paid-off'.

My simple point (which for some reason Ham can't digest): if a manager is just in the game for 10% (and what managers are, really??) then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them not to be agents. A lit manager soliciting employment can not, by definition, be 'legitimate'. Everyone let's that go because by earning a development fee and ultimately, perhaps, a 'producing' fee on certain projects, the writer is not only spared commissions but the manager has an incentive to invest more time with writers and, crucially, a means of paying for this greater involvement without bumping their take to 15%.

I think this sub-thread kicked off when someone said 'beware managers who produce', I just think that in fairness that should be: 'beware managers who indiscriminantly attach to produce every project'. Also, I think questions need to be asked of managers who make a point of not producing (I've never claimed such managers exist, others have)--if such managers were truly considerate of writer's interests they would have become agents.

Manager who aims to earn all income from commissions = defacto unlicensed, non-signatory talent agent. How is that a good thing again??
__________________
The Complete IfilmPro DEVELOPMENT FORUM (PDF)
BROUGHCUT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 10:21 AM   #38
BROUGHCUT
Member
 
BROUGHCUT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,058
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasil Adkins

I don't agree that managers who do not produce are necessarily bad for writers, nor are they out to screw writers.
Just a follow-up... if they have no plans to produce, and therefore no reason not to sign the WGA AMBA, how is acting as an unlicensed, non-sigantory talent agent possibly good for writers?

I think we probably agree that the vast majority of new managers plan on producing at least some scripts and that in reality there are very few established managers who never attach themselves to client's projects--so the question becomes pretty much moot.
__________________
The Complete IfilmPro DEVELOPMENT FORUM (PDF)
BROUGHCUT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 10:35 AM   #39
Hamboogul
Member
 
Hamboogul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Leavenworth Penitentiary
Posts: 2,302
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BROUGHCUT
I think we probably agree that the vast majority of new managers plan on producing at least some scripts and that in reality there are very few established managers who never attach themselves to client's projects--so the question becomes pretty much moot.
I chose not to answer your question because my manager is very well established and has never attached herself to any of her client's projects.
Hamboogul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 02:01 PM   #40
jimjimgrande
Member
 
jimjimgrande's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: LA
Posts: 1,221
Default Re: LA Managers: Monster List of Lit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BROUGHCUT
My simple point (which for some reason Ham can't digest): if a manager is just in the game for 10% (and what managers are, really??) then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them not to be agents.
Here are a couple I can think of -

1. You don't have to work at an agency.

2. If you're having a hard time moving up the agency food chain to agent, it's a way to get into the representation side of the business. If you are successful, you could get hired by an agency further down the road.

3. By working closely with fewer clients, it feels more like a creative job than a sales job.

4. You retain flexibility to produce, become an exec, become an agent. Most management companies are small operations (esp. compared to agencies). It's just a different kind of work in a different atmosphere.
jimjimgrande is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro

eXTReMe Tracker