Spiteful Gersh Agents?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

    Negotiating a percentage share with writers?

    Like any forced price increase or tax on the wealthy, they'll just pass it along.

    In this case, it'll be in agencies' quotes to the studios for said packaging, or some other creative combination of services.

    Yep, I see that as the next round in this big fight.

    I'm sure prodcos and studios are watching this VERY carefully. Because the studios will likely react the way they always do when their costs increase... they pass it along.

    And I don't mean higher ticket prices (though that'll happen too). I mean either through tougher language in contracts with the artists, or like they do during/after the strikes: Turn to existing, owned or already-optioned IP, or re-use what they own to death in the form of remakes, sequels, etc.

    That last one's really unfortunate, because it can become the new paradigm, the new normal, which everybody ends up complaining about.

    As I always say, the only in-betweener a rights-holder (talking the spec writers here, before they sell their copyright ) actually needs is a lawyer, for when we work out terms with our buyers (the prodcos and studios).

    Well, I recognize that I'm describing an ideal world, and the status quo is something altogether different. But it's still something to aim for.

    The "in-betweeners" must feel like the stop motion animators who denied the oncoming tsunami of CGI, back in the late 80s and early 90s.

    Meanwhile, you gotta hand it to the literary management companies. They were limited by law from certain negotiating tasks, that agents had a lock on, so they (the mgrs) are branching out into production.

    On the odd occasion that I actually pitch management companies, they're only the ones that have production arms. And that's the only way I'd deal with them, if/when they respond.

    There's us, the rights-holders, and the buyers/producers. And each side's legal team. That's all that's needed to get the ball rolling.

    Of course, financiers, sales agents, distributors, P&A etc. etc. too. All good. All members of the team. But reps? Well, if you want one, fine. But the contract language that says you gotta have one sh/could be a casualty in this current fight.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

      ATA's possible revenue sharing still doesn't address the biggest problems like conflict of interest and the money for the medium to lower tier writers. The revenue sharing mostly benefits those writers at the very elite levels who are lucky enough to be offered that honor.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

        > conflict of interest

        Of course, correct. Negotiating for a bigger piece of the pie with one hand is far less onerous on the other side if writers didn't have that legal sledgehammer in the other.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

          Originally posted by docgonzo View Post
          From the ATA: “We are open to concepts of true revenue sharing and have already committed to requirements of explicit client consent and overall transparency and accountability."

          They are not giving up packaging fees or production arms. Both represent billions of dollars. There's just no way they're going to negotiate that away.
          they didn't believe the WGA and its members would fire their agents. they really didn't. they sat on their asses and said this isn't going to work, we're not going to budge.

          i totally agree with you. they cannot give up the packaging fees and remain viable. they WANT to have an IPO, they want investors. and remember they still have TALENT. they have directors and actors. they still can control quite a bit. and the only thing that might change that is if the DGA and SAG start pushing back, too. only when they realize that the jobs they want are going to someone else, could that possibly change.

          and it's not right. they should be packaging in order to help their clients not themselves. this artificial inflating of the budgets to cover these insane fees does nothing to support new voices, new talent, or new films. it stagnates every level because it focuses on the few and not the many.

          why do you see Netflix stealing the top showrunners? because they want to create new content. a constant stream of new content. and the networks are going to have to bring up new voices to compete with that.

          there a many great stories to be told, films to be made, jobs to be created.

          sharing packaging fees will not support the mid-tier and entry level writers. it will continue to erode their value and diminish their pay. this is about a real gap in fair treatment of writers. the guild cannot only be there to support the a-listers. they have thousands of members that need those a-listers to say we all deserve better.

          and if we can't do better, then the WGA needs to reset the mins to support something better than the current scale +10
          "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

            Both sides need to recognize that the agencies will never give up billions of dollars and to stop pretending that there's a way to negotiate this. The only solution is to go the MCA route and have the agencies completely divorce themselves from the representation business. That way they can become production companies or studios, as they desire, and the representation side will be taken over by the likes of Verve, Paradigm, and (gasp!) APA.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

              And there are people on this board that think the number of words in a logline is the important factor in a career. Maybe read some of this business stuff, to show even after you clear the little hurdles and the big ones, you're up against a machine that is sucking your blood dry for pennies.

              Happy long wkd everyone!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                Originally posted by Bono View Post
                And there are people on this board that think the number of words in a logline is the important factor in a career. Maybe read some of this business stuff, to show even after you clear the little hurdles and the big ones, you're up against a machine that is sucking your blood dry for pennies.

                Happy long wkd everyone!
                LMFAO. Love it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                  Originally posted by docgonzo View Post
                  Both sides need to recognize that the agencies will never give up billions of dollars and to stop pretending that there's a way to negotiate this. The only solution is to go the MCA route and have the agencies completely divorce themselves from the representation business. That way they can become production companies or studios, as they desire, and the representation side will be taken over by the likes of Verve, Paradigm, and (gasp!) APA.
                  their client list is their leverage over studios and prodcos. if they have no clients their power disappears. that means potential investors do too. they will have to realize that they cannot sustain their bubble any longer for change to happen. not sure they're there yet.
                  "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                    Studios only have so much they want to spend on developing a project. If a huge part of that pie is going to the agents in the form of a packaging fee, then they'll just tighten their belts on artists. They will still cater to the A listers, but they might just take less chance on new voices, original content, or want more steps with less money. Even the medium writers probably would face a similar squeeze. A little bit of sharing will probably just go to the very top writers. It seems like the entry level and medium tier writers will just continue to scrape by. A situation like the spec boom of the 90s favor new writers and medium writers because there were more gambles taken on original content.



                    It's too bad that SAG is sitting on the sidelines because if SAG joins the WGA, that really can't be ignored. The packaging hurts actors too, especially those that are not the A listers. They are at the mercy of whatever the agencies deems they want to be in that package....like chess pieces due to politics. Like a manager pointed out, it probably won't affect the agencies if it's only a few months, but if this thing drags on a year, maybe it will really start to affect their plans.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                      Originally posted by Friday View Post
                      It's too bad that SAG is sitting on the sidelines because if SAG joins the WGA, that really can't be ignored. The packaging hurts actors too, especially those that are not the A listers. They are at the mercy of whatever the agencies deems they want to be in that package....like chess pieces due to politics. Like a manager pointed out, it probably won't affect the agencies if it's only a few months, but if this thing drags on a year, maybe it will really start to affect their plans.
                      SAG had this fight with the ATA in 2002. and then just kept on working with the agencies even after they couldn't reach an agreement

                      https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.ed...&context=naalj

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                        Originally posted by Friday View Post
                        Studios only have so much they want to spend on developing a project. If a huge part of that pie is going to the agents in the form of a packaging fee, then they'll just tighten their belts on artists. They will still cater to the A listers, but they might just take less chance on new voices, original content, or want more steps with less money. Even the medium writers probably would face a similar squeeze. A little bit of sharing will probably just go to the very top writers. It seems like the entry level and medium tier writers will just continue to scrape by. A situation like the spec boom of the 90s favor new writers and medium writers because there were more gambles taken on original content.

                        It's too bad that SAG is sitting on the sidelines because if SAG joins the WGA, that really can't be ignored. The packaging hurts actors too, especially those that are not the A listers. They are at the mercy of whatever the agencies deems they want to be in that package....like chess pieces due to politics. Like a manager pointed out, it probably won't affect the agencies if it's only a few months, but if this thing drags on a year, maybe it will really start to affect their plans.
                        I think there's a widespread misunderstanding (partly created by the WGA leadership) about the true importance of packaging fees. The biggest problem with them isn't that the packaging money doesn't go to writers; the biggest problem is that packaging money DOES go to agencies.

                        The big agencies (especially the biggest two) make most of their money these days from revenue streams that have little direct relation to client representation. WME makes less than 10% of its revenue from commissions! Less than 10%! They rep Keanu Reeves and Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan and the Rock and George R.R. Martin and Steven freakin' Spielberg, and yet, ALL OF THAT COMMISSION MONEY PUT TOGETHER ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF THE AGENCY'S REVENUE.

                        When that's the case, how much do you think WME cares about some mid-level writer client's quote? They could lose all of their mid-level writers and barely notice. Hopefully, writers' individual agents care, but honestly, so what? The whole point of being repped at a big agency is that they can bring institutional pressure to bear to get your movie made, to get you a job, to raise your quote, etc.-- and that won't happen if the agency doesn't know or particularly care what's going on with you.

                        There's a widespread (not unanimous) feeling within the Guild that agencies, as institutions, have given up putting their weight behind fighting for writer clients. Fighting for writers just isn't as lucrative for agencies as cozying up to studios and/or becoming de facto studios themselves.

                        So we need to tell them they can't become studios, and we need to tell them that they can't take money directly from our employers-- not 100% of packaging fees or 80% or 50% or 10%. Whether that packaging fee money ever comes to back to writers isn't the point.

                        At the end of the day, writers don't need packaging fees. What writers need are agents. And making agents agent again is what this is all about.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                          Slightly off-topic, but I fired Gersh last year. There were several reasons but the final straw was when they sent me THE PREDATOR long before the movie came out and told me it was an example of a great sci-fi script.

                          Uh, no it's not.
                          NOTES / COVERAGE
                          15,000+ Screenplays
                          [email protected]

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                            Originally posted by EvilRbt View Post
                            Slightly off-topic, but I fired Gersh last year. There were several reasons but the final straw was when they sent me THE PREDATOR long before the movie came out and told me it was an example of a great sci-fi script.

                            Uh, no it's not.
                            Oh my.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                              Originally posted by EvilRbt View Post
                              Slightly off-topic, but I fired Gersh last year. There were several reasons but the final straw was when they sent me THE PREDATOR long before the movie came out and told me it was an example of a great sci-fi script.

                              Uh, no it's not.
                              That's the best reason I ever heard to fire an agent. And I one of my all time favorites is the original...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Spiteful Gersh Agents?

                                From Deadline:

                                2ND UPDATE: Queen of the South writer-producer Jorge Reyes said Wednesday that his former Gersh agents have apologized for canceling a planned network meeting, and that he's accepted their apology and is moving on.

                                He also is deleting his angry Twitter thread that surfaced yesterday about the subject because "it's served its purpose and the situation is resolved.-

                                "So the Gersh guys called me, copped to everything & apologized unreservedly,- Reyes tweeted late last night. "People can react emotionally, out of character, and with bad judgement, and agents are no different. My previous experience up to this incident was good, and their apology was sincere, so I've accepted it and for me, this is done and I'm moving forward to some positive **** now.-

                                Thanking "everyone for backing me up,- he told his Twitter supporters that "the resolution came as a direct result of your reactions and your support on here, and I thank you. I defended myself in public both to warn my writer brethren, and to protect myself. I pushed back hard just like my papa taught me. I'll be deleting the thread as it's served its purpose and the situation is resolved. Overwhelmingly grateful to all the writers on here. Hopefully your voices will prevent this from happening to one of us again. Never been more proud to be one of you.-
                                "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X