Managers and Development

[Paul Striver]

Originally Posted by JeffLowell

I'm jaded, and I just heard a story from a working writer friend of mine that shocked me. A well known management company (mentioned here often) apparently works this way: they sign TONS of writers, and get them all speccing new ideas and/or rewriting scripts that they think have promise. If one out of twenty pan out? Great, they take it out. The rest? The script never goes out, and the manager tries to convince the writer to write a new spec. If the writer raises too much of a fuss, fuck it. There are ten more out there.

It costs them nothing, and writers line up to do it. It makes sense - they have a manager at a legit company that has sales...

But it's obviously fucked. No, I'm not going to name the company, because it's hearsay. But I trust my source.

I bet I know the company (and I'm also not going to say who it is, or who I think it is), based on anecdotal experience. That experience is a couple writers I know got repped by a huge A-list management company, and I read the scripts that landed them their reps, and I was like (on the inside), "Seriously? This mediocrity got you repped by XXXXXX?"

Since they got repped, their managers have put them through an endless process in which: (1) they wrote short treatments for a series of ideas, some of their own and some provided by the managers; (2) every treatment was "rejected" until they finally got one "approved"; (3) they were sent off to write the script on spec; (4) they were given notes on the spec and rewrote it multiple times; (5) the spec was ultimately "rejected"; (6) they were sent back to step 1, to start over with submitting treatments for approval.

Having seen their process I wouldn't let that company "manage" me if they paid me.

It seems, or seemed, like madness to me, but now with Jeff's post I can see how it makes a certain kind of sense from the company's fukced-up perspective. They've probably signed hundreds of good-but-not-yet-great writers and are pushing them all through this spec-grinding process.

Now I'm depressed.

[iggy]

Originally Posted by holly

they work with me at the concept stage - kind of as much as i want. its not nearly as cozy a collaboration as i sometimes hear about with managers, tho. they'll invite me in, ill tell them im interested in this area or that (i do film and tv both) and they'll support or dissuade it generally. they'll tell me what to steer clear of. they do support passion projects.
in tv use more concept help as the market is so balkanized and i always want a clear sense of where something could potentially go before i start working on it.

Thanks. Glad to hear some agents work this way.

[mikejc]

See below.

[JeffLowell]

I honestly thought I'd seen every scam there was.

[mikejc]

Originally Posted by Paul Striver

I bet I know the company (and I'm also not going to say who it is, or who I think it is), based on anecdotal experience. That experience is a couple writers I know got repped by a huge A-list management company, and I read the scripts that landed them their reps, and I was like (on the inside), "Seriously? This mediocrity got you repped by XXXXXX?"

Since they got repped, their managers have put them through an endless process in which: (1) they wrote short treatments for a series of ideas, some of their own and some provided by the managers; (2) every treatment was "rejected" until they finally got one "approved"; (3) they were sent off to write the script on spec; (4) they were given notes on the spec and rewrote it multiple times; (5) the spec was ultimately "rejected"; (6) they were sent back to step 1, to start over with submitting treatments for approval.

Having seen their process I wouldn't let that company "manage" me if they paid me.

It seems, or seemed, like madness to me, but now with Jeff's post I can see how it makes a certain kind of sense from the company's fukced-up perspective. They've probably signed hundreds of good-but-not-yet-great writers and are pushing them all through this spec-grinding process.

Now I'm depressed.

I think these stories would give anyone pause. Why sit around a do a lot of work for free, essentially. With no assurance your work will amount to anything?

Yes, someone might say, "but that's no different than if you were working on your own." Exactly. Except you have some advice which may or may not be good.

I've read many stories of this kind of thing on a micro scale; "My manager is not responding and not setting up meetings, etc." So, this seems like it is not limited to one company, and may be the way some individual managers operate, even if not firm wide policy.

The key question is "How to tell the difference between a company operating as Lowell says and one that signs you because they plan on getting your work out there." How to tell you are not about to waste a huge amount of time and effort?

Bottom line, having a manager is better than not having one--for a new person--but, it is still a dog fight and no end in and of itself.

[jtwg50]

It's looking and sounding more like ZG! Any takers on that bet? And from what I heard (after having good dealings with Eric W. before the Holders came in), everything changed -- for the worse -- after the merger. Can we get a confirmation here from an actual ZG client???

[NoNeckJoe]

I'm guessing Madhouse, but I don't know that it's necessarily such an abusive practice, as I think they're genuinely trying to develop projects into market-ready specs. But if the managers are intentionally misleading writers into thinking their specs are close to going out when they sign, then that's fvcked up. Seems like the only way to protect yourself is to really grill a prospective manager before signing on, since I think they'll be less likely to shine you on if you demand answers on when they expect to go out with a project, how close it is to being ready, etc.

[Deion22]

If someone is saying it is Madhouse -- let me say i totally disagree with this assessment. But I will say, my writing partner and I aren't the typical clients, we are very strong willed -- which comes from my background.

My managers at Madhouse, NEVER have refused to send out a script of mine, and I'm not a sold writer. They stand behind any creative project I truly believe in. Even if we have creative differences, they will stand by my creative decisions unless they were truly horrible decisions. In my opinion they are great creative partners.

I'll even go a step further, I recently parted with my agent ( great guy), my managers stood by my side -- they recently sent my new spec to all the big agencies, I have interest/offers from 5 out of the 8 off my spec, and I have never sold a script.

I do have another script being packaged by one of the big 3's but that has nothing to do with my current script and interest from agencies. So, my opinion is what kind of client you may be, plays into the strong arming done by managers/agents.

I do believe Madhouse is about getting the script in the best form before sending it out -- which my managers are great at. But never have they or would they refuse to send out a script of mine once it is ready. Plus I don't go through the treatment stuff -- we just go over general ideas about what the story is or will be.

[LIMAMA]

I'm with Deion. Not Madhouse. I think I know who it is.

[iggy]

Originally Posted by mikejc

Bottom line, having a manager is better than not having one--for a new person--but, it is still a dog fight and no end in and of itself.

Except the writer isn't out looking for a rep who really believes in them. And they might waste the heat they could get from a contest placement.

Plus, there's the question of whether the manager would forever be attached to the specs they helped you develop but refused to take out.

This is a bad situation for a writer whose work is really at a professional level.