Screenwriting : Attaching Talent to a Script - Help or Hinderance by Craig Parsons

I would love to have a first tier actor attached to a screenplay before pitching.

If they are valuable it is good. If they are a nobody they are a hindrance as you have removed an option from the producer/director.

So let’s say I got John Bon Jovi to sign on. Not a Hollywood A lister, but a reasonably good actor. He has a huge audience. If he tells the fans he has a film coming out, bingo. If he is willing to do it cheap. That is a bonus. If he wants a good payday, hindrance.

Attaching someone has to be a value add.

It is hard to do. I have heard that studios are more willing to green light a project if a known talent is on board. I can tell you that I know actors and musicians and it is hard to get them on board, especially if you are trying to get your own career going.

DON'T DO IT. It complicates things - I have pitched projects with named actors onboard which producers did not like so had to deal with this, I have also pitched projects with unnamed actors because they fit into the niche I was pitching also not a good idea same reason as above.

I was initially advised to attach a few key people (not actors or a director) to show that there was a team behind the project.

But the producer who is currently evaluating the project thought that was premature. It was the only thing in the pitch he responded negatively to. However, this may be a Greek peculiarity.

As far as actors, it is my impression that most producers would like to be in charge of casting, thankyouverymuch, unless you can bring them Brad Pitt on a plate.

There's no right or wrong answer as it's entirely contextual to the situation. It's a very strategic and tactical part of building a project that requires a great deal of expertise to finesse.

People come with a lot of baggage which can heavily impact costs, collaboration, logistics, and market appeal. The thing is, valuable talent doesn't tend to contractually attach to unknown writers without funding anyway, so it's a moot point for most.

The attachment to chase first is the one of a seasoned producer and to go from there,

We're pondering this right now - and what we've learned is, for a film, the only way to do it is to get a sales agent involved early. They know the markets, who's hot and not. To do it any other way is to really put your project behind the eight-ball.

For TV it's a LOT more contextual, as CJ said. The surest advice is don't attach anyone in a vacuum - talk to everyone involved to try to determine if talent is a plus or minus.

Gary casting is way down the preproduction list. Have some table reads and time them. Things that show you have thought about production.

People heard me say this over and over. But we recast during production recently. We actually cast a minor character two days before shooting.

Helps: An actual A list star who can open a movie.

Hurts: Someone who isn't an actual A list star who can open a movie.

If they have starred in a recent big studio movie that made a lot of money - not in the supporting cast but the actual star of the film, great.

The problem is: if they aren't the big star, the producer will need to pay their fee to get rid of them... then pay a real star. So you are costing them money.

I talked to a high profile producer this week who said that without a named actor attached to a project it will never get made. Step 1. Write a brilliant script. Step 2. Get a named actor to agree to put his/her name to it. If you, as the writer, can achieve step 2 that's amazing, though it is more likely the producer will complete step 2. With a named actor on board the producer’s chances of raising the funds to get the movie made rise exponentially. Note: It must be a 'named' actor, an actor without a profile is just an extra condition the producer has to fight against. Note 2: If you have a named actor attached to your original material this is a great way to get representation as a writer.

Regarding crew, I feel a reputable DOP/1st AD can be a powerful attachment, especially if the director is relatively green.

Some financiers have odd requirements. I learned of one only this week requiring an actor to have over 100K instagram followers and that was playing havoc with attaching talent.

I don't agree that an actor needs to be A-list or a movie star. It's all relative to the project/investor size and target market.

@CJ Walley Yes, I have an award-winning, local DOP attached, a Danish film&TV specialized graphic artist, and a composer, who is local and niche, but has a solid international rep in his niche.

I will go left a bit left with what Dan posted because the Oscars are coming up. I am turned off by the gift bags that are given to actors, what gives them this sense of entitlement? If you do not want to attend the awards show or do a particular production, than do not do it and do not commit to something only for the perks. I lived in Chicago and would work on student films for those attending university. I expected nothing in return. I did it to help a future film student and my reward was the satisfaction of helping them.

How interesting that the weight of the work and the risk is moving always upstream: distribution (especially foreign sales agents) risk almost nothing and they keep a lot, now producers want writers to attach actors before pitching? How much do a writer should know about contracts, the importance of an actor in foreign territories, distribution deals... I guess that if a writer attaches an actor there should have a contract (LOI are worth nothing nowadays) in his/her name... and if producers or investors or distributors want another actor... who's paying the 'pay or play'?

While it's certainly fair to say there are some pampered pooches out there, it's worth knowing that award campaigns are often contractual and a horrible process to go through. I doubt the goodie bags make up for it when it comes to most people at that level. It certainly didn't for Michael Fassbender.

There's also this issue where you can have a very humble actor who doesn't ask for much who has a monster of a rep making more and more demands.

The reality, as far as I've experienced it, is that talent is often drawn to the script/production more than anything and can prefer something smaller, more intimate, and more explorative, especially if it's kind and fun team.

Indeed. The only way to really learn all the factors and nuances is to experience it first hand.

Run it by their agent if they have one.

In a fight you need cornermen, trainers, partners, a support group. I believe, the more interest and attention you can get, the better chance of your work being produced. If the talent likes your work, then either them or their talent agency/managers can go to the producers and say they wanna make it.