A lot of people make money in the film industry for literally doing nothing or knowing anything and you kind of wonder why. I think the worst of the bunch are the “talent agents.” I personally have never had a good or even a decent experience with an agent. I’ve never gotten good advice from an agent nor have they ever proven that they have any knowledge worth anything of sharing. In fact, if creatives and actors knew how to negotiate a contract or even knew how to read a contract, agents would have no function in the entertainment industry.
Now studios and producer will wave you off if you’re a screenwriter by giving you the ol “unsolicited material” label saying that it’s to protect themselves from stealing intellectual property lawsuits. This doesn’t make sense in any way shape or form. Let’s say I’m a studio and there’s an idea for a movie that you’re knocking around, but an “unsolicited material” comes across their desk that’s similar but not exact (and watch that word) to your concept. Would it really kill that studio to reach out to that creator and work with them? There’s plenty of money to go around and they’re always out to buy the IP anyway. NOOO. We have to go through an agent. Why? What does an agent know? Agents are the remoras of the industry. They cling to people with talent and suck off a living for themselves and then have the audacity to tell you what you’re doing wrong.
There is the harsh truth that no one wants to face and that is just because you have written a screenplay, which is no small feat in itself, doesn’t mean it’s any good. Of course, you won’t listen to fellow writers about your flaws or anybody that might be a member of an actual paying audience that won’t pay to see your work as a movie, but you’ll listen to an agent? They have no special qualifications that make them an expert on anything and even after contracts are signed, clients aren’t happy because they love to go on strike for fairer treatment than any of their paying customers ever get when they have nothing to entertain them but the crap that everyone in power thinks is great.
If any of these people had any real clue to what they were doing, there wouldn’t be a need for audience screenings and reshoots that add more to the budget and puts more pressure on a film to make a profit. Theaters are already pricing out the everyday customer in favor of the rich and shameless. Bottom line is that the film industry is determined to destroy itself and has no qualms about how they do it. Agents have very little say in any of this. They just want their percentage and let the industry be damned. I don’t know why their jobs aren’t considered unlawful.
They aren’t experts in anything and for people that have absolutely no influence on a final project except for what’s inside a contract to which they’ll ultimately cave to unfair stipulations, they seem to have discriminate control over what gets seen and they won’t see you unless you have a referral from someone in the industry, but it has to be a referral from someone they know personally. Sounds like a completely unfair system to me. Let’s also pay them to hear our pitch with absolutely no guarantee that they even care about what you’re pitching. “Here are my notes.” I don’t need your notes. You’ve never written a screenplay in your life. I need a team to take my work and make it a reality. Earn your percentage off my creative gifts or go and get a real job.
As far as you creatives out there go, you can’t copyright ideas. Write the work completely and get a copyright from the Library of Congress. That gives you a date as a foundation. If a studio won’t take “unsolicited material,” that means they will steal ideas otherwise they wouldn’t need to state that. That’s basically an admission that they’re criminals otherwise they would work with you and wouldn’t need agents. Study contracts as well. Know what you want. At least that will give you some negotiation wiggle room and you won’t have to give away 10% to some nobody.
Or get an agent. Even remoras have to eat even if their favorite meal are the dead skin cells off of your body of work.
2 people like this
Philip David Lee While I understand your frustration, I think it’s a bit of an overgeneralization. Losing 10% to an agent can be a significant hit to a writer’s earnings, but many agents provide real value—especially those with deep industry contacts and the ears of key decision-makers. Networks and studios receive far more material than they could possibly read, so the “send it through an agent” rule helps filter submissions. Of course, not all agents have the same level of access or clout, so the value varies depending on the individual agent’s reputation and track record.
Going through an agent also provides legal protection—agents can serve as witnesses in case of any unauthorized use—and can signal to studios that the writer is serious and vetted. Agents can help navigate contractual language and handle negotiations, which may be easier for studios than dealing directly with an unrepresented writer.
That said, the system isn’t perfect; gatekeeping can be frustrating, and some projects may be overlooked. But in most cases, a reputable agent adds credibility, protection, and access that many writers wouldn’t otherwise have. It’s almost like dealing with a producer who delivered the last hit series—they are known and trusted. Some agents have brought scripts that were produced and earned money, so studios tend to trust their judgment.
3 people like this
Annoyance with the agent system and industry gatekeeping - are feelings that many writers share, especially when facing repeated rejections or feeling shut out of opportunities.
Your points about the challenges are valid:
- The referral-only system can feel exclusionary
- "Unsolicited material" policies do create barriers
- Some agents may lack the creative expertise writers hope for
- The 10% fee can sting when results don't materialize
However, there are some industry realities to consider:
Why "unsolicited material" policies exist: It's primarily about legal liability - studios receive thousands of similar concepts, and without proper submission protocols, they face constant lawsuits from writers claiming idea theft.
What good agents actually do: Beyond contract negotiation, they provide market intelligence, relationship access, project packaging, and career strategy that individual writers rarely possess on their own.
The relationship dynamic: The best agent relationships are collaborative partnerships, teetering closer to friendships rather than writer-versus-agent scenarios. A lot of what agents look for in new clients if they recognize you aren't going to be a "big" earner for them initially is... do I even like this person? do I like talking to them and spending time around them?
Your advice about copyright and contract knowledge is excellent - writers should absolutely understand both to protect themselves and negotiate more effectively.
The fundamental challenge is that breaking into a relationship-based industry when you don't have relationships is genuinely difficult, regardless of talent level. So it's understandable to be frustrated with an imperfect system. But rather than fighting the entire structure, sometimes finding ways to work within it while building genuine industry connections proves more effective.
2 people like this
I disagree.
1 person likes this
While I do appreciate everyone's viewpoint and some of you do have insights that blinding frustration aren't quick to see, what some in the industry might refer to as gatekeeping, borders on a corrupt system that protects villains and plagiarists alike. Again, ideas cannot be copyrighted but if a writer has a copyrighted work that they created long before some executive did, hire the writer that came up with it first. He obviously had the insight to be the first to think of it. If you only take "solicited material," how can you solicit it if you don't know it's out there? If an NDA states that a company cannot be accused of stealing material that is similar or "exact" what exactly does exact mean? Is it a phrase, a sentence, a scene or an entire script. I've seen contracts that state "In perpetuity and throughout the known universe." The known universe? Are you expecting a mother load of ticket sales coming from Jupiter any time soon? All of these little rules are just put there to protect the criminals. This is not new to Hollywood. A famous actor shot and killed a woman in cold blood and all he had to do was take 3 seconds to open a barrel pistol. Not a magazine weapon where a live round can be hiding in the chamber, but a barrel weapon where you push out the rounds and put them back in and he got off scott free.
Am I wrong? Do writers actually like their work butchered and changed so that the resulting film is unwatchable. Am I supposed to brown nose people who's only interest in me is to see how much money they can make off my creativity and then blame me when so many changes are made to my original work wind up hurting my reputation so that I become unhirable by the same people that turned my work to crap. Maybe that's your idea of getting your foot in the door until they cut your toes off when they slam the door in your face. I may die an unknown and then I won't care if a global killer asteroid hits the Earth, but I will not be pushed around by untalented hacks or illiterate elbow rubbers. You create fire with physical exertion rubbing two sticks together not flapping your gums seeing how much verbal fecal matter you can produce in between drinks at a party.
I recently dealt with a "talent agent" who has a delightful client that is just entering the perfect age of her earning potential. Her "agent" hasn't gotten her a decent booking in 3 years. I sent him a very professional email introducing him to a moderately priced budget that would play directly into this charming client's wheelhouse with logical reasons for this projects success. I got crickets. I sent a follow up email stating only facts of his abysmal track record and then taking credit for one of his client's participation Oscar trophy for 30 minutes and 57 seconds of screen time in an over 2 hour movie like he wrote the damn film. Now I wasn't expecting an open door, but I did get a same day response as he took the truth as insults. That's fine. I'm not some school counselor for people that pretend to be more important than they are, but don't try and convince me how important you are with a past of inactive waste you've built up over the years and play yourself off as someone in the game.
I may not have had the opportunities to prove my worth, but I won't be a pawn either. The more you let these people get away with it, the worse they'll try and get away with more of it. I'm a creative. All of you are. We're the reason the film industry even exist. I choose to fight back! Just remember, when writers go on strike, entertainment productions stop cold. Even actors are overrated because they need your words to exist. Don't let the non-writers treat you like the dirt they think you are. Even if they do continue to treat you like dirt, that's the necessary ingredient where beautiful things grow out of.
2 people like this
Philip David Lee in response to your question:
"Am I wrong? Do writers actually like their work butchered and changed so that the resulting film is unwatchable?"
Again, your frustration is understood. Most writers hate seeing their work altered — especially when the changes make it worse.
That said, something many writers don’t realize is that creative control can be negotiated. You can include contract clauses that limit rewrites or restrict who can touch your script. The problem? Buyers often see that as a red flag. They may walk away — not because your project lacks value, but because they worry the writer might be too rigid during development.
As for the other points you raised — I can’t speak to individual cases, but you’re not alone in your concerns. I’ve heard way too many “Dude, that was my script!” stories over the years.
Here’s the unfortunate truth: it’s often not the studios or networks directly lifting ideas, but someone in the chain — a reader, assistant, producer’s intern, or even another writer — who encounters the material and passes it along, especially if they have connections. Once your work is out there — whether in contests, pitch sessions, or unprotected loglines — it’s exposed. It’s not fair, but it happens.
It’s also possible that some writers inside the system — under pressure to deliver — might take “inspiration” from something they’ve read. It’s not ethical, but it’s plausible.
That’s why registration matters. Register your material with the WGA or a copyright office to establish a timestamp. If you ever need to prove prior authorship, that gives you a fighting chance.
As for NDAs — you’re right to question them. Sometimes, they contain language designed to protect the recipient from liability if they later develop something “similar.” That’s more about legal shielding than malice, but yes, it can be used to limit exposure if an idea does get too close for comfort.
In short: you're not wrong to be suspicious. Studios likely don’t want to be involved in outright theft — the reputational risk is too high. But someone along the pipeline may have lifted something, and once it’s in the system, the origin often gets buried.