Feature Writer Paydays: The New Wild West Playbook, Explained

Good Deals, Great Deals & Who Gets Them

Over the past year and a half writing Dealmakers, every time I’ve asked a talent rep where their clients most want to make their projects, they’ve had an immediate answer. Not everyone has the same answer, but generally there’s some consensus about the studios and streamers that are the most-desired partners in that moment.

This time around, people struggled with the question. Studios viewed most warmly seem to be Universal, Sony, Apple, Amazon and Warner Bros. — with multiple people giving props to Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy for their stellar year (seven consecutive box office openings over $40 million and a pair of buzzy Oscar contenders in Ryan Coogler’s Sinners and Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another), but none of them necessarily waxing poetic.

---

Related:

---

“That’s a hard question because none of the companies are talent-friendly right now,” says the veteran talent lawyer, adding that the first choice is “whoever pays the most, at this point, because it’s not going to be a fun experience anywhere dealing with creative notes.”

Across the board, dealmakers tell me that the already evident gap between creatives at the upper echelon and everyone else continues to expand.

What a feature writer can expect as a fee is all over the map these days because there are so many factors that can meaningfully impact their payday: the writer’s name recognition, where they are in their career, the budget, the genre, the studio, the value of any underlying IP and how competitive the project is, to name a few. As to who’s reliably paying well, dealmakers tell me there is no reliably — a studio may overpay for a script one day but lowball the next, and it might have nothing to do with the material itself or the writer.

Linda Lichter, who’s been one of the leading talent lawyers for writers and multi-hyphenates like Terry Rossio (Pirates of the Caribbean), Linda Woolverton (Maleficent) and Chloé Zhao (Nomadland) for decades, says the market just isn’t what it used to be, and development spends are generally down.

“In the ’90s, when there was a huge spec market, I could make a deal for a million dollars on the way to lunch. It was unbelievable how much people were willing to pay and how quickly they moved,” she says.

“Now, a ‘good’ deal probably is a hundred grand option against a million and upwards [if the movie goes].”

With all of the above caveats in mind, the consensus seems to be that a “great” deal is in the low millions for established writers, with a studio paying $1.5 to $2.5 million to buy the script and then more if the movie gets made. (See: Apple’s winning bid of $1.6 million that bumps up to $3 million if the movie gets made for Foster the Snowman from writers Pete Huyck — an Emmy winner this year for writing on The Studio — and Jono Matt.)

“That is not to say there aren’t writers that get paid more than that, because there are,” the veteran lawyer says, “but it’s under very special circumstances, like a sequel deal or a spec that sells with a package.”

Everyone Wants a Writer-Director

Starting with 2014’s Birdman, every best picture winner since has been either written or co-written by its director. This year’s awards conversation is likewise dominated by hyphenate-helmed films: Hamnet (Zhao), One Battle After Another (Paul Thomas Anderson), Sentimental Value (Joachim Trier) and Sinners (Ryan Coogler).

Writer-directors also have helped funnel more than $4 billion into the global box office so far this year thanks not only to massive originals like Sinners and Weapons (Zach Cregger) but also well-executed IP like A Minecraft Movie (Jared Hess), Superman (James Gunn) and How to Train Your Dragon (Dean DeBlois). (And that’s not even counting the $2 billion generated by Chinese-language animated feature Ne Zha 2, written and directed by Jiaozi.)

So it really shouldn’t be a surprise that elite writer-directors are in another stratosphere when it comes to feature deals.

“Writer-directors are in a unique place. It’s like one-stop shopping,” says the agent. “If they have an idea they want to do and they’re writing it, you know you already have a director. That is a bet you should take all day long.”

As a result, dealmakers tell me they’re seeing more and more writers moving to pursue directing so they can become, essentially, one-person packages.

“They are seeing that as a path to create more opportunity for themselves,” says the agent. And once they’ve established themselves as someone who can successfully wear both hats, “their quotes go up faster and there’s more competition for them.”

A young, hot writer-director coming off of a buzzy film can command $1 to $2 million, especially if they’ve landed any awards or have caught the attention of on-screen talent. And if such an auteur takes on a tentpole — especially if it’s a deal for a sequel — the fees can be “astronomical.”

Of course, if a writer-director has made a name for themselves in one genre, they’ll often stay in that lane in order to capitalize on the momentum.

“Lots of studios are going to want to work with people who’ve had one or two hits — if it’s in the budget and general genre that they’re comfortable with them staying pigeonholed in,” notes the veteran talent lawyer. “Writer-directors are doing well if they’re either gigantic writer-directors, or if they’re very, very good in their genre and they can deliver movies for $30 million or less.”

Those gigantic writer-directors can command just as gigantic paydays, contraction be damned.

“It depends on whether you’re talking about theatrical plus participation or a buyout,” explains another top talent lawyer who reps multi-hyphenates. “If you’re doing a movie for a streamer anything in the $7.5 to $15 million range [for a buyout] is pretty good, but there are deals out there that are bigger.”

The streamers’ models have been an ongoing topic of conversation as they experiment with performance structures that are akin to the backend of yore but focused on boosting their respective platforms rather than the box office.

“All these streamers are saying that their goal is not to save money on a net basis but rather to reward the winners, not reward losers, and align the filmmakers with the studios in terms of success relative to cost and trying to do something that gets a lot of eyeballs on the streaming services,” says the top lawyer.

These performance bonuses are nascent, so there’s not much data on how meaningful the paydays will be. For a while, talent with leverage had a choice between a streamer’s previous upfront bonus buyout structure or its new performance-based model, but it’s becoming more common for streamers to insist on the latter.

“The more expensive the movie, obviously, the less likely you are to see those bonuses,” says the lawyer. “If you’re in the $40- to $50-million budget range, you might have a chance.”

What’s Selling Now

There is demand for original stories — which I wrote about back in the spring — but they’re still not necessarily easy to sell outside of certain genres.

“You’re seeing romantic comedies come back because Netflix wants them, and because they’re getting made at $30 million or less,” says the veteran lawyer. (Straight comedies are harder to sell, but not impossible, and studio execs I’ve talked to this year swear they want them.)

Then there’s horror, which is the industry’s reliably lucrative workhorse (historically underappreciated creatively, though that’s shifting), and family films, which I’m told are benefitting from superhero fatigue.

Of course, being able to rely on some kind of existing IP is still plan A.

“There is a refuge in the high-concept remake of an old thing, using existing material that has some cachet — a book, an article, a video game,” says Lichter. “The companies feel more secure if there’s something that is identifiable that they can base the film on. That has always been true, but I think it’s more true now than ever. The IP is a refuge. It cures the fear, to some extent.”

Greg Slewett of JSSK, who works with stars and multi-hyphenates including Ari Aster (Eddington) and Michael B. Jordan (Sinners) and Lynne Ramsay (Die, My Love), says he’s been pleasantly surprised with the deal landscape — especially for big ideas.

“All of the studios and streamers are looking for their next franchise, whether it’s original or based on IP,” he says. “The market for feature writers is much hotter than we expected it to be. Deals are becoming more robust than they were over the last few years.”

Pitches, Packages & Specs

Regardless of genre, a good story alone just isn’t enough anymore.

“Nothing’s easy! If you have Brad Pitt or Zendaya, it’s easier,” says the veteran talent lawyer. There aren’t that many actors or filmmakers that studios see as sure bets, he explains, but without talent attached it’s near-impossible to get them to take swings right now. “And then the idea, and the execution of that idea, have to be incredibly elevated or they want nothing to do with it.”

Slewett says those big ideas with franchise potential can generate interest — and offers — without a package, but it certainly doesn’t hurt to have talent attached.

“We’ve made some really lucrative deals recently when the package is right,” he says. “Having an in-demand director, an in-demand actor, or both, certainly moves the needle and creates a much frothier market for a sale.”

Those elite writer-directors we were talking about earlier tend to just write their project and take it to market as a go movie, but for most feature writers there’s a trend toward pitches over specs.

“By and large, it’s normally just a pitch,” says the other top talent lawyer of what he’s been seeing lately. “People seem to feel like it’s better to sell the sizzle rather than the steak in terms of the potential for a screenplay to come together.”

One MP lit agent says advising a client on whether a pitch will be compelling on its own — or if a spec is smarter way to go — starts by evaluating if a) it’s a commercial concept and b) people will “get it” right away.

If the answer to both is yes, and the writer is enough of a known quantity that an A-list director or star would take a meeting, then this agent might try to sell it as a pitch.

“Sometimes it’s more nuanced than that and the idea is great, but there’s a level of execution that is required to be able to see it,” the agent says. “In that case, I would say write a spec and let’s see if we can get attachments to the script. If the script comes in, and it’s so good that it’s undeniable, maybe you don’t even try to get an attachment, maybe you go direct and try to sell the script.”

But specs are a lot of work and don’t make sense for every writer or every genre.

“Not all material lends itself to being written or sold on spec, and some writers just won’t do it, perhaps because they’re busy with paying jobs,” says Lev Ginsburg, a talent lawyer who works with clients on both sides of the camera including writer-directors like Adele Lim (Joy Ride), Josh Ruben (Heart Eyes) and Colin Trevorrow (Jurassic World). “Horror concepts get spec’ed because either the reveal works on the page or it doesn’t, and for the same reason we also see good outcomes with comedy packages, especially when written for and/or by a writer-performer.”

Caution When Speculating About Specs

Dealmakers tell me development budgets are shrinking, so studios are extra picky, but when an exciting project hits the market they’re willing to step up. Case in point: the bidding war — won by Warner Bros. with $80 million — over Wuthering Heights from writer-director Emerald Fennell and starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi. (Yes, you can write a spec base on IP — it gets risky if you don’t already have a deal in place with the owner, but in this case the 1847 Emily Brontë novel is in the public domain.)

“These big spec sales with packages are selling at gigantic numbers,” says the veteran talent lawyer. “There’s just fewer of them. Not all of them are going to sell — even with good packages. It’s gotta be the right genre and material at the right budget range with the right actor and the right director all in sync.”

An up-and-coming writer with a competitive package might land $2 million up front against $4 million, but an established writer with a strong track record would probably want $4 million against $8 million in a spec market.

But using splashy spec sale announcements as a barometer of the overall health of the industry — while understandably tempting in an era when reliable and consistent metrics of success are hard to come by — is something dealmakers caution against.

“Concluding that the spec market is ‘down’ based on the number of press announcements one is or is not seeing is a mistake because lots of packages elect to withhold press announcements until they get a production greenlight,” explains Ginsburg.

Even assuming all specs were publicly announced, dealmakers emphasize that you have to evaluate spec-enomics in the broader development context. If spec spending is down, but a given studio has been snapping up short stories or other IP that it will then hire writers to adapt, that’s a very different scenario than if it’s not buying anything because its overall development spending is down.

If there’s any big-picture takeaway to consider, Lichter says a spike in spec sales might actually be a bad sign.

“There have been some very big spec sales, but writers are still struggling to find a job. Part of it is how few places are actually hiring writers to do things. All the transitions and all the changes have meant that executives are nervous, and development is riskier than buying a spec script,” Lichter says. “The business is healthier when people are developing.”