EFTA00144324¶
From:¶
Date: February 8, 2022 at 6:50:01 PM EST¶
To: Steve Ross steve@steverossagency.com¶
Option/Purchase Agreement¶
Steve,¶
I think Kathy misunderstood everything.¶
Before she talks to and blows any possibility please call her and try to clarify that I don’t have one place to pitch, she just needs to see my bio and see how many projects I have in development with different streamers.¶
It is the material that is complicated and I’m assume that we are all aware.¶
We all have an amazing opportunity with Paramount + and we need to rush this in order to set up the project a soon as possible.¶
The most important thing is that she needs to be aware that we had a deal in place and she tries to renegotiate the deal a posteriori.¶
I think I should talk to directly. Can you put us in touch tomorrow early as possible?¶
Please let me know.¶
Thank you¶
Frida¶
On Feb 8, 2022, at 6:27 PM, Steve Ross steve@steverossagency.com wrote:¶
Frida,¶
Here is my summary of our conversation, and her response. FYI.¶
Best,¶
Steve¶
Forwarded message¶
From:¶
Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 6:11 PM¶
Subject: Re:¶
Option/Purchase Agreement¶
To: Steve Ross steve@steverossagency.com¶
EFTA00144325¶
Steve: For the most part, her comments are ridiculous and incorrect. I’ve been doing this 25 years and see deals for 6 months and way more money. To be clear, 18 months is not standard, 12 months is more common and it depends on how much is being paid for the option. If purchasers offer more, they get more time.¶
About the only thing I agree with is the shopping agt. I proposed that as a show of good faith in case she wanted to be able to shop soon. She may be right about the content being risky but if she only has 1 place to pitch, it certainly doesn’t make sense to tie this property up for 18 months.¶
I will discuss this with and let you know, but in the interest of transparency, I am not encouraged. It is late for so most likely tomorrow.¶
Best,¶
K¶
Kathy,¶
I just spent about twenty minutes on the phone with Frida, who wanted to reinforce or press several points to pass along because otherwise it¶
EFTA00144326¶
is not worthwhile to try to arrange a call to go through this agreement.¶
She said that, contrary to what you said about all options being 12 months, she has never seen one for twelve months—that all her options are are for renewable 18 months periods and nobody has pushed back because 18 months is “customary”, and I will add here that most of the options I’ve been involved with, for film and for TV were for 18 months, so I have no basis for arguing against that point.¶
She had told us before she made the offer that it was the best offer she can possibly make before getting this set-up someplace, so we should really think about it and not accept it if we’re not okay with it. We’d discussed it and accepted it. She said that despite your (Kathy’s) suggestion of $25K as a reasonable offer, she has never seen that much offered as an option, for any deal, many of them involving very visible projects that went on to be highly successful, and although my experience is admittedly more limited than hers, I must agree with her there as well—I had an option with Smokehouse that George Clooney pre-empted saying “this is going to be the next project I direct” and that offer was for $10K, with 18-month renewable options. Same with Focus Features, for another clients’ book with AppleTV for a multi-episode adaptation of another clents’ book—and all three of these previously referenced deals had attorneys and co-agents in the Film/TV sphere closely involved. She said Warner Brothers and Universal have never offered $25K for a licensed book option.¶
She said the mainstream studios view this specific content as too dangerous for their platforms—she has already been told this by AppleTV and by Amazon, whose CEO is a friend of hers, and the only platform that might well take a risk on developing this is a newish start-up looking to make a splash, like Viacom, where her development deal is.¶
She said she does not do shopping agreements, because they’re of no value when she approaches a studio, as they always want to see the contract.¶
She is generally flummoxed by your response because she said this is the contract that she gives to all of her clients and it has never raised this many questions or issues.¶
EFTA00144327¶
She says that you have asked for to have approval, as opposed to consultation, over the finished product, and felt definitively that nobody will ever give the book author approval. This has been my experience as well.¶
So where are we now? is an enormously successful and connected producer who wants to try to take a chance on developing¶
book into the six-episode stand-alone series she outlined to us, but so much time has passed and says she has little or no flexibility on the terms she has offered. The book was not a commercial success, although it received a good deal of coverage, and the fact that Harper UK’s lawyers said they could not publish it there reinforces what Frida is saying about how the mainstream platforms will all consider it too dangerous. Do we let her go with it to Viacom or do we keep banging our heads against the wall with me as the intermediary, taking in everyone’s ire and suspicions when I’m just trying to go with Frida’s enthusiastic vision? Frankly, I am not certain that another producer will come along asking to develop this. I’m sorry I’ve been cast as the bad guy somewhere along the way but I personally think it’s better to have a less than ideal option than no option at all.¶
I don’t think she was saying “take it or leave it” but she was saying she is not going to change it to twelve months or increase the dollar amount or give approval rather than consultation, all three of which are simply no-starters for her.¶
So the question is, are you prepared to walk away?¶
Best,¶
Steve¶