A: Movies of the week (hereinafter referred to as MOWs), and MOWs exclusively, have been my profession for the last 14 years. Since ten of those years were spent at the network, most of the ideas came to me from producers who would schedule "pitch meetings" in which they would bring projects to me. If I liked it, I would pitch it internally and if my management liked it (after ten years at one place, you do, of course, learn how to pitch to your management), we would go into development on it.

Now, as a producer, I'm a supplier to the networks, so I bring my projects to the networks and try to use my energies to develop good pitches for the network while getting to know my buyers. What makes "an MOW idea" and what makes "an MOW sale" are two very different notions. The idea (which I'm going to assume is meant as the inspiration for the movie pitch) is something generated in a number of ways. If you haven't watched an MOW recently, you must; a working vocabulary of what is marketable is the only way a person can learn to make sales. I collect ratings on every movie aired so that I know what type of movie is doing well right now. Although the ratings are a function of a number of frequently variable factors (when it plays, what it's playing against, what the national climate is at the moment, etc.), a movie that doesn't perform well - regardless of why - makes it difficult to sell a film that is like it (however the buyers deem that similarity to exist).

Conversely, if something is extremely successful and your timing is right, that might trigger a buy based on a number of equally variable reasons. Sometimes an idea is generated by a network saying to the producing community that they have a particular need - FBC put out a call in this manner recently for "disaster films", having had success with a film called "Tornado" that was timed to air simultaneously to the massive feature promotion for "Twister". They let everyone know on what date they would consider the various projects that came in, and they then picked the ones they thought were best. Needless to say, they are no longer looking for disaster pictures.

Very rarely a network will call a particular producer and say "here's what we're interested in doing with you." I received such a call from an executive once who said, "we'd be interested in doing something on the Near Death Experience with you," and as a result we went after and made "Saved by the Light" this year (which I will refer to as SBTL). Most frequently, our ideas come from our own inspiration based on any number of sources. Since true stories have recently been a staple of the MOW, we are always looking for true stories through various resources. Networks are interested in execution, which creates the basic Catch 22 for people trying to break in; you need to be a recognized MOW supplier in order to sell one to a network. While anyone can have an idea, and many people can develop something that looks like a network MOW, the ability to make the movie is something that the network places a lot of stock in. Frequently people who are not recognized as bona fide production entities make their way into the business through attaching themselves to production companies, by pitching their ideas to producers who will make a deal to allow the production company to own the film if it gets made. Many producers look for ideas this way.

Personally, I prefer generating my stories using my own resources. Taking on a partner who originates a deal is an expensive proposition: they (justifiably) ask for large producer fees and frequently, in order to survive, expose their material to several people at one time. If two people are interested in the same material, the one who pays the most usually wins (not always to the advantage of the product, in my opinion; money is an attractive element, but a produced film is a significant achievement). It is more cost-efficient for me to generate my ideas myself. MOW producers make no money until the film is made and no real money until after ownership of the film reverts to the production company who may market it all over the world after the network's exclusive license expires. If there's a major story that an agency has acquired or an individual brings to me, I will make a partnership to try and acquire it; otherwise there are a lot of stories out there that I can find on my own. My staff (a Director of Development and an Assistant) spend most of our work days searching for stories and putting them into pitch form so we can take them to the network. After enough attachments to successful films (an arbitrary call), the network may allow a person to be fully responsible and accountable for the film ideas they bring in.
Back to the questions

How do writers come to your attention? How do you pick the writer for a project?

The vast majority of network scripts are developed from scratch at the network; the script pre-sale is rare, and almost always requires something to push it over, casting, a director, something. It is not out of the question that a network will buy an existing script, but it is not the norm by a long shot.

The network will not read projects submitted by an unrepresented writer under any circumstances because of the potential for legal action. Most production companies will require a waiver to be signed by the writer who submits on their own protecting the company from legal action. These waivers are rarely in the best financial interest of the writer. But these scripts are rarely bought by the production company or the network who receives it through a production company.

The writer's agent ("literary [or lit] agent") is, therefore, an all important person in my ability to find writers. It is hard to "discover" a writer who is not represented by an agent. There are undoubtedly numbers of terrific unrepresented writers. Part of the secret of successful commerce in a very commercial marketplace, though, is the ability to make yourself someone who is commercially viable. Writers need to figure out how to get someone to deliver material they have written, material that represents their skills, to people who get pictures made. Agents need to create relationships that allow people to believe in their taste in writers.

I had to use a reader at the network -- too many scripts came in to allow me to read material submissions. If the coverage suggested a story that was a potential network film, I would read the script; when it stopped working for my needs, though, I would put it down and pass on the material. I also had to read every draft of what I was developing in order to give notes on the script; I had to read writers producers recommended for a project if I was unfamiliar with them. A writer on a network film must be approved by the network. I frequently heard the term "network approved list", but in my experience such a list doesn't exist. An executive who can convince his/her buyer that a writer is appropriate for an assignment is an executive who can break a writer into the business.

By the same token, as a producer, when I sell my own idea or my own treatment to a network I begin a very extensive writer search. I have just concluded one at ABC and am just commencing one at NBC on two projects that were bought. I keep notes on every single script I read -- I force myself to write about 500 words on every script I read evaluating the writer's skills at the major components of my work - character, structure and dialogue. If a writer is submitted as a pure sample (without my necessarily hiring for a project) my evaluation is based purely on the work; if the writer is submitted for an "open writing assignment" (a project that has been commissioned by a network) I add an evaluation of the writer's suitability for the project submitted. This gives me a better sense of an agent's responsiveness to what I'm looking for (it is a business of reputation - I take submissions more seriously from people who share my sensibility).

I also evaluate a writer's ability to succeed in terms of the goals I've set for the project (more on conceptual development later), and particularly in terms of the criterion the network and I have agreed are essential to our success. Does the writer communicate more than the story? Is there perhaps a theme or message in the writing? Is it subtle, overt, or "band aid" (applied in specific spots)? If I'm doing a thriller, do they create tension in their scenes (even if the script is not a thriller)?

For the ABC project my Director of Development and I made lists out of the writers we had already read and felt might be suitable for the project and sorted them by agency. This fairly loose list was about fifty names. When I called the agents to see if the writers were available (not already overextended) I asked if they had anyone else who might work for the project which I described. By the time we'd covered the writers list we'd generated, we were considering about a hundred writers.

Between the two of us, every script submitted is read in its entirety. I won't say I never put down a script, but I rarely do. My ability to evaluate appropriately is based on my determination to give due diligence to the writer who, while possibly unsuitable for a particular project, may be perfect when another kind of project needs a writer. We try to talk to the top three to five writers about the project and then give the network its prerogative to weigh in on the decision. There are times where the perfect writer is someone who can be picked early in the process, but in my experience, these times are rare.

Generally, in the MOW business the writers come after the idea is bought. Sometimes the writer comes into the pitch; frequently this is a major writer of MOWs whose attachment helps the project get sold. There are times where the network will say they know a perfect writer for the project. I don't ask if they don't offer, though, because I figure that every step of the way I'm convincing the network of my sincere determination to do the job to the best of my ability. When I was at the network I frequently felt that producers who asked me who was right for a project before submitting names weren't really doing their jobs, and didn't care as much about what the movie was about as they were about getting it made. If that was so, I frequently suggested writers I was comfortable working with, but in these cases the producers often took a back seat. Which can have its advantages; this is also a business about strategies, I suppose.

I like rolling up my sleeves and becoming very involved creatively. Some people like getting movies made. Although the two aren't mutually exclusive, I've seen people work at either extreme as well as standing middle ground. Ultimately we are judged by the product and must decide how to achieve that.
Back to the questions

Do you allow submittals of pitches [from writers] for movies of the week? (I am referring to the one paragraph/logline summary statements.)

The above tends to answer the question. It is possible, but not likely. Again, I speak for myself and policies which I feel are in the best protective interests of myself AND the writer. (This is a business, after all.) Since it's safe to say that many MOWs are like many other MOWs, the ability to claim an idea as one's own is both easy and difficult depending on how you look at it. Disputes over an idea's genesis are counterproductive to getting the film made. I will not listen to writer pitches unless I'm protected by a Writers Guild of America (WGA) signatory agent suggesting the writer. I won't be in a dispute with that agent; the writer and I are both protected. If a writer and I get together under the appropriate auspices, I'm more than happy to listen to the idea.

The writer is a potential asset or liability when you take a project to the network, since a writer who is guaranteed to write a project forces the network to decide on the project with the given writer. If they don't know or, worse, don't like the writer, they may pass on a project. Sometimes a writer who has had trouble being hired by a network may come in as part of an agency "package", including a production company, a writer and an actor ("talent"), which may make it hard to say no to, even if the writer is not well known by the network.

A new writer might want to ask an agency interested in representing them what they've packaged, in order to assess their ability to help them get out and become a network writer. Needless to say, a writer whose script does not get made when the package is desirable may have trouble getting approved at the network afterwards; the hopes are a lot higher for the success of a package with attractive elements.
Back to the questions

How often do you begin with a writer's idea, or spec script?

Rarely, unless I have a great relationship with the writer. Generally, MOWs start with a producer's idea and the writer comes later and the director comes after the script is ordered to film (frequently a year into the process). Feature films, of which I am not sufficiently experienced to speak, frequently operate very differently. MOWs are a producer's medium. Very successful writers in MOWs tend to become producers, frequently selling ideas which they hire other writers to execute. That is a long-term career move.

It is a rare spec script that I submit to a network; it is an even rarer one the network buys. It is not impossible (nothing is certain) but it is rare. A good agent shopping a spec script will try to make the writer's services something for which the producer must try to get network approval ("best efforts"). But sometimes a spec script will be bought and the writer will be replaced. Sometimes an agent makes a writer's attachment a nonnegotiable aspect of the script. I think it's a great opening posture for an agent, but not a great point on which to let the project go. (A "deal-breaker" is any non-negotiable deal point.) Producers are loathe to make this deal since a new writer and a script that isn't a home run may be diminished if the network likes the idea but doesn't have the confidence in the writer's ability to achieve the final version. A wise first-time writer will agree to best-efforts with a guaranteed purchase price for the script and possibly a discretionary producer credit. You came up with the idea that attracted the sale, you have done a producer's job and are entitled to credit for that, with a fee that is probably nominal in the scheme of things.

An impossible deal that keeps the producers from from profiting from making the film, or which violates a precedent for the company in setting a purchase price, can haunt them every time a spec script comes their way. My advice, if you want to work in the town, is that it is better to have credits that reflect many produced projects than to have a suitcase full of great unproduced scripts. We all achieve by degree and should be willing to do so in television.

I walked away from a project a couple weeks ago because I didn't feel the deal was worthwhile because of the agency requirements. The concept was sound, but the execution was not solid, and in order to go into the network with it I would have had to spend a lot of time attaching talent to it to make the sale hard to refuse. The deal that was presented made it too hard to put the elements together, and the writer's attachment was guaranteed. By the time my option on the material was through, the writer would have to have done a much better job in a very little amount of time, or I would have wasted a lot of time and energy while the meter was running. I doubt that script will ever get made by anyone, unless someone becomes more pragmatic about the deal. It may get optioned, but again, being optioned is not nearly as useful to building a career as being produced. (Mind you, these are the kinds of strategies that can have a producer kicking him/herself when the film wins the Emmy or is the highest rated picture of the year on the network.)

Careers are long-term investments that require a long-term plan. Hitting it big right away is everyone's goal, but few people's luck. People must prepare for the long haul.
Back to the questions

If you find an idea interesting, do you work with screenwriters to get those into development? Or do you prefer fully written scripts?

I prefer generating my own ideas and putting the pitch together myself and letting the network approve a writer once I've placed the idea. If I've had great success with a writer I will frequently try and find another project to do with them. The writer of "Saved By The Light", for example, had never been produced before, but I'd read a number of his scripts and KNEW he was the right writer for the project. (I would never, ever, hire a writer based on one script; I would never hire a writer unless I'd read at least three scripts of which at least two worked and unless I'd heard how the writer responded to the particular material.) He was the right writer; the script was extraordinary and of course he was immediately offered another project by the same network, which should also be made; then he was immediately offered another project after turning in that one. Because we had a great time working together (which is really the delicious part of the job), we have been finding projects to work on together since we turned in the final draft on SBTL; he's just been too damn busy. But we've actually got the next one, which of course we will take first to FBC since they seem to have turned him into a virtual contract player because of SBTL.

Next to seeing your name on the screen and calling your parents and letting them know all those years were worth something, being a part of a writer's first produced film is an unparalleled joy in the job. I have been very lucky in this regard, having had a least a dozen projects made with writers who had never been produced before.