Hacker News Reader

Comment by ubernostrum | Hacker News Reader

Neither has anyone else who knows what they are doing.

I don't know the details of the contract, but I know that apparently it gave her a percentage of net, rather than gross, on the resulting film.

Which, when dealing with Hollywood, ought to be prima facie evidence of ineffective/incompetent counsel on the part of whatever attorney represented/advised her during the negotiations :)

View on HN

> ought to be prima facie evidence of ineffective/incompetent counsel

A much more likely explanation is that the writer and her lawyer know perfectly well the difference between gross and net, but this was the best deal they could get, and it was better than nothing.

Writer and her lawyer: "We demand 3% of the gross."

Studio head: "I'm not offering any percentage of the gross."

Writer and her lawyer: "OK, we'll settle for 2.5% of the gross."

Studio head: "I told you: nothing on the gross. Zero. If you don't like that, get lost. I'll hire another writer."

Writer and her lawyer: "Well, OK, how about 3% of the net."

Studio head: "I think we can agree to that."

I wouldn't mind how studios did this if they were simply up front about it instead of being weasels about it.

They aren't being weasels. Everyone in Hollywood already knows there isn't any net. It's rare to get gross -- generally the only time that happens is when the star power is such that it would make a significant difference in the box office. Bradley Cooper gets net, no name writer from Pfugerville gets net, if any points at all.

That doesn't make any sense, though. 3% of the net is not better than nothing. Why would you bother to ask for it? That just makes your contract legally valid, in the sense that consideration is offered, without getting you any benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com