UPDATED: I Think This New Screenwriting Website Is Shady And Exploitative

Man, it is so hard to break into Hollywood that nothing makes me madder than websites exploiting aspiring writers. Recently, a writer sent me an email asking me to look into a website called GET IT MADE.

Now, that website has a very similar title to a consulting service I have used and reviewed called GET MADE.

But these two sites are very different. And I think Get It Made has a very shady terms and conditions page that actually might screw writers.

And that makes me mad as hell, so I am devoting a whole article to it.

Today, I want to explore why sites like this one, and others like it, are incredibly exploitative.

Let's dive in.

UPDATE: I got an email clarifying some of the charges, which I will detail below.

Always Read The Fine Print

Yesterday, I got that email from a reader asking me to look into Get It Made, and I did because I thought it was kind of crazy that it had such a similar name to another site I had already reviewed, and I wanted to help the reader out.

Sometimes I'm not cranky. I'm nice, I swear.

They asked me to look into a couple of other sites, but I just haven't had the time. Mostly because when I started with Get It Made, I got so pissed off that I had to take a walk.

Here are the basics: Get It Made is a pay-to-play website that asks writers to pay them a one-time fee of $59.99 to get their work reviewed. If it's deemed worthy, they then ask for $99 a month.

So you're spending over $1000 for a year of service. What do you get back?

Here's what someone at Get It Made Emailed Me:

So here’s what your readers deserve to know:

1) Fee Structure

We charge $59.99 for a 30-day application and project intake, which includes:- a one-on-one meeting with an Industry Professional- a project evaluation with a Story Producer- the option to present project as POC at a live weekly Table Read- access to community, curated lessons, workshops, and moreWe’re confident no other platform offers that kind of access and value at this price point.If the project is accepted into our development slate and the writer aligns with our approach, they may join as a member at $99/month, billed quarterly or annually (with a discount). This is not a blind submission or an upsell trap. It’s a transparent, structured process, and all terms are clear before any commitment.

2) Terms & Conditions

The clause you flagged is a non-solicitation provision, standard in any setting where creative matchmaking and access are provided. We do not claim ownership of writers’ IP. We only engage in production deals when both parties opt in. Nothing is forced. As many others have pointed out here, Section 2.1 of our Terms explicitly protects writers’ rights. Writers retain full ownership of their IP at all times.

My Opinion

I am sure they don’t think what they’re doing is actually exploitative — all these businesses convince themselves they’re doing it for the right reasons.

But if writers pay you, instead of you paying the writers, you’ll always end up with projects you don’t really believe in.

And producers with projects they don’t really believe in… don’t make those movies.

Period.

You might get meetings, some movies might get made, but there are no guarantees in this business.

The Worst Part

I know they say writers retain their work, but I went into the terms and conditions part of the website.

Here's what the third bullet point under "OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; RESTRICTIONS."

"1. For so long as you are a user and for two (2) years after you cease to be a user, you hereby agree to refrain from soliciting, initiating, facilitating, or engaging in a professional association or interaction with an Industry Professional or other user with respect to any project or endeavor with which GIM would normally be involved as part of its usual business operations (i.e. an independent film, series, or other creative projects) without GIM’s involvement. An "Industry Professional or other user" is herein defined as any contributor to or user of GIM to whom you were introduced via GIM or with whom you worked while a user on a GIM project; for the avoidance of doubt, Industry Professionals are also users for purposes of these Terms. You agree that such associations and/or interactions during such period shall occur with GIM’s meaningful involvement on no less favorable terms than GIM would have with a similar creative project. Furthermore, you expressly undertake not to engage in data scraping, extraction, or any other methodologies aimed at procuring contact information for the explicit purpose of initiating communication with an Industry Professional outside the confines of GIM."

No matter what they say, my opinion is that this is extremely broad language. And the lawyer I talked to (who wants to remain off the record), told me that it reads like a two-year blanket first look/noncompete.

Again, because this is so broad, it's hard to really nail it down exactly.

They can say you're willingly agreeing to enter that...but to me, that's a bad deal for writers!

Here's why I don't like it....I 'll use a made-up example.

Writer X becomes a user and meets Industry Pro Q through GIM. Writer X lives in middle America and is a veteran. They write military action thrillers. X works with Q on developing one and X improves as a writer but it doesn't get made. X decides to save their $$ and stops being a user. Their scripts lands them an agent and a year and a half later, X writes a new Extraction-style script. Their agent sends it out around town, and X takes it to Q not through GIM, but through Q's day job as a junior exec at some random prodco, or maybe a mid-level producer on their own. Q likes it and wants to work on it. Unfortunately for X, this is within the 2 year window and the script is a "similar creative project." Thus, under the terms of the agreement, GIM must be involved and on no less favorable terms than if it was developed through GIM. This is legit plausible. Worse, what if X wanted to take out their original script from when they were a user with GIM? Well they literally can't take it to Q for two years because then GIM is automatically involved. This is basically a blanket first-look/noncompete. You could characterize it as 2 year free option. However you slice it, it sucks for the writer and is great for GIM. The only place this saves GIM's bacon is if X and Q like working with each other, develop the script together, X and Q both quit using GIM, and then they go off and make the project on their own. They could avoid that with different drafting of this contract, but as it stands, this is dogshit.

Again, in my opinion, it's the broad language that makes me worried someone can go after you.

No matter how nice everyone involved is, that kind of language bothers me.

Again, My Opinion Is That This Stuff Sucks

Like I said at the top, Hollywood is so hard to break into. But they call it breaking in because you're supposed to network and work your way in, not buy your way in.

Come here, get a job, make friends, and do it the old-fashioned way. If you're old or this is a side gig, hit up a film fest once a year and try to meet people there. Maybe look at The Black List, at least you can track what you get for paying them.

If you're paying for access, it's just wrong.

Real producers don't ask for your money; they believe in your project and shepherd it accordingly.

This business, even if unintentionally, is incentivized to keep you paying them. To me, that's a big red flag, and it is the clear definition of The Hope Machine that I truly hate in Hollywood.

In my opinion, it's so shady and so exploitative.

You're giving them money to chase your dreams, instead of using that money to network, or go to festivals, or whatever.

If they really believed in the project, they'd PAY YOU to option it.

This life is hard enough. Save your money.

Again, this is my opinion. You can sound off in the comments.

If this site has helped you, great. But if you're asking my opinion, I think it's bad.