I think this might also be the one John Krasinski is attached to direct as well.

Hmm. Looks like I got that backwards. Matt Damon is directing this one.

Does this really count as a spec?

If you define a spec script as an original script written speculatively -- that is not for hire or on assignment -- with the hopes of selling it to a buyer, then yes, it's a spec. There have been plenty of specs written by actors that have NOT sold, so even with top talent attached, there is no assurance of a sale.

But Matt Damon isn't just any actor. I feel he has the juice to get almost any vanity project made.

So let's approach the subject the other way: If it's not a writing assignment and it's not a spec script, what is it? And why would it differ from any other spec script that sells with significant talent attached? For instance what about The Imitation Game which sold last week? DiCaprio is not officially attached, but is strongly interested in the project, and I'm sure his soft attachment is one of the reasons Warner Bros. coughed up $1M+ to buy the project. And THAT'S considered a spec script. I know the Damon & Krasinski project doesn't slot into the perhaps more typical image of a spec -- lonely unknown screenwriter slogging away on a script for months on end, then lo and behold s/he sells it. That's a wonderful image and it does happen. But spec scripts come in all shapes and sizes, with and without attachments. Again because it was an assignment and because it was written speculatively, I just don't know how else to look the D&K project except as a spec script.

Fair enough, and I get your point. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but there's a difference in my mind between a script like the Imitation Game, which *was* written by an unknown writer, and went through the mill before getting some major talent attached; and a script written by one of the 5 top movie stars on the planet, which completely bypassed the whole decision making and script validation/development process before getting a go. Doesn't feel to me like there was any degree of speculation: Matt has a project that he wants to direct, and it quickly gets approval because people at Warners want to attach themselves to him, in anticipation of Bourne scale projects down the road. I don't want to use the phrase vanity project because I think Matt Damon is far too good for it to be just that, but was there any real possibility of him being refused?

Yes. Projects with big name talent attached get rejected more often than you'd think. If they stick to their gross profit positions, the budget is too high, and the script / concept not an obvious slam dunk, studios, especially in this era of fiscal restraint, will pass more likely than say yes. I remember reading an article a few months ago where an unidentified producer complained about a project he said would have been set up in a "New York second" a decade ago. It was a mid-range budget ($50M) and starred two A-level actors. Every studio passed. Moreover the Damon & Krasinski project is budgeted (from reports I've seen) at $12M. That is probably in the ballpark of what Damon's quote is, so clearly he has agreed to a cut in fees in order to make his directing debut.

A spec is a spec is a spec. Some folks are fortunate enough to have an "in" to attach talent and the like. And some folks that are fortunate enough to have an "in," to attach talent and the like, write shitty specs... that never see the light of day. I'm guessing Matt wrote a story worth telling. Yes... I'm there. It drives me NUTS more times than not -- being the guy that sloggs away months on end, never getting a read or if I do, get's a pass... Then I read that Cannonball Run may very well get remade. I'm old school and thought that was a fun movie in the EIGHTIES! Really? Yeah -- I'm jealous. I bitch, piss and moan here on GITS (probably more than I should) but I also know in the back of my tiny brain that this is a tough business. A hard wall to crack... But I'm killing myself just to chip through that wall. Maybe you have an "in," maybe you've sold a spec, maybe you have an agent -- I don't know. But I will tell you this... When Scott blogs of the latest spec sale from an unknown -- it drives me nuts. When Scott blogs of the latest spec sale from a "five star actor" -- it drives me nuts. And... When Scott blogs of the latest sale of a remake that should NEVER be remade -- it drives me nuts. But it fuels my fire to keep writing. Because it doesn't matter who I know -- or how much I bitch, or how many people I DON'T know. It all boils down to this. If I write a great story and bust my ass to get it out there... it will happen. If "A" + "B" = Sale -- everyone would write. But that's not how the real world works. There's no formula for writing a great story or opening a door -- cracking that "wall." It's hard I know. Lord knows I know! All we can do is keep writing... And the rest, somehow, someway, will take care of itself.

For Warners, $12 million is a tiny budget. Of all the movies they released this year, the cheapest was Unknown at $30 million, and with the exception of Harry Potter, the rest came in at between $35 and $50 million. This movie is clearly an exception to the way Warners usually do business, and even though I don't like to use the term, that screams vanity project. It's Matt Damon using his clout to get a decent pet project green lit, one which, from the budget, is clearly not expected to make any significant box office. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge him one bit, and if he's got a good story to tell, that's all well and good. Bear in mind, though, that avenue is open only to a handful of people in the business, and that's why I think this script is an exception. It's closer. imho, to those projects that arise out of development deals.