SAG strike

[smashedburrito]

We are currently casting for a feature film "Trailerpark" and I am starting to worry about the SAG strike. We would be operating under the Ultra-Low Budget Agreement. If SAG strikes would we have to halt production or would they be able to finish if we already have a contract? None of these are name actors, just local professionals who act on the side.

Thanks for the help.

Here is our films thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=151982

[jls4]

We are currently casting for a feature film "Trailerpark" and I am starting to worry about the SAG strike. We would be operating under the Ultra-Low Budget Agreement. ...None of these are name actors, just local professionals who act on the side.

If you're not using names, why go SAG? Are you in L.A.? While I admit SAG has some great actors, there are many good actors that are SAG-E (elgiable) or they are just as good as SAG, but haven't gone SAG. Our feature we're finishing has 2 actors that are on a TV Show as regulars and they aren't SAG. So I'd check to see what the market is, espcially with the problems with dealing with SAG in leu of the Strike.

I know it's not an answer to your question, but just something to think about. If you're in L.A. then you're screwed. From what I've been told, every actor worth talking about is SAG in L.A.

[Tom Marshall]

SAG doesn't necessarily mean good. You can get 3 SAG extra vouchers and be in the union... means nothing. All that shows is that you really wanted to get your SAG card. It doesn't mean you can act.

[Michele Seidman]

We are currently casting for a feature film "Trailerpark" and I am starting to worry about the SAG strike. We would be operating under the Ultra-Low Budget Agreement. If SAG strikes would we have to halt production or would they be able to finish if we already have a contract? None of these are name actors, just local professionals who act on the side.

Thanks for the help.

Here is our films thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=151982


smash...

couple of questions for you first...

Is Ohio Union or not?

If it is, you could have some issues with any talent who is a full member of SAG.

If not a union state...and I quote...best I can "Federal law states that no Union or Guild may override 'right to work' status in any State in the Union". They can threaten, cajole, and wheedle but it is against Federal law to restrict workers in any way to impede them making a living. Also, in those states it is NOT legal to hire ONLY union workers. That is also considered impeding the workers rights.

Are your actors SAG, SAG Eg, and if SAG are any of them Financial Core Members?

If fully SAG in a Union state, they do risk fines if they decide to continue working. They could opt out temporarily but that would also require them pay a fee. Do you want them to take on that cost or are you willing to 'buy them out' for the duration of the shoot?

If they are only SAG Eg or if they are Financial Core, they can work strike or not but in a Union state I could see some grudges being held against anyone SAG Eg...but...

Financial Core members can work a union or non union job in any state.

Hope that helps a little.

[Tom Marshall]

I've gone to the SagIndie workshop twice now and the last time, the SAG strike was mentioned and whether there would be any issues or not. The rep at the workshop said the strike (if it happens) wouldn't affect anything.

[smashedburrito]

Thanks for all the help:

jls4: We are using SAG because we are in a very small town and some of the actors that we want to use are SAG. Our talent pool here is limited but we are lucky enough to have a group of very strong actors who used to work professionally in LA and NY. Some are SAG, some aren't, some are AFTRA or AEA. Basically we are casting the actors that fit the roles, some just happen to be SAG.

Michele: I am pretty sure Ohio is a union state. I think most of my actors are full SAG, but I will definitely check if any are financial core members. We have one AFTRA and one AEA, and while we would still have to pay them $100 a day under the agreement, at least we wouldn't have to worrk about the strike.

Tom: Did the man at the workshop give any reason for why the strike wouldn't affect SAG indie at all?

Also, this was released today:

http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0612044

Does this change things? I'm terrified we won't be able to make our movie. We start shooting in February.

[GaryinCalifornia]

TWe have one AFTRA and one AEA, and while we would still have to pay them $100 a day under the agreement, at least we wouldn't have to worrk about the strike.

Just remember you can only work them 8 hours... then its time and half ...

[Michele Seidman]

smash

the link went to current stuff and i saw nothing about the strike. any chance you can find the original and copy and paste it here? if you provide the source info it can't get you in trouble.

michele

[smashedburrito]

Sorry about that:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1110001161.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

Any thoughts on whether or not the members would vote to strike?

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Oh god not another.... I thought this was swept under the carpet! We are still recouping from the last one! I do not know all the details of the SAG strike, but from a crew members perspective (working much longer hours, and under more physically demanding duties) I think actors have it much better then others in the industry, and have only suffered from lack of work because of an over saturated amount of actors easily getting into SAG.

I was sympathetic to writers because they have historically been abused... to the point it was accepted and a joked about. My view on the matter is that SAG is way too large and has way too many members. I think they are representing and 'protecting' an over-saturated union. Protecting the little guy mentality of a union becomes ridiculous when there are too many little guys taking work from one another.

I have no solutions to the problem, as I admittedly don't understand the issues much at all. I personally feel no sympathy for the situation, and especially how it will put most of us (including my job) on the chopping block in a time where the economy is shrinking. I have yet to hear SAG's recent arguments, as most of the negotiations are still under hush hush.

A slowing economy, is (of course) not any reason to suspend peoples freedom of speech, assembly, or striking privileges... but it really makes it difficult to solicit support from other groups in the motion picture industry. As unemployment rates are slowly rising, I see it very hard for the writers to return the support they found from the actors during their strike and so on.

I pray actors can get a compromise. I don't want them to get nothing, but this isn't the best time to strike... or from their point of view maybe the best. If they strike now, they might get what they want only because everyone is fearful of a stirke especially now in these 'times'.

I just started working in LA, and I really don't want to go unemployed after only three weeks!

If this is too political, please delete my post. Strikes are always political.

-Ryan

[Michele Seidman]

My view on the matter is that SAG is way too large and has way too many members. I think they are representing and 'protecting' an over-saturated union. Protecting the little guy mentality of a union becomes ridiculous when there are too many little guys taking work from one another.

Some will hate me for agreeing with you but it often seems I am the only one doing the math. 85% of all actors make less than $5k a year on union bookings. That means 85% pay to keep the union going for the top 15% who do not pay dues based on their earnings.

If I remember correctly...low end actor paying a few $100 a year or so to keep up his or her dues while making 5k and guys like Tom Cruise paying a few thousand dollars while they earn Millions.

So...85%...not earning a living IS the back bone of the operating expenses for SAG. 85% won't ever get insurance...won't be able to get the pension...won't ever get back what they put in....

[jls4]

Some will hate me for agreeing with you but it often seems I am the only one doing the math. 85% of all actors make less than $5k a year on union bookings. That means 85% pay to keep the union going for the top 15% who do not pay dues based on their earnings.

If I remember correctly...low end actor paying a few $100 a year or so to keep up his or her dues while making 5k and guys like Tom Cruise paying a few thousand dollars while they earn Millions.

So...85%...not earning a living IS the back bone of the operating expenses for SAG. 85% won't ever get insurance...won't be able to get the pension...won't ever get back what they put in....

I've always felt that SAG hurts more actors than it helps. If a SAG actor is working at Applebees and a job comes up in a small movie that's non-union where there would not be direct pay, but maybe points. The SAG actor can't participate. Wouldn't it be better to allow actors to pick and choose their own life. Admittedly I'm not an actor, but here in GA many actors don't go SAG or AFTRA because they want to work and going Union would leave them at home.

For someone who is in love with acting, acting is more important than watching the numbers. However we must realize how mistreated actors were before the Union. I just think the whole process needs to be restructured. And maybe actors should be allowed to have different levels of Union membership.

Silver: Actors can work in any project with a budget 0-$50K for points or their own cash value. They only get a small amount of protection from SAG, mainly with 10 hour or less workdays, 2 meals, etc.

Gold: Projects $50K to $200K can work for mixed pay cash + points to be determined by actors, but no less than $75 a day/ $40 half day. 9 Hour or less workdays, medium protection from SAG, 2 meals, $750 donation for any actor with 8+ working days towards their pension.

Platinum: Current Sag-indie to Regular SAG, etc

I'd bet most actors would be in Silver, probably 60%, with 25% in Gold. This would give more of them the chance to be in productions and have the ability to rise in the ranks and do the craft that they love. It'd also make SAG more friendly to smaller projects and production companies.

Right now the only reason I'd go SAG for my next project is to get big time actors the 15%. The rest I'd probably cast as Non-union because of the flexability I'd get. So the 85% are still left out in the cold. Georgia is a "right to work" state. :)

[jls4]

jls4: We are using SAG because we are in a very small town and some of the actors that we want to use are SAG. Our talent pool here is limited but we are lucky enough to have a group of very strong actors who used to work professionally in LA and NY. Some are SAG, some aren't, some are AFTRA or AEA. Basically we are casting the actors that fit the roles, some just happen to be SAG.

If you actors really want to work, there is a work around. I've been told by actors (I haven't verified any of this info) that they can put an alternate name in your movie. SAG is attached to the actor's name, so change the name and you change the affiliation. You'll have to get them to sign on to this, but what it means is: The actor's name is John Doe, but under your movie they are John Dowe or John Q. Doe or Jon Doe.

Hope this helps.

[Michele Seidman]

For someone who is in love with acting, acting is more important than watching the numbers. However we must realize how mistreated actors were before the Union. I just think the whole process needs to be restructured. And maybe actors should be allowed to have different levels of Union membership. :)


A restructure is the best suggestion I have heard of in ages. I am not against the unions at all even if my postings might seem that way. They have done and still do a lot to protect actors. I just worry and question...at what point have they become as oppressive as the employers they came in to protect us from. As with anything there needs to be a balance. In a right to work state it has been a choice for many to stay out of the union unless they leave for a union state. At that point, those who are SAG El pay their dues and head north or west.

I have helped many get their foot in that door and join. So, in the long run I have always been a supporter. They owe hundreds of union actors to my assistance. I am proud to have helped them in any way to get in to SAG. But the attrition rate is high too...because of the restraint on earnings.

Between a rock and a hard place with this one...always am!

[Tom Marshall]

I'm going to have to get my SAG card pretty soon... and that cost to get in... Good lord...

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[jls4]

... I am not against the unions at all even if my postings might seem that way. They have done and still do a lot to protect actors. I just worry and question...at what point have they become as oppressive as the employers they came in to protect us from. As with anything there needs to be a balance. ...

I have helped many get their foot in that door and join. So, in the long run I have always been a supporter. They owe hundreds of union actors to my assistance. I am proud to have helped them in any way to get in to SAG. But the attrition rate is high too...because of the restraint on earnings.

Between a rock and a hard place with this one...always am!

I think the situation is like with anything. Things must be in place to protect, but there comes a time for restructure. I don't think anyone is truly against SAG or any other Guild/Union. But I DO think that many times the Guilds/Unions build themselves up for the largest predator (big companies like Universal, Paramont, Fox, etc). So when Mom-and-Pop Productions pops up with .1% of the money, they aren't geared to help them.

[jls4]

I agree with many of the comments stated, but there are some misconceptions about SAG.

SAG INDIE
SAG Indie represents everything from student films to low budget feature films.

STUDENT FILMS WITH A SAG CONTRACT
Any SAG actor can work on these. The "production company" can hire both union and non-union actors. Actors do not have to be paid. The contract is easy to fill out and has very little paperwork (compared to a full fledged feature film...for a student who is used to filling out no paperwork, then it may seem like quite a bit).

ULTRA-LOW BUDGET FEATURE WITH SAG CONTRACT
Many more hoops to jump through, but yet again I could hire both union and non-union actors. I only had to pay $100.00 a day. And, it borrows so much from the standard guild agreement that its members are well protected. I have to pay into their health and pension plan, SAG takes a percentage of my gross sales and divides it amongst all SAG actors working on the project and we have to comply by all standard guild rules.

AS A FILMMAKER DO I HAVE TO HIRE SAG OR NOT SAG?
Based on the contracts I mentioned above, there isn't a single DVXuser who can't have the best of both worlds.

WHAT'S THE GREATEST FRUSTRATION SAG?
Bloated beauracracy filled with angry failed actors who absolutely suck at returning a filmmaker's call or helping their own actors. But, other than that...it's great!

Your SAG knowledge definately out weighs mine since I know you just came off of a SAG project and I'm just starting to look at the contracts. But this is how I see it. SAG-ULTRA LOW Budget $100 a day x 5 (actors on set for avg day) X 10 (days of shooting) = $5000. Plus as you said you have to pay pension and health. My last budget couldn't afford even this small amount. And I shot for over 30 days $15K! SAG even in it's lowest package without the use of points, can't work for me. Again I understand why many people have moved away from points. People mistreating the system, saying there's always something else to be paid, etc. One of the things I did to help me in the point situation was promise my people (cast/crew) an open accounting policy. So if anyone questions I'll show them receipts, etc and prove why they got paid the way they did.

But this still goes back to my original point. One of my lead actors is a great Actor. I mean this guy has been in a few major movies as well as many smaller pieces. He could easily go SAG, but he doesn't. He's been on set for almost all of the 30+ days we've shot. Paid his own gas money even when gas was $4 a gallon and he's getting 17 mpg in his SUV driving 40+ miles to come shoot. And while he wanted gas money and extra money, he wants to work. He wants to be a part of projects that are going somewhere and that are fun and well written. So he came out and trusted me to pay him when I sell the movie if we make enough to cover everything.

I think the biggest breakdown is for actors who just want to work. The argument goes as I read someone break it down on another board.

1 Week an actor works at the grocery store hating every minute, but makes $250.

1 Week an actor is on set of an indie movie and maybe takes home $150 for the week to help with gas, but he's happy.

Under SAG the $150 happy actor is impossible. And think about actors who think they are washed up? We were looking for some "celebrities" to add to "voices" and I started calling agents. I call for a famous black actor who hasn't worked in 20 years, has huge financial problems (which I've seen on the news), but has a very memorable face. I email his manager and tell him the project and that we aren't SAG, but I'm paying. The manager emails me back and says he can't do it because the project's not SAG. So someone who NEEDS MONEY every little bit - I mean this guy is basically making less than $700 a week on his day job. But I can't pay him twice that amount for 1 day because he's SAG and my project is not SAG?

I'll always stand up for actors because I don't want the actors I use to be misused by other directors/producers. But there has to be a middle ground. I plan on going SAG from now on to give me access to larger stars so I won't miss out like I did this time (luckly I found some non-union faces). But I'll just be using SAG for the celebrities, I doubt I'll use them from smaller parts- so all those SAG folks paying dues and working at Applebees will probably not be a part of our next movie.

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[jls4]

You can hire both union and non-union actors on a SAG Ultra-Low Budget agreement. You are not required to pay the non-union actors the same rate you pay your SAG actors. You do not have to sign them to the same contract. You do not have to pay into health and pension for them.

Based on the example you provided above you can hire the African American actor at $1,400.00 a day AND hire non-union actors in all the other roles at non-union rates.

I'd also suggest you consider working on your schedule more. If you are averaging 5 actors a day on the schedule I suspect your schedule needs work. Many times you'll shoot a scene over two days and only cover half the actors on day one. Or, half the actors for the first half of the day. Who says you have to call actors for a full day? Most importantly...spending money on acting is worth every penny. Most of the crew you can afford are not professionals, don't get what it means to be a professional, do not directly contribute to the craft of your film and are little better than another pair of arms...but actors? They are EVERYTHING. What you wrote above implies (to me, at least) that you don't fully value what actors bring to your project. I apologize if that seems direct...I'm not trying to be rude. Just consider this...are you sure you fully value what an actor is contributing to your movie if you're trying to get them at $150.00 a week? I can't think of a single good actor who would work for me for that little.

Wow! :) I know Justin that you are direct and that's your personality. But sometimes I think you should take a walk in someone else's shoes before you go too far with them.

Firstly, I'm not going to comment on the first part of your statement because you don't know what our script was like or anyone elses. So in all due respect, you can't even begin to say how many people should and shouldn't be on set at a time.

As for valuing my actors, you have to rethink some. I applaud you and many others who have been blessed with money to do your movies. I on the other hand, so far haven't been that blessed. What's interesting to me is of the implication that just because someone isn't getting paid; they are not good or a professional. I know you don't read all my posts as I don't read every single one of yours, but if you did you'd understand I've been able to put together a group that rivals many, especially since they are free (for now, until I get some money to pay the points I promised). My actors are loved and respected - we're like family. They come out for me because they trust me. Many actors don't work for people for free because they don't trust them. It's not all about money for us, it's about something bigger than that.

I've not been around that long, but I've been around long enough to see lots of things. I've seen people who have no business behind the lens of a camera (by this I mean directors/ producers / writers) who because of a connection or ability to get money are able to make movies, really bad movies with bad acting that they are paying for through SAG or otherwise. If you can conclude that money doesn't fix everything, you should understand that lack thereof doesn't mean you have anything.

I don't understand why people either see things in either Black or White. I don't participate much in some of the threads because I feel that I may not understand what a person's point of view is given what they must be experiencing in their area of the country for their demographic. So I say nothing. But not to be disrespectful to you, because I thank you for the wisdom that you have given this board, the wisdom you have given to me and many others. And I'll continue to read your work and hope for the best for you. But I do not believe that just because I can't raise $250K or $350K or $500K that means my project is doomed or it will be bad. I do not believe that just because another person was able to raise $250K, $350K, $500K that their project is going to be good. Each person has the capacity to do what they will do according to the talent and the resources they have been given. I've seen professional DPs who get paid upwards of $800 a day not be good, but get work because they own a sought after camera like the RED. Where a person who has an A1 is better, but doesn't get work because of his camera.

Professional simply means that someone is getting paid to do a job. The last time I checked it took some actors years before they could act, but they knew someone in the industry that helped them get their start. If my aunt was Oprah Winfrey we wouldn't be having this conversation and you know it. Aunt Oprah would have gave me a million dollars to shoot a film. And just like that I'd be a pro Director. So all that... is excuse my french ... is BULL$HIT! On another thread we were discussing the concept of how many people make it in Hollywood because they "know somebody", it's amazing when you think of how FEW make it when they don't.

So my cast and crew may not be the highest paid, they might have a crazy thing called Faith in little old me, and maybe we have a lot to learn. But I'll be D@mNED if anyone says that I don't love and respect them and that we are in someway handicapped because we couldn't raise $250K.

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Tom Marshall]

I, for one, don't think I could live off of 30 bucks a day...

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Tom Marshall]

The second, of course. I realize the guy wants to do this as a passion project, but the numbers just don't add up. I mean, I need to eat and not be homeless.

Actors have bills to pay, unless the actor you're working with is in high school... that's the only way you could ever get away with something like that.

The only way I'll work for nothing is if I know the person well and that's only shooting on the weekends.

How can you seriously only pay someone 150 per week if you're shooting all 5 days? Is that person independently wealthy? My rent payment alone is more than that. Am I missing something??

[jls4]

That thing stinging in the back of your brain...that's called pride.

I don't have pain in the back of my neck. again, check your own pride and look at what I majorly was referring to. I only got on you for one thing really in my post which I found was some what offensive.


Look back at what I wrote. I prefaced each sentence with "I suspect" or "This is my opinion." If you want to take it as an insult...well, that's a shame because there is some solid advice in here.

I took your advise and maybe you should re-read what I said. I said "I thank you for the wisdom that you have given this board, the wisdom you have given to me and many others" - That's not saying that I'm listening?! That's not saying thank you?! That's me having an ego? too much Pride?

Wow! I thought saying something nice to someone was a good thing. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) However I can see if you took it sarasticlly, which it was not meant to be.


You can swear and cuss all you want...but suggesting you revisit your schedule and suggesting paying actors $150.00 a week is a sign you don't fully value actors IS good advice.

I never said it wasn't good. What I said was "What's interesting to me is of the implication that just because someone isn't getting paid; they are not good or a professional." Which basically means in my side of the world, there are lots of great Actors. Many who just want to work. And they are willing to come out for a Director /Producer they trust. That's what I said and meant.


The argument regarding Oprah is just emotion on your part...I'm going to assume when you calm down and realize no one was insulting you you'll see that no one on this board has a million bucks to make a first feature.

You're good at one thing when it comes to anyone who doesn't agree with you, and that's to try and turn it on them as if they are these emotional bags of crying mess. I was referring to a thread and the ability to get money. Money solves things like "paying actors." If I had it I would have done it. I did pay my two celebs because I had to, they didn't know me. But the others knew me and they knew my intentions.

This thread started because of the desire of a poster to get information about using SAG Actors. SAG actors have to be paid, my original argument, since the poster doesn't have much money, is to try and find actors who may be just as good and are looking for a break.


I had 7K to make my first professional short. We shot for four days and I paid each actor 100 dollars a day. That's how I got great actors.

I applaud you again. I had $300 for my first feature. I'd have loved to have $7K. :beer:


If you want to see this advice as an insult...then, just blow me and my experience off and do it your way. You don't have to listen to me. Heck, just blow me off, go to a coffee shop, read a magazine and chill out. Write me off as an idiot.

Again I never said you were fully insulting me. And I never blew your experience off. Again I applauded you for it several times. I'm just not going to sit back and have you lecture, a direct statement towards me and not say anything. I was trying to make my point LOUD AND CLEAR to you, since I've noticed that you are the type that lashes out at those don't share your opinions.

The only issue, throughout your argument that you haven't faced is this one point. The point I was trying to make and the one you didn't seem to read.

-I don't believe that not paying actors means you will:
A. have Bad Actors
B. not care about your Actors

That's my whole point. You got caught up in the Bull$hit line instead of the point I was trying to make.


But, do yourself a favor...in a week consider that maybe there was just a kernel of truth in what I was trying to tell you. It may emotionally sting, but that doesn't make it untrue. If you pay actors 150 dollars a week you will get what you pay for.

I'm going to leave it at this. My lead actor is a great actor, he's been in several Hollywood Feature Films, but he hasn't gotten enough screen time to warrant any celebrity on himself. Many of the actors I've been able to work with are in the same boat, they want to work on good projects. As you and Zak and many others say "A Good Script will attract actors." Guess what? I had a good script and a great reputation. So people came to work for me for free. What's so unbelievable about that? If you thought working for someone would boost your career, would you not do it? I would. I've worked for several people including a very prominent African-American Director for free, just to get my foot in the door.

According to Wikapedia:
Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes.


In #34 of your thread you wrote.

All you need is a great screenplay.

How great? Reservoir Dogs great. The Sixth Sense great. A Few Good Men great. Are there exceptions to this rule? Sure...and you might as well forget about them, because allowing your fate to be ruled by exceptions is called gambling. It's what losers who don't know math do. Winners don't gamble. They make careful, calculated choices that put them in the position to win. Losers say "Well, I sneak into a studio and duct tape the script underneath each car in the parking lot someone is bound to read it."

Write a great screenplay. Is that hard? Yes...it is very hard. I'm lucky, writing came easy to me...however, I've been doing it since I was 14 and I've always done it with the discipline that my scripts had to be as good as Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I didn't know there were any other options. So, I've studied and read and written and rewritten...and after doing that for 15 years it is now easy.

I can't stress this part enough. The rest of "my system" simply won't work if your script is "okay," "as good as last week's episode of Lost," "better than the crap Stallone makes," or any other excuse for mediocrity.

Why? Because once you are in the system you can get away with mediocrity (although why would anyone want to?) Your first real screenplay MUST be amazing. Only then will actors flock to your project.


All you need is a great screenplay...Only then will actors flock to your project.

Question: Does this only apply to you? Or can you see that other people may be able to do the same thing? :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG):Drogar-SunGlass(DBG:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG):Drogar-SunGlass(DBG

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[jls4]

The second, of course. I realize the guy wants to do this as a passion project, but the numbers just don't add up. I mean, I need to eat and not be homeless.

Actors have bills to pay, unless the actor you're working with is in high school... that's the only way you could ever get away with something like that.

The only way I'll work for nothing is if I know the person well and that's only shooting on the weekends.

How can you seriously only pay someone 150 per week if you're shooting all 5 days? Is that person independently wealthy? My rent payment alone is more than that. Am I missing something??

Hey Tom, I'll clarify on my part. Firstly yes, we do shoot weekends, since we all have 9to5s. That's a good question, one that wasn't asked.

When you're shooting on a super low budget, at least for me, I have to work around schedules. Actors in Atlanta have Day jobs, they don't make their living in movies or TV, doesn't mean they aren't good, just that they haven't had a break.

And above you said a perfect statement "I'll work for nothing is if I know the person well". I've said several times that my actors trust me, I would have thought that the average person would have recognized I didn't just get there over night. I've been working on projects with many of them for years. The others came because of the ones I already knew.

But good question. Maybe if that had been asked, we wouldn't have gone back and forth. It's good to clarify before going into tangents. I keep saying, not everybody has the money to do this (full time <- is implied :beer:) :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[jls4]

Justin,

After reading your last reply and what Tom said I think you both sent my statements on a wild goose chase. And misinterpreted what I was saying.

Most of the people I talk to in the 24 Diary are like me they are guys who want the $250K+, but don't have it. So we work our 9-to-5 jobs and get with others who do the same and do our best to put out movies. I've worked on professional sets, but unfortunately there aren't many in Atlanta. Really only Tyler Perry has had constant back to back movies, every one else does one or two projects and they disappear. But the Atlanta Film Community is strong and the cream has pretty much risen to the top. So most of the "good folks" know each other and work with each other. It's not like in LA where you have to figure out who's good and bad and who knows what. In Atlanta, we all know who we are. So our region works differently. That's why I keep saying you can't think it's only one way.

If I paid actors in Atlanta, I'd have the same ones I do now. :) They litterally are the best! I only have a few actors on my set that needed help, but that was because of political reasons which I don't want to discuss online. But if you shot a movie in Atlanta and used Atlanta actors for your "fillers", you'd have my actors in your movie. :beer:

[Tom Marshall]

$100 per day is really the baseline for a low budget project. It's a classic line, "Well, I can only pay you $100 per day" and then the actor will want to read the script and if he or she likes it, great. I'm at that point and I've been doing this for a while. I won't work for less than that.

What you might not realize is what a serious actor has to do to pursue acting -

First and foremost, actors have bills to pay. They have rent, food, car expenses (gas, insurance, and sometimes a car payment). But they also have to take classes which are very expensive and have headshots taken every so often and mail those headshots, which cost money for shipping. There's just a myriad of costs that an actor has to cover to work as an actor. You just can't pay someone 150 a week and expect that to be ok. 500 a week minimum.

I'm not saying your heart isn't in the right place, but you really need to work that into your budget.


ADDED: Ok, I think I was typing while you were responding. If you're talking 150 for the couple of days and that that's not their main source of income, then yeah - that's OK. $75 a day is reasonable if you both like each other and are willing to sacrifice a bit. :)

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[jls4]

We are currently casting for a feature film "Trailerpark" and I am starting to worry about the SAG strike. We would be operating under the Ultra-Low Budget Agreement. If SAG strikes would we have to halt production or would they be able to finish if we already have a contract? None of these are name actors, just local professionals who act on the side.

Thanks for the help.

Here is our films thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=151982

Hope all this drama helps you figure out what you need. :) I think the best thing for you to do is remember that everyone is right and wrong and they are saying it al from their own personal opinions and what they personally have been through. Hopefully things will work out. :thumbsup:

[smashedburrito]

Man, I disappear for a few days and this thread gets posts...

We are planning on shooting with the ultra low budget agreement, but we are working with SAG to try and making some changes. The issue is that we are making a student feature. We don't fit in the student film agreement because we are over 35 minutes long, yet we don't want to go fully ultra low budget because we are a student film (being made for a class) and many of our actors have agreed that if we got the student waiver where we don't have to pay anything, they would still work for some kind of honorarium (probably $75 a day). Luckily most of our SAG actors are local professors who are passionate about the project and willing to take the pay cut.

Will SAG agree to let us modify the ultra low budget agreement to include some of the caveats from the student film agreement? I don't know. If not, well, we will hit the fundraising trail even harder and figure out a way to pay the $100.

Unfortunately if SAG strikes, we are screwed either way.

Thoughts on the situation?

[Tom Marshall]

Will SAG agree to let us modify the ultra low budget agreement to include some of the caveats from the student film agreement?

No. They're pretty inflexible when it comes to money issues.

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Michele Seidman]

This isn't true. SAG has a waiver they can issue you. They offer this to all independent filmmakers. If you ask for the waiver and sign it, your SAG cast has to show up to your film and work regardless of the strike.

We did this for A Lonely Place For Dying. It was no big deal. They had a generic document drafted that they sent to us.


Your knowledge on this stuff is amazing. I may bug you for info one of these days!!!

[Zak Forsman]

last i spoke to our rep at SAG (a month ago), they stopped issuing the waiver. it's too late now.

[DCP]

No. They're pretty inflexible when it comes to money issues.

This is VERY TRUE. We had asked if it was at all possible to defer the pay to myself and my film partner (we were the main actors plus director/producers/screenwriters and we financed the film) and they said "Sorry, but we cannot make exceptions." So in a nutshell, we had to find more money just to pass it through a payroll service/SAG so we could get paid.

On top of that, our bond was over 5g's due to the number of shooting days we had scheduled. More ironically we ended up paying ourselves meal penalties due to a clerical error when filling out the exhibit g's. Go figure.

Originally I (as an actor) was doing the film regardless of SAG or not. But once we held auditions and found some incredibly talented SAG actors who wanted to work on the film, we had no choice: SAG contract was a must and now I'm very glad that we went this route.

Sorry this was a bit OT, but this clearly shows that SAG will stick to their contracts.

Todd

[grinner]

Whoever just made all these people unemployed, needs a kick in the nads.
If writers going on strike spawned an unscripted title wave, do they really think people are going to re-think their budgets in the name of them?
Man I hope anyone striking is doing it with different intentions than getting a raise.
It was hard enough to hire SAG talent as it was. Now that it's a hassle, man there are shows that need making. They can bring juice boxes to the second streamers.

[Mattykins]

Well to add: money doesn't equate to good.

In the same stroke, there are numerous student films who use talent on a volunteer basis. The show pays for travel and food. And that is it. Those actors are generally happy doing what they love to do. And the film maker can't afford to pay the money. They just don't have it.

I know people should get paid. But some situations exist where it just doesn't work out that way. It doesn't make them any less of a filmmaker. And it doesn't make the talent any less of an actor. Or the production any less of a production.

[smashedburrito]

On top of that, our bond was over 5g's due to the number of shooting days we had scheduled. More ironically we ended up paying ourselves meal penalties due to a clerical error when filling out the exhibit g's. Go figure.


Can you go into more details on this?

Thanks for all the help everyone. Too bad that SAG waiver for the strike ended.

[DCP]

Can you go into more details on this?

Thanks for all the help everyone. Too bad that SAG waiver for the strike ended.

Like it was mentioned before, a bond has to be given to SAG (they put it in an interest bearing account) and is calculated based on the number of SAG actors to the number of shooting days. The rate depends on the shooting schedule. It is 2 weeks pay or 40% of total pay (whichever is more). We shot over a course of a year so it was calculated at 40% of the total pay due to all SAG actors. The bond ensures the producers will pay the talent. If the producers don't make prompt payments, SAG takes the bond money to pay talent the monies due and then 'shuts' down the SAG production. SAG gets the paperwork, then the payroll is notified on how much is due and you get an invoice for total amount payable to the payroll service. The great thing about the payroll service is that they actually become the 'employer' and are responsible for Unemployment Insurance, etc.

Exhibit G's are a form showing in/out times, meal breaks, OT, etc. Our first day of shooting our 1st AD inadvertently put our In times as the time we showed up on set (as Producer/Director) and not the time as the Cast call. Sooo.... we payed ourselves a meal penalty and overtime. SAG was cool and said we could amend the Exhibit G, but it was a lot more hassle than it was worth (and since the checks were going right back into production we only lost out on the extra taxes paid).

I never actually filled out any of the Exhibit G's myself (I was too busy directing and doing a bunch of other stuff) so Chris (my film partner/producer) or my 1st AD (when we had him) would fill out those forms.

If I can answer any other questions, give me a shout.

Todd

[smashedburrito]

Thanks that helps a lot.

Looks like our budget just went up...

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[DCP]

Most people don't know this, but the bond can be negotiated. SAG certainly doesn't advertise this. It isn't easy to do and it is completely arbitrary, but you can ask your SAG rep to lower the bond. Also, the bond is based on your original estimate for shoot days...if you go over that estimate, SAG won't penalize you. SAG doesn't require you to be perfect.

Therefore, it is in your best interest to give a conservative estimate. Think you'll shoot 20 days but feel the urge to say 25 to be safe? Why? Just say 20 days. Don't pad. Just give SAG a realistic estimate.

Also, don't expect to get that bond back anytime soon. SAG is very slow about this. They'll tell you they'll get it back to you in 2-3 weeks...I guess that's the reverse of dog years. I have done this twice and we've never gotten the bond back without a tremendous amount of effort, lots of phone calls and at least two months passing by.

Funny, SAG had told us the bond was non-negotiable. We explained that we were the filmmakers and thtat as long as the other SAG actors had guaranteed payment could we not be forced into securing payment for ourselves (our budget was low and we need all the cash in hand we could get). We were told "No. We understand your situation but unfortunately we could not make exceptions." I should have pressed a little harder. 'However, we did under estimate our shooting dates (we were really most concerned about the dates that included SAG actors other than myself and Chris). For those shooting dates, we were 100% accurate, but for the dates that only included us... we did what we had to :smile:

We already got our SAG bond back (after about 2 months from wrapping) so no big problems there and we didn't even have to make a lot of phone calls. Go figure.

Todd

[DCP]

..., directors chairs for actors, have a PA get them water, they get their meal breaks on time, they get paid industry wages even if they aren't SAG, I contribute to their retirement benefits...

...and, in exchange for that I get to have INCREDIBLY high standards about their skills, work ethic and behavior. I expect actors to be completely off book. Completely. I hire only the very best actors. And, I only re-hire actors who blow me away.

Directors who have high expectations of their talent but aren't willing to reciprocate are shooting themselves in the foot and behaving hypocritically.

Well Justin,

Chris and I are sold! Where do we sign? :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[smashedburrito]

You guys are amazing, this information is going straight to my producer. Thank you so much for all of this.

I haven't even thought of that extra $30 a day. That adds up I'm sure. And meal penalties? We will just have to be super careful.

Do you have any other advice about working with SAG? The daily paper work? Things like that? Also we shoot a scene in Michigan and have a day of travel, but we do not shoot on that day. Do we have to pay the actors the $100 on that travel day? We will be transporting them there but if they arent acting do we have to pay?

[Zak Forsman]

You guys are amazing, this information is going straight to my producer. Thank you so much for all of this.

I haven't even thought of that extra $30 a day. That adds up I'm sure. And meal penalties? We will just have to be super careful.

Do you have any other advice about working with SAG? The daily paper work? Things like that? Also we shoot a scene in Michigan and have a day of travel, but we do not shoot on that day. Do we have to pay the actors the $100 on that travel day? We will be transporting them there but if they arent acting do we have to pay?

yeah, you pay them for the day AND they're supposed to get a per diem. and on top of the $30 prodigi spoke of, you will also have another $40 held up in a bond paid to SAG until they see everyone has been paid properly. you'll get it back but the immediate cost for the actor will be $170/day.

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Zak Forsman]

i have also used gifts (aka "bribes") with past reps to grease the wheels. not kidding. but julia allen is very.... by the book.

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[Zak Forsman]

i don't care who knows it. never in the form of cash. our old rep was moving so slow we needed to grease the wheels. a gift basket and a case of his favorite beer moved things along.

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[DCP]

Oh, I was gonna list a bunch more stuff but my son is tearing up a magazine...gotta go be a parent.

That sure sounds familiar...

[smashedburrito]

We have housing and food for everyone, so the per diem shouldn't be a big problem.

The issue is that what I thought was $100 is now $170. That almost doubles our SAG budget.

We are also using some AEA actors. Does anyone know how that works under the agreement?

[DCP]

We have housing and food for everyone, so the per diem shouldn't be a big problem.

The issue is that what I thought was $100 is now $170. That almost doubles our SAG budget.

We are also using some AEA actors. Does anyone know how that works under the agreement?

When we went to SAG for their monthly SAG contract seminar prior to our film I had asked the same question. They told me that all members of AEA, AFTRA and/or SAG fall under the agreement which means you have to treat any actors from any of the three unions equally (including pay, etc.)

Todd

[smashedburrito]

Does that mean I have to pay them each $170 or $100? We could do $100, but if we have to pay AEA the bond and the health/pension...

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[smashedburrito]

Adam,
Thanks again for all the advice. As for resources, we have what we need to make this movie. It turns out my producers actually knew all this extra SAG stuff and were planning for it...silly director trying to get involved in paper work...

In terms of the rest of production and resources we are very lucky to be making this as a part of the school. We have 68 kids signed on for credit so our crew is free and luckily local businesses are donating almost all of our meals. We were even lucky enough to get some donations from places like zacuto and zeiss to help make our film look sexy.

We actually have a production blog with all this going in user films but no one seems to care...

Thank you so much for your help. Lonely Place for Dying has been a huge inspiration to me over the past year and we have been following your thread daily learning as much as we can.

Thank you to everyone on this thread for all of your help! Now lets pray SAG doesn't strike...

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[taormina]

Funny, SAG had told us the bond was non-negotiable. We explained that we were the filmmakers and thtat as long as the other SAG actors had guaranteed payment could we not be forced into securing payment for ourselves (our budget was low and we need all the cash in hand we could get). We were told "No. We understand your situation but unfortunately we could not make exceptions." I should have pressed a little harder. 'However, we did under estimate our shooting dates (we were really most concerned about the dates that included SAG actors other than myself and Chris). For those shooting dates, we were 100% accurate, but for the dates that only included us... we did what we had to :smile:

We already got our SAG bond back (after about 2 months from wrapping) so no big problems there and we didn't even have to make a lot of phone calls. Go figure.

Todd

It is non negotiable. You must pay a bond, period, end of story, How much you pay is negotiable to a degree. The cast budget on Corrado was $140K. I negotiated the bond down to $23,500; it should have been roughly double that. I went face to face with my rep and Tawanda Duck( her name for real), who is the overlord of all the reps. It was gnarly dude. I actually went to the SAG offices to plead my case.

[DCP]

It is non negotiable. You must pay a bond, period, end of story, How much you pay is negotiable to a degree. The cast budget on Corrado was $140K. I negotiated the bond down to $23,500; it should have been roughly double that. I went face to face with my rep and Tawanda Duck( her name for real), who is the overlord of all the reps. It was gnarly dude. I actually went to the SAG offices to plead my case.

Yeah, I should have worked the angle a little better. In the long run, my brother-in-law put the bond money up and all was fine. Next film I'll know better and be a better pleader (if that's a word... if that's even a sentence; it's late and I'm going to bed:undecided).

Todd

btw, looking forward to seeing your film someday!

[Prodigi Pictures]

a

[smashedburrito]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996608.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

Well looks like the fighting has begun.

[jls4]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996608.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

Well looks like the fighting has begun.

Scarry stuff. I'm sure you'll figure out a solution though. :)

[taormina]

My bond was only 4K for a movie with a 200K budget.

The bond is based on what your total cast will cost. I think I accidentally backed my way into a great way of keeping the bond low.

I assumed we wouldn't get any movie stars. I assumed all of our smaller roles could shoot in 1-2 days. I assumed everyone would be working for $100.00 a day. So, the SAG bond came out to 4K.

When we cast celebrities three months later SAG didn't call us up and say "Wait a minute! You've done better than you thought you would! We need more money!" When we needed more days for some of our smaller roles SAG didn't call us up and say "Hey now! You said you could shoot that role in 2 days!"

So, one way of keeping your SAG bond really low is simply to assume the absolute, most conservative, most negative view of your own film.

What? This makes no sense at all. The bond is calculated on the final cast list. It's nt some arbitrary number pulled out of the air!

Basically everyone on your cast was paid scale except two people, which is why your bond was so low.

[Michele Seidman]

I just deal with SAG a lot. Zak knows more than I do...he deals with SAG even more often.

then i am adoring you both...dang...i love smart men!

[Tom Marshall]

Zak is unlovable...