renegadewill
Well-known member
ahaaha, seriously
movies still shot on film ?
- Thread starter HenryDee
- Start date
Glen Gustafson
Active member
Well, they're already writing 20 million dollar checks to the stars. Maybe they can cut corners on the catering to make up...
But seriously, the question revolved around how he might learn to edit, and although film is still widely used for acquisition, digital has taken post by storm.
I feel compelled to add that as a professional in the industry I'm not enthusiastic about being marketed to with sensors made out of "mysterium" or "Bullsh*tium" or whatever. Works for sunglasses I guess.
But seriously, the question revolved around how he might learn to edit, and although film is still widely used for acquisition, digital has taken post by storm.
I feel compelled to add that as a professional in the industry I'm not enthusiastic about being marketed to with sensors made out of "mysterium" or "Bullsh*tium" or whatever. Works for sunglasses I guess.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, he bought a couple of F900s. Probably kicking himself now that he could have several Reds for a lot less. And two years from now that'll happen again.
Yeah, boy, those guys sure have their priorities all messed up. I guess the red carpets, private jets, billions and billions of dollars in success, private screenings, film festivals, and awards that come with success have somehow distanced them from the dead-broke, scraping-by-on-a-dime, guerrilla-style shooting that they all wish they were still doing.
Right?
Have they? Really? Or do the same few companies still control all the artists, and the only side of the business that really got smacked was the independent and chain music stores...
Look, all I was responding to was what I considered an outrageously misinformed post that typifies the no-vision, dead-end attitude that is all too prevalent in this industry. I'm not saying we all have to aspire to having private jets, etc. I do think it's comical when people make unwatchable horrid little piles of dreck, and then complain about what Hollywood turns out... but, hey, to each his own.
There's two paths in business: you can look at what the successful people do, and emulate them, and achieve similar success. Or, you can look at what the successful people do and decide to not do anything in any way like they do, and reap the rewards that come with that (which are, typically, failure). Of course there's the 1-in-1,000 exception, the breakthrough, the lottery winner... but is that really a business plan?
xmephestox
Carbonite Member
As it is, features are going to be the last area where film dies, just the same as they are the last area where Avid will die. Because really old people always shoot on film and edit on Avid, and young people hate Avid for the most part
i can attest, being an editor, and young editor at that (only 22) that avid may look like they are in trouble, but really they are making new marketing strategies and adjusting to the competition of FCP and other cheaper NLE's. i admit that there are a growing amount of editors who are leaning more towards FCP then anything else, and that any smaller companies will prefer to do FCP. but a great deal of big films and television stations are avid based. the thing about avid is, it makes you stop and think about what you have to do. FCP in my opinion can get sloppy and you end up losing track of things. yes a lot of the new generation of editors don't like avid because it forces you to do that, but that's why i love it. my cuts are much more refined and so much cleaner that way in the same amount of time you can get to that point in FCP after running through your timeline 50 times.
avid unity, symphony systems, and media composer which is cheaper then FCP right now are all extremely powerful and wonderful systems that may be flawed in most people's eyes because everything is so strict about it. but they are stop gaps on purpose to keep you from making severe mistakes. so like film and digital, like avid and any other NLE, it's to each his own. there will always be plenty of people who will shoot on film because they feel like that is the look and quality they want. there will always be peopel who are fans of one NLE to another. they all work, they all do what they are supposed to do with high end results that support the industry as a whole.
my last 2 cents is, what does it matter? if you want to shoot on film, shoot on film, if you hate it, shoot on digital. the options will always be there.
"Yeah, boy, those guys sure have their priorities all messed up. I guess the red carpets, private jets, billions and billions of dollars in success, private screenings, film festivals, and awards that come with success have somehow distanced them from the dead-broke, scraping-by-on-a-dime, guerrilla-style shooting that they all wish they were still doing."
heh...there are some options in between those 2 things. it's funny you originally came on this thread to counteract some hyperbole with more of your own. this isn't about big guy versus little guy or no budget versus blockbusters.
"Have they? Really? Or do the same few companies still control all the artists"
yes, talk to some people that work at labels, ask about what has happened to staff and budgets. look around at some of the independents (arts and crafts here in toronto for example) that have beat the majors at their own game. apple and itunes has done a pretty good job as well, coming in from outside the label system and doing some real damage.
"There's two paths in business: you can look at what the successful people do, and emulate them, and achieve similar success. Or, you can look at what the successful people do and decide to not do anything in any way like they do, and reap the rewards that come with that (which are, typically, failure). Of course there's the 1-in-1,000 exception, the breakthrough, the lottery winner... but is that really a business plan?"
I agree, but there must be a lot of people around me winning the lottery. I was in austin and saw with my own eyes what rodriguez and linklater did. I saw firsthand Neil Labute turn a killer script into a sundance hit and slam dunk career in film and theater, again DIY style. I have seen other examples on a smaller scale.
I think I basically agree with a lot of what you saying, but you are being just as hyperbolic as the poster you jumped all over in the thread, so i am busting your chops a little bit.
One thing I know for sure is that there are many ways to skin a cat. I am just going by what I have seen work with my own eyes. it's not magic and it's not playing the lottery. it's having a killer script and making a film by any means necessary.
no reason to be condescending to folks who are looking at different ways of doing things, however naive they might be. i'm sure all of the above filmmakers I mention above dealt with attitude early on from folks they have left in the dust.
i guess we are off topic here, i am not even weighing in on film versus digital or owning versus renting, I am right down the middle on both, depends on the project.
I just think telling the youngsters that there is only one way to do things is bad advice, delivered with attitude.
I do have a ton of respect for you and didn't really want to start a pissing match here, just offering a different perspective. Honestly, I am probably as ready for the hot tubs and limos as anyone. I would probably just rather get there by making a killer film than blowing Joel Silver. I do reserve the right to change my mind though.
heh...there are some options in between those 2 things. it's funny you originally came on this thread to counteract some hyperbole with more of your own. this isn't about big guy versus little guy or no budget versus blockbusters.
"Have they? Really? Or do the same few companies still control all the artists"
yes, talk to some people that work at labels, ask about what has happened to staff and budgets. look around at some of the independents (arts and crafts here in toronto for example) that have beat the majors at their own game. apple and itunes has done a pretty good job as well, coming in from outside the label system and doing some real damage.
"There's two paths in business: you can look at what the successful people do, and emulate them, and achieve similar success. Or, you can look at what the successful people do and decide to not do anything in any way like they do, and reap the rewards that come with that (which are, typically, failure). Of course there's the 1-in-1,000 exception, the breakthrough, the lottery winner... but is that really a business plan?"
I agree, but there must be a lot of people around me winning the lottery. I was in austin and saw with my own eyes what rodriguez and linklater did. I saw firsthand Neil Labute turn a killer script into a sundance hit and slam dunk career in film and theater, again DIY style. I have seen other examples on a smaller scale.
I think I basically agree with a lot of what you saying, but you are being just as hyperbolic as the poster you jumped all over in the thread, so i am busting your chops a little bit.
One thing I know for sure is that there are many ways to skin a cat. I am just going by what I have seen work with my own eyes. it's not magic and it's not playing the lottery. it's having a killer script and making a film by any means necessary.
no reason to be condescending to folks who are looking at different ways of doing things, however naive they might be. i'm sure all of the above filmmakers I mention above dealt with attitude early on from folks they have left in the dust.
i guess we are off topic here, i am not even weighing in on film versus digital or owning versus renting, I am right down the middle on both, depends on the project.
I just think telling the youngsters that there is only one way to do things is bad advice, delivered with attitude.
I do have a ton of respect for you and didn't really want to start a pissing match here, just offering a different perspective. Honestly, I am probably as ready for the hot tubs and limos as anyone. I would probably just rather get there by making a killer film than blowing Joel Silver. I do reserve the right to change my mind though.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No prob, I'm with you on most of this. There are a few things that get my goat, and one is the idea that "everything everyone who's in the movie industry is doing is wrong and stupid." I mean, that's just... so silly. So I reacted in a hyperbolic spazz... 
I'm all about people doing things an indie way. But only because that's what we've got to do since we don't have the deep pockets, not because it's better, and not because the Hollywood guys are "stupid" ... did you see the Parade Magazine "What People Earn" survey? One guy was a gaffer in L.A. He makes $120,000. There are people in this very thread who are very vociferously on record as saying that all you have to pay a gaffer is $100 per day. So, who's stupid -- the guy making $120,000 or the guy thinking he's going to get the same job done for $100/day?
(I mean, come on -- we've all worked for $100/day or less depending on the project or who it's for, I worked for Hudson for free and even contributed my gear because, hey, it was John Hudson. But that's not a sustainable business model! Making $600/day in one of the highest-grossing industries in the country is simply reasonable.)
By all means, get an absolutely brilliant script, and get it made. Yes. But y'know what, when you do get it made, and sold and get your career launched, it'd be surprising if you don't start doing things the way everyone else does. Rodriguez, for example, doesn't go making films on $7,000 budgets anymore.
I'm all about people doing things an indie way. But only because that's what we've got to do since we don't have the deep pockets, not because it's better, and not because the Hollywood guys are "stupid" ... did you see the Parade Magazine "What People Earn" survey? One guy was a gaffer in L.A. He makes $120,000. There are people in this very thread who are very vociferously on record as saying that all you have to pay a gaffer is $100 per day. So, who's stupid -- the guy making $120,000 or the guy thinking he's going to get the same job done for $100/day?
(I mean, come on -- we've all worked for $100/day or less depending on the project or who it's for, I worked for Hudson for free and even contributed my gear because, hey, it was John Hudson. But that's not a sustainable business model! Making $600/day in one of the highest-grossing industries in the country is simply reasonable.)
By all means, get an absolutely brilliant script, and get it made. Yes. But y'know what, when you do get it made, and sold and get your career launched, it'd be surprising if you don't start doing things the way everyone else does. Rodriguez, for example, doesn't go making films on $7,000 budgets anymore.
ha! yeah yeah, with you absolutely.
I do think that some of these guys have done a decent job of sustaining some of that indie energy and attitude though their now more conventional careers. Even Soderbergh works in a really unorthodox way and goes against the grain of a traditional "bigger and bigger" career.
I do have to say, when I have the budget I will probably shoot on film and be a huge, wasteful, egomaniacal douche with a gambling habit, surrounded by whores.
Lots of whores!
For now, I am going to get a Red One.
I do think that some of these guys have done a decent job of sustaining some of that indie energy and attitude though their now more conventional careers. Even Soderbergh works in a really unorthodox way and goes against the grain of a traditional "bigger and bigger" career.
I do have to say, when I have the budget I will probably shoot on film and be a huge, wasteful, egomaniacal douche with a gambling habit, surrounded by whores.
Lots of whores!
For now, I am going to get a Red One.
Mattykins
Cute Member
Rodriguez actually was shooting on the Panavision Genesis on Grindhouse.
And Panavision doesn't sell their camera. CineAlta on the other hand does. So, obviously Rodriguez didn't rent...but he got his hand on a Panavision? Just like his first film. He didn't own a camera, he borrowed one. And you are lucky to film a feature on film for 7000. With a 1:1 ratio, 400foot cores run at 145 retail. But the 270 on the processing end for a best light telecine. That is a lot of money for 11 minutes and change.
F900 vs. Red...I won't even get into that. Personally I have great interest in the F23. Because I am planning a feature that is going to be shooting for a few months. And it would cost way too much to rent - so purchasing might be an option. Why you ask? The F23 has an amazing color rendition, and great latitude. And over all would come save some money when talking about the film and processing. Granted I have an XTR Prod, and an LTR...both by Aaton. But the camera is only a facilitation of the image. And the image is costly.
Yes, digital rules in post. But then again, almost everything is telecined. Which is why labs are typically a week to two weeks out. Because so many people need the telecine. Digital allows so much more options in post - and is a little easier than getting the sound synced inhouse (wicked costly), getting an answer print, working on that, and so on.
So yeah, I am looking to shoot my next project digitally. Especially after running up a 2100 dollar tab on film and processing within the last few months. Not including other expendable costs.
And Panavision doesn't sell their camera. CineAlta on the other hand does. So, obviously Rodriguez didn't rent...but he got his hand on a Panavision? Just like his first film. He didn't own a camera, he borrowed one. And you are lucky to film a feature on film for 7000. With a 1:1 ratio, 400foot cores run at 145 retail. But the 270 on the processing end for a best light telecine. That is a lot of money for 11 minutes and change.
F900 vs. Red...I won't even get into that. Personally I have great interest in the F23. Because I am planning a feature that is going to be shooting for a few months. And it would cost way too much to rent - so purchasing might be an option. Why you ask? The F23 has an amazing color rendition, and great latitude. And over all would come save some money when talking about the film and processing. Granted I have an XTR Prod, and an LTR...both by Aaton. But the camera is only a facilitation of the image. And the image is costly.
Yes, digital rules in post. But then again, almost everything is telecined. Which is why labs are typically a week to two weeks out. Because so many people need the telecine. Digital allows so much more options in post - and is a little easier than getting the sound synced inhouse (wicked costly), getting an answer print, working on that, and so on.
So yeah, I am looking to shoot my next project digitally. Especially after running up a 2100 dollar tab on film and processing within the last few months. Not including other expendable costs.
renegadewill
Well-known member
"I was in austin and saw with my own eyes what rodriguez and linklater did. I saw firsthand Neil Labute turn a killer script into a sundance hit and slam dunk career in film and theater, again DIY style. I have seen other examples on a smaller scale."
I wouldn't say they were lucky because with experience comes luck, and they both put in their dues. Rodriguez was a guinea pig, are you, then you must not want it that bad, but I'm not either. It just shows his determination, and not to mention that El Marichi is freaking badass, its incredible for a one man crew to pull that off. I've seen it about 7 times, 4 with commentary, and it gets better every time. I know what ya mean about bullsh*t directors getting big, exhibit A: Harmony Korine, Exhibit:B Larry Clark (who actually does create an amazing cinematic documentary feel to narratives. Too bad he's a child molester).
I wouldn't say they were lucky because with experience comes luck, and they both put in their dues. Rodriguez was a guinea pig, are you, then you must not want it that bad, but I'm not either. It just shows his determination, and not to mention that El Marichi is freaking badass, its incredible for a one man crew to pull that off. I've seen it about 7 times, 4 with commentary, and it gets better every time. I know what ya mean about bullsh*t directors getting big, exhibit A: Harmony Korine, Exhibit:B Larry Clark (who actually does create an amazing cinematic documentary feel to narratives. Too bad he's a child molester).
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Just because something is expensive (somone makes a big profit) it´s not always better.
The price of a product seldom reflects its quality.
Sometimes you pay for the Sticker (Sony), the advertizing (that makes you belive the product with the sticker is better) and the new Porsche of the Boss.
I have shoes - heavy horsehide, handmade for me - for over $350. I have them since over 10 years and they last maybe an other 5. So I got what I payed for.
You can go to a NY boutique and buy your wife a pair of Prada pumps for $400. But do you get what you pay for? Will they last 15 year? Are they better than mine because they are more expensive?
See what I mean?
Frank
The price of a product seldom reflects its quality.
Sometimes you pay for the Sticker (Sony), the advertizing (that makes you belive the product with the sticker is better) and the new Porsche of the Boss.
I have shoes - heavy horsehide, handmade for me - for over $350. I have them since over 10 years and they last maybe an other 5. So I got what I payed for.
You can go to a NY boutique and buy your wife a pair of Prada pumps for $400. But do you get what you pay for? Will they last 15 year? Are they better than mine because they are more expensive?
See what I mean?
Frank
JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
I don't complain about what Hollywood turns out, haha, even most of the worst Hollywood movies are CLEARLY professional products, I mean how can you doubt that? It's more like watching a professional baseball team have a lousy game. You know these guys are good but for some reason things didn't all work out that day. Like the Yankees lose 11-2, makes no sense, they paid that much money for the team and they throw out a lousy performance like that? But it happens, even to professionals. That's what a bad movie is. Honestly with 200 people involved in a lot of features at the lowest count, it's hard to blame everything on one guy. Just as I can't find the logic to blame the coach if the team went out there and sucked. At that point I'm not sure, because I wasn't in the clubhouse, who screwed this one up. With a film shoot for all I know the director kept bugging people to do what he had in mind, a few people didn't, etc. It's too hard to say. It's like if you watch a music video and don't like a few of the cuts. Are you so sure it's the editor? It's easy to blame the editor, but also stupid. It proves you don't know anything about the filmmaking process. It could be the DPs fault for not getting good enough coverage of that area. It could be the band's fault because they were half-assing the song a bunch of the takes. But that could be the director's fault for not noticing. Or maybe he did notice and tried to up their energy but it was ultimately unsuccessful because catering didn't show up on time and everyone was dying from being so hungry. Even that can make a difference, I've seen it myself. It could be the producer's fault or unit production manager for not scheduling enough time for that section, so there wasn't the time to get proper coverage. The point is unless I was there for the entire process I have no idea who to blame. That's why filmmaking is collaborative.
Where I was going with that is basically that it's easy to criticize Hollywood films compared to other Hollywood films. It's much like how I make fun of a few of my friends because when they're judging celebrities or models, they act like some really gorgeous celebrity isn't actually good looking, yet she's better looking than the last 5 girls this guy dated. The standards somehow change between real-world girls he knows in person and famous celebrities. My standards actually don't change between the two because I think a hot girl is a hot girl regardless of whether she's famous or not. Same with filmmaking. I don't care if it was a student film, I'm still judging it by professional standards. I've seen enough pro quality films from students to justify that, so I don't really like lowering my standards. It's too hard to say, "Well this was great for $600," because I haven't seen 100 shorts made for $600 so what do I really have to compare to?
All I can say is the way Hollywood pays people is the same way the Yankees pay people -- it's based on revenue or expected revenue, not on value. A-Rod is amazing but he's not worth $50,000 per at-bat or whatever. It's just that the Yankees make so much money someone has to make money, why shouldn't it be the players on the field who actually are the reason fans fork over that money in the first place? Same with any position on a Hollywood set. Do I think a gaffer is worth $600 a day on my shoots? Absolutely not. Is a gaffer worth $1,000 a day even on a shoot like Poseidon, with electricity running right next to water, etc.? Yeah for sure. Because they are making a high budget film, it's a small part of the budget, and the guy has to REALLY know what he's doing to pull that off.
I don't think really anyone is only worth $100/day, but that doesn't mean I haven't paid that before because it was all I had in the budget. I just find budgets a funny thing because they don't particularly mean a lot except in a general sense. You can make a $15,000 music video for a few hundred bucks or $50,000, it depends what you negotiate and how you shoot. If you guerilla film everything with your friends' equipment and you happen to have 6 great friends who are all filmmakers and will help you out for free if you help them out later on their projects, and your mom donates food to the shoot or something, and your buddy Jay is an amazing after effects artist and doesn't mind donating 60 hours to making some cool effects work, etc., of course you can make it happen for almost nothing. And if you overpay everyone you can say your video cost more.
But I think it would be very complicated to figure out what anything really should cost, and every estimate would need justification. For instance, if you told me you made a $15,000 music video and you paid your gaffer $600, I'd want to know why you paid him that. Could you really not find a gaffer to do the same task reliably for $200? If that's the case, you really did need to pay him $600. But if it was simple and you could find a guy for $200, now you made a $14,600 video but it just cost you $15,000.
As far as the original point, film versus digital, the industry doesn't progress by people following in the footsteps of everyone who came before. I respect your professionalism a lot, Barry, but that's not something with which I agree. That may be great for routine jobs, but for directors greatness only comes by breaking the mold. If I had seen someone like Tarantino before he wouldn't be interesting. If everyone thought movie merchandising was useless and that digital had no future, which is more or less the case before George Lucas, then we'd never have a Lucas and he wouldn't have $3 billion. The greatest successes never do what everyone else is doing. They may adhere to certain basic principles, the importance of great storytelling, the basics of good filmmaking, but they pinpoint a few things they don't like about how things are and work to change them. That is where their greatness lies. Mediocrity lies in doing what everyone else is doing. If that's what I wanted to do, I'd quit now because I like Hollywood films for the most part, they are doing a fine job, so why should I do the same thing they're already doing so well? The reason I want to make features is because I don't think some important viewpoints are being voiced and I think there is room for a type of philosophy / storytelling that isn't prevalent enough now. I don't care to get into the specifics of that because I never really care to talk about what I'd like to do in the future as much as where I am now. Suffice to say I'll cross that bridge when I have the opportunity.
Where I was going with that is basically that it's easy to criticize Hollywood films compared to other Hollywood films. It's much like how I make fun of a few of my friends because when they're judging celebrities or models, they act like some really gorgeous celebrity isn't actually good looking, yet she's better looking than the last 5 girls this guy dated. The standards somehow change between real-world girls he knows in person and famous celebrities. My standards actually don't change between the two because I think a hot girl is a hot girl regardless of whether she's famous or not. Same with filmmaking. I don't care if it was a student film, I'm still judging it by professional standards. I've seen enough pro quality films from students to justify that, so I don't really like lowering my standards. It's too hard to say, "Well this was great for $600," because I haven't seen 100 shorts made for $600 so what do I really have to compare to?
All I can say is the way Hollywood pays people is the same way the Yankees pay people -- it's based on revenue or expected revenue, not on value. A-Rod is amazing but he's not worth $50,000 per at-bat or whatever. It's just that the Yankees make so much money someone has to make money, why shouldn't it be the players on the field who actually are the reason fans fork over that money in the first place? Same with any position on a Hollywood set. Do I think a gaffer is worth $600 a day on my shoots? Absolutely not. Is a gaffer worth $1,000 a day even on a shoot like Poseidon, with electricity running right next to water, etc.? Yeah for sure. Because they are making a high budget film, it's a small part of the budget, and the guy has to REALLY know what he's doing to pull that off.
I don't think really anyone is only worth $100/day, but that doesn't mean I haven't paid that before because it was all I had in the budget. I just find budgets a funny thing because they don't particularly mean a lot except in a general sense. You can make a $15,000 music video for a few hundred bucks or $50,000, it depends what you negotiate and how you shoot. If you guerilla film everything with your friends' equipment and you happen to have 6 great friends who are all filmmakers and will help you out for free if you help them out later on their projects, and your mom donates food to the shoot or something, and your buddy Jay is an amazing after effects artist and doesn't mind donating 60 hours to making some cool effects work, etc., of course you can make it happen for almost nothing. And if you overpay everyone you can say your video cost more.
But I think it would be very complicated to figure out what anything really should cost, and every estimate would need justification. For instance, if you told me you made a $15,000 music video and you paid your gaffer $600, I'd want to know why you paid him that. Could you really not find a gaffer to do the same task reliably for $200? If that's the case, you really did need to pay him $600. But if it was simple and you could find a guy for $200, now you made a $14,600 video but it just cost you $15,000.
As far as the original point, film versus digital, the industry doesn't progress by people following in the footsteps of everyone who came before. I respect your professionalism a lot, Barry, but that's not something with which I agree. That may be great for routine jobs, but for directors greatness only comes by breaking the mold. If I had seen someone like Tarantino before he wouldn't be interesting. If everyone thought movie merchandising was useless and that digital had no future, which is more or less the case before George Lucas, then we'd never have a Lucas and he wouldn't have $3 billion. The greatest successes never do what everyone else is doing. They may adhere to certain basic principles, the importance of great storytelling, the basics of good filmmaking, but they pinpoint a few things they don't like about how things are and work to change them. That is where their greatness lies. Mediocrity lies in doing what everyone else is doing. If that's what I wanted to do, I'd quit now because I like Hollywood films for the most part, they are doing a fine job, so why should I do the same thing they're already doing so well? The reason I want to make features is because I don't think some important viewpoints are being voiced and I think there is room for a type of philosophy / storytelling that isn't prevalent enough now. I don't care to get into the specifics of that because I never really care to talk about what I'd like to do in the future as much as where I am now. Suffice to say I'll cross that bridge when I have the opportunity.
Because he was running a professional shoot? I don't even think $200 covers the IATSE minimum wage for Key personnel.
Last edited:
JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
Who cares? I'm not union, so if you want to shoot everything union you overpay for every project. All that means is I can do for $15,000 what the big guys need $40,000 to do. I feel sorry for them. The whole point of being professional is to maximize what you get for your buck, if they can't even do that properly there's really a failure there.
$200 for a day's work is fine pay, but the point is $600 is overpay much of the time, at least for simpler setup. I don't believe in unions, at all, and I don't believe in union pay. I think it's nonsense. It's a great way to make sure everyone gets overpaid for absolutely everything. People are worth what they are worth, not what some book says they are. That's just bullcrap.
If I can get a great grip for $100/day that's what a grip is worth. If I can get a PA for $50 that's what a PA is worth. Obviously if I have a large budget then everyone gets paid well because it's not my money, it's someone else's, but that's the point, that's how Hollywood always operates. They get into that mindset that it's ok to blow excessive amounts of money on everything because they'll make it back. I would tighten up these ships a ton. There's waste at every level, they just don't care.
$200 for a day's work is fine pay, but the point is $600 is overpay much of the time, at least for simpler setup. I don't believe in unions, at all, and I don't believe in union pay. I think it's nonsense. It's a great way to make sure everyone gets overpaid for absolutely everything. People are worth what they are worth, not what some book says they are. That's just bullcrap.
If I can get a great grip for $100/day that's what a grip is worth. If I can get a PA for $50 that's what a PA is worth. Obviously if I have a large budget then everyone gets paid well because it's not my money, it's someone else's, but that's the point, that's how Hollywood always operates. They get into that mindset that it's ok to blow excessive amounts of money on everything because they'll make it back. I would tighten up these ships a ton. There's waste at every level, they just don't care.
If you don't see a difference in quality and professionalism between union and non-union shows and crew, then I feel sorry for you.
You keep complaining about Hollywood overpaying people. If you were talking about Producers / Directors / Actors making millions of dollars in fees, then I would agree with you, but that is not what you are talking about.
Union crews are worth every single penny.
Barry_Green
Moderator
See what I mean?
Let's put it this way: who's smarter, the guy who gets $40,000 to make a project and pays the best crews in the world top dollar and gets the best people to work on them and everyone's happy?
Or the guy who comes in to cheap it out, underpays everyone because he underbid the job, has to work 3x as hard because of it, and ends up driving down the value of production overall so that nobody can get a decent wage anymore?
Why would you want to be the cheap guy? How does that help you? Or your crews? Or anyone (other than the client)? This attitude hurts absolutely everyone.
Let's put it this way: who's smarter, the guy who gets $40,000 to make a project and pays the best crews in the world top dollar and gets the best people to work on them and everyone's happy?
Or the guy who comes in to cheap it out, underpays everyone because he underbid the job, has to work 3x as hard because of it, and ends up driving down the value of production overall so that nobody can get a decent wage anymore?
Why would you want to be the cheap guy? How does that help you? Or your crews? Or anyone (other than the client)? This attitude hurts absolutely everyone.
Can't believe how many people (on this site and out in the universe of film and video production) don't want to get paid the RIGHT amount of money to do what they love. I'll never understand the mentality or mindset.
I can understand working for friends, working on a budget, yadda and yadda but at some point I would hope that you'd want to get the massive budget that everyone claims "Hollywood" wastes.
I'd rather be working on one of those "crappy" movies making 600 - 800 a day ACing as opposed to spending my life working for 200/day on sets with no pre-distribution or real funding in place.
And, let me tell you, ACing for 150/day ain't fun. The only thing that keeps me standing on my feet for 12 hours a damned day are the people I work with. Might as well be workin' in a hotel at that rate per hour.
The birds man... for the birds.
I can understand working for friends, working on a budget, yadda and yadda but at some point I would hope that you'd want to get the massive budget that everyone claims "Hollywood" wastes.
I'd rather be working on one of those "crappy" movies making 600 - 800 a day ACing as opposed to spending my life working for 200/day on sets with no pre-distribution or real funding in place.
And, let me tell you, ACing for 150/day ain't fun. The only thing that keeps me standing on my feet for 12 hours a damned day are the people I work with. Might as well be workin' in a hotel at that rate per hour.
The birds man... for the birds.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
You mention the two polar extremes, but what about the guy in the middle -- the guy who can do the job just as well as the union guy, but doesn't belong to the union -- and so, will do it for less money?
You assume that union status automatically confers the pinnacle of skills, and that's just not necessarily the case. Yes, some of the best people in the business are in the union -- but they're also in the highest demand because they ARE the best. So the chances of you landing them for your production are slim. So then you have to move down the ladder of talent and skill until you find someone who is available and wants to work on your project -- and that person may not be as talented, skilled or experienced as a non-union artist.
I have to agree with the poster who said a job -- or person -- is worth what it's worth. Why should a union contract dictate that a lousy gaffer should get paid the same as a talented one?
I don't operate from the mindset of "I'm going to hire the cheapest gaffer I can find." I want to hire the BEST gaffer I can AFFORD. If people have to EARN their pay rate based on talent, skill and experience -- rather than being guaranteed a certain pay scale just because they have a union card -- then you get a much more competitive marketplace. The best people will make the best money, the worst people will make the least. Seems fair to me. And it gives people some incentive to be the BEST they can be.
I work in a manufacturing industry that is heavily unionized. The janitor where I work made SIX FIGURES last year! Basic unskilled labor here is paid $28 an hour to do the same thing you do every time you go grocery shopping -- push a cart around, take an item off a shelf, and put the item in the cart. And around here, $28 an hour is a LOT of money. I'm a skilled contract worker (technology), and I make less than half that. If I told you what we manufacture, you'd instantly understand why it costs you so much to buy one!
I'm not one to say that unions are inherently evil or bad. But when the lazy, worthless, irresponsible worker commands the exact same wage and benefits as the high-volume, accurate, dependable go-getter does -- then what's the incentive to excel at your job?
People should be paid what they're worth. If they're worth $600 a day, or even more, then they should get it. If their work is only worth $200 a day -- or even less -- then that's what they should be paid. EARN your paycheck. That's all I ask.
This isn't meant to offend anyone or raise tempers. I have tremendous respect for aritisans and craftspeople in this industry, both union and non-union. This business is unlike most others -- if you are truly GREAT at what you do, you can write your own ticket. And that's as it should be, in my opinion.
Barry_Green
Moderator
David, I think you quoted me when you meant to quote agcohn. I never said one thing pro or con about the unions.