Well, I don't know how to tell the difference between running out of money and not having enough money to begin with. I think they're pretty much the same thing. However I'm going to make a note of this next time my wife asks me for jewelry. This is useful information actually.
Are all feature productions this stingy with audio?
- Thread starter Dustin P Wilson-Henry
- Start date
Well, I don't know how to tell the difference between running out of money and not having enough money to begin with. I think they're pretty much the same thing. However I'm going to make a note of this next time my wife asks me for jewelry. This is useful information actually.
TyFord
Well-known member
Echoing the comments of the others here; $500/wk for 12 hour days? Right! That's a big time production? My 10 hour rate is $500.
There are lowballers everywhere. You have now learned to do the right thing -- walk away. My usual response to low ballers is, "Sorry, I'm booked." or "Sorry, but please keep me in mind when you get a project with a real budget."
I'm not nasty when I say it and they usually DO know what real rates are.
Regards,
Ty Ford
There are lowballers everywhere. You have now learned to do the right thing -- walk away. My usual response to low ballers is, "Sorry, I'm booked." or "Sorry, but please keep me in mind when you get a project with a real budget."
I'm not nasty when I say it and they usually DO know what real rates are.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Luis Caffesse
Admin
Aren't you concerned about what the 'obliteration' of that so-called professionalism will do to the rates you are currently getting when you do work for major studios?
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
I agree with Zak. It's all about the project and the people. If that's all they have, and it's something you want to do, then go for it. As an indie producer I never budget a film without everyone getting paid, but how much can vary. As a shooter/editor/sound guy, I charge about 75 an hour for contract work, but will work on a project (with my own gear), for nothing if I like it, like the people, and have the time.
I don't know where you are located, but some of us, by nature of our location, don't get the opportunity to work on "real" features. We've had less than one a year even make an appearance in the Denver area lately. In those markets, union (or union-style) wages for films are rare. Commercials are a different story. So if you want the experience, look at the money as a bonus, and a sign of some respect. Out here there are plenty of people who make features and defer everyone's salary, pay with pizza or offer worthless points. You can't even get gas money out of them.
EDIT: But I also agree that 90% of indie films go into production in a financially irresponsible manner. If more people did their home work before they took out the damn camera, there would be fewer problems. But every situation is different.
There's no right or wrong decision here. It's all about what works to help you further your goals.
I don't know where you are located, but some of us, by nature of our location, don't get the opportunity to work on "real" features. We've had less than one a year even make an appearance in the Denver area lately. In those markets, union (or union-style) wages for films are rare. Commercials are a different story. So if you want the experience, look at the money as a bonus, and a sign of some respect. Out here there are plenty of people who make features and defer everyone's salary, pay with pizza or offer worthless points. You can't even get gas money out of them.
EDIT: But I also agree that 90% of indie films go into production in a financially irresponsible manner. If more people did their home work before they took out the damn camera, there would be fewer problems. But every situation is different.
There's no right or wrong decision here. It's all about what works to help you further your goals.
Last edited:
Dustin P Wilson-Henry
Member
Thanks for all the responses folks. It was very enlightening. And in response to the individual saying they don't know where all of us are located, I personally am in Indiana. Hence why I've never worked a feature before.
I have also done a ton of work for free for friends, mostly small cable access type TV things. A friend I had worked with was who gave the production my information, but he had no idea they were offering so little( he had to pass up the job to help a company shooting for the 500 this month.) He of course apologized for wasting my time after I told him about how much they lowballed me.
I have also done a ton of work for free for friends, mostly small cable access type TV things. A friend I had worked with was who gave the production my information, but he had no idea they were offering so little( he had to pass up the job to help a company shooting for the 500 this month.) He of course apologized for wasting my time after I told him about how much they lowballed me.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
haha! no.
So are you an amateur then?
I totally disagree. While it's great for those filmmakers that know what they are doing and can leverage the cheaper costs into better films. Most of what hass happened is that a whole lot of (I'm going to be polite...) crappy films are just about everywhere and while the high end has pretty much held the middle indi films have taken a quality plunge as a bunch of inexperienced folks with cheap software are just making a mess of things.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
that's cool. what i meant by that is i'm not fearful of people who don't have formal training or $100k to burn on equipment. i'd like to see the presumption and pride and ego of those who define themselves with a declaration of their professional status done away with. in my experience, its presence on set is counterproductive to the process of making the best film you can.
one day, my regular sound guy was unavailable, so I hired another sound guy for the day. we talked about the scenes we were doing that day. i was very clear that this would be very naturalistic with lots of improvised material. at one point between takes, he stepped in and counseled the actors not to step on each other's lines because it was "unprofessional" -- that one should "speak the line... emote... then respond". after picking my jaw up off the floor, i replaced him.
TyFord
Well-known member
Um,
#1, sounds like he was an old school film sound guy trying to help you.
#2, Improvised material does not necessarily mean you talk over each other's lines.
#3, not his gig to direct
From this distance, it could have just been a failure to communicate.....enough.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
#1, he was trying to help... help us understand how a film was "supposed" to be made.
#2, straw man. you're setting up and knocking down something i didn't say. i've got enough experience directing heavy improv to know that you can't know what it will be until it reveals itself. my own process is to cultivate the surprises.
#3, in the morning he and I had an extensive conversation about it. he had documentary experience and i told him to pretend it was a doc shoot. despite the initial enthusiasm of saying he "loved" the idea of approaching it like that, he clearly couldn't understand why anyone would actually want to shoot a fictional narrative this way.
you have to understand this was a crucial scene, and very, very intimate. to the degree that we kicked most of the crew out of the room because our actress was physically and emotionally exposed. to have the sound guy interrupt a very organic moment that lived and died by the actors engagement with each other and tell her to essentially be conscious of herself as an actor was... well, we look back and laugh about it now... but jesus christ, man.
Last edited:
TyFord
Well-known member
#1, he was trying to help... help us understand how a film was "supposed" to be made.
#2, straw man. you're setting up and knocking down something i didn't say. i've got enough experience directing heavy improv to know that you can't know what it will be until it reveals itself. my own process is to cultivate the surprises.
#3, in the morning he and I had an extensive conversation about it. he had documentary experience and i told him to pretend it was a doc shoot. despite the initial enthusiasm of saying he "loved" the idea of approaching it like that, he clearly couldn't understand why anyone would actually want to shoot a fictional narrative this way.
you have to understand this was a crucial scene, and very, very intimate. to the degree that we kicked most of the crew out of the room because our actress was physically and emotionally exposed. to have the sound guy interrupt a very organic moment that lived and died by the actors engagement with each other and tell her to essentially be conscious of herself as an actor was... well, we look back and laugh about it now... but jesus christ, man.
Hey, I feel you pain (and frustration), but don't shoot the messenger.You posted: " i was very clear that this would be very naturalistic with lots of improvised material. "
My comment was that even in improvised material good actors can leave breaks. That's not straw.
He was out of line to begin his directing debut. He should have deferred to you even though not crossing lines would have given you a lot more (or better) editing options.
Maybe you didn't think you needed them. The late Alfred Hitchcock was great at shooting scenes so tight there was only one way to put them together -- his way.
Improvisation sort of makes that impossible unless you're waiting for the talent to "say the right thing, the right way."
Again, please don't kill the messenger.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
??? haha! no worries, but "shoot the messenger"?
well, you know, i only called it a straw man argument because I didn't assert a position that improvised dialogue necessitated overlapping dialogue. you implied I did then countered it. the issue for me was that a hired "professional" was locked into his old school ways of how it's supposed to be done. his presumption led to poor a choice that would have derailed the actors. in my experience, an actor that's consciously editing themselves and "in their own head" is not conducive to a natural, engaged performance. i come from an editing background. let me worry about whether or not the scene will cut. there is a substantive lack of authenticity when you notice "the actor", not the character, making choices.
i don't know, hitch was indeed technically proficient, a master of the visual language. but when it came to getting believable performances, well let's just say the tendency was to let his actors run wild with schtick.
that's not improv, that's chaos!
TyFord
Well-known member
haha! no worries, but "shoot the messenger"?
>>> an idiom that means that one kills the bringer of bad news, as if it were the messenger's fault.
well, you know, i only called it a straw man argument because I didn't assert a position that improvised dialogue necessitated overlapping dialogue. you implied I did then countered it. the issue for me was that a hired "professional" was locked into his old school ways of how it's supposed to be done. his presumption led to poor a choice that would have derailed the actors. in my experience, an actor that's consciously editing themselves and "in their own head" is not conducive to a natural, engaged performance. i come from an editing background. let me worry about whether or not the scene will cut. there is a substantive lack of authenticity when you notice "the actor", not the character, making choices.
>>>I totally agree, but will make the point that some actors are a lot more technically savvy than others. The more savvy ones can be loose and also leave room. You know, like hitting marks while juggling chain saws and kittens.
i don't know, hitch was indeed technically proficient, a master of the visual language. but when it came to getting believable performances, well let's just say the tendency was to let his actors run wild with schtick.
>>>Hmm Schticky....I never really thought of his actors as doing schtick, but compared to today's techniques, maybe so. At the very least there was sort of a melodramatic stiffness. The art and craft of acting have changed a lot over the years. Sometimes even for the better.
that's not improv, that's chaos!
>>>We agree again, but I have heard of shoots where there is no story board, no shot list, no script and "someone" thought that was a good idea. Chaos...madness...even Robin Williams....yes, even he could benefit from some structure.
Regards,
Ty Ford
>>> an idiom that means that one kills the bringer of bad news, as if it were the messenger's fault.
well, you know, i only called it a straw man argument because I didn't assert a position that improvised dialogue necessitated overlapping dialogue. you implied I did then countered it. the issue for me was that a hired "professional" was locked into his old school ways of how it's supposed to be done. his presumption led to poor a choice that would have derailed the actors. in my experience, an actor that's consciously editing themselves and "in their own head" is not conducive to a natural, engaged performance. i come from an editing background. let me worry about whether or not the scene will cut. there is a substantive lack of authenticity when you notice "the actor", not the character, making choices.
>>>I totally agree, but will make the point that some actors are a lot more technically savvy than others. The more savvy ones can be loose and also leave room. You know, like hitting marks while juggling chain saws and kittens.
i don't know, hitch was indeed technically proficient, a master of the visual language. but when it came to getting believable performances, well let's just say the tendency was to let his actors run wild with schtick.
>>>Hmm Schticky....I never really thought of his actors as doing schtick, but compared to today's techniques, maybe so. At the very least there was sort of a melodramatic stiffness. The art and craft of acting have changed a lot over the years. Sometimes even for the better.
that's not improv, that's chaos!
>>>We agree again, but I have heard of shoots where there is no story board, no shot list, no script and "someone" thought that was a good idea. Chaos...madness...even Robin Williams....yes, even he could benefit from some structure.
Regards,
Ty Ford
wabbit
Evil has Ears
Well, I am lost. Are we talking professional, as in someone who gets paid to do something, or as in 'act like a professional,' meaning someone who behaves in a manner that understands the business and etiquette at hand.
I believe all previous references were to the former. Sounds like if your mixer was directing your actors he did not behave in a professional manner but I am lost how this relates to the original topic.
The issue was creating a budget and then getting it financed. If afterwards you run into unforeseen expenditures then you are 'overbudget.' That make sense? It is about having a realistic understanding of how much money is needed to complete any project (a building, a business, or a movie) and raising the money.
You don't see many other businesses that build into the paradigm of their budget the "good will of professionals to work for free/cheap." In fact most budgets build an addtional 10 to 15% into them for unforeseen expenditures to precisely avoid going over budget.
So why would certain people in the video and film industry believe it is a good idea to skip the fundamental of building a basic business plan?
Cheers
I believe all previous references were to the former. Sounds like if your mixer was directing your actors he did not behave in a professional manner but I am lost how this relates to the original topic.
The issue was creating a budget and then getting it financed. If afterwards you run into unforeseen expenditures then you are 'overbudget.' That make sense? It is about having a realistic understanding of how much money is needed to complete any project (a building, a business, or a movie) and raising the money.
You don't see many other businesses that build into the paradigm of their budget the "good will of professionals to work for free/cheap." In fact most budgets build an addtional 10 to 15% into them for unforeseen expenditures to precisely avoid going over budget.
So why would certain people in the video and film industry believe it is a good idea to skip the fundamental of building a basic business plan?
Cheers
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
funny you say that.. i did a little experiment for LoveFest that stripped away all those things. we had no story boards, no scripted dialogue, no shot list. all we did was set up a framework for who the characters were and what they wanted. that was our primary guiding force.
here's a six minute excerpt of the result. --> link
Last edited:
basspig
Veteran
One of the challenges such a situation presents is that it's only sensible to turn down lo-ball offers if you've enough work to pay the bills.
If you don't have enough work, or you're sitting idle because the majority of offiers you got were the lo-ball variety, you could be unemployed or under-employed for a very long time.
These decisions require careful consideration.
The problem that plagues all of us is that there are so many amateurs who WILL work below min wage and that is dragging down the perceived value of our work.
You want to hear an insulting offer I got last week? A certain regional cultural group asked me to be the official videographer at an event next month. Get this... they could not offer any money, though they said I could sell copies of any video I produce of the event, but that I would need to donate 10% of the sales to their organization. Ha! I told them my day rate and that I don't do work on spec, unless they can garantee a minimum number of DVD sales by buying in advance and selling the DVDs themselves. I never heard back from them. I get a lot of those kinds of offers.
If you don't have enough work, or you're sitting idle because the majority of offiers you got were the lo-ball variety, you could be unemployed or under-employed for a very long time.
These decisions require careful consideration.
The problem that plagues all of us is that there are so many amateurs who WILL work below min wage and that is dragging down the perceived value of our work.
You want to hear an insulting offer I got last week? A certain regional cultural group asked me to be the official videographer at an event next month. Get this... they could not offer any money, though they said I could sell copies of any video I produce of the event, but that I would need to donate 10% of the sales to their organization. Ha! I told them my day rate and that I don't do work on spec, unless they can garantee a minimum number of DVD sales by buying in advance and selling the DVDs themselves. I never heard back from them. I get a lot of those kinds of offers.
Aaron Murphy
Member
Please send me the contact information for that shoot. It would be perfect for my students who are interested in working in film and really need the experience.... ; )
basspig
Veteran
That job occured on June 14th. We did it anyway, but what a disaster. The minimum number of DVDs agreed to in the contract was not sold. Some of the checks bounced on some of the orders, and it's a big mess. If they beg me again next year, it's crew rates, up front. No exceptions.