Arri's New Camera

[Eric Coughlin]

Getting an agent is not necessarily that hard. Getting the RIGHT agent is hard. But much, much harder than that is getting a show picked up. I have a number of friends who have incredible writing careers, with many successful credits behind them; they sold scripts and even had a few pilots made but never made it to series. It's like running a gauntlet.

As far selling a show as a production entity based on having made low budget shorts, the studio/production companies are the ones making the budgets, not the filmmakers. They are all guild signatory, so once you factor in SAG/DGA/WGA/IATSE the costs go up significantly, plus the above the line swells (to a bloated point as far as I'm concerned). Believe me I have worked with a few directors who got handed upwards quickly on the basis of having made shorts and a common phrase is "can't we just..." which then forces someone to have to explain as to why no, we can't just.

Is finding an agent like finding a client? There are agents and clients at different levels, low budget, mid-budget, high budget, etc. If your experience and reel is low budget or low quality work, then you're only likely to succeed with getting clients or an agent at a similar level. And likewise, if you're high budget or quality, then you're more likely to succeed with the higher end client or agent.

When is the right time to get an agent? Do most agents only collect a percentage on the jobs they get you, so if you get jobs through your own means then they don't collect anything? I imagine getting an agent often goes hand in hand with joining the union.


Regarding pitching shows, it's not really a job I enjoy, while self funding low budget short films is easy because it just takes $0-$1500 per short film typically for what I've been doing lately (you can do a good amount with $1500 when the cast, crew, and equipment are all free). I just often feel like pitchers are beggars, and being a beggar is not an envious job. "Please give me a million dollars to fund my movie." Or worse when it's Kickstarter which is basically begging for charity as opposed to offering a more legitimate investment to an investor or studio. As is, as a freelance DP, more often it's the case of beggars pitching to me, "Can you please film our low budget movie?" I kind of like being in that position. I just need to use people to do the jobs I don't like such as pitching and marketing the films. I suppose if you have enough of a name for yourself you can sit back while studios or investors pitch to you.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I think Arri just told Red to F'K off, this is our territory, we won, we took you out.

First of all, there are many lovely images in there. But right at the 14:28 minute marker, I believe Arri is telling Red they won. Listen to Matthew McConaughey's words/monologue. He talks about a "young foolish Dragon". Red is well known for the Dragon, and now the Komodo sensors. So, very interesting way for Arri to end their 10 year anniversary video for the Alexa. If you know anything about the early days drama between the two, Red accused Arri of hacking their emails. There are also some "hacking" quotes from the 'Snowden' film. The drama is real. haha

The edit starting at 7:38 has some pretty funny edits to the music. Clever and playful editing.


EDIT: to further the theory that this video is subliminally wiping the floor with Red.

There are several references to lions throughout. Bravarian Lion Munich = Arri Headquaters

The first words spoken are Robert "Red"ford saying "SOS", then cuts to little "RED" riding hood saying "oh dear, how uneasy I feel".

Intercut with the McConaughey monologue about the "Dragon and the Lion", Rosamund Pike says "I believe there is another element" which is likely referencing 'Helium'.

And while this is a bit of a stretch, "5 bullets" that are shot into the Dragon's head... if you look at Arri's website under cameras, they currently have 5 models available for sale. The Alexa 65 is rental only.

That's funny whether intentional or not.

One thing I find odd about Red's reels lately is that they're not using any well known productions in their reels, unless I'm just not finding their theatrical reels. While not as popular as they used to be they've still got big shows like Stranger Things, Mindhunter, and others shot on Red, but they're just showing a bunch of random footage from nobodies. Not that it looks bad, but it's not showing credibility at the high end. Here are Red's 2017-2019 reels...

And then the last quality theatrical reels I saw from Red were their 2013 and 2015 reels. These reels were legit even if they don't show the on-set suicides that resulted from having to deal with their cameras.

 

[DLD]

Yes, for sure. I thought we were talking about series...

Not me. I was just opining on what Eric may want to do next.

But, since you brought up the series and, since you're in the TV comedy world -- the WGA minimum is around $3,000/week, right? 44 weeks is ~ $150K. But then the production studio tells you to add a writing partner. And you've never had one but they don't want to pay you the $150,000 and you have to settle for a half. Or a third. Because you'd rather work than not work.

And the conclusion is that you and JB are right - and, really, always right - because you're on the inside of the industry and not blowing smoke up anyone's touhes. And Eric will learn more from reading your posts than mine.

Nonetheless, I will claim credit for starting the conversation.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

But, since you brought up the series and, since you're in the TV comedy world -- the WGA minimum is around $3,000/week, right? 44 weeks is ~ $150K. But then the production studio tells you to add a writing partner. And you've never had one but they don't want to pay you the $150,000 and you have to settle for a half. Or a third. Because you'd rather work than not work.

Meanwhile I'm average $3k per day with equipment on corporate and doc shoots, and making more than $150k per year. I can't imagine only making $3k per week to shoot TV shows that people actually watch. You did say "minimum," though, and obviously equipment expenses heavily cut into profits compared to those labor only rates, but still. You really have to be pretty high up in the narrative world before you're making more than the corporate and commercial world makes. Commercial and high end narrative pays the best as far as I can tell. I imagine commercial work is easier to break into than high end narrative.

 

[DLD]

No, I meant WGA, which sets/negotiates the scale/employment for writers. Established writers make way more than the beginners. In the past, only a small portion of the WGA members was even employed at any given time but, with the streaming picking up steam, the need for the professional contributors is at the all time high.

Each branch of the performing arts - radio, actors, directors, cinematographers, writers/composers, etc. - has its own union or guild.

PS. WGA or any other unions are not job seekers.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

No, I meant WGA, which sets/negotiates the scale/employment for writers. Established writers make way more than the beginners. In the past, only a small portion of the WGA members was even employed at any given time but, with the streaming picking up steam, the need for the professional contributors is at the all time high.

Each branch of the performing arts - radio, actors, directors, cinematographers, writers/composers, etc. - has its own union or guild.

PS. WGA or any other unions are not job seekers.

Oh, right. I wasn't paying enough attention to "WGA" and thought you were talking about directors of photography.

I looked up some movies and saw writers making around 1-3 million dollars for their scripts on A-list movies. Which is probably more than Roger Deakins makes, and these weren't necessarily the top top writers.

But this isn't really big news. We've always known that directors, producers, actors, etc., at the top end of Hollywood make way more than any of the crew. Do what you enjoy, are good at, and that people pay you for.

 

[CharlesPapert]

As far as comparative scales for, say, writers and DP's in the episodic world: DP side will likely lie somewhere between $6 and $10K a week depending on overall budget of the show. Only the newest writers on a show make less, and they do get residuals. In later years they will be able to negotiate better deals and score producer credits, whereas a DP is going to be limited to a relative modest renegotiation. I own between 30 and 40% of the camera package so those rentals really help, although I can't always get them on every job (network shows in particular).

 

[John Brawley]

I don't know any writers that make 3K per week. Unless maybe they are total junior staff writers on a show. That's an intern rate. Most writers aren't employed "by the week".

More like 50-60K per episode to the writer for THE EPISODE not for the week.

DGA rate for a director on a network episodic is similar. Just shy of 60K.

An episodic DP is getting between 7-10K per week, plus (like me) usually accomodation and car etc if you're not in your home town. Which isn't far off the above rates as it's typical that a writer writes an ep over 2-3 weeks and the director does close to 4 weeks of pre/shoot/post per ep.

My pet hate is crew hiring gear onto a show. I try not to do it, and if I do, it's usually for specialised gear that a rental partner typically won't carry.

JB

 

[DLD]

... I looked up some movies and saw writers making around 1-3 million dollars for their scripts on A-list movies. Which is probably more than Roger Deakins makes, and these weren't necessarily the top top writers...

Over the last 40 years, big money has been in TV comedy writing due to perpetual syndication of top shows and the need for clever/funny dialog. That money was then spread around to the shows that studios hope would become hits.

PS. I recall reading a piece in a local Midwest paper in the early 1980's about a comedy writer who "wrote" in his car. Not that he was a drifter - he was hitting the rarefied heights of the day with a $300,000/year salary - but he preferred to just drive around LA while dictating jokes/dialog into his tape recorder.

PPS. Back in 1990, i was working at a mid-high end consumer electronics store on the Westside. In walk in a customer in his mid-$30's, wife and three kids. He's looking at a 31" Mitsubishi tube, which was around $1,800. I kind of feel sorry for his financial straights. Three kids are an expense. So, I say, "We do have a Mitsubishi credit special. A year interest free. It's a simple app to fill out". He nods, sits at my desk, begins writing. I recognize the name from the various TV sitcom credits. Then look up his place of employment. Sony Studios. Salary - $470,000. I pick up the phone to call the app in. His wife walks over. "XYZ, what the #$%^&* are you doing? Just give him your credit card". She shakes her head and walks back to the TV wall. I put the phone down, "We can deliver it on Monday".

 

[DLD]

I don't know any writers that make 3K per week. Unless maybe they are total junior staff writers on a show. That's an intern rate.

JB

I think it's the WGA minimum. Maybe close to $3,300-$3,500/w or so now. Usually not listed in the credits.

Then you get your listed - "story editors", "executive story editors", "co-producers", "producers", "supervising producers", "co-executive producers", "executive producers" and the unlisted show-runners (the top honchos that are listed as "executive producers"). I believe story editors - which is a first/lowest tier senority title for staff writers for those who don't know - are about $400,000/y on a 22-episode schedule. The higher the tier, the greater the compensation.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

My pet hate is crew hiring gear onto a show. I try not to do it, and if I do, it's usually for specialised gear that a rental partner typically won't carry.

My guess is because since you don't own gear that is as good as the gear the productions you work on can often afford, you're not profiting off the rentals, and as far as others bringing their gear, it's often not the gear you specifically want and rather what the crew gear owner just happens to have.

One of my friends shot BTS for The Suicide Squad (175 mil budget) and interestingly, he said some of the equipment choices on the shoot such as camera and lenses were dictated by what, I think it was the DP, or some crew member, happened to own.

I can see how crew trying to get rental profits rather than choosing the best gear for the job can be detrimental to the production.

That said, if say you're a DP and you own what you consider as best for the job, then you really don't have much to lose. Consider Deakins; he could have bought just two or three Master Primes and been getting rental on them since he has stuck to Masters and in just around two or three focal lengths for several movies. It's difficult to own gear at the top end if you're the type of DP who likes to use different lenses and cameras for different projects. In the Deakins camp he likes to use the same lenses from project to project; many would say go anamorphic for sci-fi, but he stuck with Master Primes for Blade Runner 2049, for example. I imagine Charles is happy with his Fujis and doesn't often consider them a compromise in order to get rental dollars.

As for myself, I'd frankly rather use my equipment than have the production rent slightly superior equipment. I know my equipment better, I chose it for a reason, the other options a client has in mind don't tend to be much better (or rather, in the vast majority of cases they want me to use their inferior equipment to save money), and importantly, it's a business, so while quality is important, you can't invest large sums of money in equipment and let that go to waste. If they really need say an Alexa LF while I just have an Amira, then perhaps I'm not the right person for the job, and would prefer a lower budget shoot that would pay me a higher overall rate to come on with my equipment instead of at labor only. Of course that's all a different story if one has not heavily invested in equipment and relies mainly on labor for their income.

One nice aspect of being a Steadicam op as far as gear rental is that high end Steadicam ops almost always provide their own rig and gear and get rental on it. I was asked to do Steadicam on a low budget feature some months ago but turned it down because the pay was too low and I've mostly moved away from doing dedicated Steadicam work in favor of DPing. The Steadicam op they ended up hiring did not own a rig (though had apparently indicated to the producer that he did), so when he showed up to the production with a locally rented rig that was missing a necessary piece, had not been pre-rigged to the camera, had various rigging issues as such to balance properly with the zoom lens they were using, etc., it ended up being a fiasco that delayed the production which the producer was recounting to me after the fact.

 

[John Brawley]

I think it's the WGA minimum. Maybe close to $3,300-$3,500/w or so now. Usually not listed in the credits.

Then you get your listed - "story editors", "executive story editors", "co-producers", "producers", "supervising producers", "co-executive producers", "executive producers" and the unlisted show-runners (the top honchos that are listed as "executive producers"). I believe story editors - which is a first/lowest tier senority title for staff writers for those who don't know - are about $400,000/y on a 22-episode schedule. The higher the tier, the greater the compensation.

The other reason that writers get made into producers is so that a show doesn't have to pay the writer for "drafts" as things change. They get their fee for the ep as above and THEN any re-writes or changes as the draft eveolves are included for an all in price once the writer is a producer.

Staff writers (story editors) are often paid LESS when they're paid full time and are usually actually more junior to most other writing positions....

So you'll notice most network shows now make almost every writer a producer. It doens't mean anything other than they get a flat producing fee for "whatever" re-writes are done....

JB

 

[CharlesPapert]

Your story about the Steadicam operator is chilling, Eric, but it does happen. I got saddled with an operator once who misrepresented his ownership and familiarity of the gear. At prep he built the Alexa (probably a classic back then) on his rig with the studio baseplate. I suggested he might think about ditching that for weight. Cut to the first Steadicam day, a fairly long walk and talk: we ended up having to chop the shot up and do most of it with the rig hardmounted off the dolly (my idea, which saved his butt).

Having gotten used to that rental from when I was an operator, it was a tough income stream to wave goodbye to once I moved up, plus I wanted to re-invest the sale of the rig into other gear. Most of what I put on a show is the stuff that ends up on every job; monitors, head, video village setup, Preston FIZ. I don't own a camera on purpose because that I choose based on the show. My lens package is one that works well for the type of jobs I do, and in fact for a series where I wasn't allowed to rent my gear I ended up with virtually the same lens set from the rental house. Also, a certain amount of my gear I've customized and tricked out so it is often value-added over the rental house versions.

As far as crew members getting their personal gear onto the show, I try to help them out when I can as long as it doesn't overly complicate things with the rental house or production. Nearly every assistant I know has their own focus monitor now and some have a FIZ setup. Where I draw the line is if they are cutting corners with the gear and it creates problems on set, because I hold my own gear to that standard also, and will often check in with my assistants to make sure they have everything they need or if I can organize or set up my stuff better for them.

 

[ahalpert]

Regarding pitching shows, it's not really a job I enjoy, while self funding low budget short films is easy because it just takes $0-$1500 per short film typically for what I've been doing lately (you can do a good amount with $1500 when the cast, crew, and equipment are all free). I just often feel like pitchers are beggars, and being a beggar is not an envious job. "Please give me a million dollars to fund my movie." Or worse when it's Kickstarter which is basically begging for charity as opposed to offering a more legitimate investment to an investor or studio. As is, as a freelance DP, more often it's the case of beggars pitching to me, "Can you please film our low budget movie?" I kind of like being in that position. I just need to use people to do the jobs I don't like such as pitching and marketing the films. I suppose if you have enough of a name for yourself you can sit back while studios or investors pitch to you.

I don't have huge experience soliciting funding, but I'm not sure you can avoid that part of being a writer/director with an original idea.

My first gig was assisting at a successful doc production company in Manhattan. They spent SO much of their time applying for grants.

Or take Kubrick - someone asked him in an interview if Hollywood sent for him after he made The Killing. He responded, "No one ever sent for me," indicating that he always had to be proactive getting his projects made. Yes, eventually he had a blank check funding deal with Warner Bros to make whatever he wanted on his own schedule, but only because he was a miserly producer who made cheap movies anyway, and also because he was a superstar. And he never got to make his Napoleon epic after Hollywood economics shifted.

I'm not sure you can avoid begging if you have an original idea you want to get off the ground. Maybe Netflix will come offering you money once you're a big name, but even then it probably won't be as much as you want.

And lost in all this conversation about how much top writers make is the huge number of writers making nothing.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I don't have huge experience soliciting funding, but I'm not sure you can avoid that part of being a writer/director with an original idea.

My first gig was assisting at a successful doc production company in Manhattan. They spent SO much of their time applying for grants.

Or take Kubrick - someone asked him in an interview if Hollywood sent for him after he made The Killing. He responded, "No one ever sent for me," indicating that he always had to be proactive getting his projects made. Yes, eventually he had a blank check funding deal with Warner Bros to make whatever he wanted on his own schedule, but only because he was a miserly producer who made cheap movies anyway, and also because he was a superstar. And he never got to make his Napoleon epic after Hollywood economics shifted.

I'm not sure you can avoid begging if you have an original idea you want to get off the ground. Maybe Netflix will come offering you money once you're a big name, but even then it probably won't be as much as you want.

And lost in all this conversation about how much top writers make is the huge number of writers making nothing.

And thus the joy of self funding as I'm currently doing - completely free artistic reign and no begging for money involved. Of course, that can only get you so far unless you're stinking rich, but filmmaking is also still a hobby for me so it's not 100% about profits, though profits are often a big motivating factor. Also, if you team up with someone, say I'm the director and they're the producer or vice versa, then the pitching side can be heavily put on their shoulders. Not that I'm incapable of pitching; I'm just saying it's not exactly what I consider a fun time.

 

[John Brawley]

The problem with hiring gear onto a show is that it's not always gear that you want or would choose.

With something as personal as a steadicam operators rig, there's no question and of course the production would hire it on.

But a lot of commodity stuff ?

Here's a typical conversation for me, going into a 3 crew town when you're competing with 4 other projects shooting at the same time.

Me: Hi, I've checked out your references and rang the last DP you worked with and you seem to be a great fit as the A camera / Key focus puller on my show.
Crew: Hey thanks I'm really keen to work with you as well, I rang my buddy on show X and he said you're great to work with.
Me: Great well I'd love to have the office make your deal, I'm going to go ahead and do that.
Crew: Awesome that sounds great. I have a preston and a remote head and a TV logic on-board you'll love.
Me: Oh ok. Well I'm a fan of the WCU4 because this is going to be an Arri show and I really like being able to control the camera remotely, and the fact that I can have a WCU at my own station with the ability to customise the buttons to toggle on false colour at my monitor is a real help. And I really don't like the way the MDR bulks up the camera.
Crew: Yeah the WCU's don't work, my buddy had one once 6 years ago for a day and it never worked.
Me: well I think there's way to improve the wireless range issues the early ones had, and it really forces me to change my on-set workflow if we go preston.
Crew: Well the preston is just more reliable
Me: OK, well you're the one pulling focus and I don't want to point a gun to your head to use a tool you won't like. So the head I don't need because I'm getting a package on grip supplier that includes a stabilised remote head
Crew: You don't want my 2 axis non stablised head ?
Me: No thanks and the TV logic for me doesn't work, I prefer a 7Q because it can slave record and has scopes I like.
Crew: Yeah I think I'm going to go with one of the other shows thanks for calling maybe next time.

Despite the fact that the rest of the entire world happily use WCU4's and somehow get GREAT results, almost every single American focus puller owns a Preston and they cling to them for dear life and force you to rent THEIR preston no matter how s*%tty it is.

Crew go where the money is I get it, but it's damn frustrating when you're forced to hire crap you don't want for yout show because you want good crew.

This is why I hate renting gear on a show. If I own a camera or lenses, of course I'm going to try and get it on every show. But it becomes an albatross around your neck. You won't try a new camera or a new lens kit because you're too busy making money of the one you own.

The camera rental company won't give you any of the hot new gear or help your production on the price because you only come to them to rent piecemeal accessories and to cover you when your camera breaks down.

Now in personal tools, if a focus puller wants to make a case about it being a better tool, I can understand that, but nine times out of ten it's some crappy older unit and they just want to make some money on it and haven't used a WCU4 ever. This is just an EXAMPLE before all you preston die hards rush to tell me why they're better. Believe me I've heard it all. I love talking to Howard at every show I go to.

I really really value my relationships with the various rental companies. I want them to be able to survive and innovate and they have to be healthy. By choosing the rental company that has the best gear FOR THAT SHOW in the LOCATION I'M IN means I get the most tailored package in theory.

I feel like an outlier on many of these boards where there's an obsession about the business of renting gear. I just would never want to be hired because of a camera brand that I own. I just try to avoid the BUSINESS forcing me to make creative decisions, or really, creative compromise.

My last show the "good" operator that the line producer had worked with before was literally ringing between the two shows that wanted him and said he would go with the show that rented his head. I told the line producer to let him go, because that's not the kind of attitude I want in my crew. I'd rather bring someone else up or as we ended up doing, a higher profile crew member from out of town. It's mercenary rather than caring about the bigger picture. Like what the shows' about ? What are we trying to do visually ? What are the opportunities he might get in this crew ? What chances he might get to bump up... It's very very short sighted.

Money is important, but at some point aren't we all here for something a little more important than that ? And if we're not then I don't want to work with you

JB

 

[ahalpert]

Money is important, but at some point aren't we all here for something a little more important than that ? And if we're not then I don't want to work with you

Exactly - if all we cared about was money, we'd be on wall street instead.

You're always either investing in the project you're on and your future options by making the best creative choices possible, or you're cashing in on your previous work and making the most money possible.

(That being said, I'm personally currently trying to maximize earnings and minimize work and travel time so I can be home with my wee ones, and following work based on those needs at least until they're older. It's damn hard to work filmmaking hours and do the travel and be a family man. But that's a separate discussion from one's ideal career/creative pursuits and artistic choices.)

 

[DLD]

The other reason that writers get made into producers is so that a show doesn't have to pay the writer for "drafts" as things change. They get their fee for the ep as above and THEN any re-writes or changes as the draft eveolves are included for an all in price once the writer is a producer.... (snip)

So you'll notice most network shows now make almost every writer a producer. It doens't mean anything other than they get a flat producing fee for "whatever" re-writes are done....

JB

I mentioned this in another thread. Mid-1990's. A friend of a friend gets a plumb gig as a writer/producer on a super popular sitcom. He has an idea for an episode. It gets approved by the show runner and the FoF gets to do the first draft. Which he submits after a few weeks. "Great job. Thanks". By the time the shooting draft is finished, he recognizes only a couple of lines in an insignificant portion of the script. It was all rewritten by the head honcho. For no extra fee. Other than half a billion than the head honcho made off the program anyway.

 

[DLD]

... I am surprised that none of the major streamers went after radio/internet talking heads (aside of the ESPN+, which has its own sport talk shows). Whether it's politics or pure entertainment, talk is cheap ... to acquire.

I was so smart in my observations. And yet so late to the party.

Joe Rogan (an actor, comedian, sportscaster and the host of the hugely popular Joe Rogan Experience YouTube channel) just signed an exclusive deal with Spotify for over $100M.

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/spotify-joe-rogan-exclusive-deal-1003773/

And, Spotify had already purchased the Ringer for ~ $200M-$250M a few months ago.

https://www.businessinsider.com/spo...million-podcasting-bill-simmons-report-2020-2

 

[Guest]

I was so smart in my observations. And yet so late to the party.

Joe Rogan (an actor, comedian, sportscaster and the host of the hugely popular Joe Rogan Experience YouTube channel) just signed an exclusive deal with Spotify for over $100M.

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/spotify-joe-rogan-exclusive-deal-1003773/

And, Spotify had already purchased the Ringer for ~ $200M-$250M a few months ago.

https://www.businessinsider.com/spo...million-podcasting-bill-simmons-report-2020-2

Nailed it! Haha.

What a crazy number. Good for him.