JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
That was funny, so we shot in Sherman Oaks at a restaurant there, without a permit, huge glass sliding doors so you could see right in, the 1st A.D. said that he saw a few cops drive by, check it out, but just kept going. The restaurant owner was like, "We won't have any problems, this is private property, we can do whatever we want here," and I didn't say anything, because he's right actually, but I just thought, "Well, that's not what Film LA thinks." If I had the money and the time to care, like if I had a solid $50 million in the bank, I'd just make sure to earmark a nice amount for striking down that nonsense.
Is there really ANY doubt that this would not past muster in court? I don't think so. If this was taken to the court, and went its way up, there is absolutely no chance any court of law would uphold some non-governmental organization's authority to tell you that you can't film on your own property without a permit. It'd be immensely satisfying to be the one to strike that down. They already HAVE laws that cover any potential problems -- parking tons of semis on the street, for instance, would be covered by other ordinances relating to city streets and street parking, any noise created by the shoot that was unreasonable or bothered neighbors is already covered by noise ordinances, so really there is no reason to have this additional "you can't film in general" bullcrap.
The 1st A.D. has done some pretty big stuff, he was like whatever, I don't care about their rules, and he agreed that it wouldn't stand up in court if it was ever actually challenged. The problem is the people who are too cheap to get a permit are also too cheap to go after these SOBs. And the big players know it's cheaper to just play along, plus they also create such a large imprint where they go that they probably feel it's totally worthwhile. They get a good deal out of it! We don't! How am I supposed to think it's fair to pay $685 to film in someone's restaurant when I have ONE U-Haul van parked out back and my crew has various parking on the streets that is well within their rights? I'm not getting ANYTHING for that money, that's a private agreement between two citizens, myself and the property owner, absolutely NONE of the government's business. Even thinking about something like this infuriates me, that it could be considered acceptable anywhere makes me wish death upon whoever thought this was ok. This is not ok. People like that should be SHOT, then we at least would have a country with the freedoms we are SUPPOSED to have by the founding documents of the nation! What happened to our "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." I do not give my consent, whatsoever, and neither does anyone else, because nobody honestly believes that what happens on private property is any of the government's goddamn business unless it's like nuclear or weapons manufacturing, drugs, etc. A matter of public interest. My pursuit of happiness is filming, and they are seriously not helping that along
My next short is about a meteor that hits FilmLA, where at the same time a freak computer glitch erases any record of the company existing. I can't say I like the people, either, everyone who works there in my experience is a tool, or a thief (one guy blatantly tried to make me pay an extra $100 cash, then corrected himself, "Oh... yeah, only $685, I was... joking." It was obviously not a joke but a robbery attempt.) But then again they are thieves in general, what they do should be prosecuted and they should be thrown in jail for extortion. They don't help the economy, they don't help filmmakers, they are useless leeches, and frankly the world would be better off with them all cast out into space falling through a black hole to miserable deaths. But that's just my opinion.
Nobody needs to mention that California is just not quite right, with the huge budget problems and weird laws, but this is seriously like the People's Republic of California, it's not a free state at all. This is what is considered liberal? I don't consider California a liberal state at all. It may be liberal if you think liberal means voting for democrats, but it's far from liberal. Nevada is a liberal state -- i.e. they don't pass stupid laws banning things that aren't the government's domain to ban. In California, you can't even own nunchuks! They are illegal. I have a pair anyway, I have trained a bit in them, they're perfectly legal anywhere else, but in your own home they say you can't own a pair of nunchucks. But of course you can own an assault rifle. That makes a world of sense. You can't get a concealed weapons permit at all in Los Angeles County, which is great, only the gangsters can carry weapons around basically. I'm a "Registered Bystander," meaning I'm in the only group of people who can't shoot, you know, we got the police and the gangsters, I'm just somewhere in the middle. The number of stupid overbearing laws here far exceeds anywhere else I know. Far from being liberal, it's actually closer to a fascist regime.
Is there really ANY doubt that this would not past muster in court? I don't think so. If this was taken to the court, and went its way up, there is absolutely no chance any court of law would uphold some non-governmental organization's authority to tell you that you can't film on your own property without a permit. It'd be immensely satisfying to be the one to strike that down. They already HAVE laws that cover any potential problems -- parking tons of semis on the street, for instance, would be covered by other ordinances relating to city streets and street parking, any noise created by the shoot that was unreasonable or bothered neighbors is already covered by noise ordinances, so really there is no reason to have this additional "you can't film in general" bullcrap.
The 1st A.D. has done some pretty big stuff, he was like whatever, I don't care about their rules, and he agreed that it wouldn't stand up in court if it was ever actually challenged. The problem is the people who are too cheap to get a permit are also too cheap to go after these SOBs. And the big players know it's cheaper to just play along, plus they also create such a large imprint where they go that they probably feel it's totally worthwhile. They get a good deal out of it! We don't! How am I supposed to think it's fair to pay $685 to film in someone's restaurant when I have ONE U-Haul van parked out back and my crew has various parking on the streets that is well within their rights? I'm not getting ANYTHING for that money, that's a private agreement between two citizens, myself and the property owner, absolutely NONE of the government's business. Even thinking about something like this infuriates me, that it could be considered acceptable anywhere makes me wish death upon whoever thought this was ok. This is not ok. People like that should be SHOT, then we at least would have a country with the freedoms we are SUPPOSED to have by the founding documents of the nation! What happened to our "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." I do not give my consent, whatsoever, and neither does anyone else, because nobody honestly believes that what happens on private property is any of the government's goddamn business unless it's like nuclear or weapons manufacturing, drugs, etc. A matter of public interest. My pursuit of happiness is filming, and they are seriously not helping that along
My next short is about a meteor that hits FilmLA, where at the same time a freak computer glitch erases any record of the company existing. I can't say I like the people, either, everyone who works there in my experience is a tool, or a thief (one guy blatantly tried to make me pay an extra $100 cash, then corrected himself, "Oh... yeah, only $685, I was... joking." It was obviously not a joke but a robbery attempt.) But then again they are thieves in general, what they do should be prosecuted and they should be thrown in jail for extortion. They don't help the economy, they don't help filmmakers, they are useless leeches, and frankly the world would be better off with them all cast out into space falling through a black hole to miserable deaths. But that's just my opinion.
Nobody needs to mention that California is just not quite right, with the huge budget problems and weird laws, but this is seriously like the People's Republic of California, it's not a free state at all. This is what is considered liberal? I don't consider California a liberal state at all. It may be liberal if you think liberal means voting for democrats, but it's far from liberal. Nevada is a liberal state -- i.e. they don't pass stupid laws banning things that aren't the government's domain to ban. In California, you can't even own nunchuks! They are illegal. I have a pair anyway, I have trained a bit in them, they're perfectly legal anywhere else, but in your own home they say you can't own a pair of nunchucks. But of course you can own an assault rifle. That makes a world of sense. You can't get a concealed weapons permit at all in Los Angeles County, which is great, only the gangsters can carry weapons around basically. I'm a "Registered Bystander," meaning I'm in the only group of people who can't shoot, you know, we got the police and the gangsters, I'm just somewhere in the middle. The number of stupid overbearing laws here far exceeds anywhere else I know. Far from being liberal, it's actually closer to a fascist regime.
Last edited:
