For low budget features - Do you pay your *entire* cast/crew or only some of them?

S

sb2012

Member
I'm trying to determine how to approach this for the low budget feature I'm doing next year (trying to keep it under $9k-$10k). I've worked it out to a two and half week shoot, 3-4 days each week, about 6-7 hours each day, which is a relatively short shoot all-in-all. It's *non-union*. Food and transport will be provided.

There's 17 cast members. 3 of which will be used for more than 1 day. The rest of them will be used for one day, but not all at the same time, some are speaking roles and some aren't. But all in all, there will be 3 main actors who will be used most prominently.

Crew is 3 PAs, a DP, makeup/FX artist, lighting person, sound person.

My thing is how do you determine who to pay on a low budget feature, who not to pay, and if you're paying... how much do you pay? Do you base it on their role in the production? Should background non-speaking actors get paid nothing while the speaking ones get paid? Is it based on how many days they will be needed? I need some help figuring this out.

My DP friend and I had a little talk about this and he said that for him, as long as he's fed and provided transport, he's good. But I still want to pay him anyway cuz he's very experienced and I don't want him to end up choosing a future well-paid project over this one. He referred me to an FX artist who actually wants to be paid and has told me that the cost will be approx $1500 total. So if I'm paying the FX artist, shouldn't I also have to pay the DP as well? He also told me he has 3 PAs who will work for free.

So should I just pay only the DP, the FX artist, the 3 main actors, and everyone else works for free? Confused....
Of course, food and transport will be provided for everyone involved, so it won't be "completely" for free but still... If this were a short, I'd have no trouble figuring this out, but since it's a feature, I feel like I have to open my wallet because of the commitment required...
 
Though it's nice to get free help, sometimes it's not for the best even amongst friends. If you pay them even a little, you'll be less likely to see them resting on their bums during the shoot.
 
It sounds from your post that your crew does not need to work during those couple of weeks. This has come up in a couple of threads. I have a feature length film in the works and I postponed a little bit. I'm looking at ~$38K. My 2 cents: if it's during the work week & it is an opportunity cost for cast or crew then I need to pay them. If it's not a union thing, get friends and relatives for background or bit parts. Actually when you look at it by page count, as you have, acting isn't the greatest cost.

If you have some people that are students, on summer break, who are your friends and want to just have a blast making a movie, then great. Do that. However, if you feel they may bolt on you to take a paying gig, then it is an opportunity cost to them and ... well there you go. You've answered the question.

<mini-rant> I read a book "Predictably Irrational" that proposes that at a very low pay rate, in some ways, you're better off not paying for services. Let people do you a favor. They want to, and you can't afford their generosity. They get more from giving freely than from a nominal fee.

So for instance, say your wife makes a great turkey dinner for Thanksgiving and one of the uncles approached your wife and said, "Hey, great turkey dinner. I'm having some friends over next week. How much for you to come over and make us all a turkey dinner?" She'd freak because she's not doing it for the money. There IS no good $$ amount for that "service." Obviously, it's worth the "cost" to create this warm wonderful meal for people she loves. That's not for sale!

I'm not saying this is the case in film making. I'm saying that, if this guy is right, there is a rate that is below that threshold. So if you can't make their rate then covering travel and meals and making sure it doesn't cost them anything may be better. At least they can claim the favor!

</mini-rant>
 
Last edited:
Even amongst film students in film schools, there are only two types of students - the ones who work their ass off because they get off it and the ones who don't give a damn because it's not their film. Find the first group of people and sometimes it is better to find people who don't have any education in film because it'll be a new experience they can get off.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
What is the goal for your film?

Is this for fun personal use? Or is this to aim for an actual release?
Click to expand...

I'm definitely aiming for an actual release, I don't have the money to blow on stuff for personal fun in terms of filmmaking. It's going to go into film festivals first.
 
hscully said:
It sounds from your post that your crew does not need to work during those couple of weeks. This has come up in a couple of threads. I have a feature length film in the works and I postponed a little bit. I'm looking at ~$38K. My 2 cents: if it's during the work week & it is an opportunity cost for cast or crew then I need to pay them. If it's not a union thing, get friends and relatives for background or bit parts. Actually when you look at it by page count, as you have, acting isn't the greatest cost.

If you have some people that are students, on summer break, who are your friends and want to just have a blast making a movie, then great. Do that. However, if you feel they may bolt on you to take a paying gig, then it is an opportunity cost to them and ... well there you go. You've answered the question.

<mini-rant> I read a book "Predictably Irrational" that proposes that at a very low pay rate, in some ways, you're better off not paying for services. Let people do you a favor. They want to, and you can't afford their generosity. They get more from giving freely than from a nominal fee.

So for instance, say your wife makes a great turkey dinner for Thanksgiving and one of the uncles approached your wife and said, "Hey, great turkey dinner. I'm having some friends over next week. How much for you to come over and make us all a turkey dinner?" She'd freak because she's not doing it for the money. There IS no good $$ amount for that "service." Obviously, it's worth the "cost" to create this warm wonderful meal for people she loves. That's not for sale!

I'm not saying this is the case in film making. I'm saying that, if this guy is right, there is a rate that is below that threshold. So if you can't make their rate then covering travel and meals and making sure it doesn't cost them anything may be better. At least they can claim the favor!

</mini-rant>
Click to expand...

Well I was going to schedule it on/around the weekends (i.e. Thursday-Saturday) and it's mostly overnight shooting like 9pm to 3am for instance. I have some friends and relatives I can use for the background/bit roles, so that works. What about the PAs?

I guess what I was trying to figure out is, for non union features, where is the line drawn in terms of paying actors vs. how important their role is.

There's background roles, then there's bit roles where the characters have a few lines but are only in one scene, there's bit roles that may have no lines but their characters are an important part of the story (i.e. maybe a flashback sequence), then you have your main actors of course who are going to be spending the most shooting days with you.
 
sb2012 said:
I'm definitely aiming for an actual release, I don't have the money to blow on stuff for personal fun in terms of filmmaking. It's going to go into film festivals first.
Click to expand...

I can't tell you the right or wrong way to do your film, you must decide for yourself. However, I have found when you pay people you gain advantages that are often times worth more than the payments you make. Depending on what you pay, you can attract higher levels of talent and crew. Experienced crew work faster, smarter, and safer. The add creative contributions from experience and knowledge picked up on other films they have worked on. Payment is also a form of respect that creates an unspoken contract of expectations. When people aren't paid, or are paid very little, they typically don't view their commitment to the project with the same professionalism. Those who are paid, and decently so, will feel a commitment to always be on their A-game, to actually care, and work harder. A professional you have talked into working for free, will likely do a good job, but in the back of his/her mind, they are 'only working for free'. And yes, 'completely free'. Even if production pays for food and transpo, it is still working for free if they are not paid. That said, there are always young and eager young people coming out of film school to be fed to the meat grinder of free labor, but they won't have the experience or knowledge the others do. You can make your film now, for little to no money and with free crew members, but you should realize by setting off onto this expedition with little supplies, your chances of making a successful film are very low. We all know how hard it is to make a good film. We all belly-ache and moan at the blockbuster movies that cost 80,000,000 to make! From a producers standpoint, filmmaking is unfortunately a collaborative art that requires many people and a good amount of money to do. It's something I've always known, but have found to be very true as I work in the industry. I'm not telling you to not make your film, but if you truly believe in your film... I mean truly think the script is worth taking a shot on, a real gamble, than why not spend a couple of years raising funds, finding investors, networking and organizing to make your film on a level that will increase it's chances of success enormously?

You could make it now and be the next Paranormal Activity or Primer, but those are lottery ticket films. Going back to the expedition analogy, you can leave for your wilderness trek with experienced guides, proper working equipment, plenty of supplies, a good map and skilled adventurers.... or you can jump right into it with whatever supplies you can manage to scrape together and a young guide who is eager but just started the job yesterday. Both groups can go trek through the African plains and return safely, however, you can imagine the success rate of the former over the latter. I never want to discourage anyone from making their film now and with what they have. However, I simply (from a professional standpoint) have worked on many indie films, and I think I have found the level of basic production required if you want to make an honest attempt at making a feature film that can compete with the bigger films.... And as the very minimum, it involves being able to pay an experienced crew. Not Union wages, but decently paid.

It's the truth. Think of remodeling your home or fixing your car. Get the reputable, experienced mechanic who charges standard rates, or go with Bob's unlicensed car shop who charges 1/4th the price? As I originally asked, if this film was for fun, almost as a hobby to get your feet wet learning to make a feature (trial by fire?) by all means shoot it now. If you honestly want to make a film, a piece of cinema, that can stand up and compete with the rest, you might find yourself jumping in the deep end of the pool if not fully prepared.

Again, there are plenty of well known examples of ultra low budget films proving me wrong, but there is an overwhelming number of films shot every year that say the opposite. Films you've never heard of. Big films and small films. It's a messy game to play.

I am not trying to scare you. I want to simply give you my suggestion of simply exploring the possibility of postponing to further gather resources. If you don't think that is a possibility, than go ahead and do it now. I hope I didn't come off as too scary!





sb2012 said:
Well I was going to schedule it on/around the weekends (i.e. Thursday-Saturday) and it's mostly overnight shooting like 9pm to 3am for instance. I have some friends and relatives I can use for the background/bit roles, so that works. What about the PAs?

I guess what I was trying to figure out is, for non union features, where is the line drawn in terms of paying actors vs. how important their role is.

There's background roles, then there's bit roles where the characters have a few lines but are only in one scene, there's bit roles that may have no lines but their characters are an important part of the story (i.e. maybe a flashback sequence), then you have your main actors of course who are going to be spending the most shooting days with you.
Click to expand...

Weekend shooting is not the best idea if you have working professional freelance crew members working on your film. Professional crew members, especially if working for free, would not appreciate their schedule/weekends being taken up for weekends on end for months at a time versus just shooting the whole thing in a matter of several weeks with a day off here and there. I say this because if you get freelance crew to come onto your film, by zapping their weekends for months, they will inevitably find themselves with conflicting dates for other job offers, and if those pay, you can say adios to your crew. Be prepared to have a different looking crew every weekend. A revolving door.

Just a warning. I've been offered paying DP jobs (couple thousand a week) but to only shoot on weekends, and I turned it down. I'd rather shoot for four weeks in a row and finish the job, than have my weekends taken for two-three months! Do you know how many future jobs that would have conflicted with? I would have lost money and importantly been unavailable to work on other productions because the production (producers and director) had 9-5 jobs and were only free on the weekend. They got to work their professional job on the weekdays and then their film on the weekends. That worked for them, but I make my living shooting films and I can't swiss cheese my schedule like that! It does not work for freelance professionals as we need to work on other projects. I can't sit around and do nothing 5 days a week for three months, only taking jobs that start and end between weekends! I hope that story gives you an idea of how that schedule will scare away freelance professionals.

Regarding actors, are you going SAG ultra low? If your actors are SAG, you should call SAG and work it out. I believe the lowest ultra low is 100/day.

Background is probably going to be your friends and family. Paying background is typically the best thing to do as it keeps them there. Free background does not give a f#$k about your film, unless friends and family. They will get bored and find every excuse to leave, or they will just slip off without telling you. This destroys continuity if doing a scene with extras, like a wedding, restaurant, etc. Long scenes can take almost an entire day to shoot, and people, when they don't know you and are working for free will quickly regret sitting in one place for hours on end. They will leave or try to leave. When you pay them, and payment is given out at the end of the day. Most will stay. Even when paid, they will try to find an excuse to leave and try to get paid early. Some will even just leave without being payed if they feel the $75 or $50 or whatever you give them is not worth it.

I've been on several low budget commercials/features where extras are all paid 100-150-200/day. It's the best way to make sure people stay put! It's like dealing with children, seriously.
 
Last edited:
hscully said:
<mini-rant> I read a book "Predictably Irrational" that proposes that at a very low pay rate, in some ways, you're better off not paying for services. Let people do you a favor. They want to, and you can't afford their generosity. They get more from giving freely than from a nominal fee.
Click to expand...

I can't agree more, when low pay is at a certain point.

I've shot something for a friend with no money before, it was a one day thing and a favor to him. He was like "I can only pay you $50"... and although I appreciated his attempt to give me whatever he could afford, I said no to being paid. I told him I'd just volunteer. I would have said no to more money as well. Anything under dirt cheap rates almost should be! As an up and coming DP, (which I still am!) I didn't want to shoot anything where it would be known or be on record that I shot it for $50 or $100, $200 or whatever. I didn't want people to think that is all I was worth, or I was desperate, or I was struggling to find work, whatever.

No professional is worth $50/day and in my opinion even 100/day, as that is below minimum wage for twelve+ hour day (in Cali)! It would have been a better deal and more respectful to buy me a case of beer or return the favor at a future time. I understand the person meant nothing by it, in fact he was trying to do as much as he could afford to do, which is noble, but there is a bottom line where volunteering is better than being paid a disrespectful wage.

Can't agree more.
 
On a side note there is what i would call the "Mediterranean" approach: Put a lot of the money you do not have in the first place into catering. Sounds silly but may not be so. Why? It shows that you care. Have someone to do that for you, someone who likes cooking and caring for people and has some nice ideas how to surprise. An underfed crew get's crumpy soon. And if your crew feels at least "at home" in some way this can make up for the money you can't pay.

Else: You pay all costs for travel etc. And you set up a collection account. Everybody who works get's some points for the day she/he works. Should the film ever bring some money back, you share this according to the point system.

this too would show that you care and are willing to make an effort.
 
Ryan,

I see your points. To answer some of your Qs, no, its non-union, so no SAG indie. Completely non-union. Luckily, the shooting days I'm planning are going to be less than 12 hours each. And when I say background/bit characters, I'm not referring to large scenes w/ crowds, it's just like 9-10 background characters, some have a few lines while some don't, and they're all in separate scenes, they are never together, some are only in one shot. There are 3 main actors, but only one (the main character) is featured on screen at all times in all scenes. Think "After Hours".

Other than that, are you suggesting that, aside from food + transport, that I should pay cast/crew $50-$100 per day plus points in hopes of more improved/dedicated teamwork?

I totally understand what you're saying about paying people though, I wish I could pay a DP $500-$1000 a week or whatever. But I'm only putting aside $300 a month to make this movie, I don't know any investors or anything like that. So I'm trying to keep it realistic in terms of what I can actually accomplish, financially-speaking.
 
sb2012, I think what's getting you is what's getting me. A feature length film is just a different thing. 15 days of principal photography is really short. If you can shoot 6 pages a day, which is kind of the maximum for me with a decent crew, shot list, organized as you can be, you can make it but it will be a slog. What Ryan said is what I'm thinking about for mine. I need real crew. I need a couple of good grips and a great gaffer. Plus I need a good AC and a great AD and they don't come cheap. Sure, I'll have volunteers as PAs and craftys but crew is crew and good actors are good actors... I feel I need to pay them. Oh, I am doing a SAG ultra low budget so ... there's other stuff.. no points, 80% up front for the actors. It's definitely more dough

So, my plan is to shoot a couple more shorts, which are like 12 pages and doable over a weekend. I need to get better at a few things as a director including blocking and camera movement and I plan on using these shorts to do that. I'm also planning on making one short from my feature script... it's a muddle right now but I can introduce the main characters, hint at the protagonist's goal and use it for funding. Hopefully one or more will be selected for viewing in festivals and bring in more good mojo.... feature film = shooting during the week and Ryan's sage advice applies.

Why not try a couple of shorts?
 
Last edited:
hscully said:
sb2012, I think what's getting you is what's getting me. A feature length film is just a different thing. 15 days of principal photography is really short. If you can shoot 6 pages a day, which is kind of the maximum for me with a decent crew, shot list, organized as you can be, you can make it but it will be a slog. What Ryan said is what I'm thinking about for mine. I need real crew. I need a couple of good grips and a great gaffer. Plus I need a good AC and a great AD and they don't come cheap. Sure, I'll have volunteers as PAs and craftys but crew is crew and good actors are good actors... I feel I need to pay them. Oh, I am doing a SAG ultra low budget so ... there's other stuff.. no points, 80% up front for the actors. It's definitely more dough

So, my plan is to shoot a couple more shorts, which are like 12 pages and doable over a weekend. I need to get better at a few things as a director including blocking and camera movement and I plan on using these shorts to do that. I'm also planning on making one short from my feature script... it's a muddle right now but I can introduce the main characters, hint at the protagonist's goal and use it for funding. Hopefully one or more will be selected for viewing in festivals and bring in more good mojo.... feature film = shooting during the week and Ryan's sage advice applies.

Why not try a couple of shorts?
Click to expand...

Why would it be a slog though?

Well I'm sure we could all use "real" crews. Sure I'd love some prop masters, costume designers, this, that, and the third, and all the million-gazillion things you see when the end credits roll on every Hollywood film... but realistically, seriously, how many of "us" can afford that?

I know I can't, at least not on a $40k annual salary, maybe if I lived with my parents and had no bills. An AC? Ha, that would be a luxury for this budget. But it's not supposed to be easy for the no-budget/ultra budget folks. A lot of us have to multitask, right? Take me for instance -- I'm the writer, director, assistant director, location manager/scout, casting director, and producer all in one. Just me. It sucks but what can I do? I can't afford to pay all those additional positions. It would be nice, I would love to, but unfortunately, I have to work within "the basics" and do the best I can.

If I save up to pay all those extra positions plus everything else, it will be a long, long time before I ever get this movie made. We're talking years, and not just a couple either. I'm already looking at possibly having to pay an FX artist $1500 total to begin with.

Shorts are nice, I did my first last year, and I'm planning to do a couple before I set out to do this feature project, but the reason I want to do this particular story as a feature is because it's the only "doable" script in my library. The story plus the locations are very simple. Perhaps it would be cheaper to do a teaser trailer for it instead?
 
Right... if you're paying for it yourself then I understand your perspective. Why would you pay for it yourself? I learned from a producer a long time ago that that is not a good idea. Raise the money. If your script and your production plan are low budget in the way that you can't seek investment then raise it through fund raisers and crowd funding like Kickstarter or Indie Go Go. Zak Forsman, a moderator of this forum is an inspiration with his project Down and Dangerous... http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-one-year-later&highlight=Down+and+Dangerous

Read through that thread when you can. It is a clinic. If you're in NY I know a successful feature film producer who teaches seminars on just this topic. It's a TON of work but it could get you to where you can get the right people to make a film that has a better chance for people to see it.

I wear lots of hats too. I think that's great but your film will be better if you get the best cast and crew you can.
 
Last edited:
Here's my take: there is only one way to make a low-budget feature. And that way is to write a low-budget feature. I hate to overuse this example, but it illustrates things perfectly: Paranormal Activities. Forget for the moment the success that film has had and why. Focus on the cost of that film. It was clearly a very conscious design - write a feature that will be cheap to execute!

It really is not a question about "can I write an interesting feature". That's an approach for an established Hollywood director/writer/producer. The question is "can I write an interesting feature that can be executed cheaply". All of us - hopefully - have plenty of interesting ideas that would be fabulous as features. That's not the challenge (or only one challenge). The challenge is to make it (1)interesting AND (2)cheap.

Remember that old saying that seems to apply to products, services and so much more in life: Cheap - Fast - Good - pick two. You have no choice about Cheap, so that's already picked for you. It's pointless if you can't make it good, so Good is also picked for you. So ultimately, you really have no choice.

Write your feature so that it is Good and Cheap.

Just writing it so that it's Good, is a challenge. But it's not enough. Your approach can't be "I'll write a great script and then figure out how to shoot if for free", because that way lies compromise and likely failure, because it was not designed from the get-go to be cheap, and making it cheap might not work at all.

If actors cost too much, think of a story that involves fewer of them - down to zero if you can manage. If lighting and sets cost too much, think of doing a style or location where it won't matter... btw. that is how the entire genre of noir developed... they came up with those kooky shadows and angles because they had no money for sets and wanted to obscure as much as possible with lighting. And so on.

Paying as far as I can see, comes down to who and what. When you involve friends, you don't have to pay them - but make sure they are a net benefit to your production... nothing worse than an incompetent friend, because then you have to expend energy to check his work or even re-do his work and it's a dead loss.

I agree with going totally outside of SAG (there are reasons to do so), but even so, I'd advocate paying actors SAG minimum +$20, so about $120 a day plus food and transportation costs. It's really not so bad. If you have, say, 5 actors, that's $600 a day plus food and transportation (have a friend with a van pick 'em up and drop 'em off). If you do 10 days that's $6000. Not bad for 5 actors who do 10 days work. Crew, try to get for free. Assuming you already got all your equipment, you can put 80% of your cost into actors (by far the most important). If you are doing a $10K feature, that's $8000 for actors. That's 5 actors at 12 full days. That's a lot. It's doable.
 
It's difficult enough to arrange schedules for a crew you're not paying when it's a 2 day shoot. I don't understand how anyone can shoot a feature without a budget. Even films that are famed for being extremely low budget, often had ~$40,000.

That's not to say it can't be done. If you have enough talented friends or a really great reputation, you can absolutely pull it off. But I maintain that everyone will work harder when there's payment involved. At the very least, good crafty better be involved.
 
IMO this is all excellent advice:

OldCorpse said:
Here's my take: there is only one way to make a low-budget feature. And that way is to write a low-budget feature. I hate to overuse this example, but it illustrates things perfectly: Paranormal Activities. Forget for the moment the success that film has had and why. Focus on the cost of that film. It was clearly a very conscious design - write a feature that will be cheap to execute!

It really is not a question about "can I write an interesting feature". That's an approach for an established Hollywood director/writer/producer. The question is "can I write an interesting feature that can be executed cheaply". All of us - hopefully - have plenty of interesting ideas that would be fabulous as features. That's not the challenge (or only one challenge). The challenge is to make it (1)interesting AND (2)cheap.

Remember that old saying that seems to apply to products, services and so much more in life: Cheap - Fast - Good - pick two. You have no choice about Cheap, so that's already picked for you. It's pointless if you can't make it good, so Good is also picked for you. So ultimately, you really have no choice.

Write your feature so that it is Good and Cheap.

Just writing it so that it's Good, is a challenge. But it's not enough. Your approach can't be "I'll write a great script and then figure out how to shoot if for free", because that way lies compromise and likely failure, because it was not designed from the get-go to be cheap, and making it cheap might not work at all.

If actors cost too much, think of a story that involves fewer of them - down to zero if you can manage. If lighting and sets cost too much, think of doing a style or location where it won't matter... btw. that is how the entire genre of noir developed... they came up with those kooky shadows and angles because they had no money for sets and wanted to obscure as much as possible with lighting. And so on.

Paying as far as I can see, comes down to who and what. When you involve friends, you don't have to pay them - but make sure they are a net benefit to your production... nothing worse than an incompetent friend, because then you have to expend energy to check his work or even re-do his work and it's a dead loss.

I agree with going totally outside of SAG (there are reasons to do so), but even so, I'd advocate paying actors SAG minimum +$20, so about $120 a day plus food and transportation costs. It's really not so bad. If you have, say, 5 actors, that's $600 a day plus food and transportation (have a friend with a van pick 'em up and drop 'em off). If you do 10 days that's $6000. Not bad for 5 actors who do 10 days work. Crew, try to get for free. Assuming you already got all your equipment, you can put 80% of your cost into actors (by far the most important). If you are doing a $10K feature, that's $8000 for actors. That's 5 actors at 12 full days. That's a lot. It's doable.
Click to expand...
 
I think scheduling and continuity could be an issue. In that Jody Foster movie about her missing daughter on the airplane - I heard if you look carefully you will see the extras changing. I wish you the best of luck, sometimes you got to go for it.

But do yourself a favor at least get volunteer insurance for $175 at fracturedatlas.org.

DO NOT DO SAG on on your film, pay them SAG rates fine if you can afford it. But SAG is a pain in the ass - especially if you are doing it all by yourself, the paperwork, the requirements, etc. Not for your first film, highly advised against it.
 
The short film I am currently casting for, and will be shooting in May, was conceived in almost exactly the way OldCorpse describes; it was written to be completely shootable in my NYC apartment/studio, with characters, story and scenes specifically written to feature the specifics of it, and within certain technical limitations inherent in it. I own all the gear necessary to do it at the level of production I'm looking for (notwithstanding any unanticipated rentals which, if any, I expect to be minor). The story/script was written with the the greatest of care, and vetted and rewritten over and over with the input from a primary script consultant and many, many other knowledgeable folks who read and commented. It was also the latest of several attempts at such an approach, earlier iterations of which presented technical, cost, practical or other reasons for their eventual abandonment, although much was gained in the process.

I am placing a very high premium on actors/acting ability, and going for as high a production value as I can afford. But the result of all the preparation and thought is that I have a film that will be (relatively) easy to shoot, involves only four actors, mostly shootable with one or two of them at a time, and on a permanently available set (my home).

I will be including union actors among my cast if they are the best for their roles (auditions thus far suggests this will be the case for some), and have made arrangements with SAG to fulfill all of their specifications. As it turns out, the SAG terms are *very* lenient for projects of this kind (under 30 minutes, under $50K budget). Only $100 + $16 pension and health contribution per actor as a minimum, and even that can be 'deferred' (until money is earned from a sale). I had planned to pay at least that amount from the outset; I've done too many non-paying films as an actor myself, and won't do that to these kind folks, union or non. If I have to jump through a few paperwork, pre-funding other other SAG hoops to get the finest actors I can find/afford then I will. Compromising on actor performances to save a little sweat-equity is not a good tradeoff in my humble opinion.

Hopefully all of this will result in a quality film, which is ultimately the *only* thing that matters. If not it will be a fine learning experience. Enough people seem to sincerely like the story/script that I'm reasonably encouraged...

To the OP I would say: pay your actors and crew whatever you can. So many work for nothing so often that even a little will feel like a lot. I can't believe the props I'm getting from folks as I tell them I plan to do it this way, even though the actual numbers are very low. I know that as an actor I would have really appreciated it too...

My $.02
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top