micro indie: SAG, Fi-Core, or non-union ?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
Thoughts? What has been your experience working with SAG, or going non-union, or going Fi-Core? This would be for my first micro budget indie feature.
 
Last edited:
SAG.

Almost all good actors are SAG (tons of bad ones too but that's besides the point).

Be prepared to budget the bond. Basically estimate how much you will pay your actors then double it for the time of production. You get your bond back after production finishes.
 
Depends on what you mean by "micro budget". If you don't have the budget to pay for a recognizable name, there's almost zero benefit in going through the hassles. If by "micro budget" you mean $3,000 or $5,000, then no way should you consider SAG.

I'd say as a practical matter, forget SAG and make this first picture. First films, especially first-time micro-budget films, are primarily training grounds. The odds against fiscal success on a first, especially a micro-budget first, are so astronomical that I would advise against bothering with it.
 
Barry_Green said:
Depends on what you mean by "micro budget". If you don't have the budget to pay for a recognizable name, there's almost zero benefit in going through the hassles. If by "micro budget" you mean $3,000 or $5,000, then no way should you consider SAG.

I'd say as a practical matter, forget SAG and make this first picture. First films, especially first-time micro-budget films, are primarily training grounds. The odds against fiscal success on a first, especially a micro-budget first, are so astronomical that I would advise against bothering with it.
Click to expand...

What this guy said. Through and through. Don't go near SAG unless you're shooting 250K+ and you have a name.
 
EDIT: by "I would advise against bothering with it", I meant -- against bothering with going SAG on a first-time micro-budget. Not that I would advise against making your micro-budget if that's what you want to do.
 
Also, to tack onto what Barry said, SAG is not necessarily BAD and there's a lot of merit there. No matter what the intentions are, they do come after you to pay your actors and about ninety five percent of the actors in this industry don't make enough money to begin with. So it's not a bad thing, at all. Just that when you're working with less than a certain amount, the paperwork, pension, etc becomes an expense you cannot really afford and you should not mess with, as Barry said, especially on a first feature film of a micro-budget nature.

There are a lot of great actors out there on the verge of having to go SAG, you can catch them right then and not have to worry about it yet still get solid talent.
 
No, no, no, no... Don't listen to those wise men!

Even though your first film will be a learning exercise in one form or another there is a good chance that you have enough experience to make something creative - and no matter how creative you are there is NO WAY anyone will get over bad acting.

I agree that if you only have $5k in your bank to make this film than don't bother but if you have enough to pay people at least $100 then go SAG.
 
Find the best actors you can find that fit what you need them to accomplish - if they are SAG then go SAG, if not... then not.
 
Patryk, SAG minimum for rather films is around 165 a day including pension and health and the payroll fees and that's if you som go overtime.

You also have to deal with the bond and dedicate someone or a lot of time to keeping up with that. Ive dealt with SAG at this level first hand. It was one of the mistakes I made. Dont make the sale one. You have two experiences people telling you exactly why not to do it.
 
I've only done the normal 200k SAG agreement once... the rest of the films all higher agreements...

If I remember right... its a 100 bucks for an 8 hour day... then time and a half after that... 10% agent fees... and p & h... so I'd say closer to 200 a day for SAG actors... but you can mix and match guild and non guild actors... I think the catch is now.. your non guild actors can't get their Taft/Hartley card...

Not sure if the Micro is like 75 bucks a day flat... but I believe on this agreement or another low budget agreement... once the film is sold... the rates go back to the normal $585 a day rate and SAG requires you to pay them before you pay back your investors... at least this is what I heard from a no budget filmmaker... guess the best thing to do is go on the SAG site and look up the agreements...
 
Last edited:
Many up and coming SAG actors who are not names yet will work on a non-union shoot if you give them a good role.
Even though they are not supposed to they do it, because they want to build their career with bigger roles, and the chances of SAG ever finding out about it are minimal.
There are also many actors who are not SAG at all or are Fi-Core.
There are also some name actors who are either Fi-Core (they don't really announce it, so you have to find out who) or who will do a non-union movie if you offer them enough money.

But as a rule most names will require the production to be a SAG signatory, certainly the ones that matter most when it comes to distribution.

As others have said, since this is your first movie and it's microbudget, you will probably be better off doing it non-union all the way.

Of course you should still focus on making it the most marketable product you can, meaning a genre pic, high concept/intriguing premise, and if you can afford it, try to hire some names even if you are non-union.
Just make the best movies you can with the least amount of money possible, and you're off to a good start.
 
Kholi said:
Patryk, SAG minimum for rather films is around 165 a day including pension and health and the payroll fees and that's if you som go overtime.

You also have to deal with the bond and dedicate someone or a lot of time to keeping up with that. Ive dealt with SAG at this level first hand. It was one of the mistakes I made. Dont make the sale one. You have two experiences people telling you exactly why not to do it.
Click to expand...

First of all lets define what we are talking about. My point is don't start out thinking that you are doing non-union shoot as with that statement you are closing yourself to many opportunities. Many actors even with limited experience don't even bother looking at the non-union postings - don't take my word for it, ask them! After a few student films they realize the shtick and don't even bother with those. Thus starting out with the label "non-union" you are closing yourself off to many potentially fantastic actors who simply skip you over. Have as large pool of qualified actors as possible, pick your best and THEN decide will it be union or non-union show.
 
My girlfriend is an actress, I hang around a lot of them. My research is peripheral and direct.

For instance, what Euro Distro up there said is absolutely true. You can absolutely get SAG actors to do non union work with a good role and reel, sometimes not even those things.

But what you absolutely do not want to do is call people in under the intent of SAG then tell them that you're going to go non union. You become immediately untrustworthy. Many many sag actors still scour non union jobs, I know evade most of my actors submitted for non-union, but we went SAG because half ended up being SAG. Again, not a wise move.

Anyway, I guess you can only offer so much advice from experience on the top--In this case having dealt with sag, casting, payroll, paperwork, contracts, etc first hand before it becomes redundant so have at it.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
First of all lets define what we are talking about. My point is don't start out thinking that you are doing non-union shoot as with that statement you are closing yourself to many opportunities. Many actors even with limited experience don't even bother looking at the non-union postings - don't take my word for it, ask them! After a few student films they realize the shtick and don't even bother with those. Thus starting out with the label "non-union" you are closing yourself off to many potentially fantastic actors who simply skip you over. Have as large pool of qualified actors as possible, pick your best and THEN decide will it be union or non-union show.
Click to expand...

That's not true there are people who are SAG who will do non SAG films. Only a small percentage of SAG actors ever make enough to make a living. A lot of them just want to act and do interesting roles. Maybe it is different in other parts of the country but in LA you know the whole swing a cat expression so I won't bother.

Just look for SAG eligible. Now if you are in the middle of nowhere it may be a different story, but in LA plenty of actors. And the paperwork sucks. You can get around the bonding I have heard if you just pay them up front. Maybe that is better than trying to get the bond back from SAG.

I have also heard horror stories where SAG is coming after you for money because your film got sold, but the producers haven't received a penny from the distributors yet. If this is your first film, do you want to deal with all of that also on top of everything else you are trying to do?
 
Kholi said:
My girlfriend is an actress, I hang around a lot of them. My research is peripheral and direct.

For instance, what Euro Distro up there said is absolutely true. You can absolutely get SAG actors to do non union work with a good role and reel, sometimes not even those things.

But what you absolutely do not want to do is call people in under the intent of SAG then tell them that you're going to go non union. You become immediately untrustworthy. Many many sag actors still scour non union jobs, I know evade most of my actors submitted for non-union, but we went SAG because half ended up being SAG. Again, not a wise move.

Anyway, I guess you can only offer so much advice from experience on the top--In this case having dealt with sag, casting, payroll, paperwork, contracts, etc first hand before it becomes redundant so have at it.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat 'old news', but it is an 'object lession' on the issue of SAG, and the Low Budget, as well as the use of non-professional actors and actresses...

From: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/beasts-southern-wild-sag-awards-375204

----
Beasts of the Southern Wild, the critically acclaimed indie drama that Fox Searchlight is positioning as a major awards contender, has been ruled ineligible for the Screen Actors Guild Awards because it was not made under the terms of SAG-AFTRA's Low Budget Feature Agreement, which mandates the use of professional actors.
our editor recommends
'Beasts of the Southern Wild' Newcomers Discuss On-Set Surprises: 'You Wouldn’t Expect Fire to Explode That Much' (Video)
Beasts of the Southern Wild: Sundance Film Review

The move throws a small roadblock in front of the film's Oscar chances because the SAG Awards sometimes mirror the Academy's selections. However, the history of the SAG Awards suggests Searchlight still has a strong chance to get this film and its cast of unknowns some major Oscar attention.

Director Benh Zeitlin, out of financial necessity (he had a budget of just $1.3 million) and a desire for the greatest possible sense of authenticity (his film revolves around eccentric characters who populate a remote part of America's Gulf Coast) instead used locals who had never acted before and therefore were not SAG members. The stars of the film, which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in January, are a 6-year-old schoolgirl (Quvenzhane Wallis) and a fortysomething local baker (Dwight Henry). Neither will be eligible for SAG Awards, nor will the cast be eligible for the best ensemble nod, which is SAG-AFTRA's equivalent of a best picture award.
---

The irony of this story is... as of today...

------
Performance by an actress in a leading role

Quvenzhané Wallis in “Beasts of the Southern Wild”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top