Question about paying actors.

P

panag3

New member
Hello everyone.

I'm hoping to shoot my first micro budget feature this summer. I've cast and shot about half a dozen short films, but this will be my first feature.

My question is this: Generally speaking, do actors expect to be paid on low budget features? - Or is the point system enough for them to justify spending 3 + weeks making one movie.

I will of course be taking care of food, travel, and lodging, but my budget is tight, and I can't shell out any more after that.

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I should add that my budget is around $12k. So it's really a no budget production.
 
Last edited:
Can you afford to go without work for three weeks? You're going to be hard pressed to find someone who can be completely available for that long.
 
I agree with RyanT. Shorts are great because you can shoot them over a long weekend or two. They are much easier to get volunteers for. If you are going to ask professional actors to drop into a project for 3 weeks you need to pay them. Also if you're using SAG actors you need to protect them and look into your responsibilities for an ultra low budget. Shorts are analogous to equity showcase (99 seat) in theater. You have responsibility to make sure it doesn't cost the actor anything to do it, as you plan, so the actors may do it for no pay with SAG's blessing with a short film agreement. That is not the case with a feature. You will need to put up 80% of that actor money up front.

Actors audition all the time. Your project becomes an opportunity cost to them. Paying them mitigates the possibility that they will skip on you to take a paying gig.

I am working on my first feature and I can't see doing mine for < $38K. The costs for the actors run around 15%. If you do a page count for your actors you'll note that you don't need all of them all the time, except your top few principals. Not so with crew! You need them every day. My crew costs are much higher than actor costs.

With all that, if your actors and crew are your friends, amateurs or students on a summer vacation or something, and want to hangout and make a movie with you, then knock 'em dead!
 
Last edited:
Paid! - good god no! - why would we want to be paid to spend 3+ weeks shooting a feature not to mention learning lines & any reheaseal time - no, it's worth working for nothing just because we know that your film is going to be HUGE!!!!! - Defered payment is fine because it'll make millions and there'll be plenty for everyone.

I understand micro budget but you'll need lighting & a camera - there are some things you just can't do without - perhaps wanting to pay nothing for your actors tells us how much you value their work. Sorry if
i'm sounding harsh but I've been around for quite a while and I can't count the number of times I've heard - "I've already got a theatre release" "it's been selected for XYZ film festival" "my uncle is Spielbergs gardener" or the great standard " you'll get a DVD copy"

Look at your script - how many main, supporting, featured etc - if they're only there for a couple of days you might find people that are interested but you have to pay your main actors - how do you expect to get anyone with any talent/dedication/commitment if you value their work at... nothing.
 
My experience is that you can get good actors who are willing to work on a deferred-pay basis IF you've got a really good script and a reasonably decent track record.

Actors would love to be paid, just like anyone else. And whenever possible, they should be paid. But they know that competition is stiff. They need experience for their resumes, footage for their demo reels, and as many new networking contacts as they can get. So you will find quite a few who are more than willing to work with you. Just be aware that they may drop out on you if a paying gig comes along -- but that's completely understandable.

When I was casting "Tangled Web", I posted notices on www.nowcasting.com (an L.A.-based casting site) as well as a similar site based in NYC. (My film was shooting near Charlotte, NC.) I was very clear that I was casting for a deferred-pay, non-union feature project, and that we could not reimburse travel or accommodations expenses. I described the project in detail, along with detailed character breakdowns. I received over 800 responses from actors willing to travel at their own expense and work on deferred pay just to be part of the project. I was blown away!

Any time you have the budget for it, you should always pay your people. It's the right thing to do. But on a micro-budget like yours, you can still get some great talent -- with extensive resumes -- even if you can only offer deferred pay.
 
tired said:
Paid! - good god no! - why would we want to be paid to spend 3+ weeks shooting a feature not to mention learning lines & any reheaseal time - no, it's worth working for nothing just because we know that your film is going to be HUGE!!!!! - Defered payment is fine because it'll make millions and there'll be plenty for everyone.

I understand micro budget but you'll need lighting & a camera - there are some things you just can't do without - perhaps wanting to pay nothing for your actors tells us how much you value their work. Sorry if
i'm sounding harsh but I've been around for quite a while and I can't count the number of times I've heard - "I've already got a theatre release" "it's been selected for XYZ film festival" "my uncle is Spielbergs gardener" or the great standard " you'll get a DVD copy"

Look at your script - how many main, supporting, featured etc - if they're only there for a couple of days you might find people that are interested but you have to pay your main actors - how do you expect to get anyone with any talent/dedication/commitment if you value their work at... nothing.
Click to expand...

Haha, no offence taken. I'm with ya.

I like what you said. Hscully, about actors potentially leaving for a paid gig.

Looks like I'm going to need to acquire more money. Oh well, like you guys have said, it's the right thing to do.

Thank's for the input all !
 
panag3 said:
Hello everyone.

I'm hoping to shoot my first micro budget feature this summer. I've cast and shot about half a dozen short films, but this will be my first feature.

My question is this: Generally speaking, do actors expect to be paid on low budget features? - Or is the point system enough for them to justify spending 3 + weeks making one movie.

I will of course be taking care of food, travel, and lodging, but my budget is tight, and I can't shell out any more after that.

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I should add that my budget is around $12k. So it's really a no budget production.
Click to expand...

As an actor, you can guess my answer: PAY THEM.
 
If I need good people - technical, artistic, musical - whatever, then they need paying. Extra bodies, over and above the required compliment can be 'for experience', but if the people are worth using, they're worth paying. Most of these people have been burned in the past, and they're all told by their peers that promises, points, percentages etc are all just excuses for not being paid. Few contributors have any drive to work for free, because they don't share the vision the producer/director has. It's a job. My phone rings, and if I need the work, I say how much, then I say yes, then ask what it is. Actors rarely get excited by what they do - they could be doing a really prestige job one day, and the day after wearing a stupid costume doing a really terrible advert - if they pay the mortgage, they're good jobs. I just turned down a really great job, in a foreign country that would take me 4 weeks, and be almost a holiday because of two days work that pays virtually the same - but that leaves twenty odd free days on the calendar. Food on the table comes first!
 
Depends on the level of actor you want to get
Depends on how much they believe in you and the project I'm sure if an actor believes it can get big they are more open
You almost have to set your plan of paying or not and then cast with actors willing to do that.

You will need to find actors who have the free time to do that for free
 
DeathChamberzMusic said:
Depends on the level of actor you want to get
Depends on how much they believe in you and the project I'm sure if an actor believes it can get big they are more open
You almost have to set your plan of paying or not and then cast with actors willing to do that.

You will need to find actors who have the free time to do that for free
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up.

The great dilemma is always - wait until you have money to pay actors, or try to do it with free actors. Sometimes waiting can turn into an eternity and we all have limited time on this earth. People say: "if you got money for the camera and gear, how come you don't for actors?", but it's the same exact situation - people wait until they have money for gear (unless they can get it for free!), and some projects just never get off the ground because there isn't money for gear. The reasoning can go the other way too: wait until you can afford NAME actors, because the distribution game is NAME actors, not merely actors. There was a recent Reddit AMA with a distributor and basically the message is that you really, really, really, really, really, really need a NAME to get decent distribution and hope to make any money at all - and that means your budget really must be $500K or above. But what if you can't get name actors? Well, then you should spend as little money as humanly possible - like $10K. If you spend $10K, you have a shot - small, small shot - of returning your money. If you spend $100K, you have no name actors and your odds of recovering that money is about 0 with extreme exceptions. So the idea is that if you want to at least return your investment, you have two choices: get a name actor, and that means spend $500K or more - OR - spend $25K and under. Anything inbetween is a LOSS.

So, should you wait until the day you have $500K for a name actor? You might wait forever. Or should you shoot now for $25K or less - and that means most likely not paying your actors.

It's a tough choice. We'd all love to pay everybody fair $, for fair work. But then there's reality. Do the best you can, and the choice is yours.
 
We've made two features under 12K each, and always managed to pay the key actors. Rule of thumb is if they work more than one day, they get paid. The ones that are asked to show up and shoot for only a few hours for free are happy. The actors that work several days get paid and are happy. Actors are non SAG but pay is similar to SAG low budget. Payroll is around 33% of the budget. I find that people getting paid (and fed well) show up on time and work hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top