Prodigi Pictures
Carbonite Member
a
Last edited:
SAG strike
- Thread starter smashedburrito
- Start date
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
I, for one, don't think I could live off of 30 bucks a day...
Prodigi Pictures
Carbonite Member
a
Last edited:
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
The second, of course. I realize the guy wants to do this as a passion project, but the numbers just don't add up. I mean, I need to eat and not be homeless.
Actors have bills to pay, unless the actor you're working with is in high school... that's the only way you could ever get away with something like that.
The only way I'll work for nothing is if I know the person well and that's only shooting on the weekends.
How can you seriously only pay someone 150 per week if you're shooting all 5 days? Is that person independently wealthy? My rent payment alone is more than that. Am I missing something??
Actors have bills to pay, unless the actor you're working with is in high school... that's the only way you could ever get away with something like that.
The only way I'll work for nothing is if I know the person well and that's only shooting on the weekends.
How can you seriously only pay someone 150 per week if you're shooting all 5 days? Is that person independently wealthy? My rent payment alone is more than that. Am I missing something??
Last edited:
jls4
Veteran
I don't have pain in the back of my neck. again, check your own pride and look at what I majorly was referring to. I only got on you for one thing really in my post which I found was some what offensive.
I took your advise and maybe you should re-read what I said. I said "I thank you for the wisdom that you have given this board, the wisdom you have given to me and many others" - That's not saying that I'm listening?! That's not saying thank you?! That's me having an ego? too much Pride?
Wow! I thought saying something nice to someone was a good thing.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) However I can see if you took it sarasticlly, which it was not meant to be.I never said it wasn't good. What I said was "What's interesting to me is of the implication that just because someone isn't getting paid; they are not good or a professional." Which basically means in my side of the world, there are lots of great Actors. Many who just want to work. And they are willing to come out for a Director /Producer they trust. That's what I said and meant.
You're good at one thing when it comes to anyone who doesn't agree with you, and that's to try and turn it on them as if they are these emotional bags of crying mess. I was referring to a thread and the ability to get money. Money solves things like "paying actors." If I had it I would have done it. I did pay my two celebs because I had to, they didn't know me. But the others knew me and they knew my intentions.
This thread started because of the desire of a poster to get information about using SAG Actors. SAG actors have to be paid, my original argument, since the poster doesn't have much money, is to try and find actors who may be just as good and are looking for a break.
I applaud you again. I had $300 for my first feature. I'd have loved to have $7K. :beer:
Again I never said you were fully insulting me. And I never blew your experience off. Again I applauded you for it several times. I'm just not going to sit back and have you lecture, a direct statement towards me and not say anything. I was trying to make my point LOUD AND CLEAR to you, since I've noticed that you are the type that lashes out at those don't share your opinions.
The only issue, throughout your argument that you haven't faced is this one point. The point I was trying to make and the one you didn't seem to read.
-I don't believe that not paying actors means you will:
A. have Bad Actors
B. not care about your Actors
That's my whole point. You got caught up in the Bull$hit line instead of the point I was trying to make.
I'm going to leave it at this. My lead actor is a great actor, he's been in several Hollywood Feature Films, but he hasn't gotten enough screen time to warrant any celebrity on himself. Many of the actors I've been able to work with are in the same boat, they want to work on good projects. As you and Zak and many others say "A Good Script will attract actors." Guess what? I had a good script and a great reputation. So people came to work for me for free. What's so unbelievable about that? If you thought working for someone would boost your career, would you not do it? I would. I've worked for several people including a very prominent African-American Director for free, just to get my foot in the door.
According to Wikapedia:
Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes.
In #34 of your thread you wrote.
Question: Does this only apply to you? Or can you see that other people may be able to do the same thing?
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)rogar-SunGlass(DBGrogar-BigGrin(DBG)rogar-SunGlass(DBGProdigi Pictures
Carbonite Member
a
Last edited:
jls4
Veteran
Hey Tom, I'll clarify on my part. Firstly yes, we do shoot weekends, since we all have 9to5s. That's a good question, one that wasn't asked.
When you're shooting on a super low budget, at least for me, I have to work around schedules. Actors in Atlanta have Day jobs, they don't make their living in movies or TV, doesn't mean they aren't good, just that they haven't had a break.
And above you said a perfect statement "I'll work for nothing is if I know the person well". I've said several times that my actors trust me, I would have thought that the average person would have recognized I didn't just get there over night. I've been working on projects with many of them for years. The others came because of the ones I already knew.
But good question. Maybe if that had been asked, we wouldn't have gone back and forth. It's good to clarify before going into tangents. I keep saying, not everybody has the money to do this (full time <- is implied :beer
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
jls4
Veteran
Justin,
After reading your last reply and what Tom said I think you both sent my statements on a wild goose chase. And misinterpreted what I was saying.
Most of the people I talk to in the 24 Diary are like me they are guys who want the $250K+, but don't have it. So we work our 9-to-5 jobs and get with others who do the same and do our best to put out movies. I've worked on professional sets, but unfortunately there aren't many in Atlanta. Really only Tyler Perry has had constant back to back movies, every one else does one or two projects and they disappear. But the Atlanta Film Community is strong and the cream has pretty much risen to the top. So most of the "good folks" know each other and work with each other. It's not like in LA where you have to figure out who's good and bad and who knows what. In Atlanta, we all know who we are. So our region works differently. That's why I keep saying you can't think it's only one way.
If I paid actors in Atlanta, I'd have the same ones I do now. They litterally are the best! I only have a few actors on my set that needed help, but that was because of political reasons which I don't want to discuss online. But if you shot a movie in Atlanta and used Atlanta actors for your "fillers", you'd have my actors in your movie. :beer:
After reading your last reply and what Tom said I think you both sent my statements on a wild goose chase. And misinterpreted what I was saying.
Most of the people I talk to in the 24 Diary are like me they are guys who want the $250K+, but don't have it. So we work our 9-to-5 jobs and get with others who do the same and do our best to put out movies. I've worked on professional sets, but unfortunately there aren't many in Atlanta. Really only Tyler Perry has had constant back to back movies, every one else does one or two projects and they disappear. But the Atlanta Film Community is strong and the cream has pretty much risen to the top. So most of the "good folks" know each other and work with each other. It's not like in LA where you have to figure out who's good and bad and who knows what. In Atlanta, we all know who we are. So our region works differently. That's why I keep saying you can't think it's only one way.
If I paid actors in Atlanta, I'd have the same ones I do now.
They litterally are the best! I only have a few actors on my set that needed help, but that was because of political reasons which I don't want to discuss online. But if you shot a movie in Atlanta and used Atlanta actors for your "fillers", you'd have my actors in your movie. :beer:
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
$100 per day is really the baseline for a low budget project. It's a classic line, "Well, I can only pay you $100 per day" and then the actor will want to read the script and if he or she likes it, great. I'm at that point and I've been doing this for a while. I won't work for less than that.
What you might not realize is what a serious actor has to do to pursue acting -
First and foremost, actors have bills to pay. They have rent, food, car expenses (gas, insurance, and sometimes a car payment). But they also have to take classes which are very expensive and have headshots taken every so often and mail those headshots, which cost money for shipping. There's just a myriad of costs that an actor has to cover to work as an actor. You just can't pay someone 150 a week and expect that to be ok. 500 a week minimum.
I'm not saying your heart isn't in the right place, but you really need to work that into your budget.
ADDED: Ok, I think I was typing while you were responding. If you're talking 150 for the couple of days and that that's not their main source of income, then yeah - that's OK. $75 a day is reasonable if you both like each other and are willing to sacrifice a bit.
What you might not realize is what a serious actor has to do to pursue acting -
First and foremost, actors have bills to pay. They have rent, food, car expenses (gas, insurance, and sometimes a car payment). But they also have to take classes which are very expensive and have headshots taken every so often and mail those headshots, which cost money for shipping. There's just a myriad of costs that an actor has to cover to work as an actor. You just can't pay someone 150 a week and expect that to be ok. 500 a week minimum.
I'm not saying your heart isn't in the right place, but you really need to work that into your budget.
ADDED: Ok, I think I was typing while you were responding. If you're talking 150 for the couple of days and that that's not their main source of income, then yeah - that's OK. $75 a day is reasonable if you both like each other and are willing to sacrifice a bit.
Prodigi Pictures
Carbonite Member
a
Last edited:
jls4
Veteran
Hope all this drama helps you figure out what you need.
I think the best thing for you to do is remember that everyone is right and wrong and they are saying it al from their own personal opinions and what they personally have been through. Hopefully things will work out. :thumbsup:
smashedburrito
Well-known member
Man, I disappear for a few days and this thread gets posts...
We are planning on shooting with the ultra low budget agreement, but we are working with SAG to try and making some changes. The issue is that we are making a student feature. We don't fit in the student film agreement because we are over 35 minutes long, yet we don't want to go fully ultra low budget because we are a student film (being made for a class) and many of our actors have agreed that if we got the student waiver where we don't have to pay anything, they would still work for some kind of honorarium (probably $75 a day). Luckily most of our SAG actors are local professors who are passionate about the project and willing to take the pay cut.
Will SAG agree to let us modify the ultra low budget agreement to include some of the caveats from the student film agreement? I don't know. If not, well, we will hit the fundraising trail even harder and figure out a way to pay the $100.
Unfortunately if SAG strikes, we are screwed either way.
Thoughts on the situation?
We are planning on shooting with the ultra low budget agreement, but we are working with SAG to try and making some changes. The issue is that we are making a student feature. We don't fit in the student film agreement because we are over 35 minutes long, yet we don't want to go fully ultra low budget because we are a student film (being made for a class) and many of our actors have agreed that if we got the student waiver where we don't have to pay anything, they would still work for some kind of honorarium (probably $75 a day). Luckily most of our SAG actors are local professors who are passionate about the project and willing to take the pay cut.
Will SAG agree to let us modify the ultra low budget agreement to include some of the caveats from the student film agreement? I don't know. If not, well, we will hit the fundraising trail even harder and figure out a way to pay the $100.
Unfortunately if SAG strikes, we are screwed either way.
Thoughts on the situation?
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
No. They're pretty inflexible when it comes to money issues.
Prodigi Pictures
Carbonite Member
a
Last edited:
Michele Seidman
Well-known member
Your knowledge on this stuff is amazing. I may bug you for info one of these days!!!
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
last i spoke to our rep at SAG (a month ago), they stopped issuing the waiver. it's too late now.
This is VERY TRUE. We had asked if it was at all possible to defer the pay to myself and my film partner (we were the main actors plus director/producers/screenwriters and we financed the film) and they said "Sorry, but we cannot make exceptions." So in a nutshell, we had to find more money just to pass it through a payroll service/SAG so we could get paid.
On top of that, our bond was over 5g's due to the number of shooting days we had scheduled. More ironically we ended up paying ourselves meal penalties due to a clerical error when filling out the exhibit g's. Go figure.
Originally I (as an actor) was doing the film regardless of SAG or not. But once we held auditions and found some incredibly talented SAG actors who wanted to work on the film, we had no choice: SAG contract was a must and now I'm very glad that we went this route.
Sorry this was a bit OT, but this clearly shows that SAG will stick to their contracts.
Todd
grinner
Carbonite Member
Whoever just made all these people unemployed, needs a kick in the nads.
If writers going on strike spawned an unscripted title wave, do they really think people are going to re-think their budgets in the name of them?
Man I hope anyone striking is doing it with different intentions than getting a raise.
It was hard enough to hire SAG talent as it was. Now that it's a hassle, man there are shows that need making. They can bring juice boxes to the second streamers.
If writers going on strike spawned an unscripted title wave, do they really think people are going to re-think their budgets in the name of them?
Man I hope anyone striking is doing it with different intentions than getting a raise.
It was hard enough to hire SAG talent as it was. Now that it's a hassle, man there are shows that need making. They can bring juice boxes to the second streamers.
Mattykins
Cute Member
Well to add: money doesn't equate to good.
In the same stroke, there are numerous student films who use talent on a volunteer basis. The show pays for travel and food. And that is it. Those actors are generally happy doing what they love to do. And the film maker can't afford to pay the money. They just don't have it.
I know people should get paid. But some situations exist where it just doesn't work out that way. It doesn't make them any less of a filmmaker. And it doesn't make the talent any less of an actor. Or the production any less of a production.
In the same stroke, there are numerous student films who use talent on a volunteer basis. The show pays for travel and food. And that is it. Those actors are generally happy doing what they love to do. And the film maker can't afford to pay the money. They just don't have it.
I know people should get paid. But some situations exist where it just doesn't work out that way. It doesn't make them any less of a filmmaker. And it doesn't make the talent any less of an actor. Or the production any less of a production.