ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yes. My health plan is to stay healthy
Writer's Guild Going on Strike
- Thread starter Paul F
- Start date
Yes. My health plan is to stay healthy
ahalpert
Major Contributor
That's a good one
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Personally, I got into filmmaking because I love movies. Getting to work on art and entertainment, even if it was bad, held a personal satisfaction that I've eschewed in favor of easier/better/more reliable pay working hours that are far more conducive to parenting, especially since I never have to travel anymore. But I'd be lying if I said that I make what I make because I love the product. I like the people I work with in the various types of filmmaking I do. I enjoy the process and the technique wearing my various hats. But I've definitely moved into work adjacent to what I actually wanted to do because it lets me be home with the family more and provide for them more reliably and comfortably.
It would be smart to hang out a shingle as a production company rather than freelance as a shooter and editor... but I'm not a natural salesman, I hate negotiating, and I hate administration. I'm in a sweet spot of workflow enjoyment right now that I hope I can sustain and grow for another 30 years...
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Could you expand on that? Just the fear of being fired and replaced?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Probably just depends on what you want to work on? How many Emmy- and Oscar-nominated productions are using non-union DPs?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
In some ways, I think streamers have been terrible for the industry. For example, now they're all trending towards prioritizing plans with ads because they've realized they can make more money that way. (And their ads are carelessly littered throughout the program rather than timed to the commercial breaks in the original program! At least from what I've seen on programs only available on free ad-supported streamers. I pay for non-ad plans for our streaming platforms. (Which i churn. Churning rules.))
And they're increasing the cost of their subscriptions because they were unsustainably low.
So you're ending up right where you started with broadcast. $80-100/month to get the total variety of programming you want, with commercials. Except that in the meantime they've devastated their competitor (broadcast) with their debt-fueled loss leader, and they've conditioned the customer to expect more for less. Plus the boom and coming bust of production that you mentioned...
What's the JW forum?
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Strange flex. Personally don’t give a (what was the word?)
*poop* about Emmy or Oscar awards or who gets them. Ranks closely behind the number of TikTok followers I have in importance…
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah but so is money. Generally the most artistically enriching projects are not the most financially enriching. And I'm using awards as a stand-in for quality scripted drama projects with real budgets, most of which I think will be union
alaskacameradude
Veteran
One of the interesting things about this line of work is how different people get into it for drastically different reasons.
I personally didn’t get into this to become ‘artistically enriched.’
And again if union projects are ‘artistically enriching’ at the
expense of being ‘financially enriching’ (which is what I think
you are saying?) I have to question the value of union negotiators or being in said union at all. Unless of course
that is why you got into this line of work….to become
enriched artistically. In that case quickly join the union?
I think I must be misinterpreting you. Sorry reading text
makes it hard to understand these things sometimes. Scripted drama projects? Why is that the ‘standard’ you are choosing? Because those are typically the union projects?
Last edited:
There is no doubt that streaming is broken. It's a bad model. It's lead to a boom of production with the costs all artificially inflated because they're all trying to compete for the same shallow talent pool. Turns out it's quite hard to make consistently good TV and few are good enough at doing it consistently.
There are different economics at play though. The tech companies see this as just part of their eco-system, a way to keep you buying stuff, be it hardware (apple) or stay on their shopping platform for everything (amazon) and they are both intrinsically anti organised labour. They see this as a kind of loss leader they need to create a closed circle where you stay on their platforms spending money. Apple take 30% of whatever you spend. They don't care if Hulu are loosing money, they take 30% of their subscription just for providing the platform.
Meanwhile the traditional studios like Sony (who have no streaming platform), Warners, Universal etc would likely LOVE to do a deal and get on with it because they all make money from other avenues aside from streaming. (AKA broadcast) which believe it or not, is still massive business.
Oh. And cinema owners would like a word.
Last edited:
Bassman2003
Veteran
Good point Doug. Media companies have been successful in the past but they are nowhere near and Apple or Amazon in terms of free cash flow etc... The tech companies coming into the space and throwing money around just makes the whole thing pear shaped. There is a good chance that "streaming" as a business is a loser. I see binge watching as killing the industry. Content creation just can't keep up with the consumption. This leads to way more churn between streaming platforms etc...
The writers have their valid points about compensation but I fear the industry might not be strong enough to meet them outside of a few players. I think it would be unpopular but the streamers need to find a way to cut down on the churn of bouncing between services just to gobble up a show's season then move on. Back to the cable model...what?
The writers have their valid points about compensation but I fear the industry might not be strong enough to meet them outside of a few players. I think it would be unpopular but the streamers need to find a way to cut down on the churn of bouncing between services just to gobble up a show's season then move on. Back to the cable model...what?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
If all I cared about were making money, I'd be on wall street. I came here because if you love what you do for work, you never work a day in your life.
I think that even top-shelf DPs make less money per time on features than they do on commercials. But I'm guessing that the features are more fulfilling for them. (And either way, they're making great money.)
Or there's what Doug Jensen said about taking on non-profit work because he likes the organization. Maybe it's more spiritually-enriching rather than artistically-enriching.
Edit: actually, this sort of reminds me of what John Brawley said about eschewing gear fees. He said that ditching the motive to have production use his gear so he could get a gear fee was part of his evolution towards better work because it freed him up to test and recommend the best tools for the project, even though it was painful to lose that money in the short term. And he's not the first person I heard say that.
Last edited:
jwsoundgroup.net is a forum for production sound professionals founded by Jeff Wexler.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
. I think it would be unpopular but the streamers need to find a way to cut down on the churn of bouncing between services just to gobble up a show's season then move on. Back to the cable model...what?
I think it would be as simple as only offering an annual subscription. But I don't see the monthly offering going away
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I doubt I would be. You probably have to be
somewhat intelligent to make money on Wall
Street. But obviously making videos seems like
more of a ‘fun’ job than some office worker.
After my 5th straight 12 hour day running around
shooting a doc though I can say it’s a lot more
‘fun’ from the outside looking in, like most things.
I just don’t get this bent towards ‘artistically enriching’
or ‘spiritually enriching’ and how it tends to be tied
to scripted narrative projects. Working on someone
else’s idea for a ‘great zombie thriller’ is not leaps and
bounds better than working on a documentary on the
fishing industry in Alaska or a commercial for ‘Grunden
raingear….as used by everyone on the Deadliest Catch’
or whatever corporate branding film is your particular
favor. I mean if you are more fulfilled that way, go nuts!
I just don’t understand it, as it’s all pretty much the
same to me (outside of perhaps certain non profit
promos which might tend to at least make you feel
that you are contributing to a good cause.
But narrative is just mindless entertainment, no
particular good cause there.)
I guess one difference is the narrative projects
tends to have bigger crews (maybe because of unions
and the separation between all departments?) for sure.
Lots of smaller docs have guys who are B cam ops,
plus DIT, plus setting up lighting and sound and
so on. So maybe that’s part of the attraction of
narrative as they tend to have more of a ‘proper’
(union) crew with sharply defined roles and specializations.
I on the other hand like the variety that comes with
smaller crew work, not to mention the ability to
set my own pay rate totally separate from
what a union thinks my pay rate should be.
Last edited:
Most of the best zombie movies have a greater subtext that they are exploring. Yeah they can be mindless entertainment, but what's wrong with that? Surfing is mindless. Driving a car fast in circles is mindless. There's nothing wrong with entertainment for it's own sake.
We have told each other stories since the beginning of humanity. It's one of the most human things we do.
Doing a commercial or a corporate doco means you're using the craft of storytelling to directly sell a product or a message, something that leads to direct commerce. That's a big difference in my view and changes everything about how you work.
I've worked on commercials and narrative drama. Commercials have Clients, Agency producers and Production company producers on set telling the director what to do, literally shot by shoot.
The difference is you don't have a "client" monitor on a narrative set. The storytelling you're doing is for its own sake, not to sell widgets. In movies the director tends to be answerable only to themselves. The few times I've seen producers or studios get involved its a lot more respectful. TV is a bit different because you do have showrunners.
Not to take away at all from commercials and corporate doco because I've sure done those as well. I just prefer when the creative decisions are just about what's best for storytelling, not what's best for making money.
I am in this business because I love storytelling, I love being a part of a team and collaborating on a creative outcome. For a long time I didn't get paid very well for what I did but I didn't care because I was involved in making images that entertain, that people remember and celebrate. I love doing this with friends, going through extreme working conditions and emotionally elevated circumstance to try and solve story telling problems finding ways to elevate the work of my cohort and peers. I'm not in the "business" for making money because there are so many better ways of making money out there than this.
Or maybe because narrative drama requires more support? Makeup? Wardrobe? Hey the film is set in space so you need someone to build the space ship set? Stunts? Background actors?
Of course there are many models of production that don't need the trappings. Look to independent cinema or just work in other countries to compare America's "Cadillac" style of production means.
One really common difference is camera operators. Most DP's that come from other countries are also operators. Look at any set photo of Roger Deakins or Greig Fraser and they are always operating unless it's Steadicam. In the US union system you HAVE to hire an operator even if you are used to being the DP and the operator. That for me is pure protectionism.
Guess what those bigger DP's do? They hire "ghost" operators. An operator that just sits in the corner while the DP operates. That is the downside of the union protectionism mentality.
So do I. In the last few years I've done a narrative short where I was the only crew person, for three cast. The very last thing I did a week ago was a non-union commercial with one electric and one grip and one AC.
Still with this BS? Sorry but only I set my rate of pay. It has nothing to do with what the union sets as a minimum rate of pay (and conditions), just like minimum pay doesn't mean we're all communists working for the same minimum rate. Do you work for minimum wage? You don't. Does having a minimum wage determine what you charge? Because that's your logic here.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Doug, are you suggesting alaskacameradude and I are making up this "BS" about union producers calling us and saying they have standard union rates which happen to be lower than our regular rates? I wasn't necessarily saying the union directly set the rate, but there is a correlation between union jobs and producers using the term "union rates" to be unwilling to negotiate higher rates. I don't think it really matters whether this phenomena is directly the union's fault or not, but it is something that has been happening from producers calling from union shoots. Maybe that is not your personal experience, but it has been mine, and as we said, it doesn't exactly entice us to join a union or think positively about unions in terms of the rates from union jobs.
________
I think one difference between narrative and corporate work as a freelance DP is narrative tends to allow more creativity, where you can get all artsy fartsy, try new lighting styles, unque camera movements, specialty lenses, etc., while on a corporate shoot, most of the time is best to do standard three point lighting for interviews and pretty flat lighting for b-roll, if you're using lighting for b-roll at all. Commercials that are made like 30 second cinematic movies can be much more creative from a DPing standpoint, but a lot of corporate and commercial work is not narrative style.
Filming interviews for me was rather fun and stylistically challenging for the first 10 years I did it, trying different lenses, lighting gear, learning the basics like which side to key from, etc., but after 10 years of doing it, trying a variety of setups, eventually it has just become rather clockwork for me, not much of a challenge, and rather boring.
________
I think one difference between narrative and corporate work as a freelance DP is narrative tends to allow more creativity, where you can get all artsy fartsy, try new lighting styles, unque camera movements, specialty lenses, etc., while on a corporate shoot, most of the time is best to do standard three point lighting for interviews and pretty flat lighting for b-roll, if you're using lighting for b-roll at all. Commercials that are made like 30 second cinematic movies can be much more creative from a DPing standpoint, but a lot of corporate and commercial work is not narrative style.
Filming interviews for me was rather fun and stylistically challenging for the first 10 years I did it, trying different lenses, lighting gear, learning the basics like which side to key from, etc., but after 10 years of doing it, trying a variety of setups, eventually it has just become rather clockwork for me, not much of a challenge, and rather boring.
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
As I said I'm doing more producing and directing than freelance DPing these days, so I no longer really have any aspirations to be a high end freelance DP. Now, I wouldn't mind winning an Academy Award or Emmy as a producer/director, but it's not that high on my life goals and also unlikely, and to self fund my own projects, I don't need to join a director's or producer's union.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
On the subject of producers telling you guys (Eric and alaskacameradude) that they are paying "union rates"...on what kind of jobs? Local 600 doesn't have rate scales for commercials, corporates, industrials, docs etc. There are a good 10 different rate cards covering a variety of television and feature projects, and there are different rates for Western, Eastern and Central regions. The closest thing to a standard union rate would be the Basic Agreement, which is currently $126.90/hr, 8 hr minimum call. But if the type of work you are being asked to do would not fall under what the Basic Agreement covers, it's pretty much irrelevant. They could simply say the rate we budgeted is $1000 day, versus saying we used a union rate. It doesn't matter either way. They put a number into a budget and that's what they want to pay. Whether it is a signatory or non-signatory job, you or your agent have every right to counter that rate with a higher one. As Doug is pointing out, it's just a basement number and somehow suggesting that the union is a bad thing because they say that is a strange way to think about it. What if they offered $600 instead? With gear? Like plenty of jobs do now? Has nothing to do with the union, has everything to do with the producers and their budgeting.
Doug Bee, on the mandatory staffing of operators and protectionism. Years ago some DP's including Roger successfully lobbied the local to allow them to circumvent this mandatory staffing. So now, if the DP requests in prep that they intend to operate themselves, production is not required to hire a standby operator. At the same time, what is protected is that production cannot force the DP to operate, and they cannot make that a condition of employment, which is often the case in non-union situations. This not only protects operators from losing work, it protects the DP from having to do two jobs (and yes I do believe that they are two jobs, especially when multiple cameras are involved that the DP has to oversee). What this is really about is once again, keeping the producers from exploiting the crew so they can save some money. Make sense?
Doug Bee, on the mandatory staffing of operators and protectionism. Years ago some DP's including Roger successfully lobbied the local to allow them to circumvent this mandatory staffing. So now, if the DP requests in prep that they intend to operate themselves, production is not required to hire a standby operator. At the same time, what is protected is that production cannot force the DP to operate, and they cannot make that a condition of employment, which is often the case in non-union situations. This not only protects operators from losing work, it protects the DP from having to do two jobs (and yes I do believe that they are two jobs, especially when multiple cameras are involved that the DP has to oversee). What this is really about is once again, keeping the producers from exploiting the crew so they can save some money. Make sense?
That's not exactly my experience.
My understanding is actually that you have to apply for a waiver on each and every show if the DP wants to operate a camera and it's two cameras or less. The DP can't just expect to operate on a show by themselves without hiring an operator. Can you name a show that does?
But in many parts of the rest of the world it is routine for the DP to be the A camera operator. You may believe that operating is a seperate job that should be protected, but it's just not the way the rest of the world works. People like Roger and Greig have come up working that way. I've seen many excellent DP operators try to negotiate a mandatory operator in the US and it not go well.
It is protectionism. It's mandatory staffing and it's at the project by project whim of the local. So be it. I think these days it's mostly not a problem because there's rarely single camera shows any more and even single camera shows generally want a specialist like a Steadicam op, but it's only in US union shows that the operator position is enshrined as a seperate position.
And I totally support a production NOT forcing a DP to operate if they don't want to. From what I've seen, most US trained DP's are usually mediocre operators too unless they've specifically come though operating