Feature Film - Ridiculous rate

[geoff shotz]

i'm just gonna throw this out there. with all the new and evolving technology/cameras, are we gonna have to start dividing up the rates not just on the budget of the project, but maybe also what level of gear could actually do the job? if it is indeed a $1 mil movie offering $250 a day, but they are flying say an ex-3, is the rate terribly offensive if you could do the job with a package that really only cost $10k? what if a flyer or pilot maybe (forgive me, i don't know the weight or price ranges on these rigs) will do the job. i own a big rig, but if i had a smaller rig and they only needed that for a job, how offended would i be at what rate? if the camera is not too heavy, it's not that abusive on the body. and if the gear is cheap, my overhead and payback are lower and quicker. can i afford to sell my experience cheaper for small projects without being offended is the real question. there are too many release venues these days. i've met a lot of people that are doing movies out of their pockets with pro-sumer equipment. all they are trying to do is make a project for festivals or dvd or their church in one case. of course this all goes out the window if they need the big boy toys for $250 a day, but what about all the truly 'indie' projects or you tube music videos out of someones garage? maybe we should all pitch in with the other ops in our towns and buy a light weight rig for those kind of projects. maybe there is a middle ground where we aren't feeling offended by producers offers and they can get an experienced op for a day without being too resentful of us. plus, all the newbies could do the 2nd or 3rd days and get experience, make some money, and not bring real rates down in the process. i propose a conversation that involves rates vs. camera vs. budgets vs. equipment needed so that we can stay true to ourselves and keep us in touch with the emerging nature of the market. things are only gonna get tougher in the next year or 2, so let's try not to kill each others hard work all these years through possible desperation and the obvious greed and dirty politics of productions. i'm sure i'm opening up a tempests storm here, but where are the lines of what is okay? let it begin!

 

 

geoff

[Dan Coplan]

You get what you pay for.

 

Imagine what a $250.00 a day steadicam shot looks like.

 

This is the problem with productions like Hallmark. They don't care what the shot looks like so long as they find someone to work for peanuts. And they do.

 

I worked Hallmark in the beginning. Tried so hard to get a decent rate - impossible. But it was decent enough considering I needed the experience, they shoot 35, and they gave me DVD dailies right away which helped fill out my reel. And at the end of the day some money was better than no money, though I wouldn't have done it without the other benefits.

 

They liked me and wanted me back when I decided I couldn't work for them anymore for what they were paying. I tried to negotiate - to meet in the middle which would have been barely acceptable, but acceptable nonetheless, and a killer deal for them. No dice so I walked. And they found someone else.

 

Dan

[Amando Crespo]

Ha, ha, ha...Dan, you´ve reason:

"This is the problem with productions like Hallmark. They don't care what the shot looks like so long as they find someone to work for peanuts".

May be a new expression for low valets..... "MONKEYS".

I remember an old slogan for Bell helmets: "....If your brain cost a dollar, buy a helmet of a dollar...". It´s the same for some producers....If you production cost.... MMMMMMMM....Sighs and pains of the soul...

By all means, I don´t want to be a lying one... I can work for pilots or short students films with really few rates or free.... But isn´t the same...

Well....

Peace and love for all....

[Mike McGowan SOC]

geoff said what i was trying to say........... With an academy award winning director and a big shot ASC DP and multi million dollar talent, I want and should get my full rate (and they wouldnt work with somebody that would work for less). But, for a music video for a new group shot on mini dv to go straight to YouTube by an independent label, I would understand somebody working for a really low rate. Just because I woln't do the job myself doesnt mean i have contempt for the operator that does it.

 

mm.

[Henry Gelhart]

But, for a music video for a new group shot on mini dv to go straight to YouTube by an independent label, I would understand somebody working for a really low rate.

 

Yes you're right. I had a similar situation some weeks ago. A student wanted to make a little "feature film" about the World Finance Crisis to show it at the local theater.

The set was about 2 miles away and the shooting day appx. 6 hours long.

Because it was the only Steadicam shot, I made it for free. I like those "producers" of local

University movies, with a budget of $1000 so I support it.

 

But $250/day for a Los Angeles Feture film! Haha I am sorry!

 

HG

[Mike Germond SOC]

They should move that shoot to Michigan and hire me...Then they maybe they could afford a proper rate with the 46% they get back from the state government..

[Sydney Seeber]

I don't know man, personally I'm not too worried about it... Yeah I'm pretty inexperienced with the steadicam thing, but not with life. There's no way anyone is going to stay in business working that kind of salary, and be able to afford the right equipment, let alone a mortgage and braces for little Sally, and let's don't forget to have Spot neutered. If someone does take that job, they'll be gone soon enough. Insane low-balling may be a relatively new thing to the steadicam world, but not to the rest of the entertainment industry... I used to make a lot of videos for people, and I'd say that 95% of prospective work that was offered was financially impossible to pull off. I learned within a couple of years how to blow off those who didn't have a clue within 20 seconds of the initial phone call. The photography business is even worse. EVERYone has an SLR camera, and there's plenty of hot girls out there who love to get their picture taken. Thus is born wildly popular - yet completely financially useless - sites such as ModelMayhem. No one, and I mean no one, is making any real money there. They all have one thing in common, though. A really expensive hobby... That's all it'll ever be. Some how though, there are a lot of photographers who can still make an excellent salary. The basics of business don't really change that much. Film making equipment is only going to get cheaper... And better. A seasoned producer knows what experience and equipment is needed to make their investment pay off, though. The result is incredibly obvious in the end. If it looks really amateurish, well, Youtube-bound it is...

I also don't see the entertainment industry as getting amateurish, either... It's just expanding. 15 years ago, there wasn't Youtube or 10000 channels on basic cable. Now there is, and with that is a market for lower quality equipment, to include pseudo-steadigear. The high end gear will always have a place... If I were budgeting a $200 million movie, I'd want to have as many assurances in place as possible. If my budget is $20,000, well... I get what I can.

[Lars Erik]

A producer I know hired a DP. The DP was cheap, and the producer laughed a bit about it. Saying the DP got the job because he was cheap. That's most likely what the producer, director and DP will say about this operator. And the chance of that operator getting the job when the same producer, DP or director has a bigger job to offer, is next to zero. The operator who does this will not benefit himself nor the the community in the US.