Extras (as zombies) did not get paid
Not ethical
Sure, the extras wanted to do it, but that's not the point.
Isn't that the point of volunteering?
share
MovieChat Forums > Day of the Dead (1985) Discussion > Extras (as zombies) did not get paid
I would do it for free if it got me on film. The fun and exposure would be satisfying.
When you are not concerned with succeeding, you can work with complete freedom.
Well, it's fun, I suppose the first time around, but not as a living. I, personally, would feel the need to give back--not because I'm obligated, but as a courtesy--to the "zombies" who helped me become rich and famous. But, that's just me.
shareThey got a dollar and a prop newspaper signed by George Romero.
Was it a millionaire who said "Imagine no possessions"?
If the volunteers enjoyed it, fine, but this would never go over in Hollywood. Also, Romero was rich by this time.
Also, Romero was rich by this time.
So, you expect Romero to pay the extras out of his own pocket? Doesn't work that way. That would have been up to United. Plus, Romero had to completely redesign his original vision because of budget constraints.
And, as recently as 2006, Troma Films put out Poultrygeist, with over 300 unpaid extras living in an abandoned church with one working bathroom for a couple of months. And, they weren't just extras, some were part of the crew. They volunteered. Check out the "Poultry In Motion" documentary for more on that.
Some people have such a love for movies that they will volunteer just to be a part of it.
Rex
When movie hell is full, re-makes shall walk the earth. share
I would have PAID THEM to let me be in "Dawn of the Dead" !!!!!!!
"In every dimension , there's another YOU!"
So, you expect Romero to pay the extras out of his own pocket? Doesn't work that way. That would have been up to United. Plus, Romero had to completely redesign his original vision because of budget constraints.
Listen, I know, it's hard in our cynical world, but try:
It's not about HAVING to, but the joy of giving rather than receiving. Most people may not work on that level, but I am speaking about something emotional, not the superficial --regardless of it's business or pleasure. If you bought me a lottery ticket as a lark --and I won a few hundred million, I don't owe you anything, but I would enjoy giving you a few hundred thousand for making it happen.
This is not about the extras complaining, being forced nor expecting anything, nor budget constraints or redesigning. It would be a way of "thank-you", whether it's expected or not.
share
Romero was not really "rich" at that time. His movies did fairly well, but Day of the Dead made less than half of it's budget back on opening weekend. Not really a blockbuster. It was really only later that the movies became such cult classics. You seem to have an idealistic view of the movie industry (the way you think it should be), which is fine, but I believe you have unrealistic expectations of how business is conducted.
Just my opinion,
Rex
When movie hell is full, re-makes shall walk the earth.
REx
This is getting complicated. This is not about Day of the Dead. And I dont' know what you mean about him not being rich after the astounding success of the original NOTLD. Is there a problem with that? But, even if it did not make him rich, I was not speaking about handing 1000.00 to every extra.
Again:
1. The business does not officially dictate that a director owes anything if the extra volunteers
2. If the extras are fine with it, so be it.
3. I am telling you what I would do after the film became a mega-million dollar success. It's a way of giving back to those who helped me, even if they offered. And also what might be nice for directors/producers to do.
Being nice/grateful does not contradict expectations with "business"; it's ok to have emotion/feelings when doing business. It's not black & white. I don't HAVE to say "thanks" when you hold the door for me either, or tip you for serving me, but it's nice to do so.
By the way, I know they are no longer used, and do not sell as much, but having a box of ~~THANK YOU cards on hand does not hurt either for any occasion that arises (even though having to actually spend 2 mins. addressing an envelope and affixing a stamp is evidently a real drag these days)
In summary: I'd say you are feeling defensive over Romero because you think I am insulting him. You should not feel personally affected by my thread. (the usual reaction)
First off, I will say that I have no personal investment in this. It is just a discussion about movies. So, I do not feel personally affected, I assure you. George Romero missed out on a ton of money on NOTLD because the studio dropped the ball, and allowed it to become Public Domain. I just still think you have altruistic views about what you think you would do in that situation. Romero had no idea that his films would become such cult classics, there was no way to know. As far as he knew, what he had made off of the first two films might have to support him and his family for the rest of his life.
I applaud you for believing you would act differently in that situation, and I would like to think that there are people out there that would. But for 99% of the population, people are going to look after themselves and their loved ones first. Not some people that volunteered to shamble around for a few days for free meals and a t-shirt. Sorry if that seems to be a pessimistic view of the world we live in, but I have been trudging around on this rock for a while.
Kudos to you and your outlook on life. I hope there are no hard feelings.
Rex
When movie hell is full, re-makes shall walk the earth.
Sorry if that seems to be a pessimistic view of the world we live in, but I have been trudging around on this rock for a while. Kudos to you and your outlook on life.Rex, you are correct about having a pessimistic view on this type of thing; I am agreeing with you all this time. I've been trudging around on the rock also for a while, which is what prompted to even make the thread. Of course my outlook is too idealistic. I'm not looking for applause, only that I wish it didn't have to be idealistic, but a reality. (if Romero did not become rich over NOTLD, then I was mistaken about that)
Instead of the extras, maybe a more realistic view would be to retroactively pay the co-stars a "bonus" for this type of film that makes unexpected mega-millions, but that doesn't happen either (maybe some directors/producers have, I dont know) Thanks for your reply.
share
IY, you have probably read this in the trivia:
All the extras who portrayed zombies in the climax received for their services: a cap that said "I Played A Zombie In 'Day of the Dead'", a copy of the newspaper from the beginning of the film (the one that says THE DEAD WALK!), and one dollar.Romero was also restricted by budget and couldn't do what he originally wanted to do. I guess he took advantage of any cost saving opportunity that he could to complete the film and we don't really know if they did receive some sort of residual check. If they knew what was involved and were content to play the zombies for free, then perhaps the enjoyment they had was worth more than getting paid. Whatever fiscal gratitude or ingratitude that Romero had towards his zombie extras, is really his to own and does he really owe them anything, just because of what you feel his obligations are?
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪 share
Maybe the budget was limited. Also, must have been an honor to be in the movie. The actors were not forced.
share