MovieChat Forums > Colin (2011) Discussion > People should get paid for their time an...

People should get paid for their time and effort!!

posted 15 years ago by Bibbzter
22 replies | jump to latest

I'm not saying that the makers of this film should not be proud of their efforts but to say they spent70 pounds on it is ridiculous. Great publicity stunt but ridiculous. I would love to have been part of it. But here's what bothers me when things like this pops up in the media:

People think anyone is able to do this and they start to complain about the big budgets of movies. They think that all movies can be made for less than 500$. That it's just greedy people who want money to act in them. It makes me really frustrated.

Why is it that people think this is how film should be done? That Hollywood budgets are ridiculous? (Sure the amount of money wasted on stuff is sometimes extreme but that budget however high is returned to the investors most of the time (And that's the bottom line goal for most business.)

What if I started a factory. I started it in a rundown abandoned warehouse. I got 100 of my friends and friends friends to work for free and all the material costs I took out of my own pocket and didn't include into a budget. I asked all people to bring their own food and pay for their own transport themselves to and from the factory. I wouldn't bother insuring the factory or the workers so if anyone got hurt or died there would be manslaughter charges or huge penalties. How many people would say GREAT JOB!! and THIS IS HOW A FACTORY SHOULD BE RUN!! THE BIG FACTORIES OF THE WORLD ARE HAVING TOO HUGE BUDGETS!! ... I mean aren't the workers deserving of a salary and safety while they work??? COME ON!!

So why is it that when making a movie everyone is expected to work for free? They are all worthy of a salary because they dedicate their time and effort. They all deserve to get fed (And feeding 100 people for 18 months isn't cheap, paying hourly rates for 100 people for 18 months is sertainly not cheap).

And also you need editing facilities, a camera, props, permits etc etc ... if your going to make a small film with some friends you might have these things already but if your actually PRODUCING a movie this all are included in the budget.

Making a film is just as any other job except it's usually more time consuming and tougher than a lot of other jobs. What makes it less salary worthy??

If your actually going to make a proper film and pay people accordingly you going to have to work really hard to keep the budget below 2-3 million dollars. It's just a fact.

I'm not saying people shouldn't do indy films and work for free if they want to but I'm saying the public should realize that this is not a business model that would work on most productions. The film people needs a salary to pay for their mortgage, kids and food just like everyone else.

[–] jkokich 15 years ago

If you did start a factory, or any business, and made a product that only you received payment for, then you'd be right about how wrong that is. However, if you said to the people helping you, I have no money to get this made, but when it gets sold, I will pay you for your time and effort, the why not do it all for free? Deferred payments have been around for a long time. If you've ever tried to get a project off the ground through the traditional channels, you'd realize that it is almost impossible for an unknown or less than well-known filmmaker to get anything done. I have several projects that I have been working years on, and I recently decided to do exactly what Mr. Price did; shoot one for nothing, with my friends and whatever we can get our hands on. I'll get insurance, just to be safe, but no one is going to get paid, UNTIL the film makes money, then EVERYONE gets paid. Sometimes that is the only way to get recognized. If Mr. Price keeps all the money and fame for himself, then let's get the pitchforks and torches and go after him. I have a feeling that he will take care of his people, since, with all the publicity, he would have a hard time getting away with not paying them.

[–] film_andy 15 years ago

Have you ever tried to find funding for a film? The money just isn't there, unless you've got contacts, so to get started you have to do whatever you can. The same goes for actors, crew etc. Everyone needs experience, and when you're starting out, if you can't get paid jobs, you take whatever you can get to boost your c.v. The bottom line is: If people don't want to work for free, then don't do it.

[–] mr_Goodbomb 15 years ago

"People" like who? The director did everything, he shot it, he wrote it, he did everything but acting. His friends did that for free. And the zombie extras? The zombies in the original Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead got nothing more than a dollar and that day's newspaper signed by George Romero, and the dealt with several hour long makeup applications in some cases. WHO should get paid?

I'm sure the director, and all the key actors, are getting paid now that it's released on DVD. So, who are you complaining for?

[–] mr_Goodbomb 15 years ago

Also... Have you ever worked on a film set? Indepedent/low budget or studio/big budget? If you're just starting out, fresh out of film school, whatever, you're going to be a production assistant, and you're either going to do it for free (low budget sets) or for next to nothing (studio sets), and you're doing it to put it on your resume. You'll do it a LOT. You'll be doing all the manual labor. You'll be on set, setting up before the actors or director are even awake and tearing down long after they go home. That's just how it works.

With these kinds of low budget, employ-your-friends movies, you don't cast aspiring actors. You cast friends. Even if you do cast aspiring actors, they've done FREE work before to pad their resume. That's how it works. Does it suck? Yes. Is there money to pay for it? No. If it weren't for unpaid, low-budget film sets, there wouldn't be 90% of the films out there. Those guys working on major sets? There's a 9 out of 10 chance they got their start on low-budget sets, too, and an even better chance that they weren't paid for it, either.

[–] allseeing 14 years ago

Just because others have had to do it, doesn't mean it should continue.

Marc Price must be a likeable and charismatic man to get so much for so little, which is a good skill to have, not only in film, but life too. Howver, I doubt many of the others involved will see anything, neither in money nor future success.

[–] film_andy 14 years ago

One could argue that those that appeared in the film free of charge (and have probably limited acting roles beforehand) now have something for their c.v. and showreel? They would have known the score before agreeing to take part.

[–] allseeing 14 years ago

I'm sure actors hear that type of reasoning all the time. Try getting your house fixed up for nothing and tell all the workmen that you promise to tell the next owners of the house they did a good job after you've sold the house for a profit.

At best this movie could be seen as a lovely collaboration between like minded friends. At worst, pure exploitation.

[–] film_andy 14 years ago

And how many times have I heard that old chestnut? I'm sorry, but actors are not in the same league as 'skilled' workers. That's not to say that some actors don't have talent, of course they do. But you cannot compare an actor to, for example, a brain surgeon or a plumber.

[–] allseeing 14 years ago

then you cannot compare the producer/director either so he/she shouldn't expect to have people working for him for nothing.

In answer to your chestnut question, I would say twice.

[–] film_andy 14 years ago

Nice guess, Allseeing, but the answer was "Too many bloody times by hard-done-by 'actors' who need to get off their high horses."

If we had funding (or indeed, a film industry in this country), then sure, pay everyone. The simple, honest answer is if you don't happen to be friends with or related to someone who has 'connections', you have to start on the bottom rung, which often means making a film for no money. No money = no one gets paid. If the producer had contracts with his actors to state 'if the film goes into profit, then xxx percentage will be paid to said actor...', then that's between the producer and his actors.

There is nothing about this project that says to me 'evil producer was out to use and abuse actors', its just how no-budget films get made.

And yes, I've seen the film and no, I didn't like it.

[–] allseeing 14 years ago

I agree if you enter into an amateur film project then you can have whatever agreement you like, but if ever the intent is to improve the profile or finance of one or more of the creators then they should expect to pay for those that helped this happen.

I understand that new film makers cannot get their vision funded, but maybe their vision isn't that good. Like other careers, a few years doing smaller projects and searching for smaller funding will, in the long run, pay dividends.

No film gets made for nothing and actors and crew should be included in that budget in the budgeting stage, rather than expecting them to be the last thing considered. If you can't afford them after paying for cameras and locations etc, then just like that sofa that is £200 out of reach, you can't have it.

A fully funded shoot will get you the best actors, best crew and the confidence that the work is worth funding.

"Hard done by actors" on their "High horses" are usually not very good. Professionals with known CVs that are worth paying are what you need for a decent presentation.

Bitter, hard done by "directors" need to get off their high horses and realise that they aren't the next big thing that everyone should flock around.

[–] film_andy 14 years ago

So basically, what you're suggesting is if you can't afford to pay everybody, then you shouldn't make a film, and that its only the director/producer that is searching to improve their profile? On this mindset, all those who wish to become actors should go to drama school and only do 'professional' paying jobs when they leave drama school? Practically every actor I know has had to do a non-paying job because they didn't have any camera experience or a credit to their name.

I think the people who made 'Colin' were not splashing out tons of cash on props and equipment and saying 'sod the actors, they can work for biscuits'. As much as I didn't like the film, there is something to be said for people who get off their arses and go and do something. To suggest that they shouldn't have made 'Colin' without proper funding is ridiculous. The reality is, as unknown film makers, they would have probably had zero chance of finding funding. There's enough 'famous' film makers who have enough trouble finding finance. Does this mean they shouldn't have made the film? It sounds like you're playing "film-police" by saying what people can and can't do. If someone wants to make a film and has no money, then its up to those involved how they want to do it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a conspiracy to 'use' people for personal gain. Of course people want to gain something from making a film - most would like to think its going to secure them money to make a bigger, better film with a budget.

So all fully-funded shoots are worth funding? Have you seen Transformers 2?!
Just because a film has backing, it doesn't make it more worthy than a film which may have no/low budget. By inferring that those who can't get money = their vision not being very good is pretty insulting. How many films/tv shows have you watched that have been awful? To suggest that those who can't find funding are just worthless anyway is nonsense.

As for these 'bitter, hard done by' directors... who are we referring to here? I'm pretty sure the director of 'Colin' wasn't bitter (seems like a normal bloke), nor does he want people to flock around him, so what's your point by saying this?

[–] allseeing 14 years ago

If you cannot afford to pay people, even a small ammount, then you cannot afford to make a film. That is what a film costs. If you want to make your own projects, with like minded friends who are willing to pitch in, then fine, go ahead.It would be nice if it got commercial success, that those who helped are duly rewarded.

I would say crew and performers who had studied and were good, should avoid doing things for nothing as that is not professional and I'm sure they have unions that would prefer them not to, but if the project interests them, then they can do what they want. I am not the, "film police", just a normal viewer.

It is sad that there is less money around than people who are willing to spend it, but that is because short films and features, especially, are expensive. The idea needs to be good to get that cash. If funding cannot be got, then scale down. You don't have to make a feature to have a calling card as a director or producer and I would suppose that for the actors, a cheap looking overstretched film would be pointless for their reels anyway.

As for Transformers 2? Oh well, I didn't like it either, but it was more sellable than almost all amateur films that appear in ever more, less fussy film festivals in pubs.

Apart from Guy Ritchie who brought Steven Graham back in for Snatch after he appeared in the short for Lock Stock, I can't think of any other examples of that type of loyalty. I have no idea about the crew.

"bitter, hard done by directors", was in defence of "high horsed actors" no other point than that.

[–] film_andy 14 years ago

A few years ago, I worked with Jeremy Piven (from Entourage). At that point, he'd been in a few films (in supporting roles), but wanted to show he could play the leading man. So he not only took a pay cut, but he admitted himself that he'd lost money by taking the opportunity of playing the lead role, in order to show he could play this type of role. So its not entirely as black and white as you may see it. Actors want career longevity as much as anyone else involved with making movies.

To say that if you cannot afford to pay people then you shouldn't make a film, you probably wouldn't see the likes of Robert Rodriguez or Sam Raimi (who have both gone on to make big commercial films, and have both shown loyalty to their 'early-days actors').

Does a film being 'sellable' making it a worthier cause? I don't think so. Its good news for the investors, but often its the viewer that is left feeling short-changed. You seem to be very down on 'amateur' film-making for some reason. Whilst they don't have the budget (which is often reflected in the film itself), they can have more originality and style. (El Mariachi was an 'amateur' film, and whilst its not a classic, its infinitely more enjoyable than a lot of expensive, sellable blockbusters I could mention.)

[–] allseeing 14 years ago

I'm not down on amateur film making at all, merely discussing the OP's topic and in doing so, learning more about the process.

You obviously have very well informed views and for those, I thank you.

Exploitation exists in all professions and all professions, in my opinion, can suffer for that. I understand that this is the model by how the film industry works, but it still doesn't make it any the more palatable to me.

[–] film_andy 14 years ago

Fair comment, and of course exploitation is not acceptable, but I don't see 'Colin' as exploiting those involved (as in they were all willing participants and knew the score), it is simply a means to an end. It is right that everyone should be paid IF there is a budget, but when you're starting out you can't always avoid not paying people. I've worked on no-budget stuff, paid stuff, and I've also done work with a contract in place stating if there is profit, I'd get a cut of the money - and every time, its always been my decision.

[–] mr_Goodbomb 14 years ago

Look down any well-known director's early film cast. George Lucas, THX 1138. Neill Blomkamp, Alive in JoBerg. David Lynch, Eraserhead. George Romero, Night of the Living Dead. The director has went on to big-budget projects where they have nearly limited resources to create whatever film they'd like. The actors are normal people, living in normal houses, working normal jobs... with a few exceptions. Those exceptions are actors who continued to put in the work and made their images and talent known enough to maintain work and gain popularity and acclaim (Harrison Ford, starting with American Graffiti, up to current). The rest... not so much, just like the thousands of directors who created one film and never put that same work in again. Why? Many directors go bankrupt for their first films, and never getting that back certainly doesn't entice them to keep doing it. Acting bankrupts noone unless they get a nice, bug paycheck from a job and spend it irresponsibly.

I can expect that Price has made very little back from his production, enough to keep him traveling to promote his work and pay for it's creation and distribution (even if it did only cost him $70 to create, there's still advertising, distribution, etc etc etc). The actors, and crew, came in for the shoot dates, did their work, and went home.

And, again, I revert you back to my previous statement: work takes experiences and references. In order to get that resume with those things in the media world, you have to do some work for free. This is NOT a new revelation to ANYONE who's studying film production, attempting to create their own works or act as talent in them, or anyone who's done this work before. It (unpaid internships and unpaid acting) is a part of every film program in any town in any country in any part of the world. It's only news to you.

Put out a Craigslist casting notice for a film you claim has definite distribution (meaning it will definitely be finished and sold, and seen by an audience) and that all crew and talent positions are unpaid. See how many actors will clammer to work on it just to get their name and face out there. Is it right? Maybe not, but there isn't enough money in the independent film world to pay everyone and still make films. Is it the way it works, and probably always will? Yup.

[–] allseeing 14 years ago

"Is it right? Maybe not" There it is right there. Just because it happens and has happened, does not mean it should continue.
In the case of "Colin", I agree these are just friends having a laugh making a home video, but production companies advertising on "shooting people" for instance, should know better.

Work experience and training is different to expecting to get something for nothing because you rely on a clamouring work force.

[–] mr_Goodbomb 14 years ago

Oh, give me a break. I'm interested in filmmaking, and I know that it takes unpaid work. Everyone working in film is going to do a number of projects they'll never get compensation for and do purely for the experience and screen credit. I assume you know nothing about this and aren't into film production, or attending school for anything related to it, or this would be no surprise to you. This isn't the humane society, and this isn't some terrible social ill. It's work, and in order to make a name for yourself and get experience and build a resume, you have to do some of it for free.

[–] Bibbzter 14 years ago

What makes the film industry so different? Why should people without experience get exploited? What would happen in other industries if the same idea was applied? If 7-11 would take in new workers and not pay them for a few weeks just because they don't have any experience... There are many producers exploiting workers just because they want to get a foot in the door and by letting it go on the industry will never be able to pay people that are starting out. In the long run it will only hurt the industry more.

I've studied film & TV production and worked on set more than a handful of times and sure I don't mind helping out for free but it's different. It's the "give a finger and soon they'll take the whole arm" syndrome. Just because you are willing to help out for free it shouldn't be expected of you to do so. But with articles in magazines about films being done for 500$ people think that it's absurd to make more expensive films and it just doesn't help the industry one bit.

Deferred payment is a great thing but if you have a deferred payment deal with your cast and crew you can't go telling people the budget is 500$ since the deferred payment is probably more in the 50-100000$ region. It's like saying you bought a house for 20000$(deposit) and then not include the mortgage of 200000$.
It's just lying about the cost and no one will gain from it long term.

[–] pmdawn 14 years ago

Well now that the movie is more well-known everyone who worked on it (mostly novices) also has a better chance of getting publicity and opportunities. Or at least, they have a far more cool-looking resume than many people with perhaps more experience.

I don't think anyone who's in the film regrets doing it now.

[–] cinemajunky 9 years ago

I think the main issue is that decent films can be made with a low budget and that people are tired of the crapfests regularly foisted upon us that feature multi-million dollar budgets.

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.