Runaway Production: Why I’m Filming in Bangkok
by Frank DeMartiniI am sitting in my hotel room in Bangkok on a Sunday afternoon; taking a break from prepping a film that will star Djimon Hounsou and be directed by the Steven Spielberg of Thailand, Prachya Pinkaew. Prachya is famous for Om Bak, Chocolat and Tom Yung Goon, three of the highest grossing films in the history of the country. You may be wondering why I am in Thailand and not somewhere in the United States. Why am I in a country 9,000 miles away from home when I could be shooting this movie anywhere in America including Los Angeles.
In the case of this film, the answer is more complicated than in others. The location of this film is South East Asia and, it is directed by a Thai national. That is not always the case. And, more often than not, the location of the film and its director is not even an issue. Many films that could be shot in America are not. In fact, many films with American locations are shot outside of America.
Why? The answer is simple: cost. Because of the ridiculously high labor costs and other production costs in America, it is just simply not feasible to make a movie in America anymore; especially a lower budget independent film. And, unfortunately, this is a symptom of the entire economic problems facing America today. I would love to work in the United States and be home with my family, friends and my little kitty Sidney. I cannot.
The clothing industry does not manufacture in America. The steel industry is all but gone. The automobile industry is all but gone. There are countless others. It is just too expensive to create almost any type of product in America. Unfortunately, this is leading to the elimination of our middle class. The working man can no longer work in America. If my father were still alive, I do not know how he would make a living.
The remainder of this article will be about the film industry as that is my area of expertise. But, keep in mind while you are reading that these problems are prevalent in all of the industries mentioned above, as well as others, not just the film industry.
Independent films and many studio films are now shot mostly in Eastern Europe, Canada, South East Asia and/or South Africa. The only real production in America these days is in heavy tax incentive states such as Louisiana, Michigan and the Carolinas. New York and Los Angeles, the homes of film production and the industry since its inception, only have production that either involves a star with the leverage to force production in those cities or if they are location specific to either state (and not always in that case either). In fact, we have shot films that take place in New York in Bulgaria on occasion.
The major culprit in the destruction of this industry and in most others is, as always, the unions. The unions refuse to work with the producer to make shooting in America cost effective. The average independent producer has a fixed amount of money to make his movie. The pocket is not deep. Even studio films are looking for ways to save money now. When you are a producer with fixed funds, you shoot the movie where your available money will bring the most bang for the buck and insure the existence of your ever decreasing profit margins.
For example, you could make a low budget action movie in 1995 for about 2.5 million dollars and be pretty sure you would get 3.5 million dollars back within 18 months. Now, that same movie can only be made for about 1.5 million dollars and the producer is struggling to get 2.0 million dollars back. Keep in mind that the same movie you made in 1995 for 2.5 million dollars would now cost 3.7 million dollars. (Calculated using an average of economic indicators, not just CPI) So, by making that movie for 1.5 million dollars you are making a far lower quality product.
If you tried to make that film for 3.7 million dollars, you would make the equivalent of the same film but you would almost guarantee the producer a loss as the sales on such films have gone way down in the past 15 years. You would probably only get the same 2.0 million in sales that you would have gotten if you made the film for 1.5 million dollars.
The average cost of shooting outside of the United States is often about 30-40% of the cost in the United States. For example, you can shoot an action film in Eastern Europe for about $700,000 per week. That is about one-third of the cost in Los Angeles and about 70% of the cost of shooting in a major tax incentive state.
I am shooting this movie in Thailand for even less. In fact; substantially less. We are shooting this film for 48 days of principal photography and our overall production cost is about ½ of the cost of Eastern Europe. No wonder I am forced to spend four months in a hotel room in Thailand. Do you blame the investors?
If I were to go to the unions in Los Angeles and say, “I want to make this movie in Los Angeles.” They look at you and say to pay the union rates, the standard pension, health and welfare and residuals. You are told if you do not have the money to pay them, then do not make the movie. You are never given the opportunity to negotiate a deal that works for the particular film in question. You are given a mandate and told to live by it. And if you do not like it, then tough.
Further, when you do shoot a film in the States, you are forced to obligate yourself to the payment of residuals forever. I ask you, in what other business is the investor/owner forced to pay the employee for work done years ago, every time he makes a dime?
The union people are now going to say that I am typical management and do not care about the working man. They will say that residuals are cheap. If the movie is made with all entertainment unions, the total cost of residuals is less than 10% of the total income. But, if you are only making a 25% return on your money, the residuals eat up approximately 10% of that return, leaving you with only a 15% profit. A motion picture production company cannot survive on that.
I would think that the working man in the United States of which I am one would rather work at a lesser rate inclusive of the medical protection than have the work go overseas. But, the general consensus is not.
Of course, if you shoot outside of the United States, you do not pay residuals at all except for some money to the Screen Actors Guild* who must be used no matter where you shoot. You get to keep your measly profit and hopefully put it another movie that will keep residents outside of the United States employed.
I can go on with this column for another 10 pages or more and never repeat myself and maybe I will in the future, but for now, I am going to spend the rest of my afternoon relaxing. I have a big week coming up.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
126 Comments
A prime example of union boss malfeasance to the detriment of their members. If the union bosses would negotiate, their members would be employed, but no, we can't have that, so the jobs go overseas. There's a principle involved here…somewhere…I guess.
Poor guy, sitting in the Dusat Thani Hotel, looking down over PatPong, sipping on a Singha beer, torching the best buds in the world in a bamboo bhong, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
I couldn't disagree with you more about residuals. Unlike other jobs on a film the actor's face and name is used to promote and sell the product practically forever so their participation in the film doesn't end when the camera stops rolling. If someone is going to be using my name and face to make money I deserve to be compensated for it.
What is it about socialists that they don't understand they are killing the golden goose?
If you can't afford to pay a decent wage, you don't deserve to be in business. If your product is so lousy that you can only make it by paying slave wages and stealing from your employees by refusing to pay residuals, then you should find another line of work.
So the vast number of people you consider socialists now includes everyone who wants to be paid a decent wage? Or do you just believe that everyone has a sacred duty to work for no pay for this clown simply because he calls himself a producer?
Tell you what: I'm starting a business and I demand you come work for me for ten cents an hour. You don't want to? Guess you're a socialist, too.
If only those darn bosses would let their members work for ten cents an hour, then we'd all be happy!
par⋅a⋅site
/ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
–noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
This "poor guy" says, at length, he'd rather not be working there for four months and missing his family. And if you've ever worked on a film, you'd know that 14 hour days don't leave a lot of time to get your Boola Oblabla on.
Pretty sure "negotiate" implies an acceptable deal for both sides. Seems to me that I'm better off staying at my job even if I don't get a raise (or have to take a pay cut) than to not get a paycheck at all. Meanwhile, the union leaders keep their high-paying positions. Unions had there place, and still do to some extent, but they've turned on the host (as nolotrippen implies).
Poor Frank. It seems that nobody wants to work for nothing. Earth to Frank! The reality is that most people can't AFFORD to work for you for nothing.
Since you didn't want to mention it Frank, I will. SAG has a number of programs for Ultra Low, Low and Medium budget pictures (of course, if you had mentioned that, you wouldn't have an article to write from your Bangkok hotel room). And you can defer pay to the actors as long as you're willing to pay them later IF you make some money. So sorry.
Not only that, but there are plenty of Right to Work states that also offer tax rebate incentives to film productions. Work in one of those states and you won't have to deal with unions at all if you don't want to. Of course, the quality of the work may not be what you want and you'll probably have to do some training because no one who has even a fair amount of experience wants to DONATE their effort to you and your movie, Frank.
And in certain cases your costs might be higher because of wasted time, your non-Union actors showed up un-prepared or "forgot" to show up at all, etc.
By the way, Frank, when I was starting out, I worked on pictures for free, just to get some experience. It was a trade-off. Pictures are still being made on that basis, even in L.A., but I'd be willing to bet that you don't want to use people with little or no experience, do you? No, a Frank DeMartini production requires the very best!
If only you could find a way to get it without paying what it's worth.
I'm just interested, Frank. What would you consider a "fair" payday for an experienced actor who has spent a lot of money on training, etc. to be good at his profession? After all, lots of people would be willing to act, right? I bet you think $100 a day is plenty! For what, a 12 hour day, maybe 14, once your "economical" non-Union crew screws a few things up? Ooooh, where ELSE can someone get $8.50 an hour with no benefits for two or three weeks a month? Remember Frank, I have to pay for health insurance (not complaining, it's a fact though) and an agent who gets a 10% commission. I know, I know, that's MY problem, right?
Hey Frank, in closing, I checked you resume on IMdB.com; here's an idea; make better movies and your profit won't be "measly".
How many SAG members actually earn a decent wage?
Secondly; when nepotism is the path towards getting that SAG card what good is the Union for those who are not connected to The Family?
When I met camera operators on NYC film and TV sets who secured their own children-who aren't even in the business -a Hollywood Union card while the non-union actors are told we cannot work without that SAG card I say wallow in your own self-created petard creepy Union members!
Please, please cut the whine.
1) Movies that lots of people see make lots of money.
2) There is no rule that says you "have to shoot union in Los Angeles." I worked crew there for years, non-union, and we made lots of movies. The popular ones, by the way, made lots of money.
3) SAG is "required" because actors stick together to get what they consider is fair pay for the product they deliver. Actors draw the crowds. Nobody is ever going to a movie because YOU produced it.
4) Unions shoot themselves in the foot when the don't deliver higher quality service. If you want to get good service from the crafts, do your homework — find the skilled people. If you don't want to do your homework, then you have to shovel out extra cash to cover for it.
5) Crew may be cheap is Thailand, but life is also cheap in Thailand, pal. As it is in South Africa, Bulgaria and so on. And, frankly, the quality is low. 99 times out of 100, a movie shot in these places looks it.
I could also go on for "10 pages or more and never repeat myself". WR21 comment on this thread sums it up: If your product is so lousy that you can only make it by paying slave wages and stealing from your employees by refusing to pay residuals, then you should find another line of work.
People and businesses vote with their feet. That why commies have to build walls to keep their people home.
"decent wage"
What does that mean? What's the exact figure? What do you make, wr1? An socialist would undoubtedly think it's too much.
And, this will shock you because you don't read, there has never been a business that has been started in America where you can "demand" a person work for you for a certain wage. Ah, but there has been such positions available in your socialist paradise of Russia, Cuba, etc.
What I know about movies and production costs could fit in a thimble with room to spare. But I know what I like and I enjoyed the spaghetti westerns and still do. I am not so critical that I can discern the USA western background, from Italian or Spanish one. Does the movie have a story? Can the actors make me believe the story? And finally was the experience worth my time and money? If the answer to these three quesitons is "Yes" then I am satisfied.
Please take all your assets, get a loan from a bank and start a business. As you find that all the various costs imposed by the numerous government agencies, regulations and taxes reduce your profit, you will soon learn the limits to your social benevolence and find that the only feasible way of staying in business is by cutting your labour costs.
And the last part of your statement is purely idiotic. Businesses cannot "demand" anyone come work for them at any wage. A business offers a job at a certain wage and people either accept it or not. If there is a labour surplus businesses have the upper hand in wage negotiations. If there is a labour shortage then workers have the advantage. If you want a good wage, obtain a needed skill in a field where the demand is high and supply of labour low. If all you are qualified to do is flip burgers, pour coffee and wield a broom, then do not expect anyone to pay high wages for your efforts as they contribute little to the creation of wealth.
i guess 10 percent of nothing is better than 8 percent of anything, according to the union. unions play the game of looking at the gross, and year end profits. but workers don't take the severe economic risk of producing anything. look at toyota. toyota is loosing lots of money, because a employee somewhere in their system messed up, that employee might be fired, but toyota pays for the losses, not the guy who screwed up. unions only want to enjoy the fruit of somebody elses risk, but are never there to work for free, even if they screwed up. it is like going to vegas, and heads i win, tails you loose. if everybody who entered a race wins, nobody looses. but if one guy is faster, he should win, and the slow guy should loose. unions want everybody to win, and only the company to loose.
Like a city that raises taxes and grows government, running off tax payers and raises taxes to make up the difference, the unions will eventually bankrupt themselves. If nothing else todays technology makes it increasingly easier to bypass unions that will not forgo the leftist version of negotiating : Screw you and the horse our Golden Goose rode in on.
"No wonder I am forced to spend four months in a hotel room in Thailand." Ha! Who "forced" you to accept the job? DId the Steven Spielberg of Thailand put a gun to your head and force you onto a plane? Are you locked you in your hotel room? No, no, no. You willingly accepted the job because you'll make money. Buck up, man, you did make a willful decision. There's one universal word that's understood even in Thailand – No.
You make some valid points in your missive, but they're outweighed by your boo-hoo whining. Be grateful you have work and that that work allows you to afford the Los Angeles home you share with your strangely precious pussy.
My son is a union member. The union is strong against the workers (if you aren't in the union, you don't work) not so much in getting that wage. The union does not help him find work and the per hour pay is pathetic. (A wage that seems OK is paid per day (for a 12+ hour day.)
Why don't you stay and FIGHT the unions?
There are no "union bosses" in SAG, the DGA and the WGA . We elect our officers from among the ranks of our membership, and those officers hire an executive director, who serves at our pleasure.
You know nothing about the structure or operations of the unions you bash based on nothing but talking points. Which is only appropriate, since no one at BH seems to know anything about the entertainment business.
Well, yes, nolotrippen, there has been such a business started in America. In fact, it was written into the constution, and the entire South waged a war against those who loved freedom in order to keep the right to have such "businesses."
As for what I make — I make pretty good money, in no small part because I'm a member of the Writers Guild of America.
As I understand it his beef with residuals is all union members working on the film, not just cast get a piece of the residual action. If you sold your house would you be happy to pay the carpenter, electrician, plumber etc a piece of the action on your 30 year old house in Brentwood?
By your logic, I have a moral right to own slaves, because that's the only way I can stay in business.
If I'm incompetent or lazy.
Wow, a whiny loser who failed as an actor, so he blames the union. There's a shock.
Here's a hint though: The camera operators union has nothing to do with SAG.
What does ten percent have to do with anything? Oh, wait — do you mean the ten percent an actor's AGENT takes? Do you believe that the agent and the union are the same thing? Wow, the ignorance around here is astonishing.
And yes, workers do take an economic risk, especially if they go to work for a bottom-feeder like this guy. Because they could work for weeks or months, and he might never get around to paying them. Or pay half of what he promised. That's one thing a union protects us from.
how to ollie…
[...] Tap the board hard against the ground to launch into the air [...]…
As someone who just marked her 20th year in showbiz (I am an assistant director and member of the Director's Guild of America) I have to weigh in:
DeMartini does come off like a bit of a whiner, although he's doing the fiscally smart thing by shooting where labor is so much cheaper. However, to slam unions and residuals as the sole reason he's overseas is a bit disingenuous. If his story takes place in Thailand, shoot it in Thailand. No explanation needed, end of story. I object to his singling out unions as his sole obstacle to working at home. The labor unions in Los Angeles (Director's Guild, Writer's Guild, SAG, IATSE and Teamsters) are all wiling to cut deals with individual productions that significantly lower costs. I've worked on these below-scale contracts many times, and while I don't love it, I can still feed myself and my ancient cat, and I know hundreds of other people who are happy to work at lower rates as well. I currently work on a basic cable kids' tv show for less than full scale (as is often the norm for basic cable), and I'm glad to get it. Film crews in Los Angeles want to work, and our unions are wiling to make deals. And while we can't compete with what a Thai or a Bulgarian considers a living wage, it doesn't make us evil. Television, by the way, has become the last stand of L.A. production. While feature work has indeed dropped precipitously, a lot of tv shows still shoot here, thank God. Personally I blame out of state incentive programs for driving work out of SoCal, but as those funds dry up and New Mexico, Idaho, Michigan and other states reassess the long term returns they're actually getting, I think work will return. Also, DeMartini makes it seem he's paying residuals to everyone who works on the show, they're only due the producer (if he worked union he'd pay himself), writer, director and cast. Assuming he's using non-union talent for all of the above…well…maybe there's a reason his movies only cost a few million dollars to make. I wish him luck on his production, and I know this site revels in slamming union workers as some sort of greedy parasites, but this isn't true. We've worked very hard to earn a good wage, we're experienced and professional, and willing to deal to keep working. Don't slander us.
One final note that I have to add–I'm well aware that people who chose to make careers in the entertainment or any other freelance industry don't really have much of a leg to stand on when work goes away. The nature of creative fields is to NOT have reliable, steady work. I get that, and I accepted it that fateful day when I fell in love with working on sets. But we're all taken aback by how things have changed in the last five years, and we're trying to adapt. Me and countless others aren't ready to throw the towel in yet. I have no idea how the industry will change in an era where I can now watch "The Wizard of Oz" on my phone, but I'm going to stick it out for another 20 years. And I will stay union.
I'm with xgaffer.
I used to be a union stagehand, working in theater, (not on film or tv) in a MAJOR, MAJOR metropolitan area (not NYC or LA). I barely made ends meet, and frequently didn't. When there was no show, there was no work. And with no work, no income.
In my experience, union houses had better more efficient crews. Things were done faster, more efficiently, and with less damage. And with fewer injuries. (Now, I know this is just anecdotal, based on my experience, but I would love to see if anyone has any statistics to back this up, or to tear it down…)
But union jobs were also MUCH, MUCH safer than the non-unions gigs I had taken before. OSHA be damned in non-union houses.On union gigs, I didn't use aluminum ladders for electrical work! With union work, we got actual dinner breaks! Not just some clown bringing in a pizza while we stopped work and took a break. Jackson Brown had it right, stage hands were the first to come and the last to go. And let me say, that if you are working 14 hour days, weeks in a row, it so helps to get overtime… (Oh, yeah, in union houses, ear plugs were provided for us; in non-union houses, we had to bring our own…)
And with union gigs, I now had some sort of health insurance. I got injured on a non-union job, did get the workers' comp, but was let go immediately after the workers' comp doctor signed me to go back to work. (Which according to the NLRB, you are not SUPPOSED to do, but who is REALLY going to help me when that happens? IATSE made sure that it didn't in union houses…)
So, I was glad for EVERY dime out of my paycheck that IATSE got.
Now, unions do do good–like I said, thanks to IATSE, I had safe working conditions,and a decent job. But they go nuts the other direction–union greed is killing the US automobile industry, it killed the trains, and it killed US steel… Where I lived, IATSE was not as powerful is it is in NYC or LA, so the work (and the pay) was what the average joe would expect it would be for a stage hand. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, stagehands, grips, and set-up workers earn a median hourly salary of $9.79. (The average stagehand annual salary and benefits package at Avery Fisher and Alice Tully halls is $290,000. Wow. I'd like to earn that…)
I might point out that a lot of the workers for this guy's Thai production are very likely making small potatoes, and working, on average, more hours than do their American counterparts. The per capita income of Thailand is around $4100. In 2005, the average annual salary of a hotel receptionist was $7,332, of a teacher was $14,592, of a car mechanic was $5.748, of a professor, was $18,540. I can only guess what the salary of film grips might be. And I can also guess that there is no way in hell that ANYONE in this country can afford to make that little and not live in cramped, crowded, conditions, like something Jacob Riis would be photographing… (Our cost of living in the US is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH higher than in Thailand… Or Bulgaria… And I will be dollars to doughnuts that the working conditions for those grips in Thailand,etc. are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY worse than what I encountered in non-union houses.)
A little of something is very good; two much, can kill it. Unions are good, regulation is good. Overly powerful, greedy, corrupt unions are killing off business; two much over-regulation is strangling industry. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Unions help ensure that there are safe working conditions, that workers are not exploited, that laws are being followed.
On a side, though related note:
I also have to wonder if a grip, earning residuals, may feel like he has more of a stake in the production, and therefore "owns" his work, while one who does not earn residuals, for him, it's just a job. And to what degree does he "own" his work? And how does that effect the quality of work? But maybe that is just idealism rearing its ugly head…
(FWIW, I became a stagehand because that it all I knew how to do. I was a theater geek from way back when, in junior high. In college, I got a BA in theater. And when I got out, the only job I could get was as a stage hand. But I don't expect pity–I got out, and went back to school, and into a COMPLETELY different field. And still make crap. But the hours are better, and it is less damaging to my health.)
The work goes to places other than California, where gov'ts aren't as avaracious, or are willing to give tax breaks to companies bringing in the work (tax breaks = more business opportunities=more jobs. Who knew?).
Hollywood (and others) shoot more films where production costs are cheaper. This doesn't matter to the stars and others higher up in the food chain, who can go where the work is. Yeah, they have to be away from their families more, but they still get their paycheck, and for the big stars, that paycheck sure is hefty. In fact, it's way, way heftier than the lowest salary employees (funny, that – I thought one of the reasons for unions was to share the wealth). The locals, for whom having a film made in their town would be a huge economic boon, don't have that option. They have to sit tight and hope a film gets made in their town, and then watch as it's made elsewhere.
Then those wealthy stars who earn so much more than the grunts who help make their films go to Cuba or Venezuela and wax eloquent on the merits of socialism.
But the union bosses still have their jobs, and that's what counts.
film and t.v. grips don't make residuals.
Author failed to mention New Mexico as another locale in US where heavy tax incentives and lots of tax-payer infrastructure built in the past decade that has created lots of film and television shooting in Land of Enchantment. Now, the local politicians are wondering if it's all worth it….It does provide work for many, is a good way to promote the state and it's a relatively "clean" industry – but the state has put many millions of dollars toward the effort and it maybe should have gone to our schools and/or local communities.
Good analogy.
They don't understand the basic economic concepts of wealth and it's generation. They view all the wealth in America as the amount of cash they get to play with. So its just a matter of divvying up the pie so they get the biggest pieces.
They should read Adam Smith. The wealth of a nation is not limited to its treasury. Its also all the potential wealth waiting to be created by an educated, industrious work force. They don't get that part.
By the way, how many Hollywood Union SAG actors paying their dues are bringing home a decent wage earned by acting.
So long as you accept an ever-decreasing quality of life in the US, this selfish attitude is fine. If you want a high standard of living, things are going to cost more. People who had this attitude before would have been exiled or tarted and feathered or worse.
I don't work in the entertainment industry, I work on computers. My first job was with IBM. I was a made man. Life time employment, never ending raises, weeks of vacation. Heck I'd even been pulled over by police before, tell them I work for IBM, and I'd get out of tickets. What a life!
Then the bottom fell out of the high end computing business. Why would anyone pay $15 million for a high end mainframe, when all they need do is buy a bunch of work stations and network them up together.
My point being, customers change, industries change, if businesses don't they will no longer be in business. The only reason they're still in business is because they basically got out of computers and into services. Of course that was also about 300,000 former, fellow employees.
In any business, nothing stays the same, everything changes. Employees that rely on unions to stay employed don't change the facts on the ground. Perhaps concessions all the way around are probably the way to go.
Keep living in that world…you won't survive long. Hollywood unions are as bad as any out there.
Yeah, and that business no longer exists and for the right reasons. But the South did not wage a war to keep slavery. 95% of the men who fought for the South didn't own slaves and weren't going to get themselves killed for keeping it. They had other reasons that most people like you tend to ignore because you're so sold on the war for slavery theme.
I think trying to equate your working situation with slavery is quite a stretch.
You're right about that 95%. But the 5% who did own slaves managed to convince the morons that their cultural heritage was somehow tied up in the ownershp of other human beings, and that their way of life would end if the richest landowners didn't have the right to buy, sell, rape and kill black people. So they went to war. And they died. And they got nothing out of it.
By the way, the leaders of the tea party movment are completely bought and paid for by big corporate donations, and when you scream about freedom, what you're really demanding is that corporations be allowed to run your lives completely. See, nothing ever changes…
I don't have to "show up at an audition." I've held auditions. Hundreds of them. And your nonsensical description is just more proof that you failed and are desperately looking for someone else to blame.
A tiny, tiny percentage. But the ones who work are protected by the union — and that's what the union is for. It's not a hiring hall.
Here's what you don't understand: No one in SAG, WGA or DGA relies on their unions to stay employed. Our unions don't work that way. We rely on our unions to negotiate our Minimum Basic Agreements and then make sure our employers live up to their agreements.
I write TV under a union contract. I write books for a huge multinational publishing company under a non-union contract. My TV employers pay me on time. My publisher pays me when their business affairs people get around to it, sometimes months late. The TV companies, also multi-nationals, can't do that, because the union will hammer them. The publisher can, because I'm just one schmuck writer.
Once again, there are no "union bosses" in the Screen Actors Guild. And our unions don't exist to "share the wealth," whatever you think you mean by that. They negotiate the MINIMUM contract that can be offered to the members. Anything above that is negotiated by the artist's representatives.
True, i don't belong to a union. I did grow up in a very pro-union household, my Dad was one of the guys building the village worker's union. It was ugly at times.
I've watched what unions refusing to bend do to their members. When IBM was in the middle of laying off half its work force, closing factories all around the US, and sites all over the world, the office cleaners union at the site I worked at thought it would be a good time to strike for more pay.
They all got fired.
The only unions I have anything against is the ones representing public government workers (i.e. SEIU, teacher's unions, state employees). They're trying to take over government and use it to rubber stamp bigger salaries, benefits and pensions. Its going to drive the states and the federal government bankrupt. Look at the size of the public union work force in California, look at their benefits and pay, then look at the size of the hole in the California budget. Probably just about every state in the union is going to face the same thing. The local governments where I live (NY) are now floating trial balloons for 15-25% increase in property taxes just to cover mandated pension funds.
Since I don't know squat about how the business works, I would just caution, if unions are anywhere near as rigid as the author indicates, it's members are in a lot of trouble. Just like when the guys who invented copiers came to IBM first and were told 'Why would anyone want a copier when they can buy an IBM Selectric typewriter?'
The only way a business can keep up with changing customers is by changing themselves, both labor and management.
the ignorance belongs to you sir. unions are big and powerful, they spend your money on causes, and politicians, even if you disagree with them. you are most likely a slow worker, because in a non union environment, the fast and good worker gets raises, and keeps his job. on a union workplace, the idea is to work only as fast as the slowest worker. also unions want to keep you paying dues, they don't want you to succeed. if you become successful, you will start your own business, and then find out how anti-work unions are. so keep praising the union that is fighting to put your employer out of business. and when everyone is out of work, will there be a unemployment union, to steal yet more money from idiots like you?
the unions have the ear of the whitehouse, congress, and senate, good luck with that fight!
[...] more: Runaway Production: Why I’m Filming in Bangkok This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
well, when the cost of producing cable tv shows gets too expensive, hello bulgaria. businesses act in the best interest of their shareholders. if they can achieve their goals with a lower cost, and lower mandate workforce, and government structure, they would be fools to stay behind. when you invest in a company, it is to make money on your investment, not to have them pay more to workers, and have non competitive products. even when the product is a movie or tv show. some companies leave the us for less mandates. just try and open up a foundry today, tell them you want to make cast iron, see if your price is not ten times higer to produce, than you can import for.
Clearly you have no idea of how the Hollywood artists' unions work. They exist to negotiate and enforce the minimum basic contract. That's it. They don't control who gets hired or who gets promoted — or anything.
Right. Except that movies and TV shows are not widgets. The studios could go to Bulgaria tomorrow, hire Buglarian writers, directors and actors and make all the low-budget movies they want to. But they don't want to. They want the skills and talents (and celebrity) of American writers, directors and actors. And they can pay for that.
It's really astonishing to me how much you all seem to loathe people who actually do the work while worshipping owners.
You do realize that you're basically making the same argument the auto industry and unions were making back in the 60's and 70's when we started increasing imports of Japanese automobiles, right?
Same arguments…"why would you settle for that low quality junk when you can have the union-made and brand-name recognition of a Ford or Chevy? I mean, the Japs aren't a union shop and paid their workers so poorly compared to our guys it is practically slave labor! Why do you support what ammounts to slave labor by buying a Toyota when you should be buying a Ford?!"
Then it turned out there actually was room in the market for the el-cheapo Japanese car, and those cars and the Japanese workers' pay gradually got better over time because of that market demand; and look at the rust belt now. It's mostly empty.
While there isn't a 1:1 ratio in the final products, the general process is the same. I think you are being incredibly myopic if you think that name recognition will carry the day for the American actors forever. Heck; there's been articles in entertainment mags recently about how the names AREN'T the primary draw anymore, so it may already be well on its way.
I think this is going to be even more true as time progresses and people can't afford to hit the theaters anymore…It's already $10 a head for matinee where I live, so there's no way in hell I'm hitting a movie up unless I somehow get free tickets. There just hasn't been anything released since Lord of the Rings or Taken that I'd be willing to drop that kind of money on for a one-shot viewing. Stuff like that and the production cost issues (irregardless of whether the union is causing them or not) are just going to snowball on you guys unless you start finding ways to be flexible.
A family friend used to start businesses and then sell them. He loved building them from the ground up into something that was productive and provided jobs, and of course he enjoyed making money as well, but primarily building a business gave him a sense of doing something meaningful. About 10 years ago he took his expertise and moved himself and his family, lock stock and barrel to Thailand. He said that with all the regulation and taxes and red tape in the United States it was too costly, draining and stressful to start businesses here anymore. Now he does the same thing in Thailand, helping their economy grow.
Union bosses are one reason that the taxes are so high in California and the state is still bankrupt. The state employees unions, and the employees who vote for the pro union candidate, who then won't put up a fight against said unions for reasonable wages, have caused government employee salaries to sky rocket, as well as their pensions.
It's also difficult to work with unions. You can't plug something in yourself and the electrician on the scene doesn't have "plugging in" in his job description so you have to wait an hour for the lower level employee who does have that in the job description to be called and show up to plug in the light that someone accidentally tripped over the cord and unplugged
Also, if you haven't noticed this yet, anyone who fights unions is demonized and made to appear as someone who doesn't care about the little people and would want free slave labor if they could get it.
Unions and many union workers, as well as many "hate the rich", don't take into account the risk involved in funding a business, or a movie, and that the risk deserves reward. They seem to think that because they work on something they deserve as much as the person who invested the money. If risks aren't rewarded, only punished, why would anyone take a risk?
I actually find your point about auditions to be fairly true. Many people I know appreciate British tv and movies, as well as Australian etc.., because they have more variety and reality in their casting. An old or overweight character can be a lead and can be portrayed as desirable and normal.
Obviously with this argument you are intellectually lazy.
Agreed. However, while Spain can pass for the Old West, and Eastern Europe can pass for Victorian London, there is only one NYC and I've never seen a film or TV show that could fake it with any degree of authenticity.
You have the added benefit of all those Thai women to keep you company during those 4 months.
I agree with wr1 on this one Peteee. Not on some of his other points, I must say (camera ops can achieve union status for their kids, if they know the right people) but your observations of what entertainment unions (i.e. guilds) do is completely off base. Are there problems with Hwood unions, sure – but they are a different beast in the Union family.
Again, as I said above, the unions are willing to compromise and to work for lower rates. Probably not nearly as low as some producers would like, but they can't afford to have dues shrink much lower either. I think anyone who's put time in realizes we have to adapt, and at a quicker pace than we already are.
And yet…Hollywood just posted a banner $ year. Many are squeezed away from the multiplex by prices, and I can't blame them, but plenty are still going.
If that's been your experience, you've poorly planned your production. And of all the years I've worked on set, kicked something and either straightened it or plugged it back in myself, the response has never been more than the amused shout of "relight!" and no-one skips a beat or makes a grievance.
Stupid Bulgarians!
Actually, I hold out hope for t.v., especially cable, which has been putting out a steady stream of top quality dramas, and employing a lot of Californians. The season isn't as long as for network tv, but a lot of us are sustaining ourselves in a way that we couldn't ten years ago from cable.
The union bosses are socialists. Anyway, how much are employees making when producers go oversees? Nada.
Mr. Boola, I'm staying in a cheap efficiency apartment. I don't even know where Patpong is and I don't smoke pot. Thank you
For him it was about being able to do what he loved and still love doing it, not about the money.
So? Fight anyway. The unions were around during Hollywood's golden era too. Did anyone run off to Thailand because it was cheaper? Wasn't FDR a socialist?
Not to target DeMartini, but he is typical of most filmmakers today; they want expense-free productions. They have to be coaxed through "tax incentives" to stay and hire American union workers. And even if the film was made much more cheaply overseas, the ticket price is always the same (too high).
I don't support unions any better than you do, but…greedy filmmakers beget greedy unions.
No, you are wrong Mr. wr1, if the movie is shot west of the Mississippi and the music is done by the Musicians, union, then they only people that don't get residuals are the Teamsters. IATSE gets 1% and the Musician's Union gets 1%. At the end of the day, with payroll taxes and PH&W on the residuals, it is 10% of your gross taken away from you. In the indepedent world, that is your profit margin.
Amen!
By wr1, you are one hell of an idiot. The Civil War was fought over states' rights. It had little if nothing to do with slavery. and, the fact that you are in the WGA should let you know how bad unions are. AFter that wonderful strike two years ago, you ended up with the same offer that was on the table before the strike started. Same as in 1988.
Thanks for making this somewhat a civil debate and extra points for doggedness. We want the jobs here, and hate that economics can force them elsewhere and cause quality shows to be canceled. Unless I'm wrong, most of the producers and Hollywood executives talk the liberal line but worship the bottom line. The hands on people are left to wrestle for whatever they can get, to make a living and also make the best artistic result from their efforts. The best film crew members have to worry less if at all about the art or finances to make their next job possible.
I agree with you Sonja, I think it needs to be fought. I think government employees unions need to be fought. I was commenting how, even in this thread, if you fight against the unions people label you as greedy and wanting to pay everyone 5 cents an hour, a rich fat-cat who doesn't care about the "little guy" even if all you're doing is trying to stay in business. In this current Rich vs Poor atmosphere it's going to be tough, and in movies there's a lot depending on image.
@ wr1: You have to be kidding. It is your F'd up logic and union-moron mentality that is ruining this nation's economy. For some reason, we say it is illegal for companies to collude on pricing to consumers, but it is perfectly legal for workers to collude on the prices for their product, their labor. Slave wages? How about we have everyone who wants to work show up and bid on the chance to do the work, just like corporations have to do when they seek work. I won't need as much income to buy cars and houses when they are no longer made by grossly overpaid, lazy-ass union tards. To top that off, you are telling companies that would like to hire you, to go f themselves. That's just brilliant. No wonder everyone with half a brain is making their movies and TV shows anywhere BUT LA.
Again, you are wrong, they are big time union bosses in the Entertainment Industry. Look at IATSE and the TEAMSTERS, or are you a big enough Hollywood elitist to believe that the working man is meaningless and the only unions that matter are the three creative guilds?
By the way, when was the last time you sold anything?
I went on strike in 1988 because the studios decided they didn't want to pay residuals anymore. It was a long and brutal strike, and the deal we ended up with was lousy — but it was better than if we had rolled over. This current strike was actually a victory, one of the few successes of a labor union against multinational corporations. I suspect the "final" offer next time won't be so bad, now that they know we can and will shut them down.
I can understand why you would hate the WGA — after all, they force sleazy, low-rent producers to actually pay what they promise. I worked for some of them before I sold my first TV script in 1987, and I'm still waiting for payment. Never happened to me since I joined the Guild. So why should I hate them? Because they protect me from lowlifes? Because they collect my residuals?
As for states' rights — yes, it was the right to own another human being. That was the only states' right at issue. The south wanted slavery. Period.
Well, that certainly describes most of the right wing. It doesn't describe Hollywood unions, without which my payments would come late — if ever — my residuals would be non-existent, and I'd be desperately scrambling for health insurance.
Because in a negotiation between a single worker and a corporation, all the power is on one side. Maybe you'd be happy working for ten cents an hour — heck, maybe that's more than you make now — but I choose not to.
You live under the conservative delusion that the only element of value that goes into a product or service is the money that funds it. Those who make the product or provide the service, in your view, are replaceable scum who deserve none of the credit or profit from the company's success. It's typical of the right — a loathing for people who actually work and a worship of those who invest and inherit.
again, you are ignoring the real unions. My article except for a few points, is not about the guilds, it is about the unions.
You think unions are a terrible evil destorying the nation — but you won't fight them because someone might say mean things about you.
Wow, you BH guys are tough!
Not, of course, that you've ever been anywhere near a fllm set. But I'm sure you read about this somewhere.
I just have one comment for you. When you shoot out of the country, the low budget deals are not available under SAG rules.
And, when you do shoot in the states, the low budget deals pretty much cut off at 5,000,000 which makes them virtually useless anyway. It's imposible to make a movie in the states for less, which is why the low budget SAG deals are useless.
I never claimed to be a studio producer. I'm an independent trying to make a living. We make what we can sell. We do no have the deep pockets of studios. Thing about it.
you have a lot of anger in you don't you?
It's a socialist that thinks a company 'demands' you work for them for ten cents an hour, and the poor worker just has to do it or else. Nice straw-man argument. That one knocked-down real nice. Back in the real world though, a company might be willing to pay quite a bit, but if it's a penny less than the union is demanding, then no one is allowed to perform the work for that wage, even if there are thousands of people willing to do it. You can whine about it all you want, and boy are you union guys whining about it in this post, but the inevitable future is that companies will take their business elsewhere. They already are.
wr1, you know nothing about Civil War history, but you're so certain of your position. It brings into serious question your assertions about everything you say you know about the business.
Maatkare: You are probably an intelligent person and I mean no disrespect, but they don't bend. They tell the members they are trying to make a deal and then tell the producers to "take a leap." It's not about the members, it's about keeping the Pension plans healthy to invest in Las Vegas Casinos. That's the truth.
Man, you are once piece of work……
What part of IATSE or the Teamster's dont you understand. It is those workers, yes workers, not creative people that are being hurt.
The creative people still work. Only the below the line DGA members and the Scale SAG actors are losing jobs from the creative guilds.
The studios pay them but the grips don't get them. It goes into the PH&W fund.
Give it time, you will be.
I got into computer engineering with IBM in 1985. Four years later, everything started to implode thanks to the invention of Windows and the PC. IBM tried to ignore it, pretend it wasn't happening, keep cranking out the high end systems. But people didn't want them anymore. Over 300,000 layoffs world wide, complete change of business model, and a lot of luck they came out of their tail spin and landed in the business services industry.
My point it, customers are not chained to American production. They will go where its cheaper, just like every one does. When the customers are gone, the business is gone, and no one's employed. I've changed careers about 9 times during my time with IBM. Either we evolve or we dissolve.
The same will happen with your industry just like it did with the main frame business.
Whiny loser who needs Union thugs to earn a paycheck, the camera operators kids got a Hollywood Union card and as an actor one cannot work if they don't have a SAG card.
Actually, twit….ever show up to audition…Hollywood casting stereotypes to the point that if you walk into an audition and do not look exactly like everyone else the room then you are at the wrong audition.
Your entertainment industry is brain-dead repetition hanging on by its eye-candy crap.
Since you are incapable of reading I suggest you watch James Cagney in "The TIme of Your LIfe"; when actors were actor and eye-candy wasn't needed to sell a story.
Except that "all union members working on the film" don't get resdiuals. Actors, writers and directors get residuals. So either he's lying or you simply don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
I am an independent producer as well. I'm also a cinematographer, writer and director. I've had extensive experience working on both sides of the equation.
What everyone who is beating up Frank here is missing is that signing on to a union contract should be an OPTION available to independent producers who want all the benefits of union employees that you mention. The flip side is that independent productions that are unsafe, awful conditions, low pay etc. should be forced to deal with the union when the employees seek the union out for representation.
Unfortunately, the unions have adopted this aggressive stance where they seek out every indie production and target it for "flipping" even if the employees and employers don't want it. They resort to strong arm tactics to work their way in and force the producers to pay the union, often times excluding the employees of the flipped show from benefits and full membership.
An indie producer who either wants the benefits of a more experienced crew or wants to provide their employees with some kind of insurance and pension plan should be able to approach the union and negotiate a scale that fits their budget. If a show is bad, the employees need to get 51% of the crew to agree to engage the union and then the union is allowed, by law, to step in and represent the crew.
But the threats of strikes and protests, threats of "problems" for producers that don't sign on and threats against non-union members with blacklists if they don't side with the union drive producers out of the country.
I just wrapped a show yesterday that was a passion project for all involved. With the exception of a couple crew members, we had all worked together on numerous shows over the last 15 years. We paid good rates, worked straight twelve hour days, and had three catered meals a day. Everyone left saying it was the most fun show they had ever worked on.
Yet, the Teamsters and IATSE stepped in without EVER SPEAKING TO A SINGLE CREW MEMBER and threatened us with "problems" if we didn't sign a contract. The crew, when told about the situation, agreed that they would VOTE AGAINST union involvement if it would hurt the film or jeopardize what we were trying to do.
That's not how the unions are supposed to work guys. All of you who support the unions or are members yourselves should pressure your union bosses to NOT try and intimidate indie films. If a show is as awful as the supposed non-union shows are, the people working on them will seek the unions out and they can flip the show the legal, ethical way. If people feel that they are getting paid a fair rate and are having a good time, so what?
The last thing the American film industry needs is a bunch of thuggish union types intimidating people. I say that as an indie producer and union card holder.
That's adorable. You're whiing about paying residuals — poor little producer, having to actually split some money with the people who actually wrote, directed, and actied in your film — so I didn't talk about IA and the Teamsters, neither of whose members collect them. And then you — who so loathe the people who actually make your movies for you that you flee the country rather than pay them — try to portray me as an elitist.
Why don't you learn to write a script or direct an actor? Then you could do some real work.
Funny you should mention that. My third novel was published last month; my fourth will be out in August. I've got more than 300 hours of dramatic television under my belt. Want to compare credits? Budgets? Success? I've never had to scurry off to a third world country to get my work produced.
You complain about paying residuals. IA and Teamsters don't get resids. So either you're completely ignorant, or you're lying to make yourself look better, or you're talking about the Guilds.
You must be logged in to post a comment.