Deferment for Cast/Crew

As I understand it, the SAG Ultra Low Budget agreement allows for many changes from the regular SAG rules. You pay your SAG actors just $100 per diem (plus pay into the health/pension plans for SAG). You are not bound to pay any of the other talent. This agreement does limit your budget and profits from the film -if you make over the ceiling on the film, you must then convert to a SAG Low Budget or regular SAG agreement and retro-pay all your people accordingly- which is very expensive.

If you get one B or C list SAG actor who wants to fill up their time and everyone else will work for gas $$ and craft service, you can make a film for very little money.

clive said:

I think the biggest problem with derferments is that although they solve short term problems, like - I don't have enough money to pay a cast and crew, they do this by creating long term problems when (as usual) the deferment turns into "Non-payment"

Personally, I think that there has to be a better way to do it and if I ever work one out I'll let you know.

I'm almost tempted to suggest that it's perhaps more honest in the long term to ask people to work for free (with a token $1 payment to secure rights to performance) - then if the film does go into profit send out some bonus cheques as a thank-you.

I think I might try that on my next picture.

Click to expand...

The film I produced - my first film I guess although I only went in as director at the end of a total debacle with one month to go before shooting - was deferred payments. In writing.

They are a bad, bad idea.

Since people don't get upfront money (we fed them, transported them, etc. but no pay) the amateurs amongst them seem to be the first (but by no means only) to get on their high horse about making sacrifices with no return on their efforts. It has ended up meaning the film is unlikely to ever be released as currently in the can since some of the worst of them quit completely before doing ADR.

My first feature I am producing and DIRECTING, everyone is on contracts. Daily hourly specified, total amount paid specified, total hours required for before the pay clicks over to a penalty rate specified, everything. It just isn't huge money. However, it has got me the best stage actors and out of wokr pros in the whole region, because they know where they stand, they see the contract as the minimum professional standard, and most of them do a lot of their best work for free in the theater anyway so any pay at all is wonderful for them.

The main thing is, I share the dream, and I pay myself last. Everyone knows I pay myself last, and they see me working hard, being passionate without being rude to anyone, and displaying professionalism and vigor. It works.

To anyone - DON'T USE DEFERMENTS. It looks bad and leads to bad blood and weirdly, it attracts more money-hungry people than open honesty about how small the budget is. I think because deferment encourages a gambler mentality from people who think "well it will make nothing... but it could make MILLIONS and then I'd be RICH! ha ha ha ha ha!" whereas a contract chills everyone out and emphasizes that the operation whilst small budget is professional and will fire their ass if necessary.

My 2 cents.


-Jonathan

Have any of you sold a film to a distributor? Just curious.

Yeah, I understood this meant a Point/percentage payoff. But whats the difference between net and gross profit? Can someone explain that? This is where more people get screwed. I dont know anyone who has made a film but I know some musicians who got burned. Something to do with not getting real pay for the first 3 albums.

Gross - amount taken before anyone gets paid, any division of profits.

Net - after profits taken by people with priority.

In approximately 100% of cases can you guess what happens if you have net points not gross points?

You guessed it, the people who take gross points, AND ARE THEREFORE AFFECTING PROFITABILITY, stage it so there is NOT profit and therefore no one with net points gets anything.

To anyone - DON'T USE DEFERMENTS. It looks bad and leads to bad blood and weirdly, it attracts more money-hungry people than open honesty about how small the budget is.

Click to expand...

I shot my first feature using deferments, there was nothing up front for anyone except food and the experience of doing it. Despite that I managed to attract a great professional cast and crew, we had no problems with people during the production, and by the end of the two years it took to make they'd put each put about twenty-eight production days into it. (Some of which were eighteen hour days)

I don't know if I was just lucky. But, I don't think so. Everyone went into the film with a wage negotiated for their time, subject to the film selling. No one was on points, either net or gross. No body thought they were going to get rich out of the film.

In my opinion unprofessional behaviour in a production isn't about whether you're defering payment or not; in my experience it happens when either cast or crew lose faith in the production and therefore feel like thier investment of time is being wasted.

For me where the deferments are a problem is once the film gets into the sales arena. It took a year for us to complete post production, and the film has now been on the market for 15 months, without generating income. This means that people have been waiting nearly two and a half years to see some return for thier time. Since I left the company eighteen months ago my business partner hasn't been keeping the cast and crew informed about what's happening with the film. In fact, even I don't know. This lack of information to the cast and the long wait for any sign of the film doing any business is the thing that creates any issues I have now with anyone on the production. It's taken nearly two years, but people have quite rightly lost faith in the production.

For many actors and crew members what matters more than getting paid, is getting high levels of exposure for the film. This is especially true for the actors. I think where my film has let the cast and crew down is not in the fact that the deferments haven't been paid, it's more that the film hasn't had sufficient exposure and this means that no-one is reaping the benefit from the film.

I think the one thing that everyone I worked with understood that was if they didn't get paid, I didn't get paid; for every hour they put in, I put in ten; and, despite anything else I gave them a great working experience and between us we made a great film.

With all due respect, you just proved my point.

2 years, no pay- they'll never do that again imo.

With all due respect, you just proved my point. 2 years, no pay- they'll never do that again imo

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're wrong, almost all of my people are keen to work with me on my next film, and this time there is even less money to put into the production. I think this is because my people respect my work both as a writer and a director and they see the non-sales of the film as a failure of the industry rather than something that we did wrong.

But I understand what you're saying : what you are actually saying is that if you didn't manage to sell your film and pay wages that your cast and crew wouldn't want to work with you again.

I guess that's understandable, because your experience is that a member of your cast refused to help you complete your picture.

I don't know what the problem was on your film. It wouldn't be right for me to comment about a situation that I knew nothing about; however, what I do know is that when things go wrong it's always easier to blame lack of payment for the people problems than it is to look at how the production was managed.

I think one of the hardest skills to acquire as a director is man-management, and as I've said before an indie director who doesn't understand that his cast and crew are his most important investors tends to treat them as employees, rather than as collaborators. I've seen any number of indie directors throw thier weight around on set, fail to thank their people for work done, bitch about the work that they're getting from crew (for free), fail to keep to schedule, expect their cast and crew to drop everything at a moment's notice to do pick-ups because of techical mess-ups, fail to understand the needs of their performers and give them a poor acting experience and finally, ask people to work on a production where neither the script or the directer was ready (So, from day one everyone on the cast and crew can see that the film is a lemon).

The great thing about being a no-budget film-maker is you have to learn what it is that people want.

This is the most important truth about people in this industry ...

Any actor in the world, regardless of how famous will take a job that pays them nothing, over a job that pays them, providing that they believe in the film. Exaclty the same applies to crew, even the ones that say "I'll never work for nothing.

OK, There are times when putting food on the table, comes above anything else. But, even then people will want to work on the "Great" project over the paying one, even if financially they can't.

What went wrong on that first film was lack of control by me as producer over director and cast. It's never happened again or even remotely looked like it would on any film (or other production) I have had full conduct of since.

The deferment pay option is frankly witless in my opinion. Using it guarantees that no budget is where you'll probably stay. For example putting a pitch together to get funds from somebody else, you may as well stay at home if you include the deferred payment scheme as part of the budget. Likewise with pro crew. Sure people will help out but there is no credibility in deferred payment plans. They are rightly notorious. You might get an investor or two who is unscrupulous and sees the deferral option as an inspired way to screw the performers and crew on the deal but how often will that sort of thing work?

And as you say, with no knowledge of what happened on that first picture, better that you devote your next page-long post to a different topic. The weird dig about blaming other people - meh. Whatever. If you're in charge it's YOUR responsibility... I was in charge, the buck stops with me. That doesn't stop me from assigning responsibility for specific misbehaviour etc. It's called management.

We all have people who will work with us no matter what, hopefully. It's called team building. It doesn't matter a waffle to the basic premise of what most people say, and that is, no pay, no play. There is a thread on this very board right now on this subject from the point of view of a professional who has had enough of the "living off fresh air" approach to financing. Likewise the last two crew we have signed, we just tell them what the pay is. If it isn't enough for them, fair enough, no harm no foul.

I either work for free, no strings attached, or for a scaled fee. And those are the alternatives I offer everyone else. That way you know if this life is your calling and career or not. If it's just a hobby, why bother with deferral at all? As long as a person has a day job and makes films on the side, it is not a professional pursuit for that person. People who have the passion to chase a dream also need to be responsible to themselves and other people.

Deferral is akin to no win no fee for a lawyer in some respects except that no respectable lawyer would speculate a fee except in circumstances where there was a lot of merit in the claim. Likewise deferral should be a very special case for indies where there is some kind of distribution deal or some other kind of prize in the offing or already locked away. Otherwise it is close to breaking one of the cardinal rules: never rob your actors. Never make them pay for something associated with the shoot.

There's a library worth of writing on this, all of it based on real case histories.

Lilith said:

As I understand it, the SAG Ultra Low Budget agreement allows for many changes from the regular SAG rules. You pay your SAG actors just $100 per diem (plus pay into the health/pension plans for SAG). You are not bound to pay any of the other talent. This agreement does limit your budget and profits from the film -if you make over the ceiling on the film, you must then convert to a SAG Low Budget or regular SAG agreement and retro-pay all your people accordingly- which is very expensive.

If you get one B or C list SAG actor who wants to fill up their time and everyone else will work for gas $$ and craft service, you can make a film for very little money.

Click to expand...

Spot on.

Also the SAG modified agreement (or equivalent elsewhere) is utterly enforceable. Of course it is. Firstly because it is a legal agreement between film maker and cast and secondly because the industry would erase someone who continued to offend against the normal practices.

Whilst not BOUND to pay other talent it is more sensible to just scale everything and pay them something even if it's $50 and a box of chocolates. We give extras etc. bottles of booze or chocolates or T-Shirts or something. Gratitude is the best payment of all.

And as you say, with no knowledge of what happened on that first picture, better that you devote your next page-long post to a different topic. The weird dig about blaming other people - meh. Whatever.

Click to expand...

Guess I deserved that. Sorry.

It doesn't change the fact that I made my first movie with deferments without it being problematic, which was the only point I was trying to make. Like you I don't think they are the best way of working and these days I'd rather ask people to work for free, than make promises that can't alter be delivered.

In an ideal world we'd all like to pay everyone scale for the work, but sometimes that just isn't possible.

All in all, it's just another tool in a producer box - sometimes it's useful sometimes it isn't.

sorry chipping in late on this as always. We used deferments on 'Left For Dead' and to some degree me are paying people back. But sales take a while to come through and these guys know taht they wont see their money for a while. Which means for the most part I will probably never see money for if I do it will be years in coming BUT the system worked well and we secured some great talent. Which is fustrating for us.

I agree with Clive in the fact that I want an alternative but I don't think asking people to work for free is it either. Whilst some will (expenses paid naturally) if your trying to attract talent with a certain level of expereince even a bullshitter like me has problems selling that.

So for the next film we are doing a combination of both paying a daily rate and an amount on the backend which means people are happy.

It's a hard one all this...