SAG and the DGA

You should check out THIS THREAD.

Everyone understands the benefits of having a name actor in a
movie. However, the Screen Actors Guild does not guarantee you
will get actors who will not "flake". And using the ULB Agreement
does not mean you will get actors whose "name" means anything
to distributors. From personal experience I can tell you that it's
rare for an actor whose name is good enough to make a difference
with distributors to work under the ULB agreement.

I'm not suggesting no one try. I very much advise filmmakers to
try getting "name" actors in their movies. And we all know the one
in a million story where a name actor did a favor for a friend and
took a job in a no budget film, so that gives us all hope. I suggest
all filmmakers going after name talent know exactly what they are
doing before they approach the agent and offer a job under the ULB
agreement.

Read through that thread - their are some disadvantages in using
the SAG agreements. Of course if you are hiring a "name" who is a
SAG member then becoming a signatory to the SAG agreement is
essential.

I notice you mention the DGA in your thread title but then drop any
reference or discussion about it. How does the DGA fit into your points
here? Any thoughts about using the DGA for ULB movies based on
you info reading the handbook?

True SAG cannot guarantee a flake proof cast. Since they do have known actors, Google can reveal a lot of information on what their member are like to work with on set. There is very little to be found with no name actors. So, this is an advantage. Google the actors first to read stories about them working on set. Just from reading articles, there are name SAG actors I would not work with. And there are others who are amazing and bring a lot to a production.

DGA -- reading their handbook can help those considering bringing in the DGA into their productions. It also has interesting information how their members are trained up the ladder to eventually become union directors. There is also good information on what defines a film and how it differs from a video or digital video in the modern age of HD. People interested in learning shooting schedules for TV shows, TV movies, and feature films and multi-camera procedures will find all this and more in the DGA handbook.

I’m quite confused about your point.

On one hand you say that in order to “get reliable actors who
don’t flake” you should “go union”. Then you say going union does
not guarantee a flake proof cast.


Then you mention using a search engine to read stories about how
actors work on set. But not all news stories are positive in
nature and much of what you find using a search engine is gossip
and “Entertainment Weekly” type stories.

I, personally, have directed name actors who have some poor press.
Yet on my set they were wonderful; professional, very giving to
new talent, terrific with the crew, always on time. A few articles
did not prove an actor to be a problem.

As an experiment I just used Google to look up two name actors I
worked with in Sept. 2010. Name actors with some pretty big
pictures. Found almost no articles about what they are like to
work with on set. Had I done what you suggest I would have come
away with no information at all.

No argument that having a name actor in a movie helps
distribution. I understand your point there. I can’t figure out
how going SAG and using Google makes much of a difference. Just
because there are a few negative articles to be found by searching
does not mean that actor is incapable of working well on set.

I really don't want to single out name actors. But, I found two that are no longer working where there are stories about them being divas with some crazy demands they wanted in their contracts to work in productions.

Those two have not worked in studio productions for years since those stories.

I think it is safe to assume some truth the those stories. Otherwise these two actresses would have found work since.

Sorry, I'm just not understanding.

So there are two actors who have not worked in years due to
their behavior. I guess I just don't see how that proves that a
Google search of articles will demonstrate anything to a filmmaker
using the SAG ULB agreement. I can name ten actors who have
a poor reputation in the tabloids who are a joy to work with. That
proves nothing.

Let's say there are 5,000. So what? I get they you, personally won't
work with them. For me, if a distributor wants both of those actors
you will not name and is willing to buy my completed movie if they
are both in it, and they will work for the $100/day - I'm hiring them.

But I do not see how that has anything to do with using the SAG low
budget agreement.

I'm trying not to be too specific on want was said about them in the Google search.

But, here goes:

One of the two was a former super model before landing two studio acting roles. There were articles about her being a perfect diva, setting her own hours, telling the director what to do, and being very difficult in taking direction.

She only has the 2 credits on imdb.

The second one was in a big Hollywood hit and did several productions since. Then, she stopped acting for a while. She had kids. A major studio called her back for a sequel. She had some outrageous clauses in her contract about having her kids in the studio with a nanny the studio had to pay for. She had lots of breaks per day put into her contract. She had a special diet with special food. She had a back rub down several times a day.

The list went on and on.

Her sequel flopped big time.

She has not worked since.

Based on these stories and no imdb credits since, I'd look for people who are easier to work with. And, I know studio actors who are MUCH easier to work with.

Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:

There are more advantages for working with SAG for ULB independent productions than disadvantages.

Click to expand...

According to the SAG handbook....


Practical, real life experience my vary.

I’m still confused about your point.

Okay, you did a Google search and found out you didn’t want to
work with these two people. I get that. What does this have to do
with the SAG agreement?

You said if you want to “get reliable actors who don’t flake” you
should “go union”. Then you said going union does not guarantee a
flake proof cast.

Okay, you feel a Goolge search is accurate enough for YOU to make
a casing decision. But how does that relate to SAG providing
reliable actors who don’t flake?

You say “This is what SAG ULB agreements can give you, names they
know at a price most of us can afford.” But it doesn’t do that at
all. Most name actors are not going to work for $100 per day.

Using SAG is essential if you are hiring a name big enough to help
with distribution. The ULB agreement does not give you those names
at a price we can afford.

It has nothing to do with the SAG agreement.

All I'm saying is it is much easier to find name actors who are problems to work with on set than unknown actors with Google.

I will say several of the problematic unknowns have vanished all together. I do know too, at times I got phone calls from filmmakers from other productions who asked me about the actors they were considering for roles. When they heard they were headaches to work with, the filmmakers thanked me and told me they will pass on those actors.

Every big project involves significant negotiations between the producers and the talent. Starting with a list of 'outrageous' demands could simply be a negotiating tactic by their agent to ensure that the final agreement is more beneficial to their client than if they started at a 'reasonable' point and negotiated downward.

Actors also aren't the only ones who can be hard to work with. Directors, studios, producers, etc can also be hard for actors to work with, and when I hear stories about seemingly outrageous contract demands from actors I always wonder if those aren't there because the actor really doesn't want to work with someone unless the project is worth more than their usual pay grade.

The actress who had kids may not have really wanted to go back to work, and was only willing to if the producers were willing to accomodate her family life (which was clearly more important to her than acting if she'd already quit) - that's not an unreasonable expectation if she's really vital to the project. The fact that the sequel flopped has nothing to do with her contract - but her contract may have had something to do with her expectation that the sequel wouldn't be any good. The fact that she hasn't worked since may just indicate that she didn't really want to go back to work at all. Some people, even famous actors, simply decide they want to do something else for a while - like raising a family.

And if you're talking about someone who's a recognized name actor being asked to work with an unknown director then you have to recognize that the actor brings significantly more value to the project than just about anyone else - at least in terms of potential revenue for the project. So the fact that they won't willingly work for little or nothing is not a sign that they're being unreasonable or that they are hard to work with.

So I wouldn't take anything you read in the press about these contracts too seriously because you simply can't have enough context to judge them accurately. A good example is Van Halen's standard rider that included a request for M&M's backstage at every concert - with all the brown ones removed. Sounds like a typical rock star diva mentality - and for years was referenced in the press as an outrageous example of such. Later it was revealed that the clause was there in the rider to make sure someone was reading the whole thing and paying attention to all the small details in it - because while the M&M's were a trivial detail many of the others were not, such as the technical requirements of the venue required to safely stage the show. If the M&M's weren't there, or the brown ones weren't removed, it told them right away that there could be serious issues with the venue. In that context the request becomes entirely logical, but without it the press simply assumed they were being 'divas' for years.

Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:

It has nothing to do with the SAG agreement.

Click to expand...

Well damn me. I completely wasted my time.

You start a thread about SAG and DGA but your point has
nothing to so with SAG or the DGA.

Shame on me for falling for this.

Rik, I believe the discussion got off topic when you made the point that SAG does not guarantee their talent will not flake and I was trying to explain ways to check up on name talent where that is not so easy with no name talent.

I still stick to my experience with SAG and other union actors being more professional, responsible, and bringing more to the table than non-union actors on a whole. Certainly, there are always exceptions. Actors coming from top acting schools can be very professional as well as one example.

directorik said:

Well damn me. I completely wasted my time.

You start a thread about SAG and DGA but your point has
nothing to so with SAG or the DGA.

Shame on me for falling for this.

Click to expand...

Man, I just read this thread, and I cant tell you how many of your replies where the exact thoughts I had in my head.