Cutting SAG Out
- Thread starter etnad0
- Start date
Why? The best reason to get a SAG actor is for marketing purposes and if you're going to have to hide them away under aliases and contractual paperwork then it defeats the point of getting them in the first place. There are, from what I hear, lots of great non-union actors in the US...
FYI: If your production is Non-Union, then you don't have to do anything for the SAG actor. They're the one's that'll get penalized, not you. It's in their best interest to not do non-union productions because of this.
For Nick: there are a lot of great reasons to go SAG. Not so much limited to marketing, but, the average SAG actor is better than the non-union actor. MOstly because it takes a certain amount of projects and dedication to get into SAG.
SAG actors, and those aiming to join the union, typically take their careers more serious.
It's not too terribly expensive to go SAG, by the way, but it can be a bit of a pain for various reasons:
1. You have to put down a DEPOSIT that may be more than your production if you're under the ULB.
2. Lots of Paperwork, including the process of going signatory to begin with.
3. What happens afterwards could be tragic if you try to sell it and distributors aren't willing to pay the SAG fees associated with.
I went SAG, I don't regret it. One thing that I don't think anyone will have a problem with is Acting, and my actors stuck it out over the course of a rough shoot without ditching me. But, the paperowkr has been a headache.
For Nick: there are a lot of great reasons to go SAG. Not so much limited to marketing, but, the average SAG actor is better than the non-union actor. MOstly because it takes a certain amount of projects and dedication to get into SAG.
SAG actors, and those aiming to join the union, typically take their careers more serious.
It's not too terribly expensive to go SAG, by the way, but it can be a bit of a pain for various reasons:
1. You have to put down a DEPOSIT that may be more than your production if you're under the ULB.
2. Lots of Paperwork, including the process of going signatory to begin with.
3. What happens afterwards could be tragic if you try to sell it and distributors aren't willing to pay the SAG fees associated with.
I went SAG, I don't regret it. One thing that I don't think anyone will have a problem with is Acting, and my actors stuck it out over the course of a rough shoot without ditching me. But, the paperowkr has been a headache.
Last edited:
You heard wrong. The only thing that I can think of is that maybe they might change their mind and back out before the shoot maybe. ???? That's what a deal memo is for. For my non-union film we had all sorts of SAG actors.
There's no reason to shoot SAG unless you have an actor with genuine box office draw that you want to hire because they will positively help market and sell the movie. About 99.99% of SAG actors who have box office draw don't work on indie films anyway, so there is no reason to shoot SAG
SAG has agreements with their actors. You as an indie filmmaker could care less. You have no agreement with SAG, no duties, no responsibilities, nothing. You can even hire SAG actors if you want. No problem. That's the actors worry. Not yours.
Long story short, NEVER shoot SAG.
Last edited:
The consequences if any would be for the actor. SAG could kick them out or blackball them for taking non-union work. Not very likely.
Wow...the only reason you would use a sag actor is for box office draw? Come on? Really? If you're hiring non union actors you are hiring (on average) amateurs. Sure there are a handful of amateurs that get into the union early, but they usually pay dearly when they don't have a resume to back having union status. If you're hiring an actor that isn't union...you're hiring an actor who is doing whatever they can to become union. So even the good non union ones are doing whatever they can to get in.
Yes you can find good non union actors...but that actor's goal is to join the union because that is the only way to make a living as a working actor. Word of warning...if a union job comes along out of nowhere in the middle of your non union shoot...do you think your non union guy wouldn't jump at the chance to go do that other tv one liner? Its not professional but I've seen it happen because they want that card.
With more experience that actor will become union. If you're hiring 20 non union actors for your film...how many are going to be good actors? How many of them will have worked on set? Hell how many will be passable? I'm not saying its not possible...but you get what you pay for.
How often do you go on ebay and get an almost too good to be true deal? Once in a while, right? Same goes here...if you're not hiring pros...once in a while you can grab some great finds...otherwise you're praying that you can edit out anything that isn't great...
Yes you can find good non union actors...but that actor's goal is to join the union because that is the only way to make a living as a working actor. Word of warning...if a union job comes along out of nowhere in the middle of your non union shoot...do you think your non union guy wouldn't jump at the chance to go do that other tv one liner? Its not professional but I've seen it happen because they want that card.
With more experience that actor will become union. If you're hiring 20 non union actors for your film...how many are going to be good actors? How many of them will have worked on set? Hell how many will be passable? I'm not saying its not possible...but you get what you pay for.
How often do you go on ebay and get an almost too good to be true deal? Once in a while, right? Same goes here...if you're not hiring pros...once in a while you can grab some great finds...otherwise you're praying that you can edit out anything that isn't great...
"Wow...the only reason you would use a sag actor is for box office draw? Come on? Really?"
At my budget and support staff level, yep, really. Not because of the pay, but because of the work rules mostly. Things like mandated breaks, length of the work day, the hassle of filling out the paperwork, etc.. don't begin to be worth it unless they wre light years better than a non-SAG actor OR unless their name on the box = $.
At my budget and support staff level, yep, really. Not because of the pay, but because of the work rules mostly. Things like mandated breaks, length of the work day, the hassle of filling out the paperwork, etc.. don't begin to be worth it unless they wre light years better than a non-SAG actor OR unless their name on the box = $.
The vast majority of indie films produced in the US are non-union simply because it is so expensive to comply with all the SAG demands.
There are thousands of very good actors who are non-union (see above for further details) either by chance or design but that doesn't automatically make them amateurs.
If you're not going SAG for your whole production I can't see the logic of weaselling and SAG actor in and make their and your life difficult when there are lots of good actors who aren't with the union. Calling them amateurs is not right (so long as the OP casts wisely).
You have heard wrong. Working with a SAG actor cannot
kill your film if it not a signatory project.
There is no language that will override a guild agreement
you (the producer) are not following. If your company has
not agreed to follow the guild rules then your company is
in no way obligated to follow their rules. A guild actor can
choose to work in your film even if you are not a signatory.
As has already been mentioned, the actor is the one who
faces problems, not the producer.
There are absolutely thousands of good non-union actors...and they are spread out by age and location. Calling a non union actor amateur isn't a bad word. It's like saying I'm an amateur golfer...I can be good...but I'm not a pro. I'm not making my living as a golfer. My point is that the odds of you filling an entire feature with non union talent and all of them being able to hold their own is limited. Show me movie reviews of a feature that uses no union actors. Great...you can find one or two that are good....maybe a handful. Yes you can have a production turn out well using non union talent....but you're going to have to work that much harder to make it happen.
A lot of you guys are casting outside of LA and NY as well...which means that drops your odds of finding an entire cast of non union greats dramatically. Obviously if you had the budgets to do things another way you would...and I'm not judging that whatsoever....but saying the only reason to cast union is for box office draw of a star name is silly. Because you can always use SAG FiCORE members who are allowed to work non union.
PS: Its looking more and more likely that there will be SAG/AFTRA merger.
Also, here's a question. If you, as a director/producer, hire union actors in your non union film...and down the road you find funding for a much larger budget movie where you can use star names...Can/Would the union allow you to use their agreement if they knew your previous film knowingly used union actors in a non union film? This is something I truly don't know the answer to. I've never heard of this happening...but is it something that is possible or likely?
Let me re-phrase. The ONLY reason I would sign a contract to work under SAG rues would be because there was a recognizable name SAG actor I wanted (and who equaled box office $), and it was the only way I could get him. I'd hire a SAG actor anytime as long as I didn't have to comply with any of their rules.
Last edited:
SAG is not policing unit of the movie/TV industry. They do not blacklist
producers. The guild is an agreement between producers and actors
to follow specific guidelines regarding hours worked, pay, health care
contributions, meal and break periods and residuals. A producer who
is not part of that agreement does not need to follow any of their rules
nor are they punished for the rest of their career for not following them.
Guild actors who violate the guild rules can be punished for not following
them. That's because as guild members they have signed contracts. The
guild cannot prevent an from working in a non guild project. They can
punish the actor. I have never heard of any guild punishment being anything
along the lines of a career long blacklist.
I often hire guild actors on my non guild films. When I make a movie under
the SAG agreement I have never faced any opposition. As far as I know,
no one in SAG researches producers or directors to determine if they have
used non guild actors in the past.
First of all, let me say that your new avatar is pretty awesome. Joe likes your style.
There are a lot of crappy SAG actors, as well. Though, I think you're probably right that the percentage of talent that is worth a damn is probably higher in the SAG pool of actors than it is with the pool of non-SAG.
But that doesn't mean you can't fill a feature with a very talented cast. All it means is that you might have to search harder.
I'm pretty damn happy with the (non-SAG) lead actors I got for my first feature. For some of the supporting roles, I had to use some talent that was (uh, what's the nice way to say this) inexperienced. But I believe that was only because my four lead actors were the only people I paid, and when it comes to the complexities of scheduling your shoot with volunteer actors, sometimes you don't cast exactly who you want. I'm quite confident that if I would have had the budget to pay, say $100/day, I would've had a ton of people lining up for the roles. As was, I actually did have a ton of people lining up to be in the movie, but since they were volunteer, I had to work around thier schedule (which doesn't always work). If I had been paying them, their schedule would've had to conform to my shoot.
Anyway, long-whinded reply short -- I believe that if you are paying your cast, even a modest salary, and if you know where and how to look, you can fill a movie with a very talented cast.
The major difference between a guild and a union is what we are
seeing here in the discussion. In a guild (directors, writers,
actors) there is no expectation of “talent”. Please don’t
misunderstand me - I am not suggesting there are few or fewer
talented actors in SAG than among non guild actors - I am saying
the a guild does not require talent, skill or even experience to
be a full member.
In a trade or craft union there is the expectation of skill.
Again, do not misunderstand me - I am not suggesting there are
more skilled people in a union than working non union - only that
there is an expectation of that skill from employers.
I suspect that if we were to find a completely random group of 20
SAG actors and 20 non guild actors the ratio of “good” to “not
good” would be about the same. I also suspect that ration would
change in different parts of the country. I would venture to say
that here in Los Angeles the ration would be the same.
seeing here in the discussion. In a guild (directors, writers,
actors) there is no expectation of “talent”. Please don’t
misunderstand me - I am not suggesting there are few or fewer
talented actors in SAG than among non guild actors - I am saying
the a guild does not require talent, skill or even experience to
be a full member.
In a trade or craft union there is the expectation of skill.
Again, do not misunderstand me - I am not suggesting there are
more skilled people in a union than working non union - only that
there is an expectation of that skill from employers.
I suspect that if we were to find a completely random group of 20
SAG actors and 20 non guild actors the ratio of “good” to “not
good” would be about the same. I also suspect that ration would
change in different parts of the country. I would venture to say
that here in Los Angeles the ration would be the same.
Here's why I mention it. There is 1 SAG actor that loves my project and wants to be part of it. He calls me at least once a week to check up on everything. He's a really good actor as well. He's stated many times that he doesn't want to bring SAG into the project, but I want to cover myself. The other 19 actors are non SAG so no problems there I hope, which brings me to the next reason for the wording. On another thread somebody mentioned a SAG actor lying to get into the production, then involving them later. I want a way to cover my butt in the contract.
As a producer (filmmaker) who has not signed an agreement with
SAG to follow all their rules you cannot be expected to honor any
SAG contracts. The Screen Actors Guild can do nothing at all to you
if you hire a SAG actor. Because you (the producer) have not agreed
to follow any of the SAG rules. There is nothing you can put in an
actors contract that covers your butt.
I don't know what thread you refer to or what you mean by "involving
them later". A SAG actor can choose to appear in your film with no
consequences to you, your company or your project. That guild actor
may face a fine or some kind of discipline but you are not bound by
any SAG rules. What do you mean by "involving them later"?