WORKING WITH SAG!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dleo]

We are trying to work with SAG on the Ultra Low Budget contract as I write this.

They over charged us!!!!

They came up with a ridicluos SAG actor BOND amount.

We went to the SAGindie workshop, and checked our information very carefully all over the WEB. At the work shop and other WEBsites we found statements that there's a 40% bond for SAG Salaries, and to make sure you budgeted for it. We did budget for it, but that was not the correct amount. We tried to contact SAG about the BOND during the time we were writing the budget to make sure this was right, but nobody at SAG would answer this question. That left us no choice, we had to figure out the bond from other sources. So we went with the 40%. That was wrong! It's actually the entire amount you are paying your SAG actor's plus 10% -- plus 15.3% of entire cast Salary for pension and health.

So say your total budgeted salary is $5,000.

You would pay the $5,000
Plus 10% additioanl $500
Then pension and health $765

The total bond would be $6265 plus your actors Salaries which is 5,000 so your total budget should be $11,265 for actors.

SO DO NOT USE THIS 40% when figuring your budget.

SAG hit us with this two days before we were suppose to start shooting.

We would never have gone SAG route if we didn't go to the SAGindie workshop, which is basically selling the new low budget contract, and there information is very very wrong. Do not trust these workshops.

 

[directorik]

SAG is not the far reaching agency of terror as so many people
tend to believe. Just as they are not a craft union that makes
sure every member is proficient and skilled in their craft as many
people believe. If you have never signed a contract with SAG
agreeing to comply with their rules then there is no way they can
hold you to a contract you never signed. Even if the actor tells
you he is a SAG member, the guild cannot compel you to follow
their bargaining agreement.

The actor who is a member has signed the agreement and has
agreed to not perform in projects produced by producers who
have not signed the agreement. If you do not sign an agreement
to use SAG actors there is no way SAG can hold you responsible
if you do not follow a contract you did not sign.

 

[wheatgrinder]

lol, the far reaching agency of terror.. I like it! FRAT

 

[Dleo]

I'm leaning towards asking my one SAG actor if he's willing to try and fly under the SAG radar.

Create a Defferrment agreement that states how much you will pay the actor when the film makes money, and that you will pay him and 'any oganizations that may be revelent to his status as an actor." Do not name SAG, this will upset a distributor.

'any oganizations that may be revelent to his status as an actor" this phrase comes directly from a lawyer by the way.

I hope it works out with your actor--try and get him to a reading of the SCRIPT and have him read with another actor, this will juice up the role for him. If it's a good part that is. After the reading hit him with the whole "Let's do this under the SAG RADAR--let him/her know where you stand as far as budget goes, and see what happens. Then yank out the agreement.

 

[Cracker Funk]

If it's a good part that is.

It's the lead role.

Thanks for sharing the legalese wording. You've been a big help!

 

[rayw]

The actor who is a member has signed the agreement and has
agreed to not perform in projects produced by producers who
have not signed the agreement. If you do not sign an agreement
to use SAG actors there is no way SAG can hold you responsible
if you do not follow a contract you did not sign.

I recall when watching the DVD extras for Eli Roth's CABIN FEVER that midway through production SAG essentially shut them down because they wanted "in" on his non-SAG production.
After an unspecified period of time (likely two or three days) Roth bent to their will and the production budget soared as CABIN FEVER went full bore SAG.
http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/aacabinfeverintd.htm

Certainly that is a sweet and condensed version of what really happened, Roth didn't go into any detail about the legal mechanics of "how" SAG wheedled their way into the project.

I was wondering if you or others had any idea about what sort of back door exposure the CF project may have left open for exploitation?


TIA

 

[Cracker Funk]

I was wondering if you or others had any idea about what sort of back door exposure the CF project may have left open for exploitation?

Wow, that's a messed-up story. Good to know, but I don't think it applies to me. I'm not Eli Roth, and nobody will know about my production until it's already done been produced.

 

[Dleo]

You are shrunk to the height of a nickel & your mass is proportionally reduced so as to maintain your original density. You are then thrown into an empty glass blender. The blades will start moving in 60 seconds. What do you do?

I take the blades off the mixer, use them as peton's, and climb out. Then shoot a movie called The Adventures of a Incredible Tiny Man!! I would need a normal sized cinematographer this time though--cuz the camera would be fripping huge. Can't hand carry the camera any more

 

[directorik]

That article shows quite a conflict between a producer and the
unions. The unions want to protect the workers, the producer do
not have that requirement.

“We had to come back to LA, owing the crew a $100,000”

To Roth and Moews this is reasonable - not paying the crew they
agreed to pay. After all they are doing it for the love of filmmaking
and they have every intention of paying them when they get the
money. But the crew who traveled to NC expecting to be paid may
not feel the same way.

There are always two sides to a story. This interview is mostly
about IATSE. IA will only show up if someone on the crew contacts
them. Roth says, “The crew didn't want to turn Union, they just
got bullied into it.” and I believe him - but there may have been
several members of the crew upset that they were not being paid,
spoke to the producers, were promised payment and then still
didn’t get paid. We do not know based in this interview.

Roth says, “My dad, he's a doctor, he had to take money out of his
retirement to pay them off. It was horrible.” I wonder if finally
getting paid was as horrible for the crew.

I understand that most of us here are making no-budget movies
where the cast and crew are not getting paid at all. they work on
the movie with that understanding. This was a $1,500,000 project.
The crew agreed on a weekly rate. They were not paid. That’s
different than what most of us are doing. Is it fair to blame the
unions for a producer not meeting their end of the agreement?

I have several stories that are just like this - from the
perspective of a crew member. I am glad to work on a movie for
free - I do it often - but when I am told I will be paid I expect
to be paid. Not greedy, not unprecedented. If the agreed upon rate
is $200 per week, at the end of the week I think it’s essential
for the producer to pay me the $200.

Now the SAG issue brought up in the interview: This was a SAG
show. Every actor was a member of SAG. When the producer runs out
of money I understand they expect the Guild to make concessions.
But for how long? Roth does not say in this interview how many
weeks the actors went without pay before SAG stepped in. What is
reasonable? Two weeks without pay? Three? A month?

How many of you here can go for two weeks without a paycheck?
Can you afford to go for three? Even if you were told you were
getting paid?

I know I’m coming off as “pro” union and in a way I am. I am for
the worker. I believe the producer (and I am a producer) should
meet the payroll each and every week. On a nonunion/guild show the
employees have no recourse if the producer has money problems.
However, if the producer has signed an agreement with a guild then
the guild steps in - and they are not there to work with the producer,
they are there to represent the contract and protect the actors.

 

[Dleo]

I know I’m coming off as “pro” union and in a way I am. I am for
the worker. I believe the producer (and I am a producer) should
meet the payroll each and every week. On a nonunion/guild show the
employees have no recourse if the producer has money problems.
However, if the producer has signed an agreement with a guild then
the guild steps in - and they are not there to work with the producer,
they are there to represent the contract and protect the actors.

This is because you are honorable!!!

I'm pro union as well, and wish I could have large enough budgets to always pay the unions. I've never gone into a shoot without having all the basis covered, and if I were going to make a $1.5mil dollar film meant for theatrical Distribution I would count on it being union. For a Producer to make a film for that kind of budget and not count on it being union is wrong, and they should have known better.

The problems i had with SAG was because of not being able to budget in what there deposit was going to be, because they would not give me a solid answer when I was setting up the budget. We went with what I was told in the SAG classes for the ultra-lowbudget agreement, and from other film makers it was wrong. We had very little money--150 times less than what Roth had. SAG was horrorable to us , because we had such a low budget.


Roth is a Hollywood Brat--With a budget of $1.5mil the producers/director should have never had an issues. I would bet any money-- that Roth and his producers paid themselves a large chunk of the budget, and that's why they had issues.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Yep, Dleo sums up my trepidation, perfectly. If/when I have more money, I'll be happy to work with SAG. I'm definitely pro-union, and I also think Roth's actions were inexcusable.

 

[Zensteve]

Didn't Tarantino have something similar when he started filming Jackie Brown?

Pretty sure I saw some interview with him, explaining how they had to go union for crew at that point on.

 

[Dleo]

I'm not sure about Jackie Brown, but I do know for sure that R.Rodriquez and Tarantino had many troubles with the union during the shooting of "From Dusk till Dawn"--but they were able to get through it, because they paid close to union scale--although some crew members complained that they didn't get as much overtime as the should have--I do know that the producers including Tarantino bought Health insurance for the entire crew that would last long after the shoot was over. Tarantion said in an interview that they shot From Dusk til dawn for $15mil and if the union was involved it would have been closer to $30mil.--In the end--when the film made money everybody was given union scale, and all overtime was paid including pensions into the union, and the Producers only had to pay about a 10% fine for not doing it during shooting.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

I have a pension coming from 2 different unions and partipicated in two strikes.

SAG is not a union. For the little guys, I say f SAG until they get their act together in dealing with us little indie people.

 

[directorik]

Let's not cloud the issue too much with unions vs. SAG.

In the Tarantino and Rodriquez and Roth examples we are talking about
IATSE with is a craft union - not a guild. And we are talking about after
production has started in those cases. The IA issues these directors had
is quite different than the issues Dleo had with SAG.

 

[Dleo]

Let's not cloud the issue too much with unions vs. SAG.

In the Tarantino and Rodriquez and Roth examples we are talking about
IATSE with is a craft union - not a guild. And we are talking about after
production has started in those cases. The IA issues these directors had
is quite different than the issues Dleo had with SAG.

Agreed

 

[enlguy]

SAG does not equal professionalism

There are a lot of posts talking about how unprofessional non-SAG actors are. Most SAG actors are no-names that have giant egos, and are more likely WORSE to deal with. Don't think that going SAG fixes all your problems. Are you RETARDED?!! Lindsay Lohan has caused just about every one of her past SEVERAL projects to be cancelled completely thanks to her love for the bottle. For a while, RDJ would cost productions millions extra in bonding and insurance. I, personally, worked with a bunch of complete nobodies who were SAG and they showed up to set almost an hour late EVERY DAY and got drunk every night. I was an AD on that shoot and remember driving our female lead to set while she had her head buried in a bag (puking off her hangover, for those without an imagination). SAG doesn't guarantee ANY level of professionalism. And for the most part, from what I see, can pretty much assure you that you'll be dealing with big egos and plenty of bullshit. I won't even go into the stuff I could get in trouble saying (big name SAG actors that have commandeered bathrooms at borrowed locations to do hard drugs, etc.). The only difference you'll see is with those who treat it like a respectable profession and those who think it's a joke. If they think what they do for a job is a joke, or the project is a joke, they will act like a joke. SAG or not.

As for the rest, good reading as a heads up. If you plan on selling your film these days, you do need recognizable actors, and at least in the circle within which I work, they're not that hard to come by, even on a ULB agreement.

If you're having trouble with your SAG rep, by the way, I've found a lawyer to be a nice kick in the ass. They'll ignore a producer all day, but when the attorney calls, things get done quickly. Just speaking from some experience. I'm sure it does also depend on the office - in CA they seem to be busier (understandably) and maybe a little impersonal, but tend to get done what needs to be done. I haven't heard any major complaints from anyone out here.

 

[Blade_Jones]

When making an indie film the last thing an indie filmmaker needs is union demands or bureaucratic nonsense. There's too much money at risk to volunteer to handcuff yourself by all that is SAG, especially with the rapid decline indie film budgets that's been going on for the last 10 years. Unions are for big budget productions -- not indie movies. SAG will never understand this.

 

[fantomette]

Er, yes, I think it's okay, you having to put up with what the vast majority of taxpayers have to put up with. I see no reason government employees should have it better than the private sector when they're on our dime.

The brilliance of the "Mr Burns" out there. Divide the public and the private workers then sit and watch as all of our incomes plummet till we reach 3rd country levels.

 

[bez]

There are a lot of posts talking about how unprofessional non-SAG actors are. Most SAG actors are no-names that have giant egos, and are more likely WORSE to deal with. Don't think that going SAG fixes all your problems. Are you RETARDED?!! Lindsay Lohan has caused just about every one of her past SEVERAL projects to be cancelled completely thanks to her love for the bottle. For a while, RDJ would cost productions millions extra in bonding and insurance. I, personally, worked with a bunch of complete nobodies who were SAG and they showed up to set almost an hour late EVERY DAY and got drunk every night. I was an AD on that shoot and remember driving our female lead to set while she had her head buried in a bag (puking off her hangover, for those without an imagination). SAG doesn't guarantee ANY level of professionalism. And for the most part, from what I see, can pretty much assure you that you'll be dealing with big egos and plenty of bullshit. I won't even go into the stuff I could get in trouble saying (big name SAG actors that have commandeered bathrooms at borrowed locations to do hard drugs, etc.). The only difference you'll see is with those who treat it like a respectable profession and those who think it's a joke. If they think what they do for a job is a joke, or the project is a joke, they will act like a joke. SAG or not.

As for the rest, good reading as a heads up. If you plan on selling your film these days, you do need recognizable actors, and at least in the circle within which I work, they're not that hard to come by, even on a ULB agreement.

If you're having trouble with your SAG rep, by the way, I've found a lawyer to be a nice kick in the ass. They'll ignore a producer all day, but when the attorney calls, things get done quickly. Just speaking from some experience. I'm sure it does also depend on the office - in CA they seem to be busier (understandably) and maybe a little impersonal, but tend to get done what needs to be done. I haven't heard any major complaints from anyone out here.

Broad sweeping generalizations aren't only used in racism apparently. That's what this is equivalent to. You're prejudiced against Union actors? Good luck making a movie that gets seen because unless you have the next blair witch project its going to be highly unlikely that people will watch it without some name attached. A name that is a union actor. Back when I was an military consultant engineer we had some younger guys fresh out of college that would come into work with a hangover. They are still engineers. They are just young and immature. We also had older guys with bad attitudes. That doesn't mean that all engineers are idiots. On the contrary...They are pretty smart.

There are people that get into the union by doing extra work...which means they have yet to be judged based on their talent. So until they are proven...sure they are still "amateurs" to an extent. It's still not easy to do. So I'll give them that. But all actors in SAG have paid their dues in some fashion or another. Most of them train week in and week out. And as a guy who was a non union actor long ago...I know what kind of actor I was when I started and what kind of an actor I am now... I am a much better actor now. When you get better you move further in your career...eventually that means joining the union because people like your work...and you want to make money. Consider this: If you make 10 million dollars on your little indie film that turned into a big hit...we, the actor, get nothing if its non union. Nothing. If we also then worked for free....its kind of crappy. However...under the sag ulb agreement...we at least are guaranteed extremely low pay ($100 a day for a 12-15hr shoot day) is at or UNDER minimum wage laws. Note to you. Actors gotta pay bills. You can not survive on that in Los Angeles. Which means if you're an actor and this is all you are doing you are not trying to make this a career. Which means you are a hobby actor. Which is fine...its awesome....because it would make a really fun hobby. But I/we have bills to pay. That said i love doing SAG ULB indies. I've done tons of them. But don't expect/try to convince us to scab from the union...because this disrespectful as s**t. And don't bash us because without us...you have no film. You have an untold story. We are equals.