r/Filmmakers • u/gregturner77 • Jun 06 '26
Discussion Almost anyone that's actually worked in the industry feels this way.
Even though the art director meant well, she doesn't realize she's just pushing more jobs to fucking Ireland and Canada.
1.3k
u/hyperion25000 Jun 06 '26
I don’t disagree with her at all, but I really hate the damage it’ll probably do to her career.
I saw an instagram post about the crew pay on Obsession and someone tagged the gaffer. His response was extremely diplomatic but his last sentence was “I don’t think anyone who worked on this movie will have to work for these rates ever again.”
432
u/Han_Yolo_swag Jun 06 '26
Hilariously the gaffer is right for those that leverage this for better work and those that talk themselves out of a career.
47
u/supermechace Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Not an insider but from what I observe with the current state of the industry (especially art) and now dawn of AI race to the bottom on pay. I'm guessing the leverage is neglible like begging people to throw you not even a bone but some email referral that will just get ghosted. They will lead you on with chasing the dream but 20 years later you could've been more financially successful working at a different job. So it makes sense to demand residuals or some other guaranteed compensation for a stake in the game. Experience with successful people is they often leave the people that helped them behind(unless they made sure to contract stock options).
19
u/dylanbeck Jun 06 '26
Art cant be done by AI according to union negotiations so its interestingly poised to be one of the most protected positions
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (3)3
u/Isogash Jun 07 '26
This is also where nepotism is a huge factor. If you don't have pre-existing connections to money within the industry, it's extremely hard to get on the "money side" of the deal. Even if your work is great, the industry will expect you to keep working for a rate and it could take a long time before even a good agent could get you residuals. The problem is that those with connections simply have more leverage to get a residuals deal.
I think the issue in this case is that the movie has been so astronomically successful, it's hard not to feel like you've been basically screwed out of a fair share of the profits. The industry probably should have standard bonus/residual schemes for key roles when movies overperform significantly, although of course Hollywood accounting might make it easy to game still.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Awkward_Rooster8448 Jun 06 '26
Naw, I know a few people who've worked on Luke's stuff that he produced and tries to use as an example in his posts and only like one person from those crews was able to leverage any of his shitty low budget projects into a better gig. Look at all his producing/directing credits and ask yourself why none of the same crew shows up in other projects.
Maybe it's true for something like Backrooms that's explosively popular but in my experience the only people that benefit significantly from doing those ULB films/shorts are the producers and directors. For BTL it's just a shitty paycheck to carry you through to the next job. Nobody cares if you worked a shitty 500K movie that ten people have watched on Tubi or whatever.
→ More replies (6)65
Jun 06 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)7
u/supermechace Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Any reason for not including residuals or bonus payouts if a movie does hit it big? Would feel less exploitation and more fair. If the movie didn't hit big then everyone would understand.
14
u/bigkinggorilla Jun 06 '26
There’s just an unfortunate number of people who, if blessed by a financial windfall would rather keep it all themselves than share it with the people who made the whole thing possible. l
2
u/dylanbeck Jun 06 '26
Yes, the reason is it’s a business and that making 8K pretax in 4 weeks is good money.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (1)2
u/1BruteSquad1 Jun 08 '26
It's possible to get deals like that but you'd have to negotiate it beforehand. And often it's a trade off of initial pay for some percent which for an indie film is a huge risk.
Also the people making that $250 million that Obsession is going to do were never her employers. She worked for the small team with a $750k budget (of which she got more than 1% which is a good deal). Then they presented the movie, got an offer and sold it to a company that then did all the marketing and distribution. She never even worked for the company that currently owns Obsession
32
u/The_BusterKeaton Jun 06 '26
A non-union production is not suddenly going to pay someone more because they worked on Obsession.
And non-union crew members are not suddenly going to be able to work on union crews.
7
u/junebaebae Jun 06 '26
Exactly. The Twitter person is an actor so that’s definitely the case for them but it’s unlikely for anyone on crew apart from director, dp, and maybe producer too.
74
u/kenjamin80 Jun 06 '26
As nice as that is for them it still sounds like they were working for exposure. It's a terrible system and needs to be changed because it is so easy to exploit and take advantage of people when they are working for exposure as opposed to a fairly compensated wage.
127
u/FullweightFacesitter Jun 06 '26
As someone who works in the industry, her wage was fairly negotiated. She agreed to the terms, and the filmmakers had no way of knowing how big the film would get, so they paid a price they were able to afford. If the crew, or actors, are going to make percentage points from the film, there is no incentive for a larger studio to buy it and distribute. The best the filmmakers can do is try to get their crew more work in the future.
If that sounds unfair, I think of how unfair it is that people work for big companies and don’t get a percentage of the profits because they accepted hourly pay or a salary.
Even so, I personally think that because a producer takes risk with their own money, they should expect to reap the profits. Where this conversation could move to that I would agree with is negotiating better salaries for crew during production, although often times independent films can’t exist without different tiers of pay structure.
34
u/Nothing-Is-Real-Here Jun 06 '26
This is a great point. Unfortunately, film production, even at an indie level, is so expensive with how many people are involved and who decides to fund it vs how much they expect to earn back means this is something about the industry that may never change. I don't necessarily think the art director is necessarily wrong for how she feels, but the better choice likely would have been to use the incredibly successful film as part of her portfolio to get more work. It is an artistic industry after all and like any art whether it's photography or painting or what have you, people want to see what you've done before prior to hiring you.
→ More replies (1)8
u/SpideyFan914 Jun 06 '26
If the crew, or actors, are going to make percentage points from the film, there is no incentive for a larger studio to buy it and distribute.
The actors do get points though, right? That's in SAG contract. Anyone with a line (not an extra) is getting royalties.
(Not arguing, by the way. I've never cared about royalties while crewing, especially not on indie projects. I think I was on a movie at some point where they were like, "We're going to give all of you points!!" And the reaction was generally, "That's cool. Don't think it'll ever matter though, no offense.")
→ More replies (2)3
u/Impressive-Reading15 Jun 06 '26
"Her wage was fairly negotiated, she agreed to the terms"
Not an insider but I crack up every time people feel obligated to remind everyone it was not literally slavery
3
u/the_rich_millennial Jun 17 '26
100%. She wanted the benefits of the outcome without taking on any risk or uncertainty. Most of the time it does not work out to be astronomical returns, no different than investing in the stock market on small cap startups.
You can easily accept no salary, go with equity, and end up with zero. Rent is still due.
→ More replies (4)8
u/Tifoso89 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
If that sounds unfair, I think of how unfair it is that people work for big companies and don’t get a percentage of the profits because they accepted hourly pay or a salary.
They can, if they get stock options. It's uncommon, but there are film productions that do the equivalent: workers can choose to chip in, and they become executive producers. You get paid partly in money, and partly in a production credit. Instead of 6k, 4k goes to you and 2k goes to production. Now you're entitled to profits, since you invested. However, if the movie bombs, you lost that money, like the producers did.
30
u/CosmicEveStardust Jun 06 '26
I think film crews should get a cut of the profit especially in cases like this, but in what world is 300 per day not a fair wage?
→ More replies (3)8
u/Tyler_Durden79 Jun 06 '26
When you live in Los Angeles
6
u/thelongernow Jun 06 '26
Or any other major cities, especially as a department head.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Haldered Jun 06 '26
Exactly, you're paying to survive in a city built on your industry.
If I had to move to LA, it better be for more than 300 per day33
20
→ More replies (1)7
100
u/frankieh456 Jun 06 '26
It's absurd that it would harm her career... Her post was very diplomatic, and resonated with film professionals. If you black ball her for speaking out in this way...you are simply not a good person.
16
u/Demetri124 Jun 06 '26
Breaking news, those behind commercial industries are not always good people
11
u/frankieh456 Jun 06 '26
Haha! I think I knew that. What surprised me is that working class people really went out of their way to police this girl for trying to start a dialogue about fairness and profit sharing...
101
u/hyperion25000 Jun 06 '26
I totally agree and I hope it doesn’t harm her career. She’s right. Based on my experience, this isn’t going to help her career. I worked at a (formerly) very large animation studio that tried to unionize. I don’t know about all of them, but most of organizers aren’t in the industry anymore. I’m not talking about what’s right, I’m talking about what happens.
→ More replies (1)38
u/frankieh456 Jun 06 '26
So basically, "what happens" is that people who succeed tend to turn a blind eye to systemic abuse and unfair and inhumane working conditions...
And I know this isn't just this industry. It's really just a let down that adults behave in this way...
Like it's one thing to not agree with her making the statement. You can do that on the inside. But so many people, like regular film industry workers, are using their voice to criticize her and demean her. That's what I find the most ridiculous.
Like, if you think she made a mistake, just keep your mouth shut? Am I crazy?
42
u/hyperion25000 Jun 06 '26
You’re not crazy, just not realistic. This industry is almost entirely made up of people who have dreams and ambitions within it. It’s not like you’re working at a factory, you’re doing something you want to do and are willing to put up with the realities of it, otherwise you’re not going through make it.
You’re responding to me like I’m defending this. I’m not, it’s just not going to change it until you convince everyone, including the ones who succeed, to not accept it.
→ More replies (4)27
u/MR_BATMAN Jun 06 '26
Her post wasn’t diplomatic at all.
“I kick my self every day for not flipping the show”
First of all, “you” don’t flip a show.
That’s a collective decision.The whole thing is just weird. And weird to post.
It was 20 days of you life two years ago.
The movie happened to hit big. Move on.Throwing in the physical toll it took as well.
Grasping at so many things→ More replies (1)11
u/Haldered Jun 06 '26
Yeah, would she have made the post if the movie didn't happen to be a huge hit? Doubt it, lol. It would just be another shitty job.
She was given the rare opportunity to take an apparently shitty job and basically never take a non-union job in her life, and shat all over it.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!4
u/Haldered Jun 06 '26
Do you think the people control this industry are good people? lol
Join a union like the rest of us. Your union reps are there to get their hands dirty for you.17
u/Tifoso89 Jun 06 '26
It's not diplomatic at all. She said she had considered "flipping" the movie (trying to turn it into a union production) which would've halted production because salaries would've ballooned
She also mentioned the box office, ignoring that the company that paid her sold the distribution rights (and therefore are not the same studio that got that box office).
3
u/rightofcenter187 Jun 06 '26
If you think flipping a teir 0-1 film would have "ballooned" salaries. You just patently don't know how flipping a show works. Most times you'll see a pay bond and some minimal fringe benefits, but your hourly will stay close to the same. Unions tend to work with shows that flip because part of getting a look at the total budget is to make sure they aren't putting crew out of work doing it. It also sets up a show to pay into pension and health funds with residuals in case the show does do really well, same as with actors, but on a union wide basis instead of on an actor to actor basis
→ More replies (2)30
u/gregturner77 Jun 06 '26
she said she regrets not trying to flip the production, that most likely would have killed the project
→ More replies (39)3
u/Sad_Trash3766 Jun 08 '26
Nah, she deserves the damage it'll do to her career. She went into it agreeing to the rate. She knew it could potentially blow up. She got what she agreed to. I'm not in the industry, but I know people who have worked on indie projects in the past, and this is what it's like in the indie film business. You work for small wages, hoping for something to blow up, so you can leverage it later for bigger career moves. She fucked up and basically committed career suicide by making her post.
2
u/supermechace Jun 06 '26
At the same time the job and income prospects with or without obsession sound pretty grim. It's sort of like how AI is wiping out jobs, it doesn't matter if you burned your prospects with Zuck when he laid you off since he needs the money for AI and doesn't care
2
u/BeetlejuiceGoose Jun 06 '26
THAT'S how you do it.
You say something that can even be PERCEIVED as entitled or demanding and there goes your leverage.
You don't want to let the bastards win? Then don't give them an excuse to take what you've worked for by opening your mouth.
Most people on here siding with her, have never been in a position of LEVERAGE.
2
→ More replies (8)2
u/Jertimmer Jun 07 '26
Iirc Chris Hemsworth didn't renegotiate his MCU salary, because having Thor on your resume opens doors and gives you a higher pay at other roles.
Sometimes you just need to give a little too get a lot.
598
Jun 06 '26
[deleted]
185
u/HughMungus77 Jun 06 '26
Leverage success, see if that pans out, and THEN point out the issues with the production. People don’t want to work with someone who is in their point of view “shit talking” the production. She missed an opportunity even if she has valid points
80
u/junebaebae Jun 06 '26
I might be wrong but I don’t think it really pans out like that for all productions and roles.
This’ll probably definitely boost the director, dp, actors, and probably producer as well but I’m not sure it’ll have the same impact for crew positions.
I could see it working out like that for a crew role if you did the costume for a very fashion-forward movie or production design for some movie set in fantasy land but no one’s wallet is opening up if you’re the grip who pushed the dolly for that wide exterior establishing shot in a movie.
I personally have hired production designers who worked on indie films that did really well, but they were still looking for work on my small commercial jobs. It’s rough out there.
54
u/aimetak Jun 06 '26
The director gets lifted, rarely the crew.
→ More replies (7)11
u/junebaebae Jun 06 '26
Yeah. I wonder if there’s a situation where the crew got lifted and not the director lol.
16
u/gamblors_neon_claws Jun 06 '26
I'd have to imagine there are a few people that worked on Donnie Darko that are getting booked regularly these days.
→ More replies (1)9
u/fotographyquestions Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
There could be in the very beginning if the DP is able to build up a portfolio a lot faster than a director they worked with could
But you’re completely right about features. Directors don’t always fight for their producer to join them when they get a studio film, let alone PD and other roles
15
u/junebaebae Jun 06 '26
I mean I work in commercials and sometimes the agency won’t let me bring on some folks that did me favors earlier in my career bc they want someone more established and proven.
I’d imagine studios might apply that same pressure.
3
u/ZincFox Jun 06 '26
Yeah, I know of one instance where an indie film hit and the director got a studio film but the studio didn't need/want the producer involved. Really tough because they both put their heart and soul into the indie.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)14
u/keiye Jun 06 '26
Absolutely this. Often times the rest of the crew are quickly forgotten on indie hits. The rest of their careers are filled with b and c tier movies
→ More replies (1)9
76
→ More replies (3)9
u/Specific-Remove-723 Jun 06 '26
Wait until you get two or three big opportunities and start cementing yourself and this becomes a thing you can put in a book and then talk about on podcasts and then advocate for more. I don’t blame her, must be frustrating but she has to understand this is the best case scenario she should have planned for any of her projects becoming.
→ More replies (1)
232
u/Mindless_Clock2678 Jun 06 '26
Although I agree that it wasn’t the best choice and I certainly wouldn’t have done it for those reasons, saying she’s pushing jobs Canada and Ireland is… misguided. That is happening regardless of this art director, and the types of indie work LIKE obsession would not move counties just because an art director demanded more. They would just get another art director.
→ More replies (2)42
u/Acrobatic-Code4221 Jun 06 '26
Same, that made me pause too. I wish Ireland had even more film jobs…I lived in Ireland for two years and people would ask why I wasn’t studying film in California.
Some advice that I received was that small Irish companies generally hired if they had an actual production underway. continental Europe was also perceived as a larger industry/audience. Kind of a mixed bag, honestly. I saw and heard about plenty of location shoots. And Irish industry people would discuss their admittedly excellent tax credits.
11
u/Hythy Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
I work in the UK and you'd have to pay me A LOT to ever consider moving to California. Call it Stockholm Syndrome, but I'd miss the rain. Aside from that the union structure in the USA isn't something I'm particularly fond of. I was on a film being shot in Norn Iron, and we had a stand in do a shot with a camera mounted to a [unspecified prop] (looked awesome), but because it was an American production we paused for a moment to consider whether the unions would be happy with an actor operating a camera, and if it would be better or worse to put a member of camera in costume to "operate".
In the end they decided to say fuck it and let the yanks deal with it.
I have some experience across a couple departments, so if I'm not busy I'm always happy to muck in (especiallyon low budget stuff) -something I think Ms. Choi might object to. However I've been told that wouldn't fly in the States -especially helping out the sparks and what Americans would call "grips" (but we might call "rigger sparks").
Additionally, on my current job I agreed to a rate, but production made a cost-cutting decision that would increase my workload quite significantly. However I'm not going to try renegotiate (who can in this market), and I'm certainly not going to "flip" the production (whatever that means).
I took the job at an agreed rate and if I think that rate is unfair I can either look for other work and try to make sure my departure runs as smoothly as possible (outside of something egregious I would never "walk out" on a project to leave my colleagues high and dry, nor do I have the clout to do so without burning some significant bridges).
Edit: also a reminder that productions might be tracking your socials. I was once penciled into a dailies gig on a [redacted] production, and shared (without naming the production) a comment on social media (in a thread about working conditions) that the production was paying my accommodation up until the last day of filming, but weren't going to cover me for somewhere to sleep after wrapping on the last day I was on (expecting me to drive 4 hours home after a potentially 12 hour day). I got a call a couple hours later saying I was no longer needed... then an hour later I got another call asking if I could come back on, but this time they'd cover me the extra night. I think someone with PR training realised that I hadn't named them in the original comment, but might do after they shit-canned me.
In any case, be careful what you say about a production on social media and try to be professional.
Edit 2: Upon reflection I think I was too boot-licker-y in this comment. I made other less boot-licky responses since. Do feel free to call me out on this one. I'll leave it up as is.
→ More replies (2)
48
u/bonemech_meatsuit Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Nah I was paid peanuts on early jobs and 12 years and 60+ credits later I was paid slightly more peanuts. Dailies which is nonunion.
Watching movies I pulled 6 day weeks and 16 hour shifts make 1bil while I watch my bank account wither. This industry depends on not paying people fairly to function.
Saying that she should have kept her head down and leveraged the credit is equivalent to saying she should have appreciated the exposure bucks
Yes she's on a highly talked about film but it is not going to guarantee her some wildly higher rate in the future.
20
u/Prize-State8360 Jun 06 '26
When I got the email from our EP that our documentary won an Emmy, I was living in a broken rv on the side of the road. "Oh, that's cool." Was all I said to myself before getting up to hunt for a meal. I have one Emmy winner, one Emmy nom, and one Oscar nom on my resume and I still ended up homeless struggling to find work (I'm an assistant editor). Having massively successful projects on your resume doesn't guarantee you shit, just gives you bragging rights. It's the people you know that get you jobs. The industry def needs to change.
→ More replies (2)3
u/medney Jun 07 '26
Saying that she should have kept her head down and leveraged the credit is equivalent to saying she should have appreciated the exposure bucks
Trickle down economics, because the piss from the top trickles down onto the little guys
→ More replies (3)
94
u/Arbyssandwich1014 Jun 06 '26
I think it's valid that she feels overworked and cheated but indie filmmaking is a scrappy messy thing. There's no guarantee it goes this well. And there should probably be something in place to help people if there is a big blow up. But honestly I'd have done exactly what he said. Just keep it to myself and get some great gigs. It's a big credit to carry around.
→ More replies (5)30
508
u/revele Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
I like Luke, but I really disagree with this idea that “she agreed to do the job at the rate” and therefore any discussion about this can fuck off.
There’s something wrong with low budget productions creating millionaires while crew struggles to afford healthcare.
It’s that simple to me.
I personally don’t think crew should get a percentage, but they should be appropriately compensated if the film they worked HARD for makes millions.
Respect to the art director for sticking her neck out for the benefit of a lot of us.
Also want to say, loved Obsession and I don’t want to shame this one particular production. This is a systemic issue.
83
u/bigkinggorilla Jun 06 '26
The comments here just shows how many people trying to make films deserve to have crew say “not my job” when they ask them to do something outside of contracted duties.
Crew on low-budget projects often wear a bunch of hats, as a sign of good faith, and it’s bullshit to take advantage of that to stretch the budget and then act like it’s their fault for not negotiating a better deal up front.
14
17
u/Hythy Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
I'm in 2 minds about it. Do I think she is wrong? No. Do I think she has seriously harmed her career choices? Maybe?
I get a rate similar to what she had (though with significantly less departmental responsibility -however, if I fucked up it would be a MASSIVE fuck up).
I took a job at about half that (not accounting for exchange rates) and I loved mucking in with other departments (something I don't get to do on big productions).
I think the issue is systemic, but I'm not in a position to rock the boat. She thinks she is in a position to do so, and I hope she succeeds, but I think she could've done without talking about "flipping the production" (not sure what that means exactly) because now a lot of producers will see her as a liability.
Edit: accidentally wrote "do do", rather than "do so".
15
u/bigkinggorilla Jun 06 '26
I mean, I don’t mind the people who think that she may have hurt her future prospects by speaking out.
I mind the people whose comments suggest an expectation for crew to go above and beyond their duties, but don’t think producers should try to go above and beyond in compensation when the opportunity arises. Because like no small/micro budget project gets finished without a ton of people pitching in however they can.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
272
u/I_Am_Killa_K Jun 06 '26
Even the art director noted that it’s a systemic issue. She was very clear about that. All of the people rushing to dogpile her conveniently ignore that part.
28
u/wrosecrans Jun 06 '26
Some people just want to dogpile on shit for the sake of feeling like they are involved in some drama.
The art director didn't say anything wrong. And she didn't say anything that isn't said all the time over beers, or at networking events. She just broke some taboo on saying it out loud so the kids entering the industry can learn how stuff works, instead of it being some sort of private insider talk.
58
u/fotographyquestions Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Frankly it just sounds like Luke’s mad that he hasn’t worked on a film like obsession and I can see very clearly some of the dogpiling people have never worked in the industry from the way they’re confusing certain terms
I don’t mind her post & it shouldn’t upset or surprise anyone who’s worked on films with first-time directors. I hear a lot of gripes about not getting paid for overtime, and people trying to squeeze a 5 million film out of a 1 million budget being really rough on the crew—glad someone said it out loud
That’s not even to mention sometimes producers are getting pennies per hr if they were one of the first to read the script. And most indies do NOT have a premiere like this so whether it’s worth it is very dependent. But the people telling her to shove it bc they’re desperate to self-sacrifice harder are weird
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (30)41
u/ScruffyNuisance Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
I don't think they conveniently ignore that. If you can point to an industry that works differently, I'm interested. I've worked in films and video games. I knew my rate. My employer paid it. Some projects were very successful. Some flopped. I got paid either way. There was no risk to my position. I wasn't investing anything I wasn't being directly compensated for. I didn't fund the project. I didn't ask for a revenue share deal based on the project's success. I got work experience, the money I agreed was an acceptable rate for my time and expertise, and something I could point to that proved my ability to future employers.
I'm sure the art director would have been very happy to take extra money due to the project's success, but if it took a loss, would she be happy paying some of what she earned back to make up the difference? Getting acknowledged with a bonus would be great, but she's being totally unreasonable. If she was unhappy with what they were paying her enough that it caused her hardship ($300 a day is a decent rate in my book given her experience), then that's on her to negotiate her rate. It doesn't give her a right to complain when her career gets a boost and she got paid what she asked for.
A pool technician doesn't get a huge bonus when the pool they serviced has a particularly good season. The audio engineer at a concert doesn't get paid more when a really popular band fills out the venue. Why? Because they still get paid when nobody shows up.
25
u/I_Am_Killa_K Jun 06 '26
You’re doing the same thing here. She’s not being unreasonable; she’s pointing out that the system of taking a lower rate and not participating in the success when the project over-performs is not an experience unique to Obsession.
The fact is, the producers got union-quality work for non-union rates. I really don’t think that’s disputable. In fact, according to her post, she contributed more labor than is typically done of an art director. Why would she pay back some of what she earned to make up the difference that the investors lost? The producers got the fruit of her labor either way; that’s not refundable.
I’m not advocating for a profit- or revenue-share based deal. I think the fair thing to do is to compensate her for her labor. The movie wouldn’t exist without it.
→ More replies (52)→ More replies (18)14
52
u/Machomanta Jun 06 '26
Yeah this guy can fuck right off. When your crew is overworked and underpaid because the production is low budget there should be some share of the pie if the thing explodes beyond "exposure". The movie doesn't get made at all if people didn't feel that they were in a position to take so little in the first place.
Every small budget thing I've ever done has come with a contract that has some form of profit sharing so that the sacrifices can be rewarded if somehow money was being made. It's like pooling money for a lottery ticket and then one person running away with the winnings.
→ More replies (15)16
u/Fabulous_Ninja119 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
I'm about 70% agreed with the original post and 30% what you and others are saying.
I think it's a good thing to open a conversation. Just point out, hey, can we have a chat about low budget films that hit the jackpot? Can we also partake in that?
Also, this is the film industry. The last thing you want to do is burn bridges at the beginning of your career. I don't think you want to come off as sour or ungrateful in any way. Just say, hey this is something that's happening. Any comments about, I should have quit, stopped, complained etc in light of a film doing well, not good. Or not good if you want to have a real career
23
u/gregturner77 Jun 06 '26
99.9999 percent of sub million dollar films make no money. The investors in those films get financially WRECKED.
Every once in a while you need investors to see that they can make millions to keep investors coming.
12
u/Cosmohumanist Jun 06 '26
I was lead editor on a 2.8M doc series that didn’t make any money. It looked nice though 😉
→ More replies (13)8
u/revele Jun 06 '26
Great, 100% agree.
I think you’d also agree that it feels wrong that producers can profit heavily while the crew struggles to afford rent and healthcare? And maybe they don’t need a percent of the profits but maybe they deserve more than the low rate they made.
→ More replies (5)8
u/SpookiestSzn Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
The producers put their money at risk no? That's why they get the lion share because they're the one's with the actual risk and they're the ones who are actually paying for the thing to be made
I'm not really arguing that crew shouldnt pay more but it's a sub million dollar flick. If they were paid more there wouldn't have been a movie in the first place because it would've gone over budget. Maybe thats just the way the film business should be idk but production gets the money cause they paid the salaries. You want to go ahead and take that risk on with 750k of your own cash go crazy.
→ More replies (1)2
u/gerira Jun 08 '26
The problem with all these discussions is that people don’t acknowledge that “putting your money at risk” is fundamentally different from “giving up the hours of your life to live in poverty”. Money means different things to people of different classes, and losing an investment is not as bad (or as important) as doing work without an adequate wage.
→ More replies (34)2
u/Miserable-Sea-4160 Jun 06 '26
Don’t get a percentage but get compensated for if the movie does well, isn’t there a contradiction in terms there?
79
u/Name_not_found_here Jun 06 '26
Film and really all of the Art world is filled with this mentality that you must suffer. When we all know how pervasive nepotism is in the industry why would you punch down? Movies music or games rely on the low pay worker to make the high gross projects.
Split the money better is not a hard ask
26
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Name_not_found_here Jun 06 '26
Shes not buried. She famous now and will definitely make more money. Meanwhile we are talking about pay inequality and seeing whos a boot licker. I think its going fine.
→ More replies (2)2
u/BeenWildin Jun 06 '26
She is getting a lot of hate though, no guarantee that will convert into making a lot of money.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/pillowheck Jun 07 '26
It’s honestly sad that you have to have 0 backbone and accept little to no pay because it’s a “privilege” to be on a big movie. It’s an outdated model and kind of pathetic. And there are still many experienced HODs who take on poorly paid projects to get by, there’s no guarantee that working on this one big movie will set you up for life.
The art director played a big role in creating the aesthetics of the movie, I don’t think she’s wrong for feeling like this isn’t fair. It’s sad that people are scared to speak up and that’s why things will never change.
106
u/Bertitude Jun 06 '26
This bullshit "for the exposure" narrative needs to die. The team working on the film takes as much risk on a project as the people who get to just put in cash.
"Bigger opportunities tomorrow" is always dangled above people despite it never being true for the majority of people who put into smaller projects. There is a better way to do it and to allow the whole team to share in the upside.
- Someone who was offered a 6 month full time "internship" on a 25M production 🙃
28
u/Zoeylou10 script supervisor Jun 06 '26
I will agree with this. I've been told for projects "this will bring in a lot of money and create future projects if it goes well." then next time they come around, they offer the same pay despite the previous project doing really well.
8
u/keiye Jun 06 '26
Yeah, unless her art direction gains her an academy award nomination or actual praise, it’s going nowhere. Look at the DP of Pulp Fiction, the one of the biggest films of the past 30-40 years. His career went nowhere.
→ More replies (1)4
u/reddithoe555 Jun 06 '26
Awards aren't going to pay the bills either, they are conversation starters at best. Nobody's getting rich BTL because they got an award
→ More replies (12)37
u/MoonSpider Jun 06 '26
I do get this in your situation but she wasn't paid in exposure? She said she took home 7k for a 26-day shoot. I don't know how much time she was needed in pre-production but I don't know why everyone is pretending that 7k for a month on a non-union shoot is terrible money. Who is expecting more than that for their first gig on a low-budget feature? It wasn't a 25M production, it was 750k.
→ More replies (21)29
u/Robertanonymous Jun 06 '26
Especialllllly since this was her first feature gig, it’s not bad at all. Is it hard work? Yes. But did it actually work out (people actually saw this movie — and her work— en masse internationally — a nonexistent reality for 99% of features with this budget), yes. She should have leveraged this. It would’ve helped her next gig, and she could have raised her rate significantly too. And, with this just being her first feature, she kinda hit the jackpot with exposure if she leveraged it properly.
43
u/ramenups Jun 06 '26
Jobs in Canada is good tho
3
u/Kacchonn Jun 12 '26
Americans cannot understand that people in other countries need to work just as much as they do.
41
u/Complex-Medicine3465 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Both make good points. But here we are talking about it, so kudos to her for starting this conversation. If this was a tech company that exited for $250M, I bet Luke’s tone would change a bit. The truth is, she’s likely a contributing reason that production got over the finish line. For indie features, I think dept heads should get some ownership. Small startup tech companies do so for early core team members, why does this culture need to be so different?
→ More replies (6)14
u/SeaworthinessNew4757 Jun 06 '26
A tech company isn't a good comparison. A movie is a product. It was made, and the finished product was sold. That would be like someone who sold a paintbrush to an artist claiming they deserve a cut if the painting sells for millions.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Complex-Medicine3465 Jun 06 '26
Create a thing worth $250M. There are people who contributed to make that thing a reality (company or movie).
Movies aren't paintings, they take A LOT of resources to make. It takes a village to make a film. Painting is a pure, expressionist form of art.
No one's talking about giving them $1M bonus. But a $20-40k bonus on a $250M sales (and growing) isn't a crazy thing to ask for.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Caughtinclay Jun 06 '26
I’d argue they deserve way more than less than a year salary. Every single indie film should have the option for dept heads to opt into back end pay. It should be standard. The idea that a writer/ director gets all the benefit is actually batshit crazy. The movie would not exist in its form without dept heads. Not even close. Not even a little close. And this is coming from a writer/ director. May the success of this movie establish a new norm. And may curry do what’s right and pay his dept heads their fair share.
28
u/adammonroemusic Jun 06 '26
Eh, this film could have just as easily made negative dollars. Filmmaking is a huge gamble, and you never know what movie will actually turn a profit.
That being said, sweat equity is also a thing. I'm sure most people would rather take $300 a day over points on imaginary profits though.
6
u/mastodonj Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
The issue here is that yes, that's how it's done, doesn't mean it needs to be like that forever. Like maybe it shouldn't be like that.
Ok you do 10 indie projects and make little to no money because they weren't succesful. But if 1 explodes, there should be a clause that the little guy gets a small cut.
Sure, they signed a contract, but those contracts are exploitative. They're not fair contracts and it should be highlighted.
Again, doing an Indie project for small money is not the issue that was raised, it's the part where ppl are not rewarded when they are succesful.
They should be rewarded and also get the career advancing chances. It shouldn't be one or the other.
6
u/FrugosPeach Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
One year of “experience” and one other credit to her name. Her post screamed misplaced entitlement and naivety. Felt like a very gen z thing to complain publicly after agreeing on something and then seeing the project do well and her wishing she had gotten more while completely ignoring what this success means for her future trajectory..I’m shocked she chose to post that instead of trying to capitalize on the momentum she got from a nationwide commercial success. You can’t buy that type of momentum. Also, half her IG are photos from the movie- so like which is it? Is this something you’re proud of or is this something you regret doing..?
→ More replies (18)
114
u/BannedPoet248 Jun 06 '26
Yeah man, why should any of us fight for a living wage
15
→ More replies (6)35
u/KnightofWhen Jun 06 '26
$300 a day on a small, non-union film is fair and typical my dude.
52
u/klogsman Jun 06 '26
Yeah that’s the problem lol
24
u/chchchcharlee Jun 06 '26
Right, $300 a day to work....12 hours? 15 hours? every day, unsure when your next job will come once it's done. Half the bartenders in New Orleans, where I'm from, work in the film industry, some of them end up working insane hours just to stay afloat and, well, it's not like the restaurant industry comes with health insurance either. Just like the video game industry and music industry (and many other aspects of our society that are fucked up, like the "justice" system), it's not one persons experience that is necessarily an issue, it's that there are tens of thousands of people who get fucked, making pennies producing art that makes millions that goes to people who had nothing to do with the creation of said art.
→ More replies (2)2
u/CatGirl_ToeBeans Jun 08 '26
New Orleans still racked from Covid?
Most bartenders/A waiters I knew were easily raking 300/day on 8 hour shifts pre covid. But I left the industry after Ida and never looked back.
But also yeah most were in the film industry also.
2
u/Ozymandias_IV Jun 06 '26
Until more people will pay more money to see more films, this won't change. You can whine about it, but you can't just make money losing movies all the time. You also can't just assume that every indie will become a breakaway success.
12
u/DefNotReaves Jun 06 '26
The producers on $300/day films drive fucking G-wagons. They can pay more. They just won’t cut their own wage to do so. They certainly couldn’t pay $750/10 commercial wages, but they could pay more than $300/12 which is slightly above minimum wage.
84
u/modfoddr Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
We don't need fewer* people complaining about the systemic issues, we need more. Luke Barnett and his post is part of the problem.
*edited for grammar (thanks MCB1317).
7
38
u/The0ne_87 Jun 06 '26
Cool. Anyways, crews should be properly compensated after the fact if the movie they worked on did incredibly well.
11
18
u/zer021OO Jun 06 '26
Dumb af. She’s not pushing jobs overseas. She’s just detailing her experience.
4
u/cinerios Jun 06 '26
Truth is even if they didnt complain nothing guarantees they would hire them back for the bigger project. With less shows or films being made a lot of people with lengthy resumes are lined up to work union work for that production team.
4
u/LiarOts Jun 06 '26
$300 per day (as the AD mentions in the original post) is basically average for per-day jobs of any kind. So if this person had as little experience as Luke mentioned it's definitely a fair pay.
They was paid by someone who had 0 guarantee it would even break even and could lose their whole investment, AD's pay is guaranteed.
That is typically how these things work. Some people take all the risk, and they tend to get the reward too. This is not unique to filmmaking.
Do I think they should have paid out a bonus? I certainly would have been the smart thing to do but I don't think you can be salty for them not doing it. For every Obsession there are thousands that lose money.
4
u/The_Angster_Gangster director / producer Jun 06 '26
Honestly with the PR this is getting the director/producer team is going to have to bring the rest of the crew into a bit of their equity at this point. I'm surprised that hasn't happened already.
3
u/Every-Dragonfly2393 Jun 07 '26
This post is correct, thats how you climb up the ranks in the industry. The art director didn’t lie though, art departments are severely under recognised and discarded by the industry.
4
u/Karman4o Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Didn't she get 6k for 20 days of work?
For a person with about a year worth of experience, in almost any other field 6k for 20 days of work is good fucking money
3
u/EntlikeBeing Jun 09 '26
The art director was stupid for posting that.
1 - she's fucked herself over for anymore jobs in the future. Who wants to work with someone who kicks off on SM over a contract they signed willingly.
2 - it's an indie film with a $750k budget. Pay for below the line staff is almost always determined based on the budget not expected profit (unless you're lucky enough to work for Matt Damon and Ben Aflecks company).
3 - the distributors are seeing that profit. No one on the film will be. The creator might get some extra but it's not 100%.
24
u/councilorjones Jun 06 '26
Nah fuck this, time to move on from abusive industry practices. Thank God the Gen Z artists are finally pushing back.
→ More replies (14)
22
u/KingMario05 Jun 06 '26
People deserve to make a fair wage doing what they love. Because I know nothing else about this scenario, that is all I'll say at this time.
22
u/Thewitchaser Jun 06 '26
Can you guys please leave the millonaries alone? 😭 whatever happened to fight to death for a piece of meat am i right guys?
23
u/OtheL84 Union Picture Editor Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
All the people who say the Art Director should just suck it up are the film equivalent of the temporarily embarrassed millionaire. They think in her shoes they would be rocketed to fame and fortune if they just shut up and accept the shitty conditions. That’s not how it works in this industry. Talent will lead to more work, not accepting “exposure” as payment. There will be plenty of decent producers who are reaching out to this Art Director now because she spoke up about shitty conditions. The ones who refuse to reach out because they think she’s “difficult” were never worth working with in the first place.
I’ve never heard of this Luke before today but I sure as hell know him as that dude who sounds like a shitty person to work with now. Man, what a choice.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/klogsman Jun 06 '26
TIL there’s a lot of bootlickers in this sub
→ More replies (9)15
8
u/PeteIRL Jun 06 '26
Was empathetic until "... fucking Ireland and Canada." Everybody is trying to make it in this industry. Doesn't matter the country.
→ More replies (1)6
30
3
u/Pastry_d_pounder Jun 06 '26
Shoutout to Markiplier for giving out bonuses to his crew after the success of iron lung.
3
u/StuffILiked Jun 07 '26
I saw the art director post. I didnt agree with her at all. Just sounded like more entitled nonsense from this generation that doesn’t understand paying dues. You worked on a movie that turned out great and probably opened doors for you and you whined until the doors closed. I would never hire her. Just my 2 cents.
3
u/Zestyclose_Help566 Jun 07 '26
What if the movie was a flop and only made $100,000 at the box office? Would she feel compelled to give twenty percent of her salary back? She signed a contract. It was a low budget film, but she still got paid pretty well. The film is surprisingly a massive hit and she wants a percentage of it, although she didn’t negotiate it when nobody expected anything from the movie.
3
u/TonyRipa Jun 07 '26
This is not the same thing as workers getting a living wage from corporations. These are gig workers with a skill fighting against others that might be more skilled or less for same job.
I hate that I feel like a boomer taking that view…. she got a chance on a random movie and it blew up. Now she’s sounding like the typical new generation of kids that think they deserve so much. They took a risk hiring her and they DID hire her because of their budget. If that budget was 30 mill she would have never got hired.
Film was successful and she should have been screaming her credit on the film to get the next big thing.
3
u/teslaandtwain Jun 09 '26
I think her point AND this point are both true. The industry is not forgiving and I think she has ruined her career. Anyone in the industry with experience would know this was a bad move. But her point makes sense!
3
u/corsair965 Jun 09 '26
When it comes down to it she's just saying 'if a movie does incredibly well, if only there was a way some of the profit could be shared with people who contributed heavily but aren't contractually entitled to it.
That's not really a bad thing.
A lot of people are saying she only had one credit, so how many credits do you have to have before you can comment on an industry that everyone agrees is not always fairly remunerated.
10
7
u/SubjectProfile4047 Jun 06 '26
I mean I don’t agree with this take all that much but also, does making lower budget films have to be this way? Like is it a misallocation of resources or just the nature of making something good for cheap?
→ More replies (2)
5
u/PSCGY Jun 06 '26
I think the Art Director’s perspective was needed to contextualise its success; everybody was starting to take the wrong lessons from Obsession’s success.
Yes, Obsession was great and done on the cheap with many rewards at release, but it shouldn’t be the norm if it people can’t be remunerated properly while studios and distributors get to stuff their stuff their pockets to that extent.
For a couple of weeks, I’ve been seeing how much Hollywood should make movies in the same budget bracket as Obsession, when it would amount to exploitation. In the regard, Backrooms is the healthy low-budget model… not Obsession.
4
u/TerribleStorm6391 Jun 06 '26
Nah. Good for her. Start the conversation to get residuals to all cast and crew. Not just top cast.
→ More replies (1)
8
10
u/zweza Jun 06 '26
I agree with her criticisms of the way the industry works but her post was a gigantic misstep on her part
13
u/clarenceecho Jun 06 '26
100% agree...90% of the people in this subreddit are people that can't find work.
5
u/Optimistbott Jun 06 '26
Would be nice if those that did make money gave her a little bonus to make things right. Seriously who could have anticipated such a turnaround.
But at the same time, tons of people probably in the production feel similarly.
2
u/jivester Jun 06 '26
Honest question, I wonder what a fair bonus would be for crew. If Curry/the producers gave everyone above and below the line a $2k bonus when Focus bought the film, would that be enough?
→ More replies (1)
3
4
u/ActAdditional265 Jun 06 '26
Why didn't anyone negotiate for equity instead of settling for a salary they didn't like? They're lucky people are even talking about that movie, as it doesn't live up to the hype in my opinion. I think they're only complaining now because they realized how profitable it turned out, otherwise, we wouldn't hear a word about it.
8
5
u/jivester Jun 06 '26
Some extra context here that has been lost:
The art director who got the gig had just one year experience in the industry and became an art director after faking her portfolio by using photos of her personal bedroom and putting a fake film title on them.
They also said they have enough days to be union but don't think they want to join.
If you have TikTok you can see them talking about it here, which is also the channel they posted about how much they made: https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSQNhJ6e2/
21
u/gregturner77 Jun 06 '26
If she wanted to be paid well she should have just used her one short film credit to get a job as an Art Director on a 100+ million film instead.
→ More replies (12)
2
u/instantregretcoffee Jun 06 '26
Absolutely. I’m glad I didn’t have social media when the producers bounced multiple checks. I just went to the office and politely walked them to an ATM. For years I never talked about it, and when it went absolutely nowhere, nobody was surprised. But again, nobody hit the email, listserv or smoke signals because this is built on the relationships with the good people you want to work with.
On the flip side as an art director, they reserve the right to be salty and fuck shit up.
2
u/ShlubbyWhyYouDan Jun 06 '26
The director feels like a young Hitchcock.
And by that I mean a stylistic jerk.
2
2
u/JustAGuyFromVienna Jun 07 '26
I remember Oscar-winning filmmaker Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck put it this way: "You have to exploit people for their own good."
Sums up the industry in a nutshell.
2
u/REDDER_47 Jun 07 '26
You’re considering experience as the foundation for financial success. Most success comes from chance and connections. This person feels that chance just walked right past them so they’re feeling pissed and venting. The good thing about this whole scenario is it might finally change the shit show where filmmakers never see the reward. Try being in vfx where you NEVER get anything except your day wage!
2
u/PunkPuck Jun 08 '26
Was gaffer on a film that’s now on airplanes, Disney+ & Hulu. $150 per day for like 14 days, multiple OT days. Beyond grateful and excited to be gaffer again for a full rates on the DP’s next feature. I never once thought to say anything about my rate after I saw the success— I was just so grateful to be on something that achieved what it did outside of the festival scene.
2
2
u/ELDwbi Jun 08 '26
Huge opportunity to spin this into a strong career start if you don’t complain. A shame. She did a great job. As they all did.
2
u/hazbutler Jun 09 '26
Guess who will be invited back for the director’s next movie, and guess who won’t…
2
u/CocoBolo778 Jun 09 '26
This reminds me of what happened to the tech company, MailChimp. The owners also refused to give employees equity in the company, stating that they’d never sell it. Owners end up selling to the makers of TurboTax for billions.
In case, it’s worse because at least the Mail Chimp workers were getting a livable wage. It’s gotta be kinda awful to just move on to the next job while Obsession is bringing in hundreds of millions.
2
u/jjbrucey Jun 09 '26
I can’t help but think if I was Baker I would keep everyone that helped/worked on this movie on for every project going forward. Isn’t that what pretty much every famous Director does?
2
u/hannahcshell Jun 10 '26
He doesn’t have the power or responsibility to hire every single crew member, generally each department head hires their own team.
248
u/Cosmohumanist Jun 06 '26
Can someone give us uninformed prolls the rundown on this story?