Eric Toline Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Here's the deal as I know it. Starts December 15-Jan 15. Approx 24 shooting days. Figure 12hrs a day. You will be using rented supplied gear consisting of 788T with Cl 8 or 9, 8 Lectro wireless, Schoeps 641. Sound is budgeted at $200 day flat. For those in the area that are interested (and why you would be is beyond me) contact: Davide Molino: 347-543-9133 P.S. They are shooting on a Red Epic so you know this is a high end production. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 You can make more per hour working in starbucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomboom Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 You can make more per hour working in starbucks. Why bother with Starbucks if you can do it at Subway ? You might even get some ''free stuff'' on the side, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted December 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 You can make more per hour working in starbucks. That's true but it's not "show business" Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Burstein Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Because I want to work 12+ hour days and Starbucks and Subway won't let me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pverrando Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Consider this: Back in 1998, I was interviewed and offered a feature shooting in Dallas. The rate: $1500/week flat for 4 or 6 weeks (I don't quite remember). That was with my equipment, and I was told I had pay to my boom operator from that amount as well. I wanted more features on my resume, but after the first 6 or 7, what's another unknown indy film on my resume anyway? I turned it down, I had a kid and a mortgage. Shame was, both the producers and I knew that someone desperate enough would accept the deal. That's why they came to Dallas. Lots on non-union crew that'll work cheap. The production company was from New York, the movie was "Boys Don't Cry", with virtually unknown Hilary Swank. She was paid $3000. She won the Oscar for best actress for that movie. Check out mixer Mack Melson's resume on IMDB before and since that movie. Of course there's no guarantee that stumbling onto the right production will establish your career. But that's typically the big promise that these producers set on the table. Even with reality pilots! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordi Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Even all the "Yet Another Reality Show" stuff I do offers double that rate. What is sad, is that someone actually has the balls to even OFFER such a rate at all! I recently saw another prize-winner like this one, only in San Diego: Mixer plus gear needed for reality TV series pilot. 2 lavs (Lectro was not specified but I suspect it would be expected), 4 channel mixer and boom, AND recorder. So at least they weren't trying for some half-baked hop. The gig was for a week... $250/day all-in with gear. I'm sure they were lining up for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewFreedAudio Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 There was a time when I would be nice and polite to the producers offering insanely low wages. I would, very politely, let them know the rate was not something I could work with. However, I am not so nice any more. I have been chewing out low-ball producers more and more for their stupidity and lack of common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 What is sad, is that someone actually has the balls to even OFFER such a rate at all! Are you talking about the OP, Jim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordi Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Are you talking about the OP, Jim? If you are referring to our own Mr Eric Toline, no, I am not referring to him at all. I know he is just sharing the information about a gig in his area, and putting it out there for anyone that might be desperate enough to take on such a job. My 'has the balls' comment is directed solely at the scum sucking bottom feeding PRODUCER that feels that HIS OWN fee is perfectly justified, yet anyone working under him isn't worth the pennies that he is generous enough to throw their way. That producer type feels that the crew should be satisfied simply that they HAVE a job, and exceptionally grateful for whatever pay Mr Producer deigns to give them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted December 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 If you are referring to our own Mr Eric Toline, no, I am not referring to him at all. I know he is just sharing the information about a gig in his area, and putting it out there for anyone that might be desperate enough to take on such a job. My 'has the balls' comment is directed solely at the scum sucking bottom feeding PRODUCER that feels that HIS OWN fee is perfectly justified, yet anyone working under him isn't worth the pennies that he is generous enough to throw their way. That producer type feels that the crew should be satisfied simply that they HAVE a job, and exceptionally grateful for whatever pay Mr Producer deigns to give them. That's basically what the producer said. "It's better to have some money than no money at this time of the year" Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 For an indie that's maybe $200k or $300k, this is pretty common. we also know indies that have maybe an extra $300k are probably going to spent it on actors and not labor rates. I'm not defending it, but that's the situation. The only angle to work is trying to get more money for extra gear you already have that they may need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewFreedAudio Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 I've mixed indie features with a lot smaller budgets than $200-$300k and been paid darn near full rate. The reason being was that the producers and directors knew they couldn't skimp on some key things, like sound, camera, lighting, etc. Actors for indie movies are dirt cheap. It's easier to come by a good, cheap actor than it is a good, cheap sound mixer with all the appropriate gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 It's easier to come by a good, cheap actor than it is a good, cheap sound mixer with all the appropriate gear. Here endeth the lesson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordi Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 It's easier to come by a good, cheap actor than it is a good, cheap sound mixer with all the appropriate gear. Here endeth the lesson. Bad acting is an artistic choice. Shaky camera and bad lighting can be artistic choices too. Bad sound... Your project just sucks and won't be a commercial success ever. Can we all put our collective brains to the task of figuring a way to burn these lessons into the eyeballs of every producer in the industry? It seems that the ones that know this already are few and far between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 I've mixed indie features with a lot smaller budgets than $200-$300k and been paid darn near full rate. The reason being was that the producers and directors knew they couldn't skimp on some key things, like sound, camera, lighting, etc. Actors for indie movies are dirt cheap. It's easier to come by a good, cheap actor than it is a good, cheap sound mixer with all the appropriate gear. That's awesome. I'm not in any way defending the logic, but on a lot of indies they have some rate for the DP (1), and the rest of the crew is often paid the same rates. By that I mean department heads get $XXX, the #2 in the departments all get $YYY, everyone below that gets $ZZZ, and PAs make some frighteningly low rate that doesn't even get a letter. As much as I like working on those jobs, I can't do it for those rates. When I try to negotiate, they just find somebody else willing to work for the rate. You seem to be working with better directors/producers than the ones that I talk to. (1) The DP is often well compensated, but I know that on some projects the DP will work for virtually nothing just for the experience. For example, people that have a career in reality TV are hungry enough to do a feature that they will forgo their day rates to have that on their resume.... and can afford the "financial down time". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Bad acting is an artistic choice. Shaky camera and bad lighting can be artistic choices too. Bad sound... Your project just sucks and won't be a commercial success ever. I have had a few DP/camera ops say that same thing to me. Them saying that is always a nice way to start a project together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 " using rented supplied gear consisting of 788T with Cl 8 or 9, 8 Lectro wireless, Schoeps 641. " in this case, getting a sound person with their own package and also paying them the rental budget might get them a bit more for their $$$. As always, those who can command higher rates remain free to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaAudio Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 You can make more per hour working in starbucks. Starbucks is paying more than $25 an hour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Carden Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 That job is paying 14 an hr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Futterman Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Paying less for an 18 hour day. Remember, it's flat so no OT! I think Starbucks jobs start at 9-10 an hour, though PT workers get health insurance which is worth some money, though not sure about the employee contribution to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaAudio Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 That job is paying 14 an hr. Okay, at 12 hours (stated) it comes out to $16.67 an hour. Does Starbucks really pay that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Futterman Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think the point of Jack's Starbucks comment was more hyperbole since there's entry level work that pays that much or more, though those rates are inappropriate for skilled labor, much less skilled labor that isn't always consistent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Between 'benefits', tips and wages, I bet it is close. Okay, at 12 hours (stated) it comes out to $16.67 an hour. Does Starbucks really pay that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 " those rates are inappropriate for skilled labor, much less skilled labor that isn't always consistent! " ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.