Jump to content

Two RED camera shoot. . .


Recommended Posts

As the Producer/Director of the film(s) in question, I have to say that I have found some of "Senator" Mike's posts to be rather amusing.  Unknowingly, Mike has actually done us a great service by leading to a sizable number of hits on my website (www.NVR2L8.com).  In fact, and this is something of which I'm also sure he is unaware, but, thanks to him, with the exception of "Who I am today," this thread is now, by far, the longest and single most viewed thread in the entire history of JWSound.net!  Now, exactly why Mike seems so compelled to follow my work with such regularity is a very different matter.  I shall leave it to others to decipher his true intent.

What does bother me is the consistent suggestion here on the forum that, in the making of our first film ("Works in Progress"), we somehow "took advantage" of the people on our crew or in our cast.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  In fact, every crew member I have spoken to about the new film has already told me that they want to work on the next film ("Terminal"), as well.  Believe it or not, the most experienced SAG member of our cast sent us an incredible, warmly glowing 'thank you' note at the end of film, praised our crew as "first rate," and actually returned almost half of the money we had paid them, telling us to put it toward our expenses on the film.  Obviously, these are indications of neither incompetence nor mistreatment, but they certainly are indications of the type of people we hired and the type of projects we are endeavoring to make.  (As an aside, it is interesting to note that, except for Mary and I, every member of our cast and crew gained weight during the production.  Mary and I, on the other hand, each lost 13 percent of our body weights!  We are now thinking about writing a book:  "How to lose weight and money making independent films.")

The bottom line is that I put together a crew of extraordinary young people (their average age was 21), the vast majority of whom were college students, and paid them for work that, under normal circumstances, no one would ever have paid them to do.  Every crew member was paid, at a minimum, two thousand dollars for their "summer job" work.  Some were paid as much as $6000.  They had no prior film experience and, to most industry veterans, probably would have been considered to have very little to offer a production.  But I felt differently.  I was interested in their character and attitude much more than their knowledge or experience.  Knowledge can be learned.  Experience can be gained.  But character is different.  You either have it, or you don't.  And these people had it in spades.  Sure they made mistakes.  As a first-time producer/director, I made a lot of mistakes.  But the last time I checked, we all make mistakes.  It's that wonderful old adage:  "How do you avoid making mistakes?"  "You get experience."  "How do you get experience?"  "By making mistakes."

In sum, we're all very proud of the work we did on "Works in Progress" and are utterly blown away by the edited sequences we've seen.  Did we make the best indie feature of the year?  Absolutely not.  But our story was compelling, our script was novel and first-rate, and our production values were, for a micro-budget film (the final tally isn't in, but we suspect that direct, non-equipment costs ranged between $60,000 to $70,000—almost all of which was for salaries), exceptionally high.  (And, yes, using first-rate gear does make a difference.)  We can't wait to finish up post and get this film out on the festival circuit.  I suspect that a lot of people, including several posters here on JWSound, are going to be very surprised by what they see (and, yes, by what they hear).

As for our next film, "Terminal," well, that one will be very hard for me to make.  Much of it will deal with the death of my own father to cancer when I was 17.  It's going to be very dark and, yet, ultimately redemptive.  Unlike "Works in Progress" (which was a poignant romantic comedy), "Terminal" doesn't have a happy ending.  But it does have a hopeful ending.  Frankly, we have the bones of a story that is, without question, one of the best I've ever encountered.  I just can't wait to make that film.  And, yes, you can take it to the bank that I'll be making it with a paid, and well-treated, crew that no "professional" would ever consider hiring.  :-)

Finally, please let it be noted that I never, ever claimed that, all other things equal, a non-experienced, non-professional crew could ever equal the results of a professional crew.  That's not even a reasonable thing to say.  I merely said that 1) I didn't have enough money to pay a totally professional crew to make the film in the way we needed to make it, and 2) that I was completely confident in my crew's ability to give me the results I was expecting.  It's just like me in my recording studio.  I can't make a record as good as a great studio with great engineering talent.  But I can get the results I was expecting.  And, whether in the case of my CD or in the case of my movies, in the end, that just might prove to be "good enough" for the market, as well.  After all, whether one cares to admit it or not, passion really can make a difference.  And that, my friends, for better or worse (and I really do debate within myself whether it is a good thing or ill), I have in abundance.

Stephen Wallace Pruitt, Ph.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank You, Robert, for noticing one of the interesting things about this revolutionary shoot, and also to Dr. Steve, who has been lurking, for rejoining in the discussion.

one of the reasons for following the project has been interest by some (including friends of mine) in the sound equipment when it becomes available on eBay (Dr. Steve, didn't you already sell one of your two RED camcorders??) --referring to the thread's title??

I am pleased to hear your crew was well fed, and, may we presume at regular (on-time, never more than 6 hours) intervals during your 18 hour days ?? especially considering you seem to indicate you had about no expenses for food!!

It sounds like you paid your crew what the Television Academy pays its 39 summer interns each year for 8 weeks of work (40 hr/wk),  and that too is commendable. The academy interns learn how things work on real sets...

and I'll look forward to meeting Dr. Steve on his book tour for his forthcoming blockbuster diet book!

Sorry if I've sounded snarky, Mick!  This producer is not even near the class of the projects you discuss...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike is correct in statement but incorrect in implication.  We actually owned three RED cameras, and did just sell one of them.  We still happily retain two, and they both are available for rent to qualified individuals.  Please email me for specific details.  For the record, we did sell our 442 mixer, but only because we found it superfluous to some of our other audio gear (788T, etc.).  No additional audio-related gear will be sold.  Exactly why he would think that we didn't have money to feed our crew (in point of fact, we spent thousands), I have no earthly idea.  And, yes, meals were served every six hours.  As to his more, how shall I put it?, "incendiary" statements, again, I'll leave it for others to infer his motives.  I have my own theories, of course, but I have never met the man and feel it would be inappropriate for me to make such judgments without first-hand knowledge.

Stephen Wallace Pruitt, Ph.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Wally:

you said " direct, non-equipment costs ranged between $60,000 to $70,000—almost all of which was for salaries) "

which left me thinking: what about food? transportation? wardrobe? locations? construction? props? permits? insurance? housing? etc? ETC??

so, you sold your phantom third RED (with three, you could have named them Goniff, Swindle, and Finagle), and are now selling Clark ??

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19555

and what does shooting indoors have to do with using a second camcorder, or not??

damn, one of the things my pal wanted was that 442 !!

It is OK if you don't think too much of me, although I think you must be awfully academically smart, my opinion of your values and the way you work, at least in the entertainment industries, is pretty obvious...and of course, I could be wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, we don't have the final figures all tallied, but since you are interested, and since I'm more than willing to share information to help future folks such as myself learn more about micro-budget independent filmmaking, here is a rough breakdown of our expenses:  Salaries and housing:  $38,000. Meals:  $3000 (Mary did all the cooking herself).  Gasoline:  $2000.  Locations: $4000.  Props:  $3000.  Rentals:  $2000.  Data storage:  $4000.  Insurance:  $7000.  Travel: $1000.  Miscellaneous:  $3000.  Guestimate total:  $67,000.  We had about 40 shooting days in total over the summer.

Again, we most certainly did own three RED cameras (#791, #1256, and #2217), and we just sold one of them (#2217, which now is in the Ukraine filming a Russian "Bourne Identity"-type film).  (Do a search for "#2217" on REDUser.net if you really do have doubts.)  We happily retain two REDs (#791 and #1256).  We also briefly thought about selling "Clark" (#1256), as well, and had many good (premium) offers to do so, but, in the end, my wife decided we should keep him and I relented.  "Terminal" will be shot in very, very close quarters, using a very insert-oriented film-style, so working with two cameras will be much more problematic, hence my original thought to sell one of them.  For the record, we will be upgrading at least one of these two cameras to RED's upcoming "Epic" when it becomes available this summer.

Stephen Wallace Pruitt, Ph.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW!! $75/day for food for the company, and with 18 hour days....

well, maybe you made money selling "Finagle", but you paid a premium for "Swindle" when you bought it at the last minute because production of the RED's was sooo far behind;  I really need to take one of your economics classes...

BTW, is now the time to send "the guys" back for more hardware upgrades??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. . . that's my best guess on meal costs at the moment.  It could prove to be low, but I won't know that until January and tax-time.  And the best part?  Each and every meal was served with love and a smile.  :-)  And, let's be real here.  We didn't shoot 18 hour days every day. Some days we only shot for two hours.  I'd say that, in most locations, we averaged about 8 to 10 hour days.

It is true that we did pay a premium to purchase #791 and "move up" the "RED line," but the premium we got for selling #2217 was $2000 more than the premium we paid for #791, so we actually ended up in exceptional shape on that score.

Finally, it's also true that both of our REDs will soon be going in for upgraded audio components.  This is one of the things that makes the RED Digital Cinema Camera Company truly something special.  These guys just keep coming up with new surprises.  And all of it is included in the original price of the camera!  Never in my life have I ever encountered anything like this commitment to service and continuous product improvement.  My hat is off to Jim Jannard and his entire team.  Why, just yesterday I got a call from the Ukraine from the folks who bought #2217.  Their camera made it, but their accessories did not.  Well, I called RED right away, and they got out a package that day to New York, where it is being hand-carried to the Ukraine to get it there in time for the shoot.  Try that with some other manufacturers.  But let's be honest here:  RED isn't doing this because they are nice.  They are doing it because it makes great business sense.  And, frankly, with the rate of advancement in technology, they simply don't have a choice in the matter if they want to play in this game for the long-term.

Like it or not, Mike, the future world of film belongs to people just like me—geeks from far outside the "traditional" studio system who have good ideas and who will find that they now can do what even big-budget studios couldn't do even twenty years ago.  Now, I know I'm far too old (at 51) to make much of a difference in this brave new digital filmmaking world, but it is inevitable nonetheless.  The technological changes that have given us project studios (like the one in my basement), superb digital equipment, and computer programs like Final Cut, Motion, Color, Logic, Pro-Tools, Shake, After Effects, etc., are changing everything.  RED is at the very forefront of that change.  Just today, Vudu announced a true HD-quality digital download service.  A program like that will be the iTunes of the next generation.  And that will open up the world of indie distribution in ways that anyone can see.  We won't need to break into theaters.  We'll be going straight to the ultimate consumers with our wares.  And as for the future?  That will be filmmaking in 3D.  Gee.  I wonder why we decided to keep both cameras?

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19642

http://www.eyeonline.com/Web/EyeonWeb/Press/DisplayArticle.aspx?articleid=366

:-)

Stephen Wallace Pruitt, Ph.D.

P.S.  It's not too late to register for my classes next term.  :-)  That would be fun, Mike.  That would be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Believe it or not, the most experienced SAG member of our cast sent us an incredible, warmly glowing 'thank you' note at the end of film, praised our crew as "first rate," and actually returned almost half of the money we had paid them, telling us to put it toward our expenses on the film. "

I'm impressed, ...  so is SAG, as they find no contract for your picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually,  SAG has contracts for those, too...

http://www.sagindie.org/docs/sag-ultralowbudget-2005wm.pdf

Ultra-Low Budget Agreement

    * Total budget of less than $200,000

    * Day rate of $100

    * No step-up fees

    * No consecutive employment (except on overnight location)

    * No premiums

    * Allows the use of both professional and non-professional performers

    * Background performers not covered

and SAG members are not permitted to work on anything that doesn't have a SAG contract of some kind...

It is rule #1!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, just for the record, Kansas is what is known as a "right to work" state.  Accordingly, SAG's rules legally absolutely do not apply to the state of Kansas.  In case you're really interested, here is the exact statute:

Kan. Const. art. 15, § 12

§ 12. Membership or nonmembership in labor organizations. No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization, nor shall the state or any subdivision thereof, or any individual, corporation, or any kind of association enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization. (Adopted November 4, 1958.)

Stephen Wallace Pruitt, Ph.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" 1. RULE ONE: NO NON-UNION WORK! The Guild’s Rule One requires that a member will not work as a performer for any producer who is not signed to a Screen Actors Guild contract .. "

The Kansas law you refer to, and other right to work laws apply to employers being required to make their hiring decisions without consideration of union membership, or non-membership.  A SAG member violating Rule #1 is not subject to legal (as in federal, state or local laws) action, but is subject to permanent expulsion from SAG!

by applying for and accepting a SAG membership, they are contractually bound to the rules.  So it isn't you who is in trouble with SAG, but the actor(s), if any, who worked for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(The original post has been edited by the author for clarity due to a significant edit of the previous posting.)

And I was the employer.  As you know, I'm an economist.  I believe in free markets to the very depths of my soul.  Unions exist for the sole purpose of presenting constraints on the exercise of market forces.  My actors were all big boys and girls (or, at least, their parents were!).  I am certain that each of them made the best decision based upon their own unique set of personal circumstances.  I would have it no other way.  Your post about SAG did, however, remind me of that wonderful old joke about the Soviet Union:  Bread was always 10 cents a loaf, but there was never any bread to buy.  Or, as the Bible says, "A live dog is better than a dead lion."  In the present case, that would be translated as "a real non-union film is better than a non-existent union one."

Mike, you get the last word.  I've got a another script to write!

:-)

I do wish you the very best with all of your projects.

Stephen Wallace Pruitt, Ph.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, how about stepping in and stopping this pointless back and forth obviously private yet publicly aired haranguing. It may be the longest posting ever on the site but in my opinion it has the distinction of also being the one to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel.

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, how about stepping in and stopping this pointless back and forth obviously private yet publicly aired haranguing. It may be the longest posting ever on the site but in my opinion it has the distinction of also being the one to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel.

Mick

I agree, Mick. I am quite tolerant of most things but this topic, once having something to do with the use of the Red Camera, has certainly lost it's way and serves no useful purpose.

- PLEASE cease and desist, all those involved in this particular thread -

The main players in this should take the discussion elsewhere or risk being removed from this group.

Regards,  your host,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Seeing as this is my first response in this thread I hope it won't get me removed from this website. 

Still I feel that I must say I sincerely hope that Stephen is wrong when he says the future of filmmaking belongs to guys like him.  If he is right I am glad I have the family pet kennel business to fall back on because I will be getting out of this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...