Filmmaking / Directing : Filmmaking Exploitation - Should you work for free? by Sol Roth

Sol Roth Just starting off I think making videos/films for free is the only way to go. As you said, it's a collaborative art and everyone is bringing their skills to make a beautiful, fun, and creative piece of work. The difficulty is finding help that expect little to nothing in return. That's why most of the projects I do are set with friends who just enjoy hanging out and having fun. The caveat might be that your work won't come out as professional as you would like, but as long as we're perfecting the craft I think it's a good step in the right direction.

I think Oscar Ordonez is on to something. For me, it is one thing to get friends together to make something. It is different to advertise for strangers to work for free.

Sol Roth The discussion about exploitation is welcome. But I think it applies to amateur or student projects only, with no commercial value. I think you need to consider carefully the purpose of any particular project before you apply the concept of pay or exploitation. Your jam session example is not on point. No one expects to be paid at a friendly jam session. However, if you then release that recording - they have the moral and legal right to be paid, and that's also the law. It's also not an unusual situation in music - it happens a lot and people get sued a lot for exactly this. As for "collaboration" on a film, the same thing applies - it IS exploitation if you profit and don't pay your people, and it's good that you say you would pay people. You really should put that all in writing. Finally, with all due respect to the collaborators, as Oscar Ordonez mentioned, you won't end up with anything commercial. So unless it's a student learning experience, it's professional bubble-gum. By definition, the people you attract to that kind of project either don't expect to produce anything commercial/professional or don't know the difference between commercial/professional and amateur. That includes their commitment to the project. One thing you haven't addressed is creative rights. By not paying people, and (assumedly) not getting their full releases before they work with you, you are opening a legal can of worms that is guaranteed to come haunt you in the future. You no-budget collaboration can turn into a 6 or 7 figure lawsuit down the road, whether or not you think it is successful.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg , Thanks for the comments and thoughts. I will record a follow up discussion to this when I get the chance (lots of great replies and messages from people on this topic). Personally, I think this applies to more projects than people realize (in 2020). To start repeat myself, I won't be paying myself anything, the collaborators can have the profit if there is any, so there is no profit exploitation happening (NONE OF THAT). As far as quality, stuff has changed a lot. Collaborators and amateurs can get to pro quality now - Take a look at Chroline (not my movie, but an example), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON6cfOD8ab4, this is a feature film that was made for free (100% by collaborators). It was also released online, on YouTube - Regardless of the plot, the actual technical quality is BETTER than a ton of distributed movies and better than the theatrically released movie Unsane. It's part of a "Folk Filmmaking" movement, where they make stuff like that for free. That movie does not look like a student project, it looks like a distributable movie you would see on Netflix. That's the first movie that particular team made, they have more in development and the quality only goes up from there. I imagine that team I just linked to, will match the quality of bigger budgets by the time they are done. Will they still use collaborators and release their stuff for free? No idea, but the direction they are going is up, not down. The clips from their new projects look a lot better than the link I just shared.

Anyways, I'm not exactly a folk filmmaker, because I do plan a VOD release (which will make money), but all that money would just go to the people who made it, it's just using more traditional distribution, instead of a fully free release, but the idea is the same to build a collaborative team and make stuff. Folk filmmaking is legal (they release it for free) and will grow as a movement. The quality of their movies will improve as well. . There has to be a way for people to work together and still have a distributable release (instead of free only release). That's the team I'm trying to building. If the legal hurdles can't be solved, people will just become folk filmmakers like the link above so they can still make stuff. People are going to make films together regardless of how much money they have. The thing in question is if it can be structured in a way that makes a better result and still ends up with a distributable film, so someone can at least get some money and reach and more traditional audience segment.

I predict, 100 feature length movies of HIGH quality will be made in the folk filmmaking style, NEXT YEAR (just the TEAM I linked to above has 2 more that will be released in 2021 and plan on shooting more,). If those teams could have worked together on a VOD release, they may have been able to use that funding to do more with their next projects.

I've posted some more legal questions about structuring collaborative contracts. I should definitely review that part of it.

I only watched snippets of Chroline, so perhaps my take is unfair. For what it is, it is well done. But I must disagree with you about it being ready for Netflix.

Apart from the legal quagmires that Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg pointed out, the bottom line with unpaid work is that it limits what you can ask. This will typically affect the process and the result negatively.

Also, if you are the originator, it is not really a true collaboration. The other people are there to realize YOUR vision. Except they are not getting paid, so that muddles your ability to set the agenda.

I have done one project like that, not film, but a one-time photo shoot. It was not for profit, but it was my project, my agenda, and I made no apologies for that. However, I took great pains to pay back my collaborators in PR and other work, which was understood from the beginning, so it turned into a win-win for everyone and we are still friends and working together.

Christiane Lange Hi Christiane, I just used Chroline as an example I knew about. The highest quality movies I've seen made in that way were fan films (some of the Star Wars fan fiilms in particular have insane production value) or passion projects from people who actually are pros (which is not really fair right?), but I wanted to give a more down to earth example of people trying to make original ideas with limited resources who don't do it for a living. I'm glad you were able to get a a collaborative project off the ground (photo shoot) and I'm all for trades. I personally have created some shorts that had decent production value, enough for a VOD release ALREADY - https://www.amazon.com/Dollface-Slasher-Solomon-Rothman/dp/B06VSJWB2H This in particular played at 5 horror film festivals, got distributed on SCREAMBOX (PAID) and was offered broadcast distribution through shorts TV (didn't take it for reasons I won't expound on here).

I'm ready to make some minimalist but high distributable films, now. I don't have money to fund a production so collaboration will be required. I'll be as transparent as possible about the motivation, the why and what I'm doing. I'd love to collaborate on other people's projects as well. I don't consider it exploitation and I will find a way around the legal issues through collaboration contracts. What upsets me, why I make videos and why I push so hard is... for most people.. You end up with 3 outcomes...

1. People fail at what they always wanted to do and just don't get to do it... This is what happens to 99% of people who want to be filmmakers, they just never get to make the movies they want to, they never succeed at being the lead actor they want, and they NEVER get to do the stuff they dreamed about and they eventually just give up. I use to hold filmmaking meetups. I was the host of the biggest filmmaking meetup on meetup.com. We met twice a month for years. I eventually had to quit.. it got too depressing for me and I started to see stuff negatively (I'm a positive person). 99% of the people I met failed, every week they talk about the same ideas and every week no progress, no bridge to create any of their ideas EVER... (My Meetup group was taken over by others - https://www.meetup.com/producer, but in the past events and photos you can see me and my events and pictures of me meeting with thousands of filmmakers).

2. They get lucky and succeed in HollyWood and get to do the movies and stuff they dreamed about (good luck making it to number 2, if it happens AMAZING, but it's rare).

3. They do it anyways, just not as good using what resources they have.

Personally, I'm not going to be #1, so I need a way to get to number 2 and I love making movies, so I'll do #3 no matter what. I spent a ton of time and energy that was totally wasted pursing paths and projects that never came through. Now, I've taken a different approach. Start small, smart minimalist, branch out and do it no matter what.

I'm an idiot, or I would have already been successful, but I was too ambitious and chased projects that never happened. Most dreamers won't even get as far as I already have (some distributed projects etc). I can't let another 10 years go by and end up like all the people I met at those meetups. Even stage32, is mostly a big network of people who aren't going to get to do the things they really want, they'll just get old and realize one day that "it just didn't happen".

Sol Roth I watched that and I frankly don't agree with the assessment of quality, technical or artistic. It does look like a student project to me for a number of reasons. That's not a criticism, and it doesn't mean people shouldn't watch it, and don't take that to mean that student films are not watchable and never get distributed. Good ones are. But they are not commercial quality, and understand that this is a very rare thing, not a common thing. It does mean the film won't likely make money, especially after public youtube release, and you need pretty much 200k view on youtube before they pay you ~$100, so by definition it's not a commercial project. As industry is aware though, youtube releasing a film on youtube pretty much guarantees that commercial distributors will not look at it regardless of it's quality or lack thereof (as the copyright is essentially voided by it's uploading - as an entertainment attorney I know that isn't the "legal" fact, but it is the practical fact).

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg I was just using them as an example - The highest production value from collaborative content, that I've EVER seen came from fan films. Some of those rival actual Hollywood in VFX etc. I just wanted to use a very down to earth example from other people. But the assessment doesn't matter anyways, it's subjective.

Paranormal Activity 1 and Open Water, were extremely commercial successful horror movies of low production value , so the meaning of commercial quality is less valuable than it use to be anyways. It needs to find an audience and people need to like it, that's all. I personally have created a no-budget short that got a commercial release (SCREAMBOX is one place that PAID, China Mobile PAID, Shorts TV braodcast PAID) and it was just a short and wasn't the top quality I could do or anything. If you saw the short, you'd probably say the same thing (student quality), but it got commercial and broadcast distribution, so was it student quality? (my example not Chrloine). If it is, who cares, it got the result I wanted.

So I KNOW it can be done, because I've done it ALREADY. I just didn't want to only use my examples and wanted to showcase a totally disconnected example. I'm sure I could make a feature film that would make money via a VOD commercial distribution, but I don't have the money to pay a team. That's what I'm trying to do legally and ethically. It can be done and people will do this regardless.

You've been very successful at what you wanted to do (congrats), most people will not have that opportunity. So if they can't get collaborative projects off the ground, they are just going to fail, like all the people from the filmmaking meetups (referenced in my previous comments).

I'm active on social media around the world - https://www.quora.com/If-I-want-to-make-a-no-budget-film-where-the-cast-... This quora question goes over some of the detail of the legal issues and potential contracts.

Sol and Shadow - I have to mostly agree with each of you. "student quality" can mean many things to many people so I think it's intended meaning is pretty nebulous. I do like your term "folk filmmaking" (takes me back to my folk music days). There have been a few rare exceptions but I wouldn't hang my hat on producing a really profitable FL film in this environment at this time. I think (hope) we'll eventually get there...as long as we all try.

I agree with @Doug I understand totally @Sol AND @Shadow albeit both their comments differ. There are so many outside forces and legalities at play with film making that there does not seem to be a one shop stop rule book for success. When I first started to learn directing I met a successful film director who purposely makes films under “Amateur” status, you don’t have to obey same rules as “They” do but still make money. The Vietnamese mindset he called it, “You have the watches but I have the time.” Film art should not be subject to constraints of closed shop cronyism, neither should the art be an avenue for exploitation of others by others. I have been involved in film collaborations where skills were exchanged instead of money Eg I wrote, directed and produced it, (equipment, location, food, accident insurance) another was Gaffer/Spark and another Sound/Edit, others were actors. That was when I first started out and it can be done with a trustworthy group. There are also very simple documents that can be signed legally that any money made from a film being sold in the future is split equally amongst cast. Going back to original thread post regarding word “Free”. I would say fair exchange is no robbery but actors/crew must do their homework on who is running an unpaid project cos they can simply walk away after you gave your guts/soul/talent and as Shadow points out, there’s no chance of a comeback.

Sol Roth And all the more power to you. I sincerely hope you achieve what you want.

Christiane Lange THANK YOU, you too! I didn't mean to be too aggressive in my responses either. I wish everyone well, just wanted to bring this discussion out in the open, which I have strong feelings about.

Sol, I too have strong feelings/opinions about this topic and I'd be glad to discuss it over a pint; but I think this isn't the appropriate venue.

Thanks for bringing up the topic! I'm with Oscar Ordonez in that you can ask free service from those you already know if it is mutually beneficial (i.e. the payment is in the product made and delivered, so you'd better deliver). I love 48-Hour Film Festivals for just such a thing - professionals can afford to take a weekend off to make something, but they can't really afford more. Or rather, it would be rude to ask them to afford more. If you wish to change that for a specific project, just be clear about compensation, when that compensation will be made available and put it in writing for their peace of mind (and your projection).

It's not that you can't be paid later, it's that as contractors, we don't like taking time to track down the funds that are owed to us. It's a pain and quite frankly it's disrespectful of our time that could have been used elsewhere. This is why residuals are often only paid to above-the-line crew/talent, because they can afford to take a lower day rate on the gamble that they will see dividends later.

Also, it's the difference between a hobbyist and a professional - any hobbyist is going to be excited to work on a project regardless of whether or not they are paid, as if payment were icing on the cake. Professionals CAN work for free, but they will not make it a standard because they know how easy it is for people to take advantage of them (i.e. getting better quality work for the same rate as a hobbyist which is a slippery slope once you start saying "yes" - just like you said, if they have done work for free before, then they'll happily do it again; not necessarily!). ***This final point is aimed at below-the-line crew - working without payment as a director/writer/producer/lead talent has obvious pay-offs from the final product. Below the line crew, however, spend long hours, blood, sweat and tears in support of those high-profile roles and do not have the attractive accolades to hang a hat on. The biggest role that will be on the fence is your DP, who may take reduced rates or work for free so long as you use that money towards fun equipment or glass that they can play with and - again - make themselves look good.

To summarize - if you don't pay your DP, they can still walk away with a sweet new film for their reel and enough creative influence over the content to merit not getting paid. If, however, you don't pay your PA, grip, or even your Production Manager, their contributions are not clearly obvious and that "favor" does not really "payback" in another capacity. I would not make your new system of payment the same across the board to account for the inequity of roles. Consider what you COULD provide upfront to ensure you are trustworthy for that backend - check out the precautions that HitRecord employs to ensure all creatives get paid on a backend: https://hitrecord.org/

Ultimately, I think what has to be considered in regards to "exploitation" isn't a matter of "it's what I would do for you" because you don't know what you'd do for me (you haven't done it yet - but your money can spend now, and I can still be excited by a paid project), but rather "what are you interested in contributing and is what I have to offer sufficient compensation" because then you are listening to others needs instead of projecting your own expectations onto them. You have to build your cast/crew trust early and often and if they aren't comfortable with the arrangement, then don't force the issue.

Karen "Kay" Ross Welcome to the conversation, I enjoyed hearing your perspective. Regarding specific points...I am trying to minimize below the fold crew for the exact reasons you stated. With some of the above the line crew members, doing multiple below the line positions (like me), because I'm not going to ask a production assistant to work for free (unless they just wanted to be on set etc).

There are two issues here - One is the moral intentions and implications of the person asking for collaboration. No one wants to contribute to someone who is just looking to profit and use other people to better themselves (exploitation). That's why I emphasized ""it's what I would do for you". It's more about the intention and the spirit behind why I asked in the first place.

The second thing is, is the "barter" or what they get out of it and if it's worth it to them. Yes, unless you are creating your own projects (and like me), you'll be unlikely to get any value out of my offer to do the same for you (although if you were doing your own production, that would be a cool "trade" and would be the ultimate goal of a collaborative team - help each other make cool stuff).

Karen "Kay" Ross Well put!

Sol Roth Thank you! I can stand by that idea, then, as it seems the backend payment would be in addition to and not instead of what you've agreed to for day rate wages (i.e. the crew member has been asked to waive their one-time payments of their total owed per day rates in exchange for backend quarterly dividends to be paid regularly until the full amount is paid - or does it keep going as long as the project makes money? A production company with show royalties usually has a contract that stipulates a cut-off - 2 years, 5 years, 10 years). Either way, if you are clear and upfront, it can work.

Also, doubling up on roles is a fantastic idea, and is often the standard for indie sets. The quandary one faces - and it's not impossible - is simply quality. The Production Triangle asks Fast, Cheap, or Good, and only two of the three are possible at a time definitively. Production, by default, tends to be fast, which means if you are also inviting cheap labor (or the few who would be willing to accept backend payment), then you should be prepared to sacrifice quality. There are always exceptions - and I leave it per production to determine them - for example, Johnny K. Wu who has been posting about filming his feature during COVID has been filming over several weekends (NOT fast) with cast and crew that are essentially volunteering their time (Cheap) and it's turning out well because they all want to make something worth their efforts (Good). Here's the thread: https://www.stage32.com/lounge/producing/Producing-a-no-budget-to-super-...

The issue I foresee with every lower-level role being fulfilled by an upper-level role is that dividing certain roles' attention means they will not likely perform at their best - imagine your focus puller having to stop what they are doing to grab people's lunches or a director leaving set to check on parking meters. Again, not impossible, but it adds a layer of complication to production that requires consideration and possible compromises. I think the heart of this conversation - and I'm glad we're unpacking it - is "Is the compromise worth it?"

The smallest crew I've ever worked on was 5 people (Director/SFX MUA, DP, Sound, AD/Gaffer, and Producer/Location Manager/PA) with 1 actor and 1 location shot in essentially half a day, ending with our hot meal which could be delivered. The only people who could not do multiple roles - were the DP and Sound, and I'm pretty sure the DP did a bit of grip work anyway. It's not that you can't do it, but the only reason we all agreed was that we all already knew each other and had worked together before. I can't imagine doing that for someone I've never worked with or someone I knew vouched for them. For me, the incentive isn't payment at that point. The best incentive is working hard to create something we can all be proud of and working with people I really like working with. Adding an alternative payment method doesn't really satisfy anything at that point, but I can see how you may want something in writing before you start so that if you do release it AND it does well, then I know the producer didn't take me for a ride.

Now I kinda want to see the talent release and crew contracts you use LOL! What kind of details do you include and then reference on that one-sheet as "form of payment"?

To add to Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg 's mention, "it IS exploitation if you profit and don't pay your people, and it's good that you say you would pay people" - this is essentially what professional production contractors have a problem with. As it stands, they invoice and are paid anywhere from two weeks to two months after the service is rendered, and during that time are counting the days until that payment arrives (because they are prepared to track down their money within that time frame). If you then add to it a regular "check-in" over the span of years to ensure that you are doing your part paying them - not to mention should you not be paying them, the burden of proof to show you've been hiding profits they have a right to, and all that time chasing down their money is time away from work, play, and life - it's just too much hassle and heartache. Again, it's not that you couldn't do it, but the relationships and trust have to already be there. It's too much to ask someone who doesn't know you to trust to that level and still have them at peak performance on set. Not getting coffee after lunch can wreck a set's productivity, so imagine what not getting paid would do.

Karen "Kay" Ross I plan on vlogging the entire process and being transparent about EVERYTHING even the paperwork (templates, not stuff with private info of-course lol) will be put online so other people can get value out of them (or improve them). The intention will be to help others, gather more interest in the team / project and learn more as I do all this stuff. Also, I believe transparency is always a good thing.

I didn't choose a royalty cut off yet, but 5 or 10 years should be fine. As far as distributing royalty payments, it's not too bad if you immediately send it out electronically via the agreed split as soon as it comes in (paypal required, all payments auto sent (no time wasted for contacted etc), details in the notes of the transaction (where the money came from VOD site xyz, etc), 0 extra steps required. Most accounting software supports that feature, I am a one stop shop as of today, so I'll be using Quickbooks and sending PayPal payments out when they come in (waiting makes it way harder to manage). This is way simpler than what most production companies do, but this is a small scale operation with a big scale finished product (hopefully ;)!

I should note: I've never gotten traditional distribution, or used a sales agent before. I have created movies which were distributed, for broadcast distribution on cable TV, they offered a lump sum for one time rights (easy to distribute that) and the other stuff I've done used a distribution / aggregation company like (filmhub) where you get itemized payouts via Paypal quarterly with reporting on which channels they came from. I signed some foreign contracts to deliver assets (France and Poland woo hoo), but nothing exciting to talk about as far as payment.

I would have to learn more about different distribution options from someone with more experience, but the Paypal payments automatically when project revenue comes in should still work (even if it's from a check we received from a boutique distribution company as a hypothetical for a negotiated streaming contract.. haha I'm guessing there, I need to figure out the distribution side of the business on the larger scale (if I get there).

As far as quality... A lot of that depends on the ambition of the project itself. The most difficult part of creating super high quality on a low budget, is actually the concept (like with a horror movie) or the script itself (like with character or dialogue driven film) (in my opinion). If those are perfect, what I consider to be good enough (looks good and regular movie watchers will LOVE it) is not too difficult to achieve.

If you haven't seen these movies yet, I'm HIGHLY recommend you see all of these if you want examples of amazing minimalist films that were successful - (some are old, but there are new references in here as well).

Locke (2013 ) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2692904/,

Buried (2010) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462758/

Primer (2004) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/

Following (1998) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154506/

I didn't particularly like Paranormal Activity, but it's a classic example of a concept that works with low production value (even acting, nothing is top notch in that movie in my opinion, but it still works)

Paranormal Activity (2007) - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179904/

On the lower level, less concept based and more art/ romance / mumblcore you have movies like

Layover (2014 - $5K budget for this one)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3034016/

And the almost forgotten $900 movie of the 1990s - The Last Broadcast (4,819 rating on IMDB, this movie actually achieved surprising reach, those are just the people who rated it.. the viewership numbers are good). The quality is not good and this is almost unwatchable in 2020, but it's a good one to include anyways.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122143/

Although, some of the people who made the movies I mentioned above were amazing, that level of quality would not have been required to make the movie work and find an audience (in my opinion).

The scripts for this project I'm doing are a bit more ambitious than some of the examples above (not all of them), but still extremely minimalist. but you get the idea. If you chose the right concept and script - it will be easy to get the quality level good enough if you have good people. It won't require AMAZING, jaw dropping talent to pull off. Of-course if you are that good, it would come out better, but I'm talking about good enough quality for movie goers to love it and it to find an audience. Again, this level may be subjective, but to me, it's at the level where it would find an audience and be chosen for distribution on premium niche VOD networks and something the crew can be proud of.

Horror is the easiest example to use to judge "good enough technical quality". Good enough to be popular and get good reviews on places where people really like those movies like - (Screambox, Shudder etc etc) as well as generate views and one time purchases on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV etc etc (and make it to Netflix). I've made films and worked on other people's films that were able to accomplish this, so I don't see it as as much of a monumental task as other people might. You just gotta choose the right script, location etc. The hard part to me, is the concept and script to make it work super well without a lot of monetary resources. When you have a low budget, the initial basics (script and concept) become 100X more important than anything else.

Notice, I didn't mention any "folk filmmakers" (people releasing stuff 100% free on YouTube), even though I used them as examples before. Although I believe, they have gotten the raw technical quality of their films high enough (some of them), many still lack on the entertainment factor for me. Still awesome examples of some of collaborative work people are doing, but I'd rather watch Locke with a single actor on screen, then most of what folk filmmakers are producing, but that has nothing to do with the quality of their team, just what the chose to make, but I'm not judging them, that's just an observation. I should probably add, ALL JOBS in making a movie are valuable and super hard to become extremely good at. I wasn't downplaying the work, I just believe it's extremely achievable if the right concept and script that can be executed with limited resources is chosen, which I see as one of the essential components in getting it all to work.

I'll be vlogging the process, so lots of interesting things to figure out and problems to solve.

Lots of discussion and points have been unpacked here. Let me box it back up: if you want to make an amateur film, do so. Hobbies are hobbies. As soon as you use the word "hire", you are an employer. As soon as you use the word "collaborate", you are seeking a partner. If the project is amateur, it is a purely creative collaboration of partners. If you monetize it, you have a business partner as your collaborator. Multiply this by number of people involved and you have a potential mess that cannot be sorted. The idea that you invest your money and others "only" invest time isn't about fairness. Of course the project owner or instigator invests money and works unpaid - that's what an entrepreneur does, work unpaid. But his EMPLOYEES get paid. So you either have partners or employees. Choose. Either will have a cost, now or later. Numerous partners on a business collaboration film seems unworkable during the shoot let alone at the end. Maybe they are limited silent partners. OK. But be aware agreements in writing to defer pay only work until someone changes their mind and gets an attorney; a contract like this cannot likely violate existing labor laws and hold up, and labor laws indicate employers generally cannot use volunteer labor to a profitable end. I am not an attorney, this isn't legal advice or opinion, it is observation of my and other's experience. Whether a film is good or bad, professional or amateur in execution is irrelevant to the question " am I exploited / am I exploiting." You may have a cast and crew in full agreement that they are making a stone-soup film, or as you call it, folk film, but if it is monetized, do not be surprised if there are fights, suits and in a best case scenario, everyone is reimbursed for their efforts EXCEPT the instigator of the project. Now let's set that aside and say you do it your way and pull it off. The difficulty with which you obtain E&O insurance may be profound, and without it you will find no distribution. What makes more sense and has worked ( but not always) is this: such projects are made by a circle of friends, not new blood. For the very reason you get bad reactions seeking unpaid labor from the public, people close to you may have a different and parallel value to yours for such work. Try and draw in pros without a budget, no dice. SAG actors ( which comprise virtually all actors with any developed skill or name / face recognition ) will not and cannot work on an amateur project; that is violation of SAG Rule1. So if you want to play with professional actors, you need to be SAG signatory. This is immutable, not opinion. and SAG signatory means bond, business license, insurance, permits, and payroll service among other things. It has never been cheaper or easier to make a good film on a small budget, but you must have some budget. The fact you don't like that, and the fact people break the immutable rules, doesn't change the facts. Professional, or amateur. Both have merit. Pick one.

A lot of people listen to what other people say they can't do.. That's ok, but it's not me. I feel like many of you have lost some of that rebel, independent spirit. I'm going to do it anyways, and vlog it, and get distribution.

I kept one more example to post here .. Imagine if I told you I was going to shoot a horror movie illegally at Disneyland, then NOT GET SUED and find distribution ANYWAYS..... have it sell on Amazon for $9.99? That sounds like it can't be done... (NOTE: I have not seen the movie, but this is the type of independent spirit that gets killed if you work in the industry and do what people tell you do too much).

Here it is - https://www.amazon.com/Escape-Tomorrow-Roy-Abramsohn/dp/B00FKFGZZO $9.99 HD version - horror movie shot illegally at Disneyland without permits or permission. Somehow this movie got distributed, is STILL ON AMAZON and avoided all legal issues.

If they can do that, there is no way getting a small team to collaborate on a distributable movie is impossible, It' s not and I'm going to do just that. Follow my journey if you want, I'm 100% going to do it anyways. It's possible I'll fail, but then I'll just try again. Like I said before, I'm up for challenges, I don't get scared by things that appear difficult or obstacles in my way. Even I was surprised when I read about that Disney example, right on to that filmmaking team. I bet people told them over and over again they were crazy. Good thing they didn't listen. I should probably watch that movie now, since I used it as an example, hahaha.

Instead of starting a new thread, I thought I would continue in this one. Here is the next video in this journey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxFBUvEq-Cs I talk about some follow up points (ancillary discussions with people I've met FROM this convo (cool stuff) and what I'm doing to try to get around the problems mentioned here and solider on. Karen "Kay" Ross I threw in a few Karen jokes (friendly ones) in here, so i hope you find them funny and not offensive.

@Amer Darwich, I also connected with you on YouTube and I think it's awesome that you want to contribute. I would love to help you get experience making some cool movies, BUT if you're actively trying to find paying work and don't yet have gainful employment in your chosen field, I don't think you would be good fit for the team (not because of skill, but because I wouldn't want you to spend time helping / working for us, if you don't already have a way to earn a living in your industry). I'm really not trying to exploit anyone, I'm just not going to wait longer to find some passionate people and make a movie that would be distributable, so we can make more. With the right people this collaboration thing WILL WORK and I will do it.

There are different groups of people.

1. Students and beginners who don't have gainful employment in their field yet (although it's amazing if they want to help, they should probably spend their time trying to find a job or freelance work in what htey want to do, again I don't want to exploit anyone).

2. People who work in the field, but still have passion to do more interesting or unique projects (lots of commercial directors shoot interesting independent content and even art / experimental films outside of their normal work is one example).

3. High skill level hobbyists or people who have done some pro work, but don't work in that field directly. (an easy example is some ad agencies and marketing companies shoot some cinematic video, but they don't make movies or do extra complicated stuff like you'd see in a full feature). Lots of the creative designers at these companies, have great design and creative post production skills, but don't actual make movies for a living. This group may have a lot of passion to create certain types of creative content. Some of the most amazing fan films that were released as free art were from people who fit in the this category.

I'm looking for mostly people in 2 and 3, because i don't want to interfere or exploit someone because they are new and think they will get something out of the experience they may not get (I'm not connected in Hollywood and there is 0 guarantees of any success, although I'm sure I'll find at least some level of success anyways, nothing is set.

@Royce Allen Dudley, I'm not amazed by SAG actors in comparison to non-union actors as a generality, I think people overestimate SAG and underestimate the talent available outside of it, if you take the time to look for it. Take a supporting character actor in a sitcom (high paid SAG), with many of these acting jobs, there is nothing specular going in that performance that you can't find in "amateur" theater productions or extremely independent art films where the artists took it seriously, just never pursued it or were successful at finding employment in that profession. I get that in general SAG actors are better, but that won't matter for what we're doing. The acting will great. That's actually the least difficult thing to find (although takes time) in comparison to all the other problems we have to solve. Many no budget and low budget productions have terrible acting, but that's not because of union status, it's because they casted for looks only (cast the hot (INSERT) or are using friends / models / people who don't really act, but like I said, even in amateur theater productions you'll find actors using a variety of different methods with some classic instruction in it. Heck, even in some zoom acting meetings I've attended some of the first year actors gave convincing performances. If you think of a thriller or low budget horror movie as our first project, we can find actor that will be able to relate enough of the experience to draw the intended audience in.

James Scott that's a good question. Something I think about is "If this gets picked up, how will I compensate all the helping hands that worked pro bono?" They all had a hand in the creative process and in the end we ALL worked hard on it. I don't want to be the guy that screws people over but theres also no funds when you first start.

The original thread point was " exploited or not." Great topic, thank you for that, it's on the minds of all rising cast and crew, all the time, especially new with fewer projects or income sources of any kind for so many. Sol Roth your posts speak for themselves and I do truly wish you luck. You are stubborn, and that's not a bad thing in and of itself, it can be a huge asset to be stubborn in this business. It can be bad when you are driving the wrong way on a one way street. I respectfully, heartily disagree with your approach if it is done seat of the pants, as I have seen "just do it" blow up in peoples faces more times than I can count. Nothing wrong with being an amateur filmmaker- I was a rabid one myself, from 1973 to 1982-ish or so. The word "amateur" was not a pejorative then as it is now, and yes, people even then were doing EXACTLY what you suggest in the way you suggest it and succeeding ( look up Mark Pirro, for one... he has an old inactive profile here on S32 but you can find his story on IMDb; he succeeded at what you suggest in Ronald Reagan's first term with his feature POLISH VAMPIRE IN BURBANK ). You see your approach and attitude aren't new or uniqueat all, they greatly predate your birth. That said, anecdotal suggestions like the Disney film link tend to prove a rule, and the "way it works" for most people tends to be, in practicality, the way it works, period. That's why a few people like me share their valuable time and hard learned experience to help impart road maps to fresher, bright eyed filmmakers- to save them the bumps in the road we are aware of. End of the day, your comments abut meetups leading nowhere also has a long history of proven truth to it; that has never changed. Spearhead an effort and those inclined will join YOU. Absolutely! Seek to collaborate, you may get exploited. As for SAG actors, there are plenty of newer, unwashed SAG actors who are no more skilled, and some less skilled, than some struggling to get in the guild.That's not who I am talking about. You cannot dispute the fact that established, working actors who may bring marketing value to your project are in fact SAG/AFTRA. Those are whom I refer to. The few FiCore people in the business are rare exceptions. There are no non-union stars...but there are INFLUENCERS and non-SAG celebrities, if you want to go the route of stunt-casting, that's about a different kind of exploitation and it won't come to you for free. S32 is a great platform to meet and network with like-minded people who have head in the clouds but hopefully feet on the ground. A balance of both will see success more easily. Some write me off as a grumpy old man, that's cool. I go to work every day with people who also make their living doing this, and I have produced many features that have made money, lost money or even been shelved forever because of the very cautions I mention. Please do what you will, eyes open, aware of the realities beyond "just do it." And that's all I have to say about that.

Royce Allen Dudley that's the business aspect that's intimidating but so crucial to the success of any film maker. Thank you for talking about potential ways around trying to rush in to "just do it." It is much better to have a professional method of carrying out your projects but there are also different avenues to find those who will champion you.

Royce Allen Dudley I do appreciate hearing your thoughts and I am considering most of the details mentioned in your discourse. Of-course, I'm going to do it anyways, but there is still value in the discussion for both sides to think about (in my opinion) and this convo has evolved to encompass a lot more than my original point.

James Scott I am putting everything down on paper as explicitly as possible and there will also be "check ins and acknowledgements" through the project. As long as everything was in writing, with deliverables along the way (multiple - sign offs at key points) with contingencies for people who want to quit in writing beforehand (what happens to the movie etc), the movie and profit should be distributable according to those agreements and may even stand up in court if someone went crazy and tried to burn it down (hopefully that doesn't happen). As long as the intentions are good and the system is fair on paper, it usually works out.

One way to increase the likelihood of success is to REALLY push the minimalism, if you have a group of 5-10 people, it's totally possible to have them stay in agreement through the process of creating and selling and distributing something and remain happy with the agreed upon way of doing and profiting off it (stuff they signed on day 1). I've personally already did this on small projects, the difference here is the ambition and scale of the project (we will be making some bigger), but the team size and logistics of the process are identical. You gotta just do your best to keep the team together, put it all in writing and be as specific as possible before anyone even starts. The most important step in this entire process will be simply choosing people who are cool who actually want to do it.

I made and sold feature films (to DVD/foreign tv markets. Never theatrical) and I'd suggest you start an LLC, assign Officers. Buyers pay to one person/business entity and it's up to whoever is in charge of your group (cast, crew, vendors, investors) to distribute payment. It's P-I-T-A book keeping especially deals with SAG actors (Who gets what/first money in type deals nobody else knows except inside people in charge of your movie). Think 10 years like a house mortgage. Someone needs to do the book keeping for the life of a movie, pay corporate taxes. So Lawyer up first before you commit 5 to 10 years of your life to one movie/one business deal.

Dan MaxXx Thanks! I am creating an LLC. So I think the best structure for all this is so far (yes i'll talk to lawyer, this is just my initial setup) is have an LLC that does very little other than pay state taxes, accounting, hold the rights and receive and cut checks according to the member agreements. It will have prepaid legal insurance and budget to take care of legal issues if they arise, mainly just allow us to have a lawyer and allow a way to handle a basic legal dispute if one arises, as long as everything is spelled out and fair, I think it will be ok. This shell like company will allow it to have only a single member, have almost no costs (on purpose) and NO employees. The members who make the film (me included) sign contracts and agreement with the LLC. The good news is.. no Hollywood Accounting. The company has almost no costs, (some, accounting, taxes, legal), but outside of that any royalties will pass through to the team according to the agreements signed, and again no employees. Anything I do as an individual will be treated identically as anyone else. 0 liability and very little risk with this structure. Of-course people still have to agree, but this structure will allow us to work with other entities in the way they are use to dealing with (production company LLC to sign off and receive royalties).

Depends on the project and short and long term goals.