Financing / Crowdfunding : 2021 COVID FILM BUDGETS - HIGHER or LOWER by Colette "ByFilms" Byfield

This really depends on your budget levels, the production's union affiliation and what outside parties/services are involved. It's hard to nail down. If you are doing union rules, you are pushing 15-20% higher depending on your budget and the (voluntary) rules chosen by your production company, as well as whether you are on studio lot or not (NBC-Uni has some frankly draconian and weird rules). Non-union productions need to observe only the straight-forward CDC guidelines which raise costs minimally if at all.

I will also add that IMO the zones/repetitive testing/tracking/etc. agreed to by the major studios and the unions just over a year ago were and still are aimed more at stifling independent production than at health. As an industry, we did shut down at least 2 weeks before "lockdowns" were instituted... which is just one piece of evidence of how careful the film industry is about health. Your lead actors coming down with any illness or injury at all can tank a production - and that has been the case since the beginning of film over a hundred years ago. Accordinly, film sets have not been places people catch diseases more than anywhere else. Thus instituting such weird procedures is clearly aimed at raising budgets.

Good distinction between the studio and indie film health stipulations. Naturally, I’m worried about any shift that would increase costs for indie film productions since raising money was already difficult before covid. Rising Insurance costs are another headache indie producers don’t need.

I know a lot of people who have cut their crews in half and only work with select individuals because of the California AB5 law. This continued into COVID and crews got even smaller.

I didn’t know about that Jacob Whitley! Here’s a link for anyone who wants to learn more about that AB5 law. https://www.investopedia.com/california-assembly-bill-5-ab5-4773201

Looks like indie productions are definitely being negatively impacted by these new restrictions.

I haven't heard of anyone cutting crews due to the AB5 law. It's an issue for the payee, not the payor. Colette "ByFilms" Byfield regarding the covid costs, there are many issues - one is that no insurer will cover it. Lawyers like myself recommend that production companies get waivers signed by all cast/crew - unions tell their people not to sign them. In no event is is probable that anyone could prove they caught covid on a film set, or on your film set in particular. To add to the issues, OSHA has designated that where an employer requires covid vaccination as a term of employment, adverse reactions to such are a "work related injury" which will affect employer's safety record and of course costs. Therefore it behooves producers to do independent research and familiarize themselves with CDC and other reliable statistics on vaccine reactions rather than to assume the media is accurate - it isn't; covid vaccine has produced several orders of magnitude more, and often deadly, adverse reactions than all other vaccine's combined (which are generally almost unbelievably safe), and that cannot be disputed even given the official attempts to repress the stats. The upshot is that producers can risk great liability by taking too active a stance on covid procedures. There are a lot of moving parts to this specific issue. But because of the inherent political overlay, I think it's best not to discuss it much in open forum, other than bare budget issues. I do address it more directly and frankly in my producing seminars, especially where someone has a specific situation they are asking about.

I'm gonna rant a little: in a situation where EVERYONE is vaxxed, the risk of transmission is so low as to be irrelevant. This includes film sets.

https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-dat...

The mandatory policy of wearing a mask REGARDLESS of vax status is NOT supported by science (Delta notwithstanding).

It is, IMO, a cowardly stand by politicians and policy-makers. They simply don't want to upset voters by saying "if you're vaxxed, you don't need a mask," and thus creating more division (and losing votes and money). And don't tell me it's "better to be safe than sorry"; IMO, it creates stress and fear that is avoidable.

Now, I'm all for people deciding whether to wear a mask or not on an individual, voluntary basis. But don't require me, as vaxxed, to wear a mask when it's completely UNNECESSARY.

We hear a lot of blah-blah in Nevada about "freedom" and "individual rights," concerning vaxxing, and that's cool, if that's you.

Just don't make me suffer for your idiocy - let me exercise my "individual rights." I CHOSE to get vaxxed; let me CHOOSE whether or not to wear a mask.

Rant done.

So it seems that the 2021 ethos surrounding “post” covid budgets is “safer than sorry” which seems to be the main driver behind increased budgets. Costs like masks and testing certainly factor in along with funds “in case of lawsuits” from anyone who gets sick at work or uncooperative insurers, who may dispute claims. None of that bodes well for indies who can’t afford every possible safety precaution. Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg your thoughts about waivers seems to make sense to me. I remember getting sick after taking a flu shot at work some years ago. The nurse laughed it off as a “normal” side effect and that was that. Those days are long over it seems.