Jump to content

Freelance Living Wage


Recommended Posts

Not the film for people with the IQ of a potato.

 

 

That's very arrogant.

 

There doesn't have to be a divide between smart and entertaining, and I don't like it when people from either side of the argument argue one's merits over the other. The industry should strive for big entertaining blockbusters which also provide food for thought, move and inform people.

 

As for the "cinema you don't see", it has always existed, even back when film was invented. There have always been unseen, unheard of jewels that went under the radar and died a quick death. Is it a shame? Certainly. Are people free to investigate and find out about independently released gems if they so wish? Absolutely.

 

I know I spend all my time at my local arthouse cinema and rarely ever go to watch a film in a multiplex anymore. If I'm free to do it, then everybody else is, and that "small" cinema is doing very well.

 

Let's not be overly pedantic here and claim that we know what's best for others. If people swarm up to see the latest Fast and Furious, then maybe that's because it genuinely ticks all their boxes.

Edited by Nicolas Courdouan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One of the best films I saw last year was Canadian "Incendes". Was the that supported by TeleFilm Canada? If so they did a good job.

Good luck finding a single member of the English Canadian public that has heard of or seen, Incendies. Sure these movies are well made and receive critical acclaim, but they are ignored by the public at large. Especially since this is a French language film, very few people in English Canada have any interest in Denis Villeneuve's films. He's huge in Quebec of course. But no one has ever heard of him in English Canada.

And yes, this is just the sort of movie TeleFilm would throw money at. Mainly because it's made by a Quebecer and Quebec receives more than half of the TeleFilm budget even though they are less than 25% of Canada's population.

Indeed there is a TeleFilm logo at the end of the Incendies trailer so they put money in. As for:

 

"The free market if left alone will destroy cinema, it will always favour the popcorn sales of the movie. The quick buck over the long term investment."

You sound like a Canadian socialist film snob who thinks films like, "Smurfs 2" should not be made and the public should be forced at gun point to watch to watch Incendies instead. No one is going to control the free market and "make" the public watch anything. There were quite a number of high profile box office bombs in 2013, movies costing over 200 million that the public rejected en masse. I'm sure the studio bosses thought each one was going to be a sure fire hit. The free market decided otherwise.

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So funny that people still swallow the lie about freedom. How do you go to that small art house cinema to see "Incendese" when there isn't one in your town, the next town or 50 miles away?

 

The studios have such a stranglehold of the market that they have not lost money on any of their blockbusters, however awful they are. Like banks they are too big to fail.

 

So now we know that TeleFilm have at least funded one great film and not Boddington's Zombie movie. There is hope.

 

Go to LOVEFILM, to the page on Incendese and see what people have written. How they praise the film.

 

It is not a matter of discovering hidden or forgoten masterpeices, these films are repressed. It is easier for a El Quieda bomber to get into America than a foreign language film.

 

They have to remake them as AMericans are the one people in the world, so say the distributors, that cant read subtitles.

 

Thats French cinema, what chance Russian Czech Polish......How about that fantastic East German film "Naked Amongst the Wolves"? Or "The ADventures of Werner Holt" ? The best film that explains what German fascism was like, told from a German POV...never viewed, or released in the West... Thats because we live in a "free" society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a free market, Richard. I'm not allowed to be part of it, after all.

 

The labour pool is one thing. I am talking about consumer choice here, when I reference the free market.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go to LOVEFILM, to the page on Incendese and see what people have written. How they praise the film.

 

Oh I see, so you'd be willing to accept that Dark Reprieve and The Dogfather (my last two films), were "great films" because a few people at least praise these films on IMDB and Amazon?

 

Is every user comment on Incendies positive? Without even looking at IMDB I'm sure they are not.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INCENDIES on Love film


By a customer , 16 Nov 2013 A little slow but none the less quite compelling. Well put together and brilliantly acted out. A sad but very clever film. Don't miss this one!!

Great twist.


By SPuGie (2 reviews) , 02 Nov 2013 I enjoyed making the journey of discovery along with the characters. Slow moving, yes, but gripping nonetheless. For lovers of international movies, particularly about the Middle East - a must see.


captivating from start to finish, amazing acting.... very convincing, really enjoyed how it was put together as the fascinating story unfolded, definitely different from most other films. I highly recommend it.


This film depicts the brutality of war and extremism in Middle East. Shocking, saddening. Superbly acted so definitely worth watching.


An excellently crafted drama - exceptional acting and intelligently interwoven stories, culminating in an unexpected climax. Wonderful cinematography.


Go beyond the american blockbuster............nonsense


By montpelier , c'est magnifique, incomparable to american sterile mindless, puerile sex ridden & violent blockbuster garbage.




THE DOGFATHER


Typical Cainine film, with the four legged creature the star. Children would love it and ideal for a girlie night in or to amuse animal lovers.

Bring on the Bulldog very cute and a great actor. The others need to raise their game


anyone who loves Beethoven or See Spot Run will love this film, its cute, its silly and just brilliant fun for all the family


The dog was cute and the film was mildly amusing, my 13 year old enjoyed it but definitely not film of the year for me!


Pretty feeble family comedy which mainly relies on pratfalls and very bad puns. A typical scene involved two 'comical' Mafia henchmen arguing volubly about the relative merits of meatballs and sausages. This starts out unfunny, degenerates into embarrassing, and ends up with a pitifully choreographed fist-fight. Even the dog looks ashamed of itself for appearing in this pile of rubbish. The gag reel at the end is as unfunny as everything else and really the whole thing just reeks of 'will this do'. If this film bombed, and I certainly hope it did, that will hopefully spare the world an excruciating sequel.



To be honest i only watched this for the dog, i am obsessed with bulldogs!

If i didn't love them so much i probably wouldnt have rated the film as good.

There are a few funny bits in but is a bit silly too



Your search for "dark reprieve" did not match any titles


IMDb


Incendies 8.1


Dark Reprieve 2.8


The Dogfather 2.9


Dzis w nocy umrze miasto (1961) Poland 6.2


Nackt Unter Wolfen East Germany 1963 - 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what your point here is Maxim? We can do this all day. Do you want me to start posting the comments from users that trashed Incendies and praised my work?

 

As usual on this forum, your belief is that your arguments only work one way. Your capitalist enterprise with your stock footage is ok. My capitalist enterprise making films is not ok.

 

Comments saying Incendies is a quality film support your argument that it is great. Comments saying the movie is garbage have no merit.

 

Luckily I'm not the only one on here that thinks your comments in this thread are only valuable for their laughable entertainment quality.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the option to sell feature films to consumers (and I wouldn't expect to).

 

Lucky for you. Making a movie is the biggest pain in the ass one can imagine and the vast majority do not make their money back. You have posted this fact on here many times, and I agree with you.

 

You are free from the process of making a film and getting it sold. Both feats are difficult, not impossible, but difficult.

 

This is why producers deserve a lot of credit when they have a success on their hands. And why they deserve the financial rewards, if any, that come along as well.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you believe there is any level whatsoever at which compensation for this success becomes intrinsically abusive?

 

"Abusive" is such a bizarre word to use. How is the producer "abusing" the 1st AC, if he makes a million dollar return and the 1st AC makes $2500.00/week?

 

Also, if the movie is a financial success and the producer is only paid up to maximum capped amount (which you and Maxim will soon have enshrined into British law) what happens to all the money left over?

 

It gets equally distributed to British charities? All of the crew receive an equal share? Even though they were already paid their wages and assumed zero risk in making the movie?

 

Film crews often make this argument, yet none of them want to give their wages back if the film suffers a huge financial loss.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

"Abusive" is such a bizarre word to use.

 

Why?

 

 

How is the producer "abusing" the 1st AC, if he makes a million dollar return and the 1st AC makes $2500.00/week?

 

If this is not obvious, I really cannot help you further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a producer, nor even much of a capitalist, except by inclination, but it's not obvious to me why someone who risks, say, $5M shouldn't make a 20% ROI on a deal that probably took 5 years to put together.

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Usually because he's not, in Boddington-world, risking 5 million of his own money, nor has he done any actual work in terms of creating the product that will be sold.

 

The practical problem with that argument is that it intrinsically sets up a situation where the people who have money get to make money, and everyone else almost literally starves, which isn't very fair.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what your point here is Maxim? We can do this all day. Do you want me to start posting the comments from users that trashed Incendies and praised my work?

 

As usual on this forum, your belief is that your arguments only work one way. Your capitalist enterprise with your stock footage is ok. My capitalist enterprise making films is not ok.

 

Comments saying Incendies is a quality film support your argument that it is great. Comments saying the movie is garbage have no merit.

 

Luckily I'm not the only one on here that thinks your comments in this thread are only valuable for their laughable entertainment quality.

 

R,

 

As a producer it is a surprise you do not understand capitalism. A cameraman selling stock footage he shot is not a capitalist. he is selling work he produced with his labour.

 

A producer employs people to produce a film using CAPITAL to produce a product worth more than the CAPITAL invested, this is PROFIT. The film workers add value to a product turning an idea into a script and then film. This is called capitalism.

 

You said the Canadian Film Board made terrible films, you were wrong, they made one of the best films of the last few years. This is not based on what I say but on what thousands of people say.

 

You said the State made terrible films, I give examples of State funded films made without producers that on the Western based website scores highest marks. based on thousands of peoples votes.

 

I did not select the remarks that's how they are, you can see them.

 

Film crews don't offer their wages back if the film fails because they are never given a say in script, director or how a film is to be made. You can't have responsibility without power.

 

If you argue the points being made instead of making personal attacks you may have more success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm not a producer, nor even much of a capitalist, except by inclination, but it's not obvious to me why someone who risks, say, $5M shouldn't make a 20% ROI on a deal that probably took 5 years to put together.

Thats a very poor return, anything below 100% profit in view of the risk is an extremely poor. With 1 in 10 films making a profit, that great return has to pay the losses on the other 9 & still leave something left over for the producer.

 

I know the producer of the MR Men cartoon series, they signed a contract in 1973 with the BBC to produce 13 episodes, the BBC paid £100 per episode for 7 years use. The episodes cost £2000 to make. They sold in 35 countries & costs were covered.

The production company owned the film rights & 'thereafter', it's the meaningless phrase thereafter (at the time) that made the money in the end, video rentals, computer games etc. When the author Died his family sold the book rights, the buyer also wanted the film rights and paid £6,000,000 some 35 years later. It's the only speculative venture the production did that ever produced a big return 35 years later.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually because he's not, in Boddington-world, risking 5 million of his own money, nor has he done any actual work in terms of creating the product that will be sold.

 

The practical problem with that argument is that it intrinsically sets up a situation where the people who have money get to make money, and everyone else almost literally starves, which isn't very fair.

 

P

What? The producer/director hasn't done any work? I wouldn't starve on $2500/week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cameraman selling stock footage he shot is not a capitalist. he is selling work he produced with his labour.

 

But he's not selling his labour, is he? He's marketing a product made by him, and expects to profit from that one day's, or week's, work many times. If he had a crew, presumably he paid them by the day. They sold their labour.

He's a capitalist alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he's not selling his labour, is he? He's marketing a product made by him, and expects to profit from that one day's, or week's, work many times. If he had a crew, presumably he paid them by the day. They sold their labour.

He's a capitalist alright.

Does he use capital? No he uses his own labour to make something himself. He then sells it. No other person is involved. No one else makes any contribution, no one is exploited.

 

To exploit other people you need the ability to pay them while they work CAPITAL . They have to produce value greater than their wages = PROFIT.

 

This is CAPITALISM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

...which is not necessarily a problem, as long as it's not overdone. It causes inflation, but that's manageable at low levels.

 

When it's overdone it causes serious economic problems such as those we've seen recently.

 

The reason this is not a simple discussion is that it's a matter of degree. I'll repeat: it's not OK for someone to be making 100 times what someone else is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'he'

 

Does he use capital? No he uses his own labour to make something himself. He then sells it. No other person is involved. No one else makes any contribution, no one is exploited.

 

To exploit other people you need the ability to pay them while they work CAPITAL . They have to produce value greater than their wages = PROFIT.

 

This is CAPITALISM.

The 'he' is you. You rented or bought your equipment, (we won't go into how that equipment was manufactured or who was 'exploited' during that process) with capital, which you then used to create stock footage which you hope to license for more than it cost you to produce, allowing for your wages for the work. That's profit, for your information. If you're not making it, you're making a loss, not a living.

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'he'

 

The 'he' is you. You rented or bought your equipment, (we won't go into how that equipment was manufactured or who was 'exploited' during that process) with capital, which you then used to create stock footage which you hope to license for more than it cost you to produce, allowing for your wages for the work. That's profit, for your information. If you're not making it, you're making a loss, not a living.

Don't forget I have interest on my bank account.

 

Your point is what ? That we all live under capitalist relations?

 

I have to work, either as a cameraman, or make footage which I sell to pay my bills. I do NOT invest capital to employ other people to make things for me and make a profit from them.

 

A lot of creative activity in this system throws up these contradictions. When funded by C4 to make films I was in a position of employing people.

 

Again this is not the point, Frederic Engels, father of communism, was a factory owner, Karl Marx lived in poverty. So what?

 

It is not a matter of individual right or wrong it is about creating a better system for making better films.

 

People who can't make an argument attack the person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is not obvious, I really cannot help you further.

 

You are quite correct there. You clearly just don't want to, or can't, understand such a simple concept.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...