I am altering the deal…pray I don’t alter it any further
- Her probably
It think that everyone who made the film possible should share equally in the spoils, regardless of what contract they signed.
Bruh she worked a total of 20 days
Big dawg, she’s isn’t going to get what she wants. There is no need to manage public opinion for free.
You signed the contract
In today’s upside down topsy turvy world, some judge will probably rescind the contract.
This post reeks of chauvinism
Article: Someone being entirely reasonable regarding the crappy economical context of their contributions to a successful project.
Post title: “A case of sour grapes”
Hmm lets see - The work was 20 days of “art directing” (i.e. telling other artists what to do). How much do you think that’s worth?
It appears to be worth a median of $58.54 an hour or $2,341 a week, with many positions in the field significantly higher, according to this.
Also, from the article:
Sally also said due to the low budget production the crew had to “wear many, many hats”, meaning she also served as a PA, set dresser, graphic designer, and background actor, among other roles.
These kind of films should really be run like a startup, people get wages for doing the work and also get equity of it takes off. But it’s rigged so the investors get all the gains, while the workers really get paid a tiny amount
People come at this one case as if success was a foregone conclusion. This level of financial success was absolutely not a sure thing for a movie made by 2 YouTubers, even if it was good. Plenty of people would negotiate away their equity stake for an increased wage (which would be a good choice in many cases), and some of them would then complain afterwards if it succeeded. Plenty of movies flop. As a person whose work cannot guarantee it even primarily influence success or failure, it makes no sense to trade guaranteed wages for equity in most cases.
It’s the same situation in startups, but usually people get a wage and equity, because you don’t generally have much of an option to boost the wage much instead. The project would much rather trade risky equity than have to dig up more cash for higher wages
That “rig” is called a contract lol
Yes, excessively complex contracts that large overpowered corporations get vulnerable people to sign. The massive imbalance in power and knowledge mean that it is rigged and the investors definitely took advantage of this.
Why does every job have to be a lifelong commitment? According to you, they should get rid of all contract jobs and nothing should be a one-off deal?
If they did that then there might be more people like George Lucas. You think movies will let a director have a percentage of toy sales after they made that mistake with him? Nah that’s more money for them.
Or obi wan, getting what 1? 2? % of gross man made serious bank.
I hate how people frame as “Hey look the producers took the risk, so they should get the returns.” They just took a financial risk. It’s literally the easiest risk to take. Ask gamblers. While the crew takes all kinds of risk with the gear, dialogue choices, costume choices, set choices, sacrificing sleep and food for a day here and there, using the hours that they could have spent gambling in the stock market to come with a proper story, planning, practicing and executing it. So yeah these guys definitely deserve a bonus from the success as THEY MADE THE SUCCESS HAPPEN.
So if you build a hotel and generate profit, should you funnel that profit to the people who constructed the hotel?
Actually, if an architect and a construction team invented a revolutionary, hyper efficient, beautiful new way to build hotels that caused revenues to skyrocket gazillion %, they would demand royalties or equity. Furthermore, we already have a model for this: profit sharing, bonuses exist for above the line talent because we acknowledge their labour creates the outsized value. There’s no logical reason that shouldn’t extend to the rest of the crew who sacrifice their time and health to make it happen.
Well I’m not talking about creating an invention. I’m talking about building a product for someone else. If an architect creates a hotel for someone (no matter how insane or swaggy its design), they don’t usually get the profits afterwards. They are paid for that construction job alone. That’s more like what happened with this movie.
That is a false equivalence.
A movie is not a hotel and the film crew is not following a fixed blueprint.
If a construction crew lays bricks perfectly, the hotel’s value stays the same (unless the architect actually makes a design that helps the property’s value to go up in which case they demand profit sharing and equity). But a film crew is creating a unique project. If the camera operator captures a breathtaking shot, the value of the movie skyrockets. if they mess up, it’s worthless. The crew’s creative labor is what actually generates the outsized profit.
Plus, we already give profit sharing to directors and writers because we acknowledge their labor creates the value. Arguing that the rest of the crew (who sacrifice their health and sleep to execute that vision) don’t deserve a slice isn’t logical.
Architecture is art too. Its not just for functional means. Even the paint strokes on a wall can be considered art (how meticulously its done) and something as simple as paint texture can make people continue choosing that hotel.
You just proved my point. If a painter’s meticulous brushstrokes are so unique that they literally drive recurring revenue and make guests keep choosing that hotel, then that painter isn’t just a labourer anymore but a core value creator.
If their specific, artistic choices are generating perpetual, ongoing profit for the owner every year, then logically, they deserve a piece of that ongoing profit.
Similarly if the producer gets to make passive, recurring income off the crew’s recorded artistry forever, the crew deserves a piece of that recurring success. To argue otherwise is to say, Thank you for creating the magic that makes me rich. now go home while I collect the cheques.
According to that logic, if you sell anything second hand, you should give a cut of that to the original manufacturer of the product? Plus what you’re saying applies to all art. According to this logic, there should be no contracts and one-off jobs if it involves art. Every freelance graphic designer who designed a logo for a company has to now permanently get a stream of profits for every company they made a logo for.
Isn’t that typically part of the contract?
Wack
