 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
It's fascinating to see how much time and energy is expended on filming a television show. Yesterday, crews invaded our neighborhood to shoot a segment for the TV show "Hack." I'd be willing to bet that for the entire day's work, they'll reap *maybe* a minute of completed footage.Same thing with the film "Unbreakable." Crews were on our street for almost two weeks filming in a vacant restaurant around the corner. (Former tenant couldn't afford the rent.) In the movie, the comic book shop "Limited Edition" was that restaurant. For all that work, there's so little footage that actually made it to the screen. No wonder they're so expensive to produce: all the people... all the trucks... all the gear... all the permits... all the cops... wow.
-Frank
Follow Ups:
Actually, on features it's the editors who can make close to $200 an hour but the average is more like $1,000 - $1,500 a day.For an assistant editor on features it's more like $300 - $400 a day on average (plus all the union overtime, meal penalties etc.)
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag." - Huey Long
Thanks!K
Frank,I used to wonder why movies could be so expensive until I began to be around some of the people behind the camera. The amazing salaries of the stars get the public attention and do contribute, but the principle photography, sets, F/Xs, post-production, advertising, and distribution far outweigh the $20,000,000 that Hanks, Roberts, Willis, and Smith are paid.
Examples:
A friend of mine worked in post-production on the first Spiderman and is getting ready to work on number two. The first film was in POST-production for 13 months- that is- the work on the already shot live action and CG and F/Xs went on for over a year. There were over 600 special F/X and CG shots in that movie.
A features assistant film editor is billed at around $200 per hour.
The director James Cameron said that the Harrier jump jet used in "True Lies" cost $20,000 per hour to "rent" and that it spent more than twice as much time in preparation and repair than flying.
I asked Cameron how the shot of the vertically upturned Titanic was made so it created that sense of immense scale. A special set was made for that one shot. That set was FULL SCALE and rotated on an axle to vertical. I would guess that one sequence without the CG characters (like the one that falls and strikes the propeller on the way down) cost $3-4 million.
In the "Abyss", they shot through a large, 4" thick plastic window in the abandoned nuclear power plant tank. The piece of plastic for that window alone cost $18,000. The cost of filling the tank and constantly purifying the water was astounding in itself- $XXX,XXX (I've forgotten the figure) but that's six figures just for the water!
A senior vice-president at MGM earned $275,000 per year 10 years ago, and there are dozens of this level of executive and above at a major studio.
I think a Panavision camera without lens now costs around $500,000.
On the set for a day of second unit shooting of the first "Dr. Doolittle" and the amazing number of people (50+) waiting for hours until a few minutes are actually filmed is amazing- I could feel the meter running. And the real Eddie Murphy was miles away- he doesn't like to be around wild animals! Another good sandwich and coffee..
On short notice, I represented a producer on a simple, one-camera, low budget exercise video that was made on analog video - and on a ready-made set of a network series that 3 hours cost over $70,000. (I got a nice sandwich and coffee..)
I could list astounding costs all day long, but I recommend watching the crawl at the end of a major feature and it will become more clear why the average Hollywood feature costs $30,000,000+ and correspondingly has to earn three times hard costs.
The film world is like the space program- we fuss over the visible astronauts (or the actors), but it's the thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of hours, and the sets, costumes, props, and materials behind the scenes and that make it happen.
We may complain about ticket prices - now up to $10-14 in Los Angeles, but try and make your own version of "Solaris" at home!
Next time, I'll tell you about the cost of producing an opera!
K
I'm not sure the source of your numbers, but if it's a buddy, I'd take what he says with a grain of salt. Asst Film editors do not make $200 an hour. None, ever. I include a link to the editors guild website, of which I am a member. You'll find the top rates for editors and sound mixers to be more in the $2000 a week range. In this day and age few people make overscale, and the ones who do can be counted on a single hand. The highest rates I have ever heard of in 27 years in this business are triple scale. That number falls far short of $200 an hour and never do assistants get triple scale only a few big name picture editors and re-recording mixers.and BTW at 10,000,000 the actor is walking off with the lions share, as far as the working stiffs who make movies go. To take a lead actors wage and lump every other cost against it and come to a conclusion that actors wages are not a problem is absurd.
Steve
SR,I appreciate the desire for accuracy.
When I mentioned $200 per hour, I referred to "billing" which in this case was the amount I was told a consulting post-production company in Santa Monica billed for editing. This was a special, but apparently not unique case, in which the enormity of the post-production of 100s of F/X & CG sequences- and remarkably a time constraint- meant that PP work was done by numerous firms. Also, though an assistant, my friend had an (on-and-off) staff of two others (assistant assistants?) within that $200/HR fee and worked 60-80 hours per week for a year.
This situation reminds me of other professionals- a staff attorney may bill out by the firm at $300/HR but this includes overhead, secretaries, investigation, copying etc. and the attorney's wages are $3000 a week, not the $12-15,000 billed.
I did not intend to lump the salary of a Hanks or Roberts in with below the line personnel, but wanted to point out that in large-budget features like the $100 million+ movies these lead actors appear in their salaries of $10-20 million are now something like 10-20% of the budgets. "Titanic" cost over $200 million and I would guess that the lead actors were well under 10%. But this movie has passed $2Billion! BO and video income and the like other $100Million+ movies that produce $300Million+ incomes the leads' $10Million salary is shown to be cost-effective.
My point was to emphasize the large contribution of crew and post-production people whose efforts are not fully appreciated by the general public in terms of both cost and contribution. I went through a phase where I believed that studio movies were 20% script, 20% directing, 20% acting, 20% lighting, and 20% editing! Now I realize that product placement on E! and CNN are another 50%! For independent film the extra 50% becomes Sundance.
Remember that I am not an insider looking at accounting of these figures.
K
Steve---Interesting, most of those jobs pay around what Building Tradesmen make in a town like Chicago. Good dough but not getting rich. But cleaner and safer than construction. And it IS Hollywood.A couple of our Boilermakers worked on permit with the Stagehands for a movie here in Chicago, building a device in a swimming pool to simulate a plane crash or something. Big articulated arms that needed welding together. Stagehands were out of welders and called our hall for guys. Our guys got a couple of weeks work out of it, money was good and so were conditions.
Yes sir I drip glamour. There was a time when we were way ahead of most workers in most industries. Not anymore. My minimum work week is 48.6 hours, my average is 52 hours. The current and next contract offer no sick pay and no paid personal days. I think we are the only workers in America(union anyway)that get zero paid sick days. Our vacation benefit maxes out after 8 years at 3 weeks per year. Not one single day of that can be carried over from year to year.I have a friend who works at CBS in a NABET job that makes $1 an hour less, but gets similar medical and dental. He also gets 5 weeks per year vacation, 2 weeks sick pay and 2 weeks personal days. Any or all of that can be collected at year end or carried over. A couple months back he told me he had enough time saved up to take off for 9 months and never miss a check. Of course he only gets to do soaps and game shows. He's not into the big glamour lifestyle that I have.
Steve
Steve---You're doing allright. In the Building Trades sick days and personal days are unknown. "Put it on the check" is the way we think. No vacations either and they would be hard to implement seeing as I usually work for over a half-dozen contractors every year. My Local does get an extra 5% of what we made when we're laid off, vacation pay. But most trades, or even other Boilermaker locals, don't have such a thing.Do they have to buy you lunch every day?
TB,I find movie making endlessly facinating as it's so similar to a military operation but (hopefully) no one is injured.***
As you say, there are definite perks to the movie-making scene besides the money, safety and the nice weather of LA. The conditions are very careful and the mood is generally positive and friendly- only directors and the Nicholson-level are allowed to scream. A substantial time is spent waiting so you meet and talk to some interesting people who have been called. Teh food is surprisingly good and I notice set caterers are now credited.
As you say, there are definite perks to the movie-making scene besides safety and the nice weather of LA. At the set of Dr. Doolittle I watched from the back where a fellow was sitting with a wild red-tailed hawk on his arm! He was hanging around with it to acclimatize it to being around people. That does not happen often in my regular work which involves construction. I have met quite a few lead feature actors but I remember that hawk more vividly!
My friends that are crew and PP do not get rich but instead work about 6-8 months per year and go to Bhutan, Nepal, or the Amazon for a month ot two. The suits have high incomes but have to work 80 hours per week year round and worry about the right table at Mortons and whether Range Rovers are out now and Mercedes G500s are in. A friend in studio business affairs mistakenly bought a Jaguar XKR convertible and was soon moved to an office that was 1'8" smaller.
I think I would rather join the Bhutan touring crowd with 6 months off!
K
***[Cameron is absolutely a nut about safety and in all those complex shots of explosions, drownings, shooting, fire, alien mauling, and killing there is virtually nothing beyond a Band-Aid cut or scrape. He refused to use those small remote-control helicopter cameras because he considered them unsafe.]
***We may complain about ticket prices - now up to $10-14 in Los Angeles, but try and make your own version of "Solaris" at home!Well, the truth is the *good* Solaris was made on a shue-string budget.
No need to justify the $14 ticket - theaters have the right to charge as much as they want, as long as the idiots go there. As it is, there are no victims in that process, as no one is forcing anyone to watch bad movies - people do it perfectly voluntarily.
The great majority of good films are not this expensive, and frankly I would not pay even one cent to watch those that you mentioned, but of course I don't set the prices.
Those people you mention get their pay because there is someone willing to give them money. How much money exchanges hands between them - I don't care one bean. It is free market.
Mr.K,I would never argue that high costs always make good movies and as you say it is quite often the opposite as studio movies have to appeal to all those millions of wealthy 13 year old Americans.
Necessity often forces innovation. I grew up on Truffaut and I think that he made several early and brilliant movies like "400 Blows" with "borrowed" film stock, equipment, and certainly no constructed sets. Even with the virtually unlimited resources of Soderbergh and the undeniably higher production values, I much prefer the surreal, poetic quietude of Tarkovsky.
As I am not in the entertainment business myself, I could declare that "The Seven Samurai" and "Battleship Potemkin" are the greatest movies ever made without fear. But that is not possible in the major studio climate where financial success is everything. When it was a hot property, nobody around Town could criticize "Blair Witch" because of the incredible cost to profit ratio- though I consider it wobbly, amateurish trash. And look at the sequel which cost 10X as much. The Industry is so often criticized in the right-wing press as being irresponsibly left-wing, but internally it is the most intense capitalistic, free market culture on the planet; next to Mainland China.
It is interesting why movies and the tickets are so costly. I didn't appreciate the complexity of film-making from a sheer engineering and organizational standpoint until I got to know the process as a close spectator. You may hate James Cameron's movies- and I am way out of those demographics myself, but I can tell you that he is a fascinating and complex personality who does have a certain genius for engineering, indelible image-making, and organization. His current project is so incredible that when finished, I think will open a new epoch of film-making potential technically.
I should mention that I have not spent one cent, red or otherwise to see any of the movies I mentioned either. Nor do I own a television set.
K
If only he ( Cameron ) could make an good film...Without going to say that I hate some one, his films are really not...my cup of tea...Letīs talk about Francois.....
We all understand that movie business is well, business. As I said, this is free economy, and bad films don't do much harm to anyone, becides just a few brain cells.People often compare the junk films with junk food, and there ARE certain parallels. And as we know, junk food is an important part of the economy, even if I can't remember my last Big Mac (I do remember a Coke... about nine months ago...).
Bottom line - the ticket prices are what they are because millions of people employed by the industry make good living, and millions of consumers are happy viewing what the film idunstry is producing. But again, as long as this exchange happens voluntarily and no one is forcing ME to contribute (I can't remember paying to see an American film... been years... Last one was probably Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, or close to that) I am fine.
More importantly, like all other classes of junkies, the modern movie goers just can't get enough of artificial gimmics and silly visual effects, and those gimmics don't come cheap - rightly was mentioned the Titanic model, and all that crap - so expect the prices to only go up.
"Midnight..." could really put someone off movies for good. One of the most dissapointing movies I can recall. All of the talent involved and a ripping good book, and a crap movie.Spacey just can't pick a movie to save his soul - I heard two reviews of his new one, and from the decription (not necessarily the judgement) he's picked another stinker.
"Oh, Daddy doesn't mind a little scandal. He's a senator."
MY coke is....four years back...
Free economy ...hum...Yes but there are certain parameters we can not let out of sights, like the world we live in, like environnement...and some problems tight to the ethic, like poor chickens or poor animals treated as products ( beside that the quality is...)
Like the few brain cells you mention....
It may even look as...more money - less film.
It is a small path. But quality is loosing ground, and will be exterminate soon...
Just a pair of old and lunatic..left.
Am I too dark ?
It's an important part of:
Crown and Coke
Rum and Coke
Long Island Ice Teaand many other interesting beverages!
And really, I think you almost have to look at films the way you would say, still photography: Some of it is art, and some of it is "product". Hopefully there will always be the Fellinis and Bergmans to art as there are the Spielbergs and Soderbergs to product.
"Oh, Daddy doesn't mind a little scandal. He's a senator."
From an health point of view, it is certainly an very un- one.
In small dose with ice an a zest of citrus, it can be enjoyable..if you like tons of sugar....
Tell me where are the Fellinis & Bergmans and Co. ?
I was jesting about the Coke -New Fellinis? I dunno, maybe Jeunet? Almodovar? Some who are not yet "mature" like Christopher Nolan (Memento)? Maybe only history will be the judge.
"Oh, Daddy doesn't mind a little scandal. He's a senator."
..Jeunet ? nice films, but who has no real layers of deepth, I look his " Amelie " twice...and it was...boring the second time around, his art is very visual and to consume like...an coke...but he may with his 53 years, have some hidden arrows...
Momento, this one I never like it was " new " and brillant in the story telling, but like " The Six Sense " superficial...and too boring for a second viewing...A film must be still surprise me after an X time of watching it...
no-one I can think of directing today is as *talented* as one of the greats, but there are still a few that make a movie according to their vision, not necessarily for box-office success. So all we have to do is wait for one who is talented to come along. Easy, no?P.S. - I would add Terry Gilliam to that list of directors who follow their own vision, not the most riveting vision sometimes, but doesn't compromise.
"Oh, Daddy doesn't mind a little scandal. He's a senator."
Is there may be great directors and we may miss them as they do not find any kind of distribution.
Anyway, quality is dying, in every direction you may look at.
Things are actually looking great, Patrick!There are still thousands of good films unwatched! I have been working on it for over 30 years, and am still feeling like I simply put a small scratch into the surface.
From time to time I open the filmography of good directors and actors and fine 100, 150, 200 works there, of which I have seen sometimes just a couple. So the opportunities are endless.
Yes, but most of the films are " made by yesterday " No problem, for me and you, as long are they are avaible ( that may become an problem )
But is it not like living in the past ?
Where are the output of today cineast ?
Maybe I am blind and want to bury my head in the yesterday ?
Human emotions and feelings have not changed much in thousands of years. What is antiquated about the Virgin Spring? Nothing. On the other hand the Titanic was old tired right off the bat, because the only thing in it was the mandane way of creating the studio disaster, and that changes daily.
Still haven't seen Titanic... I get the feeling it would be a painfully boring experience.-Frank
I saw parts of it on TV... yup... bit pile of boredom.
Nothing new under the sun !
But who are the new directors ?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
