Hollywood loves discovering new talent. But its passion for developing emerging filmmakers has lately strayed into large-scale, downright risky terrain.
Case in point: Universal is in the process of handing director Carl Rinsch a $170 million budget for 47 Ronin, a 3D samurai revenge story starring Keanu Reeves that will begin shooting March 14 in Budapest. Rinsch’s résumé includes a popular short film and a Heineken commercial — but no features.
And he’s far from the only fresh-faced director stepping into the big-budget fray. Disney gave commercials helmer Joseph Kosinski close to $200 million for Tron: Legacy. Universal recently hired first-timer Rupert Sanders to helm the $100 million-plus Snow White and the Huntsman. Relative newbies Marc Webb, who’s shooting Sony’s The Amazing Spider-Man, and Daniel Espinosa, who’s helming Universal’s action thriller Safe House, took on the potential blockbusters with little previous feature work.
It’s not an entirely new phenomenon, but for several reasons the scale and justifications behind the hires have changed. During the 1990s, commercial and music video directors such as David Fincher (Alien 3, 1992), Michael Bay (Bad Boys, 1995), Gore Verbinski (Mousehunt, 1997) and McG (Charlie’s Angels, 2000) made the jump to features, but most of them did so with comparatively modest budgets.
During the past five years, though, technology has enabled rookie directors to hone their skills via FinalCut Pro, digital-video cameras and other state-of-the- art effects tools from a young age, prompting budget-cautious studios to salivate over what they can put on screen for a price. Gareth Edwards, for instance, made his indie sci-fi film Monsters for a few hundred thousand dollars, even though it looked much more expensive. He’s now up to direct Godzilla for Warner Bros.
“It’s a reflection on the innovation of emerging filmmakers,” says Anonymous Content manager Michael Sugar, who reps Webb and Kosinski. “You’re looking at people like Fede Alvarez, who made a short film (Panic Attack!) for $300, put it on YouTube, and it looks like it was made for $20 million.” Alvarez, an Anonymous client, was hired by Sam Raimi’s Ghost House Pictures to develop a sci-fi feature.
More than ever before, the short film and commercial environment has become a playground to use up-to-the-minute tech to create feature-film calling cards. Sanders, District 9 co-writer-director Neill Blomkamp and Noam Murro — recently hired by Fox to direct the fifth Die Hard — all did spots for recent Halo video game campaigns, a gig that has become as coveted as any debut film job because it often becomes a higher-profile entry into features.
Ad-world veterans also tend to be more comfortable making presentations in front of dozens of studio execs, and to be handy with creating the rip reels, animatics and annotated screenplays that the studios now want to see. These days, when execs say yes to a spec package, they aren’t saying yes to development but to a movie, with a budget, detailed vision and release date.
“If you look at the way movies are being sold into the studios, whether it’s Safe House or All You Need Is Kill or Snow and the Seven —those are spec screenplays that were either sold in with a director or developed to the point where they were movies,” says Management 360 manager-producer Darin Friedman, who reps Kill writer D.W. Harper and director Adam Berg.
A visionary director can simply send a link to his short to someone in the industry, and everyone’s seen it within an hour.
At the same time, the screenwriting community has largely abandoned the spec approach — what was for a long time Hollywood’s prime idea factory. In the last few years, studios have made brutal trims to slates and development overhead. Filmmakers are now bypassing writer-provided original material by building a creative pipeline to funnel their own spec packages directly to producers and execs.
Alvarez’s short film got him noticed all over town. Berg’s short Carousel, made for Philips TV, had him up for the job of helming the big-budget X-Men spinoff Deadpool for Fox. James Mather and Stephen St. Leger’s short Prey Alone led to them writing and directing the sci-fi actioner Lockout for Luc Besson’s EuropaCorp and FilmDistrict.
Rather than scrape together financing for a small indie, a visionary director can simply send a link to his short to someone in the industry, and everyone’s seen it within an hour. The heat generated from a viral explosion can put an auction-like target on a filmmaker.
“Carl Rinsch had been kicking around for years, but when he made [the 2010 short] The Gift, it got sent around and it created a frenzy,” Friedman says. “That doesn’t happen without that perfect storm of the right idea executed well, with the technology to share it virally.”
Studios want and need movies, but they have less and less interest in developing them internally. From multiple accounts, rookie filmmakers are put through their paces by nervous studios before a green light. But by choosing to hire unproven talent, studios are also getting less expensive filmmakers that are potentially easier to control and can be loyal to the studio if the film is a hit.
Blomkamp had only about $30 million but made District 9 seem a lot bigger. When it grossed $211 million worldwide, the path widened for other first-time visionaries, and Blomkamp is now directing the $125 million Elysium for Sony, which released District 9 through TriStar.
But the strategy is not without risk. Sony distributed Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’ s Oscar-winning debut The Lives of Others via Sony Pictures Classics. But when the studio gave him $100 million to make The Tourist with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, it grossed only $67 million domestically amid critical pans (the film did better overseas, grossing $163 million).
And as Rinsch goes into production on Ronin, he might want to take stock of first-timer Kinka Usher, a DGA Award-winning commercials director whom Universal gave $70 million in 1999 to make Mystery Men. The superhero spoof ultimately grossed just $33 million globally, and Usher has been making commercials ever since.

Thank you Hollywood Reporter

Location-based services and mobile targeting are among the trends the Mobile Ad Forum will focus on this year.
MADRID — If a few years back the buzzword at the GSM Mobile World Congress was mobile TV and how to incorporate the killer application into handheld terminals, this year’s wireless event seems far more about the transformative role mobile advertising is playing.

This annual confab returns to Barcelona this week with a new Mobile Ad Forum to spotlight the importance of the emergent sector. While mobile only comprises 1% of total ad spending today, it is expected to grow to 8% in a short time, blossoming from a $3.5 billion industry in 2010 to one worth $14 billion by 2015, according to Macquarie Equities Research.

A handful of trends are sweeping the sector:

— Engaging campaigns employing technological advances enable advertisers to harness search-generated and location-based information to target ads more effectively, focusing less on consumers’ demographics and more on their behavior.

— Advertisers understand mobile targeting better and are learning to read return on investment differently than just as a click-through measure.

— Mobile operators are beginning to exploit their subscriber data to root themselves in the mobile advertising value chain and help deliver relevant ads.

— Daily deal companies such as Groupon and LivingSocial are mushrooming.

— Smartphone penetration, allowing increased rich media use, drives market growth

“Mobile advertising is informed by real-time data, which allow for very targeted, relevant advertising experiences in the unique places where those types of consumers can be reached,” said Eric Bader, worldwide chief strategy officer for Initiative, Interpublic Group’s media communications company.

Mobile searches — where consumers declare their intent through keywords they search on mobile devices — speak to immediate needs more than those conducted on PCs at home or work and give advertisers the opportunity to respond with highly localized, incentive-driven offers that reach people right when they are most likely to buy, according to Bader.

“Location-based services of course are incredibly compelling on mobile phones. Whether review-based, such as Qype or Yelp, or built around game dynamics such as Foursquare and Gowalla, consumers find great utility and engagement from such services,” said Rob Jonas, a vp and head of Europe and the Middle East for InMobi, one of the world’s largest independent ad firms. “The jury is still out on how advertising combines with these services, however, and 2011 should see that debate resolved.”

The future of mobile advertising, all agree, depends on accurate metrics and interpretations of success as action beyond the click through into actual sales, which are 100% measurable.

Some advertising networks now offer customers the ability to combine data from high footfall and high dwell locations with the ability to identify what mobile device a user is using to personalize a campaign experience via SMS, Bluetooth or wi-fi capability.

Said Michael Bayle, vp of monetization and marketing at Amobee, the world’s leading mobile ad platform: “By combining outdoor media with mobile, Amobee is offering brands the unique opportunity to accurately measure the effectiveness of their marketing spend.”

“If you are not capturing how effective your creative is, how this translates to your campaign objectives and what happens beyond-the-click, then you’re in danger of failing to understand the value your campaign has created,” Jonas added.

But networks also are aware of the “do not track” legislation the FCC is moving to enact in the U.S. and, as Bayle pointed out, need to navigate the “engaging vs. intruding” issue.

“Amobee is focused on helping our partners have active dialogues with their customers in seeking their demographic information in opt-in manners,” Bayle said. “Our push marketing has been successfully adopted by over a dozen operators who are using it to provide incentives to consumers in return for demographic data. Very transparent, very much the consumer in control.”

Other issues on the table at the Mobile Ad Forum will include the effectiveness of applications compared to websites; tapping social networks; how the rivalry between Google and Apple has fueled and legitimized the sector; mobile video; growth in regions dependent on mobiles for Internet access; and 3D campaigns on mobile units.

The GSM Mobile World Congress runs through Thursday.

Thank you Hollywood Reporter

The average price per 30-second spot has fluctuated over the past decade, hitting a high of $1.69 million in 2008 and reaching a low of $1.29 million in 2002. Last year, each spot cost an average of $1.4 million.

For 2011, ABC’s initial asking price for a 30-second spot was about $1.7 million, and the available inventory is already sold out, according to published reports.

Over the past decade, the total ad spend per year reached a high of $81.1 million in 2008 and a low of $61.6 million in 2001. The total for 2010′s telecast was $70 million.

Meanwhile, a small number of blue-chip advertisers dominate the rankings of top spenders. Over the past five years, more than 50 percent of the total ad revenue has come from only five companies: Coca-Cola, JC Penney, General Motors, American Express and MasterCard International.

However, the recession has led to an increased number of first-time advertisers during the Oscar telecast over the past five years, according to Kantar Media. Forty-eight percent of advertisers during last year’s telecast were first-timers, up from 33 percent the year before and up from 15 percent in 2008.

Last year’s newcomers included Ameriprise, Estee Lauder, Intel, Kimberly-Clark and Samsung

Thank you Hollywood Reporter

I have to admit that I was very disappointed in myself for not responding to this person, so I decided to do it this way and instruct and hopefully inspire.

Dear _______

I found this old e-mail as I was doing some cleaning in my inbox. It would seem I failed to respond to your last e-mail. This could be due to your comment about upfront money.

As it is in your best interest to learn the business, I thought I’d take a moment and explain why I did not respond.

There are so many people trying to break into all areas of the entertainment business and after doing this for more than 20 years, I suppose I should be less surprised when I see comments like “as long as you’re not talking about ‘up front money’ I’m listening…”

I will admit that the industry is filled with fly-by-nighters and scam artists. Possibly this is the reason people continue to say, “never give anyone any money.” I have to laugh when I hear this because it’s just simply wrong. (for the most part)

Granted there are things that you should never pay for, but packaging and development are not one of them. I’m not at all saying you should use your own money, but the fact that a producer already passed on your script leads me to believe that it may need work. A polish at the very least or possibly it was just not their kind of film.

So if you are in a position that has you continuing to write and any or all of the following is not happening:

1. Your script(s) are not being produced
2. They are not being optioned
3. You do not have representation from a literary agent
4. You pretty much have little or no heat on any of your work

…then it is time to look at different options. Please note: I do not mean any disrespect here, nor am I inferring that this is the case with you, specifically. It is however, the case with most screenwriters and as soon as a producer insinuates they will need a fee to develop a script, then all sorts of red flags go up.

Those of us who work in the industry know these facts. Those facts are much different than you will get in (his home town) or anywhere outside the inner circle of the entertainment world. (I do not mean geographically…________ is a fine city)

What I mean is the old theory of “Hide the Gold.” If you were a prospector in the days of the gold rush and you found a vein of gold in the hills, would you run down the mountain telling everyone you came into contact with? Definitely not. You’d keep that secret for your closest of family and friends. Then you’d get back up there and dig the gold out on your own or with a few other hands to help you.

The entertainment industry is very much the same. Of course you’re going to hear “never pay anyone any upfront money” because this is what those inside the circle want you to continue to believe.

What I will tell you is this: How would you expect to get anything done if this was how traditional business was transacted? Have you ever built a house? Typically there are three draws from your bank and the contractor gets (at least) enough money to buy the materials. Then as the work progresses, the contractor continues to get paid. He has employees to pay and various expenses required to build your house, so he’s entitled to a paycheck, right?

Maybe you’ve hired a handyman. Well once you’ve agreed on his or her price, the handyman works for a few days (or one day) and gets paid after a certain amount of work.

I’m sure you’ve had your car worked on. Same thing. The difference in the entertainment industry is simply that so many people have been scammed and nothing was done. What you should do is check out to whom your considering paying. (same with a doctor, handyman or potential film producer) See what their track record is, how many films they’ve produced, etc. I would suggest you do this before you indicate that you’re not going to pay for a particular service, your money or not.

I’ve digressed quite a bit here. Possibly your comment was simply due to the fact that you don’t have the seed capital films require to develop. Let me clarify…every potentially successful film. The way the business works is like this:

If you don’t sell or option your script to a producer or company, an individual or team is hired to develop the project. This person or team could do any or all of the following:

Obtain or do the coverage on the script.
Help with re-writes and/or give notes.
Begin negotiations with talent (on both sides of the camera and above and below-the-line)
-what I do is strictly above-the-line. I find the recognizable talent on both sides of the camera, even though some of the talent might be below-the-line.
Create or adjust budgets.
Create business and marketing plans.
Procure preliminary distribution deals.

…and then some producers remain on to “physically” get the movie made.

These are all things that I do. So would you believe that I or any other producer would provide any of these services for free? There’s a reason its called show business and quite frankly, this is the main thing most of those inside the “circle” do not want you to know. Its not at all easy. If it was, everyone would do it.

So I do not mean to be snide here, but I would make a heavy wager that most of the things you’ve learned in (his home town) about the film and entertainment industry are not all that accurate. Again, I mean no offense to anyone in any category. It’s simply that this is how the industry is programmed and this is what “they” want you to know.

One last thing. Seed capital is the second most important element to making a real movie. The first is proper packaging. Unfortunately, you don’t get the second without the first. It doesn’t have to be your money but if a person or company is not paying you for your scripts and you want to get them made, one of three things will happen:

1. You hire someone to develop your project and eventually make the film.
2. You wait and find someone to do it for free and you’ll end up with the equivalent of 95% of all movies that get started. That is a final product that is not going to get sold or distributed and nobody will see it. (this is a fact by the way) Most films that get made never see the light of the projector or the laser of the disk player. (and this is considering the film even gets finished)
3. You’ll continue to write scripts that will collect dust on a shelf or a hard drive.

Its really up to you how you wish to proceed. I am in no way trying to get you to hire me or anyone else. Its just that I believe in my heart that someone needs to stand up and tell people how it really works.

Here’s a little challenge:
Ask around to everyone you believe is “in” the industry and see if what I’ve written to you is even remotely what they talk about. Then decipher if any of those folks have ever written a script that was made into a film, (and was it distributed) or produced or directed a film of any financial viability for the marketplace. I promise you that anyone that has made a film that’s done anything will either agree with me or they won’t tell you anything.
(hiding the gold, remember?)

So if you choose to respond to me, I will be very happy to continue our correspondence and help you in any way I can. I will however, understand if you choose to take offense to what I’ve take quite a bit of time to write. This is the way of the business. People get offended, so I understand.  Good luck with your project!  -RH

http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=1121631

Anyone and everyone is constantly talking about “luring” outside productions and very little is said about those of us who reside in FL (even Tampa) who try to produce here locally. There is talent here, but very few decision makers. Those of us who can actually green-light a film go elsewhere for more reasons than simply tax incentives. Florida is a very “geographically specific” area and unless you want white sandy beaches, 90 degree weather and 95+% humidity, miles of beachside condos, most projects can be shot elsewhere and the end user won’t know the difference. Until this new tax incentive (which nobody really understands yet…just ask any film commissioner about it and they’ll look at you like you have three heads) there were better incentives elsewhere, which is why films would use a beach in (wherever) because of many factors, talent, accessibility, tax incentives, logistics, etc.

What they have yet to address with any diligence is the prospect of cultivating the indigenous production(s). The question is not brought up often enough, “where do you buy your groceries? Where do you buy your gas, clothes, etc.? Where do you entertain yourself?” The idea of bringing in big-budget films with the hopes they’ll spend money here is fine, but once those salaries leave, so does the money.  The nominal monies that are paid to the extras is a penance compared to what the movie stars make and guess where they spend their money? So if more effort was given to real productions that could take place entirely in Florida, the State overall, would see more significant revenue because the money stays here.

The second issue nobody talks about with outside production is that so little of the entire film actually happens on location. Only the principal photography will happen in any particular state and then everything in post production will go back to California. Why? (say this to yourself in a whisper) “Because that is where it has always happened and everything you need is there.” So when you hear that a particular area gets a film (lured from elsewhere) everyone wants to pat each other on the back because the film’s budget was $X Million. (if even that much) What nobody talks about is that less than 1/3 of that number is actually spent in Florida and virtually NONE of the marketing money is spent here. Those who know film budgets understand that 30% or more of the entire budget is allotted for marketing. (another reason Florida films don’t succeed, but this is another topic)

So lets go back to a Florida production.  If 100% of the folks were hired here (or very close to all of them…if you want movie stars, most of them are in California) then those people will get paid a modest salary and that salary stays right here! They buy groceries, gas, clothes, food and movie tickets right in their own back yard. So the commerce is more directly infused into the State.  Does anyone see a light bulb going on here?  Onward…

Its not necessarily any film commissioner’s fault a production does or does not happen here (or anywhere). They don’t earn a great deal of money and they don’t have a lot of resources and are often times treated like the redheaded stepchildren of the various EDC’s and tourism bureaus.  The show business goes where it is most conducive and that includes the talent. There are talented people in Florida for sure, but sometimes it is literally less costly to bring in various talents on both sides of the camera. The TV show “Cougar Town” is supposed to take place somewhere around Naples, (they even reference west coach beaches and towns) yet when they show the beach, its very clear there are mountains in the background. Why do they film there? Because everything is there. Its all about the network. If you’re a producer from (anywhere) and you already know your various above-the-line talent on both sides of the camera, possibly working with them before, why would you go through any casting processes or hire the locals? Pretty risky when most (not all) of the people in FL that carry a headshot are not qualified to much more than extra work.  Please take note here…I did say not all. It’s the same with crew personnel. Ask someone that claims to be a film producer/director in Florida what “packaging” is and see if they have any clue. Everybody “thinks” they can make a movie. Few actually can and those who actually finish a film, of those, even fewer achieve any success. The numbers prove that the reality of making an uber-successful film is less than standing in a room full of intellectuals and thinking you’re the next “Einstein.” It’s a fact…do some research.

So the more schlock that comes from any particular state, they less that state will be revered as a viable place in which to make a film or television show. This is the vicious cycle that has plagued Florida since the beginning of the film industry. The film industry got tossed from Florida in its infancy and the industry has never forgiven it. It’s just business. It’s not personal…well maybe a little bit.  J

So those of us who continue to work in the industry and love every minute of it, know why more films aren’t made here. To all those who hope to continue to work in the industry, I wish you the best of luck and keep at it.

Russell Hess

Producer/Distributor

25 year Florida Resident, Actor & Voiceover Artist

Hi Russell, Thanks for the informative post here. Seeing that you are a distributor and broker my question to you is do you find it beneficial or productive in most cases for a documentary to speak to distributors while seeking funding? Does it lock you in to a deal in any way? I’ve been working on my film for some time now and I have been trying to find corporate sponsors, individual donations and a celebrity to come on board but the one thing I haven’t spent time on is contacting distributors at this stage. (The only exception is I’ve had a conversation with Fathom Entertainment about doing one of their one night digital screening engagements and they are very interested but won’t commit to anything until seeing a finished film.) Do you think I’m missing an important step here? I just have read so much about self distribution these days and have not decided which way I will go yet. Of course if I could get a good distribution deal that doesn’t include all inclusive rights, I’m sure that would help get my funding. I’m interested to hear your thoughts when you have some time.
Thank you.
Regards,
(removed)

This was my response:

Hi (removed)

Lets see if I can answer your question this way. Technically speaking, you should have been discussing your project with distributors before you began. This is a huge mistake indie filmmakers make. The studios have distribution in place before they begin making the film, so why not the indies? Just because they have it in their back pockets, why would we, as indie filmmakers, do it any differently? This is part of the packaging process and if this element is solidified prior to pre-production, the rest of your struggles would become easier…i.e. finding celebs, etc. People with name recognition do not usually gravitate toward a project that 1. Is not fully funded (meaning you can’t directly “hire” them) and 2. Does not have distribution. (even if you CAN pay them, they don’t really want to do something that nobody will see)

On self-distribution: Three words…don’t do it. If your forte (and best spent time) is in making the film, why would you wish to utilize your time to peddle your final product? You efforts will be trial and error, financially wasteful, and slow. (and most times a significant combination of all three) The only way this works is if you’re a distributor/broker that decides to make your own film. I did this a few times and simply hired those that could do what I could not do, or felt I was not proficient at and then I did my thing. I come from the production-side (mostly on the executive level) so hiring people is one of the things I do best. For me, it’s win-win, but what I tell filmmakers (who have no background in exhibition or distribution) is leave it up to those who do.

When you talk with any distributor/broker at any level, 99% of the time, you won’t be locked in to anything. Not because of you, but because they don’t want to be locked. (This is why they will always want to see at least the rough cut before you get paper)

Get a commitment for distro and you’ll find it easier to get corporate sponsors as well.

On Fathom: They’re in the business to make money. I would make very, very sure that if they receive money from you, that you’ll get a return. Personally, there are plenty of places you can screen for little or no cost in any given city, so again…tread lightly.

On the important step: That step is packaging. If you’ve seen my posts, I type this word probably more than my signature. A proper package will get you everything else you need. If that process is taking too long (the getting, I mean) then either your package is wrong, or you knocking on the wrong doors. Elementary my dear, (removed).

On “all inclusive”: If the right company wants your film, why would you not want an all-inclusive? Let them do their thing. That gets you back on to your next project. If you line itemized a paycheck for yourself, why would you not duplicate that very process again and again. Even if you don’t see six zeros on the back end, you’ll have a job for the rest of your life, probably doing what you love the most.

Before I can speculate on your project, I’d have to know more about it, the subject matter, the package you’ve created, etc. Then as part of pre-pro, I would have done some research to see if anyone even wanted to see what you intend to talk about. That might be why you can’t get a celeb to get on board. If they don’t dig it, what makes you think an audience will?

Hope this helps. Keep me posted on your progress.

Best regards,

Russell Hess

Is there any real investment available for independent film makers?

The funny thing is that a majority of investors require certain things in place, percentages of funds, attachment from A-list stars, etc. But has anyone stopped to realize that if you have a list talent and 10 percent of your projected budget you can get financing through major companies not smaller ones. So really my question is simply this does financing exist for people on a smaller scale?
I am curious for myself, as well as for other independents. Yes it is nice to have big budgets, but sometimes you just want to do a $250,000 project strait to DVD. The residuals are better if you don’t have a 1000 theaters. Just food for thought.

This was my answer:

First, making a micro budget film is not impossible, nor is it impossible to get financing. Do you need stars? Not necessarily, although from a distribution standpoint, it certainly helps. I say this on so many forums on here, I’m beginning to bore myself, but here it is once more.

Package, Package, Package.

You don’t HAVE to have names on either side of the camera, although as I said, you’ll pique the interest of so many more distro companies that way. (they’re not as expensive as you might think for the most part)

The trick is to show a viable investmet. How do you do that? With a proper package, business plan and marketing strategy. Investors are out there and depending on one’s level of experience, the less you have, the better the package you’ll have to create. The final number is less relevant, becuase we all know you can make a digital feature for $250K and it “can” look like a $1M feature. The problem here is that if you haven’t already done so (and we presume you have not or you wouldn’t be struggling to get the $$) you’ll have to dot even more i’s and cross even more t’s to prove to a potential investor that you have every base covered.

Same goes with pre-distrubution. Show that plan (sometimes sans budget) to a distro company and you could get paper. Then take that paper to your investor and say, “we’ve sold the house, all we have to do is build it.” (anyone with a couple bucks will get that analogy)

The bottom line is to be creative…sometimes more creative with your fundraising than your production. I say this all the time as well…filmmakers have to be equally as good marketers as they are movie-makers. Figure out the right blend and you’ll be on to your next project with all your funding in place.

I received a call this weekend for my daughters ages 10 and 18 to audition for a “Greeting Card” project with a “Fairy” theme, implying that the girls will be dressed as “fairies”. He wanted to meet with them at a public store location in Longwood. I submit my daughters for alot of projects and asked him which one this was. He stated that he received the girls information from another casting director, who we had submitted to in the past on (a local acting group forum). I asked for his name and company name and googled him and nothing came back. RED FLAGS CAME UP AT THAT POINT. So I sent him an email asking alot of questions: His title and company name, what projects he has worked on, if he had a studio, website and where it would be shot….and who specifically sent him our information. Shortly after I received a reply stating “I think we have found talent for this project, there will be no need to meet at this point. Thank you.” His name is (removed) and said his company was (removed). Does anyone know of him and his company? I HONESTLY DO NOT WANT TO HURT ANYONE OR RUIN THEIR NAME…I just wanted to post this as a potential warning to others, to please BE CAREFUL and check things out before meeting with potential castings. WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. If I am wrong about this I APOLOGIZE and please correct me if I am. I know there are alot of new people out there trying to make a start and do not realize how they are going about it…and that it may appear questionable.

Suzanne,

You are SO right to question these kinds of things…and not just with regard to the children. Obviously, we should be looking out for their best interests, but even for the teens and adults trying to break-in to the industry, you should be asking every conceivable question. Those that refuse to answer or when you get a door slammed in your face, just walk away because it wasn’t real. There are more scams out there than real opportunities, so good for you for having the fortitude to ask probing questions. You should qualify everybody you come into contact with including attorneys, directors & producers…everyone. If you can’t find any information about them, as THEM directly. If you get the run-around, just leave…you’ll save yourself and your child more headaches, time and money than it’s even worth. There are more jobs…the current “biggest deal” is not that at all…it’s just “right now.” There will be more.

I had a similar experience once. I’ll leave the names out to protect the innocent (and the shady). I was told I was going to be brought on to a project by a person claiming to be the director/producer. This person knew my work and even told me how much I would be paid. (front and back-end monies) It sounded very enticing. This person told me who the other stars in the project were going to be. (and some were famous names) This person also said where they would shoot and what the budget was, so it seemed legit. But something in me didn’t jive.

As a producer, I call these things out all the time, so I decided I would find the author of the project, (which was based on a book or a play, I don’t recall right now). I called the author and inquired as to the status of the project and mentioned the person’s name that said I would be “hired.” The author didn’t know anything about it. The author even said in so many words that this individual didn’t have any rights to be “shopping” his project…which in actuality was what this person was doing. The “producer/director” was trying to lure some people in to the project that have some street cred and then go after investors. So I called this person who tried to hire me and would you believe this person was angry with ME? This person said I had no right to go around them. Well guess what? The project still has not been made and I have inside information from the people the person said were included (the other stars) that they had never heard of this project either. This kind of thing happens EVERY DAY in this business.

Here are a couple of things to remember:

If you’re starting out (and have to work for no pay) not only do you have the right, but you should feel obligated to ask things like:

1. “what’s the budget?” (Some may disagree with this concept, but I maintain that you should know where the money is being spent if it isn’t on you or your child?) Please note: getting a copy of this budget might be overstepping, but if the producers are honest, they might offer you a copy of at least the top sheet, ESPECIALLY considering they’re asking you to work for free. If you’re not going to receive compensation for a project, that makes you a “partner” not an employee and you have every right, as a partner to know what’s happening on a project to which you’re “lending” yourself, your likeness and your voice.

Also remember, if you’re being hired and you know you’re getting a check, GET A CONTRACT. Any legit project will have contracts, even if you’re being asked to work for free. With a contract and payment though, you can ask less questions. You’re a hired-gun at that point. Should you be concerned about the outcome of the project? Of course you should, but as a hired-gun, show up, do your job and collect your check. Show up early and stay late and always give 110% as you should on any shoot. But getting paid means they have at least some sort of budget and although there are still exceptions, you will most likely be working on something more reputable. You’re an “employee” as opposed to a partner.

Another question to ask before you sign-on to work for free might be:

2. What are the plans for distribution? This is a biggie. Let’s say you (or your child) has been around a while and now you’re being asked to work for free (or very little), wouldn’t you want to know where the project will go when it’s completed? You should. So many people work on projects that never get completed and in most cases, never get distributed. Filmmakers (the ones that want to be professional) should know their exit strategy before they shoot their film. After all, this is a business and they will want their project to be sold, ESPECIALLY if they want you to sign a deferred pay deal. (which in Florida really means no pay…99% of deferred pay deals will never see a dime and most won’t even get completed). A true professional filmmaker, no matter what their budget might be, should have a business plan, a budget of some sort and a marketing plan. Please note: “We’re going to do the ‘festival thing’ when the movie is completed” is NOT a marketing plan, it’s a festival plan. Festivals do not make anyone any money and if they’re only going to show it at festivals with the HOPES of getting a distribution deal is not a solid plan. Truth be told, you only need to put a film in 3-5 strategically planned festivals before you distribute. Any more is fluff and a waste of time. (I brokered nearly a dozen films last year and I saw many angles, so this comes from experience, not speculation)

3. Another reasonable question might be, since you’re not paying the actors, where will you spend that money and what do you hope to save by not compensating the performers? Remember this: If you go to a casting office and/or your agent sent you on an audition, someone’s getting paid. Casting directors don’t typically work for free…just ask one. They get paid to do the duties of the casting. Your agent will get paid “IF” you get the job. Some casting directors who are also acting coaches play favorites so if you’re not taking their classes, don’t get your hopes up too high about getting the gig. SOME of them tend to give the roles to those taking their classes. Notice I said SOME, because not all of them do this, but you should be aware that this can and does happen. Take a class from a casting director and see if you’re suddenly requested for a gig or you get a callback for the very next day. Try this as a test and see what happens.

So Suzanne, to sum-up…always ask questions. If you sense any trepidation on the part of the person answering, something is fishy. You’re not going to tarnish the careers of reputable folks by asking questions, nor will you tarnish your own. If anything, you should be viewed as a responsible industry professional who is looking out for the best interests of your child or yourself.

If you do get straight/solid answers, just like everything else in life, use your gut. This is a business and you have EVERY right to ask these questions and more.

Best regards,

Russell Hess
Producer/Distributor