3 ms·

What I don't understand is, why would anyone accept terms that had any relation to profits at this point? Surely this is well-known by now? I can understand th

What I don't understand is, why would anyone accept terms that had any relation to profits at this point? Surely this is well-known by now? I can understand this working for a while, but it's amazing how long it's been going on.

tomrod 14y ago
I'm not sure about this specific example, but I could see a couple of reasons: * One really wants the movie to be made, like a Clint Eastwood figure director who likes the script, regardless of the cost to self * Director is new and potentially naive; agent is no good * Director is new, not naive, and wants to make a brand for him- or herself in the movie world (and knows the movie isn't bound for a Saturday Syfy special... /snark)
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  The thing is, people who are that new and naive can't demand much in the first place. People who are in a position to take a slice worth worrying about would presumably know better. I guess that's not completely true, going by the Scott Derrickson example, but it still seems strange to me.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    He had done a direct to video movie before Emily Rose, a Hellraiser thing with a budget of about $2 million. For that he likely made around $100k salary and if he had any net, it was worth nothing. But that project proved he could direct an acceptable film, which isn't as common a skill as you might imagine. So once he'd done that, he had the chance to move up to the next budget range, $20ish million, plus or minus. For that, as I mentioned above, he probably got in the neighborhood of $500k. Maybe a little more, but certainly less than $1 million. Then when that movie did extremely well, he went on to do The Day The Earth Stood Still, an $80 million dollar project. Whatever he got paid for that is highly variable, but it was likely a million or two. As he mentions in the podcast, TDTESS did 80 million domestic, total of 240 global. Which made it a success in terms of money, but since the domestic was so low it wasn't perceived as such in the industry. So he didn't move to the A list after that. He said he got offers for things like big franchise sequels, but his own dream projects weren't able to get the greenlight. If he'd taken the hired gun route on studio sequels, he said he'd probably make a couple million per. So what he did instead was go and make his own film, cheap. He made the current movie Sinister for $3 million. Again he's back in the few hundred thousand range at most for salary. But this time, since it was his movie and he made it cheap, he's got real gross participation. As he says in the podcast, after the movie hits a certain breakeven point (which it likely is very close to doing if it hasn't already), the money starts rolling in for him and he'll be "rich". From the podcast, it seems likely his deal on this project will let him get what would be called FU Money here. It's not a terrible system, really. Directors aren't completely screwed, they do ok for themselves. The real secret is to own the property yourself.
ojbyrne 14y ago
I'm going to guess that its because there's a few "names" in the industry who do actually get a real share of the profits, probably because they have a lawyer (or more likely, a legal staff) to make sure that all the details are negotiated with their interests in mind. Like anything else, you need a little luck and a lot of work to get to that point.
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  I'm sure lots of people make money to varying degrees, I just don't get why anyone would agree to a share of the nominal profits when this sort of thing is so well known.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
It's not like he got completely screwed. He probably got paid at least half a million up front. Plus a success like that meant that his up front pay was much higher on his next project.

tomrod 14y ago

I'm not sure about this specific example, but I could see a couple of reasons: * One really wants the movie to be made, like a Clint Eastwood figure director who likes the script, regardless of the cost to self * Director is new and potentially naive; agent is no good * Director is new, not naive, and wants to make a brand for him- or herself in the movie world (and knows the movie isn't bound for a Saturday Syfy special... /snark)

aptwebapps 14y ago
The thing is, people who are that new and naive can't demand much in the first place. People who are in a position to take a slice worth worrying about would presumably know better. I guess that's not completely true, going by the Scott Derrickson example, but it still seems strange to me.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  He had done a direct to video movie before Emily Rose, a Hellraiser thing with a budget of about $2 million. For that he likely made around $100k salary and if he had any net, it was worth nothing. But that project proved he could direct an acceptable film, which isn't as common a skill as you might imagine. So once he'd done that, he had the chance to move up to the next budget range, $20ish million, plus or minus. For that, as I mentioned above, he probably got in the neighborhood of $500k. Maybe a little more, but certainly less than $1 million. Then when that movie did extremely well, he went on to do The Day The Earth Stood Still, an $80 million dollar project. Whatever he got paid for that is highly variable, but it was likely a million or two. As he mentions in the podcast, TDTESS did 80 million domestic, total of 240 global. Which made it a success in terms of money, but since the domestic was so low it wasn't perceived as such in the industry. So he didn't move to the A list after that. He said he got offers for things like big franchise sequels, but his own dream projects weren't able to get the greenlight. If he'd taken the hired gun route on studio sequels, he said he'd probably make a couple million per. So what he did instead was go and make his own film, cheap. He made the current movie Sinister for $3 million. Again he's back in the few hundred thousand range at most for salary. But this time, since it was his movie and he made it cheap, he's got real gross participation. As he says in the podcast, after the movie hits a certain breakeven point (which it likely is very close to doing if it hasn't already), the money starts rolling in for him and he'll be "rich". From the podcast, it seems likely his deal on this project will let him get what would be called FU Money here. It's not a terrible system, really. Directors aren't completely screwed, they do ok for themselves. The real secret is to own the property yourself.

ojbyrne 14y ago

I'm going to guess that its because there's a few "names" in the industry who do actually get a real share of the profits, probably because they have a lawyer (or more likely, a legal staff) to make sure that all the details are negotiated with their interests in mind. Like anything else, you need a little luck and a lot of work to get to that point.

aptwebapps 14y ago
I'm sure lots of people make money to varying degrees, I just don't get why anyone would agree to a share of the nominal profits when this sort of thing is so well known.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

It's not like he got completely screwed. He probably got paid at least half a million up front. Plus a success like that meant that his up front pay was much higher on his next project.