M$
February 23, 2018 1:06 AM Subscribe
Scale is the negotiated union minimum that a performer earns for a day's work.
posted by hwyengr at 5:15 AM on February 23, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by hwyengr at 5:15 AM on February 23, 2018 [11 favorites]
And not a bad salary at all, take a beat, if you work more than 5-10 weeks out of the year.
posted by sammyo at 5:33 AM on February 23, 2018
posted by sammyo at 5:33 AM on February 23, 2018
hwyengr thank you for enlightening me (and I feel a little ashamed that I did not google harder to find out). I saw references to scale with regard to some Wes Anderson films where actors were willing to go below their usual rates. I suppose they would get a percentage of profits later though (at least Bill Murray did for his work on Rushmore).
posted by Laotic at 5:36 AM on February 23, 2018
posted by Laotic at 5:36 AM on February 23, 2018
Actors will work scale if they really want to do a low budget film - because it's their pet project / a friend's project / decent chance for awards / they want some indie cred / they just like it - and the cash isn't there for their usual salary / deal. They might get some back-end deal but it's not expected.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 6:31 AM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 6:31 AM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
I had been vaguely wondering for years what an actor's 'quote' was, so I appreciated this article. Thx for posting, fearfulsymmetry.
posted by widdershins at 7:23 AM on February 23, 2018
posted by widdershins at 7:23 AM on February 23, 2018
For comparison, see this Hollywood Reporter article about how much various positions in movie/television production earn.
posted by briank at 7:35 AM on February 23, 2018
posted by briank at 7:35 AM on February 23, 2018
which I assume is getting some profits from the sales generated by a film after its completion
That's actually called "points" - percentage points on the movie's profits.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:26 AM on February 23, 2018
That's actually called "points" - percentage points on the movie's profits.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:26 AM on February 23, 2018
That's actually called "points" - percentage points on the movie's profits.
And there are two types of those as well - points of gross (a.k.a. the only points that mean anything); and points of net, which are worthless thanks to Hollywood Accounting, hence the derogatory nickname of "monkey points".
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:08 AM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
And there are two types of those as well - points of gross (a.k.a. the only points that mean anything); and points of net, which are worthless thanks to Hollywood Accounting, hence the derogatory nickname of "monkey points".
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:08 AM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
And there are two types of those as well - points of gross (a.k.a. the only points that mean anything); and points of net, which are worthless thanks to Hollywood Accounting, hence the derogatory nickname of "monkey points".
That was one of the more interesting bits in the article to me; the discussion that gross points are gone, and while net is worthless, they've got some compromise in shares of the "pool"--it notes that this is subject to Hollywood accounting, but it's apparently not worthless. I'm a bit curious about the details, though I'm not inclined to dig into it.
posted by Four Ds at 9:23 AM on February 23, 2018
That was one of the more interesting bits in the article to me; the discussion that gross points are gone, and while net is worthless, they've got some compromise in shares of the "pool"--it notes that this is subject to Hollywood accounting, but it's apparently not worthless. I'm a bit curious about the details, though I'm not inclined to dig into it.
posted by Four Ds at 9:23 AM on February 23, 2018
Only issue I have with this article is the author's statement that agents "skim" their commission, right after she listed some examples of the higher fees agents got for their clients. Fuck you, Margaret, we earn every penny we make.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:33 AM on February 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 9:33 AM on February 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
And there are two types of those as well - points of gross (a.k.a. the only points that mean anything); and points of net, which are worthless thanks to Hollywood Accounting, hence the derogatory nickname of "monkey points".
The famous case being Forest Gump which claims to have netted zero and thus paid no royalties for the story.
posted by srboisvert at 9:50 AM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
The famous case being Forest Gump which claims to have netted zero and thus paid no royalties for the story.
posted by srboisvert at 9:50 AM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
> points of net, which are worthless thanks to Hollywood Accounting, hence the derogatory nickname of "monkey points".
I've always wondered how they get away with this. I mean, I know it's traditional, and they're rich and have good lawyers and so can bully people, but still, it's so blatantly false and wrong you'd think some judge somewhere would have put their foot down.
posted by languagehat at 11:58 AM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
I've always wondered how they get away with this. I mean, I know it's traditional, and they're rich and have good lawyers and so can bully people, but still, it's so blatantly false and wrong you'd think some judge somewhere would have put their foot down.
posted by languagehat at 11:58 AM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
Noel Clarke was the writer and director of Adulthood, an indie film that did pretty well in the UK - number one box office, million dollar opening weekend. A few days before Christmas he tweeted that he'd just started getting royalties from it. The film came out in 2008. And he went to explain it's not even particularity weird Hollywood accounting... distributors, marketers, investors have all gotta be paid.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:59 AM on February 23, 2018
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:59 AM on February 23, 2018
srboisvert: "The famous case being Forest Gump which claims to have netted zero and thus paid no royalties for the story."
So the author refused to sell them the rights to the second book; he couldn't in good conscious let them make another movie that would lose money.
And it's pretty amazing they keep making star wars movies because the original trilogy haven't made any money either.
posted by Mitheral at 1:28 PM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
So the author refused to sell them the rights to the second book; he couldn't in good conscious let them make another movie that would lose money.
And it's pretty amazing they keep making star wars movies because the original trilogy haven't made any money either.
posted by Mitheral at 1:28 PM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
Mitheral - the (9 years old) Star Wars story linked, only says that Return of the Jedi hasn’t recorded a profit yet (according to Hollywood accounting). I met Dave Prowse once at a screening of Creature from the Black Lagoon in 3D, and he was really nice, like a cross between Superman and a Wurzel.
posted by w0mbat at 6:26 PM on February 23, 2018
posted by w0mbat at 6:26 PM on February 23, 2018
« Older God is far more than male and female | Neanderthals created cave art Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Laotic at 5:06 AM on February 23, 2018