A producer's nightmare-- problem actors

[narcissus]

I have been working on a low budget feature for +3 years... in fact, the first day of shooting was 3 years ago this week (June 17, 2002). On this first day of shooting, the DAT machine broke-- and there was no usable dialogue.

So I continued to shoot the film and hoped that I could edit around and dub... fix it in post. I had no other choice since I had a very strict deadline to complete shooting (limited access to locations and the place I was staying which was the primary location).

I began post a few weeks after wrapping. Several months later it became appearant that other scenes were needed.

So I contacted the actors and crew and got together another shoot the following summer. We shot for several days straight during the summer then one day per weekend because of their schedules. I also began to film another project with the actors simultaneously because of the limited access to locations. The actors' moods had noticably changed from the first shoot, however-- they began to complain about the pay ($480 per day on a low budget indie...) and the heat and the cars and the air,,,, but otherwise the shooting was going along well.

Then in mid September 2003, the actors showed up +90minutes late to one shoot, and have not shown up to any shoot since. I have scheduled 3 shoots since, and given them over 20 days notice (the contract specifies that I give them at least 2 days)-- still they were no-shows.

I sent many many emails and waited and waited... nothing. Then after sending several legal threats, was told to speak to one's agent. So I called and emailed him. He asked if I would pay airfare for the shoot. I agreed,, (though I am not contractually obligated to do so). Several days later I was told that the actor was not available for my project.

So I had an attorney review their contracts. He said they are valid and it is clear that they must appear if I give them 2 or more days' notice... So he wrote them each a letter asking them to contact me to resume filmming. Nothing from one,, only a non-working phone number from the other.

I was advised to not include any names because this information may harm the actors, and I will yield to that despite the fact that their actions are interfering with my ability to finish my film. This has been the case for over 20 months now of them not showing up for 1 day of neccessary reshoots. I do not believe it is libelous for me to post provable facts about someone interfering with my business. If I were making false claims to harm them I could be opening myself up for a suit against myself-- I have no desire to do that. Right now, I'm trying to gain some other perspectives and to hopefully help other people to avoid going through the same unneccessary trama.

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions ???


Thanks,


JB

(edit; punctuation)

 

[narcissus]

You have no grounds to sue me, for many reasons, first of which is you are posting anonymously, so I can't be harming your reputation.

BUT LATER...

But when it comes to the point of law I made about being able to identify someone before an action can be libelous or considered defamation, that is correct, and you are wrong. Simple as that.

What you are saying is; that I can't sue you because I am posting anonymously, but someone else can identify you without using their name or something.... and I should worry about this ?

You have no basis to your arguements. I can't even take you seriously.

 

[steve gelder]

Steve,

okay, obviously you're a bit slow. Google is a search engine on the internet.

Go to www.google.com

type in "defamation" (with or without the quotes)

you will find the first entry;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

The first sentance is;

"In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation."

again read the words, FALSE CLAIM. now meditate on that. What in the world do you think I've FALSELY ACCUSED actors of ???

Narcissus - obviously, you are learning disabled.

Show me where I ever said you falsely accused your actors of anything.

You don't even understand the conversation you're having. You're stuck on one point, which isn't the point I brought up in the first place. I defined something about defamation. You keep bringing it back to something all together different.

 

[narcissus]

Narcissus - obviously, you are learning disabled.

Wow... A compliment coming from you...

You're stuck on one point, which isn't the point I brought up in the first place. I defined something about defamation.

Which shows how much you really are contributing to the thread, besides your bogus info and personal attacks which I just have to say again are incredibly boring and ignorant.

 

[narcissus]

Show me where I ever said you falsely accused your actors of anything.

Why are you posting and adding so much ignorance to this thread ? Obviously, you percieve that I am doing something wrong to you, or you would not have been attacking my character with false info before I called you the names. And since.

It's really amazing to see a big adult get so worked-up and insulting over being WARNED to AVOID a bad situation with actors. According to you, I'm supposed to control them or something... guess I'll use a magic wand or something... Thanks for that golden nugget of ignorance and paranoia...

Quotes like "You don't know anything abou the law" and "you're wrong" when I'm posting quotes from legal websites... shouldn't you get back to the hospital ?

 

[John@Bophe]

Okay -- this thead has devolved into insults. You've both made your points. Unless either of you have something more useful to add to the discussion, please stop wasting our time.

 

[Spatula]

I am the law.

 

[clive]

I think the only answer is to get out of here and nuke this thread from orbit.

 

[narcissus]

Also-- I thought I posted this, but the actress came back and finished shooting. Steve's attack made me realize this may not have been made clear enough. I know it was posted in another thread, at least. Though I'm not sure if anything can be made clearly enough for him to grasp, from what I've seen here...

Anyway, I'm focused on selling the film, and I have *less than NO reason* in this world or any other to harm the credibility or reputation of the actors in my film. Why would I ? I wouldn't. Hopefully someone here can eventually grasp that. The story's over. Go on with your lives understanding that.

And again, I'm extremely tired of being slammed with these ignorant accusations here of appearantly how terrible it is for me to help other people *avoid* the problems I had. I wish someone would have helped me avoid that. Or maybe everyone here is an all-knowing actor-puppeteer, like Steve graciously attacked me for not being... Either way, move along with your life.

For the next person who wants to chuck a stone at me for not puppeteering actors; just stop. Stop the ignorance.

 

[steve gelder]

Steve's attack made me realize this may not have been made clear enough.

I never attacked you. Still haven't.

 

[narcissus]

My original statement was that you can be sued for defamation, even if you don't use the person's name.... You have no grounds to sue me, for many reasons, first of which is you are posting anonymously, so I can't be harming your reputation.... But when it comes to the point of law I made about being able to identify someone before an action can be libelous or considered defamation, that is correct, and you are wrong. Simple as that.

Okay... Has anyone told you you have a paranoid reality complex ?

That has nothing to do with the legal info you cut and pasted from websites; it's the law.

Yep. Obviously your grip on the law is quite captivating, as shown again above. Legal info is wrong. You're the boss. The printed law is wrong. I'm glad to have met you. Get back to your padded room please.

Go make your movies on your own, wasting years of time because you can't manage people.

I'm 'wasting' years because I hired actors to perform. Again-- how does that equate to my wrong ?
And yes, post after post of berating me for warning other people to avoid a similar situation (which I wish I would have avoided) is still boring.

Let me get your posts straight;
You think I can't manage people because you are the law, no matter what it says, and so actors shouldn't show-up to film because I'm such a jerk for being relentlessly bothered here for trying to help others avoid the same situation. Ouch, you're smart.

I never attacked you. Still haven't.

Well, not besides my "ability to manage people" as judged by your excellency. Or my being wrong about the law by posting it. No, of course you don't have any references or relevant facts. Just condemnation and ignorance. Thanks for sharing so much of it.

Go get a life and stop bothering me about your fishy opinions of the law and paranoid/judgemental nonsense.

 

[steve gelder]

Peace be with you.

 

[narcissus]

For reference of the attackiness of this thread (not just Steve), read it again.

What do you see ? Me posting info to HELP others AVOID a similar problem, and then being forced to defend myself-- as written laws are denounced, contradictory/bogus info used to make me defend myself, and I have been called a jerk for it... what cool people.

And being told that all of this is all to do with "my inability to manage people", and not the actors themselves. No, people aren't responsible for anything they do. According to several of these fine folks in this thread-- I am, as a producer, appearantly responsible for the thoughts and actions of others. Wow. How important producers must be, to actually be responsible for the thoughts and actions of others. I wonder how they do it. Real producers I mean, who control your thoughts and actions-- not simple-minded nobodies who hire actors to act like I did.

What an amazing and useful bunch.

 

[Will Vincent]

Why is this argument still going on? I'm sick of seeing this thread on the home page all the time..

*sigh*

 

[clive]

As the only information to come out of this thread is... actors sometimes let you down, then I fail to see the value of the warning.

But as we're handing out the pearls of wisdom here are two more for us:

Crew sometimes let you down

and

Technology sometimes lets you down

if we dedicate about two years to each of them... we should get onto something new round about Christmas 2011

 

[narcissus]

As the only information to come out of this thread is... actors sometimes let you down, then I fail to see the value of the warning.

The value of the info is preventative.

If you've never been in a car accident, info about wearing a seat belt may seem benign and unneccessary as well. That same info may save your life though, which makes it valuable if you value your life.

Same with info about this situation-- it will certainly be of value to me for the rest of my life. I absolutely wish I was warned about the possibility ahead of time to have avoided it.

If you don't value this info, hopefully someone else will.

Also, Clive thanks for trying to devalue the thread again, though. Obviously, that's very important-- you're the third or fourth person today to do that.



To everyone else; It's really cool to read back through a thread and to be denounced and forced to defend myself by nearly every poster. What a genuinely cool crowd. Would hate to lose such a valuable thing in my life. If I read this thread, and avoided a similar situation, I would be thanking and not berating or insulting the poster right now. After 5 f--king pages of very little other than insults and bogus info... I'm kindof missing why I'm supposedly in the wrong for "not managing people well" when obviously you are a classy and helpful bunch.

Thanks for being really important here, friends. If I recommend that you all wear seat belts, will you all insult me for 5 more pages ? Are you that important and cool ?

 

[clive]

Preventative how?

 

[narcissus]

Preventative how?

Knowing.

This was not a scenario I would have believed possible going into the film. Most actors I know or know of, especially early in their careers, are eager to work-- to gain recognition and experience. I would have never guessed that a situation such as this would or could have happened. I believe it's counter productive to shoot yourself in the foot as an actor.

Speaking hypothetically to other actors who may think about doing this to another producer; doing this will make you look petty and ridiculous, makes other actors look unworthy of being filmmed thanks to CG, and causes damages you aren't worth having created just for acting for a few days/weeks. You are as replacable as toothpaste, so you need to follow-through and be a pro to look like one and be paid and respected like one. Don't ever punish a producer for having hired you. Producers may forgive, but won't ever forget. Sean Connery, has *never* been late to a shoot. I respect that even more than I like him onscreen (even as one of my favorite actors).

For myself, it has made me look beyond hiring actors to CG. In CG, if you need pick-ups or want to add shots to enrich your film, you don't have to chase actors around and fly them around the country/world just for them to say a few lines or walk down a hallway... Simply open a 3d application and move the actor whereever you need it, and export your shot. Minutes instead of weeks. In fact, in the 2 years of waiting, I learned enough 3d to make features in 3d-- I didn't "waste" the years, as Steve's boldly ignorant claim stated. And in 2 years, I could make 4-5 films well.

Yes, CG is now a legit production platform. The main detractor to the realism of CG films so far has been lip synch. That is no longer an issue thanks to something called Face Robot. I can make films faster, and better for myself. Directing films in 3d takes away; gravity, budget, location availability, problematic employees, etc.. I can have 100 cameras on a scene, render out IMAX resolution, etc. No constraints. And CG films are far more profitable than live action, on average.

The only time I might ever hire actors again is to shoot on greenscreen to shorten production, and have the contracts spell-out very specific info about a situation such as this. Including the fact I would never again pay actors until their role is finished-- they would only be paid for fulfilling the role.

 

[Will Vincent]

Something about this entire discussion strikes me as ironic..

You've been complaining about actors not wanting to return to complete the film, but the attitude you've had in the majority of the posts makes me think that if I were an actor on your film I'd have a hard time coming to work for you as well. Maybe that's way off base, but the image you've formed of yourself in my mind is one of the kind of person I'd hate to work with.

I wish you luck in your 3d ventures, maybe it will be a better fit for you, and the only "actors" you will need are voice actors.

 

[narcissus]

you've formed of yourself in my mind is one of the kind of person I'd hate to work with.

For being put on the defensive here... that's very generous of you. Thanks.

I'm wrong and have to be belittled again. Thanks for adding so much more to the thread, champ.

 

[steve gelder]

"You are as replacable as toothpaste"


Yeah, can't imagine why you'd run into any trouble with your actors when you have *this* kind of respect for the craft.

It's ironic that you accuse me of saying you weren't a good enough puppet-master (my actual words were about you not managing people well, but what I said shouldn't matter to what you want to repeat and distort, now, should it?), and then you go to CGI which is almost all about being a puppet master.