Do the leads deserve royalty on any potential earnings?

[RealJasonBourne]

If you have success making a film series, or any kind of online series, etc, and you have a main actor, should he receive royalties other than his pay for the filming?

Or should director/creator keep 100% of any earnings made from the work and continue to pay the actor an agreed amount?

 

[sfoster]

I agree.

That's one of the reasons I believe actors deserve a piece of the profits.

I suspected with you it was about the number. You believe it's right to
share some of the “cheese”. It seems where we differ is how much profit.
I would start offering a piece at a lower number than you. If I risked
everything and turned a profit of $100,000 I would set aside 25% to divvy
up. I'd take the $75,000 and offer $25,000 to actors (and crew).

You weren't misunderstood. You didn't need to put more in all caps to be
understood. We have different opinions. I, too, look at this from the angle
of a businessman - you believe it's good business to share the profits with
those who helped make the product a success and so do I. We only differ
about the number.

Crazy, isn't it?

I didn't re-read the first couple pages but I don't think any of my replies to you utilized caps.
Mostly I would worry about not getting investment for the next film.. that's why I'd rather hire the actors for the next round and pay them more than just give it away. Seems to make more business sense.

Either way the actors get the money.

 

[mlesemann]

Originally posted by sfoster: Mostly I would worry about not getting investment for the next film

This is the part that I simply don't understand. If your first project made a profit, you're going to get investment for the next film. Really.

 

[directorik]

I didn't re-read the first couple pages but I don't think any of my replies to you utilized caps.

I was reverencing this:

This is a really weird question, I don't know why I'm so misunderstood.
I even put it in all caps and you still don't understand where I'm coming from.

Mostly I would worry about not getting investment for the next film.. that's why I'd rather hire the actors for the next round and pay them more than just give it away. Seems to make more business sense.

I understand.

I don't see it as giving it away. I see it as an important business
expense. I agree with mlesemann, the dreamer who sacrifices
everything for years (the one from your example) who makes a
low budget film that makes a $500,000 profit will typically not
have to struggle for another several years to get financing for
their next one. It's interesting to me that in your response to
my question you didn't mention using any of that $500,000 profit
to make another movie. Your only example was buying a house.

Anyway, I do understand where you're coming from. I just hold
a different opinion.

 

[indietalk]

We've got a forum full of M.C. hammers here, they're going to strike it rich with a hit and end up broke with nothing because they gave all their money away

Didn't you just buy a house with all of it like MC???

 

[sfoster]

This is the part that I simply don't understand. If your first project made a profit, you're going to get investment for the next film. Really.

My research has told me otherwise... Francis Ford Coppola has had problems finding funding for his movies and that dude is famous! If I'm remember the documentary film "hearts of darkness" correctly.

That's where I'm coming from.
But you guys know better than me about that stuff I haven't even made a feature yet.

And directorik you're right about the house comment

 

[sfoster]

My house comment was more like. . in general for people that's the smart thing to do. People should take care of their futures. Personally I feel like my life ended years ago and I would just throw everything back into my next film irresponsibly.

 

[Ned Daly]

Heard this when I first went to LA in 1978.

"The last word in show business is business."

Never forgot.

 

[indietalk]

No one here said it was a hobby.