The Obsession with Pay in Hollywood

There's a new discussion within the film community, and surprise, it's about paying people a proper wage. Say what you want about art, the love of art, and the romantism of art, but at the end of the day it's all about the Benjamin's. Today's topic came to light when the new hit horror film Obsession went from being a $750,000 budgeted indie film to a $200 million blockbuster, even outgrossing Star Wars domestically. After three weeks of breaking box office records, the Obsession art director, Sally Choi, went to Instagram and complained about the harsh working schedule and the $300/day pay rate, totally $6700 after taxes for a month's worth of work. 

Sally discussed in the IG post how she had to wear many hats and clean up after the destruction of a set, etc. Anyone who has worked in TV and Film understands this pain. I was a PA on big budget TV shows and I've directed/produced short films. Everyone has responsibilities beyond the role they were hired for in the entertainment industry. It's the nature of the beast. So I can empathize with her over the difficult working conditions and feelings of being underappreciated when the party was over and all that was left was fake blood all over the set. I once had to pull literal shit out of a port-a-potty in 100 degree weather so the crew could work outside for a day. It's part of the misplaced romanticism of the industry.

But where her story went viral is in her attempt to ask why doesn't she get paid more now that the film has become a smash hit? It feels like a fair question. She worked hard. She helped bring the vision of the filmmakers to life. Why shouldn't she get a bigger cut after the film succeeds? 
Because, simply put, that's not how math or the industry works. In Hollywood, comedy, music, etc. you don't get paid what you are worth. You get paid what you negotiate. You get more work because of what you're worth. But you still have to negotiate the deal that maintains civility and a maintainable working environment.

Let's Breakdown the Profit Argument 
Choi argues that since the film is a huge hit, the crew should see some reward for their contributions. But she was rewarded. She made approximately $10,000 for 30 days (before taxes). This was her first feature film. The film's overall budget was $750,000 and according to her there were PA's and volunteers making $0 outside of gas money. So it appears she was already getting more money than those willing to work for nothing to get experience and build a filmmaking network. 

The film sat for TWO YEARS without a buyer, playing in midnight screenings at film festivals. The director, Curry Barker, was a YouTube content creator with sketches and YouTube films posted online in attempt to get noticed. Choi and select crew got guaranteed money - the producers and financers did not. Had the film never got sold or distributed, she wouldn't have had to give the money back. 

Eventually, the film was sold to Focus Features for $15 million. Focus Features teamed up with Blumhouse to spend an additional $50 million on advertising. So when people think Obsession made $200 million, it did at the box office, but the producers and filmmakers only made $15 million. Focus Features took a $65 million risk and it paid off. Focus Features doesn't know who Choi is. No one involved is purposely screwing anyone over. Considering only 1% to 3% of independent films make a profit at all, this film is lightening in a bottle.      

So even if Choi is in the right, and she should get a bonus, is it from the $15 million, the $200 million box office, or from both? 

That's the problem. There was no negotiation up front that if the film made a certain amount of money, the crew of 100 should all get a cut of what - $5,000, $10,000, $1 million? Should it be a retroactive union rate? It's an indie film - not Transformers 7. There was no way to think this would make more than $10-$20 million at best.

She Tried to End the Film Before It Finished
Obsession was a non union film. Non union films are a way for people to break into the industry. Indie films are not meant to be big time money makers. They are meant to be calling cards for everyone involved. Choi should be thrilled she got a foot in the door with a project that took off, and call every production designer she's met and tell them how hard of a worker she is and wants to be their art director. 

What Choi admitted in the post is sort of terrifying and could have ended the film's production, costing everyone on the financing end their money and ended Barker's career before it started. Her post adds: "I did know the rate beforehand and agreed to it, but atp (at that point) I was living paycheck to paycheck. This is the reality of most filmmakers especially those who work below the line. We become a line in the budget sheet to keep as low as possible. I kick myself every single day for not flipping this production. I was encouraged not to and I naively listened."  

Flipping the production would mean the crew would have demanded union wages, which would have required the stopping of production until more money was raised to pay a union wage. Most films that have this occur stop the financial bleeding and filming stops immediately. She admits out of her own ignorance she tried to destroy the film before it wrapped.

A Breakdown of Why Bonus Structures Don't Work 
So many people think it's easy to see the $200 million and just give it back to the crew. And there are structures that would allow some sharing of the wealth. 

1) Choi could have worked for sweat equity. She basically would get nothing up front and ask for a percentage of what the film sells for or makes in theaters or on streaming. 
This pathway is a huge risk. And with funny accounting, she might have never seen a dime. Did you know the Tolkien estate never got extra money from the original Lord of the Rings films because of Hollywood accounting? So Choi might have never seen a dime. 

2) Choi could have asked for pay plus "points" on the back end. This is similar to sweat equity but the film would pay her back through revenue earned, not just profits.     
This is how actors make more money usually. In fact, Inde Navarrette, the breakout star of the film was only paid $20,000 for the role. I don't know her deal, and she appears to be smart enough not to complain online. 

Now, these structures are better suited for big budget films. Not indie films. But once a big studio buys the film, trying renegotiate a crew bonus is impossible. And many films don't tie in bonuses for good reason.  

Let's say Choi got a deal where she gets money from the box office. Then Focus Features would have potentially passed on it, in fear they'd be giving money to Choi the rest of her life. Because films don't just make money in theatrical runs. 

Films make money in licensing, streaming, hard copy media, merchandise, re-releases, etc. Plus when Focus picked up the film, they didn't even know what the film would make in the long run. And now the film has additional costs unseen at the time of purchasing the rights. 

Obsession started out as a $750,000 film and now has to worry about:

• Marketing costs
• Domestic Distribution costs
• International Distribution costs 
• Post Production updates 
• Awards Campaigns
• Streaming deals 
• Any Deal Made With Original Writers/Directors/Etc.

What's paying for all that? The profits from the film. The unforeseen awards campaign is going to cost another $50 million at least. Lawyers are going to be working around the clock to protect this film from copyright enfridgment. This film has a whole new life now. People who put up millions will now try to recoup and make more to produce more films. Choi spent hundreds on getting herself to work and got back thousands. She got back a return equal to the financial investment she made. She now has a hit film to put on her resume.

Even if the film flopped, she still got to tell people she worked on a feature, even if it never went beyond a Tubi or Roku feature. She's lucky to be part of a film everyone in the country is seeing. Because this whole Hollywood industry is ran on luck. This should only produce bigger opportunities and paychecks down the line. 

Is There Room To Change the System?
Here's where most people are getting the wrong idea about Choi not getting paid accordingly - it's AN INDEPENDENT NON UNION FILM. If Universal or Fox or A24 was making this film, they'd be sued for such treatment. But non-union films exist so small time financiers and filmmakers can get the experience they need to be able to make studio backed union pictures down the road. 

There are changes in the system - they're called Union productions. Choi now has the opportunity to get into her local union. For anyone to have a chance in this industry, they have to be willing to work in harsh environments, because that's the BUDGET these films have been able to acquire.
People think every part of Hollywood is the same. But if Disney is the absolute top of the food chain and two high school kids with an iPhone is the bottom, in between are many levels. To get to the highest levels, writers, directors, producers, actors and crew have to start somewhere. 

What Curry was making was essentially a student film. A calling card for himself and all involved. If you take away the grind of independent, non-union, low budget filmmaking, you destroy a bottom floor people can start on. 

Unions are great. Unions make sure people get paid accordingly. I even think stand up should have a place for unions. But there has to be a place where unions aren't allowed, so creative people driven by gusto and caffeine can thrive before given the keys to the kingdom.

How This Relates to Stand Up     
This mentality that everyone needs to get paid equally all the time is what keeps a lot of comics from succeeding in comedy. They get into year one and think they deserve big pay checks from shows. Let's say a show makes $1,000 in ticket sales, and the headliner makes $200 and the feature makes $100 and the host makes $50, that's 35% gone. What about ads, showroom rentals, mic equipment costs, and the fact not every show makes $1,000 - some make $500 and now the producer is at a
loss.

If everything becomes about profitability at all levels, then there will be no producers willing to make the investment in comedy shows. It's too risky.

Imagine a world where there are no open mics - just paid gigs or no paid gigs. How would young comics get their opportunities?

If there was no entry level position, then it would be based on IG and TikTok followers and your hard work and reps would mean nothing. 

And if you are 10 years in still taking non-paid gigs, that's on you and your boundaries.  
To everything there is a season - and those who want to go straight into management don't respect process.     

Final Thoughts 
So often we want to feel the victim. And yes, it is weird when a project or job succeeds and we don't feel that benefit. But if you work a job and the company gets sold for billions, unless you got equity when starting, you get nothing from that - despite being a part of the success. 

​People online are saying Hollywood has to change. But this wasn't Hollywood. This was a student film turned into phenom. It became Hollywood years later after everyone moved on. Only a few films reach this level. And after it was sold, the filmmakers only got a percentage of the overall box office. 
You can bitch and moan about the unfairness of it all - and trust me, I have too and been the victim of it in ways most never will experience - but for the wheels to turn, the unfairness string has to be thread into the system.

While I can feel for Choi and her plight, a better way to handle that situation would have been to call Barker and say "We made a hit! So what's the next project, boss? And can I have a raise?"