ASK & DISCUSS
INDEXSkip this topic at your peril! Completion bonds.
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
I've been asked to supervise the completion of a feature. For those of you that have read my posts over the years, this basically what I do for a living, but this one is a bit different.
It concerns a pretty high budget (though not by current Hollywood standards), a well known director that I respect, but have never met, and a really odd report to the completion bond company. Now here's the rub: It has been taken over by the completion bond company. This is a rare thing. OK, for those of you who have no idea what a completion bond is... well, it's kind of insurance for the investors of a film. If a film gets out of control, the CB company can send its own people in to take over. Completion Bonds are most common with mid to high level budgets, and are always in place if there is gap funding. (Gap funding is a loan from the bank. You'd be surprised to learn, probably, that large banks have a entertainment division that make loans to films. Crazy, right? Typically gap funding covers anywhere from 5 percent to 40 percent of a production budget). If a film gets out of control--over budget/schedule--the completion bond company has every right to step in. And that's what has happened here.
Here's the weird bit: the producers (which also include the director in this case) decided it would be a good idea to give the completion bond company a LOWER budget than the actual budget. I can't for the life of me figure out why. The higher budget money was in place, so no issue there. And the best way to trigger a completion bond is to go over budget. So why do it? A completion bond company can replace whoever they want. Often the producer. Often the director. Certainly the 1st AD. So when this production went over budget, it didn't matter that they were UNDER budget on the budget they were hiding. What mattered was the budget they gave to the completion bond company in the first place. I do not get it. None of my co-workers get it. Now the filmmakers don't get to finish their own film. Madness. And let's keep in mind that Gap funding and completion bonds are really complicated, and deals with international distribution, unsold territories, payback percentages, etc. Telling them a lower budget is disaster waiting to happen on a vast number of levels.
One thing I see all the time is filmmakers trying to get one over on the investors, the union, the studio... and it never ends well. These people know money. They know budgets. They will figure it out, and it will be too bad, so sad for you. Not them. Be honest and upfront in your dealings, always.
One thing I'd like to add is the idea of shooting ratios. 1st time, or even 2nd time directors screw this up so often, that it results in people like me coming in. You don't want that, right? It's simple: a 10:1 shooting ratio is 10 minutes of shot footage to 1 minute of edited footage. It IS NOT 10 different set ups! If you've shot 10 takes of that close up, guess what, you're out of film for that scene. If you've shot a 15 to 1 ratio the first 3 days, you'll be warned. Keep it up, and you'll be gone by day 6. I promise you that. Think because you're shooting digitally, that it's OK? It's not. Because instead of eating up film, you'll be eating up schedule. I can't tell you how often this is an issue. And if you're a 1st time director on somebody else's dime, you'll be gone.
OK, what's the moral of this sad tale? Be honest, or be out. Stay on top of the shooting ratio and/or the schedule.
Only members can post or respond to topics. LOGIN
Not a member of SP? JOIN or FIND OUT MORE
11 years, 9 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
Agree with Dan about wrapping 'early' every day - one day you may need an extra hour or two for some reason and if you can point out 'everyone has gone home early every day this week' it makes it harder for moaners to sound justified.
I see value in 'workshopping' - you're never going to fully rehearse a location/set shot as you typically don't have the location/set to hand (as by that point you're spending proper money each day), but you can think about blocking as cast run lines and get to 'feel' their relationship.
Depending on how experienced you and your team are, storyboarding the whole film might be overkill if there are scenes you know are going to be straight coverage (master, over each shoulder, cutaways, NEXT!). That gives you more time to storyboard for the more complex shots. However, I'm not a director but more on the production side - I'm all about the efficiency! If you feel it would help to storyboard the whole thing then please do so, it can't hurt.
Top tip for storyboarding - you can get post-it notes in near-widescreen format, they can be good for sketches and then to paste on a shooting wall building up your whole film. Once you know what you're going for shot by shot, you can refer to that, swap shots around, and remove them from the wall as you get stuff in the can - it helps you be sure you've covered all scenes and provides a nice visual indication of progress!
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
Paddy's right about story boarding every scene. BUT if it's your first time, I think it a good idea for this reason: if you don't, and the pressure gets to you on set, you WILL fall back to basic coverage. If you story board or take photos during rehearsal, you'll discover more "cinematic" ways of covering a scene. Maybe a 4 foot camera move will allow you to get a beautiful master, and that's all you'll need. Also, how many pages a day? Anything over 5 is a nightmare. If so, I'd do story boards for everything. If you don't have time, do as Paddy recommends, and story board the more complicated.
11 years, 9 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
Completion bond - all I can think Dan is that the bond was based on a percentage (~3.5%-ish?) of the given budget, so that seems an easy way to save money. Bonkers, but having seen the hoopla and deceit that goes into financing (something I steer well clear of now, I don't think it's possible to make an honest/straightforward finance plan for most features) I'm not surprised. Maybe the producer added the bond as a line item then the budget increased and he didn't increase the bond value accordingly. Maybe he thought he'd get booted if the bond was drawn on anyway, so took the money and ran?!
I guess is sucks for them, but is awesome for you - you have the original budget to spend, I assume, so you can go for all those chopper shots over the desert at dawn ;-)
I'm interested to hear how it further impacts the director and production guys - I assume they become unbondable now? Which will drive down their fees in the future?
I think digital has undermined a lot of the discipline of staring at 50 cans of stock and crapping yourself as you see it going down faster than the days left! It also makes it harder for production (without sitting on the floor when quite frankly they've got better things to do) to keep track of the overall progress and ratios. Handing out a few cans in exchange for a few pages had a nice efficiency to it!
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
-ish is correct. Usually it starts at 6 percent, but there can be terms that say it can drop to 3 or 4 if principle photography has come in on time and on budget. But I see your point. The problem is that Bond companies are extremely smart guys. There isn't a trick they haven't seen. Except this one, simply because it's so so stupid. They keep track of the shoot on a daily basis. So trying to "fool" them by giving a lower budget is madness. I have seen the opposite: give the bond company a higher budget and longer schedule, and the production work on a schedule that's a bit shorter. That way they look like miracle workers when they finish the shoot 4 days early.
I don't think I'll be directing on this one. Only a week left of principle. Nor would I want to: I really like this director, and frankly, he's better than me. Probably I'm a scare tactic to get the director to get this done in a week (minus the Thanksgiving Holiday). If it takes longer than that, he'll be gone too. For now, the 1st AD and production manager are gone. I'll be supervising post to get it in on time and on budget. Thank god they're shooting on film.
I'm not sure how it will affect the director and producers. It will certainly make it more difficult in the future to get a completion guarantee, which will affect their ability to raise funds. Certainly gap funding will be a thing of the past with the producers working as producers on future projects. I actually feel bad for the AD and PM. They had no idea the producers were being so stupid, yet they lost their jobs because of it. I'm a hired hand, so I'm not really privy to the inner workings of a bond company. What the bond company cares about and what I care about are two different things. The bond promises a film. Period. Doesn't have to be good, just done.
Yeah, financing is a minefield. So much shenanigans goes on. All based on greed and ego.
You got that right about film cans! digital really has a weird effect on the shoot and can make post a nightmare. One thing that never occurred to me about digital until I saw it happening: established actors that are used to working on film hate it. There's not as much down time. "What, we're going again ALREADY?"
11 years, 9 months ago - Vasco de Sousa
Thanks for the example.
If I understand correctly about shooting ratios, it's not just takes, its footage. You'll often have some extra time at the start or end of takes to take wild sound, or extra space for transitions. And then there are false starts. So, a 10 to 1 shooting ratio can be more like 8 shots, on average.
We ended up with a 25 to 1 shooting ratio for our last film. Part of that was down to two particularly tricky shots where I was pretty much shooting on my own. Part of it was because we left the camera rolling at times to give the actors a more gradual run up. We still came in on time (for the production) and on budget. I didn't have a planned shooting ratio, because I didn't know what to expect. I had a disk storage quota as part of the budget, that was about the closest thing. I didn't realize that shooting ratio mattered for digital (up to a point, storage still costs money), but I can see some ways to keep this number down. I have done a three to one shooting ratio in the past, but it's not as fun.
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
Vasco, it's not as important digitally. Film is really expensive. As long as you stay on schedule on a digital shoot, you'll be OK for the most part. But if you have a 15:1 planned, and you shoot 25:1, your post schedule will be all screwed up. So that's something to think about.
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
P.S: to answer your question: shooting ratios are ALL about footage. A 2 hour finished film is around 10,000 feet of 35mm film (a bit more actually). If you're shooting a 10:1 ratio, you need to buy 100,000 feet. If the director then shoots a 12:1 ratio, you'll start running out of film really fast. You can imagine how that small bump will get expensive really quickly. Not only more film to buy, but more developing costs, more telecine time, etc. That's why 1st time directors don't last long if they consistently break their ratio the first week.
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
Well, there were two budgets. Only the Completion Bond company got the lower. The only thing that makes sense is Paddy's idea: they were trying to save on the percentage that they had to pay to the CB. But those percentages can be fluid, in a way. So even that doesn't really make too much sense, especially to a CB company where going over can kill you. I don't think their naive; all very experienced people. My guess is some monkey business between the producers and investors of some kind.
Yeah, people pad budgets all the time. I'm not a believer, though. That's what a 10 percent contingency is for. By the time each department head pads their budget, you've got a 20 percent contingency. The art department is notorious for padding, but they always spend their budget with nothing left over, so they don't pad for a better production "just in case". I've seen an art director by 2 couches. Why? because he wanted one. That's just one small example. The PM seems to always have to keep an eye on the art department!
I've been re-doing the post budget on this thing. It's a mess. It seems they are just pulling numbers out of their ass. Producers just don't know post, for the most part. I've convinced the CB company to not fire the editor, I've got more days for the colorist, and it still looks like I'll come in 10 grand under for post, and that mean a bonus for me. Sweet!
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
Oops. "They're naive" not their.
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
I have had 8 hour days, but on shorts where I wasn't paying the crew. But I know really experienced people, and that's like a 12 hour day on most shorts! On features I try to do 5.5 hours of work. Lunch. 5.5 hours. Home. Of course, that shifts here and there, but that's it basically.
I know people here that will do anything they can to avoid working with Billy Crystal when he's directing. He's notorious for 18 hour days. In the end, long days don't work. Your crew is so tired, that they make mistakes, don't move fast, and it takes twice as long to get a shot. Long days make longer days down the road. Too short days, as you point out, make for longer days down the road as well.
11 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich
Rehearsals? What are those?
Anything that can keep the production moving is a good thing. Yes, rehearsals will help keep down the shooting ratio, especially if you have enough time to block the scenes in rehearsal. In my life of a movie salvager, I never have that luxury. Nor the time to do storyboards. If I were you, I'd storyboard every scene. If you are doing rehearsals with blocking, I'd photograph the shots you think you'll need to edit together an effective scene. Photograph all of the close ups, over the shoulders, etc. using lens lengths you'll use in production. Your AD will kiss you on the mouth if you hand him a stack of shots needed for each scene. Your editor can look at them and suggest stuff as well.
Think of ratios as an average over the entire shoot. For example, an action scene takes a lot of coverage. If that scene needs a 25:1, but the determined average for the shoot is 12:1, you'd better make sure that smaller scenes are 4:1 or 6:1. Make sense?
If I can make a suggestion: don't kill your crew. I've been doing salvaging (working uncredited directing new scenes and re-editing the entire picture) since 1986. There have only been 2 days in all of those years that I went over 12 hours. My average shoot day is 11 hours. Your crew will love you, and work their asses off for you, because under 12 is a short day. The way to do this is to know exactly what you need for the editor. Tell your AD everything that will affect his/her job. "You know what, I don't think we need that dolly shot we have planned for later." Grips loading and unloading equipment eat daylight. Or "that actor is just not "on" today. We might be running long." Things like that.
Good luck!
11 years, 9 months ago - Alex Jacob
Really interesting discussion guys. I am about to embark on my first feature after years of working in TV drama and it is fascinating to uncover all these little trip hazards along the way. With reference to the shooting ratio - is that not something that rehearsals are for? Bearing schedule in mind of course.
11 years, 9 months ago - Daniel Cormack
It does sound very, very odd. I learned from an old-hand BBC Production Manager that they squirrel-away bits of the budget here-and-there - ie. artificially inflate some of lines to leave a contingency for other parts going over
But why artificially deflate a budget?
Perhaps they were very naive and thought they would gain kudos by falsely under-budgeting?
11 years, 9 months ago - Owen A Smith
A very interesting subject which I have read with great interest. I work in film & television and head a production company in London. I have a big team and am a hands on CEO my main role being a DoP working crews into the ground is never a good move. I/we wince worked with a first time producer & first time Director who on the first day of principle photography only worked the crew for 8 hours, at the end of the eight shooting day the cast and crew went for a beer and I suggested if we are going to get this film shot on schedule you'll need to increase the length of the shooting day eight hours will not do it and we just want to get this done.
The next day we did a ten hour day which was a bit more like it and all were happy only a ten hour day lol. After that we moved location from a busy London Main Street to a secluded leafy green house in the suburbs due to its location being for me at least a four hundred mile round trip I and the camera & electrical team stayed on location..
This resulted in the director again first time director and producer pushing the crew harder and harder to get the film completed on schedule and on budget. Whanting to get the film completed so we could all go home we worked 16 hour days and if we hasn't have said no we would have been pushed to work eighteen hour days. Crew were simply falling asleep on set. From that experience five years ago my crew work a ten to twelve hour day. Don't bust the crews balls.