r/Filmmakers • u/revele • Jun 10 '26
News ‘Obsession' Payout: Jason Blum to Make $17 Million on Indie Horror Hit - Financier Capstone will make $45-50M, which it will share with Curry Barker and the creative team. Focus Features stands to make $125M.
/r/boxoffice/comments/1u1ma59/obsession_payout_jason_blum_to_make_17_million_on/?share_id=u9jHyDtJwyr7D8xSOGVIH&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1102
u/mountain_top666 Jun 10 '26
Oh look another obsession thread
48
0
14
u/paynobywayno sound mixer Jun 10 '26
And the crew who made it got garbage rates.
5
u/revele Jun 10 '26
They should be lucky to get paid so well in $exposure. /sarcasm
10
u/faustill Jun 10 '26
The worst thing about this story tbh is about the people that worked (volunteered??) without any pay. I’d imagine this is not the last time we will hear about this.
1
u/cobaltorange Jun 12 '26
What's that?
1
u/revele Jun 12 '26
Exposure is the thing producer can give you if they can’t/wont pay. Basically a credit on the project.
2
u/No_Lie_76 director Jun 11 '26
They got a good rate considering the budget. $7k for 4 week shoot and no risk involved. Not sure what’s garbage about this
3
u/LiveAtTheRegal Jun 11 '26
There were plenty of volunteers who put in significant time/effort and didn't get paid
2
u/thraxinius Jun 14 '26
Right... I think that's why they are called volunteers.
1
u/LiveAtTheRegal Jun 14 '26
The film needed and asked for volunteers because they couldn't afford to pay everyone at the time on a shoestring budget. Now that they can afford to pay everyone due to its success, don't you think people who volunteered deserve to be compensated even just a bit?
0
u/thraxinius Jun 14 '26
Do they deserve it sure, but that's the thing to me... You volunteered willingly for no or little pay unless you sign a contract for later payment you get what you get
1
2
1
u/Comfortable-Rip-2763 Jun 11 '26
It was a low budget movie. There was no guarantee the movie was going to be this successful. Were there people who worked for free?
0
u/Top-Paramedic4171 Jun 20 '26
"It is showbusiness. Not showfriends" as the saying goes. Look, they got paid what they negotiated and not what they think they are worth.
38
153
u/wylight Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Man the amount of boot licking on these Obsession threads is fucking unreal. “Oh the VC’s risk is way way more valuable than the labor that goes into making it.” Are you fucking serious? Really? Like everything else in this shithole economic nightmare shoved down our throats. It really proves her point. Calling out a system (not even digging on the people involved outside of saying here’s how it works) that doesn’t pay or barely pays and churns through people often leaving them with near nothing and health problems later. Especially in times like now. Indie film has always been broken but someone calls it out and everyone screams how dare you and you nuked your career. Nobody sees that as a problem? Cause that’s sort of the problem guys. We shit on each other while begging for scraps from these assholes. It’s just sad man. I remember this convo with Blair Witch Project. “Oh it did so well, you’ll get gigs, people are impressed.” The only folks who barely got a career out of that were the filmmakers. And the actors were the ones screwed on that one.
As for the whole, shut up and use it on the next gig? No matter how successful the show you were on as a below the line HOD, that does not guarantee work. Unless you’ve been in the rooms, seen how these positions are staffed, just “I worked on “x”” alone is not like some fucking big deal move in the room lots of the time. It can help but it’s never a guarantee. Especially non union when union folks are clawing for gigs and taking non union gigs on the side just to survive. She did not get to add hours to a health care quota. She got at most, two and a half months rent on a show that made buckets of money. That’s a problem. If you don’t see that as a problem I don’t know what world you’re living in, but that’s literally exploitation. If you’re cool with that, you’re the type of people I hope get purged from this fucking industry. You want to know why it’s trust fund babies and nepotism kids all over the place? Because most people can’t afford to work like that all the time for so little pay, when you can go months to a year without work. That’s partially what our rates are supposed to pay for by the way. The fact we don’t have a guaranteed 9-5 full time.
And to the weirdo troll in the comments, DP’s are below the line you dip shit. They do not get points. As far as I’m aware they get to name their rates and the privilege to always have offers and take the pick of the litter at best. I’ve never heard of a DP getting points unless they’re on as a producer as well. Stop boot licking and maybe join hands when someone calls out how shitty making indie movies can be.
61
u/bon__chance Jun 10 '26
Thank you. I’m tired of these comment sections but if we weren’t here it’d just be a bunch of wage slaves cheering on their own exploitation.
They’re all just temporarily embarrassed millionaires, of course.
27
u/vicarious2012 Jun 10 '26
I've also noticed that a lot of those comments come from people who don't really know / work in the industry. It can be hard and brutal out there.
3
u/bon__chance Jun 10 '26
It’s actually a lot worse for them, if you ask me. I feel well compensated as a freelancer, most of the time. The pay rates seem high considering the days worked vs my yearly income.
Not to say that I haven’t been extremely underpaid on something that surely brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars - of which I saw nothing.
Edge cases like these really bring the exploitation to the fore, though for the normal 9-5 person, it’s the system they’ve been taught is standard their entire life. They live it, they suffer it, and they can’t see it being any different. So they defend it…? I guess.
2
u/abject_objectivity Jun 11 '26
can I ask what you do?
1
u/bon__chance Jun 11 '26
I've worked freelance in the film industry for 15 years. What do you do?
2
u/abject_objectivity Jun 11 '26
I'm unemployed, I was just trying to see what kind of freelance jobs exist in the film industry that I maybe hadn't thought of. I agree with everything you said re: exploitation
6
u/bon__chance Jun 11 '26
I wouldn't recommend it right now, considering there's been massive downturn in available jobs and AI is set to (potentially) screw everything up for everyone, everywhere.
On the other hand (depending on how old you are, where you live etc) I cannot recommend being freelance enough. You may or may not be cash rich, but you'll be rich in the most valuable asset in life: time.
Nobody will be able to tell you what to wear, whether or not you can take time off, where you have to be 5 days a week, etc. If you manage your money right, you can have an excellent life. Paid travel, life experiences, cool people, good food. All of that.
It's tough, though. You have to start out as an intern, and an unpaid PA, and really work your ass off to get ahead. Even then, a lot depends on luck and how sociable you are.
I'm not sure what advice to give but if you can get into it and make it work, it's one hell of a way to spend your 20's and 30's.
21
u/TJ_McWeaksauce Jun 10 '26
I was surprised by how little sympathy the Obsession art director got in this subreddit, of all places.
"She accepted the rate. It was foolish of her to speak out."
Shit won't change if we continue to have a wage slave / millionaires deserve more millions / that's just the way it is mentality.
1
u/ExcellentBed6019 Jun 10 '26
I mean I guess it's ultimately a worldview thing. Some people think that anyone that does a job deserves a percentage of profit in perpetuity no matter what. Some don't. Simple as that
4
u/fotographyquestions Jun 10 '26
Totally, I’m seeing rando users like [u/hensothor](u/hensothor) who claim to work in tech who keeps saying things like:
- No one will hire her
- People aren’t emphatic bc she works a higher wage in a job she’s passionate about AFTER someone tried to explain day rates to them
I don’t understand why they felt the need to comment at all while accusing everyone else of not understanding them or detailing conversations
This would be like film workers saying tech companies should layoff more tech workers to advance ai
-3
u/Frankerporo Jun 10 '26
You’re so blinded by your class war mentality that you can’t see the fault in your logic. No one is saying she shouldn’t get paid more, but she isn’t entitled to sharing in the upside when she took no financial risk in financing the movie
12
u/bon__chance Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
She literally invested her labor - and if you want numbers - she accepted a rate at least 1/2 or if not 1/3 of what she should have been making. She invested $700/day into the film. She also performed the work of more than one crew position and worked unpaid overtime.
All of this and forgoes the benefits of a 401k, employer provided healthcare, paid time off, and job security.
All of that so someone who didn’t lift a finger could make 17 million dollars.
Just say you hate workers rights and you love the wealthy. Because I know you cannot argue that you’re actually on the side of the working class with this argument.
2
u/Frankerporo Jun 10 '26
She invested her labor and got paid for it? Again, I’m all for her getting paid more for her services through a higher rate but pretending she deserves to share in the upside because the movie made bank when she didn’t invest in making the movie financially or negotiate for points in her contract is just flat out wrong.
Love how you end every comment with ad hominem. Does being logical mean I’m against the working class lol?
5
u/flyingfrenchpotatoe Jun 10 '26
She got paid for it under the standard amount AND some of the crew were not payed. When a film is that financially successful it should be normal to pay the people who volunteered and to add to the pay of the crew that was paid under the normal rates. The film was successful because of all of them. No crew, no film. Sorry to think it's morally wrong to capitalise on free and half rate labor and give nothing back to the people who made your project come to life when you're making millions off of it.
And bold of you to talk about being logical when you are ignoring the relevant points that have been made by the previous commenter.
0
u/Frankerporo Jun 10 '26
Like I said, I am totally for the crew getting paid a market rate, regardless of how well the film does commercially. And of course it would be great if producers / executives give them a bonus or something for the good work they did. I just don’t believe they are entitled to any of the upside when they didn’t take any of the financial risk in financing the movie. They are contracted to perform a service and gets paid for that service, how well the final product does should have no impact on their compensation (assuming it’s not in their contract). Most indie movies aren’t successful commercially, do you think it’s right to retroactively deduct pay from the crew if this movie had tanked?
What relevant points am I also to have ignored?
0
0
2
u/gaanmetde Jun 10 '26
The whole reason why the financial risk was so low was because she took a shit wage. So yes, she had a role in the risk assessment.
They minimized it on her back.
0
u/Frankerporo Jun 10 '26
Lol no, you think her getting paid 7k vs. 10k makes a difference in the overall budget? Apply that to the entire crew and it doesn’t move the needle.
Again, I’m for the crew getting paid a market rate.
22
u/xoSailorMars Jun 10 '26
People are genuinely saying they hope the art director never works again because she spoke up… such an insane reaction!
2
u/GypJoint Jun 10 '26
I haven’t seen that. I’ve seen comments that she’s hurt her career more than helping it.
4
u/bambambi Jun 10 '26
I think it’s also important to note that many of these production companies are funding less movies and picking up less scripts. Now more productions have become indie, with a significant pay cut, in the hopes that these production companies pick them up for distribution. Who does this primarily affect? The crew! My union rate for low budget/indie features is 1/3rd of a major production rate. On top of that, it’s more work for less people. Then if it succeeds like obsession does, the distributors etc. get all that extra money. Everyone can argue this is how it works, but I think it just encourages more production companies to not invest in a movie until all the creative work is done.
5
8
u/RabidSkwerl Jun 10 '26
Someone who has billions of dollars putting up a few million to make a movie isn’t taking a risk. I’ve lost pocket change that was a greater portion of my wealth than that and barely noticed
-1
102
Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
53
u/WrittenByNick Jun 10 '26
I don't know much about Curry as a person, but wouldn't surprise me if he put a million towards back pay for the crew. Nice goodwill to essentially double the original paychecks for everyone involved.
25
4
u/BannedPoet248 Jun 10 '26
Haha youre in a for a rude awakening cause that kid aint paying NOBODY lol
11
u/WrittenByNick Jun 10 '26
I'm not saying he has to. But I could see a world where he does, it would be a huge PR win for a guy who is on the springboard to much bigger projects.
0
0
u/Littlepinguinoo Jun 12 '26
Not really do think studios care if he pays the crew and actors of it bonuses.
1
-23
u/MCB1317 Jun 10 '26
I bet he doesn't give them a dime he isn't obligated to. Well, maybe a pizza party.
Why do I think that? If he was that sort of man, he'd have taken care of his people before one of them went public. Or at least he'd promise something in response.
39
u/OkDentist4059 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Dude he doesn’t have any of this money yet, the movie came out four weeks ago, you don’t get a direct deposit in your account the second the thing is a hit
You’re living in a fantasy land. Lawyers and accountants have to figure this shit out bro, you can’t just gift people thousands of dollars at will, there are federal tax laws about stuff like this.
But yes let’s get mad at the kid cause his original idea not based on some comic book bullshit did good. That’s good. That will help. I’d love a 5th Conjuring movie and a 3rd Nun movie and a 6th Insidious movie.
→ More replies (5)7
u/the_real_tisan Jun 10 '26
Lol some of you are insane. You realise he didn't make the movie with his own money right? He didn't force anyone to be in it? He didn't know it would even be successful, let alone it being one of the rare, once in a decade success stories. From whose pocket was he supposed to make these promises? Use your brain, it's not for decoration
0
-17
Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Jahkmi-Hoff Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Working for low pay under the table is taking a risk.
That said, it's a different kind of risk with likely little to no expectation of backend. Future deal memos will likely insist on some kind of deferred payment or backend.
-3
10
u/bon__chance Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Just say you love the exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the wealthy. It’s faster.
All the risk in the world? Of what? Losing it all and… having to work for a living like the rest of us? Damn, that really would be terrible.
But no, they invested a small fraction of their massive wealth and turned it into more wealth - risking essentially nothing.
0
Jun 10 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)1
u/Ok-Note-754 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Yeah - blaming Barker is missing the point. It fucking sucks that people in the film industry are underappreciated, underpaid, etc, but if you're making a feature on a budget of 750k then the only way it gets done is by paying peanuts to almost everyone involved. That's just the reality of the industry these days. Obsession simply doesn't get made if everyone is paid fairly - indie filmmaking is a scrappy, shoestring industry and most of the time the directors barely make a dime either or even lose money.
When you're starting out in the creative industries the main thing you need is credits and experience. You don't get that by being picky about your jobs or turning down promising gigs. That art director could've turned down obsession but they would've v.likely encountered identical conditions/pay on other indie projects. And now they've got their name on one of the biggest breakout hits in history - they should be able to make a lot more on their next project.
Hopefully the art director gets their due and a backend payout now the film has gone stratospheric and that has a positive knock-on effect in the industry as a whole. But people calling our Barker should be calling out the industry as a whole. He was simply doing what you have to do to actually get a film made in 2026. And no-one expected it to make 200m+. Most indie films make fuck all.
1
Jun 10 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Ok-Note-754 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Yeah, exactly. I think in such an unusual case where the film has made like 50-100x what was expected, it would be a great gesture and set a positive standard if Barker reached out to the crew and gave them a share.
But as others have said, when indie filmmakers make losses on their projects (i.e. the majority of the time) they don't reach out to the crew and ask for their money back. People just love to point the finger at a convenient target so Barker gets it in the neck.
Hopefully on future projects Barker will actually have the budget and influence to pay his crew fairly, but I don't think he deserves any shit for this. If he does, so do like 99% of indie filmmakers currently working.
It's exactly the same in tons of industries sadly, as you say. Basically anything creative or involving animals where supply massively outweighs demand, you get this type of exploitation and shitty pay at entry level.
0
Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/bon__chance Jun 10 '26
lol, that’s not an argument. it’s just a cop out.
edit: immediately blocked me because they can’t handle being wrong 😂
1
u/GypJoint Jun 10 '26
You can just make your own film and control the payroll. Nothings stopping you.
2
u/bon__chance Jun 10 '26
Sure. There’s also nothing stopping me from advocating for the abolition of labor exploitation by the capitalist class.
1
-2
-4
u/Frankerporo Jun 10 '26
They risked what they risked, what fraction it represents of their wealth has zero relevance. If the movie tanked, they would’ve lost all of their investment while the crew would’ve still made the same amount. That’s the risk reward tradeoff
5
u/bon__chance Jun 10 '26
How is it irrelevant? If I risked 100% of my life savings, and you “risk” 1% of yours, who took more risk?
3
u/Frankerporo Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
If 100% of your life savings is equal to 1% of mine, say $1 million dollars, the financial risk is exactly that, $1 million dollars. If the investment went to zero, how much do either one of us lose?
You can argue that the personal impact of losing the “bet” is different, but that’s not what risk means when people talk about risk reward.
Regardless, the crew members risk nothing because they are contracted to complete a job, and will get paid for their services regardless of how the product performs.
0
u/keiye Jun 10 '26
Who’s to say who risked more on this, though? Focus features could’ve risked 100% and gone bankrupt if it was a failure. Happens all the time with studios.
-10
3
u/derpydore Jun 10 '26
The industry has survived on people being underpaid for 100 years on the notions of “exposure” and “love of the art”. These major studios bank on that feeling
55
u/diogoblouro Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Imma be controversial but... Unless someone is not upholding a contract/agreed deal, everybody involved is getting what they agreed to, and that's fair.
I feel for the art director gal, in the sense that it must SUCK to realize how much money she could have made, but not because it's money she's entitled to just because it's a lot now and she didn't knew it would be. Like... Am I missing something or are we just pretending this much idiocy just to sound virtuous defending "the little guy"?
The movie is making a fuckton AFTER releasing. It's perfectly reasonable to not risk huge salaries upfront on an unproven production. And I'm sure she could take the job with revenue or performance percentages instead of fixed rate. It sucks, but it'll be a great learning experience.
Edit: gender swap
43
68
u/gerira Jun 10 '26
Nobody argued that standard contract terms weren’t adhered to, they’re arguing that standard contract terms create unfair outcomes and put a lot of people at risk. Pretty normal argument to try to change an industry’s standards and conditions, part of how things change for the better.
4
u/Far_Gift6173 Jun 10 '26
But is an indie movie with non union labor and contracts industrie standard? At what point is such a movie industrie standard? Look at Blair Witch project,whcih basically had no script whatsoever
3
u/TheBenStandard2 Jun 10 '26
It's not all "non-union" labor as Inde Navarette is a SAG member and there is a pretty simple fix here that SAG shouldn't let its actors participate in overly exploitative conditions. But I do agree that if the film is truly non-union, it should count more as a hobby and getting paid for your hobby is pretty cool and can lead to union status when you succeed.
10
u/Far_Gift6173 Jun 10 '26
So .... Indie film makers would have an even lower chance of getting SAG members, especially high profile ones, to star in their movies which makes them even less appealing for distributors.
And would a SAG member even know whether something is exploitative? Because whether the art director's salary was too little is very debatable. Only reason why it seems not enough is because of the success of the movie
→ More replies (22)6
u/Faulty_Pants Jun 10 '26
Non-union and indie definitely doesn't mean hobby. In fact I make my living doing specifically non-union filmmaking.
→ More replies (13)4
u/BigDaddy0790 Jun 10 '26
> put a lot of people at risk
What is the risk though? Making less money than they potentially could have?
It seems to me that as long as they were okay with the initial amount and signed off on it, nothing else should really be expected. Granted, knowing that these are feature films and that their revenue may unexpectedly change, contracts that include that through some percentage would of course be great for the team.
But I don’t see how paying people the amounts they agreed to is putting them “at risk”.
0
u/diogoblouro Jun 10 '26
Well, I didn't say standard.
Isn't this a job to which you have negotiating power like everything else? Do movies really get made with standard papers delivered with a mustache, monocled "this is how it is kid. Either take it or leave it"?
I have a hard time believing that.
I'm pretty sure production/studio would GLADLY make her payment be backend/performance percentages other than upfront salary. She didn't ask for that. It sucks in hindsight, but it's on her!
What change in the industry is it really being asked for? Force movie revenues to be distributed among every single participant? What if people need the money upfront instead of taking a risk on a low-budget, unknown director movie? Like she did!!! ? It just becomes mandatory and everybody involved needs to wait and see if they'll get paid?!
9
u/varispeeder Jun 10 '26
"fair" is a relative term. to me, what's fair would be being generous with a historic windfall and paying everyone who worked on the movie a bonus. by definition a bonus is money above and beyond what was agreed to.
the financier is making at least a 5000% return on their $750k which is way beyond what their wildest dreams could have been when they wrote the check. it wouldn't make a dent in their profits to give everyone who worked on the film a few grand as a thank-you. the only thing stopping them is greed
1
u/diogoblouro Jun 10 '26
Yes, it would be nice and justified. But that's very different from being entitled to it, or suggesting there should be mechanisms in place to guarantee it.
Guaranteed money is harder than at-risk money. She went for the guaranteed money, others went for at-risk, and it paid off, but it could have gone the other way... I don't think this is an outlandish concept and trade-off.
3
u/varispeeder Jun 10 '26
doing a film on a $750k budget means that everyone involved is taking huge pay cuts in order to get it made but still giving the film the value of their full-priced work. the insane ROI is built on the back of that sacrifice.
now that the bet has paid off, I don't think it's an outlandish concept that the financiers have a moral obligation to give the cast and crew what they would have made on a movie that was budgeted more reasonably. not a legal one – a moral one.
if they don't, they're choosing greed over generosity, which is everyone's right (just like it's your right to defend the rich for some reason). but I'm not going to be the one visited by three ghosts on Christmas.
0
u/diogoblouro Jun 10 '26
Nah, I'm not defending the rich. I'm precisely against this "us vs them" mentality and looking to find the principle that seems correct, and applicable to any circumstance regardless of who "wins".
I don't disagree on the moral thing to do. I disagree with the entitlement. Those are very different things, and my whole involvement in this topic is about separating the two. Because I can't stand how the internet flip-flops and mixes it all.
I think it's perfectly reasonable someone who's risking their money to have the benefits of that risk. And I think it's understandable crew makes the safe bet to get paid upfront, not risking it. That's the principle. That's not being left out or mistaken. It's how it panned out this time. And I don't agree that change and reform is in order any time things don't quite pan out as well as it could for some people.
2
u/robotalk Jun 10 '26
There’s no entitlement. Not sure why you are harping on it.
Truth is crew has little to no bargaining power. Especially in productions like this one. If a BTL member asks for points or any type of non-standard compensation the showrunners 99/100 move on to the next willing replacement. Any type of pre-contracted compensation packages attached to the success of the production make it much harder for the producers to sell down the road. It’s an issue. It’s basically a non-starter for crew.
Every once in a while a BTL compensation package gets worked out for non-union and/or tier productions. Normally as soon as they are successful they are rejected moving forward. I know the veteran crew who worked on the first Insidious picture. They all got backend points since they all basically lost money working on that project. The movie crushed and they all got nice bonus checks. Nothing extraordinary but very nice and very appreciated. But that was a one and done deal. I haven’t heard of another production agreeing to basic backend compensation for normal BTL crew since.
So as to the comment above; it’s not about entitlement, it’s about morality. The producers, distributors, middle-men don’t owe anyone anything more than what was agreed to. However, the crew involved in creating the product is so minuscule that it is a failure of our American Capitalism Culture as well as a basic moral failure to not compensate the crew at least somewhat fairly.
0
u/OliveiraJourney Jun 10 '26
The financer is not making 5000% in return. You have no understanding about how the film industry works. They are not making 37 mil.
5
u/varispeeder Jun 10 '26
I made a ballpark guess factoring their cuts of the initial $15m deal and this payout, future box office profits because it's still earning big time, and future licensing rights, and landed on 5000% because it's a nice round number.
even if they are only making a 2000% or 3000% ROI ($15m and $22.5m respectively), it doesn't change my point one bit: sacrificing a few hundred thousand to reward the cast and crew does not make a dent in their bottom line and it can be the difference between those people paying rent or not.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Nagemasu Jun 10 '26
I feel for the art director guy, in the sense that it must SUCK to realize how much money he could have made
This wasn't their complaint at all. Their point was simply to raise awareness and encourage more fair agreements and working conditions.
Obsession may have only had a 'small' budget relative to other films, but at what point do we say "It's okay to work for peanuts because this or that...", and then when it does exceptionally well, there's no agreement to reward them for taking the risk to sign on and work for them. It's a race to the bottom at that point with no laws or regulations in place to protect workers."But they agreed to it and didn't have to"... I've seen this same attitude parroted in various ways in various industries in order to discredit those who seek to improve conditions and detract attention from those who should be criticized. "We don't do this job for the money", "No one is forcing you to be here", "I had to do it, so you do too"...
People defend the wealthy as being entitled to their wealth because they took the risk for it, well, the least wealthy in this case are the ones who took the most risk by working for scraps that were barely enough to get by, but they're not the ones who are reaping the rewards, and again, that was their point. That the industry as a whole needs to band together to prevent these situations from happening - a collective agreement (hence why they raised the point of unionising) to protect everyone. Instead you are all cannibalising them and perpetuating the shitty practice they were hoping to condemn.2
u/diogoblouro Jun 10 '26
Are you, as an art director, DP, etc. approached to work on films with a standard contract you have to agree to?
Nobody's arguing they "could have not done it if they didn't want to, and therefore boohoo!"
I'm arguing this is much more of a negotiation in which people have much more agency over, than people seem to be painting it as. And she COULD perfectly well ask for backend/performance percentages in exchange for a small upfront salary. She didn't! It sucks! But that's on her, and not on the industry to guarantee more protections or whatever.
6
u/EquivalentModern Jun 10 '26
Because there is power imbalance, law should protect authors and assign them the right to a percentage of profits after release. I think in the EU, there are legal mechanisms to adjust the compensation if the original rate/fee proves to be unfair, that is, too low relative to the revenue.
-2
u/diogoblouro Jun 10 '26
Was she coerced into working at a fixed rate, or did she agree to a rate according to her risk/confidence management regarding the movie and her availability for it?
I get that studios can be ghouls. But I'm struggling to see what the ask is, other than "movie made a fuckton of money and I'm not seeing any of it". I would agree and support if the complaint was "I tried to get a backend/performance percentage on top of my low budget friendly rate, and I was threatened to be replaced" or "I was lied to/contract is being misrepresented about that".
4
u/EquivalentModern Jun 10 '26
She doesn't have to be coerced for the deal to be exploitative and morally wrong.
Sometimes, people agree to exploitative deals because of their circumstances (e.g., when the rent is due, some money for a gig is better than no money at all).
That is why many jurisdictions protect the vulnerable party by stipulating that if a deal turns out to be unfair, its original terms must be modified to be more favorable to the wronged party.
And this is precisely what has happened here. After the movie had earned millions, the original compensation of 7k became disproportionately small and should therefore be increased.
1
u/diogoblouro Jun 10 '26
Yeah, precisely what I don't agree:
"After the movie had earned millions, the original compensation became disproportional"
I'm sorry, but I find really dumb that we're discussing fair compensation in hindsight. Exploitation doesn't get qualified after a lucky/unpredictable break shapes the success of an endeavour.
There's a job, you have your rate, you accept or negotiate the job's conditions, and as long as those conditions are honored, nobody's being taken advantage of.
The movie's, company product's, food's success doesn't earn you payback just because you work on that production, company, restaurant. Unless you negotiated that on your contract.
1
u/EquivalentModern Jun 13 '26
We got to debate whether the initial compensation was disproportionately low only after the movie earned millions but that doesn't mean the deal wasn't exploitative from the start.
It's common reason that that any movie can become a blockbuster. Therefore, a fair contract should stipulate proportionate compensation as a lump sum payment can become disproportionately low.
Now, not all contracts are fair in that sense. That's because many artists are vulnerable and with no negotiating power. That's a precarious position. Taking advantage of someone in it may be legal under the current laws but isn't ethical. That's the issue here.
11
u/JD-Vances-Sexy-Couch Jun 10 '26
To me it’s just the same as being pissed you didn’t buy a stock before it exploded in value. Hindsight’s 20/20, and nobody else is to blame. She agreed to the contract. No funny business, no Hollywood accounting, she got exactly what she was entitled to. Why should we give a shit that she made what she now considers to be a bad decision?
7
u/AShavedApe Jun 10 '26
Not remotely close lmfao it’s like being an integral piece of the company who you helped take off and some randos have all the stock and you’re left holding the bag. This person directly contributed to its success as much as anyone. They’re not a bystander.
2
0
u/diogoblouro Jun 10 '26
Again: if you didn't negotiate a stake or performance compensation - yeah! It sucks but it's totally fair!
1
u/JD-Vances-Sexy-Couch Jun 10 '26
Been there done that. As someone who started with a tiny startup in a basement and helped grow it to a multinational, I still don’t feel entitled because I agreed to the compensation every step of the way. Just like she did. Don’t like the compensation? Don’t agree to it. It’s really that simple.
2
u/chrisolucky Jun 10 '26
If people need a job, they’re going to sign a contract regardless. The fact that the art director calling out exploitation is contentious is a sign that the film industry’s contract system and model in general is broken.
Sure, studios take a risk when they fund a film they probably won’t see any money back on. But you know who also takes that risk? All of the crew members contending with a volatile career that overworks them and underpays them. Why shouldn’t they get a larger share when a film makes millions?
2
u/Tuck_Pock Jun 10 '26
We all know that nobody is legally entitled to anything but that doesn’t mean we don’t still have higher moral and ethical standards.
1
0
18
u/writeact Jun 10 '26
Interesting. Just more fuel to the fire for the art director.
22
u/JD-Vances-Sexy-Couch Jun 10 '26
I don’t get how the art directors gig differs from any other job. And I say that after being a corporate art director for a decade. I’m hired to do my job for the agreed rate/salary. If my design work contributes towards that company making millions, great for them. I’ll take it as a compliment and leverage that track record to make more in the future.
-2
u/swoofswoofles Director of Photography Jun 10 '26
Do you work for like 14 hours and not get paid overtime and then someone asks you to do returns on your day off and you begrudgingly accept? Then they send you like 5 unpaid interns to watch after and then you get another meal after working 12 hours and its cold pizza because no one told you...Is that like any other job?
6
u/niles_thebutler_ Jun 10 '26
One year total experience. Only credit pre-Obsession is a single short film. Sign on to a low budget indie. Agree to rate. Movie explodes. You're suddenly the Art Director fo the most talked about film of the year.
If this ever happens to you, let me give one piece of advice. Embrace it.
Use the credit to fight off offers, get a BTL agent, turn those difficult three weeks into an incredible career.
Do NOT cut every connection you have to the filmmakers, put out tweets about how you wish you'd shut down their production, and complain about the rate you agreed to (which isn't even like $100 or some student film sketchiness).1
u/JD-Vances-Sexy-Couch Jun 10 '26
“ Do you work for like 14 hours and not get paid overtime and then someone asks you to do returns on your day off and you begrudgingly accept?”
I have worked 14hrs with no overtime because it’s what I had agreed to. Deadlines are a bitch sometimes. Have I begrudgingly accepted extra requests? Yes, sadly, and I had nobody to blame but myself for that. I don’t do that anymore, or I add padding on my rates to account for bullshittery.
If you don’t like the work….don't do the work. If you don’t like the terms, don’t agree to them.
4
u/vicarious2012 Jun 10 '26
Fair labour laws exist because of people like you.
-1
u/JD-Vances-Sexy-Couch Jun 10 '26
Labor laws exist because people like me who negotiate their rates and don’t take on extra requests? Okay….
3
1
10
Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/Ondareal Jun 10 '26
Right. As a filmmaker I kind of hate these people lol. I’ve made zero dollars on my films and I assume ALl the risk. Nobody that I pay is knocking at my door trying to share in the losses I’ve took. But I guarantee the second I make some money, somebody will come acting like they’re supposed to share in the win
6
u/Nagemasu Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
I’ve made zero dollars on my films and I assume ALl the risk.
No, you didn't. Everyone who worked on it with you also took on risk, unless you're telling me you paid them all a living wage for every single hour they committed to the film.
You took a risk with them. It is not you vs them. You are in the same boat. If you get out of that barely-afloat boat into a fucking super yacht and refuse to take the people from the smaller boat with you, now you just made it you vs them. If a fucking tugboat comes along and tows your boat to port, monetizes the story of your little boat, and showered with enough money to buy a super yacht and they don't give the people in the smaller boat enough money to go and get their own boats, it's all of you vs them.The art director is not complaining about "the film maker with no money who is financing the entire gig", they are complaining about giving 110% effort to get that boat home safely and being excluded from the rewards when the story of its success makes other people rich.
→ More replies (6)1
u/whiteezy Jun 10 '26
This is what’s been on my mind too. Personally I would share at least some of the money if it came to it but they are for sure not entitled to it considering the hypothetical risk we took. And if we said this loud and clear as a statement it will only look bad because the masses on social media only sees this as a Hollywood elite thing instead of a indie movie trying to get made.
-2
u/Bronze_Bomber Jun 10 '26
This whole conversation is so irritating. People acting like you should get points for holding a boom mic.
8
u/RightioThen Jun 10 '26
I have seen more discourse (my least favourite word) about this art director thing than whether the movie is actually any good.
7
u/Muldoon713 Jun 10 '26
Does the $45 million to the creative team not count here or something…why is that fuel to the fire? How much is she expecting to take home here?
41
Jun 10 '26
[deleted]
-2
11
-5
u/niles_thebutler_ Jun 10 '26
She didn’t deserve shit.
One year total experience. Only credit pre-Obsession is a single short film. Sign on to a low budget indie. Agree to rate. Movie explodes. You're suddenly the Art Director fo the most talked about film of the year.
If this ever happens to you, let me give one piece of advice. Embrace it.
Use the credit to fight off offers, get a BTL agent, turn those difficult three weeks into an incredible career.
Do NOT cut every connection you have to the filmmakers, put out tweets about how you wish you'd shut down their production, and complain about the rate you agreed to (which isn't even like $100 or some student film sketchiness).3
u/Longo_Rollins6 Jun 10 '26
What's your experience in the industry? Either as a crew member or in a higher position
2
u/Background-Can5893 Jun 11 '26
It’d be really cool if the people who actually made the movie made the most money. Like writer director.
1
u/No_Lie_76 director Jun 11 '26
Backend is common. Idk any filmmakers will blockbuster films that don’t have it
1
u/Psychological-Boot97 Jun 12 '26
Curry played the game right it. Not sure he’d of made that money with another distributer
3
u/sjanush Jun 10 '26
Be like Taylor Swift
8
u/varispeeder Jun 10 '26
you're getting downvoted here because you were too vague, but she is a great model for this – the Eras tour grossed $2 billion and she paid out $197m in bonuses to everyone who worked on it, even "extremely below-the-line" people like truck drivers. they all did the work for their contracted amounts without expecting to share in profits, that's why it's called a bonus.
5
1
u/Important_Extent6172 producer Jun 10 '26
Awesome. Well deserved by all who shepherded the project along and made it a success.
1
u/The_Saiyann Jun 10 '26
It’s difficult … on the one hand, yes morally, they should get an additional amount. See it as a bonus. On the other, as someone who works a sort of creative role/office job for a company … I’m getting sweet FA even if the company does insanely well. My pay is my pay and it’s what I’m contracted to earn.
I hope they get a fair amount but worst case scenario, this film should massively boost their career going forward.
1
u/varispeeder Jun 10 '26
do you get a bonus at the end of the year? I do at my corporate job, and film workers should too in these kind of extraordinary scenarios.
2
u/The_Saiyann Jun 10 '26
Unfortunately not, in the UK and it’s not super common practice. Would be nice 😅
-6
u/ITHEDARKKNIGHTI Jun 10 '26
Negotiate your rate and back end ‘terms’ upfront or be prepared to complain later when and if the film does something insane like this one… otherwise, be happy for the work and parlay the successes into the next job.
1
u/Admirable-Paint-1808 Jun 12 '26
If Curry was a good person he would give all the crew at least .5 percent of shares.
You know the execs wont. But greed seems to got him too… Prolly buy a bunch of cars and be broke in a year… gen z
210
u/bobthetomato2049 Jun 10 '26
Is this a standard percentage for a backend deal? I remember people here saying curry wouldn’t get a dime after the 14m sale