If a person's name is listed as "uncredited" it usually means they were Background or doing Extra work. They are still checked off by Production Company/Office to verify to IMDB that indeed this person was part of the production, even as a BG person.
Maybe I'm missing this, but I'm not coming across anything like this. And anyone who "pays" for anything like this, well there is a saying, there's a sucker born every minute...right now there's a dangerous precedent being set for 'companies' "choosing" you to pay anywhere from $30 to $80 dollars a month to get guaranteed background work. Background work, not even real acting gigs with actual lines or U-5's! Just to guarantee you will work several days a week, just pay a fee and you will be part of their cattle roster.
And so far, a couple have been reported and shut down. But some so-called actors, desperate for work, will PAY in order to do BG work, then try to make it seem that they are in some kind of high demand for their "work".
All they do is set a bad precedent. The pay for BG work isn't high to begin with. Why set the bar lower by doing this, paying for it, I don't know.
This toootally isn't the shadiest first post I've ever seen on this board...
But, hey. I'm definitely gonna buy my own credit and try to come up with an answer when a CD asks my agent why I never showed up in a film that I have 'credit' for. Legal? Ethical? Who cares, right?
P.S. You need to learn how Kickstarter and IndieGoGo actually work. You also need to know how crowdfunding works -- a lot of people might be doing it, but it's coming under legal scrutiny. So, seriously, careful.
Also there is a difference between donating to Kickstarter for a role or producers credit on an indie film and paying 20 bucks to get producing credit on a major Hollywood film. Charlie Sheen is one of the producers. He probably invested a couple hundred thousand or more and for a couple bucks I can get the same producers credit on the same film. That has to be illegal.
There is a huge difference. I'm not a fan of crowdfunding, but there's a huge, huge difference. Agreed.
Rob (the writer) responded to a message I sent him and he said she owns the rights to the film (how when theres major producers including Charlie Sheen) and since he owns the rights he can add any credits he wants lol. Is that true? That would be hurting the other poducers investment and breaking the law obviously.
Lol. Breaking the law? No. I'm not sure what law he would be breaking unless he was illegally selling shares of the film. But even now, the rules about how you can solicit investors are changing. Is it good form on a big project? No. On a small
crowd funded project where the expectation is that small donors get producer credits...yeah, I think that's ok. And I'm pretty sure Charlie sheen doesn't give a f about people diluting his producer cred. He cares about his points on the back end. In fact, it's the film that benefits from using his name as a producer, not really the other way around.
Are you a lawyer? I am sure there are laws against false representation.
Regardless of whether its even illegal or not, it is most definitely a breach of the SAG contract, and most likely as well the DGA, IATSE, and pretty much all the other union contracts that one may sign.
No, but I'm a producer who deals with legal and contractual issues quite a bit, and I understand the difference between selling securities and asking for donations...
I suppose if the production had a contract with Charlie saying that they wouldn't give out credits in this manner, Charlie could sue them for breach of contract. That's the only thing I can think of.
But let's be real...what if Charlie didn't put money in...and didn't take care of any producer duties. Let's say he got the credit because, well, he's Charlie Sheen, and he demanded it as part of his contract.
Is that more unethical than the little guy paying for a credit?
Shades of gray, people.
If this guy was saying pay me to actually come WORK on set as a PA or a producer, then he would surely be breaking the law.
One more note - this is also the reason that the PGA has it's new seal of approval thingie...so that the real producers can be discerned from the ones who are credit-only.
Oh that's not where the illegality of this comes from. First, we will ignore the fact that giving someone an actor credit who did not act in the film and just paid their way in it, is most certainly breaking the SAG Agreement. Which therefore makes it a breach of contract, which t oerefore is illegal. But, misrepresentation is in fact a thing
Also, I'm not one for making assumptions as to what Charlie Sheen may or may not have done.
Syphus, I think you're greatly confused about what types of things fall under SAG's jurisdiction. Which SAG agreement is being broken, exactly? I could be wrong, but unless some service is being provided by the person paying for the credit, how could SAG intervene?
And I don't give a f$ck about Charlie Sheen. I was trying to prove a point.
Gah. This is why producers hate actors. And I say that as an actor!
Because you are adding fake credits on a major film. This isn't an indie film. When you say you are a producer, a real producer with major films on your resume or an indie film producer?
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|