DP Needed for Full Length Feature for Fall/Winter 2007 in San Antonio/Austin, TX Area

[Rogelio Salinas]

I am still in the planning and pre-production stages of the film, but we will begin shooting later this year. I currently have a deposit for a RED One with an 18-85mm lens, but I would rather hire a DP with a RED One. I am still in the fundraising stage of production. The main reason I would rather higher a DP with a RED One due to article 181 of American Jobs Creation Act that allows sponsors and investors to write off 100% of the funds they contribute to a motion picture shooting in the US as long as 75% of the contributions are paid to the cast and crew. The length of the shoot is in the process of being determined. I was looking at originally shooting with the HD200, but RED is the way to go. The only requirements are that the DP owns and becomes familiar with shooting with a RED One, that that they have a creative eye for motion picture shooting, and that they be flexible during our shooting schedule. The position will be one of the only paid positions. Myself along with the other actors are going to be non-paid or deferred payments. They are very excited about just being part of the project.

The name of the project is SOLITAIRE and is best described as a Christian Martial Arts Drama. I would prefer not to give details on this board, but please contact me if you would like to know further details about the story and if you would be interested in working with this creative and experimental project that should truly stand out once it has been completed. This project has been in the works for many years and is finally coming into fruition. The lead roles have already been cast, several locations have already been secured with more to come, and I am in the process of storyboarding the script to help with the shoot as well. Please email me if you live in the Austin/San Antonio region and would be interested. Thanks.

Rogelio Salinas III
odysseydvd@hotmail.com

[donatello b]

wow !! great find !
never seen/heard of this before !!!

here's a few links that give a little more info on article 181

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/section_181_qa.pdf

http://www.reish.com/publications/pdf/entertainmentaug05.pdf ...... page 2

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/section_181_runaway_provision.pdf

http://www.fvldlaw.com/articles/FVLD_Legal_Update_Runaway_Productions_0606.pdf

[beatniq]

The lead roles have already been cast, several locations have already been secured with more to come, and I am in the process of storyboarding the script to help with the shoot as well.

Thank God someone still storyboards. I can't tell you how many low-budget indy's I've worked on where the producers only had around like 100k or 200k and there were no storyboards. Every single time it's the same. They hire some half-assed "DP" with questionable credentials, get on set and figure the shots out as they go. It's unbelievable to me. Not only does it waste time on set, but as we all know time is money and money is NOT something indy's are able to waste. The most ironic thing about this is that the studio shoots I've worked on, the one's that probably COULD afford to waste a little more time, DID have storyboards. I believe this is a sign of professionalism and dedication to their craft and the story. No doubt the director's who work on huge studio projects made their way up through their own indy projects, where they probably storyboarded EVERYTHING, so it doesn't surprise me that they are the the ones who rose to the top.

I just don't understand how someone can invest that much of their livelihood into a project which is supposed to be their baby and not be fully prepared.

Anyway, just wanted to say that... :) Good luck to you and your film.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I really like the shoots where they have the script, they have the storyboards... Then on set they throw them away and re-invent everything as they go.

[beatniq]

I really like the shoots where they have the script, they have the storyboards... Then on set they throw them away and re-invent everything as they go.

lol... never experienced that one before... that's funny

[Jason Francois]

I am still in the planning and pre-production stages of the film, but we will begin shooting later this year. I currently have a deposit for a RED One with an 18-85mm lens, but I would rather hire a DP with a RED One. I am still in the fundraising stage of production. The main reason I would rather higher a DP with a RED One due to article 181 of American Jobs Creation Act that allows sponsors and investors to write off 100% of the funds they contribute to a motion picture shooting in the US as long as 75% of the contributions are paid to the cast and crew. The length of the shoot is in the process of being determined. I was looking at originally shooting with the HD200, but RED is the way to go. The only requirements are that the DP owns and becomes familiar with shooting with a RED One, that that they have a creative eye for motion picture shooting, and that they be flexible during our shooting schedule. The position will be one of the only paid positions. Myself along with the other actors are going to be non-paid or deferred payments. They are very excited about just being part of the project.

The name of the project is SOLITAIRE and is best described as a Christian Martial Arts Drama. I would prefer not to give details on this board, but please contact me if you would like to know further details about the story and if you would be interested in working with this creative and experimental project that should truly stand out once it has been completed. This project has been in the works for many years and is finally coming into fruition. The lead roles have already been cast, several locations have already been secured with more to come, and I am in the process of storyboarding the script to help with the shoot as well. Please email me if you live in the Austin/San Antonio region and would be interested. Thanks.

Rogelio Salinas III
odysseydvd@hotmail.com

Hey Rogelio. I have to go back and do some research, but I think Article 181 is only viable if your budget is over $1million US. Again, I haven't looked at it for a while and if you've dug deep enough to find that clause in the first place you may be more aware than me.

You may also be raising over a million, but with non-paid crew and actors, I would assume you're going well below that budget.

Anyway, best of luck and let me know if I'm wrong, so that I can adjust my brain. :)

EDIT: I just started skimming the articles that Donatello provided and nothing on a min. budget so far. THAT WOULD BE AMAZING. I will have to go back to my documents, because being able to use this for a $200k movie is MUCH more doable. Thanks for brining this up.

EDIT: I stand corrected on my earliest comment. There is nothing that states a min. budget. GREAT NEWS. thanks again Rogelio and good luck.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

lol... never experienced that one before... that's funny
Only happened to me once... It was the first paying gig I landed with my brand new DVX100. It was a commercial for a local casino and I think it turned out better than what they would have had, if they had stuck to the script...

[Rogelio Salinas]

Hey Rogelio. I have to go back and do some research, but I think Article 181 is only viable if your budget is over $1million US. Again, I haven't looked at it for a while and if you've dug deep enough to find that clause in the first place you may be more aware than me.

You may also be raising over a million, but with non-paid crew and actors, I would assume you're going well below that budget.

Anyway, best of luck and let me know if I'm wrong, so that I can adjust my brain. :)

EDIT: I just started skimming the articles that Donatello provided and nothing on a min. budget so far. THAT WOULD BE AMAZING. I will have to go back to my documents, because being able to use this for a $200k movie is MUCH more doable. Thanks for brining this up.

THE CREW WILL BE PAID. The actors (including myself) are non-paid or deferred payment.

The only budget constraint to Article 181 is that the budget can be no more than $15mil ($20mil for certain projects), but there is no minimum budget, which works great for indie filmmakers trying to raise funds for their project.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This article 181 thing is awesome. I didn't know about it and it definitely deserves some further exploration.

[_BK]

thanks for the links, I did not know about this.

[Jason Francois]

THE CREW WILL BE PAID. The actors (including myself) are non-paid or deferred payment.

The only budget constraint to Article 181 is that the budget can be no more than $15mil ($20mil for certain projects), but there is no minimum budget, which works great for indie filmmakers trying to raise funds for their project.

yeah, that's amazing Rogelio. I keep reading the docs over and over again, just because I can't believe it. I was planning a feature last year, but I started to get nervous about the million dollar min., but now I'm going to push forward my feature at a much lower budget thanks to you. :) I guess next time i'll take more than one person's opinion before calling it law. :)

I hope you find the DP you need and can't wait to hear updates on the project.

Best of luck,
Jason

[Brook Willard]

I'm popping this over to OT.

[launches threadapult]

[Rogelio Salinas]

I really like the shoots where they have the script, they have the storyboards... Then on set they throw them away and re-invent everything as they go.

To be honest I prefer improv over scripts any day. Most of our previous works were improv, but this project will benefit from sticking to the script, but I'll give one detail about the full length script. There is only one spoken word in the entire script.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Great, I will be the sound guy!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I get to be the dialogue coach!

[Rogelio Salinas]

You are both hired. I want to ensure that this one word is spoken with as much annunciation as possible. I was actually thinking of using "ROSEBUD" or "REDONE", but I did not want to dishonor the great Orson Welles. Really though sound is going to play a very important part in the production.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

So what is the one word? Do I get a cookie if I guess it?

[S. Um]

Rogelio,

I think that you are misinterpreting the law. Section 181 says that at least 75% of the total compensation of the production must be paid for services performed in the US by actors, directors, producers, etc. This is not 75% of the production expenses, just 75% of the compensation. Therefore, my interpretation is that if you only pay $1 in compensation total, but it was to an actor in the U.S., then you can deduct the full production cost.

That's just my interpretation, and I'm not an accountant. I would welcome other people's views.

I think the last article that Donatello cited agrees with this opinion as well.

http://www.fvldlaw.com/articles/FVLD_Legal_Update_Runaway_Productions_0606.pdf

[Rogelio Salinas]

Rogelio,

I think that you are misinterpreting the law. Section 181 says that at least 75% of the total compensation of the production must be paid for services performed in the US by actors, directors, producers, etc. This is not 75% of the production expenses, just 75% of the compensation. Therefore, my interpretation is that if you only pay $1 in compensation total, but it was to an actor in the U.S., then you can deduct the full production cost.

That's just my interpretation, and I'm not an accountant. I would welcome other people's views.

I think the last article that Donatello cited agrees with this opinion as well.

http://www.fvldlaw.com/articles/FVLD_Legal_Update_Runaway_Productions_0606.pdf

You are correct. I hope I didn't give the impression that it was 75% of the total production cost. It is basically 75% of the costs have to go toward director, producers, actors (basically cast & crew compensation). That is why I would prefer to hire a DP with a RED ONE and pay him/her directly instead of purchasing the camera, because Article 181 will only benefit our sponsors and contributors if I hire someone and pay them instead of purchasing the equipment myself. The reason for 181 was that many productions were moving to Canada and other countries, and this was one way to keep some of these runaway projects from going elsewhere. What the act is intended to do is bring more money to the US economy by hiring film crews working in the US.

[Nick Shaw]

Don't know why I'm getting involved in this one, since I am not a US resident. Maybe it's because I am putting off finishing my own tax return that needs to be filed today!

One thing that occurs to me is that Article 181 specifically said that the money must be paid "for services". Does an owner operator charging for himself with the camera count as a service? Or would it need to be split between the payment for the service and the payment for equipment rental. If this is not the case, it seems it would be too easy for a producer to set up a separate company which purchased equipment, and then rented it to the production company to qualify under the terms of the article.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Here in the USA, a service is typically something performed by someone in exchange for compensation. If a DP shows up on a shoot and does his thing, even if he provides all the camera gear, he is performing a service. Now at the end of a shoot, if he hands over tapes or other media containing what he shot, then those are tangible goods (so is the intellectual property contained on the media). So he technically should break out the costs of the media handed over and any applicable taxes as a separate portion of his invoice and/or contract.

As for setting up separate companies, no need to do that, although it could simplify some things, possibly complicating others. But It's entirely possible to have your company purchase equipment and then the company can be compensated (by itself) via the production for usage of the equipment. Equipment, wheather it's camera gear, construction equipment, office equipment like copiers, etc.. can be charged or credited internally for usage within most buisness structures. I can buy RED and I can produce a feature using RED and in my internal accounting, this feature can be a specific job. This job has its own budget and included in that budget can be funds that return to the company for usage of the RED camera. As in a rental or use fee... May as well do this because it is a piece of equipment that has a fair market value for its use and if your own jobs can't pay for your equipment, then why buy it?

I'm looking into article 181 and I'm a bit hazy on some of the details. I need to find an attorney and/or accountant in my area that has a better understanding of it. However, it's so vaguely written that I fear it's wide open to interpretation and I could see my accountant and government auditors in an argument over what is deductable and what isn't.

So article 181 is a nice theory and I'm definitely willing to try it. But I'm not confident enough to go shoot a feature with funds I can't pay back if my deductions don't come through.

[Jason Francois]

It's amazing to me that once something is developed as a legal document, it becomes impossible to interpret. You almost wonder if most legal papers aren't meant to trip people up.

Much of 181 is pretty loosely defined as AppliedVisual mentioned. Could be OK or could be trouble if the government decides to push back on something. they also speak about being able to reevaluate at times as well.

It would be tough to move forward on a project under one ideal and have it evaporate.

Oh, well. I am going to keep digging and contact and attorney/accountant in the next few weeks.

[S. Um]

You are correct. I hope I didn't give the impression that it was 75% of the total production cost. It is basically 75% of the costs have to go toward director, producers, actors (basically cast & crew compensation). That is why I would prefer to hire a DP with a RED ONE and pay him/her directly instead of purchasing the camera, because Article 181 will only benefit our sponsors and contributors if I hire someone and pay them instead of purchasing the equipment myself. The reason for 181 was that many productions were moving to Canada and other countries, and this was one way to keep some of these runaway projects from going elsewhere. What the act is intended to do is bring more money to the US economy by hiring film crews working in the US.

I don't think we're connecting yet. You're saying that 75% of the costs have to go to the cast and crew. I'm saying that 75% of the compensation have to go to cast and crew in the U.S. Say your production costs $500k, but you only paid $100k in compensation to cast and crew. As long as at least 75% of that $100k compensation was in the U.S., then you can write off the whole $500k production cost. So it doesn't matter if you buy a Red or hire a DP with a Red.


So article 181 is a nice theory and I'm definitely willing to try it. But I'm not confident enough to go shoot a feature with funds I can't pay back if my deductions don't come through.

Definitely don't spend the money if you can't afford to lose it. This law is not intended for people to avoid paying taxes, just to encourage "low" budget production in the U.S. It can take several years to recoup the costs for movies and TV shows, and usually production companies have to amortize the cost over several years. This just allows them to take the full deduction in the first year. They still have to pay taxes when (or if) the money comes in.

Again, I'm not an accountant.

[donatello b]

i agree with Sumfun - the Article doesn't state 75% of production cost but 75% of compensation ($$) to crew/talent/relevent personal must go to persons/company's in USA .. the persons do NOT have to be US citizens .. they must do the work and be paid on USA soil ( you can bring in foreign talent) ...

http://www.fvldlaw.com/articles/FVLD_Legal_Update_Runaway_Productions_0606.pdf


here's the way i look at it ... if i invest 5k in a project i know from the start it has a 90%+ chance it is not going to make a dime - then i might have to wait 5-10 year to write it off as it goes through it's run cycle..
under 181 i can write it off NOW - now any $$ i receive from project down the line i'll have to declare as income at that time ...
if i give to a non profit film i can write it off in the current year and there is no $$ income down the line ...

[Rogelio Salinas]

[QUOTE=Sumfun;8808]I don't think we're connecting yet. You're saying that 75% of the costs have to go to the cast and crew. I'm saying that 75% of the compensation have to go to cast and crew in the U.S. Say your production costs $500k, but you only paid $100k in compensation to cast and crew. As long as at least 75% of that $100k compensation was in the U.S., then you can write off the whole $500k production cost. So it doesn't matter if you buy a Red or hire a DP with a Red.

I meant to say compensation instead of costs, but I believe you may be right about purchasing the RED. So if $50,000 is spent on equipment and extra $10,000 is spent on compensating cast and crew, then the entire $60,000 can be written off, is this right? I will have to look a little further into it.

[S. Um]

Yes, that's what I think. The FVLD article seems to agree as well.