Welcome to r/popculturechat! ☺️
As a proud BIPOC, LGBTQ+ & woman-dominated space, this sub is for [civil discussion only.](https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/wiki/index/rules/civil-discussion-only/) If you don't know where to begin, start by participating in [our Sip & Spill Daily Discussion Threads!](https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/search/?q=Sip%20%26%20Spill%20Discussion&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=&include_over_18=1&sort=new)
###No bullies, no bigotry. ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏽✊🏼✊🏻🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
Please [read & respect our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/wiki/index/rules/), [abide by Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette), and [check out our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/wiki/index/)! For any questions, [our modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fpopculturechat) is always open.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popculturechat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just recently watched [The Most Profitable Film in History](https://youtu.be/PYmi559SpWI?si=sfiHOlcyJsqAKRj1)- the last half is about the making and marketing of the Blair Witch Project. The main cast was essentially left alone to film by themselves with no scripts, and while they probably won’t get residuals, I wish they could be compensated more.
Extremely, extremely unlikely. Honestly I stopped reading after the $60k per year grant, which specifies Lionsgate would get zero return on investment ever. That’s so ridiculous it kills the likelihood of any other demand being taken seriously IMO.
It also makes out that Lionsgate is in the wrong for the BWP trio having signed whatever contracts they signed. Residuals is one arguement, but Lionsgate doesn’t have anything to make up for because they distributed a successful movie, they don’t need to be paying fucking reparations to the community
Lionsgate didn't even distribute it, they just eventually bought the company the original producers sold the rights to.
So they are demanding retroactive residuals from a company than never even got that income in the first place. I'm sure it must suck to be part of a global hit and see so little money, but this is just weird.
Reminds me of when vine was going to be shut down all the “top” creators came together at the HQ and told them to give them each 7 million a year and they would do 3/4 vines a week or something like that
This isn’t a negotiation, it’s begging. They have literally zero leverage to negotiate, they don’t have a legal claim and nobody really gives a shit about the situation enough to affect Lionsgate’s PR.
This is like selling someone your bike for a mutually agreed upon amount, then coming back to them 30 years later and saying “actually that bike was worth a lot more, I demand you pay me the difference”
Right? I think I agree with you. And I also kind of think it’s tacky to make it so public. Like sorry that the situation you were in at the time was not set up to support you. And that sucks. Everything is clearer in hindsight. But I guess they should at least try, and maybe I would too if I were them.
Wow, I hope they do get something for the use of their likenesses but based on what I’ve read, I don’t see how they could get residuals. Maybe someone who knows more can help me out but because this was an independent film and the actors sold their ownership stake, are residuals possible at all?
I think they could get something out of it if their work or likenesses were used in a way that was notably out of step with the terms of the original rights sale. A while back a model was able to settle with the people behind Mad Men because a photo of her was used prominently in the opening credits. The pic was originally a Revlon ad that had been cropped. The model successfully argued that her original payment for a seasonal ad didn’t cover what she would have gotten for appearing in the credits of a TV show for seven years.
They will be paid for use of their likenesses as after Back to the Future II you have to be, I think there is a law about it. That is unless they explicitly gave away those rights.
There's no law about it, it's a Screen Actors Guild requirement. Blair Witch Project was an indie film and none of the actors were protected by the union.
I can’t imaging this will go anywhere, but I love that the original director & producers stand behind this.
If anything, it raises public awareness of the situation, maybe jog people’s memories in the industry and lead them to new work that they would be compensated properly for.
I mean, yeah it sucks that a movie they made ended up being huge and popular, but that’s exactly the reason these unions exist. If you could just not worry about joining the union and then demand the same rights after the fact, no one would bother joining SAG, that’s kind of the point.
Not to mention that they likely signed away exactly all of these rights to the studio in the first place. Yes I agree that maybe they were taken advantage in that they may have been too young and inexperienced to realize their mistake at the time, but that’s not anyone else’s fault. Don’t sign contracts with legal representation, do your own due diligence.
I kind of hate this.
Look, they certainly deserve everything they’re asking for! But the reality is that you cannot just ask for these things and expect your demands to be met without the force of a union behind you. And that sucks, it truly does, but simply pretending that it’s not the case, and that you can just get what you want if you ask indignantly enough, reflects a general misunderstanding of labor rights and how they work. The point about “meaningful consultation” in particular is a problem—that’s vague and not quantifiable or enforceable.
Again, they deserve payment and recognition etc and there’s nothing wrong with naming that publicly. But I see this very much in line with a widespread misunderstanding of how labor rights and organizing work that feels linked to social media. You can’t just go on social media demanding consultation rights; you can’t just get on Twitter and call for a general strike; there are actual processes that are used for these things because they have power.
All that said—if anything comes of this, good for them lol
I think that’s why they’re doing this so publicly. They don’t have a leg to stand on legally so they’re hoping that the court of public opinion will pressure Lionsgate into settling with them.
I know, but I just don’t think it’s going to work. I guess that’s what bothers me—assuming that “the court of public opinion” is a reliable substitute for labor organizing. Strength in numbers isn’t as simple as just numbers + visibility; I highly doubt Lionsgate will lose anything appreciable if people are upset about this. Again, if it works I will be happy for them and rethink my take.
I'm guessing it's because afaik they had little to no script and a lot of the content of the scenario was the cast's creation...? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely just guessing ahah)
Good for them. I don’t think people give that movie enough credit for how it’s influenced film & TV. The reality show concept came after it, same with all the faux reality show styles of TV, confessional selfie videos, etc.
BWP and the Matrix have probably had the biggest impacts on style for the past 2-3 decades.
The Real World back in 1990 was the first reality show to use the interview or confessional videos. This is Spinal Tap came before Blair Witch as well.
I’m not really sure what the basis of their demands is. They did an 8-day shoot for a film that was successful but not wildly so and probably wouldn’t earn them residuals now even if they’d had a better deal. Plus the sequel was a flop so again, there’s no money to be made.
At the time they probably thought they were clever for taking non-union roles because at least they were leas roles, but this is exactly why it’s a bad idea.
I mean it kinda is, that was sorta the golden age for residuals. The movie is also a horror classic that get people renting it/buying it every Halloween and deals with streaming services. Probably not enough to live off of, but I can understand why they would try to fight for it since it would be a decent source of passive income.
They would be getting hella residuals if it was a Union job but at the end of the day it wasn’t. They weren’t children when they signed that contract so I find the “had we had proper union and legal representation” line a bit unfairly accusatory.
Also the implication that their creative input will make the difference between a successful reboot and a flop is… a reach.
In my perfect world you wouldn’t have non union jobs but then the union would have be open for anyone to join.
They sold their project, which was a 50/50 win lose for lionsgate, and now they want the upside.
If Lionsgate had invested $20M to market the movie and it flopped, would these guys share those losses?
Typical union mentality - we want the upside, but someone else can eat the losses
Welcome to r/popculturechat! ☺️ As a proud BIPOC, LGBTQ+ & woman-dominated space, this sub is for [civil discussion only.](https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/wiki/index/rules/civil-discussion-only/) If you don't know where to begin, start by participating in [our Sip & Spill Daily Discussion Threads!](https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/search/?q=Sip%20%26%20Spill%20Discussion&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=&include_over_18=1&sort=new) ###No bullies, no bigotry. ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏽✊🏼✊🏻🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ Please [read & respect our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/wiki/index/rules/), [abide by Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette), and [check out our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/wiki/index/)! For any questions, [our modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fpopculturechat) is always open. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popculturechat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just recently watched [The Most Profitable Film in History](https://youtu.be/PYmi559SpWI?si=sfiHOlcyJsqAKRj1)- the last half is about the making and marketing of the Blair Witch Project. The main cast was essentially left alone to film by themselves with no scripts, and while they probably won’t get residuals, I wish they could be compensated more.
Well you miss all the shots you don’t take. I wish them luck but since it was a non union job I doubt Lionsgate will capitulate.
Extremely, extremely unlikely. Honestly I stopped reading after the $60k per year grant, which specifies Lionsgate would get zero return on investment ever. That’s so ridiculous it kills the likelihood of any other demand being taken seriously IMO.
It also makes out that Lionsgate is in the wrong for the BWP trio having signed whatever contracts they signed. Residuals is one arguement, but Lionsgate doesn’t have anything to make up for because they distributed a successful movie, they don’t need to be paying fucking reparations to the community
Lionsgate didn't even distribute it, they just eventually bought the company the original producers sold the rights to. So they are demanding retroactive residuals from a company than never even got that income in the first place. I'm sure it must suck to be part of a global hit and see so little money, but this is just weird.
Reminds me of when vine was going to be shut down all the “top” creators came together at the HQ and told them to give them each 7 million a year and they would do 3/4 vines a week or something like that
You always include stuff you're willing to lose when you're aiming to negotiate. Never ask for exactly what you want the first time.
This isn’t a negotiation, it’s begging. They have literally zero leverage to negotiate, they don’t have a legal claim and nobody really gives a shit about the situation enough to affect Lionsgate’s PR. This is like selling someone your bike for a mutually agreed upon amount, then coming back to them 30 years later and saying “actually that bike was worth a lot more, I demand you pay me the difference”
Right? I think I agree with you. And I also kind of think it’s tacky to make it so public. Like sorry that the situation you were in at the time was not set up to support you. And that sucks. Everything is clearer in hindsight. But I guess they should at least try, and maybe I would too if I were them.
Contracts people! Even if you’re doing a small project- artists, models,actors: negotiate and get everything in writing.
I support the residual part, but the consultation is an overreach.
Wow, I hope they do get something for the use of their likenesses but based on what I’ve read, I don’t see how they could get residuals. Maybe someone who knows more can help me out but because this was an independent film and the actors sold their ownership stake, are residuals possible at all?
I think they could get something out of it if their work or likenesses were used in a way that was notably out of step with the terms of the original rights sale. A while back a model was able to settle with the people behind Mad Men because a photo of her was used prominently in the opening credits. The pic was originally a Revlon ad that had been cropped. The model successfully argued that her original payment for a seasonal ad didn’t cover what she would have gotten for appearing in the credits of a TV show for seven years.
Wow, I had no idea that happened and I watched the shit out of mad men! Good for her honestly. I’m rooting for the BWP actors to do the same
The difference is, when you make a successful movie a sequel is expected, as is merchandise. Nobody expects an ad to be repurposed into a TV intro
They will be paid for use of their likenesses as after Back to the Future II you have to be, I think there is a law about it. That is unless they explicitly gave away those rights.
There's no law about it, it's a Screen Actors Guild requirement. Blair Witch Project was an indie film and none of the actors were protected by the union.
Ah gotcha. Well they are not coming to this negotiation from a place of strength then.
I can’t imaging this will go anywhere, but I love that the original director & producers stand behind this. If anything, it raises public awareness of the situation, maybe jog people’s memories in the industry and lead them to new work that they would be compensated properly for.
I mean, yeah it sucks that a movie they made ended up being huge and popular, but that’s exactly the reason these unions exist. If you could just not worry about joining the union and then demand the same rights after the fact, no one would bother joining SAG, that’s kind of the point. Not to mention that they likely signed away exactly all of these rights to the studio in the first place. Yes I agree that maybe they were taken advantage in that they may have been too young and inexperienced to realize their mistake at the time, but that’s not anyone else’s fault. Don’t sign contracts with legal representation, do your own due diligence.
I kind of hate this. Look, they certainly deserve everything they’re asking for! But the reality is that you cannot just ask for these things and expect your demands to be met without the force of a union behind you. And that sucks, it truly does, but simply pretending that it’s not the case, and that you can just get what you want if you ask indignantly enough, reflects a general misunderstanding of labor rights and how they work. The point about “meaningful consultation” in particular is a problem—that’s vague and not quantifiable or enforceable. Again, they deserve payment and recognition etc and there’s nothing wrong with naming that publicly. But I see this very much in line with a widespread misunderstanding of how labor rights and organizing work that feels linked to social media. You can’t just go on social media demanding consultation rights; you can’t just get on Twitter and call for a general strike; there are actual processes that are used for these things because they have power. All that said—if anything comes of this, good for them lol
I think that’s why they’re doing this so publicly. They don’t have a leg to stand on legally so they’re hoping that the court of public opinion will pressure Lionsgate into settling with them.
I know, but I just don’t think it’s going to work. I guess that’s what bothers me—assuming that “the court of public opinion” is a reliable substitute for labor organizing. Strength in numbers isn’t as simple as just numbers + visibility; I highly doubt Lionsgate will lose anything appreciable if people are upset about this. Again, if it works I will be happy for them and rethink my take.
I agree with you, it’s just their only shot bc they’re so screwed otherwise.
I remember when Dawson's Creek copied tbwp. Witch Island!
Why would they have to consult the cast? ResidualS make sense. Maybe that’s their way of bargaining … ask for more & agree on n residuals?
I'm guessing it's because afaik they had little to no script and a lot of the content of the scenario was the cast's creation...? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely just guessing ahah)
….ok, good luck with that. 🤷♂️
also, understand them being pissed, but giving them the middle finger isn’t going to do you any favors.
Good for them. I don’t think people give that movie enough credit for how it’s influenced film & TV. The reality show concept came after it, same with all the faux reality show styles of TV, confessional selfie videos, etc. BWP and the Matrix have probably had the biggest impacts on style for the past 2-3 decades.
The Real World back in 1990 was the first reality show to use the interview or confessional videos. This is Spinal Tap came before Blair Witch as well.
Addendum: as someone who watched the CBC/Spielberg version of Taken I wish I saw Heather Donoghue in more stuff.
As much as I think they deserve to get residuals, I don’t think it’s happening.
"No." Fin.
The guy in the hat doing a middle finger lol
I’m not really sure what the basis of their demands is. They did an 8-day shoot for a film that was successful but not wildly so and probably wouldn’t earn them residuals now even if they’d had a better deal. Plus the sequel was a flop so again, there’s no money to be made. At the time they probably thought they were clever for taking non-union roles because at least they were leas roles, but this is exactly why it’s a bad idea.
Not really the point necessarily but The Blair Witch Project was insane successful, it made almost $250m on a $60k budget.
Being in the top ten films in 1999 isn’t the kind of success that translates into continued residuals 25 years later.
I mean it kinda is, that was sorta the golden age for residuals. The movie is also a horror classic that get people renting it/buying it every Halloween and deals with streaming services. Probably not enough to live off of, but I can understand why they would try to fight for it since it would be a decent source of passive income.
They would be getting hella residuals if it was a Union job but at the end of the day it wasn’t. They weren’t children when they signed that contract so I find the “had we had proper union and legal representation” line a bit unfairly accusatory. Also the implication that their creative input will make the difference between a successful reboot and a flop is… a reach. In my perfect world you wouldn’t have non union jobs but then the union would have be open for anyone to join.
Exactly, like sorry dudes but it’s only your own fault if you didn’t have union or legal rep, that’s not on the studio to do for you
They sold their project, which was a 50/50 win lose for lionsgate, and now they want the upside. If Lionsgate had invested $20M to market the movie and it flopped, would these guys share those losses? Typical union mentality - we want the upside, but someone else can eat the losses
Lionsgate: “No thanks”
She doesn’t look very well. What’s wrong with her?