| Author |
Message |
    
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 3541
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 11:15 am: | 
|
Dont get me started on this topic. Suffice it to say that my league and Strangers with Candy are different worlds. I shot a film, on my property last year and made as little a fuss about it as possible. I cannot speak to people coming into town, but agree that if you are renting your house out as a location, ample notice should be given to your neighbors, especially if there is a lockdown situation. Where traffic is stopped and the like. Maplewood's ordinance, as I found out, was written in knee jerk reaction to One True Thing. What they require is 5X what Manhattan requires and the NYC permit is Free. Maplewood has done all it can to discourage filming in our town, which is a shame since it is so beautiful. I am currently, albeit slowly, trying to take the current ordinence and modify it so that it takes into account the lower budget projects of local folks like me. I got no help at all NONE WHAT SO EVER from the town regarding my ten minute short film.
As for a studio in SO. Completely impractical. The squarefootage needed for a soundstage far exceeds what is available. So while a nice idea, never gonna happen. Especially since there are so many production facilities in the city. People pop out here for the location shoots only. It is a source of irritation for some, a source of income for others and needs to be balanced so that things don't get as out of hand as they are currently in Maplewood. Thank God for Charlie and the guys in the Stationary store or my film doens't get made. |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 130
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 2:13 pm: |
|
soda-
Sounds like someone is jealous! Was this the filming on Ralston? I remember several years ago when NIK was filming Pete and Peter on Melrose. sure it's an inconvience for a short time, but get over it.
However IF the homeowners are paid as much as the article says they are, in addition to fees the producers have to pay the village, the homeowner should also have to pay the village a fee. They ahould also have to pay the cost of traffic control etc. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 6704
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 2:51 pm: |
|
I believe when Maplewood was a darling of the entertainment industry the production companies hired off duty police officers to in force their will on the neighborhood.
I know with the production I mentioned earlier this was the case. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 398
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 6:49 pm: |
|
I'm in favor of local filming for many reasons, but it is intrusive. The towns make money on the permits and the homeowners make money on the rental, but the surrounding neighbors receive no compensation for their inconvenience. The answer is probably to set hours of operation and other regulations to limit the disruption of normal life for these neighbors. A compliance person is a good step; notification procedures and a contact person for minor complaints is also helpful.
I don't think anyone should expect a "Mighty Windfall", including the Village. This will just price this town out of consideration.
Local filming provides one benefit that some appreciate and others could care less about; visual permanent records of the locales for the future. Even just the little glimpses of S.O in "Pete and Pete" are still enjoyable. The scenes of the quarry in "Garden State" before development started (Can-of-Worms Alert!) will be retrievable for good. Just a little perk, but one that some enjoy. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 200
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:51 am: |
|
the town could benefit from a new business and there could be some cross over between the production studio and Seton Hall/Columbia HS student interested in film and theater.
Good idea!
If they're not willing to break ground on that fancy gourmet grocery store…build a studio in it's place to generate some income and help out film/tv students at Columbia. |
D. Richards
Citizen
Username: Baddriving11
Post Number: 118
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:14 am: |
|
TAYLOR...I BELIEVE THEY DO HIRE OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICERS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL, I WAS USHERED OFF BY ONE WHEN I SLOWED DOWN TO TAKE A LOOK ON MONTROSE BY GROVE ROAD OVER THE SUMMER.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Alison: Actually, there are a couple of homeowners who have had multiple shoots at their homes and would do more if it was allowed.
Brett: The ordinance does have restrictions on the hours (8am - 7pm), but many film crews continue to work past the agreed upon time (it seems to take about two hours to get all the equipment put away, etc).
Josh: How is it good publicity for the town when in most cases nobody knows where the filming took place? Most of the filming has been commercials and the only one who has any idea that a home in S. Orange was used is the homeowner and their friends.
Duncan: I think we need to find a balance in how we regulate and what we charge for filming. I would like to still see some filming, but I do not want to see a few homeowners turning their property into a permanent location for filming.
Clearly our fees have not discouraged filming, yet several residents are not happy about having to deal with film crews, bright lights and trucks parked on the street all day/night. It also seems that many filmcrews bring in outside catering services or lunch trucks and not using local businesses and restaurants.
So far almost every person who lives on a street where there has been multiple days of filming want to see the village put more limitations in our ordinance (fewer hours, higher fees, etc).
|
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 201
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 2:27 pm: |
|
So far almost every person who lives on a street where there has been multiple days of filming want to see the village put more limitations in our ordinance (fewer hours, higher fees, etc).
Perhaps, they should be compensated as well for the inconvience. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:24 pm: |
|
They should be, but there seems to be a legal question of how you legislate that. I would be curious to know if any town in NJ requires the neighbors being compensated in someway.
|
Phil
Citizen
Username: Barleyrooty
Post Number: 854
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:33 pm: |
|
How about: The town must negotiate fees before closing off your right of way to your property. The town could then bill the fees back to the production co. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 3558
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Mrosner I can and was only speaking to Maplewoods issue, not SO.
Mwood wanted more than twice my production budget for themselves for me to shoot 11 seconds of screen time. I was not going to restrict business or lockdown the village but they wanted me to pony up more that twice my shooting budget for what amounted to 11 seconds of screen time.
Now loctaion whores are another issue. What gets my dander up is the assumption that there is a bundle of money to go around for everyone. If you had walked by my house the day we were shooting you would have thought..wow...look at all that professional gear and all those workers that budget must be huge. It wasn't. Not one of the workers was being paid (including the Tony Award Winning Actress we had), and all the lighting equipment was/is owned by my DP. So unless its Warner Bros. or Sacchi and Sacchi you would be surprised how little money there is. Lots of times its just people like me pulling in favors trying to tell a story.
I am truely sorry if people find it inconvenient and, for our part, we went out of the way to warn our neighbors as soon as we knew we were shooting here. But the fact remains, what is in place right now in Maplewoods books makes it prohibitive for a filmmaker like me to come in and shoot a short film. South Orange, to its credit, was at least willing to talk about variences provided I could assure them of some things, but as it turned out Charlie Gianni was willing to allow us to shoot in his shop, free without any trouble or distuption to his business at all.
|
longfellow
Citizen
Username: Longfellow
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 4:39 pm: |
|
I've had some experience on both sides of this fence. (Anecdotal sidebar: my current home in SO was scouted for a big-time H'wood movie during previous owner's tenure, but not used.) Some points:
1) Keep ratcheting up the fees and padding the costs ("compliance officers" full time? c'mon now) and you'll drive away the productions--absolutely. Why do you think Toronto and Vancouver have replaced NYC as NYC? Even recent "Alfie" was shot in London because it was cheaper than New York, where it took place.
2) While it is within homeowner's rights to rent, they ought to determine the neighborhood disruption level as a courtesy to their neighbors. The same courtesy they expect from a loud party or a pumped-up boombox. We could all do with some mutual consideration on this issue.
3) I'd rather see a "penalty phase" than a restriction. That so-called compliance officer could spend ONE HOUR a day checking on the wrap time, etc., and have authority to fine the production co.
4) Perhaps most important: assess permit fees based on TOTAL BUDGET OF PRODUCTION, as well as number of days use. This is how the real world does it in many places. And it would ameliorate blanket restrictions and absurd overages such as Duncan experienced. |
Who Cares
Citizen
Username: Slystone
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 12:39 am: |
|
He is Pissed because he did not take an offer he had years ago. |
Who Cares
Citizen
Username: Slystone
Post Number: 16
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 8:30 pm: |
|
THAT guy is a total A-hole |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 3578
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 10:55 am: |
|
Amen Longfellow. I was willing to pay a reasonable fee to the town to shoot in the village but not one Thousand dollars on a film with a total PB of less than 6K. Never mind the insurance and Two cops and the other costs. another 500 to shoot on any street in Mwood. 750 for SA. It was disheartening. But the film rocks any way, in large part because people like Charlie Gianni understood that what the town wanted from me was ridiculous. He and I signed a paper of mutual understanding and were in and out of there in less than an hour. There is so much in Maplewood/South Orange worth shooting that there has to be a way to accomodate both the big commercial shoots and the little ones like mine and I think Longfellow hit it on the head. Base any fees on the production budget you have to submit to SAG for their approal anyway. |
Soda
Citizen
Username: Soda
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 2:45 pm: |
|
For What It's Worth: On October 22, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act, which, among other things, supplies tax write-offs to film and television productions that have budgets between $1 million - $15 million, and spend at least 75 percent of their compensation for services in the United States. For filmmakers working in the lower budget category, it's a great opportunity to help finance their films. Since the lion's share of independent production companies and producers are based in the New York Metro Area, I would assume that this legislation will have a positive impact on the industry around here...
-s.
BTW: I know somebody whose Mplwd home was used by a film production company for three weeks a few years ago. The neighbors were all notified (but not compensated), and despite some late-night filming, never registered any complaints. Now, I'm not very opinionated on this subject, but it seems to me that if everyone involved simply practices some common sense, thoughtfulness, and good manners before and during such a shoot, it should be a win-win-win propostion (production company, home-owner, & town). |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 458
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 9:03 pm: |
|
I have not heard one truly tangible economic benefit for allowing or encouraging film production in South Orange(other than perhaps for individual property owners). Is there any?
|
noracoombs
Citizen
Username: Noracoombs
Post Number: 52
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 9:59 am: |
|
Here are two:
1) The Village receives a fee of $500 for every day of filming.
2) Village businesses--particularly restaurants--can potentially benefit through the patronage of people working on the film. After all, the crew has to eat, don't they? |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 3589
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 10:00 am: |
|
Yes argon.. the town got monies for permits to shoot in town. The amount I belive you could discover from the town clerk as I imagine it is public record. As I have said, Maplepwood was overpriced, but somewhere I have the South Orange documentation and there are daily fees and production fees, and police fees, so the town got some cash, fear not.
Plus, there is the ever so slight bump in recognition to the town when people see it in a major film or commercial.
It can, like Soda said, be a win-win-win situation.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 6846
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 10:02 am: |
|
I don't think anyone who doesn't live here was aware that One True Thing or Pete and Pete for that matter were filmed in our communities.
|
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 196
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 10:35 am: |
|
It is questionable how much film crews spend on food on location. The catering trucks usually provide unlimited free food for the cast and crew. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 11:21 am: |
|
dgm: I made that same point at a meeting. I know there have been times when some crew members have eaten in the village, it seems to be the exception not the rule.
Most of the filming in S. Orange has been for commercials and indoor shots for films so I doubt that S. Orange gets any publicity (positive or negative) from the filming. Many film crews have shown a complete lack of respect for the residents including parking vehicles right in front of driveways or blocking off the street to traffic without permission. That is why someone needs to be there all day to monitor the situation.
Since we have a couple of residents who have decided they are going to rent out their homes as often as possible without regard to neighbors, we have to make sure that filming is done with a minimum of inconvenience to neighbors. Increasing fees will help provide revenue to the village and the higher the fees are, I would assume the less the resident would be offerred. From what I have seen, the increase in fees has not been a deterrent to filming in S. Orange.
I stated that I think we should increase the fee to $750.00/day plus the film crew should be required to hire an off-duty officer to monitor the scene. By the way, we have waived the fee for non-profit films and for students. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 3602
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 3, 2004 - 9:40 am: |
|
Mrosner, with all due respect, you sound really petulant regarding "people who rent out their homes as often as possible without regard to neighbors". Taxes being what they are its a nice suppliment to the income. It would become the responsibility of the town to monitor the shoot, and the neighbors to monitor their neighbors. As part of any location contract that I have seen, and I have seen a few, there is a stipulation for police if a set is to be "locked down".
And 750.00 a day is great. But what about someone like me, who is making a short film (under 10 minutes) and has a total budget of 5K? You still think I should have to pay 750 bucks to shoot a lady walking down south orange avenue and into the Dancing Goat (as an example)?
As for waiving the fee for non-profit films and students, thats great. But there is a HUGE divide between students and 501(c)'s and the arrogant street hogging big budget commercial/film shoots. People Like me.
And I will say this from personal experience. NO ONE CAN BE TOLD HOW INVASIVE FILMMAKING IS. Just ask my wife. We shot my second film in my house and there is no way to describe the intrusion. Raising the fee to shoot in town will only hurt up and coming filmmakers who have to pull in favors just to get a crew. An aspiring director isn't necessarily always a student. I was in my late 30's before I shot my first film, so by your description, I would have had to pay the whole hog.
Your attitude on this topic saddens me. There are a lot of us in our two towns, who make films. Did you go to the Dancing Goat Short Film Festival?? 32 of the 42 shorts shown there were submitted by people from our two towns. And none of them, I would bet, inconveninced the neighbors, or shut down streets, or prevented stores from doing business. You are painting with a wildly broad brush. And as for the assumption that higher fees would mean lower location payouts...Nope. Those are negotiated by the owners there is no set location fee. I can recommend a really good book about filmmaking if you want to learn more about an industry you seem not to have too much respect or patience for. But I bet you have a top ten list of your favorite films.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 3, 2004 - 10:03 am: |
|
Duncan: When I get numerous complaints from people (and Bob Adler was not the first nor the only person to have complained) I try to react to the problem. The problem has been large productions that totally disrupt a neighborhood.
I understand taxes are high, and that is why the neighbors are complaining. They like peace and quiet and to be able to drive down their own street and not be stopped by a film crew and be told to drive around the block. I don't think it is right to operate a business in a residential neighborhood that interferes with the neighbors. In my opinion having multiple commercials shot in a home over the course of a year constitues a business and crossed the line of reason.
I would have no problem having the fee tied to the budget of films or coming up with a solution for small filmmakers like yourself. One other thought was to have a vehicle fee in addittion to a filming fee. So if we charged $100.00/day plus $50.00 per vehicle per day that might also solve the problem (the assumption is the more vehicles, the larger the budget).
Personally, I would hope a few local filmmakers would come meet with me (or the BOT) to discuss the varous options to help come up with a solution (ordinance) that will prevent big budget commercials from coming into town and disrupting streets yet allowing small filmmakers like yourself to contiune producing films. When we came up with the current ordinance we met with one local filmmaker who came forward. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page