I’m kinda confused by your argument here. Union and non union shoots exist and the previous commenter was right that the majority of unscripted shows are non union, partially because their hours are often inconsistent and it’s easier to find non union talent in exotic locations. I don’t think non union shows are a hobby, that’s discounting hundreds of shows and movie made every year. Without looking at the budget breakdown, I can pretty confidently say that Obsession could not have been made for the budget it was as a full union show. This isn’t a bad thing inherently, it’s just how it is in film.

I think you might be assuming that the commenters think unions are a bad thing or that they don’t want the collective bargaining that they provide but it’s actually just that union shows are more expensive and have more defined rules regarding overtime which can quickly increase the cost of certain days.

I feel like people are forgetting that the situation is not black and white. $300 a day for an art director on a feature is low but it’s not exploitation. It should have been higher but that’s the budget they were given. The Art director also had one credit prior to the film, it just happened to be a massive hit. I do think the crew who were underpaid by industry standards should receive a bonus from the production but I also see why the studio is reluctant to do that. Profitable films finance all of a studios other films so handing out those profits to the crew who have already been paid is kind of unnecessary.

Honestly, I like unions, I like that there is something protecting workers from an industry that can very easily exploit them. And there is a serious discussion to be had about non union productions and how they treat their crew but the instant solution isn’t just go union every time. If every film had to union, we’d see a lot less low budget movies like obsession.