Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike news 2 2

[Dr. Balls]

On 7/14/2023 at 7:38 AM, Bosco685 said:

Matt Damon voiced his concerns too, and outlined why writers and other creative staff deserve better pay. Are his points less valid because of his wealth, or is he using the news to best get that word out? I guess it depends on your perception.

I feel that his points are less valid because he’s not a movie studio. He’s a wealthy actor. Telling a business how they should go about dispersing money without actually being knowledgeable about how that works is hugely ignorant. And by “knowing how it works” I don’t mean understanding it from an employee perspective - I mean by actually doing that firsthand. 

I know these people like to think they are well-read and educated, but when they talk like that, it comes off very dumb. If the 1% feel so bad for the other 99%, I fully expect them to put their money where their mouth is or STFU. If you want the system to change, be the change. Do your own thing and pay fairly. Learn the process. Pay the bills. Hire the people yourself.  Spouting off on Twitter about it makes you look like a numb nut.

[Bosco685]

On 7/14/2023 at 3:14 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I feel that his points are less valid because he’s not a movie studio. He’s a wealthy actor. Telling a business how they should go about dispersing money without actually being knowledgeable about how that works is hugely ignorant. And by “knowing how it works” I don’t mean understanding it from an employee perspective - I mean by actually doing that firsthand. 

I know these people like to think they are well-read and educated, but when they talk like that, it comes off very dumb. If the 1% feel so bad for the other 99%, I fully expect them to put their money where their mouth is or STFU. If you want the system to change, be the change. Do your own thing and pay fairly. Learn the process. Pay the bills. Hire the people yourself.  Spouting off on Twitter about it makes you look like a numb nut.

I hear you. But I think we forget not only has Matt Damon been in front of the camera, but also behind the camera. So he has had to deal directly with the studio executives.

[TupennyConan]

CGI artists have some gripes too, I feel certain. 

[Bosco685]

On 7/14/2023 at 3:25 PM, TupennyConan said:

CGI artists have some gripes too, I feel certain. 

Ya think?

 

[Dr. Balls]

On 7/14/2023 at 1:24 PM, Bosco685 said:

I hear you. But I think we forget not only has Matt Damon been in front of the camera, but also behind the camera. So he has had to deal directly with the studio executives.

Oh yeah, and in no way do I condone the behavior of movie studio corporate conglomerates. But you can’t tell them to give better pay right after you cash your $10 million check for acting in a movie.

it’s a culture of hypocrisy and BS, this is a lot like the actors who are against gun ownership, but do movies where they act out gun violence.

I don’t discount that people might need better pay, but having the 1%-ers speak on your behalf might work against you.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[drotto]

On 7/14/2023 at 3:27 PM, Bosco685 said:

Ya think?

 

Rumors are circulating that multiple CGI houses are basically refusing to work with Disney at this point.

[Bosco685]

 

[drotto]

So how do you find balance in an industry that from a job standpoint is contracting?  Netflix cut many shows, and therefor many jobs about 2 years ago. Disney, WB, and Paramount are cutting back on content and slowing production. The movie industry is learning they can not have skyrocketing production budgets, and still make money with only moderate box office returns.  Linear TV has its lowest viewership basically since its early days. Theaters are still in trouble. For now it is apparent that the money pie for entertainment is shrinking. I understand people wanting what they feel is a fair share of the pie, but there is just not as much there as there was just 4 or 5 years ago, when streaming services were exploding, and multiple movies per year cleared $1B.

 

These strikes are happening at the worst possible time, and risk causing permanent damage to the already weakened industry. Seems like the studios may be willing to let it burn, and then try and start over, because they are not making money. So where does not leave all the average workers?

[Bosco685]

 

[drotto]

Interview from Face the Nation with Barry Diller and how it could collapse the industry. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: The gears of America’s entertainment industry ground to a near complete halt last week when the union that represents actors, SAG-AFTRA, joined writers on the picket line. A disclosure, some CBS News staff are

SAG-AFTRA members but work under a different contract than the actors and are not affected by this strike. But to understand who is impacted here we are joined by Barry Diller, a former movie studio head who’s currently the chairman of IAC and Expedia. Welcome back to Face the Nation.

DILLER: Thank you.

BRENNAN: You know, we were trying to gauge the economic impact of this. And according to the Milken Institute, it could cause $4 billion in economic damage. What do you think the impact will be? And how long will the strikes last?

DILLER: Well, the problem with this particular- all strikes get settled. The issue for this one is, is when. Because you have almost a perfect storm here, which is you had COVID, which sent people home to watch streaming and television and killed theaters. You- you’ve had the results of huge investments in streaming, which have produced all these losses for all these companies who are now kind of retrenching. So, at this moment, this kind of perfect storm, it’s okay if it gets settled in the next month. But I’ll posit what happens if it doesn’t, and there doesn’t seem to be enough trust and energy to get it settled soon. What will happen is, if in fact, it doesn’t get settled until Christmas or so, then next year, there’s not going to be many programs for anybody to watch. So, you’re gonna see subscriptions get pulled, which is going to reduce the revenue of all these movie companies, television companies, the result of which is that there will be no programs. And at just the time, strike is settled that you want to get back up, there won’t be enough money. So this actually will have devastating effects if it is not settled soon. And the problem with settlement in this case, is there’s no trust between the parties. There are existential issues. Obviously, AI, which I think is just overhyped to death, in terms of the worries that there is and writers are going to be replaced rather than assisted, which is what I think will happen. So- but there’s no trust, you have the actors union, saying, “How dare these 10 people who run these companies earn all this money and won’t pay us?” While if you look at it on the other side, the top ten actors get paid more than the top ten executives. I’m not saying either is right. Actually, everybody’s probably overpaid at the top end. The one idea I had is to say, as a good faith measure, both the executives and the most paid actors should take a 25% pay cut, to try and narrow-narrow the difference between those who get highly paid and those that don’t.

 

BRENNAN: –I want to talk about what you just said in terms of- go ahead.

DILLER: The only other thing I would do, I would call for a September 1 deadline.There’s a strike deadline. I think there should be a settlement deadline. Because unless it happens by September 1, the actions and you know, of course, who cares about Hollywood, who cares about it. But the truth is, this is a huge business both domestically and for-for world export. And if it is- these conditions- it sounds like I’m crying to the skies. But these conditions will potentially produce an absolute collapse of an entire industry

Edited July 16, 2023 by drotto

[Get Marwood & I]

[Bosco685]

 

[drotto]

On 7/16/2023 at 3:36 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

I fully unstand that the vast majority or actors and writers are not rich, but I am not exactly sure this conveys what she is trying to say. People have a right to be fairly compensated. I am not sure how you garentee a regular employement,  stable jobs, and a stable quality of life in a profession that is almost entirely based on gig work, and exceedingly competative. It would require a complete restructuring of the current system, and I am not sure how that would work. 

 

This is a job where people in movies, commercials, walk on parts, streaming shows, get paid for the days they work, then technically move on to a new job. Principle actors will get paid an advanced, and then a second check at the completion of the project. Very few get a regular pay check, some may get paid per episode completed. It is not like most other jobs where people are hired to a "perminant" position, then get paid on a set schedule as long as they are employed, and they are not technically getting a new job everytime they get paid.

 

 

[CAHokie]

Streaming being so popular has made it complicated. Before, some actors (not so much the big names) may rely on residuals to make up 20 to even 50% of their income depending on how steady of work they get. They also have to make a certain amount to be eligible for health insurance and other benefits. Before streaming it was a bit more straight forward, now not so much. Are people getting the residuals they should? Most likely not.
 

I do see why they want to make sure that they can’t use their image with AI tools. Imagine being paid to do a movie and then they make a sequel but use a cheaper actor to put your face on? (Reminds me of the Back to the Future 2 lawsuit). I don’t see this actually happening but the possibility needs to be addressed. This should be the easiest fix in the negotiations. 

[MattTheDuck]

On 7/16/2023 at 1:02 PM, drotto said:

I fully unstand that the vast majority or actors and writers are not rich, but I am not exactly sure this conveys what she is trying to say. People have a right to be fairly compensated. I am not sure how you garentee a regular employement,  stable jobs, and a stable quality of life in a profession that is almost entirely based on gig work, and exceedingly competative. It would require a complete restructuring of the current system, and I am not sure how that would work. 

 

This is a job where people in movies, commercials, walk on parts, streaming shows, get paid for the days they work, then technically move on to a new job. Principle actors will get paid an advanced, and then a second check at the completion of the project. Very few get a regular pay check, some may get paid per episode completed. It is not like most other jobs where people are hired to a "perminant" position, then get paid on a set schedule as long as they are employed, and they are not technically getting a new job everytime they get paid.

 

 

Yes, the expectations of some of the folks involved seem pretty unrealistic.  The odd thing is that they've all been working under a contract they approved and with a compensation system they understood and implicitly agreed to when they accepted this career in the first place.  You decided you wanted a "gig" career.  I can understand wanting more money, but - fair or not - the current system wasn't forced on anyone and I'd like to see the rhetoric racheted down to a level closer to truth.

[Nick Furious]

On 7/14/2023 at 2:14 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I feel that his points are less valid because he’s not a movie studio. He’s a wealthy actor. Telling a business how they should go about dispersing money without actually being knowledgeable about how that works is hugely ignorant. And by “knowing how it works” I don’t mean understanding it from an employee perspective - I mean by actually doing that firsthand. 

I know these people like to think they are well-read and educated, but when they talk like that, it comes off very dumb. If the 1% feel so bad for the other 99%, I fully expect them to put their money where their mouth is or STFU. If you want the system to change, be the change. Do your own thing and pay fairly. Learn the process. Pay the bills. Hire the people yourself.  Spouting off on Twitter about it makes you look like a numb nut.

To your point:

On 7/16/2023 at 2:15 PM, drotto said:

So- but there’s no trust, you have the actors union, saying, “How dare these 10 people who run these companies earn all this money and won’t pay us?” While if you look at it on the other side, the top ten actors get paid more than the top ten executives. (Barry Diller quote)

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Nick Furious

[drotto]

Very interesting statistic I just heard about SAG.  To qualify for benefits from the union a member must make $26,000 per year in the industry.  85% of members do not hit that mark.

[Bosco685]

On 7/16/2023 at 6:59 PM, drotto said:

Very interesting statistic I just heard about SAG.  To qualify for benefits from the union a member must make $26,000 per year in the industry.  85% of members do not hit that mark.

Wow! That is just sad.

[drotto]

On 7/16/2023 at 7:03 PM, Bosco685 said:

Wow! That is just sad.

The results of a gig based, extremely competitive business. I heard the union has around 170,000 to 180,000 members, and there are just not enough roles, especially ongoing roles, to keep that many people employed consistently. Couple that with so many companies announcing they are going to cut content (meaning jobs), how is it going to get any better, regardless of what agreement is eventually reached? It is the ultimate career of haves and have nots. 

[Bosco685]