Writers Guild strike 2023

145,597 Views | 1612 Replies | Last: 9 mo ago by uujm
MasonStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brian Earl Spilner said:

I'm not being obtuse. There's a pretty huge difference. Employees are salaried, actors are not. Which is the kind of the crux of this whole thing.

Plus, if a certain show fails to perform well, that just means they don't have to pay as much in royalties for it. It's not like actors are asking to be paid like they're in a smash hit for every show they make. If a show is a massive worldwide smash like Squid Game, then everyone gets a nice payday.

The problem for Netflix is those shows don't always equate to a big bump in new subscriptions. But that's a Netflix problem. There's only so much growth you can have before you plateau.


Because Netflix is selling their "catalog" of programing, not an individual program, i.e 1 ticket. Their job is to sustain and grow subscriptions. They have to constantly fill the service with new programing. Individual programs can drive subscribers but ultimately aren't as important in the new model. The ones that do, say Stranger Things, see those increases on future seasons.

Hollywood had a very defined system. Selling the same product over and over created new revenue streams and each got a cut of that new revenue created. Makes sense.

Now success doesn't necessarily drive new revenue, and unless licensed out, won't. HBO removing their programing they paid $100 million for (that failed) from their own streaming catalogs to not pay residuals is the canary in the coal mind.

They want to own more of the content instead of the current subscription model.

This is the itunes music industry disruption for the movie industry. Some will win and some lose, but the old days are gone.
DTP02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

maroon barchetta said:

Claude! said:

LMCane said:

so what is happening now on American television stations?

are they going to run out of TV shows to put on the air at some point?
At this rate, they'll be showing reruns of MASH and Night Court.


When, exactly?

you do know Markie Post died of cancer right?


To make this relevant to this thread: are her boobs still getting residuals? Because that would potentially be precedent-setting regarding AI.
AustinAg2K
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MasonStorm said:

Brian Earl Spilner said:

I'm not being obtuse. There's a pretty huge difference. Employees are salaried, actors are not. Which is the kind of the crux of this whole thing.

Plus, if a certain show fails to perform well, that just means they don't have to pay as much in royalties for it. It's not like actors are asking to be paid like they're in a smash hit for every show they make. If a show is a massive worldwide smash like Squid Game, then everyone gets a nice payday.

The problem for Netflix is those shows don't always equate to a big bump in new subscriptions. But that's a Netflix problem. There's only so much growth you can have before you plateau.


Because Netflix is selling their "catalog" of programing, not an individual program, i.e 1 ticket. Their job is to sustain and grow subscriptions. They have to constantly fill the service with new programing. Individual programs can drive subscribers but ultimately aren't as important in the new model. The ones that do, say Stranger Things, see those increases on future seasons.


Isn't this the same as at the cable system? You pay TBS or HBO a monthly fee, and then you get to consume essentially all their content. You're not buying a ticket to an individual viewing of Game of Thrones. The cable networks also have to continue to add new content or else they will lose subscribers. Being able to view on-demand is different, but isn't Netflix essentially the same as HBO?

I have no evidence of this, but I feel like the legacy channels that have tried to create their own streaming services vastly underestimated the amount of work it is to stand up a service. They just looked at Netflix and said, "We can do that!" They ignored the fact that it took 15 years for Netflix to get where it is. They also ignored that Netflix is considered a unicorn in the IT world, and very few have been able to replicate their work. Disney+ and HBO box have really good subscriber numbers. Netflix is definitely bigger, but it doesn't really make sense that Netflix would make $1.5 Billion profit while Disney+ loses $400 million.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Whos Juan said:

aTmAg said:

jeffk said:

aTmAg said:

I have no sympathy for them.
I think we get that.
They made the bed. Why shouldn't they lay in it?
Have you ever asked for a raise?
I did as an individual. I never tried to extort my employer into paying me more than I deserved.
Whos Juan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTmAg said:

Whos Juan said:

aTmAg said:

jeffk said:

aTmAg said:

I have no sympathy for them.
I think we get that.
They made the bed. Why shouldn't they lay in it?
Have you ever asked for a raise?
I did as an individual. I never tried to extort my employer into paying me more than I deserved.
Why didn't you accept the pay you got hired for? I mean, you made your bed, right?
MasonStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AustinAg2K said:

MasonStorm said:

Brian Earl Spilner said:

I'm not being obtuse. There's a pretty huge difference. Employees are salaried, actors are not. Which is the kind of the crux of this whole thing.

Plus, if a certain show fails to perform well, that just means they don't have to pay as much in royalties for it. It's not like actors are asking to be paid like they're in a smash hit for every show they make. If a show is a massive worldwide smash like Squid Game, then everyone gets a nice payday.

The problem for Netflix is those shows don't always equate to a big bump in new subscriptions. But that's a Netflix problem. There's only so much growth you can have before you plateau.


Because Netflix is selling their "catalog" of programing, not an individual program, i.e 1 ticket. Their job is to sustain and grow subscriptions. They have to constantly fill the service with new programing. Individual programs can drive subscribers but ultimately aren't as important in the new model. The ones that do, say Stranger Things, see those increases on future seasons.


Isn't this the same as at the cable system? You pay TBS or HBO a monthly fee, and then you get to consume essentially all their content. You're not buying a ticket to an individual viewing of Game of Thrones. The cable networks also have to continue to add new content or else they will lose subscribers. Being able to view on-demand is different, but isn't Netflix essentially the same as HBO?



Cable network's "ticket sale" was/is add/commercial sales.

HBO is transforming into Netflix, and is finding their own catalog expensive to use.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Whos Juan said:

aTmAg said:

Whos Juan said:

aTmAg said:

jeffk said:

aTmAg said:

I have no sympathy for them.
I think we get that.
They made the bed. Why shouldn't they lay in it?
Have you ever asked for a raise?
I did as an individual. I never tried to extort my employer into paying me more than I deserved.
Why didn't you accept the pay you got hired for? I mean, you made your bed, right?
I guess you are another person who didn't read.

The bed I'm talking about has nothing to do with their previous negotiation.

It has to do with promoting and voting for idiotic government policies that push the cost of living so high. Especially in California. They pushed hard for that and now complain that they no longer make a "livable wage". That's the bed. And those idiots had a big part in making it.
Whos Juan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Got it. You hate Hollywood and California. Let's move past that and tell us why WGA and SAG shouldn't want better terms for their services.

*Edit: Accidentally called it WAG instead of WGA
javajaws
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Whos Juan said:

Got it. You hate Hollywood and California. Let's move past that and tell us why WAG and SAG shouldn't want better terms for their services.
The better question is why they should GET better terms for their services. Everyone WANTS more, but the GETTING it part...well, that's the tricky part. Because in order for someone to get more, someone else either has to get less or you have to grow the pot (figuratively, not literally!).
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Whos Juan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
javajaws said:

Whos Juan said:

Got it. You hate Hollywood and California. Let's move past that and tell us why WAG and SAG shouldn't want better terms for their services.
The better question is why they should GET better terms for their services. Everyone WANTS more, but the GETTING it part...well, that's the tricky part. Because in order for someone to get more, someone else either has to get less or you have to grow the pot (figuratively, not literally!).
That's not really a better question. They represent their own interests. It's up to the studios to decide how to redistribute. That's how negotiations work.

I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever asked for a raise? Surely this logic follows there as well.
Legal Custodian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This opinion has nothing to do with the strike but as many others have pointed it out, everyone is trying to copy Netflix. Yet all Disney+ and others had to do was put their old catalog on a streaming site and charge everyone $4/mo like when they started out. Just say after 5 years new movies and shows will move to Disney+ as the only revenue they would be canablizing at that point would be DVD sales/electronic purchases.

Every family with kids (and many other individuals) would gladly pay that much money for that catalog. And there would be no additional costs to try and do exclusive content. That catalog doesn't need new content every month. At least if my household is indicative of other families as my kids just want to watch a single show or movie on repeat for months at a time before moving on to the next one. I'm pretty sure we watched Cars 1-3 for about 4 months straight. The only costs for that model are IT related. That is where the competitive advantage for Disney especially comes in with their built-in 70+ years of content.

Unfortunately their first Disney+ exclusive was a massive hit that resulted in new subscribers (The Mandalorian) and they've been chasing that dragon ever since. I can see Disney+ moving to a new subscription model where Disney properties are $5/mo, and then add $5/mo for Marvel, $5/mo for Star Wars, $5/mo for FOX Pictures, and so on. And I can see Iger wanting that as it gives them way better data to make decisions on new exclusive content.
jackie childs
How long do you want to ignore this user?
plus don't forget the damage he did to the evil studios by tricking them into funding Black Adam
jokershady
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Legal Custodian said:

This opinion has nothing to do with the strike but as many others have pointed it out, everyone is trying to copy Netflix. Yet all Disney+ and others had to do was put their old catalog on a streaming site and charge everyone $4/mo like when they started out. Just say after 5 years new movies and shows will move to Disney+ as the only revenue they would be canablizing at that point would be DVD sales/electronic purchases.

Every family with kids (and many other individuals) would gladly pay that much money for that catalog. And there would be no additional costs to try and do exclusive content. That catalog doesn't need new content every month. At least if my household is indicative of other families as my kids just want to watch a single show or movie on repeat for months at a time before moving on to the next one. I'm pretty sure we watched Cars 1-3 for about 4 months straight. The only costs for that model are IT related. That is where the competitive advantage for Disney especially comes in with their built-in 70+ years of content.

Unfortunately their first Disney+ exclusive was a massive hit that resulted in new subscribers (The Mandalorian) and they've been chasing that dragon ever since. I can see Disney+ moving to a new subscription model where Disney properties are $5/mo, and then add $5/mo for Marvel, $5/mo for Star Wars, $5/mo for FOX Pictures, and so on. And I can see Iger wanting that as it gives them way better data to make decisions on new exclusive content.
Was thinking something similar....

What if there was a standard monthly rate like there is now.....but if you wanted access to new content right when it comes out you'd pay an extra amount per month and be locked in at that for a year.....

For example for this idea....say you've got Ashoka coming out and youre not subscribed to get new content....then maybe you'd have to wait 6 months before you'd have access to it....

The Disney property thing you mention above isn't a bad idea either but would hate if it was $5 per property....be a big increase overall per month and wouldn't be worth it in my opinion
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Whos Juan said:

Got it. You hate Hollywood and California. Let's move past that and tell us why WGA and SAG shouldn't want better terms for their services.

*Edit: Accidentally called it WAG instead of WGA
It's not a "hate of Hollywood and California". It's a hate that liberalism has screwed over everybody regardless of the industry or state.

Regarding unions, they are every bit as destructive as other liberal ideas. All they do is screw over people (management, customers, and workers both inside and outside the union). The union leadership and workers with high seniority are the only ones who are usually better off. Union members are either too ignorant to understand that or do understand and are selfish about wanting more than their value at the expense of others.
jokershady
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTmAg said:

jeffk said:

aTmAg said:

I have no sympathy for them.
I think we get that.
They made the bed. Why shouldn't they lay in it?

aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Of course, they do have a choice to not vote like idiots and refraining from using their platform to promote idiotic ideas.

So they are far more to blame than passengers who merely buy tickets.
AustinAg2K
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Legal Custodian said:

This opinion has nothing to do with the strike but as many others have pointed it out, everyone is trying to copy Netflix. Yet all Disney+ and others had to do was put their old catalog on a streaming site and charge everyone $4/mo like when they started out. Just say after 5 years new movies and shows will move to Disney+ as the only revenue they would be canablizing at that point would be DVD sales/electronic purchases.

Every family with kids (and many other individuals) would gladly pay that much money for that catalog. And there would be no additional costs to try and do exclusive content.


I think this actually has a lot to do with the strike. Specifically, your last sentence that says there would be no additional costs. This is one of the major complaints of the actors and writers. As I understand it, when they made their contracts to create what ever show, the writers and actors didn't include residuals for streaming (or were compensated very little). The studios argument is that since it wasn't included, they shouldn't have to pay anything. The writers and actors are saying that back then streaming wasn't a big part of the market (or may not have even existed), but now it's the dominate form of consuming content, so they should get more for streaming. Obviously others understand more of the specifics, but as someone who knows nothing about the business, that's what I understand.
taxpreparer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For those of us not involved in movies TV shows, did the old contracts cover VHS/DVD rentals? I see that as the ancestors to streaming and would have assumed they were handled the same way. In fact, wasn't that how Netflix started?
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
With every major "new media" transition - with the introduction of VHS, with the introduction of DVDs, with the introduction of internet playback, and finally now with the introduction of streaming - the studios have attempted to screw writers and actors out of their fair share of profits, profits from technology that was unforeseen during the last round of negotiations. And every time either the writers or the actors have had to strike to get their fair share, going back decades. This is nothing new. What *is* new this go around is AI being added to the mix, and that's why both guilds are striking at the same time for the first time in 60+ years.
aggrad02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
taxpreparer said:

For those of us not involved in movies TV shows, did the old contracts cover VHS/DVD rentals? I see that as the ancestors to streaming and would have assumed they were handled the same way. In fact, wasn't that how Netflix started?


Yes it did in a way. Movie rental businesses like Blockbuster had to pay $60 - $80 per cassette for the right to rent them out. Actors and writers got residuals based on those sales (just like if you paid $20 dollars at Wal-Mart to buy a VHS without the right to rent it out).


And no streaming is not handled in the same way.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"fair share"

They are already overpaid.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So which is it, are they not making enough because they're liberals who made their own bed and now must lie in it, or are they overpaid?
Ghost of Bisbee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I see that BCC lure you just cast
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why Haven't A-List Stars Joined the SAG-AFTRA Picket Line?

By Matt Donnelly Variety

There's an old joke used in show business when events and gatherings lack major celebrity attendance: "Somebody punch me in the face so I can see some stars."

But it's no joke when it comes to the picket lines of the SAG-AFTRA and Writers Guild of America strikes, according to some of the protesters on the ground and select industry players who spoke to Variety. There's been a "palpable" lack of headliners, said one prominent SAG-AFTRA member, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "If our stars were all out there in force advocating for us, we'd know it," they added.

Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence and Rami Malek all signed a June letter telling union leadership they were prepared to strike, but none of them have surfaced holding signs or chanting at studio gates. Leonardo DiCaprio posted an Instagram story saying he stood "in solidarity with my guild," but has yet to stand for any in-person protest. On day one of the actor's strike in mid-July, one protester straddled a median at the drive-on gate at Netflix headquarters holding a sign that read, "Where the **** is Ben Affleck?" So far, no one's seen him on the front lines.

These names join dozens of others that come to mind (Denzel Washington, Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Julia Roberts, a recently un-retired Cameron Diaz) when one thinks about star power. "Plus," one picketer recently said, noting the deep influence stars wield with global media, "the cameras follow them everywhere."

To be fair, plenty of famous award winners have turned up to support the guilds: Rachel McAdams, Lupita Nyong'o, Mark Ruffalo, "Abbott Elementary" creator and star Quinta Brunson, Allison Janney, Bob Odenkirk and more. But the absent mega-stars might have some complicated reasons for staying home.

"It's not necessarily to our advantage for the people who are the most successful, wealthy and visible to be taking up space right now," said another entrenched SAG-AFTRA member. "We already have a perception problem where people say, 'These are just a bunch of rich actors.' Those stars don't work for scale pay; they don't need the protection of a better contract. If Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Aniston show up, they look like they're crying poor."

Another wrench, according to a top talent advisor speaking anonymously, is the issue of taste. The rep said they had several clients ask which pickets to attend, and if they should book hair and makeup for potential media spots. The rep cautioned that the strikes were a "very serious matter, not a red carpet opportunity."

Several players aligned with the AMPTP, the group representing the companies in contract negotiations with the actors and writers, noted the flood of stars who now serve as serious producers. The content boom that resulted from the rise of streaming has made legitimate production players of many name actors, including Witherspoon and her Hello Sunshine outfit, Margot Robbie and her LuckyChap (filmmakers behind this weekend's record-breaking hit "Barbie") and Ryan Reynolds' Maximum Effort. Those stars might not be keen to highlight their interests on both sides of the fence, one source noted.

The climate in traditional media and social platforms is also "hyper-reactive," one top-level strategist told Variety. "There are endless calls and Zooms with talent to discuss how even the smallest, most intuitive show of support might play out." The strategist is not wrong anyone catch Bob Iger in Sun Valley calling the strikes disruptive? Or Fran Drescher's blistering response to that?

"The real place the A-listers can help is donating to relief funds and lobbying the studio heads behind the scenes," one agent said. To that end, Dwayne Johnson made a seven-figure donation on Monday to the SAG-AFTRA Foundation, which provides financial aid for members who can demonstrate hardship caused by work stoppage from the strike. Similarly, Jamie Lee Curtis and husband Christopher Guest put up $25,000 last week for the same cause.

Others in the town think there's a middle ground, where stars don't have to be a distraction, but can still be effective. When pointing out that some picketers were frustrated to see Brad Pitt, Ariana Grande and Andrew Garfield photographed at Wimbledon during the strike's first weekend, one power publicist said it wouldn't hurt for Pitt "to throw on a SAG-AFTRA shirt when he knows there will be paparazzi." An Emmy awards consultant also suggested that Jeremy Allen White, the lead of "The Bear" who recently had the internet panting with shirtless photos and has turned up on the picket line, do his daily pushups and jogging in front of struck companies.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tysker said:

Prophet00 said:

Agreed, and some employers also think they can succeed without their people. They may find out the hard way, as well.

The work is clearly changing. Its unclear how valuable that labor is worth today let alone 10 years from now. We're seeing similar issues in finance, legal, manufacturing, and construction, Adopt or die. Luddites are rarely successful.

EXACTLY'

I'm old enough to remember when Hollywood was completely silent after thousands of oil and pipeline workers were thrown out of work in February 2021.

In fact, many told the fired workers to "learn to code"
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said:

aTmAg said:

Mark Harris is an idiot.

Jobs are worth what they are worth. You can't make flipping burgers worth $100/hr no matter how "economically fragile" the employees are. If a fast food chain tried, then their prices would go up, and people would stop buying their burgers, and they'd eventually go out of business. If the employees went on strike, or government passed a $100/hr minimum wage, the ONLY survivable alternative for the employers is to automate those jobs and fire all the workers.

The question should be, "why are these employees economically fragile" now? People have done these jobs for over a century and have been able to live fine. It's because the cost of living has gone way the hell up. And who's fault is that? The government. These Hollywood employees should be pissed at the local, state, and federal government policies that push costs way the hell up. But they won't, because they are ignorant enough to support those policies. They don't know better.

Well reality doesn't give exceptions to people because they are ignorant. The laws of economics effects everybody just like the law of gravity. To me this is a case of karma being a *****.

Starting with this post, you've been doing nothing more than spouting off extremely basic economic principles that everyone and their dog already knows, and using them to rant about the government and whatever else for the umpteenth time on this board.

When, in reality, if you'd actually read the guilds' positions, or read even a fraction of the articles posted and discussion had earlier in this thread, you'd know that the primary issues are systemic in nature, and that a number of the standard pay increases were nearly settled on and where the various sides were closest. In other words, this isn't just a bunch of entitled assh*les striking because they want to get paid more per hour. If it was, agreements would have been reached weeks and months ago. Rather, the guilds are striking over bedrock issues that Big Tech has completely upended, in ways the industry won't be able to sustain going forward, should the studios go unchecked.

You think Hollywood is insufferable now? How much more insufferable will it be when only a handful of veterans and a spatter of trust fund kids are the only ones who can afford to be writers?

You think Hollywood makes sh*t now? How much more sh*t do you think will be made when most everything is then written by AI and features only digital actors?

We had a system that worked. Extremely well. One that made the rich richer and allowed everyone else a livable wage, with infinite opportunity for not only upward mobility, but for writers to actually gain valuable experience learning the trade via traditional writers' rooms and everything that comes along with them (learning to produce, cast, edit, etc on the job). Thus novices becoming veterans, and so on and so forth, ensuring the health of the industry for decades to come.

But then Big Tech came along and destroyed that, turning the writing industry, in particular, into a gig economy. And now the entire industry - even most of the traditional studios - have wised up, and realized just how catastrophic it was to chase Big Tech's nonsense.

These strikes are an attempt to correct those mistakes.

That's what this is all about.
I agree with you in your ultimate determination of the issues.

I think what you don't understand is that most Americans simply don't care.

and it's not as if we need Hollywood to try to organize our society-

It seems you believe that somehow striking actors are at the forefront of defending humanity from AI when that is extremely far from the truth.

It would be better if they were putting pressure on California politicians that serve in DC to actually focus on the dangers of AI.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

TCTTS said:

aTmAg said:

Mark Harris is an idiot.

Jobs are worth what they are worth. You can't make flipping burgers worth $100/hr no matter how "economically fragile" the employees are. If a fast food chain tried, then their prices would go up, and people would stop buying their burgers, and they'd eventually go out of business. If the employees went on strike, or government passed a $100/hr minimum wage, the ONLY survivable alternative for the employers is to automate those jobs and fire all the workers.

The question should be, "why are these employees economically fragile" now? People have done these jobs for over a century and have been able to live fine. It's because the cost of living has gone way the hell up. And who's fault is that? The government. These Hollywood employees should be pissed at the local, state, and federal government policies that push costs way the hell up. But they won't, because they are ignorant enough to support those policies. They don't know better.

Well reality doesn't give exceptions to people because they are ignorant. The laws of economics effects everybody just like the law of gravity. To me this is a case of karma being a *****.

Starting with this post, you've been doing nothing more than spouting off extremely basic economic principles that everyone and their dog already knows, and using them to rant about the government and whatever else for the umpteenth time on this board.

When, in reality, if you'd actually read the guilds' positions, or read even a fraction of the articles posted and discussion had earlier in this thread, you'd know that the primary issues are systemic in nature, and that a number of the standard pay increases were nearly settled on and where the various sides were closest. In other words, this isn't just a bunch of entitled assh*les striking because they want to get paid more per hour. If it was, agreements would have been reached weeks and months ago. Rather, the guilds are striking over bedrock issues that Big Tech has completely upended, in ways the industry won't be able to sustain going forward, should the studios go unchecked.

You think Hollywood is insufferable now? How much more insufferable will it be when only a handful of veterans and a spatter of trust fund kids are the only ones who can afford to be writers?

You think Hollywood makes sh*t now? How much more sh*t do you think will be made when most everything is then written by AI and features only digital actors?

We had a system that worked. Extremely well. One that made the rich richer and allowed everyone else a livable wage, with infinite opportunity for not only upward mobility, but for writers to actually gain valuable experience learning the trade via traditional writers' rooms and everything that comes along with them (learning to produce, cast, edit, etc on the job). Thus novices becoming veterans, and so on and so forth, ensuring the health of the industry for decades to come.

But then Big Tech came along and destroyed that, turning the writing industry, in particular, into a gig economy. And now the entire industry - even most of the traditional studios - have wised up, and realized just how catastrophic it was to chase Big Tech's nonsense.

These strikes are an attempt to correct those mistakes.

That's what this is all about.
I agree with you in your ultimate determination of the issues.

I think what you don't understand is that most Americans simply don't care.

and it's not as if we need Hollywood to try to organize our society-

It seems you believe that somehow striking actors are at the forefront of defending humanity from AI when that is extremely far from the truth.


It would be better if they were putting pressure on California politicians that serve in DC to actually focus on the dangers of AI.


What in the world are you talking about? I don't believe anything of the sort.
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hardest working man in "what the hell is that guy talking about"
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

So which is it, are they not making enough because they're liberals who made their own bed and now must lie in it, or are they overpaid?
Is this really such a complex concept for this board?

They are overpaid as evident that they have selfishly extorted their employers for more money than the free market would dictate AND they made their bed by voting the COST OF LIVING so be so ridiculously high.

Do you guys not realize that the cost of living and wage are two separate things?

If you vote the cost of living to be $1M/yr doesn't mean you should be able to or even could extort $1.1M from your employer. It's not like they could raise ticket prices to $1000.. They would go out of business.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have never asked any employer for a raise over 27 years.

They would either automatically give me one every year

and every few years I would go find another higher paying job.

why can't Hollywood employees do the same thing?

is every employee of McDonald's entitled to a raise when McDonalds stock goes up?

and if not, why not?
BowSowy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's easy to not ask for raises when you're scamming people out of money
aggrad02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:



and every few years I would go find another higher paying job.

why can't Hollywood employees do the same thing?



They are en mass. When that higher paying job materializes they will sign the contract and take it.

Not asking for a raise doesn't give you moral superiority it just means you probably left money on the table. But that was your choice, and if you were satisfied that is wonderful.
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMCane said:

I have never asked any employer for a raise over 27 years.

They would either automatically give me one every year

and every few years I would go find another higher paying job.

why can't Hollywood employees do the same thing?

is every employee of McDonald's entitled to a raise when McDonalds stock goes up?

and if not, why not?
You're missing out. I've asked for a raise from my employer twice in 3+ years. I've gotten it each time.
taxpreparer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggrad02 said:

taxpreparer said:

For those of us not involved in movies TV shows, did the old contracts cover VHS/DVD rentals? I see that as the ancestors to streaming and would have assumed they were handled the same way. In fact, wasn't that how Netflix started?


Yes it did in a way. Movie rental businesses like Blockbuster had to pay $60 - $80 per cassette for the right to rent them out. Actors and writers got residuals based on those sales (just like if you paid $20 dollars at Wal-Mart to buy a VHS without the right to rent it out).


And no streaming is not handled in the same way.


Thank you for your response. You too, TC.

One issue I have with all this is the reference to "living wage." I imagine that amount is different in Atlanta than Hollywood. Should a writer in GA get paid the same in CA, for the exact same script? My answer would be yes, even if the pay would be adequate in GA but almost subsistence level in CA.

The one issue that really bothers me is the idea of scanning an almost unknown actor's image and reusing it in perpetuity without further recompense.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.