Actors' strike

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. What are they striking about?

And don't they realize that halting everything only hurts themselves (no premieres, no upcoming movie/TV releases and the revenue, etc)?

Why don't you read an article and come back?

One article. Even just skim it.

+1

plenty of good coverage of both the writers' and now the actors' strikes.

I hope folks can access this--the Post has a paywall but I think maybe the first article is visible?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/07/13/why-actors-writers-strike-sag-wga-issues/

There are some truly existential issues at stake for actors as well as writers. And the PP who noted that studios want to pay actors ONCE to scan their likenesses and then use those likenesses as background AI "extras" forever is correct. It's indvidious. It's also not acting. Doing work as an extra is how quite a few actors make some initial money and start moving up to a line, then maybe a tiny role, then onward....

But there are many issues. Read the Post article or hey, just do one quick Google search, PPs who are confused.

Technology has forced a lot of people from their jobs or forced them to pivot. Why should acting be some holy grail that can’t be touched? The reality? Thru could not even hire an extra in the first place and instead just use AI for all extras.

And maybe it’s time that acting became a regular paying job across the board. Why do we need to pay actors millions of dollars in salary? What if they were paid a standard $250k salary a year or even less? Plenty of people who would still want to do it.

Your 250K a year as steady income is a pipe dream for most actors. Please dont' think that "actors (make) millions of dollars a year." That's a tiny handful of people like the Tom Cruises of the world.

But rather than go into more details I'm going to just drop one fact here which puts pay into perspective. Bear this in mind: The pay mentioned here is gig-based, freelance, so it's a figure that most (not all, but most) actors have to cobble together on their own from a role here, a role there, never being guaranteed any role at all.

"As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

In other words: 87 percent of union members make less than $26,000 a year from acting. That's not Tom Cruise "millions." Gig work is tough. Actors do it because they love it, and we consumers lap it up but it's the studios who make billions who benefit, not the jobbing actors. Do not conflate TV series stars or "celebrities" with jobbing actors.

You do not understand how acting in TV and films actually works, day to day, year in and year out. It is a gig economy. Freelance. Freelancers don't get paid a "standard salary" in a "regular paying job across the board." Even actors employed in TV series filming year after year are working on contracts which are negotiated and renegotiated over and over and over and the studios always want more for less. Studios will NOT ever want to treat actors like they're office workers who get X dollars a year as a "standard salary." Studios want to use them then let them go -- and studios are letting them go much faster than in the past. Think about it. Old-school broadcast TV series used to run (some still do) anywhere from 20 to 24 episodes per season, but increasingly, "seasons" on streaming--where the work is moving--are four, six, eight episodes. Huge difference in the number of months of work, and income, per year that a series job provides to an actor. The amount of assured work and steady income is dwindling. On purpose. It saves the studios money. I'm not saying that creators should be forced to turn a six-episode concept into a 22-episode one just to keep more actors employed longer. Even the actors wouldn't want to mess with the creative side like that. But the reality is that actors work fewer weeks and have longer hiatuses between work and now there's even talk of taking away work as extras--if you don't get why it's both impoverishing and insulting to be reduced to an AI avatar forever and ever, well, I can't make you get it.

You missed my point - Tom Cruise should also be making $250K salary a year and that's it.
And if he quits, oh well, plenty of people in line to replace him.

And I'm sure the money the studio saves on capping Tom Cruise's salary would definitely go to the extras and not on renovations to their 4th vacation home. Trickle down economics works, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. What are they striking about?

And don't they realize that halting everything only hurts themselves (no premieres, no upcoming movie/TV releases and the revenue, etc)?

Why don't you read an article and come back?

One article. Even just skim it.

+1

plenty of good coverage of both the writers' and now the actors' strikes.

I hope folks can access this--the Post has a paywall but I think maybe the first article is visible?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/07/13/why-actors-writers-strike-sag-wga-issues/

There are some truly existential issues at stake for actors as well as writers. And the PP who noted that studios want to pay actors ONCE to scan their likenesses and then use those likenesses as background AI "extras" forever is correct. It's indvidious. It's also not acting. Doing work as an extra is how quite a few actors make some initial money and start moving up to a line, then maybe a tiny role, then onward....

But there are many issues. Read the Post article or hey, just do one quick Google search, PPs who are confused.

Technology has forced a lot of people from their jobs or forced them to pivot. Why should acting be some holy grail that can’t be touched? The reality? Thru could not even hire an extra in the first place and instead just use AI for all extras.

And maybe it’s time that acting became a regular paying job across the board. Why do we need to pay actors millions of dollars in salary? What if they were paid a standard $250k salary a year or even less? Plenty of people who would still want to do it.

Your 250K a year as steady income is a pipe dream for most actors. Please dont' think that "actors (make) millions of dollars a year." That's a tiny handful of people like the Tom Cruises of the world.

But rather than go into more details I'm going to just drop one fact here which puts pay into perspective. Bear this in mind: The pay mentioned here is gig-based, freelance, so it's a figure that most (not all, but most) actors have to cobble together on their own from a role here, a role there, never being guaranteed any role at all.

"As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

In other words: 87 percent of union members make less than $26,000 a year from acting. That's not Tom Cruise "millions." Gig work is tough. Actors do it because they love it, and we consumers lap it up but it's the studios who make billions who benefit, not the jobbing actors. Do not conflate TV series stars or "celebrities" with jobbing actors.

You do not understand how acting in TV and films actually works, day to day, year in and year out. It is a gig economy. Freelance. Freelancers don't get paid a "standard salary" in a "regular paying job across the board." Even actors employed in TV series filming year after year are working on contracts which are negotiated and renegotiated over and over and over and the studios always want more for less. Studios will NOT ever want to treat actors like they're office workers who get X dollars a year as a "standard salary." Studios want to use them then let them go -- and studios are letting them go much faster than in the past. Think about it. Old-school broadcast TV series used to run (some still do) anywhere from 20 to 24 episodes per season, but increasingly, "seasons" on streaming--where the work is moving--are four, six, eight episodes. Huge difference in the number of months of work, and income, per year that a series job provides to an actor. The amount of assured work and steady income is dwindling. On purpose. It saves the studios money. I'm not saying that creators should be forced to turn a six-episode concept into a 22-episode one just to keep more actors employed longer. Even the actors wouldn't want to mess with the creative side like that. But the reality is that actors work fewer weeks and have longer hiatuses between work and now there's even talk of taking away work as extras--if you don't get why it's both impoverishing and insulting to be reduced to an AI avatar forever and ever, well, I can't make you get it.

You missed my point - Tom Cruise should also be making $250K salary a year and that's it.
And if he quits, oh well, plenty of people in line to replace him.

+1

Why should any A list actor be paid 10-15 million for a movie? Cap them at a million, offer residuals or ticket sale percent or something and then pay other actors more. Obviously studio execs could easily take some pay cuts as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. What are they striking about?

And don't they realize that halting everything only hurts themselves (no premieres, no upcoming movie/TV releases and the revenue, etc)?

Why don't you read an article and come back?

One article. Even just skim it.

+1

plenty of good coverage of both the writers' and now the actors' strikes.

I hope folks can access this--the Post has a paywall but I think maybe the first article is visible?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/07/13/why-actors-writers-strike-sag-wga-issues/

There are some truly existential issues at stake for actors as well as writers. And the PP who noted that studios want to pay actors ONCE to scan their likenesses and then use those likenesses as background AI "extras" forever is correct. It's indvidious. It's also not acting. Doing work as an extra is how quite a few actors make some initial money and start moving up to a line, then maybe a tiny role, then onward....

But there are many issues. Read the Post article or hey, just do one quick Google search, PPs who are confused.

Technology has forced a lot of people from their jobs or forced them to pivot. Why should acting be some holy grail that can’t be touched? The reality? Thru could not even hire an extra in the first place and instead just use AI for all extras.

And maybe it’s time that acting became a regular paying job across the board. Why do we need to pay actors millions of dollars in salary? What if they were paid a standard $250k salary a year or even less? Plenty of people who would still want to do it.

Your 250K a year as steady income is a pipe dream for most actors. Please dont' think that "actors (make) millions of dollars a year." That's a tiny handful of people like the Tom Cruises of the world.

But rather than go into more details I'm going to just drop one fact here which puts pay into perspective. Bear this in mind: The pay mentioned here is gig-based, freelance, so it's a figure that most (not all, but most) actors have to cobble together on their own from a role here, a role there, never being guaranteed any role at all.

"As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

In other words: 87 percent of union members make less than $26,000 a year from acting. That's not Tom Cruise "millions." Gig work is tough. Actors do it because they love it, and we consumers lap it up but it's the studios who make billions who benefit, not the jobbing actors. Do not conflate TV series stars or "celebrities" with jobbing actors.

You do not understand how acting in TV and films actually works, day to day, year in and year out. It is a gig economy. Freelance. Freelancers don't get paid a "standard salary" in a "regular paying job across the board." Even actors employed in TV series filming year after year are working on contracts which are negotiated and renegotiated over and over and over and the studios always want more for less. Studios will NOT ever want to treat actors like they're office workers who get X dollars a year as a "standard salary." Studios want to use them then let them go -- and studios are letting them go much faster than in the past. Think about it. Old-school broadcast TV series used to run (some still do) anywhere from 20 to 24 episodes per season, but increasingly, "seasons" on streaming--where the work is moving--are four, six, eight episodes. Huge difference in the number of months of work, and income, per year that a series job provides to an actor. The amount of assured work and steady income is dwindling. On purpose. It saves the studios money. I'm not saying that creators should be forced to turn a six-episode concept into a 22-episode one just to keep more actors employed longer. Even the actors wouldn't want to mess with the creative side like that. But the reality is that actors work fewer weeks and have longer hiatuses between work and now there's even talk of taking away work as extras--if you don't get why it's both impoverishing and insulting to be reduced to an AI avatar forever and ever, well, I can't make you get it.

You missed my point - Tom Cruise should also be making $250K salary a year and that's it.
And if he quits, oh well, plenty of people in line to replace him.

+1

Why should any A list actor be paid 10-15 million for a movie? Cap them at a million, offer residuals or ticket sale percent or something and then pay other actors more. Obviously studio execs could easily take some pay cuts as well.

This is getting derailed into a pie-in-the-sky discussion of what massive stars are paid.

That has no impact at all on this strike, what the union is negotiating about, or the day to day issues faced by most actors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. What are they striking about?

And don't they realize that halting everything only hurts themselves (no premieres, no upcoming movie/TV releases and the revenue, etc)?

Why don't you read an article and come back?

One article. Even just skim it.

+1

plenty of good coverage of both the writers' and now the actors' strikes.

I hope folks can access this--the Post has a paywall but I think maybe the first article is visible?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/07/13/why-actors-writers-strike-sag-wga-issues/

There are some truly existential issues at stake for actors as well as writers. And the PP who noted that studios want to pay actors ONCE to scan their likenesses and then use those likenesses as background AI "extras" forever is correct. It's indvidious. It's also not acting. Doing work as an extra is how quite a few actors make some initial money and start moving up to a line, then maybe a tiny role, then onward....

But there are many issues. Read the Post article or hey, just do one quick Google search, PPs who are confused.

Technology has forced a lot of people from their jobs or forced them to pivot. Why should acting be some holy grail that can’t be touched? The reality? Thru could not even hire an extra in the first place and instead just use AI for all extras.

And maybe it’s time that acting became a regular paying job across the board. Why do we need to pay actors millions of dollars in salary? What if they were paid a standard $250k salary a year or even less? Plenty of people who would still want to do it.

Your 250K a year as steady income is a pipe dream for most actors. Please dont' think that "actors (make) millions of dollars a year." That's a tiny handful of people like the Tom Cruises of the world.

But rather than go into more details I'm going to just drop one fact here which puts pay into perspective. Bear this in mind: The pay mentioned here is gig-based, freelance, so it's a figure that most (not all, but most) actors have to cobble together on their own from a role here, a role there, never being guaranteed any role at all.

"As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

In other words: 87 percent of union members make less than $26,000 a year from acting. That's not Tom Cruise "millions." Gig work is tough. Actors do it because they love it, and we consumers lap it up but it's the studios who make billions who benefit, not the jobbing actors. Do not conflate TV series stars or "celebrities" with jobbing actors.

You do not understand how acting in TV and films actually works, day to day, year in and year out. It is a gig economy. Freelance. Freelancers don't get paid a "standard salary" in a "regular paying job across the board." Even actors employed in TV series filming year after year are working on contracts which are negotiated and renegotiated over and over and over and the studios always want more for less. Studios will NOT ever want to treat actors like they're office workers who get X dollars a year as a "standard salary." Studios want to use them then let them go -- and studios are letting them go much faster than in the past. Think about it. Old-school broadcast TV series used to run (some still do) anywhere from 20 to 24 episodes per season, but increasingly, "seasons" on streaming--where the work is moving--are four, six, eight episodes. Huge difference in the number of months of work, and income, per year that a series job provides to an actor. The amount of assured work and steady income is dwindling. On purpose. It saves the studios money. I'm not saying that creators should be forced to turn a six-episode concept into a 22-episode one just to keep more actors employed longer. Even the actors wouldn't want to mess with the creative side like that. But the reality is that actors work fewer weeks and have longer hiatuses between work and now there's even talk of taking away work as extras--if you don't get why it's both impoverishing and insulting to be reduced to an AI avatar forever and ever, well, I can't make you get it.

This is an argument among multi-billionaire companies vs 87% of the industry making less than 26k. The A-listers will not be hurt by this. They will go on their multimillion vacations with their multimillionaire friends.

And why should A-listers be the only ones to give up money. All the big money makers, studios, directors, producers, etc. could give up money and still be profitable.

Those hurt the most will be theaters as they are still recovering from COVID shut downs. And the workers of those theaters. I can see where they will easily go out of business.

The Oppenheimer walkout was a joke. The strike was not in affect until 11:59 PM PACIFIC time. They could have easily completed their premiere, watched the movie and had plenty of time left over before the strike was in affect. They used them to make a statement.

SHAME ON ALL OF THEM!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. What are they striking about?

And don't they realize that halting everything only hurts themselves (no premieres, no upcoming movie/TV releases and the revenue, etc)?

Why don't you read an article and come back?

One article. Even just skim it.

+1

plenty of good coverage of both the writers' and now the actors' strikes.

I hope folks can access this--the Post has a paywall but I think maybe the first article is visible?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/07/13/why-actors-writers-strike-sag-wga-issues/

There are some truly existential issues at stake for actors as well as writers. And the PP who noted that studios want to pay actors ONCE to scan their likenesses and then use those likenesses as background AI "extras" forever is correct. It's indvidious. It's also not acting. Doing work as an extra is how quite a few actors make some initial money and start moving up to a line, then maybe a tiny role, then onward....

But there are many issues. Read the Post article or hey, just do one quick Google search, PPs who are confused.

Technology has forced a lot of people from their jobs or forced them to pivot. Why should acting be some holy grail that can’t be touched? The reality? Thru could not even hire an extra in the first place and instead just use AI for all extras.

And maybe it’s time that acting became a regular paying job across the board. Why do we need to pay actors millions of dollars in salary? What if they were paid a standard $250k salary a year or even less? Plenty of people who would still want to do it.

Acting isn't a holy grail that can't be touched, but it's a profession that has union leverage, and of course they're going to use that leverage to protect their bottom line. Most actors would DREAM to make $250k a year. The minimum to get health insurance through SAG is something like $26k a year, and many struggle to maintain that minimum on day jobs and commercials. These are the working actors most at risk, because they're the ones who would be offered the one time buyout for their likeness so they can become the Wilhelm Scream of background extras until the end of time.

Thank you. I wrote the longer version I think while you were posting this! I despair when people assume "actors make millions" and then also fail to understand that acting is freelance work, so union protection is vital.

The health insurance issue is especially tough. The union of course does have to have a floor for earnings that trigger union-provided health insurance, but it gives me shivers to think of anyone slipping below a certain threshold and suddenly losing insurance. I feel the same way about anyone whose health insurance access is precarious, in any industry. But the data that 87 percent of SAG-AFTRA members earn below the threshold for insurance just makes it all hit home: This isn't a profession where "millions" is even remotely in range, much less some fantasy of a steady, predictable $250K.

Here's where I'll post my usual "healthcare should not be tied to employment" comment.

[Anonymous]

They won’t be missed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. What are they striking about?

And don't they realize that halting everything only hurts themselves (no premieres, no upcoming movie/TV releases and the revenue, etc)?

Why don't you read an article and come back?

One article. Even just skim it.

+1

plenty of good coverage of both the writers' and now the actors' strikes.

I hope folks can access this--the Post has a paywall but I think maybe the first article is visible?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/07/13/why-actors-writers-strike-sag-wga-issues/

There are some truly existential issues at stake for actors as well as writers. And the PP who noted that studios want to pay actors ONCE to scan their likenesses and then use those likenesses as background AI "extras" forever is correct. It's indvidious. It's also not acting. Doing work as an extra is how quite a few actors make some initial money and start moving up to a line, then maybe a tiny role, then onward....

But there are many issues. Read the Post article or hey, just do one quick Google search, PPs who are confused.

Technology has forced a lot of people from their jobs or forced them to pivot. Why should acting be some holy grail that can’t be touched? The reality? Thru could not even hire an extra in the first place and instead just use AI for all extras.

And maybe it’s time that acting became a regular paying job across the board. Why do we need to pay actors millions of dollars in salary? What if they were paid a standard $250k salary a year or even less? Plenty of people who would still want to do it.

Your 250K a year as steady income is a pipe dream for most actors. Please dont' think that "actors (make) millions of dollars a year." That's a tiny handful of people like the Tom Cruises of the world.

But rather than go into more details I'm going to just drop one fact here which puts pay into perspective. Bear this in mind: The pay mentioned here is gig-based, freelance, so it's a figure that most (not all, but most) actors have to cobble together on their own from a role here, a role there, never being guaranteed any role at all.

"As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

In other words: 87 percent of union members make less than $26,000 a year from acting. That's not Tom Cruise "millions." Gig work is tough. Actors do it because they love it, and we consumers lap it up but it's the studios who make billions who benefit, not the jobbing actors. Do not conflate TV series stars or "celebrities" with jobbing actors.

You do not understand how acting in TV and films actually works, day to day, year in and year out. It is a gig economy. Freelance. Freelancers don't get paid a "standard salary" in a "regular paying job across the board." Even actors employed in TV series filming year after year are working on contracts which are negotiated and renegotiated over and over and over and the studios always want more for less. Studios will NOT ever want to treat actors like they're office workers who get X dollars a year as a "standard salary." Studios want to use them then let them go -- and studios are letting them go much faster than in the past. Think about it. Old-school broadcast TV series used to run (some still do) anywhere from 20 to 24 episodes per season, but increasingly, "seasons" on streaming--where the work is moving--are four, six, eight episodes. Huge difference in the number of months of work, and income, per year that a series job provides to an actor. The amount of assured work and steady income is dwindling. On purpose. It saves the studios money. I'm not saying that creators should be forced to turn a six-episode concept into a 22-episode one just to keep more actors employed longer. Even the actors wouldn't want to mess with the creative side like that. But the reality is that actors work fewer weeks and have longer hiatuses between work and now there's even talk of taking away work as extras--if you don't get why it's both impoverishing and insulting to be reduced to an AI avatar forever and ever, well, I can't make you get it.

You missed my point - Tom Cruise should also be making $250K salary a year and that's it.
And if he quits, oh well, plenty of people in line to replace him.

+1

Why should any A list actor be paid 10-15 million for a movie? Cap them at a million, offer residuals or ticket sale percent or something and then pay other actors more. Obviously studio execs could easily take some pay cuts as well.

You clearly do not understand the problem. What ticket sales? Many do get their pay from ticket sales. Black Widow was released in theaters and streaming due to COVID. Scarlett Johansson had to sue to get her money. Streaming is paying the distributor but the actors are not getting the monies for those going to streaming (unless they specifically made the movie for streaming, e.g., Extraction, Jack Ryan, etc.).

CGI and AI is now allowing movies to use the same image over and over again in movies but with they only pay for that image once.

The business model has drastically changed but pay and contracts are not changing.

Ikm sure there’s more to it that I don’t even understand.

[Anonymous]

This strike is the canary in the AI coal mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. What are they striking about?

And don't they realize that halting everything only hurts themselves (no premieres, no upcoming movie/TV releases and the revenue, etc)?

Why don't you read an article and come back?

One article. Even just skim it.

+1

plenty of good coverage of both the writers' and now the actors' strikes.

I hope folks can access this--the Post has a paywall but I think maybe the first article is visible?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/07/13/why-actors-writers-strike-sag-wga-issues/

There are some truly existential issues at stake for actors as well as writers. And the PP who noted that studios want to pay actors ONCE to scan their likenesses and then use those likenesses as background AI "extras" forever is correct. It's indvidious. It's also not acting. Doing work as an extra is how quite a few actors make some initial money and start moving up to a line, then maybe a tiny role, then onward....

But there are many issues. Read the Post article or hey, just do one quick Google search, PPs who are confused.

Technology has forced a lot of people from their jobs or forced them to pivot. Why should acting be some holy grail that can’t be touched? The reality? Thru could not even hire an extra in the first place and instead just use AI for all extras.

And maybe it’s time that acting became a regular paying job across the board. Why do we need to pay actors millions of dollars in salary? What if they were paid a standard $250k salary a year or even less? Plenty of people who would still want to do it.

Your 250K a year as steady income is a pipe dream for most actors. Please dont' think that "actors (make) millions of dollars a year." That's a tiny handful of people like the Tom Cruises of the world.

But rather than go into more details I'm going to just drop one fact here which puts pay into perspective. Bear this in mind: The pay mentioned here is gig-based, freelance, so it's a figure that most (not all, but most) actors have to cobble together on their own from a role here, a role there, never being guaranteed any role at all.

"As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

In other words: 87 percent of union members make less than $26,000 a year from acting. That's not Tom Cruise "millions." Gig work is tough. Actors do it because they love it, and we consumers lap it up but it's the studios who make billions who benefit, not the jobbing actors. Do not conflate TV series stars or "celebrities" with jobbing actors.

You do not understand how acting in TV and films actually works, day to day, year in and year out. It is a gig economy. Freelance. Freelancers don't get paid a "standard salary" in a "regular paying job across the board." Even actors employed in TV series filming year after year are working on contracts which are negotiated and renegotiated over and over and over and the studios always want more for less. Studios will NOT ever want to treat actors like they're office workers who get X dollars a year as a "standard salary." Studios want to use them then let them go -- and studios are letting them go much faster than in the past. Think about it. Old-school broadcast TV series used to run (some still do) anywhere from 20 to 24 episodes per season, but increasingly, "seasons" on streaming--where the work is moving--are four, six, eight episodes. Huge difference in the number of months of work, and income, per year that a series job provides to an actor. The amount of assured work and steady income is dwindling. On purpose. It saves the studios money. I'm not saying that creators should be forced to turn a six-episode concept into a 22-episode one just to keep more actors employed longer. Even the actors wouldn't want to mess with the creative side like that. But the reality is that actors work fewer weeks and have longer hiatuses between work and now there's even talk of taking away work as extras--if you don't get why it's both impoverishing and insulting to be reduced to an AI avatar forever and ever, well, I can't make you get it.

You missed my point - Tom Cruise should also be making $250K salary a year and that's it.
And if he quits, oh well, plenty of people in line to replace him.

+1

Why should any A list actor be paid 10-15 million for a movie? Cap them at a million, offer residuals or ticket sale percent or something and then pay other actors more. Obviously studio execs could easily take some pay cuts as well.

1. Nobody trusts studio accounting. Some highlights:

"Art Buchwald received a settlement from Paramount after his lawsuit Buchwald v. Paramount (1990). The court found Paramount's actions "unconscionable", noting that it was impossible to believe that Eddie Murphy's 1988 comedy Coming to America, which grossed $288 million, failed to make a profit, especially since the actual production costs were less than a tenth of that. Paramount settled for $900,000,[8] rather than have its accounting methods closely scrutinized."

"Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his 1986 novel Forrest Gump included a 3% share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the 1994 film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received only $350,000 for the rights and an additional $250,000 from the studio.[13]"

"Stan Lee, co-creator of the character Spider-Man, had a contract awarding him 10% of the net profits of anything based on his characters. The film Spider-Man (2002) made more than $800 million in revenue, but the producers claim that it did not make any profit as defined in Lee's contract, and Lee received nothing."

"The 2002 film My Big Fat Greek Wedding was considered hugely successful for an independent film, yet according to the studio, the film lost money"

"A Warner Bros. receipt was leaked online in 2010, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) ended up with a $167 million loss on paper after grossing nearly $1 billion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

2. Streaming services do not want to pay residuals, Netflix wants to purchase a work and own it in perpetuity.

[Anonymous]

As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

This is inflated though. To be a SAG-AFTRA member you only have to work one day with a speaking role (or I think 3 days as background). There are a TON of wannabe actors that get this opportunity but continue with their full time non-acting jobs until they can make a decent living acting and still join the union.

That percentage implies that 100% of all SAG-AFTRA members are FULL TIME actors. That is not true and very misleading.

[Anonymous]

Variety put together a nice list of everything SAG-AFTRA members can't do while on strike.

https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/sag-strike-rules-no-interviews-premieres-fyc-events-1235669838/

Except as set forth in the Notice to Members Regarding Non-Struck Work, all covered services and performing work under the TV/ theatrical contracts must be withheld, including but not limited to:

●Principal on camera work, such as:
○ Acting
○ Singing
○ Dancing
○ Performing stunts
○ Piloting on-camera aircraft
○ Puppeteering
○ Performance capture or motion capture work;

● Principal off camera work, such as:
○ ADR/Looping
○ TV Trailers (promos) and Theatrical Trailers
○ Voice Acting
○ Singing
○ Narration, including audio descriptive services except as the services may be covered by another collective bargaining agreement referred in the Notice to
Members Regarding Non-Struck Work
○ Stunt coordinating and related services

● Background work
● Stand-in work
● Photo and/or body doubles
● Fittings, wardrobe tests, and makeup tests
● Rehearsals and camera tests
● Scanning
● Interviews and auditions (including via self-tape)

● Promotion of/publicity services for work under the TV/Theatrical Contracts, such as:
○ Tours
○ Personal appearances
○ Interviews
○ Conventions
○ Fan expos
○ Festivals
○ For your consideration events
○ Panels
○ Premieres/screenings
○ Award shows
○ Junkets
○ Podcast appearances
○ Social media
○ Studio showcases

● Negotiating and/or entering into and/or consenting to:
○ An agreement to perform covered services in the future
○ Any new agreement related to merchandising connected to a covered project
○ The creation and use of digital replicas, including through the reuse of prior work

● Performing on a trailer for a struck production or other ancillary content connected to a struck production

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

This is inflated though. To be a SAG-AFTRA member you only have to work one day with a speaking role (or I think 3 days as background). There are a TON of wannabe actors that get this opportunity but continue with their full time non-acting jobs until they can make a decent living acting and still join the union.

That percentage implies that 100% of all SAG-AFTRA members are FULL TIME actors. That is not true and very misleading.

I just watched an interview with Renee Felice Smith, who played a character on NCIS:Los Angeles for 11 seasons. She was notified in 2022 that she did make enough to qualify for the insurance. A series regular for 11 seasons did not make $26k to qualify for insurance... that's insane.

That's the reality for 95% of actors in the union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time feeling bad for Hollywood actors. Writers, sure, but not supportive of an actor strike.

Not all actors are movie stars--most aren't. Lots of working actors who don't earn millions. And the studio execs have said explicitly that they want to break the union and can just wait until the writers and actors risk losing their homes.

Exactly. Most are working actors who need to work to support themselves.

Which is why Fran D is near tears in the speech she gave. She didn’t want to do this. She knows the impact.

I didn’t think that non scripted appearances are covered work, unless they are in connection with promoting covered work. So I thought Kelly could interview someone like Robert Redford who has no films to promote, even though he’s a sag aftra member.

I'm the DCUM poster who always complains about CEO salaries versus their staff's salaries. Same situation here. Executives making millions while most of the people who make that possible are struggling to support themselves. Also maybe the big stars don't need to make so much more than everyone else. Yes, they should make more (they are the draw, they have a bigger role, etc.), but is such a huge disparity necessary?

I agree with this. I'm a fed and it's always seemed right to me that our top Directors/Secretaries make about $220-250k and everyone else makes $100k on average.

I'm not a communist however and don't believe that the excess should be taken from people, but maybe organizations should rethink salaries. Why are Presidents of Universities paid millions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a SAG-AFTRA member, you have to make $26,000 a year to get health insurance. 87 percent of union members don't qualify annually." (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

This is inflated though. To be a SAG-AFTRA member you only have to work one day with a speaking role (or I think 3 days as background). There are a TON of wannabe actors that get this opportunity but continue with their full time non-acting jobs until they can make a decent living acting and still join the union.

That percentage implies that 100% of all SAG-AFTRA members are FULL TIME actors. That is not true and very misleading.

I just watched an interview with Renee Felice Smith, who played a character on NCIS:Los Angeles for 11 seasons. She was notified in 2022 that she did make enough to qualify for the insurance. A series regular for 11 seasons did not make $26k to qualify for insurance... that's insane.

That's the reality for 95% of actors in the union.

This is a bad example. She left the show in 2021, and was no longer a series regular in 2022. What's insane is not making enough off residuals for NCIS, since that show is heavily played in syndication on cable still, and not just on streamers.

[Anonymous]

Presumably she is in California, right? So if she is earning under $26k/year, she can get insurance through Medi-Cal which would be free or highly subsidized depending on how much she earned.