Actors' strike

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The $26k limit is for SAG AFTRA qualifying work, only. She left the show and released a children's book, so presumably, her and her partner have other income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

And what about actors who aren't based in CA?

Some are based in places like Atlanta (huge film and TV production industry) and other cities around the country. Just noting that. Not only in relation to health insurance but overall. This isn't a CA problem or a CA strike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This strike is the canary in the AI coal mine.

Except most of us won’t be striking when we get replaced. We will be trying to get into different fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And what about actors who aren't based in CA?

Some are based in places like Atlanta (huge film and TV production industry) and other cities around the country. Just noting that. Not only in relation to health insurance but overall. This isn't a CA problem or a CA strike.

Even a single dollar for health insurance and medical costs is too much if you are making less thank 26K, especially in the Los Angeles area!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This strike is the canary in the AI coal mine.

Except most of us won’t be striking when we get replaced. We will be trying to get into different fields.

This.

Not everyone can make a living as an actor.

I do take issue with greedy film production companies who don’t pay fair wages, but it seems like a risky industry with an odd way of handling money.

The industry will never operate the way normal businesses do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This strike is the canary in the AI coal mine.

There is an entire flock in the mine. It's unnerving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whoa. How have they gotten away with that for so long?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This strike is the canary in the AI coal mine.

Except most of us won’t be striking when we get replaced. We will be trying to get into different fields.

This.

Not everyone can make a living as an actor.

I do take issue with greedy film production companies who don’t pay fair wages, but it seems like a risky industry with an odd way of handling money.

The industry will never operate the way normal businesses do.

But they're signing a long term contract that is being threatened by an emerging technology. AI isn't mature enough to replace actors, and actors want to set the terms so they can be compensated fairly for their contribution. AI learns from existing content, and the guy they use to produce Waiter #3 wants to be paid in perpetuity rather than a one time sale of his likeness. They need to define how residuals will work as the industry evolves, because they already got screwed over with streaming.

[Anonymous]

This is a just strike and much needed. In fact it is an important mark for all labor unions and for us here who are workers/serfs and not serf owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may just turn off my tv entirely for the duration. When AI comes for my job, I’d like the support of the other workers. When it comes for my sons’ job, I’d like them to have society’s support as well. It doesn’t matter how overpaid some celebrities are. What matters is that human work needs to continue to be valued for society to function.

Don’t turn off the streaming services though! Neither striking org is calling for a boycott and it’s important for the studios to realize that people want content! Continue to watch movie and tv and show that you enjoy it.

THIS! This is correct. Please don't protest by boycotting streaming. It might seem logical to do so but neither union is calling for that. PP is right: If people keep on streaming and watching, the studios are going to realize they have audiences but are rapidly running out of content and will feel more pressure to talk to the unions.
Source: Friends in SAG-AFTRA!

So we don't need to boycott theater films either ?

No boycotts have been called! Please go see feature films! Show the studios you want to see actors in things! Real live actors. In this case, not crossing the picket line means not taking acting or writing jobs, so there’s no action most of us consumers need to take on our daily lives to support the strikers. Optionally you can donate to the union strike funds of course but just standing in solidarity with the strikers is about what work you do/don’t do and is not applicable to most of us outside the industry. Enjoy going to the cinema!

[Anonymous]

AI should replace these types of jobs, no one should get paid millions to act in a movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AI should replace these types of jobs, no one should get paid millions to act in a movie.

Anyway….

[Anonymous]

AI cuts the need for large production staff,extras sets etc... it's time to move on to another job

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting take from Heather Matarazzo showing real royalty numbers for someone like her. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8dTPUr9/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AI should replace these types of jobs, no one should get paid millions to act in a movie.

No one should be paid more than six figures for any job. AI will be coming for your job unless you do hands-on work. But then there are robots…