Actors' strike

[Anonymous]

I feel sorry for all the regular grunts suffering through this strike. Like a PP said, that's the vast majority living on limited income to begin with and now nothing.

[Anonymous]

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.

I watched the Q&A from the press conference and the union was proposed an AI proposal that blows my mind: background performers should be scanned and paid for one day’s work and the company would own the image, likeness, the scan and any product from it and be allowed to use it, in perpetuity. HFS!

[Anonymous]

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.

I watched the Q&A from the press conference and the union was proposed an AI proposal that blows my mind: background performers should be scanned and paid for one day’s work and the company would own the image, likeness, the scan and any product from it and be allowed to use it, in perpetuity. HFS!

That's insane, NO!

[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.

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?

I believe stars like Tom Cruise have back end deals where the majority of their pay comes from ticket sales so it’s a profit sharing. Similar to Messi’s deal with Apple TV and Jordan’s deal with Nike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for all the regular grunts suffering through this strike. Like a PP said, that's the vast majority living on limited income to begin with and now nothing.

+1. And all the businesses that support tv & movies. The ripple effect is huge.

[Anonymous]

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.

I watched the Q&A from the press conference and the union was proposed an AI proposal that blows my mind: background performers should be scanned and paid for one day’s work and the company would own the image, likeness, the scan and any product from it and be allowed to use it, in perpetuity. HFS!

That's insane, NO!

It really is outrageous.

[Anonymous]

I say let Hollywood go on strike for a long long time. We can happily do without them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say let Hollywood go on strike for a long long time. We can happily do without them.

Speak for yourself. Although I could live without pretty much anything involving massively overpaid movie stars, high-quality entertainment is a huge asset to my life. I want the arts to thrive and prosper, and absolutely do not want the most vulnerable practitioners to be screwed over by a small group of greedy resource-hoarding studio executives. I hope the strike will end fairly quickly, on excellent terms for the former.

[Anonymous]

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

You're looking at the top of the A-list. There are about 160K actors in SAG/AFTRA. The average annual salary is $40K with 87% (140K) making less than $26K. There are only a few thousand professional actors who make a full-time living and are able to survive on only acting as a source of income. The vast majority of the acting community have to have other jobs to supplement their acting career.

The jobs that are being threatened by AI are the bottom of the pile. Extra and non-speaking parts typically get paid about $100-200 per day. They often have to show up early in the morning and stay until shooting is done for the day. So for that $100-200 they can often be on-site for 10+ hours.

What the streaming services want is to be able to pay these people once, then retain their image and use AI to move the image in the background in perpetuity and not have to hire these extras ever again. How would you like to sell your likeness, be in many films and TV shows in the background and never get paid again. Because that's what the studios are trying to force the actor's guild to accept. The contract also means that if an extra goes on to get a more significant part later in life and become much more recognized, that the studios will still have their image on record and have free license to put them in the background and draw extra income from people who stream the show to see an A-lister or B-lister in the background because when they were a starving artist making $10K a year they had to sell their likeness to eat.

Those are the people that you are throwing to the wolves. Not Tom Hanks, Leo DiCaprio or Jennifer Lawrence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say let Hollywood go on strike for a long long time. We can happily do without them.

That's what the studios are counting on. We will be donating to the strike fund to help out all the no-name regular people who help to bring us a huge variety of entertainment at our fingertips. I don't only want to watch reality shows, mediocre casts, fake people and crappy dramas in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for all the regular grunts suffering through this strike. Like a PP said, that's the vast majority living on limited income to begin with and now nothing.

Is the regular grunts they are striking for. The big stars have agents that negotiate individual contract deals. It’s the grunts that work under the CBA and everyone understands they are the ones that are getting killed.
I’m actually curious how they disperse strike funds for this type of workforce. It’s hard to say what people are giving up.

[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.

Most extras in Atlanta are regular people with normal jobs who just think it's cool to be in movies/tv. They aren't trying to be real actors - they're doing it as a hobby.

I am pro union. And I hate that CEOs/big wigs/owners make the big bucks. But I don't really care about the SAG situation at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Honestly it's offensive to call yourself a serf. Surely you can see how privileged you are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for all the regular grunts suffering through this strike. Like a PP said, that's the vast majority living on limited income to begin with and now nothing.

Ok but if you can barely survive than maybe being an actor isn't a great job and they should move on to something else.

Movie sales and tv watching in general has declined and it's not going to go back up because time and technology are moving on and Hollywood is stuck back in the 1950s. Content that is created by average people in their home is gaining more viewing time these days than a produced tv show with professional actors and that trend is going to continue. It's hard when your industry finally comes to terms with technology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for all the regular grunts suffering through this strike. Like a PP said, that's the vast majority living on limited income to begin with and now nothing.

Ok but if you can barely survive than maybe being an actor isn't a great job and they should move on to something else.

Movie sales and tv watching in general has declined and it's not going to go back up because time and technology are moving on and Hollywood is stuck back in the 1950s. Content that is created by average people in their home is gaining more viewing time these days than a produced tv show with professional actors and that trend is going to continue. It's hard when your industry finally comes to terms with technology.

While I agree with you about content created by average people is popular, I don't think TV watching has declined. It's the way television is watched that's changed. It used to be easier to track. A DVD was sold, a network played it at a certain time and generated $X revenue through the commercials played. Now with streaming, the math is all different, and so while an actor or writer used to make a couple bucks every time something they were in aired, now they're paid a couple of pennies. YouTube stars are not going to replace House of the Dragon or Succession. There's still a demand for big budget television.