Reply to Actors' strike

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Actors' strike"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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)?

[/quote]

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

One article. Even just skim it. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [b]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[/b]. [/quote]

[b]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. [/b]

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 [i]cobble together on their own from a role here, a role there, never being guaranteed any role at all.[/i]

[b]"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."[/b]  (source: SAG-AFTRA national board member, actor Dule Hill)

In other words: [b]87 percent of union members make less than $26,000 a year from acting[/b]. That's not Tom Cruise "millions." Gig work is tough. Actors do it because they love it, and [i]we consumers lap it up[/i] 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 [b]not[/b] 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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

The point is moot from the start. The people on picket lines today have to deal in realities, not what-if fantasy. I agree, it's a nice fantasy that the Cruises of the world would take a fixed salary like that and then everyone would benefit. [b]It truly would be lovely to have a guaranteed income for all actors.[/b] But the reality is that there's a strike on right now so people who can barely make ends meet are not treated as disposable by behemoth employers who make billions. No one's proposing a fixed salary from top to bottom in the real world.

I'm waiting to hear that Cruise and the other big-ticket stars are donating millions to strike funds to provide help for actors (and hey, why not writers too) who are completely without income right now. Maybe the stars will do it anonymously and we wont' hear. But I hope they're doing it. 
[/quote]

I mean, I get that we're talking about actors and writers here, but if you consider your post in the broad spectrum of things, I'd rather sign up to pay teachers a guaranteed salary of $250K and never watch another movie again. Come on. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics