Anonymous wrote:I would imagine there are lots of farmers, miners, & factory workers pitching in to help poor Mandy Moore get by.

The government pays farmers an average of around $1-1.5 million each year. Farmers received around $30 billion in funds from the government in 2021. They received a record nearly $50 billion in 2020.

Much of this money is given to them to NOT farm the land.

I saw Broadway actors may strike soon.

This is more devastating to me than the actor's strike. I have tickets to several shows this summer and travel plans made.

Writers, actors, Broadway, and UPS all on strike at once... the world will fall apart!

I would imagine there are lots of farmers, miners, & factory workers pitching in to help poor Mandy Moore get by.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a problem with AI but not CGI? They use CGI to make crowds bigger thus taking jobs away from extras. They’ve been “AI’ing” for a long time.

The workers should have health insurance of some form.

Companies with pensions are very few if not completely gone.

How many companies continue to pay their employees for the work done 1 year ago, 5, 10? It’s usually pay and done.

Their complaints are no different than all workers in US.

Exactly. CGI has meant the end of tons of jobs in the industry and resulted in the off-shoring of a lot of work out of the US. This has been going on for years. Streaming platforms have different economics than the studios. Why should actors get residuals when nobody (advertisers) is paying that bill. I don't care one way or another, but, SAG saying that most of their members make less than $26,000 per year is a straw man argument. $26,000 a year is not full time work in this country. And there are many, many SAG members who do not consider themselves full time actors. If you are only making $26,000 a year, you need to get another job to supplement (or find a new career).

First, residuals are a boon to the studios--means they can pay workers less upfront and adjust what the actors get based on future success of the tv show/movie. Without them, the studios would have to pay day actors and non-star regulars way more for shows that are flops.

Secondly, OF COURSE the bill is being paid--through licensing and subscription fees.

Thank you, PP. At last, someone who understands why residuals actually benefit the studios paying them more than they benefit the actors receiving them. There is so much misinformation and ignorance on this thread about how pay for actors (and writers) actually functions.

Do you get paid for work you did 3 years ago?

Did YOU read the post explaining exactly how residuals work, and how over time residuals actually SAVE the studios money and end up paying actors (and writers) less and less while the studios make more and more money? Residuals are not new. They do not work like your paycheck does. Go back, read that post, read some coverage of the strike issues, and try to grasp that not every industry pays people in the way you are paid.

Perhaps actors should not depend on residuals but get a one time bigger payment for their services.

This is one of the reasons that the actors are striking. Residuals actually favor the studio/streaming service. If you agree to pay people 1/10 the salary but give them residuals, then you only end up paying residuals for shows that actually succeed and you save money. You'll only end up paying residuals for the really successful shows. This is the perfect model for the content owners. They pay a small amount up front and only pay the true worth for all of the staff and supporting artists on the shows that succeed. In general, you need a show to be successful and in syndication or in reruns for more than 5 years post-run for residuals to catch up to reasonable up front salaries. For the majority of supporting staff, they will never see the amount that they would have to be paid if it were paid a reasonable amount up front. Your small daily rate, plus small residuals rarely come above 60% of what you could get if you were paid a reasonable amount up front. I mean would you rather be paid $400-500 per day once? Or would you rather get paid $125-150 per day up front and get monthly residuals of $3-5? That's the type of deal that they were being given. So those series that die, have no residuals. Those that are okay and maybe get rerun or hit syndication and get an extra season or two of play? Those actors will get like another $120 over the syndication run. But they'll get it every month for 24-30 months.

The actors would love to get reasonable daily rates that were standard in the union. Get their money up front when they work rather than get 25% of the value of their work up front and maybe get another 5-10% a year in the future if the show is popular enough in syndication. Instead, they are stuck with the residual package. And that only bound studios and networks. Streaming services were never bound by the residual practice. So they are not offering it. And they are just pocketing the profits by hiring at union standard rates that are below market value. And this is what the picketers are protesting. Either use the existing residual model for real (really? Paying pennies every month? The studios are spending more in postage than they are paying the extras) or pay real salaries. That is what they are striking for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a problem with AI but not CGI? They use CGI to make crowds bigger thus taking jobs away from extras. They’ve been “AI’ing” for a long time.

The workers should have health insurance of some form.

Companies with pensions are very few if not completely gone.

How many companies continue to pay their employees for the work done 1 year ago, 5, 10? It’s usually pay and done.

Their complaints are no different than all workers in US.

Exactly. CGI has meant the end of tons of jobs in the industry and resulted in the off-shoring of a lot of work out of the US. This has been going on for years. Streaming platforms have different economics than the studios. Why should actors get residuals when nobody (advertisers) is paying that bill. I don't care one way or another, but, SAG saying that most of their members make less than $26,000 per year is a straw man argument. $26,000 a year is not full time work in this country. And there are many, many SAG members who do not consider themselves full time actors. If you are only making $26,000 a year, you need to get another job to supplement (or find a new career).

First, residuals are a boon to the studios--means they can pay workers less upfront and adjust what the actors get based on future success of the tv show/movie. Without them, the studios would have to pay day actors and non-star regulars way more for shows that are flops.

Secondly, OF COURSE the bill is being paid--through licensing and subscription fees.

Thank you, PP. At last, someone who understands why residuals actually benefit the studios paying them more than they benefit the actors receiving them. There is so much misinformation and ignorance on this thread about how pay for actors (and writers) actually functions.

Do you get paid for work you did 3 years ago?

Did YOU read the post explaining exactly how residuals work, and how over time residuals actually SAVE the studios money and end up paying actors (and writers) less and less while the studios make more and more money? Residuals are not new. They do not work like your paycheck does. Go back, read that post, read some coverage of the strike issues, and try to grasp that not every industry pays people in the way you are paid.

Perhaps actors should not depend on residuals but get a one time bigger payment for their services.

That's one of their requests. They want a pay raise to keep up with inflation, and they want more transparency in how they're being paid. It sounds like the studios are offering performers rates with some amount of residuals baked in as an advance.

SAG-AFTRA demands:

WAGE INVASION DUE TO ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RESIDUALS: Limit the amount of a performer's salary that can be reduced due to the advance payment of residuals. Instead of disguising advance payment of residuals as a part of the performer’s initial compensation, require transparency with a separate residual check that goes to the union, the same as all other residuals

The AMPTP actually agreed to most of this, except for the transparency with separate residual checks, which seems like a dumb move on their part, because then actors couldn't post screenshots of their $0.01 residual checks anymore, since they'd be getting a hefty initial deposit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a problem with AI but not CGI? They use CGI to make crowds bigger thus taking jobs away from extras. They’ve been “AI’ing” for a long time.

The workers should have health insurance of some form.

Companies with pensions are very few if not completely gone.

How many companies continue to pay their employees for the work done 1 year ago, 5, 10? It’s usually pay and done.

Their complaints are no different than all workers in US.

Exactly. CGI has meant the end of tons of jobs in the industry and resulted in the off-shoring of a lot of work out of the US. This has been going on for years. Streaming platforms have different economics than the studios. Why should actors get residuals when nobody (advertisers) is paying that bill. I don't care one way or another, but, SAG saying that most of their members make less than $26,000 per year is a straw man argument. $26,000 a year is not full time work in this country. And there are many, many SAG members who do not consider themselves full time actors. If you are only making $26,000 a year, you need to get another job to supplement (or find a new career).

First, residuals are a boon to the studios--means they can pay workers less upfront and adjust what the actors get based on future success of the tv show/movie. Without them, the studios would have to pay day actors and non-star regulars way more for shows that are flops.

Secondly, OF COURSE the bill is being paid--through licensing and subscription fees.

Thank you, PP. At last, someone who understands why residuals actually benefit the studios paying them more than they benefit the actors receiving them. There is so much misinformation and ignorance on this thread about how pay for actors (and writers) actually functions.

Do you get paid for work you did 3 years ago?

Did YOU read the post explaining exactly how residuals work, and how over time residuals actually SAVE the studios money and end up paying actors (and writers) less and less while the studios make more and more money? Residuals are not new. They do not work like your paycheck does. Go back, read that post, read some coverage of the strike issues, and try to grasp that not every industry pays people in the way you are paid.

Perhaps actors should not depend on residuals but get a one time bigger payment for their services.

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the video with Mandy Moore who said she's received streaming residual checks for This Is Us for as little as $0.01.

Unreal!

And if Mandy Moore, who likely got more up front than some other cast members, is getting residuals that insulting, we can only imagine how poor residuals are for other actors (on that or any show) who got much less up front. Many jobbing actors who aren't paid at high levels to begin with do depend on residuals to tide them over between roles. Not much "tiding over" there.

I just saw the video with Mandy Moore who said she's received streaming residual checks for This Is Us for as little as $0.01.

Unreal!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a problem with AI but not CGI? They use CGI to make crowds bigger thus taking jobs away from extras. They’ve been “AI’ing” for a long time.

The workers should have health insurance of some form.

Companies with pensions are very few if not completely gone.

How many companies continue to pay their employees for the work done 1 year ago, 5, 10? It’s usually pay and done.

Their complaints are no different than all workers in US.

Exactly. CGI has meant the end of tons of jobs in the industry and resulted in the off-shoring of a lot of work out of the US. This has been going on for years. Streaming platforms have different economics than the studios. Why should actors get residuals when nobody (advertisers) is paying that bill. I don't care one way or another, but, SAG saying that most of their members make less than $26,000 per year is a straw man argument. $26,000 a year is not full time work in this country. And there are many, many SAG members who do not consider themselves full time actors. If you are only making $26,000 a year, you need to get another job to supplement (or find a new career).

First, residuals are a boon to the studios--means they can pay workers less upfront and adjust what the actors get based on future success of the tv show/movie. Without them, the studios would have to pay day actors and non-star regulars way more for shows that are flops.

Secondly, OF COURSE the bill is being paid--through licensing and subscription fees.

Thank you, PP. At last, someone who understands why residuals actually benefit the studios paying them more than they benefit the actors receiving them. There is so much misinformation and ignorance on this thread about how pay for actors (and writers) actually functions.

Do you get paid for work you did 3 years ago?

Did YOU read the post explaining exactly how residuals work, and how over time residuals actually SAVE the studios money and end up paying actors (and writers) less and less while the studios make more and more money? Residuals are not new. They do not work like your paycheck does. Go back, read that post, read some coverage of the strike issues, and try to grasp that not every industry pays people in the way you are paid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a problem with AI but not CGI? They use CGI to make crowds bigger thus taking jobs away from extras. They’ve been “AI’ing” for a long time.

The workers should have health insurance of some form.

Companies with pensions are very few if not completely gone.

How many companies continue to pay their employees for the work done 1 year ago, 5, 10? It’s usually pay and done.

Their complaints are no different than all workers in US.

Exactly. CGI has meant the end of tons of jobs in the industry and resulted in the off-shoring of a lot of work out of the US. This has been going on for years. Streaming platforms have different economics than the studios. Why should actors get residuals when nobody (advertisers) is paying that bill. I don't care one way or another, but, SAG saying that most of their members make less than $26,000 per year is a straw man argument. $26,000 a year is not full time work in this country. And there are many, many SAG members who do not consider themselves full time actors. If you are only making $26,000 a year, you need to get another job to supplement (or find a new career).

First, residuals are a boon to the studios--means they can pay workers less upfront and adjust what the actors get based on future success of the tv show/movie. Without them, the studios would have to pay day actors and non-star regulars way more for shows that are flops.

Secondly, OF COURSE the bill is being paid--through licensing and subscription fees.

Thank you, PP. At last, someone who understands why residuals actually benefit the studios paying them more than they benefit the actors receiving them. There is so much misinformation and ignorance on this thread about how pay for actors (and writers) actually functions.

Do you get paid for work you did 3 years ago?

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't miss network TV at all. I would not miss movies either.

Well good for you? What do you think your meaningless post contributes?

This isn't just network. This is cable and streaming. For many of us, television and movies are art and it is a loss. And these artists deserve fair compensation for our entertainment.

I wouldn't miss network TV at all. I would not miss movies either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal just cut all the trees that had provided shade to the striking workers. Wow.

https://twitter.com/ChrisStephensMD/status/1681005154609545216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1681005154609545216%7Ctwgr%5E345a2642686c5de17c5bfdbb0ef13e2b9f2e4ec5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lamag.com%2Farticle%2Ftree-pruning-universal-pictures-strike-spite%2F

Despicable.

Here's a different link to this article: https://www.lamag.com/article/tree-pruning-universal-pictures-strike-spite/

People should read the linked article. It gives more detail and notes that tree experts say this is absolutely not the time to prune these trees--they're likely going to be damaged or killed by this. The pruning would never be done at this time by the city, apparently. Gee, wonder who did it?

Separately but another example of the companies being a-holes to picketers: NBC Universal is proceeding with construction projects which directly block sidewalks and gates where picketing was taking place, which forces picketers into the street. Though the studio's work is part of an ongoing project (let's be clear about that) -- the result is serious enough that the LA Police Department's Labor Relations Unit came to inspect whether picketers were safe. The LAPD sees the hazard and has asked NBC Universal to put up temporary barriers in a way that would create a narrow pedestrian lane picketers could use. So far the studio is shrugging it off. Does the studio HAVE to do what the LAPD requests in this case? Probably not. Is the studio being a grade A jerk? Yes. Full story here:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/nbc-universal-strike-drama-free-speech-safety-concerns-1235510834/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there a problem with AI but not CGI? They use CGI to make crowds bigger thus taking jobs away from extras. They’ve been “AI’ing” for a long time.

The workers should have health insurance of some form.

Companies with pensions are very few if not completely gone.

How many companies continue to pay their employees for the work done 1 year ago, 5, 10? It’s usually pay and done.

Their complaints are no different than all workers in US.

Exactly. CGI has meant the end of tons of jobs in the industry and resulted in the off-shoring of a lot of work out of the US. This has been going on for years. Streaming platforms have different economics than the studios. Why should actors get residuals when nobody (advertisers) is paying that bill. I don't care one way or another, but, SAG saying that most of their members make less than $26,000 per year is a straw man argument. $26,000 a year is not full time work in this country. And there are many, many SAG members who do not consider themselves full time actors. If you are only making $26,000 a year, you need to get another job to supplement (or find a new career).

First, residuals are a boon to the studios--means they can pay workers less upfront and adjust what the actors get based on future success of the tv show/movie. Without them, the studios would have to pay day actors and non-star regulars way more for shows that are flops.

Secondly, OF COURSE the bill is being paid--through licensing and subscription fees.

Thank you, PP. At last, someone who understands why residuals actually benefit the studios paying them more than they benefit the actors receiving them. There is so much misinformation and ignorance on this thread about how pay for actors (and writers) actually functions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal just cut all the trees that had provided shade to the striking workers. Wow.

https://twitter.com/ChrisStephensMD/status/1681005154609545216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1681005154609545216%7Ctwgr%5E345a2642686c5de17c5bfdbb0ef13e2b9f2e4ec5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lamag.com%2Farticle%2Ftree-pruning-universal-pictures-strike-spite%2F

Despicable.

Like who tf thought this was a good idea, honestly. Cruel, petty, harms the strikers physically, terrible optics, and will also end up killing the trees. Good god.

Doubt those trees will die. They look like ficus trees, which are all over LA and have deep, invasive roots. No law againat pruning ficus.

If those trees belong to the city/county there is.

Was it the city or universal? Show the workers cutting the trees.