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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.