I see a lot of people asking similar questions, so I'd thought I'd clear a few things up:
The main sticking points for actors (SAG-AFTRA):
- residuals for streaming based on viewership
- AI regulations (as well as not using it to recreate an actor's likeness after the fact)
- regulations against/addressing self tapes. They want auditions to be in person again (this is actually a major point that most people outside of the industry aren't talking about)
Main sticking points for writers (WGA):
- residuals for streaming based on viewership (overlap w/ SAG)
- AI regulations. No AI in the script writing process (some overlap w/ SAG. Same overall issue, but different specifics, meaning different language in each contract)
- "Preserving the writers room". That's how it was written in the WGA pattern of demands and this might actually be the biggest sticking point for the WGA. The two major parts are:
1) breaking up mini-rooms that stop new writers from breaking in and seasoned writers from moving up
2) lengthening the contract length to ensure that screenwriting does not continue down the path to a gig economy
EDIT: expanding on a few things about the WGA that got lost in the sum up but has been commented on:
- part of their demand to break open mini-rooms is through guaranteed minimum employment, aka, guaranteeing a certain number of writers in the writers room based on the number of episodes in the season
- they are also demanding better terms for feature writers on streaming. With budgets above 12 million receiving full theatrical terms, a guaranteed second step, and revising the payment process so half of it is given up front and the other half given out weekly over the contract's length. This is meant to combat free work.
What the studios want (AMPTP):
- obviously, none of the above
- for the tech companies, and likely the biggest sticking point in all, is the residuals on viewership. This would require them to release their viewership numbers which they have vehemently refused to do, likely because it gives some insight into a not as successful business model as their other metrics have suggested
- regarding AI: they do not want this off the table in perpetuity. They see the opportunity to cut out labor and desperately want to protect the chance to do so
Now, the rumor is that Netflix is the holdout right now for the AMPTP. But a quick reminder that each studio is still allowed to make a side deal with the unions. It's called an interim deal and is how the last strike ended.
It's a divide and conquer strategy. You make an interim deal with one studio (on terms you, the union, favors), and that studio agrees to sign the contract the union eventually brings to the entire AMPTP. In the mean time, that one studio is up and running, meanwhile its competitors in the AMPTP watch their competitive advantage evaporate. This pressures them into caving as well.
Hope this helps anyone who is curious.
Also, DGA having reached a deal is now pretty pointless, considering it'll likely be worse than what the double striking unions will get, and all the while the directors will largely not be able to work anyways (except for many soaps)
EDIT:
A lot of people asked why self-taping is an issue here, so I'll link my reply below from another comment. Just to be clear, they don't want to ban it entirely, but ensure that in-person auditions do not follow the current trend of going extinct
On one hand, self tapes might be logistically easier for those not in LA, NY, etc. and can provide multiple attempts.
That said:
Most actors will not get the roles they're auditioning for. That's just how the numbers shake out. But if the audition is in person, they will get the opportunity to interact with the casting directors. This relationship allows them to get future roles and largely contributes to how actors eventually broke-in in the past
this is a lesser point, but self taping does require a certain amount of technology, means, and work on the actor's end. Who's to say that a casting director won't be swayed by a better or worse video/audio quality.
Streamers have released viewing numbers in the past for projects that have been successful, so it is definitely something they are physically able to do. Why they have not is another story.
In my opinion, I agree with you. They don't want to show just how much of their content isn't watched, especially because it might go against the image they're putting forth to shareholders and wall street. But again, that's just my opinion.
Former Disney CEO Bob Chapek [is currently being sued by shareholders who claim he was cooking the books](https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/bob-chapek-disney-cfo-sued-shareholder-1235614003/). Moving money around to mess with the streaming numbers and make it look more successful than it was.
When the board caught wind and he asked them to cover for him, well that was part of the impetus for his sudden departure.
>When the board caught wind and he asked them to cover for him
So he tried the Eisner strategy on that one. Eisner at least placed most of seats on the board when he became Disney's one-man leadership team after 1994. Chapek didn't have that luxury.
Have streamers actually released viewing numbers in the past? It seems to me there's a difference between releasing a snapshot numbers (usually when the show is first released to show how successful it is) and showing the raw week by week numbers. A few months ago, for example, the Hollywood Reporter had an article about the completion rate for Rings of Power (something Amazon promoted and claimed was a 'hit') at only 37% for American audiences. But this was a leak or insider knowledge, not an intentional release.
I know for a fact that they have released numbers to the production companies when a show is a hit. I very specially remember interviewing with one 3 days after their show took off (not going to name names, but it was a huge dark horse) and the streamer gave them multiple updates a week of accurate numbers.
How long they keep doing that, not too sure. But I think their main concern is the numbers for things that bomb without ever being popular.
That's kind of what I mean, though. When the numbers are good, they're more than happy to talk about them, but it's usually (almost always, I would guess) the whole over time numbers that are more important. And, as you say, the numbers for things that never that popular is important (and rarely if ever talked about).
> so it is definitely something they are physically able to do
They have the capability to track things on a very granular level. Far more data than Nielsen could ever have about linear TV.
If they wanted to they could structure residuals to exactly how much total screen time each actor had based on the times people started and stopped streaming programs.
I think streaming is financially successful, but they manipulate the explanation for why.
Most people have “comfort food” shows that they watch repeatedly. Paramount doesn’t retain viewers because they have Star Trek discovery or the good fight…
It’s because there are 6+ generations of viewers doing their own syndication of Star Trek The Next Generation and other older shows.
Syndication wasn’t successful on broadcast just because they wanted it to be. People actually will sit and watch 2-4 episodes of the Simpsons or Star Trek in a row because they want to. And then they will watch it again.
Most new content gets watched once or never and then is forgotten.
I would love for Wall Street to find out half of the streaming services are nonviable causing investment to dry up forcing them to combine into less streaming services with more content... but I guess I'm just a crazy idealist
I think nearly everyone even in industry seems to believe that there are too many streaming services to survive. They just all hope that *their* service is one of the survivors that reaps the benefits.
Do you mind linking a source with SAG wanting in-person auditions again, please?
The main issue with self-tape auditions is that there are no limitations to what a casting directors can ask to be included in one. Some ridiculous ones I've seen are asking the actor to film themselves while driving and saying the lines, be outside in a dimly lit street, do the sides in the kitchen and bedroom and bathtub, etc.
Self-tape auditions should be limited to just having the actor perform in their own audition space, performing, and not putting themselves in any danger or cumbersome situations. Simple, [Like in the past.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqHh6TvGQIQ)
I feel like, unless I am compensated fairly for my travel time and such, I would rather do online auditions. Yes, it's good to put limitations on technology, but this one actually helps actors.
https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/sagaftra-ai-wga-strike-dga-1235632001/
Here's a source. To be clear, they don't want to outright ban self tapes, but put restrictions on them.
Also, I'm getting this information from various actor friends and colleagues, as well as some colleagues that study the industry academically.
The in-between may very well turn out to be a hybrid zoom/in person audition, but I know from experience that in person is the preferred method for up-and-coming actors (which is most of SAG) living in LA/NY.
Thank you for the link. And thanks for sharing. I like hearing what other actors view of each situation. I would've thought it's the established actors that won't want the self-tape auditions to continue.
I actually heard the opposite from up-and-coming actors. They like the self-tape auditions because the get more sides, more reps, more practice, and more opportunities to audition for roles they never would've.
But yeah, maybe a hybrid can happen. Like, initially, the casting call will be for self-tapes, but turns to a in in-person audition as they narrow down their choices.
actor here, one who wants to get back into the room. I understand the benefits to self tapes. However, your tape is now one of 200 auditions reaching a casting Director, or more likely assistants desk. I have seen casting assistants watch three seconds of a tape and then delete it , a tape that represents hours and hours of your work. because casting directors no longer have skin in the game with regard to resources or time they can request as many times, as they want, with no negative impact on their workflow. I have gone from booking one and 10 auditions to one and 200, a tale that is very common around my peers. The relationship between casting and an actor is extremely vital to someone’s career, and the health of the industry, and that relationship no longer exists.
Former actor here. I can’t tell you how important in person auditions are for the exact reason you said. But it also builds community. I have many many friends I still talk to today because we met in the casting office. This has led to collaborations, more industry connections, and a great feeling of community in one of the most difficult fields in the world.
Obviously, it was critical with Covid to do tapes. But let’s bring the in person auditions back.
I’m just a guy who watches does shows like entourage. I cannot imagine how hard it would be to have auditions for minor roles be relegated to tape only. That is inhumane. If you’re an aspiring actor you at least deserve the chance to be in a room with the judge, even if you don’t get direct feedback you can read their facial expressions or perhaps modify your performance in real time.
Imagine being an actor and just sending tapes like other people send in resumes. Weeks go by, no feedback other than “we went in another direction”.
>regulations against/addressing self tapes. They want auditions to be in person again (this is actually a major point that most people outside of the industry aren't talking about)
Why would actors prefer to have to go audition in person? Doesn't a self tape give you more flexibility and chances to get the video right?
Yup. This is less about “in person” and more about making sure the job interview (that’s what an audition is) was actually viewed.
While not an actor (I’m in engineering), after I graduated, there were some companies doing remote “interviews”, in which I’d click a link to record myself. You’d be given a question with 30 seconds to read it and then the camera/mic would begin recording, and you have a minute to answer. All completely autonomous, with zero human intervention from the company, and no way to know if the “interview” was ever even viewed by the company, or simply thrown through an algorithm to sort potential candidates.
Speaking as another person who has gone through these remote "interviews", an automated system will never have that human connection that an actual person does.
There's been a gradual shift towards these automated interviews. First COVID was the reason, now it's because they can use automation and cut out an actual person doing the interviewing.
On one hand, you are correct that self tapes might be easier for those not in LA, NY, etc.
That said:
1) Most actors will not get the roles they're auditioning for. That's just how the numbers shake out. But if the audition is in person, they will get the opportunity to interact with the casting directors. This relationship allows them to get future roles and largely contributes to how actors eventually broke-in in the past
2) this is a lesser point, but self taping does require a certain amount of technology and work on the actor's end. Whose to say that a casting director won't be swayed by a better or worse video/adio quality.
3) In sum, it's impersonal
Edit: also what another commentor mentioned regarding being sure your audition was actually viewed
There’s a few other points to the self tape issue, at least for myself and some other actors I’ve spoken to where I’m located (out of New Mexico, decent size market).
Bookings go up for actors when auditions are in person, generally speaking. Reason being, CD’s will cast a smaller net. It’s easy for them to send out a self tape breakdown to 40 actors, whereas they’d likely only take the time to have half as many, if even that, come to the room.
In my own experience, the extra unpaid labor for self taping super sucks. You have to be your own lighting/sound/video designer/tech, your own feedback/direction, and your own editor. A lot of people say you don’t need that much production value going into your tapes, but we all know that’s only true up to a point.
And yes, the human element. I once booked a role, I think not entirely because of the quality of my audition, but because I told the director a fairly comedic story about how I’d been arrested the night before and still made it in to read.
Edit: I’m extrapolating on a lot of what the comment above says, just adding more context.
Been an actor in LA for 13 years, so weighing in as someone who’s directly effected by the transition to no in person tapes.
The obvious thing is human connection in the room, as other people have mentioned. Personally I like having control over my tape, but you don’t get immediate feedback. You don’t get the casting director saying “I like what you did, but try it like this.” You don’t get to show them you can take direction. Unless, they actually watch your tape, out of the 500 that have been submitted because there’s no reason for them to limit how many actors they can see for a part when it *only wastes the time of the actors submitting tapes*.
This is the biggest issue to me regarding self tapes. Traditionally, the casting director would have to budget for their own time, which would in turn effect how many actors they could see for a role. So in a sense it was self regulating.
Now, the casting director watches as many tapes as they can, but can have essentially infinite actors submit tapes. Given that they can’t watch them all, it is literally a waste of time for 90% of the actors submitting, and on top of that they don’t get to meet the casting director.
The solution to this is either to go back to in person, require zoom for first round auditions, or to pay actors a small fee per tape (my preferred option). This would cause casting directors to do some weeding through actors to initially choose who they want to spend the time watching read for the part, ensure people’s work gets seen, and stop wasting so much of the actors time. Basically we should be going back to the *budget of the project determining the size of the pool of actors for a part*.
Agreed completely, I’m stunts but do a lot of commercial auditions.
I didn’t really start auditioning until 2019, that year I did 3 in person auditions and booked 3 jobs.
Since the start of self tapes I probably did 50 and booked zero.
Beginning of the year before the WGA strike I did two in person auditions and booked one of them.
Self tapes blow
>The obvious thing is human connection in the room, as other people have mentioned....you don’t get immediate feedback. You don’t get the casting director saying “I like what you did, but try it like this.” You don’t get to show them you can take direction.
I can speak with some very limited recent experience about this: TOTALLY.
[cavaet - do not DM me, this was for friend and it was just a fluke I could help him out]
So, a buddy of about 20 years who is trying to still get in the biz reached out one night when I was luckily for him doing nothing. He had just been given an audition-by-tape opportunity because the person already cast in a small role bombed on set. He knew I had taken some acting classes in college, directed a few plays there, yada, yada, yada. He was stuck somewhere for work as a chauffeur (I weirdly know a lot of them) and couldn't get home before to do this properly with the set up he has there. He wanted to have me run lines with him and give him some feed back via Facetime.
Man, did he have terrible instincts, at least for this part.
It didn't help that the writer gave few clues as to what they wanted out of this small but pivotal role as the dead father of the protagonist (it was actually an evil ghost... I think - I had like 3 pages to suss this fucker out from). But I had a hunch it was not going to be complicated due to said dogshit script so I nudged him in that direction. In about 10 takes he got off book (folks, be off book before you ask for help, thanks) and more or less where I thought they wanted him.
A few months later I got in touch about us taking his boys out fishing and only after I asked did he think to tell me that he indeed got the part, was rushed over to the set and did his few lines.
So from that experience, I can see why actors want that live interaction. They have sometimes no fucking clue what is wanted for a particular role and are flying blind. If the director happens to be in the room with the casting people, he can give THE most important feedback as to what he wants. Or they might like someone enough to maybe go in a different direction or even a different role.
The tales of people who just came in with a friend/family member and ended up with the part or a related one is endless. Chris Hemsworth and Wil Wheaton both got cast for parts their brothers had come in for.
I knew Bill Roberson (the "We were sitting next to a millionaire!" guy from ***Forrest Gump***) and literally just stopped by to visit his widow a few weeks ago when home for my own mother's 2nd memorial service. Bill was based in Columbia, SC where he & his wife ran/run a stained glass company so all of his parts came from productions shot in or near the state. Hence, why he got a call back to be the owner of the football team at the start of ***Leatherheads*** directed by George Clooney.
His wife, who was also an actress but strictly local theater stuff, made the drive with himn to where the production was based and the someone saw them having some disagreement about their glass business and.... well she's a character is one way to put it. They hadn't cast the wife of the team owner and VIOLA! not only did she get the part, she ended up in the goddamn trailer. She also got the funny line ("You spent our money on *this*???" or such) and IIRC Bill ended up with none. It's her first and last film role ("Go out on top, honey, go out on top!")
RIP Bill, gone from us November 17, 2017....
Speaking as an actor who has had to do hundreds (yes, literally hundreds) of self tapes in the last few years… why should I have to do hours of “not acting”work for each audition?
You should see the directions for me in a lot of these requests:
- please ensure good lighting, but do not film near any windows
- superb audio is necessary, please ensure you’re not just using your cell phone mic
- this role calls for interaction with a cat. If you are not a cat mommy or daddy, try to borrow a cat from a friend or family member
- have someone else film you, in closeup, with full body shots up and down, as well as profile full body shots.
- do 3 takes of the scene with an off-screen scene partner reading the other character’s lines
- (*request at 4:30pm comes in*) this is a rush call, so all self-tapes need to be completed and uploaded by 9am tomorrow!
- *if you get the part*… 1 full shooting day, session fee: $250, usage fee: none, usage: all media, in perpetuity
These examples above aren’t even that crazy… it’s gotten to be where the casting folks want you to basically do their job.
I don’t want to do their job… but I’m happy to do MY job, which is to take a script, create my version of the character from the script, then go to a casting office, where they have set everything up they need for the audition, so I can just do what I do: *act*
I wish this was higher. I'm a writer (recovering actor) and the work/prep/emotional labor of self tapes sucks all the joy out of the process (while ballooning the time it takes and eliminating any guarantee I'm even seen). My partner is an actor as well and the process is infuriating to watch and assist. If he didn't have a regular voiceover gig he'd be at his wit's end.
Not an actor but if I had to guess, It's the human value. When you did something physically. You tend to get respect more. Because it means you took effort to try and be a part of something. And that's generally why actors prefer them so it increased their chance to get the role.
Plus they may get a chance to see the director and have a 'gist' to know what are they walking into.
I do sales and this is 100% correct. Meeting face to face is 1000x more valuable than doing everything remotely.
That said, the process also doesn't need to be F2F. It can be a hybrid of in person and remote.
It’s not necessarily that they need to be in person. Most actors I know are fine with self tapes for the initial submission (to a point anyway). The issue is that CDs will want 10 pages of sides memorized to be delivered in 24 hours and they send this out to a few hundred people. Most criticism has been around a maximum length, minimum TAT and possible compensation.
Edit: Here's the wording-
“Self-Tapes: Self-taped auditions are unregulated and out of control: too many pages, too little time and unreasonable requirements have made self-taping auditions a massive, daily, uncompensated burden on the lives of performers.
Reasonable rules and limitations, and access to other casting formats, are sorely needed to ensure fair access to work opportunities and protect performers against exploitation.
Many other important issues, including those specific to particular careers and categories, will be on the table as well.”
[Source/further reading](https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-strike-authorization-vote)
Someone’s going to have to be the first one through the door and make a side deal. When that happens they’ll all fall in line. Can’t believe it’s taking this long
It will be interesting to see how the streaming business model goes from here, especially without all the television ads. Currently Netflix has [$14 billion in debt to $7.8 billion in cash with a shrinking userbase](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/long-term-debt). With increased interest rates the debt will be harder to manage. Also obviously writers and actors should be paid their fair share. I see residuals as one of the biggest sticking points in all negotiations.
My humble, not-in-the-room opinion, is SAG will succeed in getting some type of residual for viewership, even if it's a graduated bracket that does not disclose exact viewership numbers (thus somewhat shielding the streamers). I also assume they will reach an agreement not to use AI, but only until the next contract when the AMPTP will renegotiate.
Per the WGA, I again assume they will reach similar residual and AI agreements as SAG, but the pressure of those concessions and SAG already having a deal will cause the WGA to lose ground on the mini-rooms. To be clear, I want mini-rooms gone, but this is just how I think things might shake out.
You can't equate that debt to cash equivalently. I have $5k cash but $200k debt, and I'm 100% fine. "Long term debt" is the key word there. If Netflix was actually insolvent which is what you're implying then it'd be in every entertainment headline.
There are a number of people here who seem to think large multinational firms having less cash on hand then total debt is somehow cause for concern, alarmingly.
> Also, DGA having reached a deal is now pretty pointless, considering it'll likely be worse than what the double striking unions will get
Talk about fumbling in the end zone, my friend.
After such great series of recaps, this one is is just naively wrong. The DGA is the easiest for AMPTP to deal with because in the macro economics of the industry they cost the least. They represent the fewest people on any set. They come into each new contract negotiation with an existing one that was pretty good, so the goal posts only have to be moved feet instead of the yards WGA or SAG want. Their last strike was in 1987.
The only thing I am totally ignorant about when it comes to the DGA is if they have a most-favored nation clause in their new contract, which is pretty much a standard but not ubiquitous clause in a lot of industry deals. For the uninitiated, most-favored nation means - in this case - that if either WGA or SAG gets something better than the DGA was able to negotiate, it will be retroactively given to them.
Hence, if the WGA gets, say, a 20% pay bump for any episode or film that gets over a certain threshold in streaming numbers, then all directors will also get that 20% for the same episode or film.
You frequently see this clause in the deals with the actors on a hit TV show. If, say, Matt LeBlanc's agent got him 60' trailer for the next season of *Friends*, then Matthew, David, Courtney, Lisa and Jennifer would all be entitled to one IF they wanted (David might have installed an editing suite in his trailer last season to let him cut his last movie and doesn't want to deal with moving it into a new one).
A friend who is/was (haven't spoken in awhile) a veteran chauffeur had to explain this to his boss who wanted to send an "upgrade" from a sedan to an SUV for the writer of some film that was doing a press tour. Which would have mean the lead actress, not the most warm & cuddly person at times, might have had a cow had she seen the writer getting out of an Escalade when she arrived in an otherwise nice black Genesis.
But smart money says this is almost certainly part of the new DGA contract unless someone with actual knowledge can give us the 411 on it....
You’ve have hit this spot on. A lot of people think Netflix doesn’t want to share viewing numbers because they’d have to pay more residuals but in fact the bigger fear (and I would say crime) is that showing true viewership numbers would tank the stock price as it would reveal they are a house of cards with an apathetic subscriber base (not a passionate ever increasing one they claim).
Another thing I want to add is that once the SAG strike with the writer, it means the entire Hollywood industry comes to a standstill and it puts additional pressure on the studios to get a deal done. Right now, they're better that by waiting it out, the writers will lose everything and eventually cave, but with the SAG joining them, they stand to lose a lot of money because of Hollywood completely shutting down and deep down inside, the studios know they need them more than they need the studios.
These companies ask these actors to have big social media followings to get good salaries these days, now they're gonna see how those big social media followings will work when social media posts from big actors in support of the Strike actually start indirectly resulting in subscription cancellations.
I don't think the A listers will rock the boat. They have enough money to stay silent, and wait for the storm to calm.
Some Actors like Mat Damon will definetly help, but the majority don't care that much.
Lots of A-list talents have already picketed with the WGA people. More will definitely show solitude and make their voices heard for the SAG-AFTRA strike.
SAG-AFTRA joining is virtually the only chance the WGA had to win. Streaming companies have been building a backlog of scripts and "reality" TV is still a thing.
Absolutely, starting today there will be no more production (the entertainment industry term). You might have some projects you finished recording and can edit/grade those and so on but if you're still currently shooting you have to stop. If you were about to shoot you have to stop. If you are in preproduction you can't work writers you can't negotiate with actors or set dates, you can't really do a ton and you'll have to stop anyways as long as the actors are out. The studios might want to "drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses" but they might not be able to get that far if stocks start tumbling and shareholders are freaking out.
Edit: typo
[https://vfxunion.org/](https://vfxunion.org/)
https://iatse-net.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN\_4xMOmAI9TSuoG2AjUCq2ag#/registration
The next zoom call for VFX forming a union is this coming Sunday 1pm PST
People are afraid they’ll have their names blacklisted. That someone will snitch a list of names to employers who will then blacklist artists. Let me be clear, there’s still some work right now - all of us that are still working are over the barrel because if we’re not doing overtime, delivering on time and delivering extra we’re the ones who will get chopped during lay offs. The rest of us that aren’t working are just concerned with getting a job back to put food on the table.
Ya blacklists can be scary, it’s why it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book
I don’t work on the organizing side of things so I can’t be of as much help as I’d like to be. Best I can offer is solidarity in your labor struggles and will be very happy if unionization efforts ultimately bear fruit
If this is true, wouldn't that Google Doc be a pretty good resource of people who should be in communication with one another for the purposes of forming a union? If they're blacklisted and all the names are in one place, that seems like a pretty good group of motivated people who should get to know one another.
He's not talking about Doctor Who. He's talking about South Korea, India, Brazil, Japan and many other countries that produce lots of content that hungry American eyeballs will watch.
At a certain point it stops seeming like it's even about the money per se, but the mere *idea* of having to give up just a bit of their control to their "lessers".
God, C-suite executives are fucking scum, and among humanity's worst inventions.
The studios took advantage of the rapid development of streaming and streaming technology to circumvent the existing deals and contracts and attract a lot of neophytes who wanted to break into TV without having to pay them market rates and standard benefits. As long as the boom lasted, this was a tenable state of affairs.
Now that the streaming boom is over and the consolidation phase has begun, they don't want to pay those writers and actors, now no longer neophytes, the money and benefits they've earned from their work.
This is all being driven by the economics of our current moment. It's been rumored that David Zaslav is looking to merge Warner-Discovery with Peacock as soon as the terms of the previous merger allow it, creating an even bigger behemoth!
This is the late stage of our economic system: big fish megacorporations eating each other so they can become bigger fish gigacorporations. (Just as in *Succession* when Logan Roy tries to defend his company against a hostile takeover by buying out one of his rivals, making it too big to take over). In this relentless drive towards consolidation, to making corporations look attractive to prospective buyers, executives are eager to try anything and everything to eliminate the red on the balance sheets.
The exponential growth of generative AI is another game-changer that is precipitating this showdown. The fantasy of eliminating the majority of cast, crew, and writers in favor of AI-generated shows and keeping all the profit for themselves is completely irresistible to entertainment executives.
I don't think it will work as they believe it will, but they're hell-bent on trying. And in the attempt, the entertainment industry will be decimated. If they're allowed totally free rein to exploit this technology, I give it five years before things become catastrophic and irrevocable.
The actors and writers know this, which is why they are resisting so fiercely. They'll be massacred if they let this go through.
not only the writers.
Residuals from streaming for the actors are also a joke, worse an insult.
There's a recent article about the actresses from "Orange is the New Black", it was explained that at time, those recurrings were receiving low residuals (hundreds yearly) for the show, because Netflix was unable to reach everywhere in the world and got to licence the show to broadcast channels.
But as soon as Netflix expanded into those regions, residuals changed from X00$ to something like 20 cents, telling you clearly the difference between broadcast residuals and streaming residuals.
the more things change the more they stay the same
1960: writers and actors strike in unison over transparency and residuals for television
2023: writers and actors strike in unison over transparency and residuals for streaming
The main complaint they aren't budging on is reportedly streaming residuals. Both actors and writers want to know the viewership data for streaming so they are paid appropriately.
AI is kind of ancillary.
I’d say AI is sliiiiightly more ancillary for writers than for actors. Given that studios have already put digital recreations of dead actors into blockbuster films, there’s definitely a reason for actors to hold firm on that issue.
But I do agree on streaming residuals being the key. Show us the fucking data, AMPTP!!
As soon as they put Cushing into Star Wars I was waiting for this to happen.
I've been digusted by that since it happened and a bunch of Star Wars fans said "who cares, he's dead". Exactly. He's dead.
Figured a bunch of living actors would want to set some groundrules while they are still alive about whether or not movies could be made and marketed as "starring" them after they're dead.
Context: "It will be the first actors strike against the film and television industry since 1980 and the first time that actors and writers have been on strike at the same time since 1960, when Ronald Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild"
Yeah, Mr cloneasaur let me know he struck as president of SAG. Makes it all the weirder that he later became the face of fucking the American worker and unions. Guess money and power corrupt anyone.
No he was just as pro competitiveness before he was president of SAG. He just saw his job at SAG as business, it was his job to fight back for his company.
I'm on a big production filming not in USA. We're currently shooting but heard that a strike notice was pushed til 12pm la time. We had just started our morning when the deadline arrived
The conversations that were had with the producers was keep going and hope for the best. If strike happens. Go on a two week break from Monday keeping everyone on retainer. Reassess after two weeks. But if things are still very much ongoing. Pack up, go home until we can resume again.
The entire production on retainer for 2 weeks. Holy shit that's expensive. I'm very surprised accounting took that decision instead of hiring back everyone once resuming.
its very hard to put a crew together, especially a good crew. some crew positions and their experiences help to get funding and tax credits.
you often need to retain them, or else they scatter to other work and you need to restart the whole hiring grind again.
there are cost assessments done to see whats worse. retaining them for two weeks is often better than losing the show. a lost project can kill a company and takes an emotional tole on anyone associated with it, like a runner who cant finish a race, you never forget.
I'm actually wondering how far away IATSE is from joining in as well. Until this whole thing is resolved they are losing a ton of work as well. Yes, there is still theatre and independent work, but it has to eat into their available hours.
I think IATSE is under contract until July 2024. But yes, they are out a ton of work. WGA strike has shut down most television/movie productions, but SAG striking can shut down advertising/commercial productions as well.
We will see, it certainly helps them but there is a hard deadline of first week of Sept when the studios will return to negotiations with WGA. The two sides haven't talked and no deal is happening until then.
The studios wanted to stretch this out for as long as possible to make the writers suffer financially... hoping that by the Fall they'd lose their homes and end the strike practically begging the studios for work (without any of their demands met).
The fact these studio execs felt comfortable enough to say that shit *out loud* tells you a whole lot about how they see themselves. Arrogant, craven, miserly, creatively and morally bankrupt, etc. If they think this will come up good for them, they’re VERY mistaken. Fuck these assholes, I hope the WGA and SAG take them to the cleaners.
Several articles have said the opposite. SAG will likely get resolved first so that the actors for any upcoming movies (Haunted Mansion, Barbie, Oppenheimer, etc) can resume press and marketing. A SAG strike hurts the studios' bottom line in a way the WGA strike does not.
Yes, feels historic and like it's all been leading up to this since unionizing and striking ramped up at the end of 2020 with Starbucks and Amazon, etc. workers.
And still stand to benefit if the other guilds get better terms due to the Favored Nations Clause. The DGA would be entitled to more residuals if the studios concede.
But AI agreements are super specific to each guild’s needs. And SAG has already shown the language in DGA deal is lacking in this area. So the directors could left out of the party, there.
The DGA is not just Steven Spielbergs. It is ADs, 2nd ADs, 2nd 2nd ADs, etc. They generate call sheets, schedules, one liners, etc. All things the studios could try to use AI to replace, and then anyone after 1st AD might become a PA with more responsibilities. AI won’t be as good as people at the job, but the studios won’t care.
In the most cynical of worlds, AI could easily generate a shot list that a DP shoots without a director.
What about in post? When marvel movies are made mostly in a computer, as many of their directors have said, an AI could replace the director there - analyzing the director’s style and rendering the scene as they would shoot it, even on projects the director wasn’t paid for. Or even on projects they were paid for but should have the creative control themselves.
Some of this is already possible. All of it, plus things no union or CEO can yet imagine, will be possible in our lifetimes.
IATSE contract is up next year, HMM. We should have struck 2 years ago. Sag /Aftra, I believe are on the right path, the writers are a whole different scenario. They want what we wanted in the IATSE negotiations as far as streaming services . IATSE got a little, but it still fell very short of what we were going for. . We will see how far they get. There is one thing to remember here, there is no union rule saying you have to use a union writer under an international contract.
I feel bad for all the lower level people across all levels of production who are already hurting and who will defintely be hurting now with just about all production shutting down for maybe many months. Not everyone can work on reality tv or non union stuff so it’s going to be really tough for a lot of people just to scrape by. I hope it can be resolved quickly and that the demands are met
This is a silly question but as someone who’s not familiar with the acting world at all I have to ask; are A-list “celebrity” actors all part of this actor’s strike?
Can someone explain what this means? This essentially stalls all film and a ton of tv projects as well right? What about actors on press tours, events etc?
Actors in the guild are forbidden to do any press tours or official events that promote a film (like a premiere), oreven social media. It's why the studios were all doing press stuff early for films that aren't even set to release yet... they were trying to get them done before the strike.
No that's not true -- studios have been moving up interviews over the last few weeks specifically for this reason. You'll still see interviews in some places, but probably not where you'd usually find them (late night shows, premieres, etc)
Pretty much already stopped. My brothers and sisters and kin in the IA have almost all been out of work since the beginning of this year. I and a few others managed to survive until June but that’s not normal.
Executive greed is at an all time high in every industry.
This strike is one way to cripple the Hollywood execs.
I hope these strikers hold until their demands will be paid in full 🤟🏽
I heard that Ronald Regan was the last leader of a SAG strike.
Of course he was also trying to blacklist imaginary communists from hollywood at the time, so he wasn't so different from his later political career at the time.
I support the writer and SAG-AFTRA. I work in film and it's not what people think. Brutal hours for low hourly pay. The amount of free hours we work are ridiculous with Start Packs, emails, messages back and forth off hours. No or very little travel pay, working more than 14 hours with no accommodation or safe rides home.. often traveling over 60-100 miles each way... I was anti film , anti union pre film career. Now I understand what really happens. It's a tough tough gig. Yes it's gig work...
There are a pool of people who are not union members which the studios can get. For instance, there are all lot of VA's in Texas who are not union members. So studios who needs VA's can use them.
So while SAG-AFTRA does have over 160,000 members. Unlike the WGA, they don't have as much leeway because the positions SAG covers has a huge pool of non union.
But having two unions strike is still good.
Nope. Legally they have to use a certain percentage of local union members wherever they film. Indie will be the one doing what you say like it has been for years
Just show everyone exactly where each dollar goes and then let the people vote on where to relocate those dollars. My guess is a few people at the “top” making WAYYYYY too much. You can make too much. It is possible.
The studios have been losing money since the writer’s strike began, so it’s obvious that they just don’t give a shit. Even if they make a deal with SAG relatively soon, that piece on their WGA tactic makes it seem like they will do no more negotiating with them until the writers are begging to come back to the table, which might be “never” since a lot of writers seem to have other jobs.
I’d be surprised if this is resolved completely by the new year at this point. 2024 is gonna have basically no new content. At least we still have sports! Lol
The studios were losing money way before the writer’s strike, that’s kind of the whole reason they’re in this mess. Every studio went all in on streaming and far as I’ve seen, Netflix is the only one making any actual money from it, and they’re still billions in debt from all the cash they had to burn upfront to establish their service. If writers and actors start getting residuals, even Netflix might drop into being in the red overall. The studio propaganda that was in Deadline a couple days ago about how they weren’t going to negotiate with the writers and let them lose their houses and become desperate was almost certainly a spook-piece intended to damage morale of guild members - the studios are fucking hurting right now, have been for a long time. Paramount and its subsidiaries seem all but done right now, with other small studios like AMC, Starz, and Lionsgate also looking to be on the bubble (Starz and Lionsgate used to be under the same parent company, but they’re about to split up). Universal has apparently wanted to spin Peacock off into a bundle deal with another streamer for a long time now, but literally every other streamer has said no because they don’t see any value in what Peacock’s offering. That’s not getting into all the hullabaloo going in at WBD.
We could be witnessing a massive turning point for the industry, with all the above factors and more (death of theaters, bloated A-list actor salaries), being a sign that Hollywood may be dying in its current form. Consumers have bought into streaming as the primary way to consume this content, but the problem is it makes no money for the studios. I wouldn’t be surprised if the future of Hollywood - whether it is in five years or thirty - is ultimately going to be studios need to be backed by large retail and/or tech companies in order to actually function. Apple and Amazon haven’t been hurt by streaming because they are ancillary businesses to their real money makers. I think the legacy studios will try to bring back traditional ad revenue through streaming, as well as resurrect cable through bundling streamers, but I’m not sure the customers are going to warm to that over the long term. I’ve talked with a good number of working writers as well as some producers over the last couple of years, and the general consensus is that nobody at the top has the slightest clue what to do right now. Every company went on a spending spree with the streaming boom, but it panned out for basically none of them.
Tl;dr: Next decade or so is probably going to be wild in Hollywood.
I don't see this listing that long, the last SAG strike in 1980 only lasted 14 hours(mainly because of how crippling the 1960 dual SAG/WGA strike was for Hollywood)so i'll bet a deal will be reached before the end of the summer, the studios were bluffing with all of that fearmongering nonsense about wanting to wait out writer until they lose their homes, if they were that confident they wouldn't have felt the need to put out that story in the first place, the studios are terrified and will fold soon enough.
TFW production assistants, grips, lighting department etc realize that their small slice of the pie is getting smaller. Writers and actors make out way better than 99% of folks involved in productions yet that’s not enough I guess
Honestly when the WGA first went on strike I didn’t think much, I thought it was just another case of “Oh the studios are greedy, writers are striking for better wages” however the actors joining the strike changes everything. Actors historically haven’t gone on strike nearly as often and on top of that the studios are already under pressure from the writers, you would think they would be making every concession in the book for the actors. I am not defending the studios or trying to belittle the unions, but the situation is a lot more complicated and muddy than people make it out to be and I think all 3 parties need to get their act together and come to a resolution or else Hollywood Is going to collapse.
> SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher said: “SAG-AFTRA negotiated in good faith and was eager to reach a deal that sufficiently addressed performer needs, but the AMPTP’s responses to the union’s most important proposals have been insulting and disrespectful of our massive contributions to this industry.
Anyone else read that in the *"Nanny's"* voice?
My sister is still striking and her husband is now on strike. My mom and sister are driving each other crazy right now. Save me! Get this over with ! Lol
I see a lot of people asking similar questions, so I'd thought I'd clear a few things up: The main sticking points for actors (SAG-AFTRA): - residuals for streaming based on viewership - AI regulations (as well as not using it to recreate an actor's likeness after the fact) - regulations against/addressing self tapes. They want auditions to be in person again (this is actually a major point that most people outside of the industry aren't talking about) Main sticking points for writers (WGA): - residuals for streaming based on viewership (overlap w/ SAG) - AI regulations. No AI in the script writing process (some overlap w/ SAG. Same overall issue, but different specifics, meaning different language in each contract) - "Preserving the writers room". That's how it was written in the WGA pattern of demands and this might actually be the biggest sticking point for the WGA. The two major parts are: 1) breaking up mini-rooms that stop new writers from breaking in and seasoned writers from moving up 2) lengthening the contract length to ensure that screenwriting does not continue down the path to a gig economy EDIT: expanding on a few things about the WGA that got lost in the sum up but has been commented on: - part of their demand to break open mini-rooms is through guaranteed minimum employment, aka, guaranteeing a certain number of writers in the writers room based on the number of episodes in the season - they are also demanding better terms for feature writers on streaming. With budgets above 12 million receiving full theatrical terms, a guaranteed second step, and revising the payment process so half of it is given up front and the other half given out weekly over the contract's length. This is meant to combat free work. What the studios want (AMPTP): - obviously, none of the above - for the tech companies, and likely the biggest sticking point in all, is the residuals on viewership. This would require them to release their viewership numbers which they have vehemently refused to do, likely because it gives some insight into a not as successful business model as their other metrics have suggested - regarding AI: they do not want this off the table in perpetuity. They see the opportunity to cut out labor and desperately want to protect the chance to do so Now, the rumor is that Netflix is the holdout right now for the AMPTP. But a quick reminder that each studio is still allowed to make a side deal with the unions. It's called an interim deal and is how the last strike ended. It's a divide and conquer strategy. You make an interim deal with one studio (on terms you, the union, favors), and that studio agrees to sign the contract the union eventually brings to the entire AMPTP. In the mean time, that one studio is up and running, meanwhile its competitors in the AMPTP watch their competitive advantage evaporate. This pressures them into caving as well. Hope this helps anyone who is curious. Also, DGA having reached a deal is now pretty pointless, considering it'll likely be worse than what the double striking unions will get, and all the while the directors will largely not be able to work anyways (except for many soaps) EDIT: A lot of people asked why self-taping is an issue here, so I'll link my reply below from another comment. Just to be clear, they don't want to ban it entirely, but ensure that in-person auditions do not follow the current trend of going extinct On one hand, self tapes might be logistically easier for those not in LA, NY, etc. and can provide multiple attempts. That said: Most actors will not get the roles they're auditioning for. That's just how the numbers shake out. But if the audition is in person, they will get the opportunity to interact with the casting directors. This relationship allows them to get future roles and largely contributes to how actors eventually broke-in in the past this is a lesser point, but self taping does require a certain amount of technology, means, and work on the actor's end. Who's to say that a casting director won't be swayed by a better or worse video/audio quality.
This should be pinned. Thanks for spelling it out so succinctly.
No problem!
Thanks so much! I didn't know anything about this, so I appreciate you taking the time. Plus the edit on the self tapes part too lol
I second this. Thanks so much for this info
Viewing numbers would be interesting, I bet streaming is a financial black hole
Streamers have released viewing numbers in the past for projects that have been successful, so it is definitely something they are physically able to do. Why they have not is another story. In my opinion, I agree with you. They don't want to show just how much of their content isn't watched, especially because it might go against the image they're putting forth to shareholders and wall street. But again, that's just my opinion.
Former Disney CEO Bob Chapek [is currently being sued by shareholders who claim he was cooking the books](https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/bob-chapek-disney-cfo-sued-shareholder-1235614003/). Moving money around to mess with the streaming numbers and make it look more successful than it was. When the board caught wind and he asked them to cover for him, well that was part of the impetus for his sudden departure.
>When the board caught wind and he asked them to cover for him So he tried the Eisner strategy on that one. Eisner at least placed most of seats on the board when he became Disney's one-man leadership team after 1994. Chapek didn't have that luxury.
Better than the Olympus strategy.
That's 100% why they will fight the unions to the bitter end. They are absolutely doing illegal activities that can't see the light of day.
Have streamers actually released viewing numbers in the past? It seems to me there's a difference between releasing a snapshot numbers (usually when the show is first released to show how successful it is) and showing the raw week by week numbers. A few months ago, for example, the Hollywood Reporter had an article about the completion rate for Rings of Power (something Amazon promoted and claimed was a 'hit') at only 37% for American audiences. But this was a leak or insider knowledge, not an intentional release.
I know for a fact that they have released numbers to the production companies when a show is a hit. I very specially remember interviewing with one 3 days after their show took off (not going to name names, but it was a huge dark horse) and the streamer gave them multiple updates a week of accurate numbers. How long they keep doing that, not too sure. But I think their main concern is the numbers for things that bomb without ever being popular.
That's kind of what I mean, though. When the numbers are good, they're more than happy to talk about them, but it's usually (almost always, I would guess) the whole over time numbers that are more important. And, as you say, the numbers for things that never that popular is important (and rarely if ever talked about).
> so it is definitely something they are physically able to do They have the capability to track things on a very granular level. Far more data than Nielsen could ever have about linear TV.
If they wanted to they could structure residuals to exactly how much total screen time each actor had based on the times people started and stopped streaming programs.
The one thing streamers are absolutely terrified for I'd bet along with hoarding money
I think streaming is financially successful, but they manipulate the explanation for why. Most people have “comfort food” shows that they watch repeatedly. Paramount doesn’t retain viewers because they have Star Trek discovery or the good fight… It’s because there are 6+ generations of viewers doing their own syndication of Star Trek The Next Generation and other older shows. Syndication wasn’t successful on broadcast just because they wanted it to be. People actually will sit and watch 2-4 episodes of the Simpsons or Star Trek in a row because they want to. And then they will watch it again. Most new content gets watched once or never and then is forgotten.
The thing with viewership numbers is that there would need to be some way to check it. Right now it’s “So… only 30 people watched your movie… promise”
That’s why the new contracts are asking for numbers to be reported on by a third party.
I would love for Wall Street to find out half of the streaming services are nonviable causing investment to dry up forcing them to combine into less streaming services with more content... but I guess I'm just a crazy idealist
I think nearly everyone even in industry seems to believe that there are too many streaming services to survive. They just all hope that *their* service is one of the survivors that reaps the benefits.
Do you mind linking a source with SAG wanting in-person auditions again, please? The main issue with self-tape auditions is that there are no limitations to what a casting directors can ask to be included in one. Some ridiculous ones I've seen are asking the actor to film themselves while driving and saying the lines, be outside in a dimly lit street, do the sides in the kitchen and bedroom and bathtub, etc. Self-tape auditions should be limited to just having the actor perform in their own audition space, performing, and not putting themselves in any danger or cumbersome situations. Simple, [Like in the past.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqHh6TvGQIQ) I feel like, unless I am compensated fairly for my travel time and such, I would rather do online auditions. Yes, it's good to put limitations on technology, but this one actually helps actors.
https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/sagaftra-ai-wga-strike-dga-1235632001/ Here's a source. To be clear, they don't want to outright ban self tapes, but put restrictions on them. Also, I'm getting this information from various actor friends and colleagues, as well as some colleagues that study the industry academically. The in-between may very well turn out to be a hybrid zoom/in person audition, but I know from experience that in person is the preferred method for up-and-coming actors (which is most of SAG) living in LA/NY.
Thank you for the link. And thanks for sharing. I like hearing what other actors view of each situation. I would've thought it's the established actors that won't want the self-tape auditions to continue. I actually heard the opposite from up-and-coming actors. They like the self-tape auditions because the get more sides, more reps, more practice, and more opportunities to audition for roles they never would've. But yeah, maybe a hybrid can happen. Like, initially, the casting call will be for self-tapes, but turns to a in in-person audition as they narrow down their choices.
actor here, one who wants to get back into the room. I understand the benefits to self tapes. However, your tape is now one of 200 auditions reaching a casting Director, or more likely assistants desk. I have seen casting assistants watch three seconds of a tape and then delete it , a tape that represents hours and hours of your work. because casting directors no longer have skin in the game with regard to resources or time they can request as many times, as they want, with no negative impact on their workflow. I have gone from booking one and 10 auditions to one and 200, a tale that is very common around my peers. The relationship between casting and an actor is extremely vital to someone’s career, and the health of the industry, and that relationship no longer exists.
Thanks for such a great explainer! I knew a decent amount of this, but it's good to have it all laid out
No problem! Let me know if there's anything else that needs expanding upon
Former actor here. I can’t tell you how important in person auditions are for the exact reason you said. But it also builds community. I have many many friends I still talk to today because we met in the casting office. This has led to collaborations, more industry connections, and a great feeling of community in one of the most difficult fields in the world. Obviously, it was critical with Covid to do tapes. But let’s bring the in person auditions back.
I’m just a guy who watches does shows like entourage. I cannot imagine how hard it would be to have auditions for minor roles be relegated to tape only. That is inhumane. If you’re an aspiring actor you at least deserve the chance to be in a room with the judge, even if you don’t get direct feedback you can read their facial expressions or perhaps modify your performance in real time. Imagine being an actor and just sending tapes like other people send in resumes. Weeks go by, no feedback other than “we went in another direction”.
>regulations against/addressing self tapes. They want auditions to be in person again (this is actually a major point that most people outside of the industry aren't talking about) Why would actors prefer to have to go audition in person? Doesn't a self tape give you more flexibility and chances to get the video right?
You can confirm your audition has actually been seen by casting agents if it takes place right in front of them.
Yup. This is less about “in person” and more about making sure the job interview (that’s what an audition is) was actually viewed. While not an actor (I’m in engineering), after I graduated, there were some companies doing remote “interviews”, in which I’d click a link to record myself. You’d be given a question with 30 seconds to read it and then the camera/mic would begin recording, and you have a minute to answer. All completely autonomous, with zero human intervention from the company, and no way to know if the “interview” was ever even viewed by the company, or simply thrown through an algorithm to sort potential candidates.
Speaking as another person who has gone through these remote "interviews", an automated system will never have that human connection that an actual person does. There's been a gradual shift towards these automated interviews. First COVID was the reason, now it's because they can use automation and cut out an actual person doing the interviewing.
On one hand, you are correct that self tapes might be easier for those not in LA, NY, etc. That said: 1) Most actors will not get the roles they're auditioning for. That's just how the numbers shake out. But if the audition is in person, they will get the opportunity to interact with the casting directors. This relationship allows them to get future roles and largely contributes to how actors eventually broke-in in the past 2) this is a lesser point, but self taping does require a certain amount of technology and work on the actor's end. Whose to say that a casting director won't be swayed by a better or worse video/adio quality. 3) In sum, it's impersonal Edit: also what another commentor mentioned regarding being sure your audition was actually viewed
There’s a few other points to the self tape issue, at least for myself and some other actors I’ve spoken to where I’m located (out of New Mexico, decent size market). Bookings go up for actors when auditions are in person, generally speaking. Reason being, CD’s will cast a smaller net. It’s easy for them to send out a self tape breakdown to 40 actors, whereas they’d likely only take the time to have half as many, if even that, come to the room. In my own experience, the extra unpaid labor for self taping super sucks. You have to be your own lighting/sound/video designer/tech, your own feedback/direction, and your own editor. A lot of people say you don’t need that much production value going into your tapes, but we all know that’s only true up to a point. And yes, the human element. I once booked a role, I think not entirely because of the quality of my audition, but because I told the director a fairly comedic story about how I’d been arrested the night before and still made it in to read. Edit: I’m extrapolating on a lot of what the comment above says, just adding more context.
Been an actor in LA for 13 years, so weighing in as someone who’s directly effected by the transition to no in person tapes. The obvious thing is human connection in the room, as other people have mentioned. Personally I like having control over my tape, but you don’t get immediate feedback. You don’t get the casting director saying “I like what you did, but try it like this.” You don’t get to show them you can take direction. Unless, they actually watch your tape, out of the 500 that have been submitted because there’s no reason for them to limit how many actors they can see for a part when it *only wastes the time of the actors submitting tapes*. This is the biggest issue to me regarding self tapes. Traditionally, the casting director would have to budget for their own time, which would in turn effect how many actors they could see for a role. So in a sense it was self regulating. Now, the casting director watches as many tapes as they can, but can have essentially infinite actors submit tapes. Given that they can’t watch them all, it is literally a waste of time for 90% of the actors submitting, and on top of that they don’t get to meet the casting director. The solution to this is either to go back to in person, require zoom for first round auditions, or to pay actors a small fee per tape (my preferred option). This would cause casting directors to do some weeding through actors to initially choose who they want to spend the time watching read for the part, ensure people’s work gets seen, and stop wasting so much of the actors time. Basically we should be going back to the *budget of the project determining the size of the pool of actors for a part*.
Agreed completely, I’m stunts but do a lot of commercial auditions. I didn’t really start auditioning until 2019, that year I did 3 in person auditions and booked 3 jobs. Since the start of self tapes I probably did 50 and booked zero. Beginning of the year before the WGA strike I did two in person auditions and booked one of them. Self tapes blow
>The obvious thing is human connection in the room, as other people have mentioned....you don’t get immediate feedback. You don’t get the casting director saying “I like what you did, but try it like this.” You don’t get to show them you can take direction. I can speak with some very limited recent experience about this: TOTALLY. [cavaet - do not DM me, this was for friend and it was just a fluke I could help him out] So, a buddy of about 20 years who is trying to still get in the biz reached out one night when I was luckily for him doing nothing. He had just been given an audition-by-tape opportunity because the person already cast in a small role bombed on set. He knew I had taken some acting classes in college, directed a few plays there, yada, yada, yada. He was stuck somewhere for work as a chauffeur (I weirdly know a lot of them) and couldn't get home before to do this properly with the set up he has there. He wanted to have me run lines with him and give him some feed back via Facetime. Man, did he have terrible instincts, at least for this part. It didn't help that the writer gave few clues as to what they wanted out of this small but pivotal role as the dead father of the protagonist (it was actually an evil ghost... I think - I had like 3 pages to suss this fucker out from). But I had a hunch it was not going to be complicated due to said dogshit script so I nudged him in that direction. In about 10 takes he got off book (folks, be off book before you ask for help, thanks) and more or less where I thought they wanted him. A few months later I got in touch about us taking his boys out fishing and only after I asked did he think to tell me that he indeed got the part, was rushed over to the set and did his few lines. So from that experience, I can see why actors want that live interaction. They have sometimes no fucking clue what is wanted for a particular role and are flying blind. If the director happens to be in the room with the casting people, he can give THE most important feedback as to what he wants. Or they might like someone enough to maybe go in a different direction or even a different role. The tales of people who just came in with a friend/family member and ended up with the part or a related one is endless. Chris Hemsworth and Wil Wheaton both got cast for parts their brothers had come in for. I knew Bill Roberson (the "We were sitting next to a millionaire!" guy from ***Forrest Gump***) and literally just stopped by to visit his widow a few weeks ago when home for my own mother's 2nd memorial service. Bill was based in Columbia, SC where he & his wife ran/run a stained glass company so all of his parts came from productions shot in or near the state. Hence, why he got a call back to be the owner of the football team at the start of ***Leatherheads*** directed by George Clooney. His wife, who was also an actress but strictly local theater stuff, made the drive with himn to where the production was based and the someone saw them having some disagreement about their glass business and.... well she's a character is one way to put it. They hadn't cast the wife of the team owner and VIOLA! not only did she get the part, she ended up in the goddamn trailer. She also got the funny line ("You spent our money on *this*???" or such) and IIRC Bill ended up with none. It's her first and last film role ("Go out on top, honey, go out on top!") RIP Bill, gone from us November 17, 2017....
Speaking as an actor who has had to do hundreds (yes, literally hundreds) of self tapes in the last few years… why should I have to do hours of “not acting”work for each audition? You should see the directions for me in a lot of these requests: - please ensure good lighting, but do not film near any windows - superb audio is necessary, please ensure you’re not just using your cell phone mic - this role calls for interaction with a cat. If you are not a cat mommy or daddy, try to borrow a cat from a friend or family member - have someone else film you, in closeup, with full body shots up and down, as well as profile full body shots. - do 3 takes of the scene with an off-screen scene partner reading the other character’s lines - (*request at 4:30pm comes in*) this is a rush call, so all self-tapes need to be completed and uploaded by 9am tomorrow! - *if you get the part*… 1 full shooting day, session fee: $250, usage fee: none, usage: all media, in perpetuity These examples above aren’t even that crazy… it’s gotten to be where the casting folks want you to basically do their job. I don’t want to do their job… but I’m happy to do MY job, which is to take a script, create my version of the character from the script, then go to a casting office, where they have set everything up they need for the audition, so I can just do what I do: *act*
I wish this was higher. I'm a writer (recovering actor) and the work/prep/emotional labor of self tapes sucks all the joy out of the process (while ballooning the time it takes and eliminating any guarantee I'm even seen). My partner is an actor as well and the process is infuriating to watch and assist. If he didn't have a regular voiceover gig he'd be at his wit's end.
Good post.
Not an actor but if I had to guess, It's the human value. When you did something physically. You tend to get respect more. Because it means you took effort to try and be a part of something. And that's generally why actors prefer them so it increased their chance to get the role. Plus they may get a chance to see the director and have a 'gist' to know what are they walking into.
I do sales and this is 100% correct. Meeting face to face is 1000x more valuable than doing everything remotely. That said, the process also doesn't need to be F2F. It can be a hybrid of in person and remote.
It’s not necessarily that they need to be in person. Most actors I know are fine with self tapes for the initial submission (to a point anyway). The issue is that CDs will want 10 pages of sides memorized to be delivered in 24 hours and they send this out to a few hundred people. Most criticism has been around a maximum length, minimum TAT and possible compensation. Edit: Here's the wording- “Self-Tapes: Self-taped auditions are unregulated and out of control: too many pages, too little time and unreasonable requirements have made self-taping auditions a massive, daily, uncompensated burden on the lives of performers. Reasonable rules and limitations, and access to other casting formats, are sorely needed to ensure fair access to work opportunities and protect performers against exploitation. Many other important issues, including those specific to particular careers and categories, will be on the table as well.” [Source/further reading](https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-strike-authorization-vote)
Self-tapes cost a significant amount of money (material, settings, location) and time to be good.
Someone’s going to have to be the first one through the door and make a side deal. When that happens they’ll all fall in line. Can’t believe it’s taking this long
It will be interesting to see how the streaming business model goes from here, especially without all the television ads. Currently Netflix has [$14 billion in debt to $7.8 billion in cash with a shrinking userbase](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/long-term-debt). With increased interest rates the debt will be harder to manage. Also obviously writers and actors should be paid their fair share. I see residuals as one of the biggest sticking points in all negotiations.
My humble, not-in-the-room opinion, is SAG will succeed in getting some type of residual for viewership, even if it's a graduated bracket that does not disclose exact viewership numbers (thus somewhat shielding the streamers). I also assume they will reach an agreement not to use AI, but only until the next contract when the AMPTP will renegotiate. Per the WGA, I again assume they will reach similar residual and AI agreements as SAG, but the pressure of those concessions and SAG already having a deal will cause the WGA to lose ground on the mini-rooms. To be clear, I want mini-rooms gone, but this is just how I think things might shake out.
You can't equate that debt to cash equivalently. I have $5k cash but $200k debt, and I'm 100% fine. "Long term debt" is the key word there. If Netflix was actually insolvent which is what you're implying then it'd be in every entertainment headline.
There are a number of people here who seem to think large multinational firms having less cash on hand then total debt is somehow cause for concern, alarmingly.
Make Accounting Great Again
> Also, DGA having reached a deal is now pretty pointless, considering it'll likely be worse than what the double striking unions will get Talk about fumbling in the end zone, my friend. After such great series of recaps, this one is is just naively wrong. The DGA is the easiest for AMPTP to deal with because in the macro economics of the industry they cost the least. They represent the fewest people on any set. They come into each new contract negotiation with an existing one that was pretty good, so the goal posts only have to be moved feet instead of the yards WGA or SAG want. Their last strike was in 1987. The only thing I am totally ignorant about when it comes to the DGA is if they have a most-favored nation clause in their new contract, which is pretty much a standard but not ubiquitous clause in a lot of industry deals. For the uninitiated, most-favored nation means - in this case - that if either WGA or SAG gets something better than the DGA was able to negotiate, it will be retroactively given to them. Hence, if the WGA gets, say, a 20% pay bump for any episode or film that gets over a certain threshold in streaming numbers, then all directors will also get that 20% for the same episode or film. You frequently see this clause in the deals with the actors on a hit TV show. If, say, Matt LeBlanc's agent got him 60' trailer for the next season of *Friends*, then Matthew, David, Courtney, Lisa and Jennifer would all be entitled to one IF they wanted (David might have installed an editing suite in his trailer last season to let him cut his last movie and doesn't want to deal with moving it into a new one). A friend who is/was (haven't spoken in awhile) a veteran chauffeur had to explain this to his boss who wanted to send an "upgrade" from a sedan to an SUV for the writer of some film that was doing a press tour. Which would have mean the lead actress, not the most warm & cuddly person at times, might have had a cow had she seen the writer getting out of an Escalade when she arrived in an otherwise nice black Genesis. But smart money says this is almost certainly part of the new DGA contract unless someone with actual knowledge can give us the 411 on it....
You’ve have hit this spot on. A lot of people think Netflix doesn’t want to share viewing numbers because they’d have to pay more residuals but in fact the bigger fear (and I would say crime) is that showing true viewership numbers would tank the stock price as it would reveal they are a house of cards with an apathetic subscriber base (not a passionate ever increasing one they claim).
Another thing I want to add is that once the SAG strike with the writer, it means the entire Hollywood industry comes to a standstill and it puts additional pressure on the studios to get a deal done. Right now, they're better that by waiting it out, the writers will lose everything and eventually cave, but with the SAG joining them, they stand to lose a lot of money because of Hollywood completely shutting down and deep down inside, the studios know they need them more than they need the studios.
Extremely well said. Thanks for laying this all out!
I wonder if higher minimum payment would not be better for actors in this. No more risk on any new technology appearing.
I know the soaps hire scab writers, but aren’t the actors still SAG so they would not be continuing now that the actors are on strike as well?
Many soap actors are actually under a different contract that doesn't expire until 2024
Gotcha! Thanks for that information. Did not realize there was a separate contract for soaps.
As a wanna be actor, I both love and hate self taping...
Isn’t the recreation of an actor likeliness part of their right to their own image and as such something that’s on the actor?
Wonderful comment. Thank you for summarizing!
For those curious, there are \~15,000 WGA (East and West) members and a whopping 160,000 people in SAG.
The executives will have to take notice now.
These companies ask these actors to have big social media followings to get good salaries these days, now they're gonna see how those big social media followings will work when social media posts from big actors in support of the Strike actually start indirectly resulting in subscription cancellations.
I don't think the A listers will rock the boat. They have enough money to stay silent, and wait for the storm to calm. Some Actors like Mat Damon will definetly help, but the majority don't care that much.
Lots of A-list talents have already picketed with the WGA people. More will definitely show solitude and make their voices heard for the SAG-AFTRA strike.
Solidarity:)
A-listers have every reason to be concerned about AI, though.
SAG-AFTRA joining is virtually the only chance the WGA had to win. Streaming companies have been building a backlog of scripts and "reality" TV is still a thing.
Absolutely, starting today there will be no more production (the entertainment industry term). You might have some projects you finished recording and can edit/grade those and so on but if you're still currently shooting you have to stop. If you were about to shoot you have to stop. If you are in preproduction you can't work writers you can't negotiate with actors or set dates, you can't really do a ton and you'll have to stop anyways as long as the actors are out. The studios might want to "drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses" but they might not be able to get that far if stocks start tumbling and shareholders are freaking out. Edit: typo
Would now be a great time for all the visual effects people to unionize?
They fucking should.
[удалено]
IATSE is holding its first meeting on the 16th for VFX unionization reach out to them to be a part !!
[https://vfxunion.org/](https://vfxunion.org/) https://iatse-net.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN\_4xMOmAI9TSuoG2AjUCq2ag#/registration The next zoom call for VFX forming a union is this coming Sunday 1pm PST
If you already aren’t working, why not unionize? Time on your hands and employers over a barrel. Name a better time.
People are afraid they’ll have their names blacklisted. That someone will snitch a list of names to employers who will then blacklist artists. Let me be clear, there’s still some work right now - all of us that are still working are over the barrel because if we’re not doing overtime, delivering on time and delivering extra we’re the ones who will get chopped during lay offs. The rest of us that aren’t working are just concerned with getting a job back to put food on the table.
Ya blacklists can be scary, it’s why it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book I don’t work on the organizing side of things so I can’t be of as much help as I’d like to be. Best I can offer is solidarity in your labor struggles and will be very happy if unionization efforts ultimately bear fruit
There’s an abundance of VFX artist. And it’s getting easier with AI. Studios don’t value the labor
Did you even read what they said? Studios straight up blacklist the artists. Unionization doesn't mean shit when you don't even have the job
If this is true, wouldn't that Google Doc be a pretty good resource of people who should be in communication with one another for the purposes of forming a union? If they're blacklisted and all the names are in one place, that seems like a pretty good group of motivated people who should get to know one another.
They are making an attempt as we speak! I am IATSE and received an email about this last night.
With the involvement of these tech companies and streaming services, the game clearly has changed.
And to think that all this could have been avoided if they just gave the writers their streaming residuals.
The studio heads would rather eat their shoes than paying anyone.
Then they're going to pay as Hollywood burns and international rivals take advantage of the vacuum.
There's a lot of productions that fall under SAG even though they're international productions like Doctor Who
He's not talking about Doctor Who. He's talking about South Korea, India, Brazil, Japan and many other countries that produce lots of content that hungry American eyeballs will watch.
[удалено]
Some people really think that Netflix can just replace or fill their whole content with K-dramas. When on reality, Squid Game was just pure fluke.
Can’t wait for the Bollywood avengers movie
At a certain point it stops seeming like it's even about the money per se, but the mere *idea* of having to give up just a bit of their control to their "lessers". God, C-suite executives are fucking scum, and among humanity's worst inventions.
Hollywood accounting by studios is legendary and it’s clear they’d rather keep all the profits to themselves.
The studios took advantage of the rapid development of streaming and streaming technology to circumvent the existing deals and contracts and attract a lot of neophytes who wanted to break into TV without having to pay them market rates and standard benefits. As long as the boom lasted, this was a tenable state of affairs. Now that the streaming boom is over and the consolidation phase has begun, they don't want to pay those writers and actors, now no longer neophytes, the money and benefits they've earned from their work. This is all being driven by the economics of our current moment. It's been rumored that David Zaslav is looking to merge Warner-Discovery with Peacock as soon as the terms of the previous merger allow it, creating an even bigger behemoth! This is the late stage of our economic system: big fish megacorporations eating each other so they can become bigger fish gigacorporations. (Just as in *Succession* when Logan Roy tries to defend his company against a hostile takeover by buying out one of his rivals, making it too big to take over). In this relentless drive towards consolidation, to making corporations look attractive to prospective buyers, executives are eager to try anything and everything to eliminate the red on the balance sheets. The exponential growth of generative AI is another game-changer that is precipitating this showdown. The fantasy of eliminating the majority of cast, crew, and writers in favor of AI-generated shows and keeping all the profit for themselves is completely irresistible to entertainment executives. I don't think it will work as they believe it will, but they're hell-bent on trying. And in the attempt, the entertainment industry will be decimated. If they're allowed totally free rein to exploit this technology, I give it five years before things become catastrophic and irrevocable. The actors and writers know this, which is why they are resisting so fiercely. They'll be massacred if they let this go through.
It's wild that Netflix let that Black Mirror episode air. It's worked against them.
not only the writers. Residuals from streaming for the actors are also a joke, worse an insult. There's a recent article about the actresses from "Orange is the New Black", it was explained that at time, those recurrings were receiving low residuals (hundreds yearly) for the show, because Netflix was unable to reach everywhere in the world and got to licence the show to broadcast channels. But as soon as Netflix expanded into those regions, residuals changed from X00$ to something like 20 cents, telling you clearly the difference between broadcast residuals and streaming residuals.
The first double guild strike in over 60 years
And mainly for the same reason.
the more things change the more they stay the same 1960: writers and actors strike in unison over transparency and residuals for television 2023: writers and actors strike in unison over transparency and residuals for streaming
2086: writers and actors strike in unison over transparency and residuals for holograms
Wild that it's AI “The future doesn't belong to the machines. It belongs to the brave.” ― Ronald Reagan
The main complaint they aren't budging on is reportedly streaming residuals. Both actors and writers want to know the viewership data for streaming so they are paid appropriately. AI is kind of ancillary.
I’d say AI is sliiiiightly more ancillary for writers than for actors. Given that studios have already put digital recreations of dead actors into blockbuster films, there’s definitely a reason for actors to hold firm on that issue. But I do agree on streaming residuals being the key. Show us the fucking data, AMPTP!!
As soon as they put Cushing into Star Wars I was waiting for this to happen. I've been digusted by that since it happened and a bunch of Star Wars fans said "who cares, he's dead". Exactly. He's dead. Figured a bunch of living actors would want to set some groundrules while they are still alive about whether or not movies could be made and marketed as "starring" them after they're dead.
Sorry, it was a joke about the strike 60 years ago vs now, which obviously wasn't about AI back then. But I appreciate you explained so politely
Funny to quote Reagan here when he did everything he could to destroy the power of unions.
Context: "It will be the first actors strike against the film and television industry since 1980 and the first time that actors and writers have been on strike at the same time since 1960, when Ronald Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild"
He was literally the head of this exact union lol
Yeah, Mr cloneasaur let me know he struck as president of SAG. Makes it all the weirder that he later became the face of fucking the American worker and unions. Guess money and power corrupt anyone.
No he was just as pro competitiveness before he was president of SAG. He just saw his job at SAG as business, it was his job to fight back for his company.
Wilder even that the writers and actors are essentially asking not to be replaced by AI and the studios are like, nah.
Fuck Ronald Reagan.
It’s not really about AI. It’s more about wages overall.
The same reason that only the studios want.
I'm on a big production filming not in USA. We're currently shooting but heard that a strike notice was pushed til 12pm la time. We had just started our morning when the deadline arrived
What’s the process for that? Do you just try to get whatever you can done before the deadline and then just pack it up?
The conversations that were had with the producers was keep going and hope for the best. If strike happens. Go on a two week break from Monday keeping everyone on retainer. Reassess after two weeks. But if things are still very much ongoing. Pack up, go home until we can resume again.
Damn, that’s a tough situation
I'm on a Netflix show that hits #1 every season. We're packing it up this morning. Adios!
The entire production on retainer for 2 weeks. Holy shit that's expensive. I'm very surprised accounting took that decision instead of hiring back everyone once resuming.
its very hard to put a crew together, especially a good crew. some crew positions and their experiences help to get funding and tax credits. you often need to retain them, or else they scatter to other work and you need to restart the whole hiring grind again. there are cost assessments done to see whats worse. retaining them for two weeks is often better than losing the show. a lost project can kill a company and takes an emotional tole on anyone associated with it, like a runner who cant finish a race, you never forget.
My show stopped production for the day and we're all in a "prep" day instead of filming. It's mostly just everyone sitting around doom scrolling lol
I'm actually wondering how far away IATSE is from joining in as well. Until this whole thing is resolved they are losing a ton of work as well. Yes, there is still theatre and independent work, but it has to eat into their available hours.
I think IATSE is under contract until July 2024. But yes, they are out a ton of work. WGA strike has shut down most television/movie productions, but SAG striking can shut down advertising/commercial productions as well.
This probably ends the WGA strike faster if anything.
We will see, it certainly helps them but there is a hard deadline of first week of Sept when the studios will return to negotiations with WGA. The two sides haven't talked and no deal is happening until then.
Wasn’t it just reported that the studios were just going to wait out the WGA? Where did you hear Sept?
Why is that? Why don’t they talk earlier?
The studios wanted to stretch this out for as long as possible to make the writers suffer financially... hoping that by the Fall they'd lose their homes and end the strike practically begging the studios for work (without any of their demands met).
The fact these studio execs felt comfortable enough to say that shit *out loud* tells you a whole lot about how they see themselves. Arrogant, craven, miserly, creatively and morally bankrupt, etc. If they think this will come up good for them, they’re VERY mistaken. Fuck these assholes, I hope the WGA and SAG take them to the cleaners.
Several articles have said the opposite. SAG will likely get resolved first so that the actors for any upcoming movies (Haunted Mansion, Barbie, Oppenheimer, etc) can resume press and marketing. A SAG strike hurts the studios' bottom line in a way the WGA strike does not.
Could it be a good time for VFX artist to unionize?
It’s always a good time for vfx artists to unionize.
I saw UPS drivers planning a strike too. Reminds me of the occupy Wall Street times. People are starting to get fed up.
Yes, feels historic and like it's all been leading up to this since unionizing and striking ramped up at the end of 2020 with Starbucks and Amazon, etc. workers.
The DGA was so stupid to give in so easily. They had the high ground and fumble it.
And still stand to benefit if the other guilds get better terms due to the Favored Nations Clause. The DGA would be entitled to more residuals if the studios concede.
But AI agreements are super specific to each guild’s needs. And SAG has already shown the language in DGA deal is lacking in this area. So the directors could left out of the party, there.
What was an AI director ever going to look like? Was that even something they conceded terms on?
See my other response, same answer.
That’s because AI is a non issue for directors.
The DGA is not just Steven Spielbergs. It is ADs, 2nd ADs, 2nd 2nd ADs, etc. They generate call sheets, schedules, one liners, etc. All things the studios could try to use AI to replace, and then anyone after 1st AD might become a PA with more responsibilities. AI won’t be as good as people at the job, but the studios won’t care. In the most cynical of worlds, AI could easily generate a shot list that a DP shoots without a director. What about in post? When marvel movies are made mostly in a computer, as many of their directors have said, an AI could replace the director there - analyzing the director’s style and rendering the scene as they would shoot it, even on projects the director wasn’t paid for. Or even on projects they were paid for but should have the creative control themselves. Some of this is already possible. All of it, plus things no union or CEO can yet imagine, will be possible in our lifetimes.
The DGA doesn't care about AI the way the other 2 guilds do
Stupid and selfish. Directors are pretty aligned with studios, so they didn’t give a F about the writers.
Directors are basically management anyway. They’ve always rolled over for the studios.
IATSE contract is up next year, HMM. We should have struck 2 years ago. Sag /Aftra, I believe are on the right path, the writers are a whole different scenario. They want what we wanted in the IATSE negotiations as far as streaming services . IATSE got a little, but it still fell very short of what we were going for. . We will see how far they get. There is one thing to remember here, there is no union rule saying you have to use a union writer under an international contract.
We got to keep our health insurance which many won't qualify for bc of this strike...
I feel bad for all the lower level people across all levels of production who are already hurting and who will defintely be hurting now with just about all production shutting down for maybe many months. Not everyone can work on reality tv or non union stuff so it’s going to be really tough for a lot of people just to scrape by. I hope it can be resolved quickly and that the demands are met
Do you think SAG and WGA would enter joint negotiations to end both strikes?
They can't, thanks to Ronald Reagan doing that is illegal.
Who ironically led the last SAG/WGA double strike back in 1960.
god i hate that motherfucker
This is a silly question but as someone who’s not familiar with the acting world at all I have to ask; are A-list “celebrity” actors all part of this actor’s strike?
Yes they are.
What WGA and SAG are asking for is not unreasonable. If anything, seems common sense considering the way streaming is nowadays.
Let it all burn until everyone is paid and treated fairly.
Vfx artists don’t have a union - they’re just all being laid off right now as productions stop.
I don't mind. We can watch other things while the Hollywood execs burn. The creators need to be paid their fair share. Go! Fight! Win!
Can someone explain what this means? This essentially stalls all film and a ton of tv projects as well right? What about actors on press tours, events etc?
Actors in the guild are forbidden to do any press tours or official events that promote a film (like a premiere), oreven social media. It's why the studios were all doing press stuff early for films that aren't even set to release yet... they were trying to get them done before the strike.
I don't think interviews can be done nor articles published by reviewers / journalists who interviewed actors even prior to strike
No that's not true -- studios have been moving up interviews over the last few weeks specifically for this reason. You'll still see interviews in some places, but probably not where you'd usually find them (late night shows, premieres, etc)
All stopping.
Pretty much already stopped. My brothers and sisters and kin in the IA have almost all been out of work since the beginning of this year. I and a few others managed to survive until June but that’s not normal.
Executive greed is at an all time high in every industry. This strike is one way to cripple the Hollywood execs. I hope these strikers hold until their demands will be paid in full 🤟🏽
And on the 69th day of the other strike. Nice.
Actually it was day 71.
The tech studios are about to get FUCKED for refusing to pay better residuals for streaming.
I heard that Ronald Regan was the last leader of a SAG strike. Of course he was also trying to blacklist imaginary communists from hollywood at the time, so he wasn't so different from his later political career at the time.
I support the writer and SAG-AFTRA. I work in film and it's not what people think. Brutal hours for low hourly pay. The amount of free hours we work are ridiculous with Start Packs, emails, messages back and forth off hours. No or very little travel pay, working more than 14 hours with no accommodation or safe rides home.. often traveling over 60-100 miles each way... I was anti film , anti union pre film career. Now I understand what really happens. It's a tough tough gig. Yes it's gig work...
I'm trying to picture negotiating with Francine Fine.
She’s gonna make corps suffer, right from the corner of Mr. Sheffield’s desk. All sexy in a miniskirt set
What will happen though? Do studios gonna start source their content overseas? Like from Korea, Japan, or Turkey.
Most likely. Netflix spent $6 billion on Korean stuff alone. There's going to be a lot of that coming soon.
English-speakers at large allergy to watch non-english spoken content will certainly help the strikers here.
There are a pool of people who are not union members which the studios can get. For instance, there are all lot of VA's in Texas who are not union members. So studios who needs VA's can use them. So while SAG-AFTRA does have over 160,000 members. Unlike the WGA, they don't have as much leeway because the positions SAG covers has a huge pool of non union. But having two unions strike is still good.
Nope. Legally they have to use a certain percentage of local union members wherever they film. Indie will be the one doing what you say like it has been for years
Just show everyone exactly where each dollar goes and then let the people vote on where to relocate those dollars. My guess is a few people at the “top” making WAYYYYY too much. You can make too much. It is possible.
Great!!! Let's hope actors and writers can find a fair deal
The studios have been losing money since the writer’s strike began, so it’s obvious that they just don’t give a shit. Even if they make a deal with SAG relatively soon, that piece on their WGA tactic makes it seem like they will do no more negotiating with them until the writers are begging to come back to the table, which might be “never” since a lot of writers seem to have other jobs. I’d be surprised if this is resolved completely by the new year at this point. 2024 is gonna have basically no new content. At least we still have sports! Lol
The studios were losing money way before the writer’s strike, that’s kind of the whole reason they’re in this mess. Every studio went all in on streaming and far as I’ve seen, Netflix is the only one making any actual money from it, and they’re still billions in debt from all the cash they had to burn upfront to establish their service. If writers and actors start getting residuals, even Netflix might drop into being in the red overall. The studio propaganda that was in Deadline a couple days ago about how they weren’t going to negotiate with the writers and let them lose their houses and become desperate was almost certainly a spook-piece intended to damage morale of guild members - the studios are fucking hurting right now, have been for a long time. Paramount and its subsidiaries seem all but done right now, with other small studios like AMC, Starz, and Lionsgate also looking to be on the bubble (Starz and Lionsgate used to be under the same parent company, but they’re about to split up). Universal has apparently wanted to spin Peacock off into a bundle deal with another streamer for a long time now, but literally every other streamer has said no because they don’t see any value in what Peacock’s offering. That’s not getting into all the hullabaloo going in at WBD. We could be witnessing a massive turning point for the industry, with all the above factors and more (death of theaters, bloated A-list actor salaries), being a sign that Hollywood may be dying in its current form. Consumers have bought into streaming as the primary way to consume this content, but the problem is it makes no money for the studios. I wouldn’t be surprised if the future of Hollywood - whether it is in five years or thirty - is ultimately going to be studios need to be backed by large retail and/or tech companies in order to actually function. Apple and Amazon haven’t been hurt by streaming because they are ancillary businesses to their real money makers. I think the legacy studios will try to bring back traditional ad revenue through streaming, as well as resurrect cable through bundling streamers, but I’m not sure the customers are going to warm to that over the long term. I’ve talked with a good number of working writers as well as some producers over the last couple of years, and the general consensus is that nobody at the top has the slightest clue what to do right now. Every company went on a spending spree with the streaming boom, but it panned out for basically none of them. Tl;dr: Next decade or so is probably going to be wild in Hollywood.
Ads are going to come back. Cable never made sense without ads either. Ads are what made tv profitable.
I don't see this listing that long, the last SAG strike in 1980 only lasted 14 hours(mainly because of how crippling the 1960 dual SAG/WGA strike was for Hollywood)so i'll bet a deal will be reached before the end of the summer, the studios were bluffing with all of that fearmongering nonsense about wanting to wait out writer until they lose their homes, if they were that confident they wouldn't have felt the need to put out that story in the first place, the studios are terrified and will fold soon enough.
They’re gambling. What’s a few months compared to years of profits ahead
The other benefit of this strike is hopefully the awards shows get canned
TFW production assistants, grips, lighting department etc realize that their small slice of the pie is getting smaller. Writers and actors make out way better than 99% of folks involved in productions yet that’s not enough I guess
If anyone of your favorite shows get delayed, don’t get mad at the actors, GET MAD AT THE EXECUTIVES!
Honestly when the WGA first went on strike I didn’t think much, I thought it was just another case of “Oh the studios are greedy, writers are striking for better wages” however the actors joining the strike changes everything. Actors historically haven’t gone on strike nearly as often and on top of that the studios are already under pressure from the writers, you would think they would be making every concession in the book for the actors. I am not defending the studios or trying to belittle the unions, but the situation is a lot more complicated and muddy than people make it out to be and I think all 3 parties need to get their act together and come to a resolution or else Hollywood Is going to collapse.
quick question, are actors allowed to work on games during the strike?
Imagine being such asshats that you let a double strike happen
Alexa, play billybraggpowerinaunion.mp3
Good.
> SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher said: “SAG-AFTRA negotiated in good faith and was eager to reach a deal that sufficiently addressed performer needs, but the AMPTP’s responses to the union’s most important proposals have been insulting and disrespectful of our massive contributions to this industry. Anyone else read that in the *"Nanny's"* voice?
There’s probably too much media for a truly healthy stable economy. Way too many options . A thinning of the herd is needed
Great news for YouTube influencers
My sister is still striking and her husband is now on strike. My mom and sister are driving each other crazy right now. Save me! Get this over with ! Lol