Hollywood STRIKES UPDATE: SAG AFTRA reaches agreement with AMPTP!

[IlyaP]

6 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

I get what you mean , but even looking at it objectively without the context of the book, you can compare the price of Disney stock in 2005 when he took over versus 2020 and see the impact he made…in financial terms as well as turning Disney into the pop cultural behemoth it is today. Steve Jobs also heavily respected him

And both men are/were...raging assholes.

You understand that there's nothing to admire in these guys, or gods help us, worship, right? 

"But Ilya they raised the stock pric--!"

That's not meaningful for 99% of their workers that they pay poorly and overwork. Nor does it matter from an artistic perspective. 

They're piece of shit human beings and don't deserved to be fawned over.

[Zorral]

For those who seem to believe that a 'few hundred dollars' makes no difference to writers and actors who make much money, that striking is just a pita for consumers:

https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2023/07/22/actors-join-the-strike/

Quote

 

.... ((Honestly, I was shocked to hear that.   One of the two major UK political parties, Labour, has its roots in the trade union movement.  How in the world could they have allowed such anti-labor regulations to be enacted?   Seems to me that Labour Party really needs to do a better job of protecting the right to strike)).

As for me personally, my overall deal with HBO was suspended on June 1.

I still have plenty to do, of course.   In that, I am one of the lucky ones.   (These strikes are not really about name writers or producers or showrunners, most of whom are fine; we’re striking for the entry level writers, the story editors, the students hoping to break in, the actor who has four lines, the guy working his first staff job who dreams of creating his own show one day, as I did back in the 80s). ....

 

 

[IlyaP]

Oh Bryan Cranston. *swoons*

https://www.darkhorizons.com/cranston-takes-on-disneys-iger-at-rally/

 

[IlyaP]

Meanwhile, The Rock has stepped in and done something that I hope sets a precedent and gets other 1%ers (aka the A-Listers) doing the same: donating to help striking actors and writers pay for living costs. 

https://movieweb.com/dwayne-johnson-supports-strike-donation-sag-aftra-foundation/

 

[Spockydog]

Twin Peaks was a CIA psy op.

I mean, that's the only logical explanation for it.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

Btw you guys do realise that ultimately the studios will settle with SAG and the writers, everyone will get paid more and inevitably the real loser in all of this will be we the consumer, as all the extra costs will be passed down to us , in the form of both ads and higher subscription prices.The studios will never settle for taking in lesser profits, they’ll just pass down the higher costs to the consumer, that’s just how economics works. 

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Btw you guys do realise that ultimately the studios will settle with SAG and the writers, everyone will get paid more and inevitably the real loser in all of this will be we the consumer, as all the extra costs will be passed down to us , in the form of both ads and higher subscription prices.The studios will never settle for taking in lesser profits, they’ll just pass down the higher costs to the consumer, that’s just how economics works. 

Sadly this is probably true. Though we all knew they were evil from the start.

[Heartofice]

5 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Btw you guys do realise that ultimately the studios will settle with SAG and the writers, everyone will get paid more and inevitably the real loser in all of this will be we the consumer, as all the extra costs will be passed down to us , in the form of both ads and higher subscription prices.The studios will never settle for taking in lesser profits, they’ll just pass down the higher costs to the consumer, that’s just how economics works. 

My hope is that the streaming model collapses completely and studios will be forced into something more realistic and manageable.

The idea that someone like Netflix can infinitely create endless streams of mediocre product to overstuff their platform whilst nobody watches is has to hit the reality wall soon.

Plus there are only so many streaming services people are willing to pay for. 
 

At some point all this has to come to a head and sort itself out. It’s basically destroyed the movie industry and hasn’t been amazing for tv either. 

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

I think the worst casualty is actually HBO. It used to stand for low volume, high quality television and now it’s just another streaming service which isn’t even called HBO anymore for some bright reason….

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My hope is that the streaming model collapses completely and studios will be forced into something more realistic and manageable.

The idea that someone like Netflix can infinitely create endless streams of mediocre product to overstuff their platform whilst nobody watches is has to hit the reality wall soon.

Plus there are only so many streaming services people are willing to pay for. 
 

At some point all this has to come to a head and sort itself out. It’s basically destroyed the movie industry and hasn’t been amazing for tv either. 

 

[Mladen]

8 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Btw you guys do realise that ultimately the studios will settle with SAG and the writers, everyone will get paid more and inevitably the real loser in all of this will be we the consumer, as all the extra costs will be passed down to us , in the form of both ads and higher subscription prices.The studios will never settle for taking in lesser profits, they’ll just pass down the higher costs to the consumer, that’s just how economics works. 

Yeah, we all know that. But that doesn't mean we can support big conglomerates exploiting working class. It is like telling teachers "don't strike because if schools give in, they will raise tuitions".  This strike doesn't affect those A-listers we immediately think when someone says actors. Yes, they will also benefit, but the idea is to ensure the survival of over 95% of 160 000 members of acting guild.

The worst part is that writers' demands for example are $500M in total for ALL the big studios of AMPTP. Someone did calculations and for example Netflix would have to pay $70-80M. Netflix earned $31,5B last year. What are they afraid? Of economic cataclysm that would happen if they earn $31,4B? 

Money is not the issue. Studios have enough money. They just don't want to pay.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Btw you guys do realise that ultimately the studios will settle with SAG and the writers, everyone will get paid more and inevitably the real loser in all of this will be we the consumer, as all the extra costs will be passed down to us , in the form of both ads and higher subscription prices.The studios will never settle for taking in lesser profits, they’ll just pass down the higher costs to the consumer, that’s just how economics works. 

Are you under the impression that if the SAG and WGA did not strike, then these ads and higher prices would not happen?

Because that's not how economics works.

[Spockydog]

16 hours ago, IlyaP said:

Oh Bryan Cranston. *swoons*

https://www.darkhorizons.com/cranston-takes-on-disneys-iger-at-rally/

 

The cynic in me argues that it's very easy for the likes of Bryan Cranston and Samuel L Jackson to show solidarity with the lowest paid actors from atop their piles of gold. 

If you ask me, the eye-watering fees paid to many Hollywood stars, compared to their lower paid contemporaries, is every bit as problematic as the salaries drawn by Bob Iger et al. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Spockydog

[Relic]

9 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

If you ask me, the eye-watering fees paid to many Hollywood stars, compared to their lower paid contemporaries, is every bit as problematic as the salaries drawn by Bob Iger et al. 

How? Sam Jackson, for example, sells tickets. What does Iger do? 

[Spockydog]

Just now, Relic said:

How? Sam Jackson, for example, sells tickets. What does Iger do? 

I just dont think it is morally acceptable, in any workplace, for the highest earners to be earning three-hundred times more than the lowest. 

 

[Spockydog]

And yeah, stars sell seats. But Tom Cruise ain't earning a dime unless he's got runners and best boys and key grips running around after him, working their feckin' bollocks off.

And as for the so-called "co-stars". From what I've been reading, many of these guys barely make enough to live on. Because of enormous fees being paid to the big stars. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Spockydog

[Heartofice]

14 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

If you ask me, the eye-watering fees paid to many Hollywood stars, compared to their lower paid contemporaries, is every bit as problematic as the salaries drawn by Bob Iger et al. 

Well once we can AI generate actors to be as good as Bryan Cranston we won't need to pay them anything at all and the highest paid people in the film industry will be the people who own the computers!

[Relic]

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

And yeah, stars sell seats. But Tom Cruise ain't earning a dime unless he's got runners and best boys and key grips working their feckin' bollocks off. 

For sure people in the industry that aren't stars deserve to get a higher cut. Income inequality, in general, is highly problematic. I don't don't think equating Iger to Cruise makes that much sense.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Relic

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

For sure people in the industry that aren't stars deserve to get a higher cut. Income inequality, in general, is problematic. I don't don't think equating Iger to Cruise makes that much sense.

It does when you consider that the pay ratio between Tom Cruise and his lowest paid colleagues is every bit as abhorrent as that between Iger and his minions. 

That is basically my point. Maybe if the people at the top took a little less, it would be easier for execs to justify paying more to lesser lights. 

[DanteGabriel]

8 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

And yeah, stars sell seats. But Tom Cruise ain't earning a dime unless he's got runners and best boys and key grips running around after him, working their feckin' bollocks off.

And as for the so-called "co-stars". From what I've been reading, many of these guys barely make enough to live on. Because of enormous fees being paid to the big stars. 

Do you think that paying Tom Cruise $5 million less will result in a single cent more going to regular workers?

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

Do you think that paying Tom Cruise $5 million less will result in a single cent more going to regular workers?

Well, yeah. 

So what's your solution?