It looks like the actors are going on strike

[Temis the Vorta]

This only accentuates what a crappy deal the writers took. You know the studios are offering the actors the same thing, and the actors want no part of it.

Actually, no. The studios aren't offering a deal at all comparable to those signed by the writers and directors; SAG actually registered this complaint when the studios severed talks (the actors union offered to negotiate around the clock to avoid a strike, but the AMPTP walked away).

AMPTP must be a pack of morons. Haven't they noticed how they haven't regained the audience they lost before the WGA strike? People aren't watching the reality garbage instead; they're finding things to do that don't have to do with the TV! Those idiots are screwing up their own business.

Meanwhile the economy is veering towards recession. What's the first thing businesses cut back? Advertising! There will be less ad dollars to go around and the AMPTP wants to give the advertisers even more of an incentive to find non-TV venues to spend those diminished funds on? Advertisers are very aware that the audience for reality TV is NOT interchangeable with the audience for scripted TV, and many advertisers do not want reality TV eyeballs - wrong demographics, wrong market.

Oh the sheer genius!

I think if the SAG strikes they won't be able to get as much support as the writers did from the public. It's not like they are underpaid. Most actors that are part of the main cast from a show make at least 20,000 per episode don't they? Actors from movies get even more since they get millions.

Actors are in the same boat as writers: a few big-names make huge salaries but the vast majority just scrape by. Actors are not all spoiled celebrities riding around in limos.

 

[RandyS]

They're not?

 

[mrcoaster]

I wish I could be concerned, but I'm not. I have hundreds of DVDs, thousands of CDs and albums, books everywhere I look, the internet, video games, sports, outdoor activities...some tv shows might be in reruns for a few months? Oh, no! Whatever will I do!?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Actors are not all spoiled celebrities riding around in limos.

They're not?

No. Actors can struggle, just like anyone else.

Although I'm forced to wonder: Why do we even have an AMPTP anyway? What do the studios need with such things? If there were no AMPTP, and the actors, writers, directors, etc. could negotiate with each studio individually, wouldn't that be better for all?

 

[Skywalker]

I think that's similar to how the early movie industry worked, and there was a problem with some studios monopolizing actors and films or something like that. I'm not a film historian, and I don't feel like looking it up on Wikipedia.

 

[Warp Coil]

I'm not sure the studios would risk another strike. If things go down to the wire, they'll have to cave in. The studios could survive without the writers for a while - they write in advance, have old scripts laying around to use if needed, or could hire scab writers to fill-in and keep shows running. You can't replace actors! There'd be a much more immediate change going on... movies currently filming would suddenly shut down because the actors are on the picket lines. Studios would NOT like that.

You have a short memory, or else you were living in a cave without wi-fi all winter. Those strategies for "surviving without the writers" either didn't occur or didn't prevent the studios from having to shut down production once they ran out of scripts. This is why Heroes had an 11-episode season, why Pushing Daisies and The Sarah Connor Chronicles had 9-episode seasons, why the networks had to scuttle pilot development season, and why the major studios have a big gap in their release schedule for summer '09.

Also, they could "replace" union actors the same way they "replaced" union writers: with "reality" programming. Not only are the writers for "unscripted" shows non-union, but so are the on-camera performers.

"Reality TV" would be a quick fix for television, but what about feature films? Hollywood wasn't as concerned about the box office during the writers's strike because films are written further in advance. But if the actors strike, big-budget Hollywood productions come to a halt. That could push back a LOT of projects and screw up their big '09 summer blockbusters.

I'm not saying it wouldn't happen - the AMPTP are idiots afterall, but an actors strike is a much larger problem than the writer's strike was. And I wonder if the actors will stop doing EVERYTHING - no interviews, no publicity, etc. while on strike?

 

[Roger Wilco]

I still think the writers should have held out and threatened to strike with the actors, both guilds would have had the AMPTP by the balls then.

I agree, but on the other hand, I am happy that they didn't.

 

[The Lady Eve]

Actors are in the same boat as writers: a few big-names make huge salaries but the vast majority just scrape by. Actors are not all spoiled celebrities riding around in limos.

Old Showbiz Joke:

Three men show up at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter says, "Before you go in, gentlemen, I need to know how much money you made last year. It's just a formality for our books."

The first man says, "I made 50 million dollars."

St. Peter says, "Ah. A CEO with a golden parachute. Go right in."

The second man says, "I made 10 million dollars."

St. Peter says, "Corporation lawyer with stock options. Go right in."

The third man says, "Eight thousand, twenty-two dollars, and, um, fifty-one cents."

St. Peter says, "Have I seen you in anything?"

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think that's similar to how the early movie industry worked, and there was a problem with some studios monopolizing actors and films or something like that.

Any given movie or TV series will still done by one studio/production company/whatever. And even without the AMPTP, I doubt that any particular studio can force an actor to sign only with them, so I don't see the problem with "monopolizing" actors.

I'm not a film historian, and I don't feel like looking it up on Wikipedia.

Wiki doesn't say anything about my question.

 

[TGTheodore]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36647

Not again.

I'm sorry, but I just can't look at the name of that site anymore without thinking of The Simpsons' aintifatnews.com

--Ted

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

I need only look at myself to see how it's affected a self-proclaimed "tv-aholic." I used to be pretty much "glued to the tube" almost every week night. Now I watch on Monday night pretty religiously, and again on Thursday, but the rest of the week, the only reason I have the TV on is to play video games or watch a DVD.

Sounds like the strike was a good thing, then.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I wish I could be concerned, but I'm not. I have hundreds of DVDs, thousands of CDs and albums, books everywhere I look, the internet, video games, sports, outdoor activities...some tv shows might be in reruns for a few months? Oh, no! Whatever will I do!?

Yeah, I'm just getting into Deadwood. I have all of The Sopranos and Six Feet Under queued up in Netflix and it just occurred to me that I've never seen Arrested Development or Curb Your Enthusiasm...and maybe someday I'll give The Wire another shot.

Mainly the strike concerns me because I don't want it to harm the shows that will need to be re-launched strongly this fall: Pushing Daisies, Heroes, Chuck, 24, Sarah Connor...I want to see them eventually, after all.

 

[Kryton]

Now, if this were to happen, would it affect productions with principle photog in the can? I mean, would an actor still come in to do a pick-up shot, second-unit work, or ADR/looping?

I just don't want another Trek XI push-back!

 

[TGTheodore]

Once the guild is officially on strike, actors can do nothing. No looping, no pick-up shots, nothing.

Again, I believe animated voices might be exempt. But I'm not positive.

--Ted

 

[Ben Sisko3]

One has to wonder quite what's wrong with the AMPTP.

It's called Dubya Syndrome, wherein the afflicted encounter any multitude of problems and, instead of manning up and meeting them head-on, they remove themselves from the situation and go crying to Daddy. Alternatively, they very easily could throw the same solution at any number of disparate issues.

In other words: nice going, morons.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

They're not?

No, they're not. The amount of living big-name actors you can name probably dies out by around 100, maybe 200 if you're a big modern day film buff (and who is, really?). The amount of actors whose names you don't know, or who are struggling to pay the rent each month, is staggering. Do you think the kid who understudies the role of Gavroche in an Atlanta production of Les Miserables is riding around in a BMW, sipping martinis and going on dates with Dakota Fanning? 'Cause I don't.

 

[Sephiroth]

will they finally get that mini-fridge in the break room?

 

[RandyS]

They're not?

No, they're not. The amount of living big-name actors you can name probably dies out by around 100, maybe 200 if you're a big modern day film buff (and who is, really?). The amount of actors whose names you don't know, or who are struggling to pay the rent each month, is staggering. Do you think the kid who understudies the role of Gavroche in an Atlanta production of Les Miserables is riding around in a BMW, sipping martinis and going on dates with Dakota Fanning? 'Cause I don't.

It's Hollywood. They're all wiping their asses with $100.00 bills, and have golden toliets in every room of their 550 room mansions.

I'm not a film buff either. Just remembering what I read about the casts of FRIENDS and SEINFELD.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

It's Hollywood. They're all wiping their asses with $100.00 bills, and have golden toliets in every room of their 550 room mansions.

Hyperbole much?

I'm not a film buff either. Just remembering what I read about the casts of FRIENDS and SEINFELD.

Those are extremely special cases. Literally 1% of all actors are celebrities, while 2-3% actually make a living acting, meaning roughly 97% of actors have to hold down other jobs while auditioning for roles alongside thousands of their compatriots, which is probably the most discouraging thing in the world. Additionally, holding down a 9-5 while auditioning and following your bliss ain't exactly a cake-walk. Unions actually make it possible for performers to have health care because the way that world works does not allow for normal jobs. And speaking of Hollywood, location doesn't actually matter. You think the cast of JERICHO, JOURNEYMAN, HEROES, EUREKA, CARNIVALE, or any of your favorite shows get paid as much as Jennifer Aniston or Jerry Seinfeld at the end of those shows' runs? Newsflash: Jennifer Aniston and Jerry Seinfeld didn't make that much money per season of those shows in 1990.

 

[TGTheodore]

It never ceases to amaze me the complete ignorance some people have about the business of "Hollywood".

--Ted