I don't see any TV network closing within the next 12 months and the only network one for the future in trouble is CW but I don't see if the strike happens where the SAG think the money will be in TV to increase pay for actors.
SAG and the Actors Strike
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
I don't see any TV network closing within the next 12 months and the only network one for the future in trouble is CW but I don't see if the strike happens where the SAG think the money will be in TV to increase pay for actors.
im guessing the SAG would say that the money is in DVD sales, and in the ads that are viewed when shows are watched online.
one thing that really bugged me, in the WGA strike is when the studios said they didnt make any money from online media, I dont see how they can have ads on there, and not make money from them?
and how can the CW both be on its knees and survive another 12 months? if its on its knees they it wont last 6 months without major outside interference.
one thing that really bugged me, in the WGA strike is when the studios said they didnt make any money from online media, I dont see how they can have ads on there, and not make money from them?
and how can the CW both be on its knees and survive another 12 months? if its on its knees they it wont last 6 months without major outside interference.
Last edited:
In the future, maybe. But not now.
Because they plan to make big money from this in the future. The way regular, ad-watching viewing is dying off, they better be finding replacement revenue streams now, and putting it into practice, so they can learn what works and what doesn't, and help develop the new revenue stream. It's not just going to happen magically on its own.
The fact that the new media forms of revenue are not yet replacing Neilsens-measured broadcast viewing is the reason why shows are being cancelled or are on the ropes.
the WGA said that the strike was about the future, and not giving it away, im sure the SAG will say the same.
My sister couldn't get a SAG card because of money, so maybe she'll get some work now, so let them have their strike.
Plenty of companies manage such a feat I don't see CW going bust till the end of 2009-2010 season at the earliest.
From what I understand, much of the hang-up is in payments for content on 'new media' (read: the internet, cell phones, etc.) as well as commercial placement a la Eureka or other shows whereby an actor has to spout a commercial while in character. The AMPTP has simply refused to bargain in any way for months now.
just a quick comment about new media, I mentioned ad supported shows on things like the channel website, but a better example would be things like iTunes where people pay upfront for the TV show they want, to say actors (etc) shouldnt get money from that, is just the dumbest thing ever.
She should be careful - that might keep her from ever joining SAG.
Is it that bad in Eureka? Wow, what I've seen is characters using certain cell phones or driving certain vehicles but not commenting on them. Plus Chuck has the crew at Buy More talk about new products they're stocking but that's fairly natural given the context.
I don't think the Degree product name has made it into dialogue quite yet (though I haven't seen every episode) but I've seen the logo on the jumpsuits of some extras in a certain division. That division of the company was designed to come up with commercial income for the company.
Seems like we've regressed back the days of the actual 'soap operas' when the characters would rhapsodise over the sponsor's product. I'd prefer watching the 'XYZ Company Presents the LMN Show', personally.
Jan
A few misperceptions in here. 
No, 99% of actors are what's called 'working actors.' They thrive on getting bit parts in movies, television shows and commercials. They're the ones who can't afford a strike. The guys who are regulars on TV shows? It's no sweat off their backs--they can afford it. It's the people who earn a couple hundred bucks for a guest spot that takes a few days to shoot, or earn a hundred bucks a day as background extras who make up most of SAG. They can't really afford a strike, but then again, they can't really afford to sacrifice all their residuals, either.
She won't be working if there's a strike; most productions will shut down. AFTRA ones will probably stay up and running, but I'm not sure if SAG actors can or would want to work on AFTRA projects during a strike.
A strike would be terrible for the industry right now, and for LA's economy in general. The AMPTP is using the current bad economy to offer SAG a really crappy deal. Apparently 82% of their membership voted to reject the last deal offered, so it might be that they could get that 75% vote to authorize a strike. I didn't think they could a few months back, but I didn't think they'd go on this long without a deal, either.
No, 99% of actors are what's called 'working actors.' They thrive on getting bit parts in movies, television shows and commercials. They're the ones who can't afford a strike. The guys who are regulars on TV shows? It's no sweat off their backs--they can afford it. It's the people who earn a couple hundred bucks for a guest spot that takes a few days to shoot, or earn a hundred bucks a day as background extras who make up most of SAG. They can't really afford a strike, but then again, they can't really afford to sacrifice all their residuals, either.
She won't be working if there's a strike; most productions will shut down. AFTRA ones will probably stay up and running, but I'm not sure if SAG actors can or would want to work on AFTRA projects during a strike.
A strike would be terrible for the industry right now, and for LA's economy in general. The AMPTP is using the current bad economy to offer SAG a really crappy deal. Apparently 82% of their membership voted to reject the last deal offered, so it might be that they could get that 75% vote to authorize a strike. I didn't think they could a few months back, but I didn't think they'd go on this long without a deal, either.
that is interesting
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39405
Looks like we are just going to have to wait to see what happens.
Even if they get authorization--which they probably will, as the alternative is taking a far, far less than ideal deal--that doesn't mean they will strike. It just gives them a bit more of an advantage to take to the negotiations. Hopefully the AMPTP would offer up a better deal then, because another strike would be a very, very bad thing, especially in this economy.
This snippet appeared at imdb on the 4th of December. It's dropped off the page, but I cut and pasted from a site where it was linked.
SAG Foes Of Strike Referendum Arise
4 December 2008 1:44 AM, PST
Opposition is rising within the ranks of the Screen Actors Guild to a strike-authorization referendum that is expected to be sent to members before the end of December. Among the opponents is Richard Masur, a former national president of the union, who said that he agreed to the referendum if mediation failed. However, he told today's (Thursday) Wall Street Journal, "It was the SAG committee and our negotiators who failed to make a sufficient effort at a deal. Therefore, I feel that it is premature to send out a strike-authorization referendum as more work needs to be done on trying to find a deal." Liberal activist/actor Mike Farrell sent an email to members that concluded with the words, "As a member for over 40 years, I'm not anti-sag. But I am anti-idiocy. I'm voting 'no.'" Husband-and-wife Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman released a letter that they had sent to SAG President Alan Rosenberg saying, "We support our union and we support the issues we're fighting for, but we do not believe in all good conscience that now is the time to be putting people out of work." Forget six-foot-wide home theaters. National board member Mike Hodge pointed out that studies conducted by the Directors Guild of America concluded "that there won't be money in New Media until 2012 or even 2014. Our contracts last for three years....."
SAG Foes Of Strike Referendum Arise
4 December 2008 1:44 AM, PST
Opposition is rising within the ranks of the Screen Actors Guild to a strike-authorization referendum that is expected to be sent to members before the end of December. Among the opponents is Richard Masur, a former national president of the union, who said that he agreed to the referendum if mediation failed. However, he told today's (Thursday) Wall Street Journal, "It was the SAG committee and our negotiators who failed to make a sufficient effort at a deal. Therefore, I feel that it is premature to send out a strike-authorization referendum as more work needs to be done on trying to find a deal." Liberal activist/actor Mike Farrell sent an email to members that concluded with the words, "As a member for over 40 years, I'm not anti-sag. But I am anti-idiocy. I'm voting 'no.'" Husband-and-wife Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman released a letter that they had sent to SAG President Alan Rosenberg saying, "We support our union and we support the issues we're fighting for, but we do not believe in all good conscience that now is the time to be putting people out of work." Forget six-foot-wide home theaters. National board member Mike Hodge pointed out that studies conducted by the Directors Guild of America concluded "that there won't be money in New Media until 2012 or even 2014. Our contracts last for three years....."
Similar threads
