Screen Actors Guild Strike Could Delay Transformers Sequel

The more nails in 24's coffin the better. Hate that show. On topic, everyone needs their fair share of profits. So if they strike, I won't argue with the actors. Someone once said that any industry that ends up with labour organizations, did lots of stuff to deserves them.

No explanation in the world will ever make me understand this, let alone agree with or support it. Even the writer's strike, when it came right down to it, was completely ridiculous. After seeing what their so-called negotiations ended up being at the end of it all, it was pretty damn comedic, especially in regards to online media. They did a good job of spin-doctoring it so that the general public & other industry personnel would understand and even support it, but even established writers finally came clean afterwards and admitted how trite & vastly overblown the entire thing was.

This actor's strike is no more about watching out for the little guys than it was for the writer's strike. It's just another fine example of people already lucky enough to be in the industry wanting even more and forgetting how fortunate they really are to be working in the first place. And I'm sorry, no amount of "hard work" or long hours these actors have to put in will EVER equal that of average Joe America. You want to see what hard work is? Go watch Dirty Jobs.

Greed. That's all this is... again. Plain & simple greed.

The Hollywood Unions protecting the "little guy". That's a laugh riot. These same unions actually hinder a lot of work done by the little guys. Unluss you employ union labor somewhere, any chances of an Indy feature getting distributed and shown just got a zillion times more difficult.

I must agree. When looking into doing acting, for the most part, if you are not a the union, then you are not making money, or getting that great of work. You are also considered a piece of trash. Haha. The way I look at, an actor is there to entertain me (all of us). I know there are plenty of us on here that love to perform. Some are great and could do great things. Some are... well, you know.

They should be glad to have work doing what they love. They want to complain about 16 hour days acting. What about somebody spending 14 hrs pouring and finishing concrete? Or running into a burning building, or partroling the at 1:00, or crabbing. Even then having to take second jobs to pay bills. Don't get me wrong, actors need there fair share of all profits. I would.

I say hollywood travel outside of there California dream land, build some studios in the midwest or southeast, and hire any actor for a fair payment. I am sure they could save a lot of money.

As a thespian my self, I say this to all other actors that do not share a stage with me," DANCE MONKEY DANCE!"

How DARE anyone in the entertainment industry go on strike. Just to defend their rights to fair pay? Sickening. Why have actors not yet been declared an essential service and had their right to strike removed? Don't they understand the potential danger they're putting us all in?

Any actor who goes on strike is a MONSTER, plain and simple.

I have to side with you here. Nobody is forced into this industry or forced to stay. In my industry, we have a lot of people who do contract work. In this particular area, Mircrosoft does a lot of contracting. They pay well, but when you aren't doing work, you don't get paid, plain and simple. If you were to tell Microsoft "You need to pay me more so when I'm not working I am well taken care of" they would laugh and get someone else.

And as far as hard work goes, try the military. You make about... 35 cents an hour, work pretty much nonstop (you aren't always assigned work, but when they need you, you have to be there). Hard work was working in the Galley from 4AM to 9PM with little to no food for yourself and on your feet the whole time. Could you complain for higher wages? Hell no, you volanteered, and unlike actors, you don't get the freedom jsut to up and leave the field.

HEY HOLLYWOOD!!! I'LL BE SAM'S ROOMATE FOR $50,000.00 U.S. PLUS ALL TRAVEL AND FOOD TAKING CARE OF!! P.M. oh, yeah, I want a percentage of all merchandise sold.

Eh, another strike looming. Like we didn't see this coming.

Even that would be better than taking entire productions outside the country to Canada or Australia. At least with your proposal, the money stays in America, and in our communities.

Both sides, the studios and the actors are gonna screw the real little guys in all of this shit, the cameramen, propmakers, sound crews, CGI artists, costume makers, grips, stuntmen, etc... all of these people will be out of work too if a strike happens. Yet they don't have a say in any of this.

Speaking as someone who did work in the business (as a propmaker) the studios, actors, writers and director guilds could care spit one about anyone but themselves when it comes to this BS. The writers strike screwed over millions of workers and no one gave two shits about them.

This is all about millionares (the people who run SAG) and billionares arguing who's gonna get more of the profits. Yeah low level actors and writers will be hurt by this, but at least when it's over they'll see some return for their loss in the form of a new contract. What do all the others put out of work get?

Isn't this the guild's fault for not having the foresight to think that TV might be distributed on the internet? Just how old IS this contract?

This is the most ignorant and fact-free post I've ever read from you. And you've come out with some whoppers before. I guess it's true that the those who speak the most know the least.

Also does the Guild pay everyone who isn't Tom Cruise for the time they have to strike? It seems like these people have it hard enough but then someone tells them they AREN'T ALLOWED to work because they are a scab.... but they need to be in the union to work. It seems like such a catch-22.

I know a strike and a union only works if everyone acts as one, but it seems stupid that writers,actors, and studios have no option but to ride every whim of the all mighty union.

Why don't the guild require everybody to put their earnings in one pot and agree to divide it up equally? You know like tip sharing? Then they can all shut up about not making enough. Anyway I guess with all the strikes we'll eventually end up with Survivor the Movie or American Idol the Movie

Before digital distrobution became common place obviously.

It seems like such a huge thing for such a large organization to miss. Could they just wait until their contract is up then re-negotiate? How long do these last?

Don't strikers also help the terrorists win?

Why, because you're "in the industry" and I'm not? Provide a valid arguement full of unbiased facts to refute it, and then we'll talk. But in the meantime, don't single me out since I'm certainly not the only guy stating this opinion.

You don't have to agree with it, but as far as I'm concerned, actors striking is as comedic as fashion models, rock bands, overpaid athletes or any other person in a limelight 'dream job' thinking they're overworked & underpaid. We're not talking about all the people behind the scenes who do the ACTUAL work here - we're talking about people that want to be famous and/or be paid for ART rather than working like a normal person. How in holy hell can anyone honestly expect us to feel sorry for all these faces we see splattered all over TV & movies? I'm sorry but acting of all things is not a job that people are forced into because there's no other options. No one graduates high school thinking "well, shit, I guess have to become an A, B or C list celebrity if I expect to make a decent living". It is 100% personal choice, and just because it's not working out for some people the way they think it should or they think they should get even more money for doing what 95% of the rest of the world would absolutely kill to be doing instead, nothing can or will ever justify this. And the only reason they're getting away with it is because they're apart of a guild in an industry that has self absorbed tunnel vision.

Bottom line is that actors are a dime, nay, a penny a dozen, and these days you don't even need to know how to act to get on TV or in movies - all you need is a name & pretty face. Why do you think there all these reality shows now? It's not just because they're cheaper to make - it's because there's a neverending stream of people willing to do whatever it takes to get their 15 minutes of fame, no matter how embarrassing or shameful.

This is a complete & utter joke, and the best thing studios could do is call everyone's bluff. Unlike writers, directors, union personnel, etc., Hollywood can most definitely survive because there will ALWAYS be someone ready to act for peanuts if it means getting the moment to shine, and if lucky, become the latest flavor of the month celebrity.

False. The guilds and unions protect those jobs. The studios can't dump everyone and start over. It would be a violation of U.S labor law. That's why new writers/directors/actors have to join the guild before working.

It seems clear to me that a number of people don't understand how important and valuable guilds and unions are. I could've sworn that people like myself tried to explain this during the WGA strike. Suffice it to say that unions made the developed world the way it is - pensions, health care, vacation and sick time, the prohibition of child labor, workplace safety, the growth of the middle class, etc, etc. The "horrible" factory jobs that some have cited, like the job my father has held for over thirty years, would suck a hell of a lot more than they do. My father was able to provide for my family because of unions. He's a member of AFL-CIO. And without unions, most of us here likely wouldn't have been able to attend high school, let alone higher education.

Simply put, alone against employers, employees are nearly powerless. Together, they stand a chance. History has repeatedly shown that employers, left unchecked, will use and abuse people without a second thought. (See Carnegie Steel, for example.)

I guess all I'm saying is to think about the issue from all sides before jumping to conclusions. (Maybe I'm asking for too much on the Internets.)

So when is the viewers strike?

Really I call foul on both sides since everyone in Hollywood wants our money, but when it's time to sit down and devide the money up like adults they pitch fits about who is getting what.

And do we get better TV and movies out of all these delays in our entertainment, oh no!

Not mention that costumers, stunt people, food services, and the army of workers it takes for movies and TV end up out of work. Sure the guild might pay the actors bills but all the other little people are just out of luck.

At this point I could care less about any of this. Let 'em duke it out and the victor (Either one or both) who wins or loses probably won't notice that we have better things to do with our time like producing stuff for ourselves more often.

wow this is crazy, So how much do the big actors want to get paid now?

The contract that is running out is probably over 10 years old. Mid-late 90's more than likely. Back when wachting an entire TV episode over an internet stream would have been a laughable concept. And this is the same industry that has tried to sue digital distrobution into submission till they could catch up.

This sucks fat monkey balls!

Unions have done some great things in the past, but they are not as great as you paint them to be. The Auto industry has lost a lot of it's ability to compete not only in the world market, but in our oun country because of the Unions. They have to pay far more than what some workers should be paid for the jobs they do to avoid being shut down by Unions. This leads to the factories being moved to other countries where despite the added cost of shipping, they save money. Also, they spend a great amount of money paying people who no longer even work for them due to pensions and unemployment.

Unions also will support whatever candidate they think will help them by contributing their members money to that candidate. And if you object because you'd like to see another candidate win, well tough shit to you.

I could go on, but I believe I made my point. Yes a union can be helpful when it's needed, but these days, they seem to cause more harm than good. And a strike is suppose to be the last resort for negotiations and yet they allways pull that big stick out at the drop of the hat.

Meh. Let 'em get on with it. The writers stike didn't affect me because I watch hardly any television and most movies these days are shart. I have more than enough books and DVDs to keep me occupied for many years to come, and the internet is a constant source of entertainment. Same will be with an actors strike.
So, strike on, I say.
Usually at night, when I'm asleep and the television is off and the cinemas are closed.

Don't touch that 'ON' button, you scabs!

[sarcasm]Oh, those poor, poor people![/sarcasm] If they are making more than minimum wage, I say deal or leave. You let something called the MARKET deal with this, peoples-- if working conditions in a job are too crummy, eventually enough people will leave and the head honchos in that industry will either give their people more benefits/money or the affected companies in the industry will go under. If the working conditions in a job really AREN'T that bad, then nothing will change. Unions were good a century ago, as basic health laws and stuff like that were not in place then, but like many things that started out with good intentions, they're way past being useful now. Laissez faire. (I think I spelled that right...)

Oh, I hope it does. I hate Hollywood with a passion, I could care less about this strike if it wasn't for TF2. Heck, many people on my side of the fence never wanted the strike to end.

I think something like, what, 70% of people said their day-to-day life wasn't affected by the Writers' Strike at all? And I was surprised it was THAT low.

Oh, I dunno about that. I haven't worked in a union job in about 14 years, and have done pretty well- all things considered.

As for my union job with the UFCW- I actually made less money while under the union thanks to monthly dues than when I worked for the same pay at the non-union brach.

So where is the cameraman and show staff union to help the people who will be put out of work? Does the Guild pay them as part of a deal?

Geez, you're dumb. Y'know that whole axiom about how it's better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt? Yeah, take notes on that one, would ya?

As has been stated (though I'm sure facts aren't important to many of you) the reason for the strike is that DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION needs to be negotiated. Back when the contracts were originally signed, digital distribution wasn't a factor. Now it is. New media necessitates new negotiations. Otherwise the studio moguls are all set and fully willing to completely take ALL the money, leaving the actors--and whomever else--with NOTHING. (I'm sure that would be enjoyable to you, because then you could laugh at them for not having money...which would then make your $6.50 an hour job cleaning toilets at the Maxi-Mart seem somewhat better...maybe.)

And again, anyone who thinks acting isn't WORK has obviously never done it. Do me a favor and sign up for a play at your local little theater and see how much work goes into that. I'm sure it looks so very easy on the surface, and it is easy for us to walk past an actor and accuse them of laying around a mansion all day, but that's just not the way it is. If you think it's not work, I should introduce you to some friends who have been hurt on the job before.

And by the way, no one forced you to mop the bathrooms at Wal-Mart either, so just remember that the next time you complain about your job. The difference between YOUR job and theirs is that there is a great deal of skill involved. (I'm saying this as someone who has auditioned and been turned down many more times than I can count.) And yes, I hear about how "oh, so many of these actors are no-talent hacks..." from all the armchair Eberts and Roepers. It's sort of like saying that a NFL player "can't play football." The truth is, said NFL player CAN play football, and can play better than you or anybody they went to school with. They might not stack up as well as another NFL player, but they CAN play, else they would not have made the big leagues.

And sorry, your job doesn't bring millions of dollars of income to your company, so therefore you don't get as big a piece of the pie. Oops. Sucks that you didn't plan your career better than that. Meanwhile, millions upon millions of dollars can ride on a single actor's performance...therefore it's only reasonable for them to have a substantial stake in it. And it's completely unreasonable in the realm of digital downloads to expect them to walk away with nothing.

As for your argument about reality stars... I'm not one, but I've known plenty of them, and let me assure you that they all have previous acting experience for the most part, and they all retain agents and actively search for jobs in showbiz. A great many of them have been trying for years (and this includes your American Idols.) To say nothing of the fact that casting calls and auditions for reality television are insanely hard to get through, as the field of applicants is usually in the thousands. So your average reality star is not just someone who walked in off the street. So, no, television personalities are NOT just a dime a dozen. It takes YEARS of hard work, auditioning, and personal sacrifice to make it in the business.

The bottom line for most of you is that you're the main demographic of TMZ: people who aren't satisfied with their lives, live them vicariously through celebrities (or in this forum, fictional robotic characters) and then can't wait to hammer them when they're down. Because YOU look at the TV, and all you see is a face, and you just assume that whatever you're watching was slapped together yesterday (hell, some people even think TV shows are live) and done with a $25 budget. You've no clue of the economics of the situation, but I'm sure it makes you feel like a million bucks to come on some random forum and spit your bile and venom at the same industry that you wouldn't know how to live without if you had to.

By the way, you missed a spot.

I would doubt it.

If anything, their respective unions would probably keep charging them dues to stay in the union.

Wow.

With posts like this, if I cared that much at all about SAG strilking, I can see now that I cared way too much.

And while Julia Robers is out on the picket line not earning a dime, I'll be in Wal Mart making it for her.

I hope they strike, and I hope it is for 4X longer than the writers.

No matter how valid it is to have negotiations to get paid better with newer mediums, to a lot of people in a lot of jobs (good, bad, low paying, high paying) a strike sounds a little extreme. For a lot of people, NOT doing your job is not a way to better your position. I think that's why a lot of people get so outraged and ticked off when they hear that from Hollywood.

As comedic as I find this strike RIGHT AFTER everyone was all calmed down from the writer's one finishing (I mean this in a lighthearted way, not meanspirited!), I do want to point out that acting is not, in many cases, the easiest job in the world where you get free money. Never understood the popularity of that incredibly skewed viewpoint.

On the union: it'd be a shame if it's anything like the unions where I live. They're run by singular figureheads that are -just as bad if not worse- than the employers that they "battle". Giant egotistic battles of pride, using the workers as pawns and not caring how much money and how many jobs and livelihoods get ruined by having your union threaten to blackball you for not going to work WHILE your boss threatens to fire you for not going to work. I know that unions can be forces of great good, but I feel that some have also been perverted by those that lead them.

That said, I certainly am ready to believe that studios need a smack in the face when it comes to fully compensating -all- of the talent behind the productions that 90some% of the public take for granted as entertainment they are entitled to. And I am also rather certain that if it comes down to a strike, a lot of the actors (just as many of the writers who picketed) will not be overjoyed at the prospect of not working.

The problem is that they're fighting over online content, which generates almost no revenue. It's an idiotic thing to fight about, in my opinion.

*edit* and as for talent... yeah, it takes talent, but sadly many in hollywood today have very little to go on than their looks.

Already on it. Haven't watched much TV in awhile... gut I guess I'm not really striking as I watch TF Animated every week... Hmm...

See, that's my biggest problem with strikes like this... strikes hurt everyone in the buisness. Especially the smaller guys.

This has been my general experience with Unions when I lived in New York and, to be honest, I've had a distaste for them ever since. Thouh, I can totally understand there needing to be negotiations on the digital media issue, but I think these people jump to a strike to quickly. No matter how you look at it it's going to put a lot of people out of work for awhile... sure, the actors will have their bills paid by their union (presumably), but what about everyone else eh? Bottom line, I'm of the opinion that SAG is in it for anything more than to put more money in their own pocket and cares very little about what happens to even the big wig actors as long as they can continue to profit from them.

Same. Very, very distrustful of any sort of union.

We are lucky in the aspect the initial plan was to hold out till june to strike with the actors and completely shut down hollywood. This way one side can work while the others get their needs met. Hollywood was already whining about the WGA, think of what they would have done with a complete united front of DGA, WGA, SAG. Literally would shut the town down. Hence why each contract is roughly 6 months away from the others or so. The studios don't want them having that kind of united front, even though the studios have that kind of united front against the unions. Seriously read up on it, and yes Hollywood and other areas at the very least outright depend on it. All the money they are paid goes also into taxes, and other aspects of the city, as that is how that city thrives, do you really think cali runs itself on the taxes from the waiters, bus boys, valets and car washers? Sure they're a part, but no where near the tourism attraction and more that the stars bring in. Nor the paychecks the stars bring in.

As for everyone else that this effects, well, they have side funds for that, and other aspects to help, and will probably include fundraisers for them as they did last time. No one forgot about them then, no one will now. Seriously, look back at the WGA strike, they did look out for everyone else, and many of those side jobs were even pro-strike, inspite of being out of work. They had their backs, just like the writers, and actors have theirs. Those fundraisers weren't just for writers on strike, they were benefits for everyone this harmed from being out of work. Many talk show hosts also kept all of them on staff and paid normally as long as they could. Each of those unions also have their own respective fallback funds to help keep themselves and members afloat.

The only writers to admit to greed were ones not even in the union and they were berating the union during the strike even. It's all one giant mud slinging campaign because Nick Counter and other studio heads want to keep their 5 bentley's and 7 SUVs full of gas. Did you know they even threw false allegations at the various union heads to create distrust? Seriously, they tried to get a WGA union head arrested for pedophilia, just to have the courts laugh it out. That's barely the tip of the iceberg of the AMPTP's completely false propaganda. It was already proven before that Nick Counter is not above tricks and public spam to get his way, even paying internet Trolls and non union writers to slam the strike in the public eye. He spins truth for a living (Nick Counter was a Lawyer before becoming the head of the AMPTP). The negotiations were comedic for the WGA because the amptp wouldn't even negotiate, they kept proposing the same contract over and over saying take it or leave it. It wasn't until the DGA signed a deal, that they used that then to force the WGA hand, which was still a questionable contract that will hopefully lead to a future better one. The contracts were drawn up in the 80s, before digital was even considered. It's about time they adjusted that for modern times. Though to be honest, I expect a future WGA strike again once the studios figure out how to further screw them in the clauses of this current one.

Net revenues have been reported by disney, nbc, and others at being over 100-500 million USD a year, expected to go higher each year. That's revenue going straight to the studio heads, and barely anyone else, at least until the new contracts. During the WGA strike, they gathered all the live interviews of various heads of the studios reporting how much net revenue is. Only to when they have to pay someone else do they claim 0. To the rest of the world they say they raked in millions. Check Youtube for the dateline, 20/20, and other media interviews yourself for proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRHlpEmr0w
Not only is it told from a writer's perspective during the strike, it has many of the interviews completely in context of the various studios stating internet content value. If you continue from there to others, you'll see even more studio heads making the same claim, and acting the same as the viacom one.

On a side note, most Tv shows take roughly 8 days to film for one episode. Or at least that's the schedule many of them adhere to. Average season we'll say is 13 episodes, though lately most go to 20-24. So that's 104 days for one 13 episode season, 160 days for a 20 episode season, 192 days for a 24 episode season. Now that's just tv, movies themselves vary even more widespread. That's only a rough estimate, it could be longer.

If net media is so worthless, why does viacom have such a stake in youtube affairs?
Why does NBC, universal, and fox have so much faith in hulu.com? Why is disney, cw, and more getting so much in ad revenue from 'free' streams we may watch from their sites? Do you really think all that ad revenue they generate just goes into site maintenance? And don't even get me started on IPtv, itunes video store, appleTV, and the 360 video store. Net media is estimated to quickly become more valuable than even the current DVD market. Potentially even the way future generations even watch tv. No one could forsee this, as most of these contracts are near 20 years old now. Just now going up for renewal.

Steel workers go on strike for better wages and healthcare, and it's righteous. Hollywood tries to, and everyone yells at them for being greedy without even finding out the truth. What a sad world we live in of snap judgements and predefined views of the way things are.

Hmmm. Too bad we didn't get to see that.

Personally, I am opposed to all unions, thank you very much.
Aside from that tho, you cannot compare steel workers with Hollywood.

Depending on the length of the contract etc it's very important to get online content sorted out now as it will take over and become a huge money earner.

Keep it on topic folks, and stop flaming each other. Say it civilly or don't say it at all.

Then base it off of profit, not on X per episode. Demanding so much per episode downloaded makes it a HUGE profit loser for the companies. Unfortunately, SAG can't seem to figure that out.

That's part of it yes. They seem to be attempting to get so much in royalties per episode, but they should really be attempting to get x amount off of the gross profit. It'd make more sense that way and everyone would walk away happy.

Gross profits AND residuals...