WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[dudalb]

3 minutes ago, AniNate said:

No actor is as overpaid as the studio CEOs. You cannot convince me that Zaslav earned that $200 million salary he got last year. 

I think CEO's should get modest salaries and a share of the profits. That would encourage them to cut waste and put out a good product. And no, the two are not opposties.

[jedijake]

40 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

For those saying the actors all make too much anyway.

 

 

See that's why simple people like me ask the questions we ask. I was hoping this was about those who were getting paid poorly. And if so, I fully support them going on strike. Those numbers are a crime!

 

But screw the true wealth goblins, those wealth orcs.

Edited July 14, 2023 by jedijake

[Cmasterclay]

12 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

There’s no variety to studio slates anymore. Stop making nothing but tentpoles. They’re extremely expensive. Bring back mid-budget movies and you have a much better chance of sustaining profits over a longer period of time. That also means you don’t have to spend $25m on Ford, you can hire talented, lesser known actors and make THEM into stars.
 

The basics of how to make money haven’t changed, studios just developed a toxic blend of greed and risk-averseness. 
 

edit: ironically, given the Zaslav FLASH example, he canned BATGIRL, which, given its budget and genre, would’ve likely been a solid money-maker for WB in the long run.

The combination of absurd costs for the most risk-averse product possible is really insane, it's like the Trail Blazers paying $160 million to Jerami Grant so they can say they won 38 games and almost got the 9th seed. Everyone knows that stuck on the treadmill of mediocrity is the worst place to be in any business, from sports to film to any company. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Cmasterclay

[AniNate]

20 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Alright, so let me get this straight...

The studios should meet the WGA and SAG's demands but also, they need to lower budgets while also paying VFX houses their appropriate due. But we can't start paying major actors less money either because they get butts into seats.

 

So where is this money coming from?

 

I've always kinda cringed at the outrage on box office forums about big budgets, especially coming off the Spiderverse animator controversy. Yes, sometimes it's wasteful spending, but it's not like all that money just disappears, someone whether it's an actor or VFX studio or catering service benefited from it. If labor is underpaid, then the budget needs to be bigger to allow for better pay.

[MovieMan89]

The A listers don’t contribute anything to a movie’s success when it’s the wrong role/script that isn’t appealing. Those days of that kind of star ended in like the 90s. 

[tonytr87]

19 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Oh, I think they are in the wrong here and I fully support the actors and the writers, but it is a bit more complex then "they are a bunch of greedy fucks". you can say that about people in general, frankly.

 

They literally had an anonymous voice out there telling the public their endgame was to bankrupt working people. Spare me. This isn't fucking complicated. 

[Dementeleus]

The other issue is not just profits, but continual (unsustainable) growth. The studios have always been solidly profitable over time… maybe they have a bad quarter or year here and there but they’ve always bounced back. But now that they’re owned by giant conglomerates, that’s no longer considered good enough, now if they’re not continually growing and expanding, one bad quarter means layoffs and doom (but not for the execs, of course). One very small case in point: TCM was profitable for WBD, it just “wasn’t profitable enough”. So time to slash the staff and potentially ruin one of the little crown jewels in the WB empire. 

[TalismanRing]

4 minutes ago, dudalb said:

THIS.THIS.THIS.

I am no fan of Michael Eisner in the second half of his career at Disney..his removal was ncessary..but I think he was on to something in the early 2000's when he tried to get away from "Blockbusters Only" and go with a what he called "SIngles and Doubles" strategy makiing smaller budget movies that might not make a lot, but would bring in a modest profit rather then swing for a home run every time at bat.

I also maintain a real problem is Hollywood has slavishely catered to the male 16 to 35 age group for far too  long, pretty much minimizing all other demos.

 

 

That was a time when marketing was cheaper and the video home market was booming.  Those are the two main culprits in killing the mid sized film.  Streaming though has actually given those films a place - though now they're also overspending on expensive films.

[Dementeleus]

https://twitter.com/jfrankensteiner/status/1679670700410298369?s=61&t=rnmqPaRnF-OKElDaQEJ-wQ

 

The beginnings of where we are now, tbh. 

[dudalb]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

The A lister actor salaries have been out of control for decades now, that’s nothing new. Why are we acting like that’s even the crux of the issue here? I mean if this whole thing can result in logical and rational rates for the big stars, then great, but don’t hold your breath. 

I am a big fan of the A listes geting maybe less up front in salary, but more of a share of the profits.

[MovieMan89]

I genuinely wonder how much less Indy would have grossed as a reboot with a new actor? 300ish is already crazy low for that kind of a tentpole, how much worse could it have been? My point being, Ford ceased to be an actual draw in an unappealing film. You could probably say that for almost anyone these days. 

[WittyUsername]

1 minute ago, Plain Old Tele said:

The other issue is not just profits, but continual (unsustainable) growth. The studios have always been solidly profitable over time… maybe they have a bad quarter or year here and there but they’ve always bounced back. But now that they’re owned by giant conglomerates, that’s no longer considered good enough, now if they’re not continually growing and expanding, one bad quarter means layoffs and doom (but not for the execs, of course). One very small case in point: TCM was profitable for WBD, it just “wasn’t profitable enough”. So time to slash the staff and potentially ruin one of the little crown jewels in the WB empire. 

God, Warner Bros. getting bought by AT&T was a disastrous domino effect. 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

4 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

I've always kinda cringed at the outrage on box office forums about big budgets, especially coming off the Spiderverse animator controversy. Yes, sometimes it's wasteful spending, but it's not like all that money just disappears, someone whether it's an actor or VFX studio or catering service benefited from it. If labor is underpaid, then the budget needs to be bigger to allow for better pay.

It really depends on where the budget is going. If the money is going to VFX houses or the catering services, that's one thing. But a single actor should not be getting 1/12 the budget of a $300 million film.

[ZattMurdock]

18 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

There’s no variety to studio slates anymore. Stop making nothing but tentpoles. They’re extremely expensive. Bring back mid-budget movies and you have a much better chance of sustaining profits over a longer period of time. That also means you don’t have to spend $25m on Ford, you can hire talented, lesser known actors and make THEM into stars.
 

The basics of how to make money haven’t changed, studios just developed a toxic blend of greed and risk-averseness. 
 

edit: ironically, given the Zaslav FLASH example, he canned BATGIRL, which, given its budget and genre, would’ve likely been a solid money-maker for WB in the long run.

I’m actually opposed to this, Tele. It’s the reason why despite my deep love for the MCU and Star Wars, I think the human element is incredibly important and indispensable to the whole food chain. You need your RDJs, Harrison Fords and even your Ezra Millers, minus they being criminal creeps, of course. They need to pay big talent big money, because they put butts on the seats, and even when they don’t do that at box office, they do it at home and add to the studios brand overall.

 

I also don’t believe that it’s possible to return to the mid budget films. Doing this would only accelerate streaming taking over public’s interest even faster. It sucks, but that’s the reality we operate now. There is a reason why James Cameron, Marvel Studios and even Tom Cruise swings with the big budgets even if it’s not always a slam dunk: they are trying to provide moviegoing experiences that are required viewing at the biggest screen possible, and while they don’t always get it right, it’s the one edge the moviegoing theater experience has over the streaming. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle imho, it’s an optimistic and naive POV imho, with all the due respect of all the years you work in the business.

Edited July 14, 2023 by ZattMurdock

[Cmasterclay]

Just now, TalismanRing said:

 

That was a time when marketing was cheaper and the video home market was booming.  Those are the two main culprits in killing the mid sized film.  Streaming though has actually given those films a place - though now they're also overspending on expensive films.

It isn't that they are overspending on these films, it is that they are making no effort to give them a second or third life and keep them going as cultural products after their initial release. Plenty of the movies I loved as a kid are cult classics or former flops. Those just get put out to die now. I play poker every other Saturday and it is constant quoting of Rounders - not a huge hit or awards winner, but a movie that eventually became iconic as the stars grew and people checked it out. But none of that model happens anymore/

[dudalb]

Just now, Plain Old Tele said:

https://twitter.com/jfrankensteiner/status/1679670700410298369?s=61&t=rnmqPaRnF-OKElDaQEJ-wQ

 

The beginnings of where we are now, tbh. 

Yes, the movie moguls of the GOlden age could be real sons of bitches...but they loved making movies. I have to wonder if some of the people running the studios today  really love making movies.

[Cmasterclay]

1 minute ago, ZattMurdock said:

I’m actually opposed to this, Tele. It’s the reason why despite my deep love for the MCU and Star Wars, I think the human element is incredibly important and indispensable to the whole food chain. You need your RDJs, Harrison Fords and even your Ezra Miller, minus they being criminal creeps, of course. They need to pay big talent big money, because they put butts on the seats, and even when they don’t do that at box office, they do it at home and add to the studios brand overall.

 

I also don’t believe that it’s possible to return to the mid budget films. Doing this would only accelerate streaming taking over public’s interest even faster. It sucks, but that’s the reality we operate now. There is a reason why James Cameron, Marvel Studios and even Tom Cruise swings with the big budgets even if it’s not always a slam dunk: they are trying to provide moviegoing experiences that are required viewing at the biggest screen possible, and while they don’t always get it right, it’s the one edge the moviegoing theater experience has over the streaming. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle imho, it’s an optimistic and naive POV imho, with all the due respect of all the years you work in the business.

You just described the problem. Harrison Ford is ancient and even without the toxic stuff Ezra Miller wasn't ever remotely close to a star. Almost all of the "big stars" you consider indispensible are AARP eligible. You won't make new ones by thrusting a new Spider-Man out every three years. It used to be stages - breakout role to mid-sized hit to blockbuster. The path isn't there anymore. Eventually, Hollywood is going to run out of stars and out of IP if they don't take some big risks on new talent and ideas. It's inevitable. Even if it sometimes causes temporary pain, it needs to be thought of as an investment for the future. That's how this industry relatively worked for 80 years. 

[DAR]

3 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

It isn't that they are overspending on these films, it is that they are making no effort to give them a second or third life and keep them going as cultural products after their initial release. Plenty of the movies I loved as a kid are cult classics or former flops. Those just get put out to die now. I play poker every other Saturday and it is constant quoting of Rounders - not a huge hit or awards winner, but a movie that eventually became iconic as the stars grew and people checked it out. But none of that model happens anymore/

Think of how many times Netflix put a show out with no promotion and it’s cancelled before it’s first weekend is up.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

The reality of the golden age of cinema is, there were a LOT of gatekeepers. Not everyone was allowed to make a movie. Yes, there were still bombs and stinkers and flops, but less movies were made overall, and TV was what... four channels? five?

 

Hell, 1990 was not a golden year of cinema, but only 10 films were released in June. This year alone, there were 22 American films released in June.

Edited July 14, 2023 by MysteryMovieMogul

[dudalb]

2 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

God, Warner Bros. getting bought by AT&T was a disastrous domino effect. 

Started  way before that, when Gulf Oil bought Paramount in 1970.

And Warner;s circa 1971, was bought by Kinney's a real estate company.

It has been going on for a long time.

BTW Kinney's, a couple years before, bought DC Comics. That is how Warners film ownership of DC charecters.