WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[Water Bottle]

I think Hollywood will likely be fine even if the current system does crash and end. But luckily those big picture stuff is not my concerns.

 

I just know that the strikes do need to improve things with new streaming era shit.

[ZattMurdock]

When we propose that Hollywood just replaces the Harrison Fords for a cheaper actor, regardless how talent they are, we are doing their job of making the human element meaningless and replaceable. It’s a good thing that people get that deeply attached with portrayals of iconic characters and that their agents are able to negotiate this insane contracts for them. 
 

If the human element "doesn’t matter", if you can always replace them with a cheaper actor to cheap production costs, is that really that much different than going with A.I.? Because we are still saying to Hollywood: reduce your costs, cheap your budget, replace your actors, go mid budget and etc and all I’m thinking it’s like, "yeah, we are going to get a lot of Volume and green screen in our future".
 

Filming on location is insanely expensive. We aren’t in the 80s anymore where you can just travel to the Amazon jungle or whatever and here is your mid budget film! A film like Raiders of the Lost Ark would NEVER be low budget in 2023. We are chasing a high that has become exponentially more expensive as the years went by. So that’s why I’m pretty much averse to big budgets criticism, even for the films I’m not particularly interested on.

[dudalb]

12 minutes 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 are satisfied with a non stop menu of big budget genre  movies. A lot of us are not.

Frankly, if all theaters show are the big budget films, I am not sure theaters are worth saving.

If streaming can give us a great variety of choices then the theaterical movies can give us, then long live streaming.

Edited July 14, 2023 by dudalb

[Kon]

Well, Dune: The Sisterhood will resume filming in Hungary.

 

 

The studios will take advantage of any legal loophole to complete productions.

[WittyUsername]

I used to roll my eyes when people complained about how unoriginal Hollywood is, and how they’ve become overly reliant on sequels and reboots, but at this point, I can’t deny that this obsession with IP’s is not good. Hollywood needs to take more chances. They can’t keep clinging to the past. 

[DAR]

I know we’re talking a long time ago and the landscape has changed.  But when Cheers premiered it was dead last. Eventually it’s audience grew and by the end of its run it was one of the top rated shows.  
 

Today with streamers nothing is ever given that opportunity to grow.  It’s going to get to the point where there’s nothing for people to turn back to.  I mean how do you get nostalgic for something cancelled after 8 episodes?

[AniNate]

I don't think there is a real simple solution to solving the theater issue, I've always thought the delineation between "tentpole", "mid-budget", and "indie" was somewhat arbitrary and based on personal tastes, though I do think if these franchises keep collapsing at the box office that will eventually force studios' hands to try something different and cheaper.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

Speaking of sports and athletes, don't some sports have salary caps?

 

Why can't SAG-AFTRA propose a salary cap? Help the 87% by limiting the amount of money a studio is allowed to give a Harrison Ford or a Leo DiCaprio?

[21C]

3 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

When we propose that Hollywood just replaces the Harrison Fords for a cheaper actor, regardless how talent they are, we are doing their job of making the human element meaningless and replaceable. It’s a good thing that people get that deeply attached with portrayals of iconic characters and that their agents are able to negotiate this insane contracts for them. 

Nah, it's a bad thing. No one should be getting paid more than 20 million for a movie IMO There's a lot of talk about managing budgets but the salaries of those stars makes that a ton more complicated in some cases. 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by 21C

[Cmasterclay]

3 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

When we propose that Hollywood just replaces the Harrison Fords for a cheaper actor, regardless how talent they are, we are doing their job of making the human element meaningless and replaceable. It’s a good thing that people get that deeply attached with portrayals of iconic characters and that their agents are able to negotiate this insane contracts for them. 
 

If the human element "doesn’t matter", if you can always replace them with a cheaper actor to cheap production costs, is that really that much different than going with A.I.? Because we are still saying to Hollywood: reduce your costs, cheap your budget, replace your actors, go mid budget and etc and all I’m thinking it’s like, "yeah, we are going to get a lot of Volume and green screen in our future".
 

Filming on location is insanely expensive. We aren’t in the 80s anymore where you can just travel to the Amazon jungle or whatever and here is your mid budget film! A film like Raiders of the Lost Ark would NEVER be low budget in 2023. We are chasing a high that has become exponentially more expensive as the years went by. So that’s why I’m pretty much averse to big budgets criticism, even for the films I’m not particularly interested on.

I love Harrison Ford, he's my namesake, but you know that he is eventually going to get replaced by, uh, the heartbreaking reality of mortal life as a human on Earth, correct? As will all these other "iconic actors" you are naming. New stars will have to be created. That's a fact. Stone-cold fact. It isn't about being cheaper, it's common sense about elevating new talent. That will require a whole suite of different roles, different movies.

[dudalb]

7 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

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.

The standard defintion of GOlden age of Hollywood is the 30's and 40's...before TV even existed.

[21C]

1 minute ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Speaking of sports and athletes, don't some sports have salary caps?

 

Why can't SAG-AFTRA propose a salary cap? Help the 87% by limiting the amount of money a studio is allowed to give a Harrison Ford or a Leo DiCaprio?

That'd be great but they'll never do that because those A-listers would start to whine immediately. 

[ZattMurdock]

7 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

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. 

If the human element doesn’t matter, if studios can just cut budget by getting an unknown and fuck actors, then, well, we already lost. It doesn’t matter if it’s A.I. or unknown actors: the house, meaning the CEOS win. If you what you are proposing is the way, who are we to criticize Hollywood to want to use A.I. to create screenplays? Why to stop with just replacing big budget actors, let’s replace screenwriters and get new ones for cheap too. Hell, let’s get A.I. to do their job, it’s even more cost cutting effective.

 

Of course that Hollywood’s economy is unsustainable; it has been like that since the beginning.  I just think we are going against the wrong targets. Big budgeted productions and big actor salaries ain’t it.

[WittyUsername]

1 minute ago, DAR said:

I know we’re talking a long time ago and the landscape has changed.  But when Cheers premiered it was dead last. Eventually it’s audience grew and by the end of its run it was one of the top rated shows.  
 

Today with streamers nothing is ever given that opportunity to grow.  It’s going to get to the point where there’s nothing for people to turn back to.  I mean how do you get nostalgic for something cancelled after 8 episodes?

Ironically, streaming is what turned Breaking Bad from a niche low budget drama about a chemistry teacher selling meth to the cultural phenomenon it became in its final year on the air. 
 

You’re right though. If a show isn’t immediately successful nowadays, it’ll just get canceled, and potentially even pulled from whatever service it was on, with no legal way to watch it after that.  

[Jonwo]

34 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.

 

You can agree with the strikes but saying Hollywood is greedy and corrupt and I'm like that what the business has always been like, it's not a recent thing. Hell, it was probably a thing in the days of Shakespeare. 

 

24 minutes ago, AniNate said:

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

All CEOs are overpaid but they run more than just the film studios. WBD as an example is a huge operation as is Disney,

 

I would point out $200m isn't the salary, it's a mix of base salary which is usually in the low $1m, compensation and stock options. 

[MovieMan89]

14 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

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. 

It is literally just now occurring to me that the hypothetical Indy reboot I just brought up in place of what we got was almost guaranteed to be way less of a money loser for Disney. Take out Ford’s salary and the ridiculous de-aging VFX costs that went into making the movie they wanted to make with him, and there’s probably no way a reboot with a relative unknown wouldn’t have been like half the price.

 

So even if it bombed so spectacularly as to do like 150m worldwide, they still end up with less of a money bleeder than what we got. But at least someone somewhere insisted that we simply had to have one more Indy with Harrison, bc clearly that in itself puts butts in seats. Wrong, wrong, wrong. 
 

A great and inspired script + marketing campaign would have put butts in seats. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by MovieMan89

[DAR]

20 minutes 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 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.

I love pizza.  I could eat it anytime.  But I also know it’s not good for me and I need to eat healthier items.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by DAR

[Water Bottle]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

The standard defintion of GOlden age of Hollywood is the 30's and 40's...before TV even existed.

 

The real end of golden age of Hollywood is when they could no longer exclusively contract actors and own theaters.

[Cmasterclay]

2 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Speaking of sports and athletes, don't some sports have salary caps?

 

Why can't SAG-AFTRA propose a salary cap? Help the 87% by limiting the amount of money a studio is allowed to give a Harrison Ford or a Leo DiCaprio?

One, because sports have revenue sharing - that is the mechanism that allows for a salary cap. Studios don't work that way. Thus, we know what a team is allowed to spend and there are very transparent regulations in place. Every movie you ask about gets 50 different figures for the budget, and those monies aren't shared among other studios and actors. The movie system is signifcantly different and frankly much more free-market than the "conservative" pro sports.  

 

Also, only the NBA has max salaries. The NFL and NHL have maxium caps for the entire team but not for an individual player - if the Chiefs wanted to spend 95% of their available money on Patrick Mahomes, that is totally legal. There's no cap for the MLB or soccer, the teams would just have to pay luxury tax/financial fair play penalties they are perfectly happy to pay if they exceed the cap to win.

[TalismanRing]

4 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Speaking of sports and athletes, don't some sports have salary caps?

 

Why can't SAG-AFTRA propose a salary cap? Help the 87% by limiting the amount of money a studio is allowed to give a Harrison Ford or a Leo DiCaprio?

 

Salary caps are for teams as a whole.  Still top athletes making $35-50m while others are making the league minimum - 750k to $1m