WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[Bob Train]

31 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

Nobody is talking about the true people being screwed over here, crew members which if this continues will not have a paycheck for close to to 9 months.

I agree that they are more screwed over than anyone else, but that is not SAG's fault, it is 100% on the AMPTP. They are the ones who are refusing to pay their actors fairly and they are the ones who want to use AI to replace actors. It is on them.

[Jonwo]

1 hour ago, YM! said:

I hope everything next year gets pushed back and everything this quarter bombs. Fuck those greedy ass CEOs.

 

Surprised Iger could afford this move tbh. If Marvels and Wish bomb, Disney loses its bargaining power with theaters and it's chokehold on dates.

Surprised you're so anti Disney, they're not going to be forced to lose prime dates. 

[DInky]

37 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

SAG needs to understand they're not gonna get a cut a streaming revenue and if they are there's gonna be heavily limitations. Not every show deserves a cut of streaming revenue especially if it's a show that does not perform well. Asking for anything above .050% if way too much.

 

Focus on the AI thing, that's the most important thing. 

 

Nobody is talking about the true people being screwed over here, crew members which if this continues will not have a paycheck for close to to 9 months.

 

Because a bunch of billionaires say so?

[filmlover]

3 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Surprised you're so anti Disney, they're not going to be forced to lose prime dates. 

Disney lives in everyone's heads rent free.

[SpiderByte]

1 hour ago, YM! said:

I hope everything next year gets pushed back and everything this quarter bombs. Fuck those greedy ass CEOs.

 

Surprised Iger could afford this move tbh. If Marvels and Wish bomb, Disney loses its bargaining power with theaters and it's chokehold on dates.

Except they're just going to say that it's because of the strike. Especially because to a not insignificant extent the strike is hurting everything that comes out

[Kon]

5 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Always have to chuckle whenever these "we need a resolution ASAP or no movies until next year" articles come in. The empty threats are always transparent.

I feel it could be a little truth on this article.

 

The studios don't want to lost 2024 Fall season, that's why they're currenthy pressured to reach a deal.

 

However, if the studios lost the 2024 Fall season, the pressure for studios will decrease since they no longer have to rush so much for a deal. In other words, "everything is ruined, so we don't have to hurry anymore".

[Cappoedameron]

The subscriber levy is untenable imo because a large portion of content on streaming services aren't even SAG-affiliated, and they would be collecting revenue on every subscriber regardless of whether they actually contributed to revenues.
For example if Squid Game game show blows up in popularity and nets them 2m subscribers, they'd have to pay $1.14 million to SAG even though they had no part in getting those subscribers. Or say peacock gains 5m subs from the upcoming Olympics, why do they have to pay SAG for that?

 

A lot of the content on streaming services has no affiliation with SAG. Game shows, Reality TV, Non-Fiction documentaries, Anime, Foreign shows. 

 

Why should SAG get a cut of that content when they have no affiliation with SAG? That subscriber thing SAG is demanding to me is absolutely ridiculous. 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Cappoedameron

[DInky]

1 minute ago, Kon said:

I feel it could be a little truth on this article.

 

The studios don't want to lost 2024 Fall season, that's why they're currenthy pressured to reach a deal.

 

However, if the studios lost the 2024 Fall season, the pressure for studios will decrease since they no longer have to rush so much for a deal. In other words, "everything is ruined, so we don't have to hurry anymore".

 

I assume they'd still like to release some of their movies that are still mid-production next year, no?

[DInky]

2 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

The subscriber levy is untenable imo because a large portion of content on streaming services aren't even SAG-affiliated, and they would be collecting revenue on every subscriber regardless of whether they actually contributed to revenues.
For example if Squid Game game show blows up in popularity and nets them 2m subscribers, they'd have to pay $1.14 million to SAG even though they had no part in getting those subscribers. Or say peacock gains 5m subs from the upcoming Olympics, why do they have to pay SAG for that?

 

A lot of the content on streaming services has no affiliation with SAG. Game shows, Reality TV, Non-Fiction documentaries, Anime, Foreign shows. 

 

Why should SAG get a cut of that content when they have no affiliation with SAG? That subscriber thing SAG is demanding to me is absolutely ridiculous. 

 

That....is actually a good point.

[Bob Train]

9 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Surprised you're so anti Disney, they're not going to be forced to lose prime dates. 

I could see it. They have released many flops this year, and it is clear that their 2019 high is long over. On top of that, the days of them having a 30-35% market share are also over, as this year it is closer to 20%. And their slate for next year is fairly weak, with Inside Out and DP3 being the only surefire hits.

 

They already don't have anything slated for the first weekend of Summer, which is a slot they have occupied for every non-COVID year since 2015.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Bob Train

[YM!]

12 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Surprised you're so anti Disney, they're not going to be forced to lose prime dates. 

I'm not anti-Disney. I don't think it's anti-Disney to say they had a shit year theatrical this year, shit I think Wish is doing the right steps to be a hit and am rooting for Wish to succeed. Probably shouldn't have made that smarmy joke about Iger in hindsight.

 

They won't lose prime dates, I'm just saying they will likely get more competition on dates like we are seeing now for the non-mega sequels or Avengers movies. Both Wish and Elio have animated competition within the first week of release and I don't think that is entirely coincidence. They'll still claim the dates and again not saying everything is doomed - there's a lot of naunce. I'm just saying we likely wont see theaters be strong-armed to take lesser percentages or less constraint on mandatory screen space and more completion for stuff non guaranteed to be hits.

Edited October 26, 2023 by YM!

[Kon]

15 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

I agree that they are more screwed over than anyone else, but that is not SAG's fault, it is 100% on the AMPTP. They are the ones who are refusing to pay their actors fairly and they are the ones who want to use AI to replace actors. It is on them.

To be fair, the AMPTP seems to be willing to concede on AI. And their offer in payments and residuals is the same as the WGA received.

 

The current big issue seems to be SAG wanting an percentage of streaming revenue.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Kon

[titanic2187]

Actually just what is the function of a government in this nation? One of the biggest industry and hegemony vehicle of the country is on pause for months and Government can just sit there and do nothing? They can't resolve drug zombie at San Francisco, neither they can deter gun violence and their uselessness go on and on.     

[filmlover]

9 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

The subscriber levy is untenable imo because a large portion of content on streaming services aren't even SAG-affiliated, and they would be collecting revenue on every subscriber regardless of whether they actually contributed to revenues.
For example if Squid Game game show blows up in popularity and nets them 2m subscribers, they'd have to pay $1.14 million to SAG even though they had no part in getting those subscribers. Or say peacock gains 5m subs from the upcoming Olympics, why do they have to pay SAG for that?

 

A lot of the content on streaming services has no affiliation with SAG. Game shows, Reality TV, Non-Fiction documentaries, Anime, Foreign shows. 

 

Why should SAG get a cut of that content when they have no affiliation with SAG? That subscriber thing SAG is demanding to me is absolutely ridiculous. 

The whole "subscriber levy" to me seems too complicated (at least under the current circumstances this far into the strike) because...well, anyone can cancel their streaming services at any time. No one is obligated to have a Netflix or Disney+ account. Neither the union or the streamer is guaranteed to always have an income off of one individual. They'll have to sort that out for themselves (who knows how we'll be watching stuff in three years or so).

 

IMO the A.I. and scanning people's faces without their consent is what should be concerning. If nothing is accomplished there, then the strike really would've been all for naught.

Edited October 26, 2023 by filmlover

[Cappoedameron]

2 minutes ago, Kon said:

The current big issue seems to be SAG wanting an precentage of streaming revenue.

Which is something they do not deserve and certainly not the 53 cents per subscriber they want.

[ZeroHour]

1 minute ago, titanic2187 said:

Actually just what is the function of a government in this nation? One of the biggest industry and hegemony vehicle of the country is on pause for months and Government can just sit there and do nothing? They can't resolve drug zombie at San Francisco, neither they can deter gun violence and their uselessness go on and on.     

What exactly is it you imagine the government should be doing here? They can't force either side to make or accept a deal they don't want to. 

[JustLurking]

4 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

Which is something they do not deserve and certainly not the 53 cents per subscriber they want.

Yeah the people working on the films don't deserve a share of the pie, only those hard working cool CEOs and shareholders do.

[Jonwo]

The issue with a revenue sharing percentage is that surely it's not fair that only actors should get it. Surely the wealth needs to go to everyone involved in a scripted production.

 

I do think Fran probably have bitten more than she can chew and currently doesn't want to concede. I'm not sure about Duncan Crabtree-Ireland but I wonder if the studios would rather work with him and the others at SAG to get things done.

 

 

 

 

[Cappoedameron]

7 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

The issue with a revenue sharing percentage is that surely it's not fair that only actors should get it. Surely the wealth needs to go to everyone involved in a scripted production.

 

I do think Fran probably have bitten more than she can chew and currently doesn't want to concede. I'm not sure about Duncan Crabtree-Ireland but I wonder if the studios would rather work with him and the others at SAG to get things done.

 

 

 

 

Crabtree is the more level headed of the two by far. I'd just tell Fran to just start her vacation or something.

[Cappoedameron]

15 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Yeah the people working on the films don't deserve a share of the pie, only those hard working cool CEOs and shareholders do.

 

Streaming services are a lot more than just scripted shows nowadays. 

 

Why should SAG get a piece of the pie in something they didn't even help create or were affiliated with?