WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[emoviefan]

6 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Justine Bateman is not a big name, don't worry about it.  

Yeah it's been awhile since Family Ties was on.  Yeah this most likely passes but it seems like their might be a lot of division and anger in SAG no matter what happens.

[Jonwo]

15 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

Yeah it's been awhile since Family Ties was on.  Yeah this most likely passes but it seems like their might be a lot of division and anger in SAG no matter what happens.

Wouldn't be an actor union if there wasn't drama.

 

It's unlikely but I wonder if SAG-AFTRA and Equity will ever merge. Seems silly to have two acting unions and probably make things a lot easier to just have the one union. 

[Porthos]

3 hours ago, Jonwo said:

Justine Bateman is not a big name, don't worry about it.  

 

Um... When it comes to issues of AI within the actors union?  She kinda is.

 

Not that this is guaranteed to sink the deal, but she absolutely is someone some folks listen to on this issue.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Porthos

[Water Bottle]

13 hours ago, emoviefan said:

I got you.  I am Still very much Pro Sag but yeah if this gets voted down then the AMPTP is going to say F all of you. Eat yourself from within for all we care.

 

That's not how it works. AMPTP can't just say fuck it cause their productions will be shot down.

 

What will happen is likely a week to a month more before a new negotiating committee meets with the AMPTP and they try to figure out a new deal that CAN pass.

[21C]

23 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Um... When it comes to issues of AI within the actors union?  She kinda is.

 

Not that this is guaranteed to sink the deal, but she absolutely is someone some folks listen to on this issue.

Out of the 160,000 members that SAG has, probably only about 5,000-7,000 know who she is, and out of that there are probably about 100 that listen to her enough to vote whichever way she demands it. And even if it was actually up to 1,000, it's a drop in the bucket. She is irrelevant.

[Porthos]

33 minutes ago, 21C said:

Out of the 160,000 members that SAG has, probably only about 5,000-7,000 know who she is, and out of that there are probably about 100 that listen to her enough to vote whichever way she demands it. And even if it was actually up to 1,000, it's a drop in the bucket. She is irrelevant.

 

Any one voice is irrelevant.  It's whether or not those voices gain traction with people with similar concerns and they amplify the message.  It's far too soon to say whether or not folks like Justine Bateman are going to be irrelevant when it comes to this deal.  It's absolutely probable that there won't be a backlash to this deal. Hell, I explicitly warned against taking too much stock into social media whining.  

 

But that doesn't mean to ignore potential red flags, either.  Mostly what I am saying is that we shouldn't conflate our personal desire for all of this to be over with how the rank and file *might* feel about red line issues. 

 

I've seen a lot of takes on this thread that basically all but state that actors will settle for any deal that gets them back to work and, well, as WB just said:

 

 

===

 

Looking at all of this a different way, yes the odds are good that this deal will pass.  Probably very good. And if one views the difference between a deal getting approved by a 55-45 margin and 90-10 as "irrelevant" then yes, people like Justine Bateman are likely "irrelevant". 

 

Hell I'm not even willing to place a bet right now on the margin of the vote as it's just too damn early to tell.  It could in fact be an overwhelming vote to ratify (90%+ in favor)

 

All folks like @Youngstar and @Ryan Reynolds are saying/reminding is that there are potential, emphasis on potential, warning signs here.  Warning signs that were not around for the WGA strike resolution and  not around as much as when the DGA contract was being ratified.

 

On the flip side, I do think it's probably not going to be as contentious as the IATSE ratification vote was.  Which is another sign that this is likely to pass.  But and again this is all some of us are saying, it's a little too soon to tell as there hasn't been much time for folks to really sink their teeth into this deal and evaluate the pros and cons of it all.

 

NB:

 

When it comes to future labor talks/fights?  Completely disagree that opposition like Justine Bateman's is "irrelevant" as how happy one side is overall with a deal often sets a tenor for future negotiations.  And here the difference between, say, a 55-45 ratification and a 70-30 ratification and a 90-10 (or greater) ratification is in fact relevant. 

 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Porthos

[21C]

4 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Any one voice is irrelevant.  It's whether or not those voices gain traction with people with similar concerns and they amplify the message.  It's far too soon to say whether or not folks like Justine Bateman are going to be irrelevant when it comes to this deal.  It's absolutely probable that there won't be a backlash to this deal. Hell, I explicitly warned against taking too much stock into social media whining.  

 

But that doesn't mean to ignore potential red flags, either.  Mostly what I am saying is that we shouldn't conflate our personal desire for all of this to be over with how the rank and file *might* feel about red line issues. 

 

I've seen a lot of takes on this thread that basically all but state that actors will settle for any deal that gets them back to work and, well, as WB just said:

 

 

===

 

Looking at all of this a different way, yes the odds are good that this deal will pass.  Probably very good. And if one views the difference between a deal getting approved by a 55-45 margin and 90-10 as "irrelevant" then yes, people like Justine Bateman are likely "irrelevant". 

 

Hell I'm not even willing to place a bet right now on the margin of the vote as it's just too damn early to tell.  It could in fact be an overwhelming vote to ratify (90%+ in favor)

 

All folks like @Youngstar and @Ryan Reynolds are saying/reminding is that there are potential, emphasis on potential, warning signs here.  Warning signs that were not around for the WGA strike resolution and  not around as much as when the DGA contract was being ratified.

 

On the flip side, I do think it's probably not going to be as contentious as the IATSE ratification vote was.  Which is another sign that this is likely to pass.  But and again this is all some of us are saying, it's a little too soon to tell as there hasn't been much time for folks to really sink their teeth into this deal and evaluate the pros and cons of it all.

 

NB:

 

When it comes to future labor talks/fights?  Completely disagree that opposition like Justine Bateman's is "irrelevant" as how happy one side is overall with a deal often sets a tenor for future negotiations.  And here the difference between, say, a 55-45 ratification and a 70-30 ratification and a 90-10 (or greater) ratification is in fact relevant. 

 

Bro why do you like to doomsay so much. We'll cross that bridge if we ever get to it.

[Porthos]

Just now, 21C said:

Bro why do you like to doomsay so much. We'll cross that bridge if we ever get to it.

 

Because I'm @BadOlCatSylvester's alt, naturally.

 

(j/k BadOlCatSylvester 😛)

 

[Porthos]

6 minutes ago, 21C said:

Bro why do you like to doomsay so much. We'll cross that bridge if we ever get to it.

 

Just now, Porthos said:

 

Because I'm @BadOlCatSylvester's alt, naturally.

 

(j/k BadOlCatSylvester 😛)

 

 

Jokes aside, none of and I do mean NOT A SINGLE WORD OF MY POST you just quoted was "doomsaying".  In fact, I bent over backwards not to indulge in "doomsaying".

 

But if warning folks to be a teeny tiny teensy weensy bit cautious as we wait for initial reaction to this deal to settle in is "doomsaying"?  GUILTY AS CHARGED.

[emoviefan]

3 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

 

Jokes aside, none of and I do mean NOT A SINGLE WORD OF MY POST you just quoted was "doomsaying".  In fact, I bent over backwards not to indulge in "doomsaying".

 

But if warning folks to be a teeny tiny teensy weensy bit cautious as we wait for initial reaction to this deal to settle in is "doomsaying"?  GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Yeah you were not doomsaying at all. You are being rational and realistic. This will probably pass. The question is by how much and to just shrug off Justine and people like her as irrelevant is probably not wise.

[KC7]

21 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

 

Jokes aside, none of and I do mean NOT A SINGLE WORD OF MY POST you just quoted was "doomsaying".  In fact, I bent over backwards not to indulge in "doomsaying".

 

But if warning folks to be a teeny tiny teensy weensy bit cautious as we wait for initial reaction to this deal to settle in is "doomsaying"?  GUILTY AS CHARGED.

 

Thank you for offering some much needed truth in a thread that continues to have too many people who don't know what they're talking about.

[WittyUsername]

I would think the deal will still get ratified, even if it’s not going to be as unanimous as the WGA one. There are 160,000 people in SAG-AFTRA, so it goes without saying that not everyone will be happy with the deal. 

[Youngstar]

To be honest I wouldn't vote yes to this deal if these are the loopholes:

 

I know everyone here wants it to be over, but do you really want movies where all of this is a reality?

[Barnack]

10 hours ago, Youngstar said:

where all of this is a reality?

Some of the stuff pointed out have been common in the industry for at least 10-15 years, changing the distance between characther, taking take 2 for one and take 6 for the other, using 2 different take and mixing them together because each had some wanted aspect performance wise.... that has been going on in the tv and movies you have been watching.

 

If they do not tell us, it is all perfect, if they do tell us it can become an issue (Tom Cruise as stunt double, much better if they stay unknown).

 

Some stuff would be illegal to be any different under fair use laws, most of them are a big deal for the employee but for the customer usually the less hand tie by rules, the better.

[Cappoedameron]

i have a gut feeling this thing is going to pass but they'll tackle it exponentially in 2027.

[Porthos]

 

[Porthos]

That tweet I just posted came over the wire as I was typing up this one, but I still want to post it, so....

 

====

 

Justine Bateman may be a "nobody" in the minds of the GA which barely remembers her from her time in the 80s sitcoms. But she's apparently not that irrelevant to at least one SAG negotiating member:

 

 

Just happened to see this quoted at randomly on Twitter as I look about for the tenor of the reaction so far.  Looks like there is gonna be a major SAG meeting tomorrow where much of the details will be gone over:

 

 

initial reaction to that should be a decent tea leaf as to how all of this is gonna play out.  Not "is the deal gonna get sunk or not" play out, but "will the ratification be a smooth one or not" tea leaf.

[Kon]

Well, I have been reading the agreement. It's interesting.

 

The requirement to get a bonus in residuals is similar to the WGA, the shows need to get 20% of the audience.

 

That said, the bonus for SAG is 100%, which is bigger than the bonus for WGA (50%). However, 75% of the bonus will go to the cast, while 25% will go to SAG.

 

[Celedhring]

Yeah, my reading is that SAG will use that 25% to distribute it to shows under the 20% line.

[emoviefan]

5 hours ago, Celedhring said:

Yeah, my reading is that SAG will use that 25% to distribute it to shows under the 20% line.

That seems good.  No reason for the rank and file to rise up and vote this down.