WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[Porthos]

SAG-AFTRA Agreement, Summary form:

 

https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sa_documents/TV-Theatrical_23_Summary_Agreement_Final.pdf

 

====

 

re: AI

 

 

 

[Porthos]

 

Key points:

 

Quote

In the final days of the SAG-AFTRA contract negotiations, when pressure was closing in on the guild to end what had been a crippling, nearly six month work stoppage, union president Fran Drescher was holding onto an unusual demand, one that most guild members knew nothing about. 

 

Drescher wanted a fund over which SAG had broad discretion to redistribute money among its members. “She wanted her Robin Hood fund,” one studio source says. 

 

SAG’s tentative agreement with the AMPTP includes the unorthodox new streaming fund, which is designed to share the wealth among more actors — even those who aren’t working on the shows and films that generated it. 

 

 

Quote

In an effort to close the deal amid a 118-day strike that had been grueling for both sides, SAG and the studios agreed to create the fund while essentially punting on figuring out the finer details. The broad strokes are this: High-budget streaming shows that attract 20 percent of a platform’s subscriber base in the first 90 days will generate a bonus, which SAG estimates will amount to about $120 million over the 3-year term of the contract. Of that bonus, 75 percent will go to the actors on those shows and 25 percent will go to a fund to be jointly administered by SAG and the AMPTP. According to SAG chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, recipients of the fund, “will be limited to people who are working in streaming. It’s not meant to broaden beyond that.” 

 

Drescher pushed for the fund as a way to help mitigate the impact of the streaming business model on actors whose shows don’t become big enough hits to reach the bonus benchmark. “They deserve to make more money without question because those shows in linear TV would’ve been into syndication and there is no syndication in streaming,” Drescher told The Hollywood Reporter. When studios pushed back, wanting the fund to be limited to actors whose shows and films triggered the bonus, Drescher insisted that wouldn’t be a “wide enough tent” to help SAG’s members, according to a source with knowledge of the negotiations.

 

 

Quote

During negotiations, Drescher fought hard for the fund, particularly as it was becoming clear that SAG’s revenue sharing proposal was a non-starter with studios. Part of the role that the A-listers — particularly Ben Affleck — were playing behind the scenes during the strike was trying to find a model for streaming compensation that both SAG and the studios would agree to. “Ben came in with a different view and different formula that we didn’t use, but it opened up conversations with SAG,” says a studio-side source. “Once he got involved and some of the other actors got involved, he was trying to come up with practical solutions.” 

 

In exchange for giving up on revenue sharing in favor of a streaming fund, however, Drescher wanted SAG to have complete discretion over how that fund would be dispersed. It’s a key difference from the WGA deal, in which the streaming bonus goes to the writers whose shows earned it, and it’s a model that multiple attorneys familiar with such contracts have called highly unusual.

 

 

Quote

In the final days of talks, control over the fund, along with AI protections, was a main sticking point in closing a deal. The studios negotiated SAG’s discretionary portion down to 50 percent and then 25 percent, where it landed. 

 

Snipped out a bunch of handwringing over internal SAG politics as well as studio carping about potential legal issues as that's not the point I care about here.  More interested in the reason this came about, especially in the aftermath of folks complaining about shows that wouldn't hit the WGA negotiated deal for residuals.

 

Looks to be a... creative way of handling the New Realities of Streaming.  Time will tell if it is too creative by half and what refinements need to be made if it is kept around.

[Kon]

16 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Key points:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snipped out a bunch of handwringing over internal SAG politics as well as studio carping about potential legal issues as that's not the point I care about here.  More interested in the reason this came about, especially in the aftermath of folks complaining about shows that wouldn't hit the WGA negotiated deal for residuals.

 

Looks to be a... creative way of handling the New Realities of Streaming.  Time will tell if it is too creative by half and what refinements need to be made if it is kept around.

 

I find interesting the studios really wanted the bonus money to go to the actors whose shows get 20% percent of the audience.

 

Fran and SAG wanted 50% percent of the bonus goes to the other actors (whose shows on streaming get under 20% of audience), but the studios only accepted 25%.

 

It's curious the studios were so wary about this, since they wouldn't apparently loss anything regardless who receives the money.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Kon

[Celedhring]

I think they worry about the precedent of expanding the recipients, even if the outlay wouldn't change for them at this point.

 

Good on Fran for sticking with it, IMHO. 

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, Kon said:

It's curious the studios were so wary about this, since they wouldn't apparently loss anything regardless who receives the money.

They want to link money incentive with their own success as much as they can, if the bonus are not linked to incentive talents into turning show into high performer (during the press tour, own platform and other ways they can have to help) they make 0 sense to them.

 

It was probably making the working talents and their agents angry (who are completely outvoted by the non-working members) a group they would care more about.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Barnack

[Arlborn]

21 hours ago, Porthos said:

SAG-AFTRA Agreement, Summary form:

 

https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sa_documents/TV-Theatrical_23_Summary_Agreement_Final.pdf

 

====

 

re: AI

 

 

 

Thank you for posting this, I can't access their site for some reason.

 

This all seems reasonable to me.

20 hours ago, Porthos said:

 

Key points:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snipped out a bunch of handwringing over internal SAG politics as well as studio carping about potential legal issues as that's not the point I care about here.  More interested in the reason this came about, especially in the aftermath of folks complaining about shows that wouldn't hit the WGA negotiated deal for residuals.

 

Looks to be a... creative way of handling the New Realities of Streaming.  Time will tell if it is too creative by half and what refinements need to be made if it is kept around.

 

Fran did really well here. I don't like overpraising people for stuff like this, but if this is used as intended, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be, this is honestly great for the small actors.

[dudalb]

Thye will just pass on the whatever the increasded cost of the contract on to us, of course.

[Jonwo]

I am surprised to learn that Jonathan Bailey was on an Equity contract and not a SAG/AFTRA contract for Wicked and did some scenes. I would have assumed he was on a SAG/AFTRA contract given he's not exactly unknown.

 

 

[Kon]

26 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I am surprised to learn that Jonathan Bailey was on an Equity contract and not a SAG/AFTRA contract for Wicked and did some scenes. I would have assumed he was on a SAG/AFTRA contract given he's not exactly unknown.

 

 

Actors could be on Equity and SAG/AFTRA. The rules that are followed will depend on what guild has the contract for that production.

 

Jonathan Bailey contract with Wicked should be throught Equity, so he would need to follow Equity rules (which hasn't been on strike).

Edited November 14, 2023 by Kon

[Jonwo]

1 minute ago, Kon said:

 

Actors could be on Equity and SAG/AFTRA. The rules that are followed will depend on what guild has the contract for that production.

 

Jonathan Bailey contract with Wicked should be throught Equity, so he would need to follow Equity rules (which isn't on strike).

Seems a bit strange to make him film things with stand ins but I'm guessing SAG-AFTRA can't do anything if he's not on a SAG contract. House of the Dragon being entirely on Equity contract meant that series 2 can be released in 2024 as planned. 

 

 

[dudalb]

44 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I am surprised to learn that Jonathan Bailey was on an Equity contract and not a SAG/AFTRA contract for Wicked and did some scenes. I would have assumed he was on a SAG/AFTRA contract given he's not exactly unknown.

 

 

Many actors are members of both, and they always work together.

Main difference is that Equity focuses on live theater.

[Jonwo]

Just now, dudalb said:

Many actors are members of both, and they always work together.

Main difference is that Equity focuses on live theater.

I think this is British Equity which is the UK actor's union rather than American Equity the live performance union.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:55 AM, Kon said:

 

I find interesting the studios really wanted the bonus money to go to the actors whose shows get 20% percent of the audience.

 

Fran and SAG wanted 50% percent of the bonus goes to the other actors (whose shows on streaming get under 20% of audience), but the studios only accepted 25%.

 

It's curious the studios were so wary about this, since they wouldn't apparently loss anything regardless who receives the money.

I would think it would incentivize filmmakers to try and make better films, because the more that earn 20% of the audience, the more money that goes into the Robin Hood fund.

 

Or maybe Hollywood studios want less individually popular films...? That makes zero sense though.

Edited November 15, 2023 by MysteryMovieMogul

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Or maybe Hollywood studios want less individually popular films...?

How can that be possible maybe I am misreading, but it seem they wanted to put incentive on making TV shows that reach giant audience (20%), showing that they obviously want more popular product.

 

2 hours ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

filmmakers to try and make better films, because the more that earn 20% of the audience, the more money that goes into the Robin Hood fund.

 

The money they will directly receive will be more than enough for them to try to make more popular streaming shows.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

Seems like a lot of people who aren't even in the guild are trying to urge members of the guild to vote no because of AI doomerism...

 

 

[Jonwo]

I do think if actors are concerned about AI recreation, they need to put in contracts saying they cannot be recreated after their death or in general or they can be recreated but they are paid a lot for it. 

[BadOlCatSylvester]

Yeah, there's been a lot of noise lately about the AI regulations supposedly not being enough. We're not out of the woods yet. But I haven't looked much into it, so I'd like to hear what others have to say about it.

[Jonwo]

I honestly can't see a better deal, the best hope for everyone is tougher AI laws which would prevent any wrongdoings eother way.

 

 

[SpiderByte]

 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

2 hours ago, Jonwo said:

I honestly can't see a better deal, the best hope for everyone is tougher AI laws which would prevent any wrongdoings eother way.

The thing is, if AI is that big of a threat and could put SAG actors out of work, it won't be Studios that come out ahead, it'll be the yet-to-be-formed tech company that uses AI to create their own movie outside of the SAG/WGA/AMPTP system.