WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[MysteryMovieMogul]

9 minutes ago, 21C said:

As a company overall they're making money, but on streaming they're losing money.

Huh? What company? I didn't mention a company.

[Dementeleus]

 

[tonytr87]

Fuck these wealth goblins. 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

Everyone here can shout "streaming isn't profitable" as loud as they want in this forum full of people who are obsessed with box office receipts, but the reality is, it's never going away. A majority of people are used to being able to watch what they want, when they want, in their own homes.

 

Zaslav didn't remove content from HBO Max and cancel fully produced films solely because of streaming. He did it because of the Discovery merger, a merger that didn't need to happen.

 

I'm not saying streaming is a money maker, but I am saying this strike isn't going to kill streaming. Streaming is never going away.

[Dementeleus]

For those saying the actors all make too much anyway.

 

 

[Water Bottle]

41 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

If anything, A Government controlled entertainment business is not a good idea. The private sector isn't great but I wouldn't want any Government trying to make films. 

 

 

 

I disagree. While I want most movies/TV shows made by private sector, I do think there should be more room/space for government funded movies. 

[DAR]

4 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

 

Who still wears jean jackets?

[Cmasterclay]

Government funded entertainment has provided all of those awful shows on BBC, PBS, and NPR. Real failures of creativity and programming!

 

I don't believe that all movies or shows should be publicly funded, obviously, but like in all industries, a robust public option provides a baseline of quality and equity. I think it would be great if America had a true BBC-esque programming arm.

[dudalb]

50 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Why does any Actor deserve a paycheck for a single movie that is bigger than Bob Iger's pay for the year?

Becuase people pay to see him or her, not Bob Iger?

[ZattMurdock]

12 minutes ago, 21C said:

 

Well there goes the chances of this ending anytime soon lmfao

Fuck both of them.

[dudalb]

8 minutes ago, tonytr87 said:

Fuck these wealth goblins. 

Wow, that is an intelligent comment.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

1 minute ago, Plain Old Tele said:

For those saying the actors all make too much anyway.

 

 

I don't like weaponizing the 87% to defend the less than 1% of actors who are overpaid. Because there are a ton of big name actors who are overpaid.

Chris Pratt got paid $1.5 million for his role as Star Lord in the first Guardians movie. Sure, he had to get into shape and train daily (which just made him more hirable), but that's more money than I may ever see in my life.

[dudalb]

6 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

I disagree. While I want most movies/TV shows made by private sector, I do think there should be more room/space for government funded movies. 

Which will be pure propaganda for whichever bunch of politicians are in control. Count me out.

[Water Bottle]

5 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Which will be pure propaganda for whichever bunch of politicians are in control. Count me out.

 

Yes PBS very well known for being propaganda for Nixon and Bush. 

[dudalb]

9 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

For those saying the actors all make too much anyway.

 

 

Hell, most SAG members can't  make a living acting. They have to do something else. Too Many Actors and Too Few Roles.

Only a small percentage of SAG members can make a living acting full time. It has always been that way, and won't change.

But the ones who do should get a decent wage.

 

 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

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?

[21C]

2 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

I don't like weaponizing the 87% to defend the less than 1% of actors who are overpaid. Because there are a ton of big name actors who are overpaid.

Chris Pratt got paid $1.5 million for his role as Star Lord in the first Guardians movie. Sure, he had to get into shape and train daily (which just made him more hirable), but that's more money than I may ever see in my life.

I do think there is an argument to be made that's as much of a problem, if not an even more direct problem than the CEOs pay. The CEOs pay at least comes from other parts of the company, but if you're paying 100 million for Daniel Craig in Glass Onion that is a significant part of a film's budget that's not going to other departments and other actors. And the pays for some of these A-list actors, especially in streaming, are egregious and ridiculous. Elizabeth Olsen got paid like 3 million per episode for Love and Death; if she was just paid 1/3 of that, that's 2 million that could've very well been split between cast and crew. 

The big problem though is that I think that's an issue that no one's even willing to do anything about, mostly because of how overtly-pampered that talent is and the way that executives do mega-overvalue it. SAG wouldn't have any reason to do anything about it either. 

[Dementeleus]

7 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

I don't like weaponizing the 87% to defend the less than 1% of actors who are overpaid. Because there are a ton of big name actors who are overpaid.
 

This is the same argument that folks occasionally use against athletes, but the reality is, we live in a market-driven economy (more or less) and there are companies willing to pay because they believe they’ll make even more due to their efforts. 

[dudalb]

2 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Yes PBS very well known for being propaganda for Nixon and Bush. 

I think we are talking apples and ornages. I don;t mind some government funding of things like PBS; I do have problems with the government getting into feature film production.

[dudalb]

1 minute 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?

In the end, the cost will be passed on to you in the form of higher ticket prices or higher streaming fees. That you can be sure of.