WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[Jonwo]

5 minutes ago, AniNate said:

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.

Tentpoles won't ever go away. Anyone who thinks that is being naive. Mario made over a billion, Avatar has had two $2bn films. Like it or not, the allure of spectacle is still there.

[Cmasterclay]

3 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

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.

That....that isn't what I'm saying? I'm not saying replace Harrison Ford with AI. You are making that up haha. I am saying eventually we will have to invest in new (human) stars to become the next Harrison Ford. Like, do you think Jimmy Stewart should have played Han Solo or something?

[dudalb]

7 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.

You really, really, cannot see beyond the genre film horizon, can you?

And I question if "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 it means that any film that is not an easily franchisable film gets rejected.

Yes, I think the domnation of Genre film and big franchises has been devastating to the film industry as far as creativity goes.

It is not I don not like a lot of genre film an franchises, it is just I do not like the way they have pushed almost every thing else out.

 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

1 minute ago, 21C said:

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

Perfect, let them whine. That would be amazing. The public at large is not going to defend actors the way they defend Sports stars, especially when the actors most likely to whine are White people.

[ZattMurdock]

1 minute ago, Cmasterclay said:

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.

That’s beyond my point. I’m Zatt, of course I’m okay with reboots. But that’s not what we are talking about, isn’t it? You are saying that they should cut big salaries for big name actors and get new unknown ones. The crux to my point is why to stop at the big name actors? Why don’t we just replace screenwriters and everyone else too? Why don’t we go for A.I. for that matter? I’m sure that there are writers that are considered too expensive by Hollywood ceos too. My point is that if you make the human element as replaceable as you and Tele are suggesting, people that work in the industry are already doomed. They won’t stop at simply making it a bit more cheaper, they will go all the way down.

[dudalb]

1 minute ago, Jonwo said:

Tentpoles won't ever go away. Anyone who thinks that is being naive. Mario made over a billion, Avatar has had two $2bn films. Like it or not, the allure of spectacle is still there.

Agreed, but the problem is that everything is a Tentpole..or an attempt at one...nowdays.

[Michael Gary Scott]

33 minutes ago, DAR said:

 

The Rewatchables this month is doing courtroom movies.  Remember when that genre dominated the box office.  They weren’t expensive and always made a profit.

Last one I remember is Runaway Jury

[Cmasterclay]

Just now, ZattMurdock said:

That’s beyond my point. I’m Zatt, of course I’m okay with reboots. But that’s not what we are talking about, isn’t it? You are saying that they should cut big salaries for big name actors and get new unknown ones. The crux to my point is why to stop at the big name actors? Why don’t we just replace screenwriters and everyone else too? Why don’t we go for A.I. for that matter? I’m sure that there are writers that are considered too expensive by Hollywood ceos too. My point is that if you make the human element as replaceable as you and Tele are suggesting, people that work in the industry are already doomed. They won’t stop at simply making it a bit more cheaper, they will go all the way down.

What??? I am literally not saying that and neither is Tele. I didn't say anything about reboots at all. What are you talking about? Me and Tele could give a shit less if its cheaper. It's about offering a diverse range of product and stars to create a more balanced, workable industry. 

[Bob Train]

1 hour 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.

That sounds like a you problem, dude

[MysteryMovieMogul]

2 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Tentpoles won't ever go away. Anyone who thinks that is being naive. Mario made over a billion, Avatar has had two $2bn films. Like it or not, the allure of spectacle is still there.

Ironic that those two films are ones where the actors are obscured behind CGI and VFX, respectively. 

[AniNate]

3 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Tentpoles won't ever go away. Anyone who thinks that is being naive. Mario made over a billion, Avatar has had two $2bn films. Like it or not, the allure of spectacle is still there.

 

Sure there'll always be tentpoles, but not always a reliable slate of franchises to fill up an entire year's release schedule. Trends ebb and flow and the movie industry will have to adjust.

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, Michael Gary Scott said:

Last one I remember is Runaway Jury

Think The Lincoln Lawyer was the last one that was a decent success. Of course has now been adapted into streaming content.

[Dementeleus]

10 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.

Hollywood’s Golden Age was hardly a perfect utopia, but one thing they were very good at is making a LOT of movies. “Between 1930 and 1945, the studio system produced more than 7,500 features” (Britannica). 
 

Even in the 1990s, this is maybe where the box office sites get janky with data. I assure you, there were more than 10 studio films released in June 1990.
 

 

[dudalb]

9 minutes ago, 21C said:

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. 

 

Hell, I could argue nobody should get more then Ten Million in a salary, but with a share of the profits.

If he really that big a draw, he will probably make more in the end. If not, let';s establish his real worth.

[21C]

4 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Perfect, let them whine. That would be amazing. The public at large is not going to defend actors the way they defend Sports stars, especially when the actors most likely to whine are White people.

I'd happily say let them whine but the most likely scenario is that they'd probably garner enough support with SAG leadership they'd cave immediately. I genuinely don't think SAG has the balls to propose something like that. 

And it is funny because in a lot of these cases the pay of these A-list actors does rival and even exceed the pays of the CEOs. The 25 million Ford got paid isn't that far off from Iger's 30 million. Even Jennifer Lawrence got a pay like that for No Hard Feelings I think. It's really ridiculous and I do think kind of a cancer in terms of budget-managing a lot of these franchises and shows.

Edited July 14, 2023 by 21C

[MovieMan89]

That J Law salary simply boggles my mind whenever I see it mentioned if it’s really true. It makes zero sense, and stuff like that is absolutely part of the problem too.  

[MysteryMovieMogul]

The fact no one here can agree on a single damn thing, even regarding executives being greedy, is proof this strike isn't going to end any time soon.

[Jonwo]

I do find it curious that people complain about tentpoles but yet if studios decided to not make anymore, it would hurt more than it would help as comedies, drama and horror alone wouldn't exactly bring in big bucks.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love variety in films but this idea we shouldn't have tentpoles is a bit silly. 

[Dementeleus]

We should all stop pretending to be little studio moguls. They know perfectly well what they’re doing and whether or not to pay stars high salaries. 

[Cmasterclay]

2 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I do find it curious that people complain about tentpoles but yet if studios decided to not make anymore, it would hurt more than it would help as comedies, drama and horror alone wouldn't exactly bring in big bucks.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love variety in films but this idea we shouldn't have tentpoles is a bit silly. 

Nobody said we shouldn't have tentpoles. Of course we should have tentpoles. We always have. Tele said we shouldn't have ONLY tentpoles, and that a nice drama or comedy helps create new stars and balances the industry. People are really intentionally misinterpreting this probably to defend their favorite superhero movies tbh. It's this kneejerk instinct to assume that any holistic desire for different kind of movies is an attack on your favorite franchise directly. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Cmasterclay