• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Hollywood Strike thread

Nice to see Ken Miller and Bill Haverchuck are still hanging out....

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1476.jpeg
    IMG_1476.jpeg
    173.8 KB · Views: 123
budman said:
Maybe they can do it. With actors joining in it will be harder.

The whole Union debate will come up at some point for sure.
Click to expand...

The only reason the actors are jumping in is because they’ve got no one to write new scripts, and if they use scab labor to write, they’ll be working struck work.

I hope they get the deal they deserve. If someone making residual profit from what was written, I see no reason why the writers shouldn’t be able to collect some of that too. But make no mistake, I seriously doubt that the actors really give two shits. I have one friend who does costumes, one who’s a seamstress and another who builds sets. None of them speak highly of any of the mainstream actors they’ve come across.
 
From the last two sentances?? :dunno
 
msethhunter said:
The only reason the actors are jumping in is because they’ve got no one to write new scripts, and if they use scab labor to write, they’ll be working struck work.

I hope they get the deal they deserve. If someone making residual profit from what was written, I see no reason why the writers shouldn’t be able to collect some of that too. But make no mistake, I seriously doubt that the actors really give two shits. I have one friend who does costumes, one who’s a seamstress and another who builds sets. None of them speak highly of any of the mainstream actors they’ve come across.
Click to expand...

I think that is part of the problem with the streaming model though. It is kind of hard to quantify the residual profits made from completed media products.

Like, in the old TV model it was simple. You paid to license a product to show it on your network, you sold ad time during the showings, Cost to Show was X, Ad time Sold was Y, you carve up the shares appropriately. Review the Nielson, use it to develop your next transaction, etc.

100% Online Streaming on Demand Content is just wildly different. For Movie Theaters you have ticket sales, for Tv Showing you have Ad Time. For streaming, you can quantify how many people watch what, but how do you qualify it relative to post production income? How do you make the numbers work?

It is a tough thing to make work.
 
Do we know that streaming views are NOT quantified?

I totally get your point though. A lot of turnups in the salad to deal with, but the bottom line seems that if the streaming companies are doing well and the talent is getting bullshit payouts they are taking advantage.
 
apparently there were a bunch of cancellations from actors and writers at the san diego comic con a few weeks back. I'm going to one in Chicago in a few weekends. I didn't see any mention of speaking panels which are typically very popular at these events. Only autographs and photo ops. And a lot of old-timey actors not currently working will be there: the cast of back to the future (including MJF) and nat'l lampoon's Vacation. Henry Winkler too, but he's been recently active with Barry.
 
Last edited:
Since we are talking labor movements, maybe some of yall will enjoy some background on US labor struggles.

[youtube]j53VI17PQig[/youtube]
 
budman said:
Do we know that streaming views are NOT quantified?

I totally get your point though. A lot of turnups in the salad to deal with, but the bottom line seems that if the streaming companies are doing well and the talent is getting bullshit payouts they are taking advantage.
Click to expand...

Oh, views are 100% quantified and qualified. The thing is, you cannot directly relate those views to revenue. Since the model for streaming services is through a paid library access license, there is no direct like there was was for the Ad Time model.

Like, there is no clear, "this show is entitled to X% of the monthly membership fee people pay to access our library." You know? One doesn't know if members are joining because that content was created or licensed, or if they would just continue to pay for access to the library.

You figure the market is saturated now so nearly all streaming customers accessing content are existing members now, so how do you figure out what makes sense to pay, you know?
 
Last edited:
This is a list of the assholes that have donated over seven figure amounts to the SAG/AFTRA strike fund...

George and Amal Clooney

Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck

Luciana and Matt Damon

Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively

Leonardo DiCaprio

Julia Roberts

Hugh Jackman and Deborra-lee Furness

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Dwayne Johnson

Meryl Streep

Nicole Kidman

Oprah Winfrey
Click to expand...

Selfish jerks. :x
 
I don’t understand. They are supporting others who are on strike and they are selfish?
 
Johndicezx9 said:
This is a list of the assholes that have donated over seven figure amounts to the SAG/AFTRA strike fund...



Selfish jerks. :x
Click to expand...

I mean, all these all these names posted are SAG Actors who have gotten very wealthy through the efforts of the trades on strike. As far as I am aware they are also all still currently active and would see an actual cash benefit for success in the negotiations.

Like, it is cool they are giving back to their own industry, but it is hardly a selfless act at all. If they did it for the Writers, before the SAG-AFTRA of which they are all members joined in, it would appear a bit more so, but even then...
 
Eldritch said:
I mean, all these all these names posted are SAG Actors who have gotten very wealthy through the efforts of the trades on strike. As far as I am aware they are also all still currently active and would see an actual cash benefit for success in the negotiations.

Like, it is cool they are giving back to their own industry, but it is hardly a selfless act at all. If they did it for the Writers, before the SAG-AFTRA of which they are all members joined in, it would appear a bit more so, but even then...
Click to expand...
You don't know that. You'd have to be making numerous assumptions and applying that to all of them. A majority of them? Maybe? Probably?

Either way, they donated the money. If the not so rich of the industry get what they're striking for, or something more acceptable to them, then good.

If the rich get richer through selfless or self-serving donations and support, I don't care. If the people that aren't wiping their tears with hundred dollar bills get a bigger piece of the pie, even if that piece of the pie is small potatoes compared to the rich, then cool.
 
Of course I do. Every single one of these is a SAG member and would benefit personally from a contract favoring more for SAG members. No one is even debating that.

If you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole, of the 2 main issues in dispute, Streaming Residuals and Protection against using AI to replace them, the larger stars stand to benefit much more from the latter than the guy who plaed Coffee Drinker #2.

Your position seems to be much more one of a general support for Labor than one to the specifics of this particle contract dispute. :dunno
 
My support is both general and specifics.

You don't have know the motivations of all the rich donating and supporting. Just because they stand to benefit doesn't make it not a selfless act to donate and support.

Can't prove what's in their head one way or the other. Neither can I. It's not like I'm defending rich people and don't think rich people want to get richer but I believe some of them have their heart and money in the right place. To think none of them are acting with selfless intent is too cynical and being way too confident thinking in absolutes.

That's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top