November
23SAG's Doomsday Scenario
Its other strategies having failed, SAG may now try to obliterate Hollywood’s awards season.
That seems to be the threat implicit in the guild’s announcement over the weekend that it had decided to pursue a strike authorization. The efforts of a mediator to resolve the conflict have failed. Now comes the hammer.
To be sure, the 120,000 members may not deliver support to their leadership. The writer’s strike and the SAG impasse already had brought about a slowdown in feature production. The studios were hoping to re-activate their assembly lines in January and February but the economic crisis may inhibit that aim. Further strike threats would now be a major blow – one that would eliminate many jobs for actors.
If SAG were to throw a monkey wrench into Oscar season, as the writer’s strike did a year ago, its action would doubtless stir wrath throughout the creative community. Hollywood is strike weary. The financial collapse has also taken its toll.
So do actors really want to be both alienated and broke?
That seems to be the threat implicit in the guild’s announcement over the weekend that it had decided to pursue a strike authorization. The efforts of a mediator to resolve the conflict have failed. Now comes the hammer.
To be sure, the 120,000 members may not deliver support to their leadership. The writer’s strike and the SAG impasse already had brought about a slowdown in feature production. The studios were hoping to re-activate their assembly lines in January and February but the economic crisis may inhibit that aim. Further strike threats would now be a major blow – one that would eliminate many jobs for actors.
If SAG were to throw a monkey wrench into Oscar season, as the writer’s strike did a year ago, its action would doubtless stir wrath throughout the creative community. Hollywood is strike weary. The financial collapse has also taken its toll.
So do actors really want to be both alienated and broke?
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
In searching for sites related to web hosing and specifically comparison hosting linux plan web, your site came up.
Posted by: invosotoDus | 10/13/2009 9:18:10 PM
Hi, I can’t understand how to add your site in my rss reader. Can you Help me, please :)
Posted by: invosotoDus | 10/11/2009 2:36:21 AM
As a Newbie, I am always searching online for articles that can help me. Thank you
Posted by: autoauctions | 9/14/2009 4:33:29 AM
Who cares if actors go on strike - they have become unimportant. If you notice, A list actors don't carry film any longer, people are internetted out with stars of YouTube, etc, and have no interest in the Hanks, etc. Let them eat cake, let them strike, SAG is a bunch of selfish oafs anyway. Ever dealt with them at the box office of a theatre? Ha. They act like the world should bow down before them. SAG had to enforce the Nominating Committee Only rule or the members would yell and scream at theatre box offices.
Posted by: Lorenzo Sonobuono | 11/26/2008 3:36:13 PM
In the movie TITANIC when the ship-hand yelled out "Iceberg right ahead," and everyone panicked for a second and then the iceberg hit the ship. Then everyone was numb for just a second, not knowing what was about to happen. That's where we are. We have yet to hit the iceberg of this recession. Entertainment is always the last to feel it and with the WGA taking a mega bite out of the already struggling economy, SAG must come to an agreement. Go to a restaurant tonight. Your favorite. Let's meet at PACE on the hill, 7:30, guess what, no reservation necessary.
Posted by: actor | 11/26/2008 10:11:47 AM
Stop thinking that big corporations are making all the money and you want your fair share of the pie to pay for your house.
I studied economics my entire life with very bright people from all walks of life and STRIKING IS NOT THE ANSWER.
You don't get rid of jobs to beef up the industry. The corporations are in dire straights, worse than you know. Its like you fighting for the little electronics shop thinking that Circuit City kicked you off your block when a few weeks later Circuit City goes bankrupt.
So with that said, this isn't David vs. Goliath. We are all on the same team and need to solve this mess, vote against a strike, and just work harder to get acting gigs and focus on bettering your self and your life during this economic crisis with the understanding that a few cents of the digital medium will not add to your piggy bank. Get beyond it.
Posted by: Joe The Actor | 11/25/2008 8:11:43 PM
Hi, I am Joe the Actor. If I am concerned about my industry, my "current" economic situation and the economic situation of my fellow actors, I will vote AGAINST THE STRIKE. Do not try stick your chest out and act like the little guy in a fight against the big corporations. They are struggling too and are laying off more than they ever have in history. Everyone is in trouble which is why fighting over cents that you don't even know if you will get and are less likely to get if you do vote for the strike, is not strategic and does not achieve your objective.
Posted by: Joe The Actor | 11/25/2008 8:07:36 PM
"Work it out", Wake Up? Don't you really mean go ahead and aaccept AMPTP's offer?
And SO sorry we're just a Guild, not even a real Union.
But before you go ahead and side with management against your "brothers and sisters", make sure you know exactly who is being asked to bite what bullet.
Posted by: LPB | 11/25/2008 10:12:27 AM
Great another strike ===== 6 months before work begins again you hope.
Truly A very bad idea to stike..... Work -it Out!
Posted by: Wake Up!! | 11/25/2008 7:06:44 AM
Truly not one of "The SGA Big Shots" === get it. This is the Not the time to stike --- Bad, Bad Move..... Take a hard moment and think with the big picture in mind.
Posted by: Amazed! | 11/25/2008 6:59:48 AM
I hope there is no strke. In the current economic climate, recession/depression, it seems non-sensical to strike. I doubt SAG can convince the producers to give them a better deal than the other guilds received, so all that will happen is a lot of people will go through economic turmoil with no gains achieved that will make their, relatively, short-term pain worth the effort. So, I hope there is no strike and that SAG's short-sighted leaders can be persuaded to come to terms with the fact that they cannot achieve what they desire, a better deal than everyone else in Hollywood.
Posted by: Jim | 11/25/2008 5:09:44 AM
Let's be fair. No one is out to steal your current residuals. We are talking future income in a media that is still up & coming. Deal with the problems at hand. Right now we have a bad economic situation. Your wanting to 'die like a true blue rebel' is selfish as it will bring down millions with you who have no choice in the matter. As for the other unions 'abandoning SAG,' that is ridiculous. SAG is not a team player. SAG could have joined with the other unions, but preferred to hard line the industry into a standstill. I've found that many of the people who really want this strike are ones who have other jobs to support them while they pursue their careers. What a safe gamble you take on the backs of the rest of the industry.
Posted by: LittleGuy | 11/25/2008 12:22:12 AM
This guild was founded in the depression. The current one (yes, sweet people, I think it is a depression) is not reason for hard working Actors to fail defend their Liberty, i.e. wages, residuals and working conditions. This is really tough, as I am still reeling [sic] from the WGA strike. This is an attempt for business organizations that use a multitude of questionable accounting practices to steal what little the majority of actors depend on: their residual payments. Producers should be aware, that among the ranks of SAG''s membership stand people possessed of all the expert skills and the capital do well without the Studio Structure to produce wonderful films and television. If the financial geniuses at the head of the industrial structure at present cannot see which side of the coin is uppermost in the contract proposed by SAG, they may well just as well move on to other divisions in the non-entertainment corporations that now control the most of the studios. Let hem go ahead and work on wind power generators, or microelectronics. Disney will not even seal a bargain with their Hotel workers in Anaheim after about ten months without a contract. As for Actors, on the SAG side of the street, we have been for the most part, on unofficial lockout since the end of the WGA strikes anyways. I am right there with Joe Hill, who said, “I will die like a true-blue rebel. Don''t waste any time in mourning - organize.â€
And yes, Actors knew this was on the horizon, and that we would have to finish the work begun by the WGA. Also remember that any honest producer can still sign the Guaranteed Completion Contract, as best as I understand, and to our sisters and brothers in the craft unions, I would be foremost in encourage anyone you are aware of who wishes to begin a production to sign that agreement for their company, and get to shooting.
Posted by: Svetlana | 11/24/2008 8:40:25 PM
Let me try to understand this... When WGA, DGA and other guilds to include IATSI either went on strike or negotiated deals with AMPTP, SAG actors were there in support for the deals that were made. Albeit, the deals struck between those guilds and the AMPTP were watered down in order to keep the profiteering for the studios at a minimal loss to the employers and to try and keep people working. Regardless, SAG (As dysfunctional as its leadership structure is.) was there for all of them (The Guilds.) and now that SAG is going for broke and seeking a work stoppage/strike in order to seek better compensatory issues in ALL mediums and a way of life for all its members, the Guilds that benefited from SAG support are saying to SAG and its membership to NOT authorize. I ask: What is wrong with you?! It''s bad enough that the working actor who barely makes ends meet (It''s not because of how good a working actor is, it''s the business as a whole with demands for "A-Listers" that makes it hard for equally as talented actors to come up in the ranks.) and that the burden of this business most always falls upon the shoulders of the working actor. The other Guilds and IATSI have their deals. As an actor myself, I want my deal. For my future as an actor. For my family. For my fellow actors who want a piece of the pie as much as I do. The sooner this whole mess is over the better. In the meantime, support what SAG is trying to do for its members just as SAG support the other Guilds when they were either on strike or negotiating with AMPTP for their members. Thank you.
Posted by: A Working Class Actor | 11/24/2008 7:47:14 PM
High grossing SAG members should pay higher fees to be distributed to the rest? That's the most ridiculous and purely socialist thing I've ever heard. All your unions are ridiculous. If you're not good enough at acting to make your ends meet, find a new career that you're good at, and accept the idea that acting is your hobby. The star system is dying, and I hope the studios cancel their union contracts and find good actors among the millions of Americans that would love the chance. Supply and demand baby.
Posted by: objective | 11/24/2008 6:22:13 PM
You are comparing apples and oranges, Alexander. No one wants you to make an unfair living, but the rest of us don''t want to suffer needlessly through another strike when we are all still suffering from the last one, esp. when it is the mishandling by SAG that has caused this mess. If your union wasn''t so fractured, you could have made a deal with AFTRA a long time ago and maybe you''d have more influence with AMPTP. Or you could have timed your negotiations better and we wouldn''t have had five months of de facto strike to wear down our resources and ability to survive a strike. The amount of SAG members who would benefit from a strike is small compared to the millions who will be devastated by one(and that includes SAG members). You are the ones holding the rest of the industry hostage. You will never get a contract that will improve things enough to cover the costs of another strike. Meanwhile, most of us, who have no chance of benefiting no matter how things turn out, will be screwed. We are not bullies, we are trying to survive an unfair situation we didn''t ask for. Many of us are just as poor as you claim to be because of strikes that do nothing for us.
Posted by: LittleGuy | 11/24/2008 4:41:35 PM
This is a disgusting attempt to bully actors into an unfair deal, using the economy as an excuse and putting the burden on the shoulders of actors. No one wants to lose his house, but why should actors be the only ones who work as waiters and other terrible jobs just to make end''s meet. Millions are invested into new media right now, this would hardly be the case if there was no revenue to be expected. Actors have to stand strong now to have a chance of survival in the long run. Shame on you bullies who take from the poor to ensure your profits.
Posted by: Alexander Leeb | 11/24/2008 4:13:32 PM
Bob is right, talking about the A listers that make millions. SAG members who make over $200,000 should pay higher fees to SAG. Those fees will then be given to the other members.
Posted by: Coop | 11/24/2008 4:07:32 PM
I'm getting tired of hearing from SAG members about their future income when most of us are struggling to find current income. In normal economic conditions, I would support your right to improve your contract, but it is the height of selfishness to strike right now over something that can be argued over in three years. I, as a lowly crew member, do not make residuals and need my salary to make ends meet. Many in the entertainment industry lost their homes during the writer's strike, I shudder to think what would happen this time when the economy is worse. Try reading some of the comments on the following petition and search your heart and souls before you vote for a strike. Some of the comments are from DGA and SAG members, by the way.
www.petitiononline.com/DealNow/petition.html
Posted by: LittleGuy | 11/24/2008 3:32:46 PM
You folks sound ridiculous. Actors need residuals to survive. Why are your homes, bills, families, more important than ours? We can give no more. We can live on no less. Most of us are near or below the poverty line. Studios should shed some parent corporate ownership and there will be plenty of money to go round. There is fierce support for support to hold out for a better deal among informed actors. SAG will launch an informational campaign and then support for a strike authorization will be close to 90%. This nonsense about a “better deal†might play well to the uninformed. But SAG members understand the need and right to be paid for reusing and profiting off our images in perpetuity, and we will be the ones voting on a strike authorization. If you fear a strike, pressure the AMPTP. The blood has been squeezed from the SAG turnip.
And Peter Bart – you are second rate. You’ve made a career out of reflected light. Without the creative people you write about, you are nothing.
Posted by: Maple | 11/24/2008 3:24:15 PM
I, like many SAG members make less than 10,000.00 per yer from acting and I see more and more non union jobs every day that pay low with no residuals. The WEB is the future and if actors don'y get there share they will make even less than they do now. The AMPTP wants as strike VOTE TO FAIL. Then it will prove the union has no power. If SAG falls the rest will follow
Posted by: a SAG Member | 11/24/2008 2:57:51 PM
Peter:
Actors just want a fair deal.
By the way, I was at SAG this morning, and there was no anti-SAG demonstration as had been promised.
Posted by: HW | 11/24/2008 2:56:51 PM
I definitely support SAG.
Posted by: Capitalp | 11/24/2008 2:47:02 PM
End this please. Not only is Heir Alan destroying future programming but also current programming, jobs and lives. This is selfishness and greed at its utmost at this point. You failed to negotiate a better deal than all the other hollywood guilds. Accept the same as all other crafts. Why are you superior at the expense of the working man?
Posted by: outofworkthankstosag | 11/24/2008 1:35:27 PM
I suppose the real question is can the AMPTP afford for SAG to strike? I have been a big opponent of Membership First leadership. However, they are no long in charge. I wouldn't have trusted them to run a strike. While the still hold a significant number, it is possible that sheer luck has placed them in a very strong position of negotiation.
Three months ago, I would NEVER have supported a strike. However, in that time the studios have taken some serious hits. Network numbers are down significantly and that is being attributed to the writers strike. Membership First was defeated by the SAG membership. The studios have made significant headway into webcasting (anyone hear of Hulu?). The AMPTP has not been honoring it's obligations to the WGA.
In essence, the AMPTP is not in the strongest position right now to continue their strategy of "take it or leave it" since if SAG leaves it they are now much more vulnerable than they were 6 months ago. The AMPTP was prepared for the writers strike. They were in a strong position and were able to use it to their advantage. Now they aren't.
Time will tell, but depending upon how things shake out I certainly will consider a strike authorization when I would NEVER had done it before. I think we may be in the exact right position at the exact right time to make a difference!
Posted by: SAG member | 11/24/2008 1:24:12 PM
I supported the WGA last year. Even at the expense of a chunk of my business. But now with the economy being the way it is, I can only hope SAG will come to it's senses. A lot of people will lose their business, homes...
Posted by: Brian | 11/24/2008 12:30:59 PM
I can only hope that the actors will no strike. The business that I am in would realy suffer. I can only hope they will look at the "Big Picture".
Posted by: Michael@omega | 11/24/2008 10:54:27 AM
Most members of SAG do not earn their primary living from film work. It's the journeymen actors who would pay a huge price from a strike at this time. The top tier actors have little at stake as they negotiate their own contracts.
Already studios are turning more and more to animation. This would just accelerate the process.
A strike is a failure. But in this current economic climate, it would be a tragedy leading to loss of more jobs.
Posted by: worried | 11/24/2008 5:46:02 AM
i work in television production and this would be really really bad. The last 3 years around december ive been unemployed either by a show getting cancelled or last year it was the writers strike. Please dont do this again. With everything the way it is this is only going to hurt everyone. There has got to be another way.
Posted by: chuck | 11/24/2008 4:42:54 AM
The trouble is, not that they don't deserve a slice of the webcasting pie, but to gain nickels in the long run, they risk losing dollars in lost wages of hard-working crafts and ancillary trades, who are not able to weather a prolonged hold out. People in the entertainment industry support crafts and unions are going to lose homes, cars, healthcare, and other things important to their way of life, while these knuckleheads hash out their streaming wallets. As you point out, the economy isn't doing SAG any favors, now either. Why didn't they align with writers & directors last year? They knew this was on the horizon...
Posted by: Mcriff4 | 11/23/2008 11:16:37 PM
"so do actors really want to be alienated and broke"
a more important question, mr. bart, is whether or not the hollywood trades want to be viewed as an independent news source or a puppet for their biggest advertisers.
talk about a conflict of interest - i don't think bart would even pass the bush c.o.i. test.
Posted by: p$ | 11/23/2008 8:46:17 PM
As a WGA member I fully support SAG and their right to strike (their support last Nov was greatly appreciated). But w/ the state of today's economy now would be the worst time to punch another 3/4-month hole in the already rickety industry. Producers can wait things out longer than actors. Just bite the bullet, SAG, and wait until '09 or '10.
Posted by: danny | 11/23/2008 7:51:37 PM
I think the problem with Sag is that at the top are a small group of A listers making millions, while the majority of the 120,000 members can barely make a living as working actors-theyhave to be waiters, taxi drivers etc.the A listers should share their wealth with the have nots/
Posted by: bob | 11/23/2008 6:48:02 PM
No. Can SAG get a president that isn't an actor? Maybe an attorney or someone that has a litigation background. This is a horrible turn by a Guild, not a union I would like to point out.
Posted by: ladflow | 11/23/2008 6:33:07 PM