Support NeoGAF

[Nobody_Important]

I don't understand the point of this post. They don't deserve to be paid properly because you think they look funny?


Or is this just the usual juvenile "hurr hurr pink hair hurr hurr" kind of thing?

 

[ADiTAR]

built on it or not, all I’m saying is that if it exists it can’t be a meritocracy

I don't agree with that, because if the child wasn't good they wouldn't get roles. Jaden Smith is ok, meh, he wasn't bad in the Pokemon movie.

 

[funkygunther]

I don't agree with that, because if the child wasn't good they wouldn't get roles. Jaden Smith is ok, meh, he wasn't bad in the Pokemon movie.

you agreed that someone better could have played the same character instead of him, you're disagreeing just because now...

 

[ADiTAR]

you agreed that someone better could have played the same character instead of him, you're disagreeing just because now...

I'm just not saying it's a blanket statement. You know, it's not black and white.

 

[funkygunther]

I'm just not saying it's a blanket statement. You know, it's not black and white.

saying Hollywood is a meritocracy is a blanket statement

 

[Nobody_Important]

An All But Definitive Guide to the Hollywood Nepo-Verse

Actors, singers, directors who just happen to be the children of actors, singers, directors.

www.vulture.com

Just keep scrolling.

If you need an industry built on good old fashioned values of nepotism, bribery and sexual exploitation then look no further. Which is funny with all this talk of AI, because this dispute proves these studios already can't cope with the modern technology of streaming. They won't be able to manage another seismic shift like AI.

Hey Hollywood has loads of nepotism obviously, but what setting doesn't in this hellscape that we call the modern world? Sports, media, college, motorsports, music, writing, etc etc. that list is fucking LONG. Nepotism is an issue for sure, but it is not one that is limited to Hollywood. In fact I would argue that it is one of the industries that is the least problematic as a result of it due to the fact that the jobs provided are not life threatening in any way. A nepo hire at a hospital, in the military, or some other vital industry is much more severe. In Hollywood you usually just end up with a shitty actor with a big paycheck and a famous name. To be fair though you also have those who benefit from it that end up quite fucking good when given the chance. For example Rooney Mara from the film "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" and other films is a product of the Rooney and Mara families. Who respectively own the Giants and Steelers NFL teams. She absolutely got to where she is based partially on her family ties and the weight they brought to the table. There is no doubting that. At the same time however she is a damn good actress and deserves to be in the industry. Another example outside of Hollywood is Jacques Villeneuve. Son of one of the most talented drivers in F1 to have never won a world championship. His father Gilles Villeneuve was killed in a tragic accident during a Grand Prix in 1982. He spent his whole life with the name of his father growing up the sport. Did his last name help him in his pursuit to get to F1? Absolutely it did. He was a direct recipient of nepotism in that fact. However he also became F1 World Champion in 1997. So despite his advantages he was worthy of being where he was.



And there are countless other examples of people getting a head start in a medium because who they know or who they are, but that does not always mean they got there by no merit of their own. That is the problem with Nepotism though. The moment anyone hears about your family's money or your ancestral ties they throw out your own abilities or desires. That does not mean you don't belong where you are though.

 

[FunkMiller]

If you need an industry built on good old fashioned values of nepotism, bribery and sexual exploitation then look no further. Which is funny with all this talk of AI, because this dispute proves these studios already can't cope with the modern technology of streaming. They won't be able to manage another seismic shift like AI.

We shouldn’t forget that these strikes are not about the kinds of people you’re talking about here.

The vast majority of Hollywood writers and actors are normal people, not being paid very much, and not getting any kind of advantage based on who they are related to.

If this was about the top 1% that indulge in the kinds of shit you mention, I wouldn’t be supporting them at all.

But the biggest advantage the movie companies have is the erroneous view the public have of Hollywood as this festering pit of corruption. It isn’t. Most people involved are just trying to earn a living, and probably despise the assholes at the top as much as any of us.

 

[funkygunther]

We shouldn’t forget that these strikes are not about the kinds of people you’re talking about here.

The vast majority of Hollywood writers and actors are normal people, not being paid very much, and not getting any kind of advantage based on who they are related to.

If this was about the top 1% that indulge in the kinds of shit you mention, I wouldn’t be supporting them at all.

But the biggest advantage the movie companies have is the erroneous view the public have of Hollywood as this festering pit of corruption. It isn’t. Most people involved are just trying to earn a living, and probably despise the assholes at the top as much as any of us.

If I gave the impression that I was talking about anyone except the bosses, studio heads, paymasters and those in power then that’s my problem with getting the point across. When I refer to studios I’m specifically referring to those people. Those that indulge, enable and take advantage of the shit I mention.

 

[skneogaf]

I don't understand the point of this post. They don't deserve to be paid properly because you think they look funny?


Or is this just the usual juvenile "hurr hurr pink hair hurr hurr" kind of thing?

Think of what you want, I just posted a screenshot related to the topic.

 

[Chronicle]

Wait, what?

Sorry it's Seinfeld in the 90's

 

[FunkMiller]

If I gave the impression that I was talking about anyone except the bosses, studio heads, paymasters and those in power then that’s my problem with getting the point across. When I refer to studios I’m specifically referring to those people. Those that indulge, enable and take advantage of the shit I mention.

Oh yeah, there‘s not one of them that’s worth shit.

And it’s not just a problem confined to Hollywood.

But I guess everyone who is loving watching writers and actors get the shaft won’t care about that unless it comes to their industry….

 

[Stare-Bear]

Meanwhile the VFX artists are wondering what the hell "residuals" are...

 

[Nobody_Important]

Think of what you want, I just posted a screenshot related to the topic.

Yeah I'm sure your post was completely neutral and had nothing to do with the image involved.


Come on now. At least be honest and own the post lol

 

[FunkMiller]

Think of what you want, I just posted a screenshot related to the topic.

Nah. You posted it because that dude is clearly one of the danger hair brigade who are infecting Hollywood with their agenda bullshit.

Problem is, they are the minority, and those who support the movie companies because they hate wokeness are just ensuring the continuation of wokeness for years to come. It’s colossally fucking stupid.

 

[FunkMiller]

Meanwhile the VFX artists are wondering what the hell "residuals" are...

Only writers, actors and directors receive residuals. You might as well bring in the costume designers or caterers. The ATL people and the BTL people are covered by very different trade rules and regulations. IATSE will be negotiating next year and the same thing will probably happen.

 

[funkygunther]

Hey Hollywood has loads of nepotism obviously, but what setting doesn't in this hellscape that we call the modern world? Sports, media, college, motorsports, music, writing, etc etc. that list is fucking LONG. Nepotism is an issue for sure, but it is not one that is limited to Hollywood. In fact I would argue that it is one of the industries that is the least problematic as a result of it due to the fact that the jobs provided are not life threatening in any way. A nepo hire at a hospital, in the military, or some other vital industry is much more severe. In Hollywood you usually just end up with a shitty actor with a big paycheck and a famous name. To be fair though you also have those who benefit from it that end up quite fucking good when given the chance. For example Rooney Mara from the film "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" and other films is a product of the Rooney and Mara families. Who respectively own the Giants and Steelers NFL teams. She absolutely got to where she is based partially on her family ties and the weight they brought to the table. There is no doubting that. At the same time however she is a damn good actress and deserves to be in the industry. Another example outside of Hollywood is Jacques Villeneuve. Son of one of the most talented drivers in F1 to have never won a world championship. His father Gilles Villeneuve was killed in a tragic accident during a Grand Prix in 1982. He spent his whole life with the name of his father growing up the sport. Did his last name help him in his pursuit to get to F1? Absolutely it did. He was a direct recipient of nepotism in that fact. However he also became F1 World Champion in 1997. So despite his advantages he was worthy of being where he was.



And there are countless other examples of people getting a head start in a medium because who they know or who they are, but that does not always mean they got there by no merit of their own. That is the problem with Nepotism though. The moment anyone hears about your family's money or your ancestral ties they throw out your own abilities or desires. That does not mean you don't belong where you are though.

The context of discussion was merit and how nepotism is in opposition to that. Of course there are other industries rife with nepotism and of course there are talented sprogs of talented parents, just as there are studious lawyer and doctor sprogs of studious lawyer and doctor parents. The difference is that, barring outright corruption, it's easier to measure the abilities of them compared to acting talent. Give someone enough exposure and marketing and you can convince people that they're good at acting, or even just ok. Or at the least, not terrible but still worthy of a role. It's more difficult in other industries where the measure of one's ability is tied to qualifications. Is an academy award equivalent to passing the bar or a medical exam?

Ultimately it boils down to one question: would that person be where they are in this exact moment in time if they weren't given the head start? If the answer is yes, then your point is proven. But the actual answer is there's no way to tell, and where there is doubt, and because we see its effect already, I'd like to eliminate the variable entirely.

 

[FunkMiller]

Ultimately it boils down to one question: would that person be where they are in this exact moment in time if they weren't given the head start? If the answer is yes, then your point is proven. But the actual answer is there's no way to tell, and where there is doubt, and because we see its effect already, I'd like to eliminate the variable entirely.

There's a broader issue in the entertainment industry, where nepotism plays its part, but isn't the only factor. And that's the issue of class.

It's particularly egregious in the UK, but affects the US as well. There are fewer and fewer working class people in books, movies and TV, because of the nepotism that you talk about, along with just a general in-built snobbery.

I have lived and worked in London soho my entire life, where these industries are centred, and I see the same endless parade of middle class fuckheads, who have all of the connections and none of the talent. And it's got worse and worse as budgets have gone up, and pickings have got leaner. Particularly since covid. Avenues for working class people to join have narrowed to the point of extinction.

It's this sclerotic reduction in diversity (actual, real diversity - as opposed to the on-screen bullshit diversity they all try to pedal) that has led us to where things stand at the moment, right across the board.

 

[funkygunther]

There's a broader issue in the entertainment industry, where nepotism plays its part, but isn't the only factor. And that's the issue of class.

It's particularly egregious in the UK, but affects the US as well. There are fewer and fewer working class people in books, movies and TV, because of the nepotism that you talk about, along with just a general in-built snobbery.

I have lived and worked in London soho my entire life, where these industries are centred, and I see the same endless parade of middle class fuckheads, who have all of the connections and none of the talent. And it's got worse and worse as budgets have gone up, and pickings have got leaner. Particularly since covid. Avenues for working class people to join have narrowed to the point of extinction.

It's this sclerotic reduction in diversity (actual, real diversity - as opposed to the on-screen bullshit diversity they all try to pedal) that has led us to where things stand at the moment, right across the board.

Yep, I‘ve worked for book publishers and marketing companies so have seen it first hand. People get hired on their connections or what school they went to. But the thing is, those industries survived and thrived on that being the case. Until like now a reckoning comes, and the system implodes.

It’s not what you know but who you know is an idiom that isn’t going away any time soon. As Sam Leith coined, Britain has an Eton Disorder.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Give someone enough exposure and marketing and you can convince people that they're good at acting, or even just ok.

I don't really agree with this though.

Yes, technically given enough money and marketing you can convince any moron of anything, but anyone who is actual fucking garbage is not going to last very long in any industry or medium regardless of the amount of fluff that surrounds them if they are just trash at what they do.


So yes there may be a celeb here and there that squeaks through the cracks and gets a few paychecks by virtue of their name alone, but for the most part that is the exception and not the rule. Because someone that is in the industry, regardless of how important their name is or their backers are for the most part will fail and will be cast aside once it's shown that they cannot deliver in the medium itself.


When it comes down to it every industry regardless of its mechanics and it's visibility, it all comes down to money and whether or not you can make it in sufficient amounts versus what it costs to maintain you in the position that you're in. If you are just some no skill brat with a famous last name, but you are able to bring in the numbers? Then you are likely going to stay in your position regardless of your skill level or whatever. But if you are just some brat with a famous last name and you are not able to justify your paycheck then you are going to be tossed aside just like everybody else in the end.


This idea that there are swaths of people in Hollywood that are not only incapable of doing their job, but did not earn it in the first place and yet continue to be put into that position is just a fiction for the most part. Because in the end the money machine does not give a shit what your last name is or who your references are.

 

[FunkMiller]

Yep, I‘ve worked for book publishers and marketing companies

Ahh. I see. We could probably swap stories...

 

[funkygunther]

I don't really agree with this though.

Yes, technically given enough money and marketing you can convince any moron of anything, but anyone who is actual fucking garbage is not going to last very long in any industry or medium regardless of the amount of fluff that surrounds them if they are just trash at what they do.


So yes there may be a celeb here and there that squeaks through the cracks and gets a few paychecks by virtue of their name alone, but for the most part that is the exception and not the rule. Because someone that is in the industry, regardless of how important their name is or their backers are for the most part will fail and will be cast aside once it's shown that they cannot deliver in the medium itself.


When it comes down to it every industry regardless of its mechanics and it's visibility, it all comes down to money and whether or not you can make it in sufficient amounts versus what it costs to maintain you in the position that you're in. If you are just some no skill brat with a famous last name, but you are able to bring in the numbers? Then you are likely going to stay in your position regardless of your skill level or whatever. But if you are just some brat with a famous last name and you are not able to justify your paycheck then you are going to be tossed aside just like everybody else in the end.


This idea that there are swaths of people in Hollywood that are not only incapable of doing their job, but did not earn it in the first place and yet continue to be put into that position is just a fiction for the most part. Because in the end the money machine does not give a shit what your last name is or who your references are.

Unfortunately in the time it takes someone to be found out to be a no skill brat not worthy of keeping they have already taken the space from someone who didn't have the parents, connections or brand name but could be as equally, if not more, talented. Being incapable shouldn't be the criteria though, of course if you literally can't do the job it gets more difficult, but not impossible, to keep that job. But there's only a small jump between being completely incapable and being just capable enough, which is also defined and ultimately excused by the employer, and those benefitting from nepotism only have to level up to being just capable enough to justify their unfair head start.

 

[ManaByte]

I completely get the frustration over the streaming model and shows being 10 episodes vs 22 and how studios will hold them for a long time before dropping them, etc.

But the EXTRAS demanding the same pay/residuals as the stars needs to be slapped back into reality.

 

[Lunarorbit]

The executives get paid way too much money and oftentimes have no idea what is going on with their actual staff.

Totally broken system that's symbolic of most other industries

 

[FunkMiller]

But the EXTRAS demanding the same pay/residuals as the stars needs to be slapped back into reality.

They‘re not though? The whole thing about extras Is the use of their likeness in perpetuity after one days work. I don’t think the scale is being argued over.

 

[ManaByte]

They‘re not though? The whole thing about extras Is the use of their likeness in perpetuity after one days work. I don’t think the scale is being argued over.

I’ve seen a lot of people crying about the scale.

Hell LeVar Burton’s daughter was complaining that she made what her dad made in Roots in the 70s for her role in Picard when she had like three total lines.

 

[FunkMiller]

I’ve seen a lot of people crying about the scale.

Hell LeVar Burton’s daughter was complaining that she made what her dad made in Roots in the 70s for her role in Picard when she had like three total lines.

Okay, but she's not an extra if she had lines. I don't think there's much fuss about background extra payments.

The entire thing is about residuals, which extras never get or expect to get, and the use of extras being scanned and used by AI.

 

[thefool]

The executives get paid way too much money and oftentimes have no idea what is going on with thir actual staff.

Totally broken system that's symbolic of most other industries

A bunch of suits having less money to snort cocaine out of an escort's ass is not going to change a thing in an industry which has seen outputs rise, labor costs rise while revenues go down.

The solution is the same as any other industry. If you want to maintain the same level of outputs you outsource your labor. These unions are dinosaurs ready for extinction.

 

[FunkMiller]

A bunch of suits having less money to snort cocaine out of an escort's ass is not going to change a thing in an industry which has seen outputs rise, labor costs rise while revenues go down.

The solution is the same as any other industry. If you want to maintain the same level of outputs you outsource your labor. These unions are dinosaurs ready for extinction.

Exactly how do movie companies outsource their labour beyond the actors and writers that exist? There's not some big pool of non-unionised writers and actors they can go and call on. Senor Spielbergo isn't a real thing.

The solution is to vastly reduce executive contribution to movies and TV, not the creatives. The major companies are chocked full of useless executives that do nothing other earn vast amounts of money, for doing very little. They are the ones that want to squeeze the creatives dry, because they don't want their own personal bottom lines reduced. They are the ones who need to go. They are the ones who greenlight abject shit.

 

[Oh The Travesty]

No sympathy for pathetic twee coastal hipster trust funders or the greedy rich pigs on either side.

 

[DeafTourette]

I don't agree with that, because if the child wasn't good they wouldn't get roles. Jaden Smith is ok, meh, he wasn't bad in the Pokemon movie.

Are you talking about "Detective Pikachu"? That's JUSTICE Smith! No relation to Will.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

For a deal to be reached, remember were talking union and management contracts. It involves tons of people, multi year lengths, each side has their demands. So it'll take time. That's the nature of these kinds of deals. If any union worker hates contract time being a big battle, thats too bad because your job is a union kind of job. And by the looks of SAG googling it, you cant even scab your way in even if you wanted to be a non-union worker representing yourself as an option. So your employment pay and freedom is taken away in exchange for blanket deals and being represented by a union rep who does the negotiating for you.

On the other hand, a non-union worker is different. If you want to talk to the boss, go ahead. Annual pays will be automated for the most part at +2-3%. At least it has been at every company Ive worked at. You dont even ask. When its time for merit pay increase everyone gets a pay boost unless youre one of the tiny number of people who did shit and get 0% and put on probation. But probably 98% are good. And if you did really well you'll get more. It takes a lot to really fuck up if you cant even hit the "average dude rating". But you can still be fired at any time and I've seen people fired in the first month and within the 3 or 6 month employee probation period when they are first hired. But if you did great, you'll probably get a +10% without even asking. You just get it. It's not in any contract what your pay boost will be, but they still give it because that's the nature of non-union jobs. When it's going fine, you get boosts without even asking an despite it never even being outlined anywhere any of us even should get anything.

Non-union workers dont have big demands beyond that. And management doesnt either. It's also one year at a time. So for next year, pay, perks, and bonuses will adjust pending how good the company did and how good a worker did. Its not like a union where every worker (good or bad) is the same compensation based on the pay schedule on an agreed a 5 year locked and loaded deal.

So you can see why management takes a lot longer to agree to union contracts.

Think of it like sports. Every player wants a big multi year guaranteed contract. Every owner would rather sign them for one year and see how it goes UNLESS the player is worth offering good pay at a multi year deal. The better the player, the bigger the pay and length and tons of team owners scrambling to sign you first. The worse you are, the lower the offer, and if really bad nobody will even offer anything and either you play in a worse league or call it quits. Why would any owner wants to get stuck in a big lengthy contract if things go sour later? So you can see and understand the risk involved.

 

[DeafTourette]

For a deal to be reached, remember were talking union and management contracts. It involves tons of people, multi year lengths, each side has their demands. So it'll take time. That's the nature of these kinds of deals. If any union worker hates contract time being a big battle, thats too bad because your job is a union kind of job. And by the looks of SAG googling it, you cant even scab your way in even if you wanted to be a non-union worker representing yourself as an option. So your employment pay and freedom is taken away in exchange for blanket deals and being represented by a union rep who does the negotiating for you.

On the other hand, a non-union worker is different. If you want to talk to the boss, go ahead. Annual pays will be automated for the most part at +2-3%. At least it has been at every company Ive worked at. You dont even ask. When its time for merit pay increase everyone gets a pay boost unless youre one of the tiny number of people who did shit and get 0% and put on probation. But probably 98% are good. And if you did really well you'll get more. It takes a lot to really fuck up if you cant even hit the "average dude rating". But you can still be fired at any time and I've seen people fired in the first month and within the 3 or 6 month employee probation period when they are first hired. But if you did great, you'll probably get a +10% without even asking. You just get it. It's not in any contract what your pay boost will be, but they still give it because that's the nature of non-union jobs. When it's going fine, you get boosts without even asking an despite it never even being outlined anywhere any of us even should get anything.

Non-union workers dont have big demands beyond that. And management doesnt either. It's also one year at a time. So for next year, pay, perks, and bonuses will adjust pending how good the company did and how good a worker did. Its not like a union where every worker (good or bad) is the same compensation based on the pay schedule on an agreed a 5 year locked and loaded deal.

So you can see why management takes a lot longer to agree to union contracts.

Think of it like sports. Every player wants a big multi year guaranteed contract. Every owner would rather sign them for one year and see how it goes UNLESS the player is worth offering good pay at a multi year deal. The better the player, the bigger the pay and length and tons of team owners scrambling to sign you first. The worse you are, the lower the offer, and if really bad nobody will even offer anything and either you play in a worse league or call it quits. Why would any owner wants to get stuck in a big lengthy contract if things go sour later? So you can see and understand the risk involved.

Hollywood doesn't work like that... It NEVER has. But FunkMiller or funkygunther could probably explain better. Hollywood is a different beast than any of your old jobs.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Hollywood doesn't work like that... It NEVER has. But FunkMiller or funkygunther could probably explain better. Hollywood is a different beast than any of your old jobs.

And more issues with media workers, it's not corporations that are bad. Hey, as long as they adhere to paying the minimum government wages as per rules they are good.

The problem with media people face making a living is that it's an industry where there's shitloads of people that can be a star (as evilore said Swarms of people). It's not like an academic job where there's only so many people who can graduate and pay the tuition. Writing and acting are things anyone can do. Thats why when you read many celeb wikis, it's not like they are are a star because they all went to acting class or graduated with a literature degree. Some of these people had nothing working crappy jobs and somehow scored an acting job out of nowhere because media jobs for the most part dont need qualifications like a STEM job or even something more modest like being a welder where you got to have some kind of trade or college credentials. Singers are anothr one. A lot of them just did their own thing as a band as teenagers learning themselves. How many graduated with a degree in Arts/Music? Hardly any. Its entertainment. It doesn't need special qualifications like building a bridge. A lot of pooular singers cant even play an instrument or read music. They just sing. But their talent is good enough to be awesome. You dont need degree for that.

So what media people are really up against are it's own people fighting for jobs which just dilutes the amount of gigs available. That's why so many media people have unstable jobs they do, while someone doing marketing or a forklift job has a M-F 9-5 job. Thats life and thats the industries.

Just to prove media can be done by anyone, social media streaming and twitter accounts can be done by anyone. You got guys making good money with millions of followers doing COD bullet spread videos for christs sake. You just got to have the right content people want and be charismatic enough for people to like you and your content. Most of these people started out doing this stuff as PT videos after dinner. And it grew from there.

 

[funkygunther]

Hollywood doesn't work like that... It NEVER has. But FunkMiller or funkygunther could probably explain better. Hollywood is a different beast than any of your old jobs.

it's the same word salad each time just with a different dressing, there's nothing to explain

 

[FunkMiller]

it's the same word salad each time just with a different dressing, there's nothing to explain

A conversation about any of this is pretty pointless, if the people you're talking to don't understand how the entertainment industry is structured, funded, or run. That's not a criticism of them by the way - it's often a very myopic industry, full of systems that are completely divorced from other industries, because of things like residuals, royalties, scale rates, option fees, development stipends, agency fees... the list goes on and on.

As is typical of anything that gets picked up on social media and the internet, it's full of people without knowledge of what they're talking about, making assumptions, based on their own personal circumstances. Needless to say, I wouldn't start opining about the chemical engineering industry, or the farming industry, because I don't know how either functions. But movies, TV, books, music and video games are a lot 'sexier' subjects to talk about, so I guess it's no wonder people like to chime in, whatever their actual experience.

 

[funkygunther]

A conversation about any of this is pretty pointless, if the people you're talking to don't understand how the entertainment industry is structured, funded, or run. That's not a criticism of them by the way - it's often a very myopic industry, full of systems that are completely divorced from other industries, because of things like residuals, royalties, scale rates, option fees, development stipends, agency fees... the list goes on and on.

As is typical of anything that gets picked up on social media and the internet, it's full of people without knowledge of what they're talking about, making assumptions, based on their own personal circumstances. Needless to say, I wouldn't start opining about the chemical engineering industry, or the farming industry, because I don't know how either functions. But movies, TV, books, music and video games are a lot 'sexier' subjects to talk about, so I guess it's no wonder people like to chime in, whatever their actual experience.

I don't want to spend much time with a meta discussion but to me it's 50% dunning-kruger and 50% ideology, and when that's the foundation you can't pin anyone down to an actual argument or conversation because it'll keep rolling back and rolling back until you hit that rock bottom...just a waste of time unless you're feeling particularly masochistic

 

[gothmog]

I don't know shit about the industry but my cousin is a VFX producer. They basically restructured part of the company to wait out the strike. Everyone knows this has been brewing but honestly I think both sides have too much to prove to come to a quick resolution.

 

[FunkMiller]

I think both sides have too much to prove to come to a quick resolution.

Absolutely right. The movie companies could easily give the writers and the actors what they are asking for. Easily. It would barely affect their profit margins at all.

But what they can't afford to do is show everyone that strikes work. Because next year they have to negotiate with soap actors, IATSE and the teamsters. If they allow these strikes to be successful, then the other unions will have them over a barrel.

And if the actors and writers stick to their guns on this, it's going to go on for months, and entire movie companies (looking at you, WB) could fail.

 

[Lunarorbit]

Exactly how do movie companies outsource their labour beyond the actors and writers that exist? There's not some big pool of non-unionised writers and actors they can go and call on. Senor Spielbergo isn't a real thing.

The solution is to vastly reduce executive contribution to movies and TV, not the creatives. The major companies are chocked full of useless executives that do nothing other earn vast amounts of money, for doing very little. They are the ones that want to squeeze the creatives dry, because they don't want their own personal bottom lines reduced. They are the ones who need to go. They are the ones who greenlight abject shit.

Exactly. The dipshit at Disney tied his pay to the amount of programming released on D+.

The only people that serves is executives who are so out of touch with the realities of what living costs like for their middle wage writers

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I don't know shit about the industry but my cousin is a VFX producer. They basically restructured part of the company to wait out the strike. Everyone knows this has been brewing but honestly I think both sides have too much to prove to come to a quick resolution.

And that’s good management strategy to plan and back up plan.

It’s no different than when COVID hit and every company’s product siatuation went down the tubes.

In prep management and supply chain figured out which stores get what amount and who to supply and who to cut off. The company didn’t just wing it and make it up as they went along. It took a lot planning and coordinating with account managers too because if one sales guy is getting cut supply you can’t hold him responsible for not doing his best. He’s trying but management is diverting supply to another sales rep (or Walmart team gets first dibs).

There’s still a business to run and customers to serve regardless if there’s a shortage of product or employees.

 

[ProtoByte]

I don't understand the point of this post. They don't deserve to be paid properly because you think they look funny?


Or is this just the usual juvenile "hurr hurr pink hair hurr hurr" kind of thing?

The point is that it's very likely he was paid properly. Residual payments are not going to stack up to anything significant less than a year after a show releases, especially one like She Hulk, which didn't appear to have great viewership numbers in the first place and definitely did not have the legs or repeat viewership to compensate.

 

[ProtoByte]

I completely get the frustration over the streaming model and shows being 10 episodes vs 22 and how studios will hold them for a long time before dropping them, etc.

On the end of people who depended on models that all the consumers agreed were "outdated" 5 minutes ago, I can also get the frustration.
No one else, though, certainly not people online who have pushed for the industry to be this way with rhetoric, commentary, and most importantly, purchasing decisions.

 

[funkygunther]

I don't know shit about the industry but my cousin is a VFX producer. They basically restructured part of the company to wait out the strike. Everyone knows this has been brewing but honestly I think both sides have too much to prove to come to a quick resolution.

I’ve not worked anywhere where restructuring wasn’t synonymous with redundancy, but this was horse’s mouth corporate speak and it may be different from how your cousin relayed it to you. They might have meant it literally in which case it’s benign.

 

[gothmog]

The point is that it's very likely he was paid properly. Residual payments are not going to stack up to anything significant less than a year after a show releases, especially one like She Hulk, which didn't appear to have great viewership numbers in the first place and definitely did not have the legs or repeat viewership to compensate.

Ultimately it is probably the fault of the studio. Don't create a system that can easily be weaponized against you. Especially in the bite sized social media world we now live in.

 

[FunkMiller]

The point is that it's very likely he was paid properly. Residual payments are not going to stack up to anything significant less than a year after a show releases, especially one like She Hulk, which didn't appear to have great viewership numbers in the first place and definitely did not have the legs or repeat viewership to compensate.

Maybe you should go and find out how long it takes residuals to be paid on network TV, and then you might understand why they are now on strike, because of how different streaming is.

 

[funkygunther]

Chris Stuckmann explains it all

 

[Unknown Soldier]

'A lot of blood in the water.' Why actors' and writers' strikes are a big blow to Hollywood studios

As SAG-AFTRA members join writers on picket lines, the fallout will disrupt Hollywood film and TV productions worldwide. 'There's going to be blood in the water,' said one analyst. 'This will not end well.'

www.latimes.com

This is a pretty in depth article about the strike. In terms of when anyone's going to come to the table and negotiate, it's not looking good. Both sides seem content to try and bleed the other side dry while Hollywood is basically shut down.

 

[GloveSlap]

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about the specifics here, but my thoughts on it are:

--Considering the old deals were done before streaming became big, it makes sense that new deals are needed. Unfortunately, streaming
hasn't been that profitable and Hollywood has been struggling so it's a pretty bad time to try to get more money.

--The no AI demands are going to be a big ask. That stuff is still in its infancy so the studios would be kind of foolish to agree to that before they even know exactly what they are agreeing to.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

LOL these two sides are so far apart they are basically in another galaxy from each other. I'm prepared for a long strike, I've got video games out the ass on my backlog to play.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

LOL these two sides are so far apart they are basically in another galaxy from each other. I'm prepared for a long strike, I've got video games out the ass on my backlog to play.

LOL. Well, hey it's union/management negotiations. Both sides are so far apart it'll take a long time to meet in the middle.

Maybe if they did negotiations like non-union workers where you dont have closed door meeting with giant detailed demands across a million bullet points, management would probably just simplify it. It's like when a retailer comes to us with a giant list of different costs and fee rates that go down an entire page. Who the hell wants to process all that. Do some math and counter with a simplified 3%, instead of agreeing to 8 different terms of 1%, 10%, 4% etc.... Here's your simplified rate boost and do what you want. Dont nickel and dime us on insignificant demands looking for the last penny.

When an account manager and Walmart buyer wheel and deal on cookies, Walmart doesn't say I'll buy Oreos off you for 10 cents and the sales guy says each bag is $15. They have an idea what is reasonable right off the bat and will talk within a small band. This makes discussion easier and cuts out the potential of Walmart then saying 20 cents and the sales guy $14 etc.... making the ordeal stupidly outrageous taking forever to get to a workable resolution.

Also, I flipped through those charts and the left side is asking for so much shit, good luck coming close to it all. Feel free to start at the extreme asks, but youre not doing yourself any favours. The other end is smart enough. Also, it's written by a SAG member because the management counter offer is written in third party and half the time the writer doesn't even want to state what was exactly counter-offered, but will say stuff like "offer was not substantial" or something subjective. SAG may want 5%, but management perhaps offered 4%, but technically the writer can write anything and say it's "it's not enough".

So let's be transparent what exactly each side offered in each box and knock off subjective commentary boxes.

An equally stupid recap box would be from the management's side where they state exactly what they offered in their boxes, but in the SAG side they write "they are asking for unreasonably high compensation". That would be a pretty dumb vague term too.