Support NeoGAF

[Yoda]

If you're not Netflix, your streaming service is underperforming by Wall St. standards (Disney+, HBO, etc...). WGA seems to want more control over the backend, and suits don't like that. While I do think the overall quality of Movies and TVs is and has been on a downward trend for awhile, I wouldn't go as far as saying nothing good has come out recently like a lot of people here. I do think the incentive structure of streaming is wrong and it in-turn allows for shitty writers to exist and prosper in the industry.

For awhile, it didn't matter how much garbage was on the streaming platforms, because unless it was bad enough to cancel your sub, they don't care. Netflix seems to have a high enough content velocity (of mostly shit) that people still pay no matter what. My guess is the "lesson" Warner, Paramount, etc... will take from this is to increase the output of content and NOT the quality. That means controlling the costs of all aspects of the production pipeline, writers being one of those parts.

 

[BadBurger]

Others have already pointed out why $11k a week may seem like a lot, but writers and actors work in short durations (yay contract work) with little stability so in the long term it means little - so I'll add this. In the grand scheme of things these writers and sparsely-working actors aren't requesting anything more than crumbs

 

[Locutus]

There are lots of people that make more money than they are “worth.” Athletes, actors, writers, CEOs, whatever. The truth is, a person is worth what they can convince someone to pay.

If you are pissed that Hollywood writers make so much, stop throwing your money at them and convince others to do the same.

The only thing I find insufferable about this whole situation is the actors and writers behaving like they are victims here. The truth is, this entire situation is a bunch of rich whiny bitches fighting other rich whiny bitches over who gets the nicer vacation home. Get you bag, but let’s not pretend any of these people are underprivileged.

 

[Nobody_Important]

The truth is, this entire situation is a bunch of rich whiny bitches fighting other rich whiny bitches over who gets the nicer vacation home. Get you bag, but let’s not pretend any of these people are underprivileged.

The rich as fuck writers with vacation homes and 5 car garages are the 1% of the writer community just like every other profession where there is a sky high ceiling and a basement level floor. The average writer in show business is more or less a thoroughly middle to upper middle class person. Those at the bottom of the totem pole are even lower than that. They have a split income with their spouse and they enjoy the usual middle class lifestyle. Especially if they live in California, Florida, New York, etc etc where the cost of living is through the roof. The fact is 99% of them are normal people living their lives more or less just like anyone in the middle to upper middle class tax bracket. They take their kids to school, they have a vacation or two a year, and they put what they can into savings along the way.



That is not the situation we are dealing with. If the studios offered enough to writers for that to be the average scenario then this strike wouldn't have even begun let alone been stretched out this far. This is not the rich getting richer. This is people wanting to be paid proportionally to the money that they make for the ACTUAL fucking Millionaires and Billionaires that their work props up.

 

[DeafTourette]

There are lots of people that make more money than they are “worth.” Athletes, actors, writers, CEOs, whatever. The truth is, a person is worth what they can convince someone to pay.

If you are pissed that Hollywood writers make so much, stop throwing your money at them and convince others to do the same.

The only thing I find insufferable about this whole situation is the actors and writers behaving like they are victims here. The truth is, this entire situation is a bunch of rich whiny bitches fighting other rich whiny bitches over who gets the nicer vacation home. Get you bag, but let’s not pretend any of these people are underprivileged.

I thought we already dispelled this myth 50 posts ago but apparently not.

There's 10000 members of the WGA... Most of them, like 98% unless they're writer -Directors or actor-writers like James Gunn or Ryan Reynolds, are NOT rich or anywhere close to it. There's over 6000 actors in SAG-AFTRA and 90% of them aren't rich either. The strikes and negotiations are a "rising tide lifts all boats" thing... Sure the top 10% will get richer but the bottom 90 will also do better financially.

 

[Rentahamster]

There are lots of people that make more money than they are “worth.” Athletes, actors, writers, CEOs, whatever. The truth is, a person is worth what they can convince someone to pay.

The truth is, this entire situation is a bunch of rich whiny bitches fighting other rich whiny bitches over who gets the nicer vacation home. Get you bag, but let’s not pretend any of these people are underprivileged.

How does your post have two "truths" of society that are in contention with each other. You use examples like athletes, actors, writers, CEOs, whatever where it is very clear that the members of their industry follow a Pareto-like distribution where only a minority of them are uber top-earners, and in the same breath portray the writing industry as somehow unique and special in that it doesn't follow the same distribution pattern. That's odd. How do you reconcile that?

 

[ReBurn]

I thought we already dispelled this myth 50 posts ago but apparently not.

There's 10000 members of the WGA... Most of them, like 98% unless they're writer -Directors or actor-writers like James Gunn or Ryan Reynolds, are NOT rich or anywhere close to it. There's over 6000 actors in SAG-AFTRA and 90% of them aren't rich either. The strikes and negotiations are a "rising tide lifts all boats" thing... Sure the top 10% will get richer but the bottom 90 will also do better financially.

The strike isn't about how rich they are, anyway. It's about how much they get paid. Though related, they are different things.

I have a hard time relating to a writer who rejects an $11,000 per week salary. I see a lot of people defending them by saying that these writers aren't guaranteed work and they may only work a portion of the year. These folks made the choice to go into a highly competitive field where it's often feast or famine. Working at an $11,000 rate for only 25% of the year nets them a 6 figure salary. Working 6 weeks a year put them $10K over the median US income. Which, ironically, is more than a lot of the people defending them get paid for working 100% of the year. I don't get it.

 

[DeafTourette]

The strike isn't about how rich they are, anyway. It's about how much they get paid. Though related, they are different things.

I have a hard time relating to a writer who rejects an $11,000 per week salary. I see a lot of people defending them by saying that these writers aren't guaranteed work and they may only work a portion of the year. These folks made the choice to go into a highly competitive field where it's often feast or famine. Working at an $11,000 rate for only 25% of the year nets them a 6 figure salary. Working 6 weeks a year put them $10K over the median US income. Which, ironically, is more than a lot of the people defending them get paid for working 100% of the year. I don't get it.

Because of the high cost of living in California (they really can't do it remotely because they often have to be on set for emergency rewrites and such), because of their managers, agents and lawyers get a PERCENTAGE of what they make, because of... all that and more.

 

[ReBurn]

Because of the high cost of living in California (they really can't do it remotely because they often have to be on set for emergency rewrites and such), because of their managers, agents and lawyers get a PERCENTAGE of what they make, because of... all that and more.

Even for California it's still not something that most people can relate to. Working for two months out of the year is twice as much as the median individual income in California and more than the median family income. The fact that many of those jobs are there doesn't really change much.

 

[DeafTourette]

Even for California it's still not something that most people can relate to. Working for two months out of the year is twice as much as the median individual income in California and more than the median family income. The fact that many of those jobs are there doesn't really change much.

Like I said... It's not just cost of living... They have to give over a percentage to the people that SECURE those jobs for them. That cuts into what they actually earn. Plus taxes taken out and taxes PAID every year ... often with no backup except the regular jobs they get to make ends meet when that money dries up.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Nvm

 

[ThatStupidLion]

as a vfx artist i have incredibly little sympathy for the actors and writers. some surely, because at the end of the day its the top suits who are greedy mofos dicking over everyone.

but looking at it from my industry we're the bottom rung of the shit ladder.

we cant even get proper unions together.

at least writers dont have to move their families/lives following the tax credits around the world or worry about work getting outsourced to cheaper labor in india (etc.)

 

[DeafTourette]

as a vfx artist i have incredibly little sympathy for the actors and writers. some surely, because at the end of the day its the top suits who are greedy mofos dicking over everyone.

but looking at it from my industry we're the bottom rung of the shit ladder.

we cant even get proper unions together

Aren't the vfx at Disney organizing a union? You want change and to stop being treated like crap? Organize! VFX DEFINITELY need unionizing! Collective bargaining!

 

[ThatStupidLion]

Aren't the vfx at Disney organizing a union? You want change and to stop being treated like crap? Organize! VFX DEFINITELY need unionizing! Collective bargaining!

yes, slowly wheels are turning. im not optimistic for the general whole of the industry though. regardless, doesnt change my perspective on wga/sag-aftra stuff

 

[DeafTourette]

yes, slowly wheels are turning. im not optimistic for the general whole of the industry though. regardless, doesnt change my perspective on sag-aftra stuff

Over 6k members and the vast majority don't make all that much per year. Most have normie jobs to make ends meet. Same as the WGA. Please don't fall into the trap thinking that most are rich.

 

[Rentahamster]

I hope they get some wins and are treated better.

 

[DeafTourette]

I hope they get some wins and are treated better.

ThatStupidLion

 

[ReBurn]

Like I said... It's not just cost of living... They have to give over a percentage to the people that SECURE those jobs for them. That cuts into what they actually earn. Plus taxes taken out and taxes PAID every year ... often with no backup except the regular jobs they get to make ends meet when that money dries up.

Then maybe one of the problems is that the people securing jobs for them are taking advantage of them, not the $11,000 per week offer they rejected. I also don't see how them having to get "regular" jobs is such an awful thing. Hollywood writers aren't the only people in the world who have to work second jobs they don't want to do in order to have a shot at doing a job they really want to do. Is there something special about them that I'm just not understanding?

I'm all for them fighting for a fair wage. But rejecting an offer with $500K per year in earning potential when doing work for hire just sounds insane to me. It doesn't sound any different than any other production job where people don't get residual pay every time the people they work for make money from the product of their labor. If one of them can't get enough work to make it on that rate then they're probably not the best writer to begin with and should probably stick to a regular job. But like I said, I can't relate. I'll probably never understand.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The strike isn't about how rich they are, anyway. It's about how much they get paid. Though related, they are different things.

I have a hard time relating to a writer who rejects an $11,000 per week salary. I see a lot of people defending them by saying that these writers aren't guaranteed work and they may only work a portion of the year. These folks made the choice to go into a highly competitive field where it's often feast or famine. Working at an $11,000 rate for only 25% of the year nets them a 6 figure salary. Working 6 weeks a year put them $10K over the median US income. Which, ironically, is more than a lot of the people defending them get paid for working 100% of the year. I don't get it.

Problem: OMG. I need big weekly pay outs because my job is unstable and all these companies dont want to hire me FT like just about every other job out there. I am entitled and expect more than I'm worth at PT hours.

Solution: Get a job that has steady employment instead of trying to live the Hollywood dream of stardom. Even a janitor doing a midnight shift cleaning toilets and taking out the garbage can get FT hours. Even the university summer student and coop program kids get FT hours and pay when they work at my company. Notice how none of big money making media people complain about the money. They got it. And every one of them doesn't give two shits about their less popular colleagues part of the same union as they do their on side contract deals worth millions not part of the pay out charts.

Very brave to call out Bob Iger. Not so brave to call out Tom Cruise who made $100 million for one movie because they know if they ranted against Cruise pay outs he'd tell them to fuck off and it doesn't look good if people on the same side of a union to fight. lol

There was an article that even said the union reps asked Cruise to show up at a protest and help and he declined. lol

 

[Nobody_Important]

Problem: OMG. I need big weekly pay outs because my job is unstable and all these companies dont want to hire me FT like just about every other job out there. I am entitled and expect more than I'm worth at PT hours.

Solution: Get a job that has steady employment instead of trying to live the Hollywood dream of stardom. Even a janitor doing a midnight shift cleaning toilets and taking out the garbage can get FT hours. Even the university summer student and coop program kids get FT hours and pay when they work at my company. Notice how none of big money making media people complain about the money. They got it. And every one of them doesn't give two shits about their less popular colleagues part of the same union as they do their on side contract deals worth millions not part of the pay out charts.

Very brave to call out Bob Iger. Not so brave to call out Tom Cruise who made $100 million for one movie.

Because he is Tom Cruise.


Do you think the average member of these unions makes anywhere NEAR what Cruise makes?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Because he is Tom Cruise.


Do you think the average member of these unions makes anywhere NEAR what Cruise makes?

No they dont. But if they want to see where the money gets drained, Tom got paid 4x what Bob Iger gets paid for just doing one movie.

There's a lot more money earned by the tons of celebs than the small number of execs at all the media companies.

 

[Nobody_Important]

No they dont. But if they want to see where the money gets drained, Tom got paid 4x what Bob Iger gets paid for just doing one movie.

There's a lot more money earned by the tons of celebs than the small number of execs at all the media companies.

That's the ENTIRE point of all of this though. The money is there to pay these people what they deserve and what they are worth. The problem is that those at the top have to accept less in order to cover it. A world can exist where the mega stars still get their mansions, the executives still get their yachts, and the behind the scenes staff get properly compensated.


No one is demanding that writers make the mega bucks or whatever. They just want a more stable environment, to be better compensated for their work, and a more transparent way of operating from the top down. That's not asking for much given the amount of money that is available to go around.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Showrunners, lead actors, film directors...those folks are CRITICAL to a projects success and every single one of them is highly compensated for their work. Even the most monir player in a film is pretty well compensated, FOR THE ACTUAL TIME SPENT. My buddy the actor will make NINE THOUSAND A WEEK as an extra with a few lines that are almost always cut in the final edit. Buuuuuuut, he only gets a few gigs a year, so he has a "day job". I see no POSSIBLE WAY for him to live solely off his acting unless A. he WORKS MORE, or B. he GETS A SERIES REGULAR GIG (which is kinda his goal, land a role as the third string cop in a police drama that runs 20 years). There is no other way, really. He makes his own stuff though, so he is now writing, directing, producing, acting, and editing. He's got hustle. This is the way.

Media people are lazy.

Most people work FT, or work multiple PT jobs to make a living. The avg wage in US and Canada is roughly $55,000 (give or take). That involves grinding it out 5 days a week every week except getting maybe 3 weeks vacation.

What media people want is some kind of guaranteed contract that if they work lets say 8 weeks per year thats $88,000. So the other 10 months of the year they can coast the rest of the year. If unsteady work is commonplace in an industry then get more work to fill the gap.

Even my old coworkers moonlighted at a side job. Nobody knew because he worked from home. Guy did office work during the week (most of the time). And then got paid doing landscaping and building decks and shit during the afternoons or weekends. Cash jobs too. No wonder I couldnt get hold of him sometimes. lol. If he can figure out how to sell shampoo and toiletries during the day and then hammer down planks of wood for a patio, anyone can.

Just got to put in some effort and fill those gaps with more work if you want more cash.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That's the ENTIRE point of all of this though. The money is there to pay these people what they deserve and what they are worth. The problem is that those at the top have to accept less in order to cover it. A world can exist where the mega stars still get their mansions, the executives still get their yachts, and the behind the scenes staff get properly compensated.


No one is demanding that writers make the mega bucks or whatever. They just want a more stable environment, to be better compensated for their work, and a more transparent way of operating from the top down. That's not asking for much given the amount of money that is available to go around.

There's only so much $$$ the execs make. There's only so many of them too. BUT there's shit loads of stars who make bank. And those are the same people that are on the side of the union. Heck, they are all members too.

The real issue is the hollywood stars making the biggest chunk of the money. So what the union peons should be doing is arguing that non-exec pie slice should be reshaped so the celebs getting big money get a smaller pie slice (ie. Tom Cruise going from $100M to $10M) or Pedro Pascal making $600k/show to $100k/show, and all those savings get funneled to the behind the scenes workers.

That's the real issue.

Ok fine, lets say Bob Iger who everyone was ragging on he got $25M of pay to be CEO of a giant company with most of it in stocks went down to $5M. Ok, he just shared $20M of his pay to the employee pool. All his Disney VP buddies add to the pot too. In total not a lot. Tom Cruise's $100M is probably more than that entire exec team combined.

 

[Nobody_Important]

There's only so much $$$ the execs make. There's only so many of them too. BUT there's shit loads of stars who make bank. And those are the same people that are on the side of the union. Heck, they are all members too.

The real issue is the hollywood stars making the biggest chunk of the money. So what the union peons should be doing is arguing that non-exec pie slice should be reshaped so the celebs getting big money get a smaller pie slice (ie. Tom Cruise going from $100M to $10M) or Pedro Pascal making $600k/show to $100k/show, and all those savings get funneled to the behind the scenes workers.

That's the real issue.

Ok fine, lets say Bob Iger who everyone was ragging on he got $25M of pay with most of it in stocks went down to $5M. Ok, he just shared $20M of his pay to the employee pool. All his Disney VP buddies add to the pot too. In total not a lot. Tom Cruise's $100M is probably more than that entire exec team combined.

How about we take from both though and spread it out? That way the execs don't have eto give up as much and neither do the stars.


You keep trying to make it a one way street when it can be a 2 lane highway.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

How about we take from both though and spread it out? That way the execs don't have eto give up as much and neither do the stars.


You keep trying to make it a one way street when it can be a 2 lane highway.

Fine with me. But the stars side lane is way wider than the execs. Everyone knows that. So the biggest squeeze should be celebs first.

So if the stars make tons more money than the execs, sounds to me the stars should get gimped a lot more than management. I hope youre not assuming that if $100M is needed, that it would be 50/50 when the big name media stars make way more than any exec.

Hell, Judge Judy makes $40M per year last time I read. Her net worth (you can google it because I just did) is about half a billion.

 

[jason10mm]

I hope they get some wins and are treated better.

What are the odds that a TON of VFX work is now gonna get shopped off to Chinese shops? Hope they have some extreme protectionist riders to keep out any and all foreign work.

 

[jason10mm]

No they dont. But if they want to see where the money gets drained, Tom got paid 4x what Bob Iger gets paid for just doing one movie.

There's a lot more money earned by the tons of celebs than the small number of execs at all the media companies.

Thing is, Tom isn't just acting. His films are HIS, from the very get go. The guy is exec producing, forging a team, making those films happen. He is probably writing half the film himself and inventing new stunts. He is worth that money because without him there is NO MOVIE....AT ALL. He is as critical as James Cameron.

Who is replaceable in those films is the guy who made a third pass at the script, coulda been anyone, really.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

What are the odds that a TON of VFX work is now gonna get shopped off to Chinese shops? Hope they have some extreme protectionist riders to keep out any and all foreign work.

If it's anything like IT industry, my company dumped off a lot of IT stuff to Indian consulting companies who handle ERP systems and the stereotypical "I need help! I'm locked out of the sign up screen".

And guess what? They did a fine job. I worked with some of the consultants to help implement a new systems tool years back and they were all good people. Ok, a little hard to understand sometimes with their heavy accent english, but end of the day they were good people and everything worked.

Reason why unions need to protect people's jobs and pay is because they know deep down they arent that good. They know they can be replaced for half price at some point by someone who can do a perfectly good job at it too. its just comes down to a matter of costs savings vs hassle of doing it. But its gets to a point the cost savings are worth the hassle.

Think of it like car plants going through immense costs, planning, training to shift a car plant to Mexico. Probably take a good 5 years to even get it up and running. But it gets to a point to do it.

For every day examples, think of it like buying something. You can buy it 2 minutes away for $40 or 10 minutes away for $35. Not worth the hassle of saving $5 for a lot people. But what if it was $400 vs $350. I'd drive that extra time to save $50.

 

[jason10mm]

I'd say VFX is pretty complex, but the Chinese will just throw 10x more people at it and get a "Good enough" result for the old price and 5x more carbon footprint. Then a bunch of US based VFX guys will be out of work but WOW, they ones left, they will be smug! On the bright side, maybe this will lead to a reduction in VFX use and HELP films get back to practical effects.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'd say VFX is pretty complex, but the Chinese will just throw 10x more people at it and get a "Good enough" result for the old price and 5x more carbon footprint. Then a bunch of US based VFX guys will be out of work but WOW, they ones left, they will be smug! On the bright side, maybe this will lead to a reduction in VFX use and HELP films get back to practical effects.

And thats how life works.

Every product out there (unless someone is gunning for elitist kinds of stuff like handcrafted Ferraris and one of a kind mansions) has its breaking point of quality/cost/value. Everyone's equation is different. For me, most stuff I own trends to the bang for your buck kind of side of the spectrum. But I will spend more when I want to. I own for the first time a nice car, and I just dished out $2000 for a gaming laptop. Big purchases for a cheap ass for me. But then I look at my 12 year old crusty couch with permanent creases in it and Costco clothes for $25 and suddenly that equation goes back to Value.

Just to prove it, most stuff is made in China or India. Even almost all the good electronics are made in China. If higher price and "domestic workmanship is way better than dumbass foreigners making it" is so important, everything would be manufactured in the US like the good old days. But people have a threshold when quality is good enough for a certain price. Not everything has to be Lamborghini quality...... and that even assumes what I said above is even true that domestically made stuff in the US is better than being made elsewhere.

 

[TaylorSwiftFan]

Hollywood is not a cabal trying to reshape the landscape of America.

You have to be blind to not see that Hollywood push certain agendas.

 

[DeafTourette]

You have to be blind to not see that Hollywood push certain agendas.

They can push any agenda they want... It isn't going fundamentally change society! Shoot, Congress had 50-11 agendas and none of them are shifting society one way or another.

 

[TaylorSwiftFan]

They can push any agenda they want... It isn't going fundamentally change society! Shoot, Congress had 50-11 agendas and none of them are shifting society one way or another.

It does because it influences people when it comes to vote. Especially with how much Hollywood donated to one of the parties.

 

[DeafTourette]

It does because it influences people when it comes to vote. Especially with how much Hollywood donated to one of the parties.

And the big business sector donates billions to Republicans... And believe it or not, so does Hollywood.. which is a part of the big business sector!

Not everything is a culture war, left vs right thing. The rich and powerful elites don't care about party... Just money and power!

 

[Toons]

You have to be blind to not see that Hollywood push certain agendas.

The only agenda Hollywood has is to make money.

Beyond that... like what? Social or poltical perspectives, those have been a part of Hollywood since day 1 and always will be, because the folks making these movies are influenced by ther world experience and that will reflect in their art just like everyone else. What's happened is the demographic of both the people making this stuff, and the audience that consumes it has changed. And make no mistake it will change again in time.

there is no singular, one track "agenda" that everyone is meeting in a dark room and agreeing to while they cackle around a flame. there are individuals who want to say something and it just so happens a lot of this etchings align, as we've gone through major societal changes over the last 20 years. Change is a constant, and art is always, ALWAYS at the forefront of whatever change is happening. Music, film, books, etc.

 

[Toons]

I'd say VFX is pretty complex, but the Chinese will just throw 10x more people at it and get a "Good enough" result for the old price and 5x more carbon footprint. Then a bunch of US based VFX guys will be out of work but WOW, they ones left, they will be smug! On the bright side, maybe this will lead to a reduction in VFX use and HELP films get back to practical effects.

Practical FX are literally more expensive to use, and less efficient, so if you see them, it's because the creators of the film really really wanted it.

VFX is not going away, and it is a net boon for smaller films in many cases. Practical FX are also harder to learn to be really good with, and much harder to fake being good with. Meaning that the pool of people actually able to pull it off is smaller.... and thus more expensive.

Something to consider. "Going back to practical" isn't a thing, its a matter of if the artists values that novelty enough to maintain it.

 

[FunkMiller]

You have to be blind to not see that Hollywood push certain agendas.

Here is Hollywood’s agenda:

‘Make as much money as possible, by exploiting the things that the young people like.’

It’s the same agenda it’s had for decades. The 18-35 demo is what they care about.

And guess what? They now think that whatever that demo is talking about on social media is how they all feel.

Disney and the others aren’t pushing those agendas because they believe in them. They’re pushing them because they think it’s what’s popular.

And they’re hiring terrible, terrible writers who do believe in the agendas.

You think Bob Iger gives a fuck about inclusion or diversity? Of course he fucking doesn’t.

The studio executives are the problem, not the writing community.

 

[jason10mm]

Practical FX are literally more expensive to use, and less efficient, so if you see them, it's because the creators of the film really really wanted it.

VFX is not going away, and it is a net boon for smaller films in many cases. Practical FX are also harder to learn to be really good with, and much harder to fake being good with. Meaning that the pool of people actually able to pull it off is smaller.... and thus more expensive.

Something to consider. "Going back to practical" isn't a thing, its a matter of if the artists values that novelty enough to maintain it.

I don't think you have watched ANY low budget 70s or 80s scifi or horror movies in a while.

If vfx houses unionize, the ONLY outcome is increased cost. So films will A, use less vfx, B. go overseas for cheaper vfx, or C. use cheaper practical fx.

 

[Rentahamster]

If vfx houses unionize, the ONLY outcome is increased cost. So films will A, use less vfx, B. go overseas for cheaper vfx, or C. use cheaper practical fx.

Or D: The people in charge of the government actually do something about how easy it is for corporations to outsource labor and deprive capable Americans of jobs.

 

[Toons]

I don't think you have watched ANY low budget 70s or 80s scifi or horror movies in a while.

If vfx houses unionize, the ONLY outcome is increased cost. So films will A, use less vfx, B. go overseas for cheaper vfx, or C. use cheaper practical fx.

The companies that use up the most of the VFX houses time, generally have more than enough money to pay for those VFX though.

 

[jason10mm]

Or D: The people in charge of the government actually do something about how easy it is for corporations to outsource labor and deprive capable Americans of jobs.

Ahh, enact protectionist legislation, increase import tariffs on services rendered overseas, potentially start a hollywood trade war, I LIKE IT!

Maybe this will reduce Hollywoods pandering attempts to penetrate the Chinese market and start them making American films for Americans again. And less marketing to international markets, with their often quite repressive cultural beliefs, would probably lead to more LGBT and minority presence on screen in big blockbusters.

 

[ProtoByte]

With so many people here who know how to put together better stories and write better scripts than people who've risen to the top of the creative industries, one must wonder why they're not strolling over to the movie studios with their latest script, dazzling execs and cashing those cheques. They're choosing instead to work a job that doesn't earn them $11k a week. What a peculiar decision.

Most writers/people in these industries would tell you that talent and ability aren't the things that get you to the top.

 

[jason10mm]

The companies that use up the most of the VFX houses time, generally have more than enough money to pay for those VFX though.

Well, hate to break it to you, but if writers want more money, actors want more money, and now VFX want more money (or less work, which really just equals more money), guess what that REALLY means? It isn't less money for investors and execs. Its FEWER FILMS, particularly independent low budget fare. It's LESS WORK, which means writers and VFX people working today will NOT be working tomorrow. Those 200-300 million dollar blockbusters are HUGE RISKS, for every Avatar (or Barbie to a lesser extent) there are Indiana Jones, Little Mermaid, and Mission:Impossible films that lose HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS or at best, might squeak to break even, which is the same as losing money because folks put money into these films not to just get that same money back in 3-4 years, but to see a YUGE return of their investment.

Now I'm all down for fewer films/projects in general, but that means fewer PEOPLE in Hollywood. It is NOT gonna mean less money to execs and investors. And raising the $$$ floor for a project means fewer risks overall, which tends to drive down quality and innovation, stifling creativity.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Others have already pointed out why $11k a week may seem like a lot, but writers and actors work in short durations (yay contract work) with little stability so in the long term it means little - so I'll add this. In the grand scheme of things these writers and sparsely-working actors aren't requesting anything more than crumbs

Listen, I come from a socialist hellhole called France. I am proud and happy of our existing model that evens highs and lows and even though the taxes are high, the income discrepancy is not as big as in the US.

However I don't agree with the reasoning of "company has a lot of money = they can pay a lot of money". Would you be ok if your plumber came and charged you 3x because you are living in a nice house? Did he do work that was 3x better than average? No. Why he should get paid more?

 

[ProtoByte]

I live and work around many people who work in the entertainment industry, and used to work myself for one of the AMPTP companies.

Yes, they are losing a lot of money. But the fault does not lie with the writers or actors in any way, shape or form. It’s entirely down to companies greedily chasing the Netflix dollar ten years ago, and not thinking for one second about the consequences of doing so, in companies that are not structured in any way like Netflix.

The point of the strikes is to ensure in future that poor decision making by feckless fucking executives doesn’t destroy the lives of the actual people putting tv shows and movies together.

Those feckless executives are paying them the salary they get to take whatever job they willingly sign the dotted line to take. If they're at risk of getting their lives destroyed because they signed on with leadership they don't trust. And let's be honest here, a lot of these idiots wouldn't have had jobs it it wasn't for streaming in the first place - which everyone - companies, workers and consumers - were fine with for ten years.

 

[jason10mm]

Listen, I come from a socialist hellhole called France. I am proud and happy of our existing model that evens highs and lows and even though the taxes are high, the income discrepancy is not as big as in the US.

However I don't agree with the reasoning of "company has a lot of money = they can pay a lot of money". Would you be ok if your plumber came and charged you 3x because you are living in a nice house? Did he do work that was 3x better than average? No. Why he should get paid more?

Oh, they DEFINITELY do that in the US. Thats why you can never see even a HINT of prices on a website, it's all "Call and get a quote" because they wanna see your house first.

TBF the advantage is that you tend to get quicker service. If I can afford it, I want my AC fixed TODAY at 3x the cost versus suffering for a week in 100+ temps.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Listen, I come from a socialist hellhole called France. I am proud and happy of our existing model that evens highs and lows and even though the taxes are high, the income discrepancy is not as big as in the US.

However I don't agree with the reasoning of "company has a lot of money = they can pay a lot of money". Would you be ok if your plumber came and charged you 3x because you are living in a nice house? Did he do work that was 3x better than average? No. Why he should get paid more?

Exactly.

And for any companies that are small, broke, losing money etc… then fair is fair and each one of them should be able to automatically drop people’s wages to minimum wage as a counterpoint.

But you can’t do that. Easy to move up the wages. Hard to get wages to go down unless a company wants to get into legal and labour board battles.

That’s why companies pay for performance and bonuses based on how well the person or company did. Baking it into someone’s pay as a guaranteed pay out is a suckers game for companies.

But what you got are entitled lazy babies who are self centred and want as much wages they can get working as little as possible. And the utopia deal in any union deal is getting paid high, job security, pensions, etc… where it’s structured in such a way you can literally not even work but still get paid out (big pensions) or working little ($11,000 per week wage) so even someone working only 2 months a year would still earn $88,000). Lol. Crazy.

 

[Toons]

Well, hate to break it to you, but if writers want more money, actors want more money, and now VFX want more money (or less work, which really just equals more money), guess what that REALLY means? It isn't less money for investors and execs. Its FEWER FILMS, particularly independent low budget fare. It's LESS WORK, which means writers and VFX people working today will NOT be working tomorrow. Those 200-300 million dollar blockbusters are HUGE RISKS, for every Avatar (or Barbie to a lesser extent) there are Indiana Jones, Little Mermaid, and Mission:Impossible films that lose HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS or at best, might squeak to break even, which is the same as losing money because folks put money into these films not to just get that same money back in 3-4 years, but to see a YUGE return of their investment.

That depends. Studios especially Disney make more money on IP merchandising than they do the actual box office in general. The money from the films is nice but irs a small part of their set up.

Less films isn't necessarily a bad thing, and at the cost of having the workers actually make a decent wage doing this stuff its a price im willing to pay.

Now I'm all down for fewer films/projects in general, but that means fewer PEOPLE in Hollywood. It is NOT gonna mean less money to execs and investors. And raising the $$$ floor for a project means fewer risks overall, which tends to drive down quality and innovation, stifling creativity.

In dont really care if the execs make less, more so that everyone under them can make more. But the execs can serve to make less too, because the amount they make is ludicrous from any perspective. I think forcing them to be more frugal and more choosy about what they spend money on isn't a bad thing at all.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

But what you got are entitled lazy babies who are self centred and want as much wages they can get working as little as possible. And the utopia deal in any union deal is getting paid high, job security, pensions, etc… where it’s structured in such a way you can literally not even work but still get paid out (big pensions) or working little ($11,000 per week wage) so even someone working only 2 months a year would still earn $88,000). Lol. Crazy.

I would say this - job security should be a factor in determining salary. This can work in WGA favor - contract and short-term work should pay more than a job with security, where it is difficult to get fired unless you really fuck up.