•

Why SAG-AFTRA’s Streaming Revenue Sharing Proposal for Casts Was Flatly Rejected by AMPTP

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/actors-strike-why-sag-aftra-streaming-revenue-proposal-rejected-1235541505/

The union would like performers "to share in the rewards of a successful show, without bearing any of the risk," the group that lobbies for studios says.

Why SAG-AFTRA’s Streaming Revenue Sharing Proposal for Casts Was Flatly Rejected by AMPTP

The union would like performers "to share in the rewards of a successful show, without bearing any of the risk," the group that lobbies for studios says.

28 comments

Chais

•

As has been stated, that has always been the case. Conversely "Studio bosses want to share in the rewards of a successful show, but do none of the acting," doesn't sound fair, does it?

TempleSquare

•

Exactly. How are exactly actors support to "share in failure" as their nonsense quote suggests?

chakan2

•

I found it to be a valid argument. If an actor wants a cut of the profit, they should have to take a huge pay cut to do the show.

Keanu is kind of famous for this. He gave up his salary on The Matrix to the production team and raked it in via royalties.

It's how it works in private industry as well...I'll take a lower salary at a start up for a percentage point.

It's a valid argument IMHO.

scrubbles

•

I’ll take a lower salary at a start up for a percentage point.

These aren't startups. This is WB, Paramount, Disney, and Netflix. An actual indie studio, A24, already made a tentative agreement with the guilds.

theangryseal

•

theangryseal

•

girl

•

“According to the group, the proposal gives performers their usual fixed residuals for streaming projects “also a new residual which ‘shares’ in revenue that is somehow attributed to the show.” The group added, “the Union proposes to ‘share’ in success, but not in failure. That is not sharing.” (Of course, before streaming entertainment arrived, actors did share in success but did not in failure — if a project was a hit and re-used or re-run, those performers were compensated with residuals beyond their upfront payments, but were not penalized if the project did poorly.”

This is the biggest sticking point apparently. The union seems to be asking for the same protection actors have historically had against failures. I don’t see a good reason in this article why they should be forced to share in failure when that has never been the case. The studio is, shockingly, just being greedy.

crypticthree

•

Actors absolutely take a hit when a project fails. Sure they aren't on the hook for budget overruns, but if a major project fails, the starring actors see a decrease in demand for their services and likely lower earnings from subsequent projects

scrubbles

•

which initially reading sounds like "I mean that's fair", but then no actually it's not. It's not their fault studios keep rejecting good ideas for movies and instead doing reboots ad neaseum, sequels of sequels, and boring bland flat stories. If studios are so worried about failures... maybe they need to stop making such crappy movies instead of blaming actors.

Lauchs

•

I agree with you in spirit but...

Those crappy movies make billions... The good movies are the risky ones!

Look at last year, of the top grossing movies the top one that was an original (non comic book, sequel or remake) was the 11th most porofitable (and Chinese so unsure if it was actually original.) The next? 16th overall, Elvis. Which pulled in 287 million, or about 12% of Avatar 2's take.

This year, well, we'll see what Barbie pulls but right now the top 9 box offices are all remakes, comic book movies or sequels.

So we can blame the studios all we like but our wallets seem to betray us, making those crappy movies the profitable ones.

Zorque

•

Elvis was still part of a trend, though. While not an actual sequel or remake, it follows in the footsteps of prior successful musician-based biographical dramas like Rocketman or Bohemian Rhapsody.

Acid

•

Hey at least the top gun sequel was actually good. I don't think Sequels should be branded as crap movies by default, Sure F&F X and so forth are garbage but there are some genuinely good sequels too.

Zorque

•

Just because it wasn't dogshit doesn't mean it was good. It was generic crap with a decent production value that appealed to a wide audience.

Dong64

•

Permanently Deleted

mindbleach

•

As if executives declare personal bankruptcy when a movie bombs.

whatsarefoogee

•

I'm fairly certain executives don't get residuals, they are salaried employees.

Chais

•

Maybe, but what a salary.

TauZero

•

Opinion: actors are not unique in deserving residuals. Everyone else should be getting them too: writers, directors, makeup artists, camera operators, grip - basically everyone who appears in the credits. Maybe call the relative share of residuals "shares", and advertise shares in job postings: "$20 + 20 shares per hour". Then you get hours*20/(total shares for everyone) of profits from then on.

Zeth0s

•

It's a slippery slope. What about consultant developers that worked on the codebase of photoshop 10 years ago, whose code is still used in the current version? Do they deserve a percentage of the subscription? And architect who designed it?

This is the reason studios can do this, because the contract was very exceptional, and they want to make it similar to any other industry, where freelances and employees do not share any long term revenue

Lmaydev

•

I mean as a developer I don't get a share of the profits from software I write.

I don't see why actors should be treated different to any other worker really.

In an ideal world we'd all get a share of the money we generate. But we're far from that.

Wooly

•

Don't crab bucket. Fight for your right to a share of the profits.

TauZero

•

I don’t see why actors should be treated different to any other worker really.

Yup! And every worker should receive profit share 😎.

mindbleach

•

"Risk" always means "we have all the goddamn money."

If creative types could produce these works without you in the way - they would.

Cartoons are a fucking nightmare right now. Studios refuse to fund anything that isn't already a billion-dollar household name, and then won't do a second season unless a completely unrelated toy company makes more more than the animators.

Mid-budget movies are getting trapped in petit-monopoly silos. Meanwhile, theaters are sprinkled with two-hour advertisements that feel like we're in another universe's satire of 21st-century capitalism. They made a movie about a shoe and I thought the trailers were a joke.

Kichae

•

Yeah. "We spent some money on something we assessed and determined to be a sure thing" is what they call risk. Meanwhile, opportunity costs for actors are never considered a valid concern. The risk of taking a bad gig over one that turns into a long term job exists for every everyone in the industry, and they're not insured against lost income from taking the wrong job.

Meanwhile, studios never fail to consider the opportunity costs in finding projects. Are you profitable, but the studio thinks something else would be more profitable? Well, better hope there's a project that's actively losing money that they can cancel, or else you'll be on the chopping block.

mindbleach

•

The latter point needs concise shorthand, because it's about 90% of what's wrong with capitalism. I am a shameless milquetoast liberal. I have no intense objections to private ownership or profit motive. Not per se.

But there's no excusing anyone who sees a firehose of money and demands to know why it's not two firehoses of money.

InverseParallax

•

We need to start crowd funding directors, then the successful ones can endorse other directors and we can basically build an organic ecosystem that cuts out this nightmarish studio system that is basically just a hedge fund but with a lot more sexual assault.

Actors, writers and everything could take half comp in cash, the other half in profit sharing.

AnarchistArtificer

•

I mean, I do agree that bearing that risk of investing in a project deserves rewards, but I think the performers are staking a lot when part of a project. They get paid for their time, sure, but there's a huge gamble in terms of the opportunity cost, especially with respect to reputation.

A professional actor's value is more than just in the price of their labour, but their personal brand. If someone stars in a brilliant series that barely anyone sees because of mismanagement at the executive level, them that's a gamble that hasn't paid off for that actor and I think it's pretty significant. The most depressing part of the last season of Game of Thrones was the actors' reactions, because they were dismayed to see how things ended after investing so much of their hearts into the show. They still got paid, so why care? Because money isn't the only thing at risk.

This is just more bullshit from the studios

Astroturfed

•

Ya, I feel terrible for the actors in game of thrones. I can't help but feel like most of them would be doing much more with their careers if the series had a proper ending instead of the complete dumpster fire it got.

BlitzFitz

•

Isn't this one of the rumors Things negotiated during contracts? Like, I'll take 2 mill upfront, but no residuals, or 200k plus a really good residual.

It's a risk for the actor and studio. Pay more now or later potentially if it is actually good.