[ SECRET POST #3573 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3573 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 52 secrets from Secret Submission Post #511.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. http://i.imgur.com/E9WePNj.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

What do you propose they do?

[(Anonymous)]

Go on "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here" or some other low rent reality show for sub-Z list personalities in order to fill their bank accounts. Don't exploit the fans directly.

Or in the case of Nathan Fillion become a Trappist monk.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, if you want to limit the number of people getting autographs without using monetary means, there's always the lottery method.

[kallanda_lee]

I sort of agree, but, I don't think it's to limit the number of fans per se.

I went to a Q&A with Gates McFadden once and she actually talked about how she used the con money for small stage theatre projects she couldn't otherwise have done...

I've known Richard Dean Anderson to stay at a con an hour after official closing time so no-one who wanted his autograph would be left out (though the were paid, he certainly did not have to do that).

Some (smaller) celebs also need to do his to actually get by. If you do not have acting work fora few years, money does run out...

I think the con circuit is just weird in general. And, we're living in weird sort of capitalism (and organizers have smelled geek money). But, I think it's unfair to say it's always ill will on the celebrity's end.

[(Anonymous)]

The secret specifically addresses situations where celebrities need the money and clarifies that this isn't what the OP objects to, though.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't mind this. You pay for the actor's time, not for the autograph. If millions of people got to demand their time for free, they'd have no life.

[(Anonymous)]

I read an article about this recently. I had no idea conventions were so lucrative:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/stars-getting-rich-fan-conventions-933062

[liz_marcs]

Interesting article.

It's weird how the convention circuit as professionalized so much in my lifetime. I mean, there were always some for-profit cons that were run be the Creations of the world. But now it seems that seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

It's also stunning to me how much the prices have jacked upwards as a result. I haven't gone to a convention in *years* because it seems like you have to pay through the nose if you want to do more than wander the convention floor, visit the dealer's room, and spend all your time waiting in line for hours to get into a panel or two.

[(Anonymous)]

Depends. If it is a book signing then I don't think they should expect to be paid, simply because the expectation is that you've already paid for their book; or books, in the case of the Late Pterry who admitted that there came a point when he had to limit the number of books he signed per person which he'd sign because he was afraid that he was getting to the point were he'd do a signing and someone would start backing a transit van into the store.

If it is at a con.... Uh, I dunno. I do know I was appalled by how much William Shatner charged back in the 1990s. He was definitely milking it, but then it was The Shat and what should I expect but excess? I don't mind paying for the autograph of the less well known and more obscure folks, but I would probably skip the big stars on the size of the lines if not cost. They've got enough cash already (Daniel Craig is asking for a literal dumper truck filled with cash to do Bond one more time, and the studio is seriously considering it) and I don't have enough time to wait in line for two hours just to get a surly grunt and a scribble on paper.

On that point, why are so many of the big stars so surly when doing signings? I mean I know they can be tedious, but a lot of people do far more tedious jobs and have to be a lot more cheerful and put up with a lot more trouble for a lot less cash than #Generic Action Star Du Jour does.

[(Anonymous)]

As relayed to me by people who run cons, how Autographs work!

A. The con says "Pls come and we will give you free food/hotel/travel and also $$$$ if you will give free autographs, because you are a big enough draw and we can sell more tickets than it will cost to pay you directly."
B. The con says "Pls come. We won't pay you up front, but you can SELL STUFF. Like autographs. And lets say food/hotel/travel plus your fee is X, if you make less than X we will cover the difference. If you make MORE than X, you keep all that extra profit."
C. Money? LULZ. How about exposure? Is it worth it to pay for advertising yourself at our con?

And sometimes it's a mix and match thing, as all things are, but those are the general choices.

So blame the cons, not the guests. (Though obviously they do have a choice on what cons they attend)

[(Anonymous)]

Yes and no. When you're talking about celebrities above B-list, what happens is, their agent says "Patrick Stewart will attend for $X retainer fee, plus expenses, and will only be scheduled to sign here here and here, and he will be charging X for his autograph." If the con can't meet that expectation, they'll book someone they can afford instead.

Which is why you only see a certain level of celebs at Wizard World and other for-profit comic cons, because they have the budget to be able to afford those guests. Also why SDCC gets more celeb traffic than a WW con in, say, Houston or Philly, because travel and hotel expenses are usually moot. Smaller cons, or non-profit fan-run cons, can attempt to negotiate and sometimes are successful at scoring cool guests under your A and B conditions, but at some level the answer is a simple, "no, if you can't afford the fee then you can't afford my client as a guest."

[eleganceliberty]

Eh, I both agree and disagree. I don't mind paying for an autograph from a celebrity, so long as I feel the celebrity is worth it (i.e. nice and cordial, if not appreciative towards fans, clearly conveys the attitude that they want to be there, etc.), especially subsequent times.

Like for me, Michael Rooker is a fairly pretty penny, even though the cost is $10 less if you bring your own thing to have him sign. But he's a really super sweet, kindhearted guy who doesn't just do a "sign 'em/table selfie 'em and dump 'em" approach like some of his contemporaries do, he actually will strike up conversations with people and often have funny, positive things to say about the stuff people bring. I still choke up every time I think about when after he saw a drawing I brought, he told me to never stop drawing and insisted we take the table photo-op with said drawing (he was also very particular about making sure the lighting didn't wash it out). And he clearly enjoys being there and has spoken very often about how much he loves his fans. So I can justify spending the money on him for autographs and photo-ops, both informal and formal.

And smaller-time/C to D-list actors sometimes can be really flexible: Once, I was in line to get an autograph from Raphael Sbarge for a friend of mine, and he signed two autographs for the price of one for some sisters that were in line ahead of me. It's also worth noting that all the profits Sbarge makes from autographs, he puts into his environmental non-profit organization. Sean Gunn signed two autographs for me for the price of one (joking that Rooker wouldn't, but in fairness, his handlers are pretty strict from what I've seen, so even if Rooker wanted to sign for free, they probably wouldn't let him), and at a more recent convention, he was pretty insistent on wanting a copy of a print I had him sign in exchange for the autograph/photo that day. I later paid him for another one, because I felt funny about getting one somewhat for free, and he was totally fine with autographing anyways when I realized I was $10 short.

That said, there's probably a lot more beneath the surface that's super complicated. Like agents, covering travel expenses, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable in the grand scheme of things, but then you have people like Jason David Frank who pretty much make convention appearances into a full-time job. Not sure how I feel about that, honestly.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not familiar with Michael Rooker, but your story about him makes me want to get into his work more :). That story you shared about him is incredibly sweet and lovely. I love hearing those kinds of celebrity encounter stories.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I think it depends on the context. If somebody runs into a celebrity at Whole Foods and the celebrity says sure, I'll give you an autograph but it costs $20, then that's a dick move. If somebody goes to a con (or whatever) and pays to meet the celebrity and get an autograph, it seems to me that's really more about crowd control than anything else? It doesn't strike me as dickish, anyway.

[liz_marcs]

Honestly? I wouldn't blame a celebrity for saying that to someone who's bothering them for a selfie/autograph while they're running around in their day-to-day life trying to get mundane errands done.

Maybe it's me, but unless there's some kind of professional connection (e.g., waiting by the stage door after you've seen them in a play, professional appearance, book/media signing, red carpet, etc.), I think it's kind of entitled to disturb a celebrity while they're just living their lives.

I mean, unless you're the hot thing of the moment, most working actors don't have "people" doing their day-to-day chores for them. A surprising number have to get haul their own damn trash to the curb, so to speak.

[(Anonymous)]

The whole point of the secret was to suggest that there are ways to exercise crowd control without penalizing fans who don't have money.

[brandiweed.livejournal.com]

I thought the issue was less "cutting down on the number of fans" and more "trying to discourage the people who want an autograph solely to resell on eBay."

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, you! Facts have no place here.

[liz_marcs]

That was my understanding, too. At least, that's what the claim was when cons started instituting the pay-for-play autographs. But at that time, you were paying $10 to $20 to have something signed in front of you and an exchange of words.

Reading the article someone linked to above, it appears that it's grown to be almost a side business for a lot of genre actors.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd rather see celebs charge for autographs than try looking up my favorites and be only able to find autograph sellers overrunning everything.

[arcadiaego]

I think it's more about protecting their image so that dealers can't sell fake autographs. More fakes drive the prices up.

[(Anonymous)]

I've never understood the appeal of autographs. Someone (semi)famous scribbled something illegible on a picture of themselves... yay?

[(Anonymous)]

It depends a lot on the celebrity. A lot of the Star Trek actors- specially Next Gen or DS9- would sign for charity. Specially at a fan club gathering.

But people like Mark Hamill charged $150 at NYCC just last week. I'd love to get his autograph for Metalocalypse, but simply can't afford it.

[(Anonymous)]

The only autographs I have ever got were from authors at book signings and I only paid for them by buying their book.

Oh, and when we went to Disney World I got some character autographs paid for by the entry ticket. I dunno what is wrong with charging for autographs, signing your name over and over makes your hand ache. If you literally have no money, you have a lot of priorities higher than getting an autograph anyway.