[ SECRET POST #6036 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6036 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #863.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - 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

Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone got something interesting to share? Inside info, links, speculation, armchair quarterbacking?

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

I heard that it means they are planning on making a load of talking animal pictures, using old scripts, to get around not having actors. They can direct the animals now, and when the strike is over they can dub the dialogue in later.

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone want to give a quick run down of why they're striking? I am very out of the loop.

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

Studios are screwing them over.

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

Wow. That is incredibly unhelpful information!

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

Wage stagnation in the face of inflation coupled with loss of residuals due to the streaming model means that actors who aren't A-listers are now or could soon be making poverty wages for the foreseeable future. Added to that, studios are already making noises about replacing actors with AI. There are probably other issues, but those are the ones I know about.

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you. This was wonderfully informative and succinct.

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

AFAIK there are two big issues driving both the writers' and the actors' strikes.

The first one is residuals - basically, small payments that writers and actors receive over time as things they've worked on continue to make money through things like DVD sales, reruns on TV, stuff like that. These are crucial to allowing actors and writers to make a living, but they're small at the best of times, and now there's a huge argument over how much studios should have to pay in residuals for things based on streaming views.

The second major issue is staffing issues, where the actors and writers want to make sure that studios continue hiring enough actors and writers. And the biggest part of that is AI, because studios want to be able to do things like use generative models to write scripts, or scan background actors' likenesses and then use AI to digitally generate them in the future instead of continuing to hire background actors, and cut down the number of actors and writers they hire at all. And there's also other staffing things for the writers, because writers get a really raw deal. But those are probably the two biggest concerns.

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you! Very informative. The AI stuff is so creepy I had no idea about any of that!

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

Not an actor or anything related, but a typical 9-5 job with lower but steady pay doesn't work for most actors, because there's just not enough movies/shows/etc for everybody to work all the time and also the work schedules they do have when they are working can be nuts, like start at 2 am, stand in artificial rain until sunset, repeat for two weeks, get foot rot, go back to rerecord six lines two months later while actively working on something else.

And then not work for a year.

So actors get paid a few cents every time a show gets rebroadcast, so they have something to live on (or at least pay for gas or groceries) while busing tables or driving an Uber or whatever, and maybe half a cent for every fifty dvds or vhs that sold if they were enough of a big name to get a cut of merch and stuff.

Or at least, they used to get paid that way.

Streaming changed reimbursement rates so those tiny residual payments are lower and don't kick in until a show has run for a couple seasons, because, Netflix et al argued, they were a new business model and not profitable but eventually it would be better for actors and writers to work with them than traditional studios, for... reasons. And dvds are dinosaurs and Netflix mostly doesn't make them for shows unless another studio that still releases them is also involved.

And if streamers cancel shows before a certain number of seasons, and pull them so they seasons that were filmed are only available for a year or whatever, that residual payment money goes from "groceries and gas for a couple weeks" to "maybe you can buy the occasional hotdog, and not a good one."

Also most actors are not rolling in money, and one of the proposed contract revisions was to pay background actors for one day of work, 3d scan them, get a voiceprint, and use their likeness and voice for eternity with no further work or residual payments.

Which seems really dumb even from a business standpoint to me because where are new big name actors going to come from if they can't work their way up from bit parts anymore?

Except my guess is current (and former, dead, no longer able to withdraw their labor) big name actors would also just be scanned and their digital replicas would star in everything but the occasional rich talentless douchebag's vanity project where the novelty of a real human acting would make up for the bit where all the rich "pay to play" "actors" can't actually act for shit.

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

Other than paying poverty wages, the studios also want to be able to take AI scans of motions and emotions and pay for that one day of scanning, and then own the scans in perpetuity with no residuals, so they can use the actor's image for free forever.

Mr Makes-27-million-dollars-before-bonuses says that actors asking for non-poverty wages and no AI are being unreasonable.

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

It's not really 27 million *before* bonuses.

It's $1 million salary, plus a cash bonus around $1 million that could be more or less based on performance (and also it just got increased to $4 million a few days ago), and $25 million in bonus stock. So, around $27 million total (or now $31 million) but only $1 million before bonuses.

/pedant

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you. Scanning someones face and emotions and then owning that persons likeness is so creepy. I can totally see why that would be an issue to strike over and get on top of before it gets going.

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

Studio heads make more than writers/actors do. They might have AI take over and put everybody out of work. Actors not seeing enough hefty residual checks so that they can live like human beings.

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

This is just a wish that I know won't happen especially at any scale, especially as SAG-AFTRA strike rules seem like they'd forbid it, and also it might not be safe for the actors, but it would be so hilarious if a few big name actors could show up to fan cons, places in LA full of tourists, etc, with "$100+ donation to strike fund = fan photo op" signs.

They would make bank but idk they'd probably have to hire security to avoid being mobbed if they were famous enough to get serious money for it.

Also, Ron Perlman could start a molotov cocktail fund and donate the proceeds to one of the strike funds. Reminds me of that post that periodically resurfaces about the alternative to union strikes isn't "workers go docilely back to work for peanuts," but "workers drag the boss out of his fancy house and burn it down."

confession

[(Anonymous)]

Probably going to get attacked for this but....I have a hard time feeling bad for actors when they talk about not making enough money when so many of them show themselves living a life of luxury and glamor. Like I follow a few lower tier actors online and their houses are amazing and they are always sharing about trips they get and free stuff they get etc, meanwhile I'm here making $16/hr and can't afford own anything or even to go to a doctor let alone a vacation.

I would never vocally say they shouldn't strike or anything and believe people should definitely demand fair treatment, but I just have a hard time getting over my bitter poorperson heart about it all. You know, just one those knee-jerk feelings you have but then you push back because it's irrational or unfair.

Re: confession

[(Anonymous)]

The thing is that those people aren't representative of the bulk of actors out there. Even "lower-tier" actors that you follow online are probably in the top 1% or 2% of actors if you know them well enough to be following their socials. The bulk of the union is, you know, the bartender who has three lines in the scene where the movie star buys a beer. Not the movie star.

Re: confession

[(Anonymous)]

The vast majority of actors DON'T make that much. Most actors have day jobs to pay the bills.

Re: confession

[(Anonymous)]

I get where you're coming from. As the other replies said, most actors aren't as well off by any means, and I see it as good that higher profile, wealthy actors are putting their money and name behind demanding worker's rights that can protect others in the same industry. Plus, it can be hard for me to sympathize with actual celebrities' daily problems, even smaller celebrities like those you mentioned, but they deserve fair treatment in their workplace, as far removed from my life as it is.

Re: confession

[(Anonymous)]

I get where you’re coming from because it was my first thought, too. But we’re used to seeing the stars and they make shedloads of money per performance and usually have sponsorships, too. Plus most invest wisely.

I was pretty shocked to realize this was about the 98% other actors. I didn’t even realize the stars make up such a small percentage of SAG actors.

I did know though that a lot of SAG members aren’t American and have been on the lookout for news about how productions in their own countries are impacted by having SAG actors on their cast. I haven’t seen anything yet.

Re: confession

[(Anonymous)]

See, *I* know a working actor who is struggling to keep both an apartment and a car (and also eat), so... my view is very different from yours.

Re: confession

[(Anonymous)]

The way I see it, the question shouldn't be "do I make less than these striking workers?" but rather, "how much should we be getting? What would make life good?"

I heard so much bitching in the US when French students were trying to raise hell over losing holidays, because America is one of the most screwed over in that regard. But those people aren't "spoiled." We're fucked. And every time workers go "Can I support that? I think I have it worse than them," rich people just have it confirmed - again - that we're idiots, who only complain about being oppressed "unequally."

Re: confession

[(Anonymous)]

"I have a hard time feeling bad for Wal-Mart workers because the Waldens are rich" is basically what you're saying.

Re: confession

[(Anonymous)]

If you get attacked for this, it'll be because you're so off base, it's crazy. Gently... if you see "lower tier actors" living in luxurious houses and going on fancy vacations, did it never occur to you that hey, maybe they're not as lower tier as you thought? Or maybe they've got another source of income besides their acting jobs? Why on earth would you immediately jump to "even low tier acting jobs must pay the big bucks"?

Re: Actors' strike

[(Anonymous)]

One addition wrt the writer's strike, that writers mentioned when interviewed, was that the short season model, and the "maybe there'll be another season at some point" model are another issue. Because TV actors used to be able to get a gig on a show and know that they had secure employment for most of the year. And at the end of the season, if they'd been a good fit with the show, they could most likely have a fairly clear idea of when they'd be coming back for the next season. But with much, much shorter seasons, and seasons being released sporadically, TV writers are left having to hustle way harder to secure numerous gigs per year, and inevitably still ending up with a lot more time where they're not employed.

And then the lack of residuals just makes the hugely increased job insecurity even more untenable. One long-time TV writes summed it us as, “If you write a show for Hulu, you get paid to write it and then you might see $400 for the next three years, as opposed to a Network show which for reruns might be $24K [for the same time frame].”

Also, because of the shorter seasons model, TV writers are being hired to write the entire show before the filming even starts, and then they're let go, which means they're no longer getting the production experience previous writers got, which is the experience they need in order to be able to advance up the ladder in the writer's room.