The SAG debate: Yes or no on contract
I admit it, I'm not a SAG actor right now. In all honesty, I only have one extras credit in a SAG film, which was "We Are Marshall"(I'll blog about that another time), so I do not have a dog in this fight.
But I can still do two things.
1. Relay the facts.
2. Give my viewpoint.
Ok, here is THE main issue of the contract
New Media - Folks, this isn't 1972 anymore. Hell, it's not even 1999 anymore. New media, once again, is taking over the landscape at breakneck speed. I say "once again" because "new media" has been an issue for decades. Hollywood half feared and half scoffed at television in its inception. The movie studios thought it could hurt box office receipts, and some actors thought of it as a fad. Neither side saw the immense potential of a "radio with moving pictures", and neither side could see how far it would go. Go forward a few decades to the invention of the VCR(VHS and Beta, which is another blog for another day), and the television industry being scared to death that advertising would go down drastically if you could just record your shows. Another couple decades pass, and it's VCR to DVD, the DVD to HD, and so on.
Now it's another level of new media, which would be the Youtubes, and Hulus of the world. In the current contract, actors do not get residuals for showings through new media. So when millions of the American viewing public type in hulu.com to watch the episode of Heroes that they missed the night before, everyone involved in the making of the program misses out on serious lettuce.
Now, in this new contract, residuals will now get paid for new media......with a few twists. In the words of Martin Sheen.
A. The possibility of internet or made for new media TV shows non union.
B. Actors that appeared in pre 1974 TV shows or pre 1971 movies will never be compensated for ad sponsored internet or new media exhibition.
C. An actor in a scripted TV show, while in character, can be forced to endorse a product, despite personal or professional conflict.
For "Membership First's" view of the contract, go here.... Really Long Link
Look at the ages of the Membership first people voting NO on this contract.
Martin Sheen - 68
Elliott Gould - 70
Renee Taylor - 76
Clancy Brown - 50
Nichelle Nichols - 76
John Heard - 64
Let's be real(and that's not saying that it's ALL old actors against this contract, or all young ones for it), with the exception of guys like Martin Sheen and Elliott Gould, who could get work even if they suddenly became Helen Keller overnight(legends can do that), most of the old lions NEED the residuals in between sporadic work. You don't see these actors very much anymore, and there are some that truly need these residuals to survive. Not all of them, but some of them, are not financially stable. That's the facts of life in all of entertainment, whether sports or theatre or movies. Hell, there was a study that said 60% of NBA ballplayers go broke within 5 years of leaving the league. It happens.
Now watch the ones that ARE for the contract.
Really Long Link
Adam Arkin - 52
Amy Brennaman - 44
Stephen Collins - 61
Kate Walsh - 41
Ken Howard - 65
Jack Coleman - 51
It's probably like finding a needle in a haystack trying to locate one of THOSE actors who have huge credits pre 1974 or 1971. Stephen Collins and Ken Howard are the closest, and Ken Howard's big break came in 1978.
Pure and simple, it's preservation vs working now. I DO completely understand the older actors who take it personal that anything pre 1974 or 1971 will not get residuals. I do understand there is money lost there. I'm not bashing older actors at all. In fact, we all get old. It's just how we handle getting old, that's all.
But even with the respect I have for older actors, I'm with the younger ones here. This is NOT the economy to play around with right now. In the great depression, the movie industry was a complete gold mine. Pretty much the old industry making any money for the better part of a decade. The reason for this was simple....in hard times, people want to escape. It's no different now, even if the times aren't as tough as they were back then.
Why would you want to blow up a gold mine to go on strike? Why would you listen to such a fleabag like Alan Rosenberg, who has no one's interest but his own in the first place? Residuals are higher, health care benefits are better, and for the people that are set to join SAG in the coming year(I'm one of them), we are all set for something big if we want it bad enough.
So, even though I can't vote, I'm supporting the YES vote.
LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!!!!
But I can still do two things.
1. Relay the facts.
2. Give my viewpoint.
Ok, here is THE main issue of the contract
New Media - Folks, this isn't 1972 anymore. Hell, it's not even 1999 anymore. New media, once again, is taking over the landscape at breakneck speed. I say "once again" because "new media" has been an issue for decades. Hollywood half feared and half scoffed at television in its inception. The movie studios thought it could hurt box office receipts, and some actors thought of it as a fad. Neither side saw the immense potential of a "radio with moving pictures", and neither side could see how far it would go. Go forward a few decades to the invention of the VCR(VHS and Beta, which is another blog for another day), and the television industry being scared to death that advertising would go down drastically if you could just record your shows. Another couple decades pass, and it's VCR to DVD, the DVD to HD, and so on.
Now it's another level of new media, which would be the Youtubes, and Hulus of the world. In the current contract, actors do not get residuals for showings through new media. So when millions of the American viewing public type in hulu.com to watch the episode of Heroes that they missed the night before, everyone involved in the making of the program misses out on serious lettuce.
Now, in this new contract, residuals will now get paid for new media......with a few twists. In the words of Martin Sheen.
A. The possibility of internet or made for new media TV shows non union.
B. Actors that appeared in pre 1974 TV shows or pre 1971 movies will never be compensated for ad sponsored internet or new media exhibition.
C. An actor in a scripted TV show, while in character, can be forced to endorse a product, despite personal or professional conflict.
For "Membership First's" view of the contract, go here.... Really Long Link
Look at the ages of the Membership first people voting NO on this contract.
Martin Sheen - 68
Elliott Gould - 70
Renee Taylor - 76
Clancy Brown - 50
Nichelle Nichols - 76
John Heard - 64
Let's be real(and that's not saying that it's ALL old actors against this contract, or all young ones for it), with the exception of guys like Martin Sheen and Elliott Gould, who could get work even if they suddenly became Helen Keller overnight(legends can do that), most of the old lions NEED the residuals in between sporadic work. You don't see these actors very much anymore, and there are some that truly need these residuals to survive. Not all of them, but some of them, are not financially stable. That's the facts of life in all of entertainment, whether sports or theatre or movies. Hell, there was a study that said 60% of NBA ballplayers go broke within 5 years of leaving the league. It happens.
Now watch the ones that ARE for the contract.
Really Long Link
Adam Arkin - 52
Amy Brennaman - 44
Stephen Collins - 61
Kate Walsh - 41
Ken Howard - 65
Jack Coleman - 51
It's probably like finding a needle in a haystack trying to locate one of THOSE actors who have huge credits pre 1974 or 1971. Stephen Collins and Ken Howard are the closest, and Ken Howard's big break came in 1978.
Pure and simple, it's preservation vs working now. I DO completely understand the older actors who take it personal that anything pre 1974 or 1971 will not get residuals. I do understand there is money lost there. I'm not bashing older actors at all. In fact, we all get old. It's just how we handle getting old, that's all.
But even with the respect I have for older actors, I'm with the younger ones here. This is NOT the economy to play around with right now. In the great depression, the movie industry was a complete gold mine. Pretty much the old industry making any money for the better part of a decade. The reason for this was simple....in hard times, people want to escape. It's no different now, even if the times aren't as tough as they were back then.
Why would you want to blow up a gold mine to go on strike? Why would you listen to such a fleabag like Alan Rosenberg, who has no one's interest but his own in the first place? Residuals are higher, health care benefits are better, and for the people that are set to join SAG in the coming year(I'm one of them), we are all set for something big if we want it bad enough.
So, even though I can't vote, I'm supporting the YES vote.
LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!!!!
