MembershipFirst officially unveiled its slate and website today for the upcoming SAG Board elections:
MembershipFirst represents the majority of SAG's National Board and the overwhelming majority of working actors in Hollywood. With twenty-two incumbents, (who have a collective total of 170 years of union leadership) and eleven highly respected working actors who are running for the Board for the first time, the slate is said to represent a balanced mix of seasoned veterans along with a strong injection of 'new blood unionists'.
MembershipFirst plans to continue its four year record of creating ‘firsts’ for the Guild. "We're the first group to help create a $20 million dollar surplus," said MembershipFirst Board member Anne-Marie Johnson. "We're also the first group to oversee SAG's Commercials Contract topping the $800 million dollar mark."
Other firsts cited by Johnson include the first online actors' directory (iActor), the first New Technology/New Media and Organizing Departments in Guild history, the first re-negotiation of basic cable residuals, the first permanent interactive committee, and Hollywood Board Meetings which have, for the first time ever, been opened to the membership.
In the midst of negotiations with the AMPTP to secure a new TV/Theatrical contract, Johnson also pointed out that MembershipFirst is working to create "the first union contract to completely cover new media and the first to secure new media residuals. We’ve already signed three hundred new media deals and 620 feature film completion deals with independent producers with budgets ranging from $10 million up to $45 million.”
MembershipFirst Incumbents: Ralph Morgan recipients Yale Summers and Scott Wilson, along with Lainie Kazan, Joe Bologna, JoBeth Williams, France Nuyen, William Russ, David Jolliffe, Jane Austin, Jeff Austin, Warren Berlinger, Steven Barr, Michael Bell, Ron Harper, Renee Aubry, Peggy Miley, Paul Napier, Russell McConnell, FJ O’Neil, Anthony DeSantis, Eugene Boggs and Joe d’Angerio,
First-time candidates with MembershipFirst: Keith Carradine, Joely Fisher, Scott Bakula, Clancy Brown, Tom Bower, Alan Ruck, Peter Van Norden, Vic Polizos, Charles Malik Whitfield, Charles Shaunhessy, and Christopher R. Wiehl.
Continuing Board Members (serving multi-year terms): Elliott Gould, Valerie Harper, Seymour Cassel, Frances Fisher, Esai Morales, Justine Bateman, Nancy Sinatra, Joanna Cassidy, Renee Taylor, Angela Watson, George Coe, Robert Hays, Bonnie Bartlett, Brett Cullen, Jenny Worman, Anne DeSalvo, Sumi Haru, William Katt, Diane Ladd, Piper Laurie, William Mapother, Kent McCord, Esai Morales, Harrison Page, AngelTompkins and Anne-Marie Johnson.
Good looking slate. You go kids - keep on fighting the good fight.
http://www.sag.org
Comment by Scott — August 5, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Sorry gonna have to point out the obvious here……….
“You were the First”….???? A lot of your “firsts” are “givens”. Don’t take Too much credit for doing your elected jobs. You still have not finished the thing you came to do……. (That would be a new contract). All the New/Now media issues were invented on your watch so how could you not be the firt to deal with them.
Hows that solidarity list doing? …………….. Sorry but you make it so easy!
Comment by #44 — August 5, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
yeah and the first to drop the ball and have the whole guild working without a contract….I don’t care who you want to point the finger at…. YOUR IN OFFICE NOW! You want to accept accolades for things that you had no direct hand in? Then accept the fact you couldn’t cut a deal. Step aside amateur hour is over….
Comment by Playmaker — August 5, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
playmaker and #44:
eventually, you’ll get your wish: a vote. a vote to strike, a vote up/down on a contract. rather then continuing to argue with the deaf, dumb and blind, we’ll keep our powder dry, make our case (mf) via the membershipfirst site, mf media will pick up now that the slates are official, and, eventually the membership will vote. so, be patient - you’ll either be a king or a fool within, oh, a month.
we’ll see.
Comment by Mrs. Wakely — August 5, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
TEN YEARS OF MEMBERSHIP-FIRST SAG “LEADERSHIP” HAS GIVEN YOU:
·ORGANIZED DEFEAT OF SAG/AFTRA MERGER–1998.
·PROLONGED COMMERCIALS STRIKE FOR NO GAIN–2000.
·DERAILED SAG AGENCY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT–2002.
·ORGANIZED DEFEAT OF SAG/AFTRA MERGER–2003.
·PAID THEIR OWN MEMBERS $85,000 IN LAWSUIT–2005
·WASTED $1,000,000 IN FIRED EXECUTIVE PAYOUTS–2005.
·ORGANIZED DUES-FUNDED ANTI-AFTRA WAR–2007.
·FAILED CAMPAIGN TO DERAIL AFTRA PRIMETIME–2008.
·FAILED PRIMETIME/THEATRICAL NEGOTIATIONS–2008
SAG MEMBERS: VOTE MEMBERSHIP-FIRST OFF THE SAG BOARD!
Comment by Working SAG Actor — August 5, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Ridiculous.
iActor would have completed under Melissa Gilbert’s administration if MF had not pulled another political gotcha by denying a dues increase.
MF’s only internet “first” is running up a Million Dollar over-run in the SAG IT operation budget.
Comment by Tom Ligon — August 5, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
hey playmaker and #44,
it’s easy to make a deal when you settle for less that you’re worth.
amateur hour? really?
is giving away the store the mark of crack negotiating in your book?
say you get your way and unite for strength takes control.
they say they want all the things MF is asking for …”AND MORE.”
how do they plan to go about getting that stuff?
do you think the conglomerates are going to say, “Oh, thank God!
The UNITEFORSTRENGTH people are here! Let’s give them everything
they want and more!” ???
if the contract is not resolved by the election, U4S will be where
MF is right now. what will they do when confronted with the same lousy deal that’s on the table? this deal isn’t good enough for you
or me or any SAG actor. will U4S hang tough and try however they can
to improve the next three years? or will they cheerfully accept the AFTRA deal and hope for better days?
Comment by harry98 — August 5, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
it’s important to note that anne-marie johnson stated that under membership first, the guild has reached a 20 million dollar surplus for the first time.
this information is available for any guild member who wants to seek it out.
in the fiscal year 2006-2007, the guild posted a 3.8 million dollar surplus and in 2007-2008, it was 4 million.
every year the guild is audited by Price-Waterhouse and every year the report comes back, as they say, “CLEAN”.
but the unite for strength contends that membership first has been
financially irresponsible and says,
“No wonder we’ve got a 6.5 million dollar deficit!” WOW. 6.5 million? that sounds bad.
well, it’s a DEFICIT not a debt. we’re not in the hole.
the 6.5 million dollar deficit is the projected worst-case scenario for what it will cost to pay for all of SAG’s business for the fiscal year we’re in now, 2008-2009. it’s somewhat higher than normal due in part to the fact that several contracts are being renegotiated this year .
i will find out what a normal year’s ‘deficit’ is and post that tomorrow.
so, the deficit is the money we have to pay out. but we haven’t yet figured in REVENUES. and indicators suggest that even after we pay
out that 6.5 million, we will have some kind of surplus this year as well.
this information can be obtained by any member.
so,
20 million in the bank,
a clean bill of health from the auditors,
running at a 7.8 million dollar SURPLUS for the past two years and
sufficient revenues this year to pay our bills and create another surplus.
this doesn’t exactly sound like financial irresponsibility, does it?
find out for yourself. go get proof if you don’t believe me.
Comment by harry98 — August 5, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
Mrs Wakely-
Your powder is as dry as your relevance. Sag has embarrassingly shown itself to be losing more and more power each day it works without a contract. Your fantasy of a Me First counter attack is like a flee attacking an elephant.
Nobody cares about what Sag thinks anymore. Nobody outside the biz cares if a show is Sag or Aftra. Nobody from any other industry guild cares if a show goes Sag or Aftra. Not one other guild supports the WAY in which the MeFirsters have handled their contract negotiations.
“so, be patient - you’ll either be a king or a fool within, oh, a month.” Are you sure? Just a month? Everyone has already gone home. The show is over. You had your chance and you missed it. It’s like telling a joke and flubbing your lines. No way to make it work now.
You will work without a contract for the next 3 years. Aftra will sign more shows. Sag will lose power. The merger will happen just before the next contract because Sag will desperately need Aftra and it’s shows.
Comment by playmaker — August 6, 2008 @ 7:14 am
Mrs. Wakely
We don’t need a King and we are surrounded by fools!
Comment by #44 — August 6, 2008 @ 8:24 am
Sadly, Playmaker is dead on the money. It is in everybody’s best interest that there be well organized and well run professional guilds in Hollywood. SAG has proven to be neither.
The longer SAG works without a contract the more that television will turn to AFTRA for their shows.
The only reason SAG does not have a contract right now is because of their internal political situation. Any other professional negotiator would have read the writing on the wall months ago, forged a reasonable contract, and moved on.
But as many have pointed out, SAG has nowhere to move onto. The vast, vast majority of members do not work anyway. This labor imbroglio is the only drama they have going.
It is a toxically dysfunctional situation in which there is no impetus to actually be a professional guild.
Comment by a suit — August 6, 2008 @ 9:52 am
playmaker and #44:
you can read, yes? did you read the post by harry98? so, there goes the “fiscal irresponsibility” argument.
“without a contract for 3 years?” that’s kind of a logic leap, yes?
you don’t seem to acknowledge the sequence of events:
1. aftra makes commitment to bargain together in march, in front of john sweeney president of afl-cio, as in last 28 years.
2. aftra breaks word, makes substandard deal with amptp. now, did someone put a gun to roberta reardon’s head and say “break your word”? no. of course not. she did it because she wants what’s best for aftra, not what’s best for the actor. her actions speak for themselves. SHE chose to do what she did. SHE chose to make a deal to compete with sag.
3. sag holds out for fair deal with producers.
are you arguing those facts? and, please don’t tell me “merge.” merger is not going to happen. it was not a workable proposition the last 16 times sag voted “no” and it’s not a workable proposition now.
are you actually saying “nobody cares if it’s an aftra or a sag contract?
obviously, then, you’re not actors, because actors REALLY care if it’s an aftra or sag contract.
what I AM saying, is, it’s a democratic process and, the eventual vote will determine which way sag goes. they will either vote to stand behind mf and fight for a fair deal, or, they will stand behind u4s, and, according to u4s’s own website, “fight for the same deal mf wants - and more!”
if mf wins or loses, according to sag law, the SAME negotiating team remains in place until a deal is signed.
so, what, specifically is your point?
Comment by T-rex — August 6, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Actually, “T-rex”, as you know, if the Membership First majority is undone by the elections, Doug Allen’s situation with SAG would come under grave doubt. And as you know, if Doug Allen leaves the table under that cloud, we’ll be looking at a potentially different scenario. Finally, as you know, SAG isn’t simply holding out for a fair deal at this point. Membership First is holding out to make sure they don’t get the blame for “caving” when the contract is eventually put forth to the members. You’re absolutely right that actors care what contract they work on. The middle class SAG actors don’t have one right now, and are working under last year’s rates. Once the new contract is struck, they’ll finally get the raise and cost of living adjustments they deserve. The current SAG leadership is apparently fine with losing the retroactive increase, which means that the middle class members will have lost upwards of four months of pay raises by the time this is all done.
Comment by Kevin — August 6, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
T-rex
You are a broken record …….. Oh wait we don’t use records anymore!
” The same negotiating team remains in place” ……… Thank goodness!…….. I thought for a moment there would be progress. We have soooooo much leverage right now, I don’t think I can stand it. AMPTP will probably double there deal out of fear alone.
Step back and look at the big picture. If you remove the emotion it is clear what needs to be done.
Comment by #44 — August 6, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Kevin,
Spot on!
Comment by #44 — August 6, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
hey suit,
yeah, i’m sure that a union YOU would deem ‘professional’ is the one that says, “Sure boss! Whatever you say! Aw, that’s a swell deal.”,
and the ‘unprofessional’ union to you is one that stands up for it’s members and tries to get a deal that doesn’t screw them for the next three years and beyond. no big mystery on that.
hey #44 and playmaker,
aftra will sign more shows whether we have a contract or not. that’s their plan, and has been their plan since they declined an invitation from sallie weaver, who was the negotiator at the time, to negotiate together on the last basic cable deal. and since that time they have been undercutting sag because they don’t care about representing the needs of the actor … they care about expanding their jurisdiction.
in 2003 the MERCER REPORT clearly stated that they did NOTrecommend merger as pension benefits would be reduced and SAG would clearly be subsidizing AFTRA .
at first melissa glibert and john connolly said.
“The Mercer Report shows no legal reason why we shouldn’t merge.”
but when opposition showed that the mercer report stated that there were BIG FINANCIAL REASONS NOT TO MERGE, connolly flip-flopped and said “Well. you can’t trust what those trustees say. They’re management.”
yeah, never mind that they are bound by federal law to tell the truth when it comes to finances.
that was the downside to that merger.
what would have been the upside?
well, that a so-called sister union wouldn’t be on the loose, undercutting sag contracts and taking money out of YOUR POCKETS.
so. it’s a kind of extortion. like an old fashioned, strong-armed protection racket:
“Merge with me and shore up my dying pension plan,
or i’ll stab you in the back.”
well, we didn’t and they have.
being in a union with broadcasters and recording artists will not give us anymore clout at the bargaining table.
there is a federal law against sympathy strikes. so if we, in this new merged union, were ever to strike, the broadcasters would not be allowed to honor the picket BECAUSE THEY WORK ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONTRACTS.
you guys are all merge merge merge. okay, figure out a way, where a merger can take place where the financially strong group (SAG) doesn’t get screwed by paying the lions share of costs with diminished benefits.
figure out a plan where the actor’s needs don’t get lost in a
mega- union representing too many different groups with sometimes conflicting interests and i will bow down to you and say,”you were right along. i couldn’t have been more wrong.”
Comment by harry98 — August 6, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
kevin and #44:
kevin - can you follow your own logic one step further? let’s say, u4s wins HUGE, and quickly replaces doug allen. if, true to their word, they want “everything sag is asking for now - and more!” what exactly is going to change about the current situation? they bring in another labor negotiator, to ask for “the same thing sag is asking for now - and more!” there needs to be SOME logic to your posts.
and, as I frequently ask other aftra/u4s huggers: do you agree with the contract on the table? do you even know what it says? do you understand the downside of signing it? do you have any idea how unimportant 250million dollars in gains (whatever that actually means) is compared to getting a fair deal on new media?
Comment by T-rex — August 6, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
T-rex, harry98:
You seem to think that everyone you disagree with thinks this is a good deal. It clearly is not.
The point is that all leverage was lost, due to SAG underestimating the amount of shit AFTRA was willing to take and overestimating the amount of Support SAG would have going into a strike vote.
A smart Team knows when it is time to pack it in and live to fight another day. every week that passes we loose power and respect.
Now this is the place where you attack my knowledge of the contracts and try to dismiss me. ………………. Bring it on……….(Try and be really emotional….. That’s when people really listen to you).
Comment by #44 — August 6, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
#44:
see, it’s the “live to fight another day” part that doesn’t really hold up. if we give them this, we’re done. it’s that bad.
and - what shit has aftra taken? seriously. more to the point, what shit has aftra taken that would cause them to cause this? their feelings were hurt? their widdle-piggy-wiggly got stubbed?
did you know, that, contrary to the story aftra tells, they turned down sag’s offer to negotiate cable together, not the other way around? it’s just complete, provable, bullshit. I can show you the memo. and then they negotiated a fucked donkey of a contract that will take years to get out from under.
this notion that rosenberg and allen caused this is laughable. reardon caused this. it’s really that simple. she wants more money and jurisdiction for aftra and she knows she can get it by underselling sag. and she’s doing it, right now, as I write this. it’s her 15 minutes. and somehow, the answer is to merge with these people?
aftra is a poor union. sag is a rich union. aftra has limited power. sag has lots of power. aftra needs sag, to shore it up financially, to make it a player, to keep it afloat.
so, reardon decided “fuck it. I lied. sue me. I’m going to stab them in the back.” and she did.
now, will she get away with it? sure, for now. but these things have a way of turning around. this may even turn around before the first ballot is received. or, actors may decide to chase rosenberg and allen out of town with pitchforks, and it’ll take u4s, oh, 3, 4 months to find and hire a new labor negotiator, the “talks” will be suspended till then, with sag working under the old contract, then, if we go with the theory, u4s will sit across from the suits, all fresh and under-informed and completely inexperienced, and supposedly get “everything sag wants - and more!” (I love the exclamation point. it’s theirs) and, of course, they won’t get it. the suits will sit there, licking their chops at the fresh meat, u4s just begging to be talked into some disaster so “we can all get back to work” (even though we’re working anyway).
eat some bananas. the potassium is supposedly good for the brain.
Comment by T-rex — August 6, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
#44
If Ihave ever seemed to disagree with you, I apologize. You are so right.
You actually get it, this leadership has screwed us and they are livid that someone thinks so. We have to do the best we can now, and merge and get a better deal as ONE union in three years. NOT because that is what anyone would have wanted, but because that is the situation their negotiations skills have put us into.
Everything they predicted would happen if we merged has not happened. Everything the pro merger side said would happen has happened. We are at civil war with a smaller sister union and it’s driving our wages to the bottom.
This leadership want us to WHAT??? Tear up our dual cards.
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
We swallow them up and everything is SAG. Why is that so scary to people. It’s called
LOGIC.
Comment by sagmember — August 6, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
In my biased opinion . . .
. . . Merger would be a good idea, but not the kind of merger “Unite for Strength” has in mind.
The only way actors will ever achieve the clout they deserve and need is for the actors of AFTRA to extricate themselves from that sinking ship and to make S.A.G. their sole collective bargaining unit.
AFTRA actors are hamstrung by the fact that their “Federation” represents news anchors, sportscasters, recording artists, weather report readers, station announcers, and on and on. Over the years, AFTRA has done a poor job of representing on-camera actors because AFTRA is too weak and understaffed to do a good job of negotiating for all these differing constituencies and their widely varying contractual needs.
Let AFTRA continue to represent the other categories.
I wish them well.
Once upon a time, before the age of television, AFRA (”T” added for “Television”) may have done a good job representing radio actors, as well as the other categories of voice performers in the medium of radio. But, since I joined AFTRA around 1975, my deals under their contracts have been consistently inferior to my SAG deals.
I plan not to vote for any of the “Unite for Strength” candidates. I reject them and their platform for two reasons, both compelling, in my prejudiced view:
(1) If “Unite for Strength” wins more than 4 or 5 seats in this election, it could be seen as a validation of the opportunistic, sell-out behavior of AFTRA’s leadership in the current round of negotiations. After all, these AFTRA leaders are the very people, or the very “kind of people”, SAG’s “Unite for Strength” wants to bond with. “Unite for Strength” sees Reardon, Hedgpeth-Roberts, Kimbrough and the rest of that faithless faction as their allies. If you vote for “Unite for Strength,” you will be voting for the same AFTRA/SAG faction that gave us the defective, disastrous AFTRA/AMPTP sweetheart contract “model,” which SAG is now trying diligently to repair.
(And, by the bye, if you don’t work as often as “Unite for Strength” actors do, they may take away your vote. These are the same people who tried to splinter SAG, at the worst possible time, by aggressively and publicly pushing their “Affected Member Voting”
scheme.)
#2 Compelling reason: If “Unite for Strength” achieves its ultimate goal, actors will not be represented by one strong union with greatly increased “leverage.” They will continue to be represented by two unions — WEAK and WEAKER — under one leaky umbrella, the AFTRA/SAG merged “ENTITY.”
I have never voted for a Membership First candidate, but the writers’ strike changed my view. I sincerely believe we would be choosing a better future — for ourselves and for the next generation — by voting Membership First.
Comment by Dave Clennon — August 7, 2008 @ 1:34 am
harry98….let me give you a quick education on how business actually gets done here. This is a town of dealmaking. Work gets done and movies get made when the deal gets done.
A deal is best seen as something that only sorta works for both parties. And while no one gets entirely what they want; the deal, in general, allows everyone to feel protected and compensated enough to get on with what we really want to do…make movies and TV.
A professional guild is not about marching and posturing and campaigning and complaining. That may be what makes YOU feel good…but what really gets the work done in a guild is dealmaking. And if the deal doesn’t get made then you can blame DGA, WGA, IATSE, AFTRA, whoever else you want to blame…but these guys got deals and are back to work and you don’t. It’s that simple.
Comment by a suit — August 7, 2008 @ 9:11 am
hey suit,
yeah, i gotcha.
deals are give and take until there’s a workable situation.
the problem is the amptp’s GIVES in new media are WEAK
and amptp’s TAKES in new media and elsewhere (force majeure, clips)
are HUGE.
every benefit that guild members enjoy today; pension plan, health care, residuals,
were achieved because the SAG people who came before us fought for them over the bitter resistance of the people on your side of the table. you didn’t give us any of that out of the kindness of your hearts.
the deals that were made by the other guilds, some for legit and some for dubious reasons are their deals.
the deal that the amptp is offering us does NOT make us feel
“protected and compensated enough”, as you phrased it.
so you can say that SAG is posturing and marching and belittle us in any way you like.
while the deal that is being offered definitely works for management,
SAG is trying to get one that “sorta” works for us.
Comment by harry98 — August 7, 2008 @ 10:57 am
harry98 -
Well, you’re absolutely right. You do have to get a deal that’s right for you. Look at how the DGA handled it…they researched the new contract and the relevance of new media for years, working closely with reps from the AMPTP and other folks from the studio side in a continuous conversation about what would be equitable and meaningful for everyone. By the time it was time to negotiate everyone was already on board. No posturing, no BS…
Now look at SAG. I could go through the hilarious story of how SAG has handled this but…
You know it already.
That’s my point.
Comment by a suit — August 8, 2008 @ 8:44 am
suit
the dga did indeed do “research” and, in their typically compliant, collusive way, (and I’m a member) went in and made the deal that became the “template,” which forced the wga’s hand and allowed those stout, trustworthy hearts at aftra to run for the jurisdiction and cash like a bunch of fat ladies at a candy sale. problem is - it doesn’t work for sag. what about that concept do you not understand?
it’s like you hear “eeny, meeny, miney…” in your suit head, and the fact that there’s no “moe” has you twisted into knots.
well, sag says “no moe.” get used to it you morally bereft black hole. and stop giving your arrogant advice to people who actually have a sense of decency and the courage of their convictions.
“make the deal, make the deal - come on baby, just MAKE THE DEAL!”!” jesus, you sound like a crack head instead of an executive.
the dga relies, as you know, or should know, far, far, less on residuals. sag relies heavily on residuals. they are anywhere from 30 to 50% of the middle class actors income.
so, to be faced with a plan that offers the probability that those residuals could be fazed out as production moved inexorably towards the web, is a serious problem. one of several in the contract that doesn’t work for sag.
now, they work for aftra, for one reason: roberta reardon lied about negotiating together, and sold sag out. aftra members are now saddled with a contract that will enable aftra to undercut sag, for now, but ultimately will undo them: no residuals on the web being the most egregious concession, among others.
MF at sag controlling the board? even if U4S were in place (and it’s possible, but extremely improbable, they will be after the election) they would be fighting for “the same deal as MF wants now - and more!” in their own words.
it is exactly because sag did it’s own research, that this contract has been deemed inadequate.
my question to you, suit, is simple: why won’t the amptp agree to a percentage of revenue for all original programming? this protects the amptp, and sag: the amptp makes money? sag makes money. the amptp loses money? they have no fixed obligation to sag.
simple. but the fact that the amptp won’t consider the solution most obviously appropriate to the problem, speaks volumes.
they want to set up a non-union space to “experiment,” with production rates below very high “floors” that give them wide latitude to go non-union.
and if production falls into the “union” category they want to protect themselves from a precedent that ties sag to their revenue via a percentage.
translation: they want to fuck sag. now, if you’re a suit, you’re well versed in fucking people over, but, you’ll have to forgive sag if they’d prefer you go fuck yourself.
you want labor peace? you want all the little “workers” to make your product without complaint? give sag a percentage of revenue for the web. otherwise? shut the fuck up you piece of shit suit.
all the best.
Comment by T-rex — August 8, 2008 @ 10:37 am
to suit,
hey, we’re probably not going to see eye to eye on most things.
obviously.
and did SAG make some mistakes? sure.
but these facts remain:
the majority of DGA members don’t rely on residuals.
ADs and UPMs don’t participate that way.
young and journeyman directors in T. V. do,
but the DGA is an elite group
with many highly paid directors having points in a movie or points in the sale of t.v. show if it syndicates. many of these people are also producing their own films. they have production companies and any work stoppage, wherever it comes from throws a big monkeywrench in their plans.
(i know you know all of this, i’m just spelling it out for readers who might not.)
the DGA’s assessment of the viability of the internet as a delivery system IS VALID ONLY FOR THEM.
their assessment was, “there’s nothing in this for US. let’s move on.”
great. good for them. but what’s good for the DGA is not a usable template for SAG.
throw into the mix an aggressive sister union with a beef against SAG
who is only too willing to allow the AMPTP to play the two actor’s union’s against each other, and here we all are.
and i understand, i do, that it’s just business. so you guys say
“AFTRA is offering us the same actors at WAL-MART prices? great!”
okay, what would the ‘ideal’ business model look like?
how about one where YOU make a ton of dough with very little overhead?
sounds kind of like the deal you’re offering in new media.
the potential is there anyway, and if this thing takes off the way most people think it will, you guys will NOT want to revisit the deal in some hollow sunset clause. we were supposed to revisit DVDs in success and that hasn’t happened.
so forgive us if we don’t trust you when you say we’ll look at everything again in 3 years.
this is all just business.
everybody is telling SAG to take this deal because until we do
we’re endangering everyone’s rice bowl.
what about our rice bowl?
AFTRA has no consideration for actors and their livelihoods or they wouldn’t have sold them short in cable and now with this lousy new media deal. to them actors are little ATMs who are useful when it comes time to pay for broadcasters pensions.
look, whoever you are… man or woman .. if you have a family and kids
whatever your situation is… i wish you well.
no bullshit. i want us all to prosper.
we’re asking for a fair deal.
Comment by harry98 — August 8, 2008 @ 11:17 am
all actors should still be feeling the burn of the amptp wanting to “nurture the baby” in a good faith plea to sag that turned out to be anything but. the baby grew up to make a shit-ton of money worldwide, very little of which filtered into non-hyphenate actors’ bank accounts.
sag’s current negotiating committee won’t be making that kind of mistake, and everybody should be grateful that the upcoming elections won’t unseat them. there’s some experience in that committee that couldn’t be matched by all the u4s candidates put together.
Comment by kristy kreem — August 8, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Dear T-Rex:
If your rant is an example of the subtle and brilliant tactics that SAG uses to negotiate the best contracts for it’s members and their industry…well, hate to point out the obvious…but God help y’all.
Harry98:
You some very good points, actually. And by the way, I’m not saying that the DGA deal itself is a good template for SAG, I merely think that the methodology the DGA uses to make deals is a good template for guilds in general.
And, as I’ve pointed out before, the real difficult (and perhaps unsolvable) issue that SAG faces is not anything in the current deal, it’s not “new media” (which is a fiscal joke, trust me), or the level of residuals, or Guild minimums…it’s UNEMPLOYMENT.
Vast, intractable, gut wrenching unemployment. I’ve been unemployed more than once and I HATED IT.
As far as I know there is no other union or Guild in the United States that deals with such profound levels of unemployment. No one on this board seems to have analyzed the unbelievable effects a 90% (essentially) unemployment rate has on a professional Guild, both financially and emotionally. It’s such a big deal it’s almost beyond commentary…it makes the other issues look like a complete joke…like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic… Because, let’s face it, if you work, you make great money as an actor. It’s that simple.
Do I have a solution? Sadly, no. But there has to be some way to ameliorate this, to put to creative use the vast energies of SAG. And picking apart compensation for the joke that is “new media” ain’t it.
Comment by a suit — August 8, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
kristy kreem:
I agree. the whole idea that we have to argue about the amptp and aftra’s motives is utterly ridiculous. are these people ignorant or just naive?
on the one hand they continue to babble on about merging with a union whose leader has publicly declared her intention to compete with sag by fucking actors out of a fair deal and getting them jobs at substandard wages, P&H, contributions, workplace protections, overtime, residuals and so on, and, on the other, we have people saying we should make a shitty deal with a bunch of soulless corporate toads.
do these people have any dignity? are they so willing, and anxious even, to sell themselves and their fellow actors cheap because, on some level, they feel unworthy of respect?
it’s actually a very interesting behavior to ponder:
here’ my ass - sell it now! you aint got 50? I’ll take 25! I got bills to pay!
Comment by T-rex — August 8, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
hey, suit, most actors ARE unemployed, so, really, that’s not everybody’s biggest issue. actors subsidize their careers in many ways. my handyman is a really, really good actor. sometimes people recognize him when he’s at home depot buying handyman stuff. he also understands that if sag makes a bad deal, he’ll make more as a handyman than he ever will as an actor. he’ll also go fi-core if meryl streep takes his right to vote away. now THAT’S a real issue for sag.
you know how a lot of actors are making money right now? internet projects. webisodes. brandon tartikoff knew where the future was, and before his death, he went into business with AOL to make tv shows. that was in 1997 and most people were still on dial-up modems and thought he was crazy.
while we wait, maybe we should start negotiating directly with all the new internet broadcasting companies that are cropping up like weeds. time warner & michael eisner just raised a big buncha capital for an independent internet tv broadcasting company. from their web site:
“About Veoh Networks, Inc.
Veoh Networks is a new, innovative internet television broadcasting system that is able to reach hundreds of millions of broadband-connected viewers throughout the world. Veoh allows content producers from major entertainment studios and television networks to independent video producers and enthusiasts to deliver high-quality, full-screen video directly to consumers without financial, geographical or capacity restrictions found in traditional broadcasting systems. This democratization of video distribution fundamentally changes the dynamics of television, creating unprecedented choice for consumers and a compelling marketplace for content providers and advertisers. Veoh is privately held and backed by leading technology and media investors, including Spark Capital, Michael Eisner’s Tornante Company, Time Warner Inc. and Shelter Capital Partners. Veoh Networks is based in San Diego, California.”
Comment by kristy kreem — August 8, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
-kreem
Once again you blame the AMPTP for doing their job. The only ones to blame for the first DVD deal and not re-addressing it is SAG’s lack of leadership and balls in past negotiations. That lack of leadership cannot be made up for all at once. That’s not how business works …… Let’s not forget this is a business.
Start treating it like one and you will see results. Keep whining and you will loose greatly.
Comment by #44 — August 8, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
hey suit:
spare me the “shocked - shocked!” - response to calling you out. your predecessors: the warner brothers, goldwyn. louie mayer, I guess, would have offend your sensibilities as well. those guys would have eaten you alive.
no, I’M not negotiating. I’m just calling a spade a spade, and if you think new media is a “fiscal joke,” you’re a rather dim spade at that.
which brings me, again, (you also didn’t answer my question) to the heart of the matter. tell us, karnak: why won’t the amptp give sag a percentage of revenue in new media from dollar one and first airing - especially since you’re apparently breaking the news that new media is a “fiscal joke?”
see, the two don’t go together: hard line on new media, cause new media is… a fiscal joke? doesn’t really scan, does it? I assume you’re not negotiating on your side of the moat either. I don’t think the real suits would care for the whole “new media=fiscal joke” thing. just a hunch.
as to your epiphany that sag has an unemployment problem? yes, it does. good noticing. the industry has plenty of actors to choose from, they just tend to hire the same 9 of them, figuratively speaking. sort of. they’re not very bright fellows, the suits, creatively, that is. they tend to rely on, well, creative people for that.
and you actually put your finger on one of the main reasons sag is holding out. actors careers, generally, wax and wane. I assumed you knew this, but I guess not. so, the protections sag fights for help cover the actor in hard times: residuals is number one. hence, the current labor impasse.
there are all kinds of fabulous actors who, contrary to the misunderstandings permeating the debate, don’t work much, for long periods. it’s the nature of the beast. there are few jobs, the competition is intense, and the actor has no real power, or protection in the industry, outside of sag.
I worked with horton foote once (he’s a famous american writer you fucking moron) and he told me he moved to new hampshire and sold antiques for ten years. not one job. not one. he went on to win another academy award for best screenplay (he’d already won his first when hollywood decided he couldn’t write) and a pulitzer prize.
so, you see, actors being out of work has more to do with the nature, the fickleness, the trends, the “list” some casting director presents as “acceptable hires” than it does anything else.
are there shitty actors? you bet. lots. but the ones who stick around tend to be pretty good, because they’ve survived, simple as that. ruth gordon (”harold and maude”) called herself “call back ruth” because she always got called back, but seldom got the job. brilliant actress. then she said she looked around one day, and she’d outlived everyone. job, jobs, jobs. but before that? the suits had no idea she was so good, why? stupid.
michael j. fox was an unknown canadian midget who brandon tartikoff famously predicted “would never be on a lunch box” after watching him audition for “family ties.” about a billion dollars later, fox gave him a lunch box with his picture on it.
paramount, when they saw the rushes for “the godfather,” wanted to fire pacino and coppola. genius. charlie bludhorn of paramount, a dumb thug who happened to run a studio. wanted to fire pacino and coppola…
the suits thought citizen kane was a disaster. greatest american film of all time, in any poll you look at.
the whole town was positive “titanic” was going to bring down the whole business.
the idea that you, a suit, would actually lecture anyone on anything, is just the bees knees.
please, more of the negotiating 101 before I poop my pants in anticipation.
Comment by T-rex — August 8, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
to suit,
okay, riddle me this batman:
if new media is a joke, why are the conglomerates tripping over themsleves to set up all these new delivery companies for the internet?
the list was at about 40 a month ago and i’ve heard that it keeps growing.
i don’t know what your inside scoop is on how there’s no there there, but
the bigshot’s behaviour indicates otherwise.
the thing about our union being mostly unemployed is true, but there are reasons for it beyond the malignant comments saying that most don’t work because they’re no good.
90% of us are unemployed at any given time. we kind of work in shifts.
our careers are cyclical and often there seems to be no rhyme or reason why some people are getting jobs while others can’t get arrested.
but here are a few things that always figure into it.
a bunch of our members are seniors and there aren’t enough parts for seniors.
a bunch of us are people of color, and while there are more opportunities than there used to be, there still aren’t enough, so this sizable group of talented people compete with each other for a relatively small number of gigs.
some of us have physical disabilities and challenges. not alot of roles.
if an actor loses a limb, they’re still an actor.
and a bunch of us are women and you know how it is for women in this business as they mature.
whatever the obstacles might be, these people don’t pack it in.
they pay their dues and wait, ’cause in this business, you never know.
these people are the reason the qualified voting idea that’s being bounced around is just wrong.
anyway, these are some of our realities.
Comment by harry98 — August 8, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
#44
you’re not an actor.
i don’t know what you do for a living, but you’re not an actor
and it’s ‘LOSE’, not ‘LOOSE’.
Comment by harry98 — August 8, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
“Once again you blame the AMPTP for doing their job. The only ones to blame for the first DVD deal and not re-addressing it is SAG’s lack of leadership and balls in past negotiations. That lack of leadership cannot be made up for all at once.”
so, you’re criticizing the current negotiating committee for learning from past mistakes and having the balls to stick to the demands of a fair deal?
Comment by kristy kreem — August 8, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
harry98
Boy you got me. You have totally destroyed my argument because I spelled something wrong. ……… LOL!
kristy-
Try and read the whole post next time. If you would like to comment at that time please do ………..
Every time you Two post it is so obvious why SAG is stuck in the mud.
Comment by #44 — August 9, 2008 @ 8:43 am
harry98
So, I am not an Actor because I don’t agree with your politics ………. interesting. Once again you deliver a stunning argument.
I did however agree with the “Riddle me this” post.
Comment by #44 — August 9, 2008 @ 8:58 am
hey 44
you got anything substantive to say? besides your opinion that sag leadership sucks?
you actually KNOW anything?
outside of “take the shitty aftra deal and live to fight another day” generalities, would you care to be specific about anything?
as in, here’s an example of WHY sag’s concerns about this contract are baseless.
or, here’s an example of exactly HOW sag FORCED aftra to break their word to negotiate with sag, as in the last 28 years.
or, here’s WHY it will be o.k. for sag to allow the amptp to set a precedent on new media for non-union actors to fill.
or. here’s WHY agreeing to a precedent that sag actors will get essentially no residuals from new media under this deal is o.k.
or, here’s why sag should merge with a union ON RECORD as having lied and then undercutting sag to compete directly, by offering lower terms for aftra contracts?
or here’s HOW u4s will SPECIFICALLY change things UNDER SAG LAWS that will change the current dynamic of this contract negotiation in any way?
or, how, when u4s says “we want everything sag wants - and more!” they expect to get it, when, even if they run the table in the elections (unlikely), they will be sitting in front of the same amptp negotiators, and u4s won’t get it either?
you see? if you actually open your mind to the possibility you might be misinformed, or just not know all that much about what your talking about, it’s a different story.
try answering these questions. try to be specific, accurate, and make some kind of persuasive argument. THEN you may come off as something other than a dilettante talking trash.
we’re waiting.
Comment by t-rex — August 9, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
o.k. folks - the evidence is starting to trickle out:
1. a letter, from doug allen to kim hedgepath of aftra CONFIRMING that AFTER the “bold and the beautiful” bullshit -
(”sag tried to take it away from aftra!” -
April 14,2008
To the members of SAG:
LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!
“NO CAST MEMBER OF THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL HAS BEEN SOLICITED BY ANY DIRECTOR OR ELECTED OFFICER OF SAG TO LEAVE AFTRA AND JOIN THEM…… PERIOD” -
that’s a QUOTE from susan flannery, the actress from the soap herself.)
- was denied by both doug allen AND susan flannery.
and AFTER sag and aftra agreed on the bloc voting
issue -
(sag had reasoned that, since they represented 100% of film and 95% of primetime TV, that perhaps it would be a more fair representation of the two unions positions vs. management, that sag have more seats at the bargaining table, not a 50/50 split. aftra pitched a frothing at the mouth fit, and sag said “o.k. we’ll go 50/50 as we have before”)
- that aftra had AGREED, in front of john sweeney, president of the afl-cio, to bargain together with sag, as they had for 28 years.
this letter from allen to hedgepath CONFIRMS all this, which begs the question:
why are aftra and u4s supporters CONTINUING to spread the falsehood that it was sag that “pushed aftra to bargain separately” which is clearly untrue. this letter confirms aftra BROKE THEIR WORD for one reason and one reason only: to compete with sag by undercutting actors for aftra’s own profit, increased jurisdiction and the power and leverage that would bring. in short, they stabbed sag’s leadership and sag’s actors in the back for their own personal gain.
“in the best interest of actors?” you decide.
2. the most recent filing with the department of labor PROVING, once and for all, that sag has a SURPLUS, and that, according to aftra’s department of labor filing, aftra has a DEFICIT.
it’s right there in black and white.
so, the question again becomes: WHY are aftra and u4s supporters CONTINUING to spread the FALSEHOOD that sag has been financially mismanaged by current leadership, when it is, in fact aftra that has been financially mismanaged, and sag that is financially sound? you decide.
both these documents are available:
1. any candidate for MF can show you doug allens letter
2. go to http://www.sagwatch.com to see the department of labor filings
Comment by T-rex — August 9, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
AND, by the way. you want to see the actual memo’s from the trustees (LEGALLY BOUND to tell the truth after their exhaustive investigation to joining the plans in 2003)themselves CONFIRMING that a sag/aftra merger was NOT in the best interests of sag, because aftra has a weak plan and sag has a strong plan and sag members would end up seeing THEIR pensions subsidizing aftra’s pensions, meaning lower sag benefits? go to saginfo.blogspot.com
Comment by T-rex — August 9, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
i’m very concerned about whether the majority of union members — especially the very members that are trying to unseat membership first — truly understand what’s at stake when it comes to the new media issues of use and the re-packaging of original content.
a huge part of what new media will deliver is archived actor content — interviews, promo pieces, etc., — that will be re-packaged as on-demand/pay-per-view/subscriber content, without compensation to the actor, without needing permission from the actor, and with the ability to alter the content without the actor’s permission.
right now, under traditional media, permission from the actor must be obtained to use that actor’s likeness. when an actor’s likeness is used without the actor’s permission, the user (if busted) must pay a fine/fee to the actor.
but if the amptp gets their way in terms of new media, actors won’t be compensated or in control of the use of their name and likeness, which is truly terrifying. the entire history of archived actor content (interviews, promo pieces, etc.) will be re-packaged, altered, and used in perpetuity by producers as promotional content for their new media projects, with no actor compensation or control whatsoever.
this takes actor exploitation to an unprecedented level and will affect the livelihood and reputation of just about every single actor who’s ever worked in film or television.
Comment by Anonymous — August 9, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
oops, i forgot to pseudo-identify myself in my above use/re-packaging of original content post.
Comment by kristy kreem — August 9, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
just to slightly modify T-Rex’s information:
folks should go to SAGWATCHDOG.COM to see the department of labor filings.
it’s confusing, i know. sagwatch is sort of a pro-aftra site
Comment by salamander — August 10, 2008 @ 1:53 am
yeah - sagwatchdog.com for the dept. of labor filings.
these quotes are from barry meyer, chairman of time-warner, and and jeff bewkes, at warner brothers, from TODAY’S NEW YORK TIMES.(8-10-08):
——————————————–
The future, most agree, is seamless distribution of films to television using INTERNET TECHNOLOGY. But the big question facing Hollywood is, HOW FAR OFF IS THAT FUTURE?
“Management’s biggest challenge is transitioning into this brave new world without trampling the massive revenue streams that have supported our businesses for so long,” Mr. Meyer says.
And that, of course, brings Mr. Bewkes back to his central point: in a digital age, CONTENT BECOMES MORE VALUABLE, NOT LESS, BECAUSE IT’S CHEAPER TO DELIVER.”
“THE PRODUCTION OF MEDIA CONTENT IS A GROWING CATEGORY” MR. BEWKES SAID. “IS THAT A GOOD AND PROMISING THING FOR US? YES.”
Mr. Bewkes suggested that it would take THREE TO FIVE MORE YEARS before high-definition videos are delivered conveniently over the Internet.
————————————-
So, “content is everything” and, it will be delivered over the internet in “three to five more years.”
does this drive home WHY sag is fighting off giving “content” a huge non-union space to develop, and WHY sag is fighting off the phase out of residuals for the internet?
Does any supporter of Unite For Strength or AFTRA think it would be a good idea to follow aftra and agree to just both those things, as aftra has already done, when it broke away from sag and cut a deal one on one with the amptp?
Comment by T-rex — August 10, 2008 @ 10:04 am
T-rex
No I guess I don’t know anything at all…….
Oh yeah,……. I know SAG still does not have a contract because they got bogged down arguing about DVD’s and gas money when the sole concern should have been New media.
I am also amazed that everyone keeps saying AFTRA has no power and only a small percentage of the TV market, yet they are to blame……….
We all know what went down with SAG and AFTRA. We also know that the current SAG leadership has had hostile relations with AFTRA . I don’t care what was said. The chickens have come home to roost. Now stop your whining and get off the AFTRA bashing. It doesn’t help your case. …. (for the record, I believe what AFTRA did was hurtful to all parties)…….. Move on!
I never said “the current leadership sucks”……(your words). I said that they took their eye off the prize. I think that all people involved “think” they are doing what is best for the union. They took a militant stand and their bluff was called. ……. So now what do we do? ……… Come on answer man/woman,……. What is the next brilliant move? ……….
And for the record … If you condescend to me one more time or call me a name. I will “NOT” respond to you because you will have proven you are not capable of having a rational debate. You can still get mad just don’t be a baby about it.
Comment by Anonymous — August 10, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
to ‘anonymous’
you feel that what aftra did was hurtful to all parties.
me too.
move on? okay let’s try. what’s the next move?
well, if the SAG membership was to vote this contract down and give leadership a strike authorization? i bet we’d have a contract we could be very happy with within a week or two.
that’s just my guess.
there is never a good time to strike. when times are bad, like now, folks say, “We can’t afford this. People are losing their homes.”
when times are good, they say, “Don’t make waves! Things are good!”
but the only thing that gets ownership’s attention is when you choke off their money.
every thing that we enjoy now .. pension, health care, residuals… were won by our SAG predecessors who fought for them, some times by going on strike.
when management proposes choking off our money, it’s
‘good business sense.’
when we choke off their’s, it’s “ridiculous! preposterous! damaging to
the industry!”
the writer’s strike failed to produce a proper result, because they were undermined by the self-serving DGA and then WGA leadership was pressured by powerful factions within their own guild to cave.
it often comes down to the ‘haves’ saying, ‘these are my
money-making years! don’t fuck them up with your labor bullshit!’
again, just my opinion of what happened.
this time, the amptp is offering a bum deal for new media that could spell the end of residuals, and is asking for roll-backs in clips, and force majeure.
if we take this deal, then maybe next time they’ll say “You know, we
just can’t pay for all this health care anymore.”
would you be ready to strike then?
Comment by harry98 — August 10, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
“anonymous”
your signal’s fading buddy, “I don’t care WHAT was said” - is that the argument of a man, or a 5th grader?
you’ve been challenged to respond with facts, not opinion. well, that’s opinion pal. going to “call me a name and I won’t respond?” go change your fucking diapers. get your shit straight, do some - even a minor amount of research - and then post something coherent for gods’s sake. you’re beginning to look really foolish.
here’s some “facts.” I figure you probably already read them on the other thread under your other name or names, but, just to make it easy for you:
go to sagwatchdog.com, you will see the department of labor filings showing, conclusively, that sag has a healthy surplus, and that aftra has an unhealthy deficit.
that would lead one interested in facts (was it mark twain who called them “pesky things?”) to understand once and for all, that the perpetrators of the “sag is broke and it’s membership first’s fault” lie, either don’t know what they’re talking about, or, they’re just, you know, liars.
second - going to any mf candidate and asking to see the letter that doug allen wrote to kim hedgepath (aftra queen) in march. it would, again, help with the facts see, because, in the letter, allen confirms aftra’s pledge made in front of afl-cio president john sweeney, to negotiate collectively with sag. this is AFTER the lie that sag tried to organize “the bold and the beautiful, an aftra show (go to http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/bold-beautiful-actress-susan-flannery-wants-to-set-the-aftra-sag-record-straight/) to see susan flannery’s own letter confirming THAT never happened) and AFTER the bloc voting issue was resolved to aftra’s satisfaction with a 50/50 split of seats at the negotiating board. (sag had the temerity, since they represent 100% of film and 95% of primetime television, to ask for a more reflective, proportional balancing of the seats, which sent aftra into a froth at the mouth frenzy) SO, you see, the allen letter, just released to all mf candidates, proves that roberta reardon LIED in making a public pledge to bargain together, and then went directly to the amptp and made a terrible deal. why? well, simple: to compete with sag at the expense of actors, and to fill up aftra empty coffers, increase it’s power, in short, make it a player, at the expense, again, of the actor, and at the expense of sag.
this debate will resolve and fade, but the facts will remain. how unfortunate for 44 and lp and joe granville and all the others who consistently don’t answer specifics or cite proof, but engage in repeated, aggressive falsehoods to further their case.
whatever happens, it aint gonna work guys. try checking the sources I cited and then replying SPECIFICALLY to those facts and tell us SPECIFICALLY what exactly mf has done to make you buy the fairy tale that aftra is the innocent party, and that mf needs to be replaced by u4s.
it’s hard, I know, but, don’t forget: specifics. facts. I’ve cited several knocking down your arguments, now, you have to cite contrary facts - not opinions, not rumor - to prop up your case. that’s actually how this whole debate thing is supposed to work.
Comment by T-rex — August 10, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
T-Rex
you are big and strong just like your name implies…and right too! About everything.
Mazeltov.
Comment by a suit — August 11, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
suit
thank you for the sincere compliments. good luck in your career as an executive in show business.
and when you finally meet moses (mazeltov, I’m just assuming) and he asks you what you did with your life, you can tell him “I greenlit ’sisterhood of the traveling pants 2′ ” to which moses will reply, “I liked the first one better.”
Comment by T-rex — August 11, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
t-rex:
Hey! My projects are good projects! Well…except for that one…but that was assigned to me! Or was it? Maybe it was my idea…ah dammit….
Have done a lot of movies and TV…some great, some just fun, some (I have to admit it) freakin’ embarrassing. And the weird thing is, sometimes the most embarassing stuff came when I was trying to do the best! And vice versa! Such an unpredictable business (Goldman was right).
But seriously T-Rex, your concern about my afterlife has me thinking…
…what will you say to Moses? What have you accomplished?
Comment by a suit — August 11, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
well, first of all, I won’t be speaking to moses. and, let’s be honest, while we won’t be telling each other our credits, what I was referring to is, the life of an actor vs. the life of a suit. one, filled with such great challenges and odds, trying to find an acceptable balance between art and commerce, surviving a profession, and even at times, prospering in one, that demands such sacrifice,passion, talent and commitment, and, then, another parasite, making his living off the talent of artists, maybe harboring dreams of his own talent, but never realizing anything but a bmw, some nice suits and the peace, joy and contentment that comes with making such a deep and lasting contribution to mankind.
Comment by T-rex — August 11, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
T-Rex:
Seriously…why are you so angry? I’ve known suits who are difficult and I’ve known suits that are the most inspired and hard working people possible. And I’ve known actors who are the most self-obsessed and self-loving blowhards imaginable and ones who were brilliantly inspired and hard working.
You’ve not really done much in this business, have you? I mean, that’s totally fine, but as you do more work you might find yourself growing weary of kissing your own ass and actually enjoying collaborating with the people around you.
Comment by a suit — August 12, 2008 @ 9:08 am
hey suit
I’ve done more jobs than you’ve turned down. 26 years in, sag/aftra/dga/aea
one question: why won’t the suits agree to a percentage deal? first dollar and first airing? you make money? we make money. you don’t make money? you have no fixed obligation to sag.
answer that. this whole labor impasse would be over if the suits gave it up. why won’t they give that up? because they want to create a potentially HUGE non-union space to “experiment” with. they want, and in the language of the contract aftra accepted (sieve heads) to obtain “flexibilty” from u4s, the kind they now have from aftra.
well, “flexibility” means lower pay, eventually, no residuals, a wave of non-union competition that the suits demand sag agree to.
that’s stupid. and stupid people make me angry.
you people always go to the “you haven’t done much have you?” line. well, let me tell you, the pro-mf people on this blog? have done PLENTY. I know them. they’re hardened, seasoned professionals, who understand that the suits are NOT their friends, never have been, and that, given a chance, aftra will SELL THEM OUT every single time, because THEY”VE LIVED IT.
so, anger? yeah, some anger, but mostly wisdom. if you’ve been through a few of these things, you start to notice a pattern:
1. the amptp are a bunch of lying, back-stabbing, ass-bags, solely interested in biggest profit and lowest expense, ergo, the “stupid” contract aftra agreed to and sag is fighting off.
2. aftra is weak. weak, like a little baby gazelle with a hairline fracture in it’s back leg. and it breaks away from the pack and wanders a little too close to the amptp, and the amptp eats them for fucking lunch
you watch what happens if somehow this contract goes through, and the “accomodationists” as dave clennon calls them, win.
my guess is most of the u4s, aftra huggers on this site and others have no real grasp of the facts (I still can’t get them to answer a straight question) and no understanding of the history of sag’s negotiations with the amptp, or sag’s issues with aftra.
as in any negotiation, you want to be prepared, you want to know what the facts are, you want to be able to recognize a threat to your existence in sheep’s clothing.
a potentially huge non-union space for the suits to “experiment” with, using non-union people? that’s a threat to the existence of the middle class actor.
where are the stars? well, until I see different? NOWHERE. I refer you to aaron sorkin’s stunning confession in gq magazine that he and other top show runners DID, IN FACT, sell out the wga to the amptp, as was rumored, and heavily denied at the time. look at nikki’s own take on it in her latest post.
now, actors. think about that. do you hear any “stars” (by the way - about 190 of us - actors who make over 500k a year - out of 120,000)
speaking out (and please don’t tell me amy brenamman or ned vaughn) in favor of sag or mf? where are they?
I’ll tell you where they are - hiding - like the fucking cowards they are. how else to explain the lack of public statements? and I’m not talking about viggo mumbling something on the sag.org site a couple months ago. I mean NOW - when it counts. all you actors out there wondering which way to go on this upcoming vote? ask yourself - do I want to be part of a strong GROUP looking out for my best interests? or do I want to be part of a group that is all too happy to sell acotrs CHEAP and be “flexible” (translation: cheap) with the amptp.
if you pick the latter, you’ve got a friend in u4s and the amptp.
do I want to be a part of a one man, one vote UNION, 120,000 strong, that can outvote those at the top, who couldn’t give a shit about the middle class actor (tom hanks - “we’re being held hostage to this labor problem - I support the aftra contract”) - ask yourself - when was the last time tom fucking hanks worked an aftra contract, or, had to worry about paying the light bill, and that first run law and order SAG residual comes in and saves the day, as opposed to shitty or non-existent AFTRA residuals, negotiated in their willingness to be “flexible” with the suits.
we need wisdom. and strength. and resolve. and knowledge.
we don’t need u4s. and we don’t need aftra, weak sisters both.
ttheamptp
Comment by T-rex — August 12, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
t-Rex:
Okay, you’re a hardened, seasoned professional.
Great. So let’s be professional, if the AMPTP isn’t interested in maximizing profits, what should they be interested in? Curing cancer? Maximizing profits is their job.
Being angry at the AMPTP or thinking that they’re “evil” is missing the point. The AMPTP is nothing but a group of lawyers hired to represent the business interests of large corporations. Duh. They’re not like SAG, they’re not like the Salvation Army, they’re not even a democracy. They are nothing but dealmakers. And they’re good at it.
If you’re going to do business with them you have to also be a professional deal maker, otherwise you’ll be worrying about the “meaning” of your guild, or upcoming elections, or your own emotional needs and resentments(hello t-rex!) and you’ll be…well….where you are now.
Being tough is great. I hope you are very tough because I know that’s really important to you.
But it’s better to be smart. Which is why for many years guilds hired tough professional negotiators who would work outside of the political pressures of a guild’s board or president and get deals made. For many reasons, some of them quite valid, that is currently not the case.
And yes, you can always strike, but be careful, it means less than it ever has before, AND it’s a little like taking poison yourself in the hopes that someone else falls dead…
Which is the definition of a failure in dealmaking.
Comment by a suit — August 13, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
dear suit
who were all the tough, professional negotiators hired by the
guilds for many years?
please extrapolate. (fancy word, huh?)
Comment by harry98 — August 13, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
tom hanks is amptp. tom hanks took a bunch of actors out of the country to film “band of brothers” on a non-union contract. so, of course he feels held hostage by this labor problem.
Comment by kristy kreem — August 13, 2008 @ 10:01 pm