Writer's and Actor's Strike 2023: Aaaaand Scene...That's a Wrap!

[nieman]

I don’t see why the actors deserve any of the revenue when they already get residuals based on the success of the project, IF they negotiate for it. So they want it all essentially? They want to be paid for the project, get residuals, and also revenue sharing? Seems kinda wild to me.

Because it's a thin line between revenue and residuals. This is pretty much protection against what happened to Scarlet Jo. There's no point in revenue, if they're gonna squeeze you with how it generates revenue.

A compromise for me would be something like first stream run....like how they got the Gilligan cast. Eventually it will not be on streaming, so once that happens, it closes the deal. And if the providers want it extended, they pay up.

 

[EzekelRAGE]

Because it's a thin line between revenue and residuals. This is pretty much protection against what happened to Scarlet Jo. There's no point in revenue, if they're gonna squeeze you with how it generates revenue.

Not really the same. Scarjo was being paid bonuses based on the BO performance, for example if it make 500M in the BO she would get paid an extra 20M or something. Disney released it on Disney+ day and date with the theatre run, so greatly impacting the BO and bonus potential.

Nothing in this strike wouldve covered Scarjo there.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

Not really the same. Scarjo was being paid bonuses based on the BO performance, for example if it make 500M in the BO she would get paid an extra 20M or something. Disney released it on Disney+ day and date with the theatre run, so greatly impacting the BO and bonus potential.

Nothing in this strike wouldve covered Scarjo there.

It'll help out actors that aren't making big money

 

[EzekelRAGE]

It'll help out actors that aren't making big money

I never said it wouldnt, just saying Scarjo's situation has nothing to do with this

 

[nieman]

Not really the same. Scarjo was being paid bonuses based on the BO performance, for example if it make 500M in the BO she would get paid an extra 20M or something. Disney released it on Disney+ day and date with the theatre run, so greatly impacting the BO and bonus potential.

Nothing in this strike wouldve covered Scarjo there.

Exactly, so to protect themselves, they would also want the streaming revenue included upfront. See was axed out of that completely. You want the front end AND anything additional, in case they try that again. Look at it in a broader scale. The success of the project determines your income from it. But they have squeezed you out of the "suggested" majority income driver, so everything else is irrelevant. Streaming wasn't on the table before, so suits started looking primarily at that. You want protection for that.

Same as when home video came into play. At one point those with residuals were paid off home video sales, as well.

 

[Hoodoo Child]

Has a fight/brawl ever broke out at one of these things?

 

[T-K-G]

Has a fight/brawl ever broke out at one of these things?

these people don't scrap breh

You slap one of them they're gonna have a Chris rock face then sue you

 

[Hoodoo Child]

these people don't scrap breh

You slap one of them they're gonna have a Chris rock face then sue you

Ion know, Fran Drescher look like she's on that type of time.

 

[EzekelRAGE]

How SAG-AFTRA Talks Collapsed: ‘I Was Taken Completely By Surprise,’ Union Chief Says

SAG-AFTRA contract talks fell apart on Wednesday night after management balked at a revised streaming residual proposal offered by the union.

variety.com

According to Crabtree-Ireland, the studios have flatly rejected the union’s demand for a 2% share of streaming revenue. So on Wednesday, they brought in a new proposal, under which actors would be paid a set rate per subscriber from each of the major streaming platforms.

Among other disagreements, the two sides do not see eye-to-eye on the cost of the proposal. SAG-AFTRA believes it would cost about $500 million per year, or 57 cents per subscriber. The AMPTP, which negotiates on behalf of the studios, pegged the cost at more than $800 million, or about $1.08 per subscriber.

Either way, the CEOs believe it is economically “irrational” and not a basis for further talks. Management sources noted that in some regions outside the U.S., the average revenue per user metric does not reach the $1 threshold. The AMPTP has offered SAG-AFTRA a viewership-based bonus that would be patterned off the agreement reached last month with the WGA. But for SAG-AFTRA, that won’t fly.

The WGA got a 50% residual bonus for shows watched by 20% of a streaming platform’s domestic subscribers within the first 90 days of release. But that applies only to made-for-streaming shows, and most will not hit that threshold. SAG-AFTRA wants its members to compensated for all programs that appear on streaming, including theatrical films and pre-existing shows licensed from broadcast and cable.

So Studios offered the SAG the same deal on residuals based on viewship that the writers and directors got. Sag rejected that.
Sag countered that offer by telling the streamers to give all 2% of revenue to actors OR getting paid .57 - $1.08 per subscriber to the service. Studios rejected that and suspended talks.



Execs saw that dumb ass proposal and said

and dipped

 

[MenacingMonk]

Wouldn’t be shocked if the actors got greedy

 

[Fctftl]

Ion know, Fran Drescher look like she's on that type of time.

 

[HipHopStan]

Why do they have a meeting once a week and then a take the rest of the week off? Maybe if they had more than one meeting a week, they could get to an agreement faster. “Alright, everyone, we’ve had our meeting and both sides are going to go back home and chill for another week.” It’s not like people’s jobs are on the line or anything.

 

[steadyrighteous]

Why do they have a meeting once a week and then a take the rest of the week off? Maybe if they had more than one meeting a week, they could get to an agreement faster. “Alright, everyone, we’ve had our meeting and both sides are going to go back home and chill for another week.” It’s not like people’s jobs are on the line or anything.

Because when one side offers you terms you have to take it back to team's of lawyers, analysts and experts to game out the analytics or the financials. Obviously some of the negotiating team are lawyers, analysts etc., but you have to do your due diligence.

Term Offer: 1% of X plus a 15% raise in Y if ABC does LMNOP (that's a very simple version, there are dozens of points of negotiations and that would be just one example)

Then you have your lawyers and experts you've hired show you what that will look like in multiple scenarios across the different services, networks, streamers and against current and future possibilities to see if that's actually a good offer or a bad offer, or if its a set of terms that can even happen. It might sound like a good offer but analysts and experts might be able to tell you the terms they've put forward aren't even likely to happen so you'll never hit those objectives or benchmarks.

Then and you redraw a plan and come back with your counter-offer.

You present the counter-offer, talk about it, then they go back and do the same thing with their team's.

Eventually you get to a point where you're both at the table looking at a set of terms you both broadly agree on, and you're both going back to your team's tweaking the same offer until you both have a deal you think is fair.

 

[EzekelRAGE]

Because when one side offers you terms you have to take it back to team's of lawyers, analysts and experts to game out the analytics or the financials. Obviously some of the negotiating team are lawyers, analysts etc., but you have to do your due diligence.

I think what they are asking is why are SAG doing it every other day, while when WGA and AMPT were negotiating, they met every day for a week to hash stuff out.

WGA would have just as many lawyers/analysts etc going over the same numbers, yet they still met everyday into the late hours. These firms have hundreds of workers at their disposal, WGA had ppl working round the clock.

When WGA and AMPT were meeting everyday, ppl looked at that like "damn, they really trying to hash out a deal, so one must be close", soon they got a deal done. Compare that to SAG making the meetings every other day. People were saying "It's weird they not meeting everyday like WGA. Does that mean the talks are going bad?" soon after that, AMPT suspended talks because SAG had some stupid demands.

It seems like SAG wasnt as prepared as WGA tbh.

 

[steadyrighteous]

I think what they are asking is why are SAG doing it every other day, while when WGA and AMPT were negotiating, they met every day for a week to hash stuff out.

WGA would have just as many lawyers/analysts etc going over the same numbers, yet they still met everyday into the late hours. These firms have hundreds of workers at their disposal, WGA had ppl working round the clock.

When WGA and AMPT were meeting everyday, ppl looked at that like "damn, they really trying to hash out a deal, so one must be close", soon they got a deal done. Compare that to SAG making the meetings every other day. People were saying "It's weird they not meeting everyday like WGA. Does that mean the talks are going bad?" soon after that, AMPT suspended talks because SAG had some stupid demands.

It seems like SAG wasnt as prepared as WGA tbh.

It’s clear that these unions aren’t using the same resources or approaching things in the same way, so that’s why the negotiation tactics look so different.

For example, one of the WGA negotiation committee was a member of an AI think tank prior to the strike so he had perspectives, resources and experience in what they should be looking out for before this all started, so that would only help their side during negotiations.

Shyt, the DGA basically did their deal in a day and don’t appear to have used many outside perspectives to help shape their negotiations.

The only thing these unions have in common is that they want better, but they all want different things and need different things so they’re handling it in their own ways.