Jay G.

Ironically, true independent pictures are typically free of guild rules, so this negotiation won't affect them either way.

BuckNaked2k

They do indeed, but that's the way their compensation is set up, up front. Mine is not. We all begin work by understanding what our compensation will be.

That is correct. It's all dependent upon supply and demand. Top people who are tough to get, command more money. Others work for less, as there are many like them out in the workforce ready to take their place.

All companies operate differently. Profit sharing is nice, but there's no compelling reason for a company to offer it if they choose not to. The difference here is that not every group of employees has the collective bargaining clout of a "guild" behind them to extort money from their employers just because they become embittered with their compensation.

As I said above, there's only one Brad, Tom, Angelina, or Julia out there. They can command top dollar for their work. Others cannot. As we all know, there are many, many "actors" waiting tables everyday in NY and LA, who would kill to get even a small part in a film. Heck, I'd pitch it in right now if I could make the same salary makin' movies out in Hollywood!

Jay G.

And all the SAG is trying to do is change what, up front, the compensation will be on future projects. This isn't a "retroactive" negotiation.

You seem to have some bias against SAG, or possibly against guilds and unions overall. I don't think this negotiation is because of anyone being "embittered." Rather, it's a negotiation to extend the residual process that they've had in the past for TV and VHS into DVD, internet, and possibly future formats as well.

Which is why it's nice for them to have a guild that is at least guaranteeing them a minimum amount of compensation.

The problem is, even if your pay for one film was equal to your current salary rate, there's no guarantee that you'd get a second film. Even if you got work on a second film, it could start months to years after your first. Add into that the factor of limited lifespans of certain careers in Hollywood, and how quickly one can fall out of favor. Given the volatile nature of the work, it must be at least somewhat reassuring that as long as the studio is able to continually show the movie you worked on on TV, or sell it on video, that you'll get at least some compensation from it.

Michael Corvin

Do the actors have to pay back the studio part of their salary when a movie/tv show tanks and they lose money?

lordwow

No.

Amel

No. Any actor in a movie since home video marketing began had a chance to use that as a tool to base their salary on. Actors from before that time? It'd be difficult to work out, but a simple answer - yes.

BuckNaked2k

JayG -

I don't disagree with anything you have written.

I just think the line needs to be drawn as to which "actors" will have a claim on future residuals. Play any one of your DVDs to the end, and just look at the endless cast list in the closing credits. Should "man on bus" or "girl #1" get paid into perpetuity for their work in a film? Some work is "work for hire", you do it, get paid, and that's it. There's no claim or rights to future residuals on the various media which may contain that work.

(P.S. - You are right, I have no love for unions and their ability to hold companies hostage with threats (or action) of a work stoppage. They had their time in this country, and I believe that time has passed.)

GuessWho

Do Broadway actors get a piece of the action?

Jay G.

I don't see any reason why "girl #1" shouldn't get any residuals because of a smaller part. I do think the smaller parts should probably get less compensation, and in fact that's what SAG currently does with the residuals it currently collects and distributes. Film producers pay SAG a set percentage of the film's gross in certain formats that is to cover all performers (about 4% for TV, 5% for VHS). That percentage is then split up and distributed to all the actors relative to the amount of work they put in.

Again, actors already are getting paid in perpetuity for their performaces, in regards to certain formats. All SAG wants to do is to extend these existing residuals into new formats. Can you honestly think of a reason why a performance that the studio was already paying residuals for in the VHS format doesn't deserve the same treatment in DVD?

Jay G.

A piece of what? They get paid for each performance of the play/musical they're in, if that's what you mean. If the performance is recorded and sold, they'd likely get compensation via SAG rules.

PaulNJ21

No. Music rights on DVDs have already created a mountain of problems. Artists shouldn't get any more than they originally negotiated for at the time.

Jay G.

People seem confused. This new negotiation isn't for past films at all, but for future contracts actors enter into. So actors will be getting what "they originally negotiated for at the time," they'll just be getting a little more in terms of future compensation.

GoldenJCJ

Cripes! The quality of films being released today is already borderline crap, I can't imagine the drop in quality when the studios begin to make even less on every film they make.

Money studios make on films goes into other films. Money actors make on films goes into swimming pools and mansions (OK so I'm generalizing, but you get the point).

Breakfast with Girls

Only if the production crew members also get residuals.

Some people see movies strictly based on the director or writer involved. Do they get paid residuals, too?

Peep

I agree almost totally with what you said, except for the VHS part. It is my understanding that the residuals that SAG negotiated for home entertainment (VHS) back in the 80's was much smaller than what they would want now based on the fact that nobody thought that home entertainment would take off like it did. Currently, DVD residuals are based on the original "VHS" formula. Now that DVD has taken off like it has, the guild feels like its members deserve a greater piece of the pie.

MisterHowie

Yes they should if they negotiate for it as part of their ancillary revenue package when they sign for role.

BuckNaked2k

I think that pretty much sums up the way I feel. If you negotiate for it up front, you should get it. As I wrote above, some work is "work for hire", you do it, get paid, and that's it. There's no claim or rights to future residuals on the various media which may contain that work.

That said, regarding JayG's point about the current arrangement with SAG re VHS trailing residuals, it does seem to make sense to extend that same formula to the DVD medium.

BuckNaked2k

Post #1 stated,

Rex Power Colt-Robot Man

If it were me, I would offer them either a set salary of say 12 mil or offer them say 8 mil and a percentage of sales.

BuckNaked2k

Sure, that makes sense for the principals, but this initiative is intended to provide a lifetime revenue stream for all of the actors, writers, and directors involved in a film that gets a DVD transfer.

Peep

As I said, that formula has already been extended to DVD - SAG just doesn't agree that that formula is fair (considering the huge revenue increase that DVD has brought). Also, SAG wants whatever formula they agree upon to also cover other formats, like VOD.

fernsita

actors deserve a cut. for surrrrrre.

Subgeniusguy

NO! Not unless they have the ability to negotiate it on the front-end. Let the market decide. The money should go to those who put up the capital and took on the risk to get the picture made.

Jay G.

That's what they, with the assistance of SAG, are doing.

Subgeniusguy

I mean with individual contracts.