Jay G.

That's close to what's happening, but not quite.

From an article I've found:
http://www.backstage.com/bso/news_re..._id=1002075845
The idea that the costs of manufacturing of VHS was so expensive, apparently around 80% of the price sold they at, that SAG and other guilds allowed the studios to exclude that 80% from the "revenue" they extracted the various guild's residuals from.

So, for the residuals that I mentioned before, SAG gets 5% of 20%, or around 1%.

As home video has migrated to DVD and downloads, manufacturing costs have decreased, yet studios still exclude the maximum 80% of revenue from the guild residual calculations, basically pocketing all the extra profits from reduced costs, without passing even a percentage of that savings back to the actors, directors, writers, etc.

It's similar to how record companies initially gave less royalties from the sell of a CD than the sell of a cassette, since they reasoned that CDs were a new technology that cost more. However, as the costs of CDs decreased to eventually being much less than the costs of cassettes, the record companies kept CDs at reduced royalties to the artists because they liked the extra profit and didn't want to share.

The SAG and other guilds just want residual calculations that are more on par with the actual new costs of the new media formats.

From a Variety article I've found:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117915521.html
This obviously isn't an example of people with mansions and limos wanting more cash to burn; this is an example of people wanting some extra money for things like health care while they wander from audition to audition in hopes of the next job.

Jay G.

The vast majority of individual actors don't have the clout to even get what they're getting now if it was all decided on a case-by-case basis. That's why guilds exist: to pool all the relatively small clout of tens of thousands of people into an entity that actually does have enough clout to make changes in their contracts.

lordwow

I understand this, and I sort of have to support what the SAG does. What I disagree with though is the rigid structure that the SAG impliments. I need an actor for a film, oh sorry, I can't use anyone in the SAG because it's a violation of their memebership unless I pay them what the SAG considers their minimum wage (which is a lot for an indy film). SAG actors have huge problems to even volunteer their time for projects.

It's just the ridiculous rules that everyone has to follow in Hollywood that irrate me, and it's not just the small guys either, remember that George Lucas left the DGA after they wouldn't let him not put his own name at the beginning of Star Wars.

Jah-Wren Ryel

FWIW, no SAG member has ever been punished for working outside of the union on "indie" projects. I think it may even be true that no SAG member has ever been punished for working outside of the union period.

wm lopez

So here's an example:
Let say it's 1973 and your the producer and you take a chance and invest your money on Bruce Lee's movie ENTER THE DRAGON. It's a hit he gets paid you make money.
Now it's the 80's and your putting out that movie on VHS tape.
Now it's the 90's and your putting out that movie on laserdiscs.
Now it's the 21st century and you have dvds & HD dvds.
Why should the studio or producer have to pay the actor again?
And why stop with the lead actor and not the whole crew the names appear the credits?

lordwow

That's not accurate.

kintnerboy

Wow, no love for the writers here? They're the ones who are really screwed. I read on a WGA board a while ago that the average residual for a dvd is around 5 cents. The rate is a holdover from the days when VHS was in it's infancy, before there was any real revenue from home video.

Dvd sales are the #1 issue on the table when the writer's start re-negotiating next month. Really, all forms of digital distribution, since by the time this new contract expires, video downloading may be a viable ancillary market.

As far as the actors and directors go, it's only the top .05% that get the real money. Guys like Spielberg, Cruise and Fincher get as much as $2.00 per dvd. And I've heard that Clint Eastwood forgoes his upfront fees in favor of a majority share of the dvds (which is why Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby came out in super deluxe 3 disc editions).

This is all well and good, somebody's got to be rich, except that the studios are telling the writers that they can't possibly reserve more than 20% of the dvd profits for residuals, when it's obvious that that's not true. If A list actors can demand more, than so should A list writers. The problem is, dvd sales, unlike gross domestic box office reciepts, are not public information, yet.

Jay G.

I do understand that SAG and the other unions may have rules that are too strict or expensive for some indies to follow, and that the unions may too often follow the letter of the law instead of the spirit.

There's a great example in the movie The Wizard of Speed and Time where the main character, a do-it-yourself indie filmmaker, is basically a writer-director-actor-musician all wrapped up in one. As a result he becomes apparently liable to all the rules of the various unions and none of the benefits, and goes bouncing from one union to the next accumulating red tape.

However, considering that the unions are designed primarily as a defense against the major studios, it's probably in their best interest, and the best interest of their members, to be too restrictive rather than not restrictive enough, and allow a loophole to appear that the studios could, and would, exploit.

In any case, none of this really has to do with whether or not actors deserve (more) money from DVD sales.

Actually, the DGA allowed him to do it for Star Wars. It's when Lucas wanted to do the same for The Empire Strikes Back, a film he didn't direct, that the DGA balked.

Jay G.

Well, for your example, the producers wouldn't have to pay out a percentage of VHS, LD, DVD, or future format revenue, since the movie was made before home video residuals were part of a standard SAG contract. The producers would have to pay residuals from revenue generated by TV showings, as per the original contracts signed by the producers and actors.

Well, residuals don't stop with the lead actor; all the actors in the film get a share of the residuals SAG collects from the film. Writers and directors get residuals as well, as their respective unions, the WGA and DGA, have negotiated for them.

rexinnih

short answer, yes.

Simpson Purist

As long as the DVD prices aren't jacked up by $20-$40 as a result, then I'm all for actors getting a share of the profits.

lordwow

Ya, but you can only cut the pie so thin. The studios and possibly the producers are the ones currently profiting off the DVD releases, unless there's an actor or writer on board who negotiated rights to profits individually. The studios still want that profit, and they have to give more of the money that was initially going to them to the actors, that money is going somewhere else.

And for the record, IMO, if anyone deserves better payouts, it's the crew, they're making far less than the actors.

Mikael79

I think it's very hard for me to be able to say whether or not all actors should get a piece of the pie, because most of the stats aren't available for the public to see, as far as who gets what, etc.

Breakfast with Girls

Ah, you're right. But I think if anyone should be paid more, it should be the crew.

Peep

I think that it's funny that the actors have so little control over future revenue streams and muscians have so much. DVD releases can be held up for years because of music rights.

lordwow

QFT, I said this earlier, and stand by it. No one here: Directors, Actors, or Producers are getting shafted as badly as the crew.

Seantn

For the people who say "Actors get paid too much money as it is" <---

THIS STRIKE IS NOT ABOUT THE BIG CELEBRITIES.

There are over 100,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild. Most of them aren't celebrities. A lot of them average under $1,000 a year from acting (most of them in fact). A lot of them make $20,000-$40,000 while working a side job to support their families. These are the people who are working to get DVD residuals. And yes, they fully deserve it. It's not even tons of money, but if they work on a project, and the studio continues to make money off of their work, then yes they deserve to be compensated over the years of it's existence. They do it for TV and Film already, but since DVD is a new area of entertainment (well, relatively new, and the rules haven't been changed much), actors still don't get a good deal on DVD's.

If you're not in the industry or know how it works, i'm not sure i'd expect anyone to care about it. But it's an issue that's improtant to a lot of actors. And most of them don't make millions per year, they might make less than you do. The actors who work for 1 or 2 days on a big film deserve to be compensated from the sales of the film just as the stars of the film do. They base the residuals off of how many days you worked on the movie.

Jay G.

I have love for the writers, I was trying to stay on-topic. Basically everything I said about actors applies to writers, directors, and really the rest of the crew as well.

Jay G.

The musicians themselves typically don't have much control either. It's typically the record companies that finagle for those big fees for music rights.

However, musicians at least get royalties in perpetuity for all the ways their recordings make money, and they often regain the music rights to their music after a length of time.

starman9000

I don't know, my friend acted on an episode of a syndicated TV series, and yes, he gets a check every now and then for like 3$. I don't think it matters to him that much. The people making 1,000$ a year acting aren't really going to benefit from this, but the people already making a decent living at it will.

BuckNaked2k

Oh Irony! It probably costs around $12 to cut and issue that check!

PopcornTreeCt

It's a tough debate. I'm partial to the studios as they don't seem to make a whole lot on theatrical releases nowadays. And this would suck to have DVDs go up in price.

Silverscreenvid

The overwhelming majority of SAG actors aren't rich. Many of them are struggling, some make modest incomes, a number make decent but not huge money ($50-200000 a year, which they give part to agents, managers, etc) and there are a handful of the very rich.

Other than the cream of the crop, these others have very little say in negotiating deals, especially for ancillary rights. Ironically, for a lot of DVD's, the ancillary money from DVD, PPV and HBO broadcasts are the only profit available. In a lot of cases, the only reason these low budget films are successful on video is because of the efforts of those no-name actors (and the equally no-name writers and directors) who create enough of a demand for a particular title to make it profitable.

There's no way going into a low-budget indie or direct-to-video project that these actors can be in a bargaining position because no one knows before hand whether they will be successful. The only way that they will get their fair share is through negotiations like this.

In most cases, they still won't be getting rich. But at least someone who is partially responsible for a TV series popularity that could span for decades will get some of that money.

wm lopez

Not fair, what if the movie was a box-office bomb like HOWARD THE DUCK and you lost money and now home video is the only way to make money. So now you have to split the money that you do make with actors in years to come?
How do you make money if you produce a movie?
A star actor could get $20 million a movie even if the movie bombs and he still wants more?
That means as a producer I'm only making independent films overseas or in mexico.

BuckNaked2k