Should all actors get profits from DVD sales?
 

I just read in Entertainment Weekly that there are looming strikes with the Writers, Actors, and Director's Guilds. Writers' contract ends in October with Actors and Director's in June 2008.

The main issue is them seeing more money from DVD sales and internet downloads.

With some actors (actresses) salaries already overwhelming amounts, do you think these same actors with the $10-20 million pay checks and back-end of gross movie reciepts (and some get DVD sales profits already) also see DVD profits?

I can see struggling actors who make an independent movie and then see a DVD become a cult and thus modest hit benefitting tremendously and would then hate to bias highly paid actors, but some of them make huge amounts already.

This is a complicated issue with a lot of variables, but the short answer is yes - actors should get residuals on DVD sales.

I also agree. Studios make a ton of money off of these people and, even though they also are swimming in dough, they made the film and are entitled to a % of the DVD sales.

Considering that the draw of a any film is most likely an actor, a director or a writer over a film studio, then yes, they should get paid a fair amount.

Joe Sixpack buys DVDs based on the guy whose face is on the box before most other factors, so yes.

Yes. And if it happens we may see a price increase on the DVD's we buy so inexpensively now, but Yes.

I think it's insane - when people get millions for the role and then even more millions of % from screenings. You think it's necessary to add some DVD sales %? Look at the stars now - they won't move their finger for a salary if it's not 7 figures or sometimes even 8. I think that corrupts. Same thing with sportsmen. Independent fimmakers is a different strory. But it's all a matter of contracts etc. Anyway I think it should be either one or another. Get % or your instant millions.

If it means preventing a work stoppage, then yes.

No. They're getting too much money as it is.

The $ has to go somewhere, why should the studio get all of it?

The actors get compensated for theatre revenue, why should they not be compensated for home video revenue?

YES, actors should get a % of the profits.

Not automatically.

If the studio wants the actor or creative team that bad, they should be willing to pony up the %. Although I think it makes more sense for the creative team to get a % since it would be like them getting money after they have proven their worth whereas the studio probably has a better idea of how useful the actor is upfront.

Yes, alot of movies are bought mainly based on the fact that a particular actor/actress is in the movie. They should be compensated for their name selling a particular movie.

Leave it up to the individual studios/actors/contracts. I don't think a blanket yes/no answer is really needed in this situation.

If they do, I won't buy any more Ashton Kutcher movies.

Very few actors get multi million dollar paychecks so yes, yes they should.

LOL!

WHAT??? So we won't see any more of the stellar films being released these days? No Oceans 14?....No Shreck the 4th??....No Pirates of the Carribean 7???....No Spider Man 9????....Say it ain't so!

I don't know about that, but they did mention that studios are rushing production schedules for the June 2008 deadline.

There should be some sort of formula for fuguring out an actor's pay for DVD sales. The ratio of head size on the DVD cover should directly relate to the actor's paycheck.

Considering that the vast majority of actors don't receive million dollar paychecks, yes.

I don't get a million dollar paycheck from my employer. Should I get a cut of every insurance policy they sell?

You people need to think about what you are saying. These actors work for what their contracts state. You keep saying that they should get paid because people buy movies that they are in and you are right about that, but they are getting paid its called their salary. Are you saying that they are under-paid? Well maybe some are but it is their choice to work for their CONTRACTED amount. Why should a studio pay them more money just because a movie they are in becomes a hit? I can assure you that they will get offered more to make a sequel of the hit so they will be compensated. As to all of the money that the studios are making and why they shouldn't be allowed to keep it (according to some of you). You have to remember that the studios are the ones taking the risks. To them, it is really just like the stock market, they are investing in a project (stock) and if the project pays off, they get the dividend. If the project tanks, the actors still get paid for their work but the studio loses money.

How about this, for those of you that think the actors should get more money because of DVD sales, should they have to pay the studios back if the movie tanks? I mean, lets be fair here.

While it's true that actors should get paid what they were contracted for, it's equally true that actors have a right to negotiate that contract. However, the vast majority of actors don't have the weight to influence studios themselves, thus why they banded together to form a guild, which represents their interests. Lots of actors don't get paid any more than what the standard guild rates are, so if the majority of members of the guild think they they deserve a bit of DVD and internet revenue, just as they already get a bit of TV and VHS revenue, then the guild has every right to negotiate for that.

A lot of people are missing the point by talking about movie stars in this thread. Movie stars typically aren't affected by the guild rates; they negotiate for salaries and profit sharing far in excess of the guild minimums. Even if SAG gets everything they want from these negotiations, it's doubtful an actor like Tom Cruise will see a dime more from his next film than he would've gotten anyway.

Don't the insurance agents for your company get a cut of the insurance policies they sell?

What compensation an employee receives is usually not dependent on what they "should" get, but rather what the company deems is the lowest compensation they can give, while still getting decent employees. I personally think every employee of every company should get a cut of the profits while they're there, based on their relative worth to the company. Now, that's not really ever likely to happen. However, I'm not going to begrudge actors for trying to get the most compensation they can.