The bottom line is ALL corporate CEO salaries should come down. There is no reason the CEO of a company like Netflix should make 50 million. None. Zero. I realize that there is a difference between base salary and stock options but still, we're talking some insane numbers here. It should just be a scale like everyone else works at. According to Indeed.com, the average Netflix salary ranges from approximately $74,559 per year for Supervisor to $380,000 per year for Video Engineer.

Their scale should top out at a $1 million for the CEO. If they can't find someone to do it for that, I'll happily take the money. Then that money saved can be used to reinvest in creators, products and fair streaming rights.

What I'm getting from the studio's AI argument is, they own a character, thus they own the character's likeness and voice. Example: Fox owns the character Jack Bauer. They can do whatever they want with the character using Sutherland's voice and likeness. The fact Sutherland and Bauer share the same likeness and voice is irrevelant. Like characters are real people or something. I don't think that argument would fly in court.
Studios wouldn't be able to introduce new characters using an AI likeness, but once an actor plays a character the studio owns, from then on they can use the actor's likeness and voice for that character using AI.
I don't buy it.

Sutherland: "Judge, they are using my voice and likeness, which I own, without my permission"
FOX: "Your honor, we are not using Mr. Sutherland's voice and likeness without his permission. We are using Jack Bauer's voice and likeness, which we own, and can do with what we want. Jack Bauer, being a fictional character who does not exist, has no ownership of his voice and likeness."

The AI arguement also would technically give the studios the right to make porn with Grace Kelly and Marilyn Monroe having sex with each other.

Hmm.. they're taping Celebrity WoF today.

It would have to be characters having sex with each other.

Agreed, though in many cases this wouldn't make that much difference in the pay downstream. The real issue is satisfying shareholders and endless growth, which kind of naturally squeezes expenses to maintain (or increase) profitability no matter what.

Still makes someone like Iger seem way out of touch when he calls the demands unreasonable while he's making their average yearly salary in two days.

At least with these strikes we don't have folks whining about how going to movies and streaming subs will cost more if they give the strikers what they want.

So there are going to be delays and maybe even cancellations of MCU, DCU and other superhero movies because of the strike?
If so, strike baby strike!

I'm sure the Legion of Screen Super Heroes will strike in support of the writers and actors. No word from Union of Cartoon Characters. The FEAA, Federation of Extraterestial Alien Actors haven't chimed in either. No word from Union of Animal Actors. Their president, Cocaine Bear, has no comment.

I mean yeah that and everything else too. Fans of foreign media, sports, and wrestling can cheer on though, I guess (wait... that describes me...).

I always forget about that. Fed rate goes up, pass it onto the consumer. If this UPS thing happens, it'll get passed on to the consumer (though existing contracts with places like Amazon might hurt that).

It's not that those at the top could be happy with an 19% rate on passive market investment, instead of a 19.5%. Imagine having to buy a 190 foot yacht instead of a 200 foot yacht. I mean, come on. I can't even.

This is one example of an actor who is struggling without residuals. Conor Leslie, who played Wonder Girl in Titans, just lost her health insurance because she didn’t even make $26K last year. Titans and The Man in the High Castle are locked up on streaming services and they aren’t paying anything. And Cobra is a fucking joke.

Instagram

I wonder if this will delay any movies that were planned to come out this year, like the new Ghostbusters movie which they've finished shooting. I'm guessing the actor's can't do any ADR required for the movie until the strike is over.

One of the articles on this on the New York Times website has a comment signed by Eric Bogosian (Is it really him? I don't know), but here it is:
Here's the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/b...rs-strike.html

Clint Eastwood's alleged last film Juror #2 was nearing completion but had to break for this. Knowing how fast his movies come out I wouldn't have been shocked if it was going to be released this year.

Ghostbusters was presumably one they would have been working on up to the last second so I think you might be right.

If a show or movie continues to make money for a studio in perpetuity, it should make money for everyone involved in creating it too. There’s a tangible benefit to having specific actors, directors, writers and showrunners working on a project and they should be compensated.

Why stop at shows/movies? Should this model be applied to all products in all industries?

I think that argument could be made in many cases. But we're not talking about all industries, we're talking about acting.

Right, but my point is if this isn't a thing in other industries - why should actors get special treatment?

The residual model also applies to recording artists, but from what I’ve heard they get lousy residuals from CD, digital sales and airplay on the radio.

There’s a ton of recording artists barely making it like working actors.

I’d say one difference is that actors move from project to project. If you’re a salaried employee, you would theoretically continue to benefit from your previous work for that company. Lots of caveats to that, of course.

I stopped reading after first line. Welcome to the real world, where no one gets paid for job interviews.

Do all products in all industries continue to make money in perpetuity for the company?

As someone who has both interviewed for jobs and done self-tapes, the process could not be more different.