Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

The notion of residuals in the entertainment business really stemmed from our technological progress to record and distribute entertainment.

It's interesting that in today's market musicians have largely turned to live performances to generate most of their direct music-related revenue but at the same time this model does not provide the luxury of residuals after the tour has finished.

This is where physical media really helped quantify payment as there were hard numbers to work with. With monthly streaming subscriptions it's much more vague as to what movies, TV shows and songs are really driving-up (or driving-down) the $10/month subscription rates.

Once subscription numbers eventually flatline (which they will) where does the industry go next in search of ever-expanding growth?

For the sake of fairness, should a plumber get a per-flush royalty from every toilet they installed in perpetuity? :shrug:

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Not trying to be a jerk but I don't understand why it's hard for people to understand that the union has bargained for residuals in the past and the film industry recognized their talent was needed and thus agreed to pay them. Plumber unions are certainly welcome to do the same if they like but chances are the plumbing industry would see them as more dispensable than Hollywood has traditionally viewed actors. However, I am certain that plumbers have successfully negotiated for compensation, work standards, and benefits in different ways. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

This is really interesting and I wasn't aware of it :Tiny, Oscar-winning A24 has agreed to every SAG-AFTRA demand. No reason Disney, Sony, Netflix, Universal and Warner couldn't as well.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

The entire concept of residuals is dependent on an acceptance that artistic creation holds a special value to society. The idea is that actors and writers and creators are bringing something unique from their minds and souls to the artistic work that is the very reason the work has value at all, and continues to have value in perpetuity.

The normal rules of how a person exchanges their labor in return for financial compensation do not apply. Why? Because it was decided 60+ years ago that they don't, and everyone has accepted it.

The entertainment creation industry is now set up so that the promise of residuals are built into compensation expectations.

It is like how tipping is built into the salaries of waitpersons. Who, how, and when was it decided that in certain restaurant situations tipping is absolutely expected, but in others, tipping is out of the question? Why don't we just eliminate the practice of tipping and have all the restaurants pay their employees what is necessary to attract people to do the job with a living hourly wage?

Similarly, Writers and actors could all just be paid more for their work up front, without the promise of more money coming down the line.

But residuals are like performance bonuses. You pay an athlete a certain amount, but then promise them more at the end of the season if they meet performance metrics. The pay follows the quality of the work produced.
If you create, write, or act in a TV show that nobody ever wants to watch, you don't get any money down the line. The residuals are the performance bonus built into the system.
Tips are performance bonuses. If you are getting paid $3 an hour to wait tables in a diner, you get that money just for being there. Customers have to show up so you can perform service and get the tip money as compensation.

Theoretically, an architect could claim that their personal creativity and artistry add value to a house in perpetuity, and demand a percentage every time the house is resold for a greater and greater amount. But it won't happen unless society agrees that the underlying concept of the architect's claim is valid.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Imagine if America joined the rest of the world and that wasn't even an issue......

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Here's a question that I don't see asked - for "properties" and "serieses," how DO they 'make big bucks'..?

Movies take in box office receipts (and the percentage of that that's 'profit' is debatable) and sell discs. Shows sell discs eventually - though not many Netflix ones get released - so is it all through licensing or subscriptions?

How does one quantify WHICH series has contributed sppecifically to an icrease in subscribers? I assume that's why the reported Netflix royalty/residual statements are pennies - surely it's Subscriber-Based Income divided by Stuff On Netflix (adjusted by algorithm), which will then be sub-divided by actors (etc.) in all those shows... equals Pennies.

Licensing fees for toys and shirts bring in income - but if I buy a Game of Thrones t-shirt with a quote on it that was written by GRRM, filtered into a script by A Writer and then 'made famous' by An Actor... assuming there's any money forwarded to anyone, who gets (or deserves) it? And would the relevance even matter - if it's GoT, then maybe it gets split amongst everyone...

Nevermind that the beauty (and achille's heel) of streaming services includes that if they make their own stuff, they don't pay licensing fees, they just pay the Making costs - so there's an eliminated step for anyone to be paid from. And not having to resell syndication rights (or make DVDs) may eliminate more inbound revenue streams - potentially limiting the profit from the show, and definitely limiting the methods from which participants might expect residual payments.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Right.

So among the many problems involved now is the relatively-low cost subscribers are paying, the fact that it isn't specific to a given show and above-all the effective elimination of commercials for many viewers.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Precisely the problem - and neither answer is likely to be good... for anyone.

It could well be that the free-for-all 'watch what you want' as much as you like is stopped in one of several ways. Fewer screen limits and more 'watchable hours' limits (i.e. what you pay determines how many hours you can watch per month) for instance. Or a requirement to have customers rent specific programs rather than pay a monthly fee for everything.. which would defeat the point of the streaming platforms for most. Or we might never have access to underseen shows and films ever again because they aren't worth the effort for the companies to host.

Frankly all of those options also sound horrendous. No wonder there are difficulties making the necessary compromises.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Someone should ask Shatner or George Takei, too. Wouldn't Star Trek be another series that didn't originally get residuals, but then later become a backbone for an expanded universe of shows and films..? Comparing and contrasting their initial salaries and subsequent payments would be fascinating.

If wildly invasive.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

I agree but only art that is physically recorded or printed has the means of generating future economic value.

These rules were written in a time when network TV just started and there was no foresight into re-runs, broadcasting all around the world, home video, spin-off merchandising, theme park ride kick-backs etc. Movies played for a short period of time in theatres and disappeared. The better ones played in revival theatres and then network TV. Back then no one saw the unlimited potential that we see so clearly today given to us by the advancements of technology.

I had a buddy who worked on a Disney production as a supporting actor 30 years ago and at that time there was a non-negotiable 110% buy-out which meant no future residuals or a cut of the back-end, merchandising etc. I'm not sure where that model of business sits in today's market.

Sports are a different beast; Aaron Rogers staged an incredible Superbowl performance in 2011 for the Green Bay Packers which was well-earned for its time but that success no longer directly impacts the financial success of the Green Bay Packers organization and owners in 2023.

Depending on how shrewd his agent is, I don't imagine Aaron Rogers is still receiving residuals for his hard work because the Green Bay Packers organization is no longer generating any direct revenue from his past Superbowl victory. As amazing and memorable as that game was, it is something which could not be re-packaged and sold over and over making it residual-worthy.

Playing Devil's advocate for the studios with regards to residuals, their revenue for old films and TV shows has diminished with streaming so those diminishing returns are bound to filter down. If I was once making a fortune on Blackberry stock back in 2008, should I still be demanding those same dividends in 2023?

I'm sure they're working on it. It's sad that our society sees architecture as disposable but I guess that happens when the canvas becomes worth so much more than the paint.

I don't pretend to know all of the nuanced ins-and-outs of the industry and the unions but it's scary when we've seen technology reward so many people in the industry and now we're seeing the negative side of it.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

No need to pry.

Shatner himself has confirmed that the cast has never received residuals for their work on TOS.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Oh, really? I knew it was made before residuals became standard practice, but had assumed that a series made before the agreements that was rerun after they came into effect would yield something.. that's interesting.

What about movies made before there were agreements..?

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

The early days of television were a new frontier, and, at the time, I don't think there was a lot of thought about the programs they were producing having replay value. Television was seen as a sort of ephemeral medium, and nobody in the 1950s and 1960s probably thought anyone would be watching things like I Love Lucy, The Twilight Zone, and Star Trek sixty years later.

And, considering all of the revenue that Star Trek TOS has brought to Paramount, it's shitty of them to not at least throw the cast some residuals.

One interesting thing is that it the actors' unions are probably at least partially responsible for all of the 1960s Doctor Who episodes getting trashed. At the time, the various unions were not keen on programs being re-aired; instead they thought they should be re-staged and re-filmed instead of being replayed, making tv episodes into something akin to stage productions. And the BBC itself didn't see much value in their old programming, since they were tossing the film reels out of storage into the 1970s, even though Doctor Who was still airing. (It was BBC policy to junk their old content, and not limited to Doctor Who. Early episodes of the The Avengers were also trashed, and Monty Python's Flying Circus only survived because someone at the BBC sent their copies to Terry Gilliam.)

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

I certainly hope not because it will be very hard for me to get a plumber once they find out I suffer from constipation.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

The reason is all of the others are publicly traded companies with a major streaming services (except Sony on streaming).

A24 puts the art on at least equal level as commerce. Which is why I hope they don’t ever sell (which has been the rumored to happen).

I posted an article the other day with a link to other productions getting waivers: https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk...l#post14298235

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Actors (and writers?) getting back to work on projects from the indies who signed off on the demands of the unions could, possibly, be have more leverage against the studios holding out than just striking.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Kudos to A24 ... love their stuff!

Except for The Lodge. Fuck The Lodge with residual 'fuck it's in perpetuity. ;)

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Totally not ... I get it. Not a 100% equal comparison, but acting is kind of like my umpiring "hobby." Last week I traveled and made $1,400 (plus expenses) for four days of work. Calculate that out and it seems like a pretty damned sweet gig! Except ... I can't do that every day or even every week. The season only lasts a few months and tournaments typically only happen over weekends. So while somebody on a show might make a few grand for a few days worth of work, they are working 14 hour days over that time period and then may not get any work again for months.

I do believe with all my being though, that the workers across our entire society need to focus more on back-end profit sharing. I don't care what field or craft you are in. That is a societal and cultural shift we need.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

A24 didn’t release The Lodge.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

My point was not to stand up for the correctness of the system, but just to point out that as far as almost every actor living and working today goes, that is the system. They have never known anything else, and they all accept that it is how it should be.

Like i have posted earlier, Mandy Moore can show off that she made a dollar in residuals, and we all know that a dollar is nothing, but the other side of the question is why does she think her work from a decade ago is worth anything?

I really am not advocating. I truly am saying that the entire system deserves to be questioned, especially as you point out, since the world of content delivery has changed so drastically.


I think you missed the point of my comparison.

Aaron Rogers received a fortune to play QB for the Packers based on his previous performance and the expectation that he would continue to perform at that level. But his contract also included a fortune in incentives. The incentives or performance bonuses pay out on the back end. If Rogers has a shitty season and the Pack has a losing record, he doesn't get money. If he is MVP and they win the Superbowl, he rakes in the bucks.

In that way, performance based incentives are like residuals. Actors have internalized the idea that they are gambling on getting paid on the back end if the show keeps performing. When Julia Louis-Dreyfus was starring on the NBC sitcom "Day by Day," I'm sure she hoped that it would be a big hit like "Family Ties" and run in syndication, so she could make residuals, but that money never materialized. The money she got was what she was paid at the time, and that was it. She gambled again with "Seinfeld" and hit the jackpot because the show performed and continues to perform.
[/QUOTE]

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Lucy and Desi had the foresight, or the gambler's instinct, to bet on "I Love Lucy" having rewatch value before people thought much about that. That's why Desilu invested in filming the shows with high quality image versus how shitty most sitcoms from that era look. And they produced the show as Desilu, and retained the rights to it, instead of becoming employees of CBS and CBS owning the show. But again that meant them putting their own money into the show.

Or Paramount could pay a bunch of not-so-talented actors from a failed TV series to make six major motion pictures.

Also, as James Doohan figured out, even if wasn't still getting paid for TOS years later, the continued interest in the show made him valuable as a celebrity, and there were ways to make money off of that.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

This is pretty cool. Great to see.

Twitter

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Sports is a pretty odd one to include. This is not true for all players but a player like Aaron Rodgers leading his team to a SB absolutely still affects the value of the GB Packers as a franchise today; even if they didn't sell a single new video or jersey or whatever today, there are people who became ardent fans and supporters because of that. A superstar like that is way underpaid compared to his overall value to the franchise over time.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

Around 60-something films and TV shows were granted interim agreements by the SAG-AFTRA union and are allowed to resume production. These production companies are not affiliated with the AMPTP.

https://deadline.com/feature/sag-aft...73e828aa12daf1

I've read some anonymous comments from "actors" who aren't happy with this because they think it defeats the purpose of the strike when you're letting some actors work while most aren't.

Re: Screen Actors Strike 2023
 

I don't see the need to compare football players to actors, but isn't the NFL a perfect example for using players and treating them like garbage when they lose their worth for the team. Most players have very short-lived career, they ruin their bodies and didn't earn enough to be set for life. Most players aren't Tom Cruise or Denzel Washington, most of them are baristas who received brain damage or a knee injury while acting on an episode of Criminal Minds.