113
Why SAG-AFTRA’s Streaming Revenue Sharing Proposal for Casts Was Flatly Rejected by AMPTP
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
113 points (94.5% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
3 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [[email protected]](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: [email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
“According to the group, the proposal gives performers their usual fixed residuals for streaming projects “also a new residual which ‘shares’ in revenue that is somehow attributed to the show.” The group added, “the Union proposes to ‘share’ in success, but not in failure. That is not sharing.” (Of course, before streaming entertainment arrived, actors did share in success but did not in failure — if a project was a hit and re-used or re-run, those performers were compensated with residuals beyond their upfront payments, but were not penalized if the project did poorly.”
This is the biggest sticking point apparently. The union seems to be asking for the same protection actors have historically had against failures. I don’t see a good reason in this article why they should be forced to share in failure when that has never been the case. The studio is, shockingly, just being greedy.
Actors absolutely take a hit when a project fails. Sure they aren't on the hook for budget overruns, but if a major project fails, the starring actors see a decrease in demand for their services and likely lower earnings from subsequent projects
which initially reading sounds like "I mean that's fair", but then no actually it's not. It's not their fault studios keep rejecting good ideas for movies and instead doing reboots ad neaseum, sequels of sequels, and boring bland flat stories. If studios are so worried about failures... maybe they need to stop making such crappy movies instead of blaming actors.
I agree with you in spirit but...
Those crappy movies make billions... The good movies are the risky ones!
Look at last year, of the top grossing movies the top one that was an original (non comic book, sequel or remake) was the 11th most porofitable (and Chinese so unsure if it was actually original.) The next? 16th overall, Elvis. Which pulled in 287 million, or about 12% of Avatar 2's take.
This year, well, we'll see what Barbie pulls but right now the top 9 box offices are all remakes, comic book movies or sequels.
So we can blame the studios all we like but our wallets seem to betray us, making those crappy movies the profitable ones.
Elvis was still part of a trend, though. While not an actual sequel or remake, it follows in the footsteps of prior successful musician-based biographical dramas like Rocketman or Bohemian Rhapsody.
Hey at least the top gun sequel was actually good. I don't think Sequels should be branded as crap movies by default, Sure F&F X and so forth are garbage but there are some genuinely good sequels too.
Just because it wasn't dogshit doesn't mean it was good. It was generic crap with a decent production value that appealed to a wide audience.
As if executives declare personal bankruptcy when a movie bombs.
I'm fairly certain executives don't get residuals, they are salaried employees.
Maybe, but what a salary.