|
Mordiceius posted:Spring is already hosed. We're not getting anything new on TV until next fall. Network shows could spin up and deliver episodes in under a month for hourlong dramas. I've worked on network shows where post would get (rightfully) antsy if there wasn't a midday film drop because that half day represented a significant amount of their lead time.
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2023 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Dawgstar posted:They couldn't even, as their stated goal said, starve out the writers and the writers were even more broke. Not sure if the shiny A-listers are keeping the strike fund up (unlikely), but SAG is the longest tail distribution you can imagine. If you read the proposals, around half of the language surrounds things like getting paid more for bringing your own costumes because that's the reality most of their membership deals with. 86% of SAG members make less than $26,000 from acting per year. It means they're somewhat more equipped to deal with a strike because they almost universally have day jobs, but they're also scrapping against the rest of the industry who have been out of work. Probably the worst off of their membership are newly minted series regulars, who may have just uprooted and resettled in LA/NY/Atlanta/Vancouver and don't have a foothold in other industries in those expensive rear end cities.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2023 06:42
|
|
|
I've heard there are a few shows spinning up prep this week. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2023 02:34
|
|
|
it is a trillion times cheaper to get lookalike bg with lookalike costumes than to digitally insert them into a reshot scene. That's hundreds to thousands of vfx work hours vs 1-25 bg getting $20/hr. the endgame of the ai push from the studios is that they'll always have their favorite a-listers available to "work" as digital copies and it becomes much easier to bid their salaries down when they don't even have to show up to set
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2023 04:41
|
|
|
it's good to consider the rule of thumb for film budgeting: half above the line, half below. actors, directors, and producers take half the budget up front. Any extra money in the contract going to bg and dayplayers is pocket change. the provisions about paying bg to stay home while they add in a vfx replacement are about as likely to be used as ones applying to shooting on the moon but the amptp understands that bg are 90% of the voting base
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2023 05:07
|
|
|
The first half of that thread is bananas. Actors basically never get to choose their own hair, makeup, wardrobe, or blocking.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:I think from reading the tweet thread the specific fear was that they could do things like decide your character would look better if they were smiling more, if they were posed differently or if they read the line just a little happier, and hey let's let the AI punch it up and see. The director/producer can do this to an actor at any time while filming and the actor is made to read whatever terrible lines a writer can come up with. It's such a super super super edge case. Changing things on an A-lister will run up against whatever provisions they have in excess of the boilerplate SAG contract. Changing things on a B-lister or below would be much more expensive (for now) than just reshooting them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
Here's a perfectly legal thing that I've watched happen. A very good actress who's been in and led some very high profile projects was cast as the #4 in a big tv show for 8 months of filming. In the middle of month 5, the studio replaces her with a different actress playing a somewhat different version of the same character. Spending five months in another state on a project your face will never be in absolutely hurts your future casting potential way more than making your smile 23% larger or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 06:30
|
|
|
From my point of view from the AD/production side, there are very very few circumstances where using a digital replica would be cheaper than a call back, especially in this contract period. I've written a bit in this thread about it. If it does come to pass, the studio is supposed to try a call back before using your replica and they could play schedule games with paying you for fewer hours or days than you would have worked, but you would have already had to have been established as featured but not be as visible in the later scenes to necessitate very accurate (expensive) vfx to create a new performance for you. On the other hand, even though studios are required to get permission per project for digital replicas, they don't have to pay punitive damages for violations, so we'll see if they try to break those. Happy to see that photo doubles who have to read for lazy principals in reverse shots get a $150 bump though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
Yeah 48% voted to strike but only 38% voted on the contract. Historic contract voting: 2020: 27% 2017: 15% 2014: 14% SAG is hard to compare to other unions because only 12% of members work more than 100 days a year/make more than $26k.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:And this is WITH a Union, loving hell There's a lot that factors in, but the big one is that you have to stay current on dues ($250/yr+1.6% of your gross) to receive residuals and be eligible for SAG roles. If you lapse, you have to pay $3k to get back in (don't worry, SAG will put you on a payment plan with interest). The very hosed part is that 1.6% caps out at $1600/yr. Tom Cruise and Chris Pratt pay $1850/yr to SAG and a no name rando making $50k pays $1050/yr, so the vast majority of dues come from the poorest members.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2023 11:02
|
|
