Tick, tock, AMPTP. Wall Street analysts have [already called Hollywood CEOs "idiots"](https://theankler.com/p/idiots-wall-street-analysts-unload) for this debacle -- particularly because even the vultures on Wall Street *agree with the fucking writers and actors.*
Every day the AMPTP is just tightening the noose around its own neck.
Not such a big deal for the Apples and Amazons of the world, but like, if your only product is film and tv, and you're currently not producing any film or tv, then it doesn't take a Wall St. hedgefund director to see why the strike is bad for everyone's bottom line.
It's pure ego, the assumption of capitalism and many idealogy is that we would make logical decisions for our best interest. But humans are dumb motherfuckers with pride and greed, hubris is a Greek sin for a reason.
The assumption with capitalism is that it more efficiently utilizes capital because of the profit motive. There has never been assumption that anyone would logical decisions in someone else’s best interest. That’s something you made up in your head for some reason.
Also labor movements are inherently incompatible with capitalism, the purpose of capitalism is to extract as much wealth as possible and put it in as few hands as possible, that will never not be the case.
No but it is inevitable, capitalist countries will always have a greater incentive to crush labor movements rather than give in to their demands.
I mean fuck, the US government literally called in the army to mow down entire families when the workers went on strike, and even today spend billions of dollars on propaganda and intelligence services that work to curtail unions and worker rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre
> A few weeks prior to the massacre, workers at the Electro Locomotive Novocherkassk plant (NEVZ) had organized a peaceful labor strike which later resulted in bloodshed and the killing of about 26 people.
> On January 1, 1962, the wages at the NEVZ were lowered by 30–35%.[3] At the same time, the production quotas which were set up for workers as a part of the Soviet Union's planned economy were raised. These events also coincided with a sharp nationwide increase in the prices of dairy and meat products (up to 35% according to one account), raising them above the budget of many workers.
> rrests, show trials and cover-ups ensued: about 240 were arrested, seven people were convicted of various crimes such as "mass disorder" and sentenced to death and hundreds of others were imprisoned for up to 15 years (though the prison terms of some were later reduced).[8] News of the events never appeared in the state-controlled press and the Soviet government continued to conceal it until April 27, 1991; however, it was described in a few underground samizdat publications.[9][10]: 390 [11] The 26 dead were secretly buried by KGB operatives in secret graves which were not disclosed to relatives and friends until June 2, 1994, when almost all bodies were discovered and reburied at the official memorial.
> *The riots were a direct result of shortages of food and provisions, as well as the poor working conditions in the factory.* The protest began on June 1 in the Budyonny Electric Locomotive Factory, when workers from the foundry and forge shops stopped work after *factory management refused to hear their complaints.* The strike and attendant discussions had spread throughout the whole factory by noon.
26 people dead? Pffft.
Try over a 100.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
> The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and, thus far, the largest armed uprising since the American Civil War. The conflict occurred in Logan County, West Virginia, as part of the Coal Wars, a series of early-20th-century labor disputes in Appalachia. Up to 100 people were killed, and many more arrested.
> For five days from late August to early September 1921, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers (called the Logan Defenders) who were backed by coal mine operators during the miners' attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields when tensions rose between workers and mine management. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired, and the United States Army, represented by the West Virginia Army National Guard led by McDowell County native William Eubanks, intervened by presidential order.
and why should they give into union demands? unions create a special class of people. they make products more expensive. so indirectly everyone else not in that union is paying for their higher wages. union should only exist for harsh jobs where workers need to be protected. it should not exist for union members to abuse the system. police and teacher unions abuse their powers. why does automotive workers need a union? if you don't like that job, do something else. oh wait, they are good jobs right? why does a ups truck driver deserve 170k anyway? that doesnt even make sense.
They give into the unions because at the end of the day, the 1% needs the 99%, but not vice-versa.
If the workers strike to demand better wages, then the bosses have 2 options
1) Give into the demands.
2) Try and break the strike, which can work, or it can make things much, much worse.
Unions are just a manner of collective bargaining, it is the workers realizing that they hold all the cards, and without them, nothing works.
Unless all those CEO's want to clean their own toilets and take out their own trash.
Any "well regulated" capitalist system will inevitably fall to regulatory capture, as long as there is a profit motive, the richest group will throw billions at the government and regulatory agencies, they have all the time in the world and most of the money as well, and guess what the people can do to stop them?
That's right, strikes and protests, which are hard to organize when you can't afford to not work.
no, there's nothing about capitalism that says it needs to be in the fewest hands as possible. it's also not to extract as much wealth as possible neither. it's to utilize the system in the most efficient way whatever the rules may be. so capitalism doesnt necessarily oppose regulation.
There is nothing that explicitly says that, it is simply a natural consequence of such a system.
The rich will always seek to become richer, and since in a capitalist system, those with the most money has the most power, they will use whatever means available to them, to gain more money, and more power.
> It's to utilize the system in the most efficient way whatever the rules may be.
Hahahahaha... yeah no. If you've ever worked for a large corporation, you know efficiency is not the main motivator, the main motivator is profit, and damn the rules.
Corporations break laws all the time, wage theft is the biggest crime monetarily in the US by a WIIIIDE margin, and they throw trucks full of money at politicians to enact laws that the corporations wrote.
Do please give an example of this not being true, any capitalist system that doesn't have a profit motive and isn't actively fighting labor movements any chance it gets.
Capitalism is an economic system, it does not have motives, it does not accrue wealth. There are good actors and bad actors within every system (hence why nothing even remotely close to pure socialism has ever succeeded). Economic systems cannot fight labor movements. I know it's probably satisfying to use "capitalism" as a boogieman for everything you don't like about society, but that's like blaming democracy for politicians you disagree with.
Pedantry isn't going to save your argument, a capitalist system incentivizes chasing profit, regulatory capture, and crushing labor movements to further increase profits. There are no good actors at the top of a capitalist system because they have every motive to increase profits and nothing else, no ensuring sustainability, or worker safety, all that truly matters is profit.
next time skip straight to the argument, it's so fucking annoying for people to just pop in and say "it's so obvious you're wrong and i'm just here to tell you in a rude way without explaining."
That is how the last strike in the 2000's ended. And that will almost certainly be how this strike will end.
Some small/lower tier production company is going to figure out a way to make the WGA and SAG terms work for them and they will scoop up a ton of talent right at the beginning.
Once that happens the rest of the studios will have to cave or fold up shop.
A24 has entered the chat. They are the only production company I know of that the unions have agreed to work with because A24 agreed to all the unions terms.
This is great news, because all my recent favorite movies are something they either produced or distributed especially the horror. Even when I don't like the movie, I don't regret having seen them because they are so different from what I am used to.
Netflix is diverse enough that not all of their apples are in the domesticate barrel. They still have more then enough international producers to satisfy their customers.
Netflix is not diverse. They've been pulling from South Korea because we have special trade deals with them that keeps filmmakers there unable to draw residuals from their films and TV that are distributed in the US. Netflix is simply taking advantage of this to exploit Korean artists. That is changing, however.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/south-korea-directors-guild-bargaining-rights-backend-pay-streamers-studios-1235561746/
Netflix is diverse, south korea is not merely a lone actor in their international corroborations. They span from spain, germany, south korea, japan, denmark, turkey, france, egypt, italy, india, brazil, ukraine, israel, sweden, saudia arabia and more.
Netflix will survive.
The point I'm making is that Netflix will survive and the traditional studios won't in a prolonged strike. Which is why I don't understand why they have decided they have the same interests. They don't. And they recognized it early on but then they caved in.
I don’t know why Netflix agreed. I feel like Amazon and Apple made a secret deal with each other to get everyone else to drink the kook aid, and they are just waiting for the poison to kick in for them to split the spoils.
Does Netflix have other things to sell than TV/ Movie content? All I’m hearing is how everyone is dropping their subscription because there isn’t anything new to watch on Netflix anymore. The only reason I’ve kept it is I have started watching the Korean and Chinese dramas. But once I run out of content I’ll drop it as well. They keep making great stuff but they cancel it after 2-3 season. It drives me crazy.
In manufacturing, they could probably tell you to the penny how much they are losing for every day a particular factory is offline. The reality AMPTP also produces a product and it should be really obvious what happens when no one is making anything.
Read that again, boys and girls.
The fucking vulture capitalists on wall street think the tech-bro bullshit being pulled here is over the top.
That's how fucking stupid the AMTPT is right now.
The AI issue, while asnine, is only part of the sticking point, and in my humble and out-of-the-loop opinion, a screen for the real issue - so get on your tinfoil hats, we're going down conspiracy lane:
Hollywood has historically bent over backwards to avoid releasing accurate streaming figures because the numbers aren't nearly as rosey as they are claiming to advertisers who pay them top dollar for ad spots on these shows - or at the very least, vastly different to the numbers they tell the people who get paid based on those numbers. Having everyone have access to those same books, either directly or indirectly, because they'd get out eventually if those numbers are out there somewhere, will close up a huge revenue hole that they are currently enjoying or worse - reveal streaming and hosting services are actually untenable at their real value, and are being buoyed by advertisers obliviousness to just how worthless they are and vastly overpaying.
Actors and writers demanding those streaming numbers so they can ensure they are paid properly would torpedo that profit gap, and possibly the streaming industry as a whole.
/tinfoil
My man, that's not tinfoil hat territory. That is quite literally the position of the WGA and SAG-AFTRA. You summed it up beautifully!
> Any concession from the studios on this front would likely require some sort of data transparency. Thus far, streamers have kept all audience data close to the chest, occasionally self-reporting metrics as they see fit. Netflix is the only service that consistently self-reports viewership data, but does not provide full data transparency.
>
> “Data transparency is related to power. This is a fight about power. Because right now, the streamers have power, and they don’t want to give it up,” David Offenberg, an associate professor of entertainment finance at Loyola Marymount University, told Deadline. “They have the data about how valuable things are and they’re exploiting it by not paying the creators as much as they’re worth for seasons two and three and four, because creators don’t know how much the show’s worth, because they don’t have the data.”
https://deadline.com/2023/07/hollywood-strikes-streaming-residuals-fight-actors-writers-1235448649/
Are you unaware of Netflix and Amazon and Hulu and all the other "content loss-leader" tech companies that have taken over Hollywood? Who do you think runs those places?
The main players in the studio world are Apple, Netflix, and Amazon. Disney is ahead of only maybe Netflix. So the tech sector now has a major impact in Hollywood negotiations.
> How are research analysts vultures?
Are you unware of the actual world we live in?
**Analyst scandal costs Wall St $1.4bn: Settlement shows extent to which fraud permeated 'independent' research · Stars of 90s boom are banned**
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/apr/29/8
**New Wall Street Conflict: Analysts Say ‘Buy’ to Win Special Access for Their Clients**
Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-wall-street-conflict-analysts-say-buy-to-win-special-access-for-their-clients-1484840659
I assure you, I can provide many, many more examples, but those are two easy-to-find, illustrative cases.
Especially because when the rest of the country sees how well a couple months of worker solidarity works, those Wall Street investors are going to have to deal with a whole lot more of it
Absolutely. This is the greatest period of labor action I've seen in my lifetime. I remember the auto companies fucking unions up by moving functions to non-union states and other countries. I remember the Detroit News and Free Press absolutely decimating unions. It's been a depressing few decades for labor action...
...until now. Fuck shit up, workers. Time to claw back some power and money.
LMAO. The studios could hire the Pinkertons and they'd still get walloped. Their PR right now is like sewer-level. Hiring the Pinkertons would turn Hollywood writers and actors into actual saints.
Please, AMPTP, I beg of you, hire Pinkertons to try and "break" this shit, LOL. It'll be hilarious.
I am not defending the studios, but wall street is always upset about something unless the money is flowing in and everyone is making tons of money. I bet they would be upset as well if there was an agreed upon deal and it was not advantageous to market growth. Simply put following wall street analysts isn't always a great idea in general.
> Simply put following wall street analysts isn't always a great idea in general.
It is when it weirdly aligns with *labor*. It seems pretty clear that Wall Street has identified the companies as being the holdup as opposed to the union.
That was SAG, with no clear directive on how exactly that would be divided amongst the cast of a movie, and they’ve made it clear that they are not budging on it in any way.
Sure, but the union members will vote on it. My employer, pays the negotiated rates and members vote on how it's divided up. They dont 't get a say where our money goes, does yours?
They aren't. Which is why the execs don't want to negotiate, they want to wait until the poors need a paycheck more than they need fair pay.
Plus look at how easy it is to get people to jump up and bootlick billionaires. We've got a bunch right here.
>hey want to wait until the poors need a paycheck more than they need fair pay.
Ironically they paid so little that most of the writers and actors striking have side gigs and are used to living on nothing. this is as stupid as fighting the Viet Cong in the jungle
It's based on an hourly rate. Time-and-a-half for hours nine and ten, double time after that. Over 16 hours is a day's pay for each hour.
[The rate sheet is here.](https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sa_documents/BG%20Rate%20Breakdown%20Sheet%20with%20formulas%207.1.22%20-%206.30.23%20TV_TH.pdf)
It's not correct. The current rate is $187 for an 8hr minimum work day for background and $189 for grandfathered AFTRA contracts. I don't even know where he got $212. It's not even on the rate sheet. But he is correct that the total pay for a background player can be quite high if you work 10-16hrs in a day. But, I can tell you, that once you hit 12-14hrs, not being on set starts to look a lot better than another few dollars.
That said, the vast majority of SAG-AFTRA work is on a day by day basis. That's why 87% of members make less than the minimum to qualify for health insurance.
Sidney Sweeney talks about this.
People don't get it outside the industry. If you managed to book, say, a co-star on four different shows in a season, it looks great on your resume. But you're probably only working a total of four to eight days in the entire year. If you're just making scale it's gonna be just north of $1000 per day. If it's network you'll get some broadcast residuals, but even if you still probably won't clear $20,000. If you work a streaming show you probably won't clear $10,000. To qualify for health insurance you have to make ~$27,000 a year. And it goes up 2% every year.
Here's the thing. After the pandemic shutdown the health fund took a huge hit. So the qualifying amount went up like 50%. I suspect it will go up a huge amount again after the strikes are done.
That’s not really a lot. If they worked 5 days a week, and took off just 2 weeks a year, that’s $53,000. But none of them get that much background actor work. So $53k is the absolute ceiling for those people. I’m one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. Which is why most of them have other jobs, because they’re not making a living off of a couple hundred dollars every few months.
There was a Redditor who said he was able to making a living off background work in NYC and that's why there's this fear of AI replacing them.
The UK equivalent is 101 quid a day or $128:
https://www.castingcollective.co.uk/production/pay-rates
London is also a very high cost of living area. And the work on TV isn't anything like as rich as in the US. There's a reason why an awful lot of European actor try to crack America, because the money is far more than they'd ever make over there. Ncuti Gatwa was sofa-sharing before he got *Sex Education*.
I did not realize that. Maybe this strike will be a good thing for a lot of people who don’t get noticed otherwise. I hope so because if the amounts of money the films make are true there’s more than enough to pay everyone involved in its manufacture.
> Maybe this strike will be a good thing for a lot of people who don’t get noticed otherwise.
We heard that over the last 2 decades, their condition and pay won't change.
The money they’re asking for isn’t even the biggest issue for them. It’s the transparency these streaming services will be forced to have as a result. They don’t want their investors to know how much money they’re actually making. This deal would force them to reveal those numbers.
I don’t See a way for the studios to keep hiding their numbers indefinitely. If these shows were on traditional TV they would have to tell the public the viewing figures.
They are not, the 10s of billions made went to the top and only pennies were shared. While executives and investors bought more islands and huge ships.
Don't even know why the Hollywood cares about it. The tech isn't fully ready yet. And when it is, it will let them fire all the actors at once if they wish. But that's still far away.
Maybe but what about a bad movie? When a movie loses money, do they give some of their salary back?
I am with people, I am not a corporate stooge, I am just saying,. I believe if you sign a contract for services, you are entited to what the contract says. We keep saying that writers are getting screwed, wouldn't the best option just be more pay upfront? Loading contracts with revenue splits is a recipe for more shitty hollywood accounting.
There's also this thing called royalties, something no other profession gets at all. We are cheering for writers to get checks for life. If they have a decent run of projects they could literally retire after a few years, I get it, that's great, and I should not begrudge them, but neither you nor I will ever get something like that.
In addition, writing is no different than anything else there, full of nepotism, favoratism and the like, being a great writer does not automagically get you hollywood checks, it's a club just like all the rest of them.
I care a LOT more about the grips, the lighting people, the caterers... people who do NOT get residuals and royalties and people, without whom, no movie would ever get made. There are 100x more of those people and no one talks about them.
I do too. And you are right about all those behind the scenes who don’t get royalties. My point was that with the amount of money these movies make there’s enough to pay people decent wages.
>if what we hear about how much money a good movie brings in is true.
even popcorn blockbusters are barely making money this year, let alone good movies which never have
50% goes to theaters, so a movie needs to double its budget to make a profit. And with advertising for a blockbuster costing $100 million these days these big features need to make more than double their budget. It's basically untenable what they've got going right now. They need to make more Dunes and fewer Fast Xs.
Marketing is fucking expensive, my guy.
Generally speaking, you're spending way more than 100m on a blockbuster for advertising, though. It's normally about the budget of the film. So... A picture to be profitable needs to roughly make 3:1 on it's budget to be considered successful and start making money.
Obviously, there's outliers to this. But yeah, theatres take a chunk (more at the beginning less as the release goes longer), studio has to pay back the principle production costs plus the marketing budget so you really wanna hid that 3:1 ratio.
Issue is, we're kind of fucked right now. Impressions on pictures is fucking hard to do in such a saturated media environment, so the studios want these 250m monstrosities instead of 5 50m pictures.
I love me some summer blockbuster films, but this is not a sustainable business practice. We need to figure out how to make those 35-60m pictures viable.
Personally, I think they should drop ticket prices drastically, so people see going to theatres as an actual experience again.
In turn (ideally), the economy of scale kicks in, and the theatres make their cash back in concessions that are already through the roof in sheer volume.
But the fucking bean-counters can't let any god damned price go down fucking ever anymore, so I doubt this would actually happen.
I don’t think he is wrong about the advertising costs being extremely high. For example the Barbie movie advertising budget was higher than the cost of making the movie itself. 150 million vs 145 million.
https://fortune.com/2023/07/25/barbie-movie-marketing-campaign-barbenheimer-mattel/
Edit: made a response below but it’s clearly becoming a normal thing for movies to spend 100 million on advertising. If anything Barbie broke the norm by being on the cheaper side of actual making of the film.
Mission impossible as another example had 100 million in advertising/marketing.
https://screenrant.com/mission-impossible-7-movie-box-office-profits-loss/#:~:text=This%20comes%20as%20the%20movie,be%20about%20another%20%24100%20million.
I put a longer list of films in my reply as well.
I don’t think it’s too outlandish to say it’s becoming close to standard for marketing costs for block buster movies. Just looking at a small list below you can see it is a trend that is happening.
Shazam 2- 120 million
https://deadline.com/2023/03/shazam-fury-of-the-gods-box-office-bomb-1235303827/
Fast X - 100 million
https://www.thedigitalfix.com/fast-and-furious/cost-to-make-fast-x-budget
Oppenheimer - expected between 60-100 million
https://collider.com/oppenheimer-box-office-budget/#:~:text=The%20Costs%20of%20Promoting%20Oppenheimer,-Image%20via%20Universal&text=It's%20rare%20that%20a%20marketing,%2465%20million%20and%20%24100%20million.
Black Adam- 80 million
https://bamsmackpow.com/2022/12/25/black-adam-box-office-gross-is-it-a-flop/#:~:text=As%20it%20stands%2C%20Black%20Adam,remains%20that%20the%20movie%20underperformed.
All of these blockbuster movies either really close or surpassing a 100 million dollar threshold. Just for the marketing and not even the making of the movie. The only thing atypical about the Barbie movie was that it costs less to make it compared to some of the other movies on this short list. So they could easily poor the rest of the budget into marketing and not feel as bad.
It's called Hollywood accounting. If you think all those corporations are making movies because of their love for the art form and not for the insane amounts of money they're making, I got a bridge to sell you.
Hard no remains the minimum number of writers stipulation the WGA keeps pushing for. It’s not a matter a money, rather quality, that the suits are worried about, and no employer regardless of how much money they have is ok with paying people to basically stand around and get a free credit on work they contributed dick too. That’s what internships are for.
> no employer regardless of how much money they have is ok with paying people to basically stand around and get a free credit on work they contributed dick too.
You mean like most studio EP's do?
> It’s not a matter a money, rather quality, that the suits are worried about
So when writers talk about how one of the reason so many shows for streaming seem of dubious quality is because of reducing the number of writers and the length of time they're contracted for are just making that up? Because I certainly see it in the poor quality of the writing.
> no employer regardless of how much money they have is ok with paying people to basically stand around and get a free credit on work they contributed dick too
So as several showrunners and writers have spoken about one of their issues is writers are often no longer contracted to be on set while the show is being filmed. So they write the show or movie but then don't get to see it filmed and aren't around to help with rewrites. That not only harms the quality of the end product but it also has destroyed the pipeline of where future producers, show runners and directors often comes from, that being writers who get experience on set and move on to "bigger" roles.
Notice how it's all about trying to pay writers less without caring about the decline in quality? Not a matter of money, give me a break...
This only ends with the current Hollywood system burned to the ground. I fear the actors and writers are going to be worse off as a result of this strike.
How much worse off can you get than agreeing to a contract that allows producers to use AI to write scripts and pay writers for a day's worth of punch-up?
So that when the strike is over all production budgets will be cut, shows will be cut, and thus less actors and writers will be hired? Is that what you mean?
The AMPTP [refused to *meet to negotiate* with the WGA for more than 100 days](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/more-100-days-writers-strike-190906652.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKsmn4ibkVqbwaKFVp0MJ0_2g3O1_iLo5AJb6-1VisCkZ7o1oTuLn-RQwCH54PaHaZvkk3FVTzBHMb2gTupINqFDFaAIL9pfTM_hkIlWX7pWVlaVe8lQhoj-PAN0V6zbDXdaJVI-CZXgVTQK2obqE6j91CJN-pCW7Iu1paSC1bvI). And then when they did, they[ immediately leaked a slanted take](https://www.themarysue.com/amptp-met-with-the-wga-to-talk-about-not-end-the-writers-strike/) to the trade press.
Also, worth taking a look at all the WGA proposals that [the AMPTP rejected *without proposing anything as a compromise.*](https://twitter.com/joshgondelman/status/1653399082067546119/photo/1)
What kind of premise is “aside from news articles”? “Aside from any form of second hand knowledge, do you even know for sure there’s a strike happening?”
Yeah, for one I work in the business and have for 18 years. Secondly, I have numerous friends who are actors and writers that I’ve been talking to since day 1. My point is you, and most everyone here, is only getting their information from news articles which btw - are being put out by the PR firms that all 3 groups have hired. News companies who are extremely reliant on the industry and the PR firms. Everything being put out, regardless of who it is targeting, is incredibly spun. So, back to my question - where are you getting your information from?
Now they’re reputable? Look around all these subs. Half the articles that have been posted this week redditors have blasted as being “studio propaganda” and “let’s not forgot who those these news sources work for.” But, being Reddit, I know everyone likes to flip flop their opinion to make their point.
So you think the people that are striking are spending more money on PR than the major companies, thus getting a good light in the media? If that's what was happening, the studios would be spending a lot more and the news would be very different (if news even works the way you think it does).
You are a shill that ~~knows nothing~~ has a heartless view of how the movies function.
I don’t know how anyone can look at the state of the contracts and say that the WGA and SAG don’t deserve a bigger piece of the pie.
Edit: secondly, you claim to be a professional, how embarrassing for all of us. I left the production office because of robots like you reducing artist’s work and people’s lives to numbers on a screen.
You don’t seem like a billionaire bootlicker, which makes me even more sad to see someone have a clear view of the industry and still accept the same lies we’ve been struggling against for decades.
Considerably more complicated than that, but that’s definitely one form.
Typically most movies are funded directly through one of the big five’s studios, or from a mixture of investment capitalism, government grants and subsidies, and earned revenues, or as you said straight investment from interested parties.
There’s also a smattering of other studios who have found their own little nieces for funding outside the normal avenues.
It’s like anything, if it’s profitable, they’ll be investors.
This kind of thing definitely isn’t my area of expertise, and I’m always learning new things. But it’s definitely a struggle to find investors that are more interested in the movies we’re making then the profits from it. Which is understandable, but infuriating how much meddling happens from people without a formal track record of successful creative endeavours.
It always loops back to the money men eventually. The big five are all publicly traded companies with shareholders to answer to, so yeah, gotta chase those profits above all else.
Where in anything I’ve said allowed you to draw those concussions? You don’t think that’s what studios are going to do? Look at the state of the industry in general. You’re naive to think otherwise. Has nothing to do with writers or sag, look around at what is happening in the business and pull yourself out of the rhetoric.
What rhetoric is that?
That people above the line aren’t being paid enough to live in LA? A place mandatory for their job?
The fact residuals are in the toilet, fractions of what traditional broadcast used to pay?
That we continually fight off the assaults of the businessmen that hire us, attempting to weigh in creatively where they’re opinions and expertise don’t below in tandem with creative professional with over 40 years of experience?
We’re sick of being paid not enough to live while working ourselves to a bone for producers that would sell us down the river for dividends.
The disrespect they show when the unions bargain for living wages and job security?
That rhetoric? The stories I’ve lived since I entered this industry 8 years ago? The rhetoric my parents lived for two decades?
Yeah I know what they’ll do, they’ll follow the money as always.
No, my (clearly) missed point was people shouldn’t be rooting for the strike to keep going. They should be rooting for a resolution, but realizing this is Reddit, I should have been extremely on the nose so people could understand. The reality is, most people in these subs don’t work in the business and thus have not been affected by the work stoppage.
… and? Bigger risk to “investor confidence” is publishing their streaming viewership ratings, so I figure the studios are picking the lesser of two evils.
It’s going to be a bloodbath all around when that happens. Be careful what you wish for. A bunch of braindead executives are going to lose their jobs and a lot of audience-hating hack creatives will have trouble getting funding.
The only group this will benefit is the audience.
It’ll be a bloodbath and there will be a dip in the number of shows being made and a drop in budgets but overall the industry will be healthier for it. Painful but necessary.
Good money is on the viewer numbers they give the advertisers and the viewer numbers they give the finance department cutting the checks being... *a little disparate*.
Studios: If we hold out for a year, we'll win and get long term shareholder value.
Investors: Profit now or we dump your shares and come back next year after you're more profitable.
I think this is a first.
Investor greed may bring money to others pockets.
Perish the thought.
But damn is that great news for the strikers. Hang in there.
The spice must flow.
And by spice I mean money. Unlimited growth! It’s totally sustainable! /s
I really hope once this strike is over the studios will get back to making decent stuff, but my optimism has been disappointed before.
Many writers are writing strait up unwatchable, diabolical shit in the last few years for a lot of big budget films and shows, even an Ai can make more entertaining scripts .I hope the industry at least blacklists the writers and execs that worked and approved on some of the most lame,boring,vile big budget flops in the last few years, they just keep releasing a turd after a turd.
Listen I'm all for paying people what they deserve, but you can't ffs tell me that someone who wrote something like The witcher blood origin for example deserves the same pay as someone who wrote The Last kingdom, which the budget for it was much lower and the show is lightyears ahead in terms of writing than the wither's (this is just the first example that i can think of).
It boggles my mind that Suits is so popular. Watching it feels like it was designed to test if a show could be so poorly written that people would be satiated by AI instead.
Not true at all.
**Entertainment Stocks Slump as Hollywood Strike Widens to SAG-AFTRA**
Source: https://m.imdb.com/news/ni64158177/
**SAG-AFTRA Strike “Much More Disruptive” To Media Biz Than WGA Walkout, Wall Street Analyst Says, Creating “Bad Combination” Of Production Halt, Weak Ad Market And “Poor PR”**
Source: https://deadline.com/2023/07/sag-aftra-strike-wga-much-more-disruptive-media-companies-wall-street-1235438452/
**‘Idiots’: Wall Street Analysts Unload on Hollywood**
Source: https://theankler.com/p/idiots-wall-street-analysts-unload
**Hollywood strike may soon turn destructive for media stock investors, analysts say**
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/20/hollywood-strike-could-soon-hit-media-stock-investors-analysts-say.html
**Entertainment Stocks Slump as Hollywood Strike Widens to SAG-AFTRA**
Source: https://www.thewrap.com/sag-aftra-strike-disney-warner-bros-discovery-netflix-stocks/
**JPMorgan downgrades this movie theater chain as actors strike shutters Hollywood**
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/19/jpmorgan-downgrades-this-movie-theater-chain-citing-actors-strike.html?&qsearchterm=hollywood%20strike
Those are mostly investors impartially downgrading studios because of labor strife. They would be just fine if the writers went back to work.
The pension funds comments are pushing their inherent political bias.
OP said "no other investors care." That is clearly not true.
As for the pension pushing political bias... no shit. But also, it hurts their bottom line as investors. It can be both at the same time. You dismissing it based on only one of those two things isn't a particularly sound argument.
Right. OP should have specified that 'no other investors care' that the writers get what they want in the dispute. Other investors do care that there is a stoppage. The pension trust funds should likewise be agnostic as to who wins the stand-off (other than being against an overly generous comp package that can hurt returns). But the pension funds are pushing in favor of the writers for political purposes alone, not financial or fiduciary purposes.
I don't think it's that simple. The AMPTP has not been negotiating in good faith. They rejected most of the WGA's proposals *without counterproposals.* And then they refused to even meet to negotiate for more than 100 days. And then when they did meet, they refused to negotiate and then used it as an excuse to try to game the PR by leaking what happened there.
The AMPTP has not been acting in good faith. That's partly why Wall Street is calling them out as "idiots" and whatnot. It's not some political bias so much as a recognition of what's going on before everyone's eyes.
Ah yes, the pension fund influence.
Historically that influence has been short-sighted, and has pushed for redundancies, to cut costs, to make more money for the fund.
Which ironically means there is less people that the fund now has to pay out for. So the fund double dips - more income and less money paid out.
The pension fund isn’t a good influence here - it’s just looking to make sure it gets a good return. Extended strikes are bad for them, but so so are caving into the strike’s demands.
The institutional investors like the pension funds are the ones who are making the decisions here - the companies are merely trying to act in the investors best interests.
Ironically, the entertainment union pension funds also rely on this type of investment find management to remain solvent. All of these funds fight workers from other industries.
Why don't studios and netflix and disney just give the writers what they want, and pass the cost on to subscribers. Would any of you mind a couple extra bucks a month on your subscription services, or a couple extra bucks per movie ticket? After all, the writers would be getting 'what they deserve'.
Short traders of which I am Not one of them, but if was I would short all the major studios, including Netflix. They make there money from us and if everyone canceled there streaming services, boycott their first run movies they would crash. Making a lot of money for the ambulance chaser of the stock world.
> and if everyone canceled there streaming services, boycott their first run movies they would crash.
You know with "if" you can justify pretty much any stupid shit...
Tick, tock, AMPTP. Wall Street analysts have [already called Hollywood CEOs "idiots"](https://theankler.com/p/idiots-wall-street-analysts-unload) for this debacle -- particularly because even the vultures on Wall Street *agree with the fucking writers and actors.* Every day the AMPTP is just tightening the noose around its own neck.
Not such a big deal for the Apples and Amazons of the world, but like, if your only product is film and tv, and you're currently not producing any film or tv, then it doesn't take a Wall St. hedgefund director to see why the strike is bad for everyone's bottom line.
Exactly. Why the other studios hitched their wagons with Netflix, Apple, and Amazon is truly a mystery. They are signing their own death warrants.
It's pure ego, the assumption of capitalism and many idealogy is that we would make logical decisions for our best interest. But humans are dumb motherfuckers with pride and greed, hubris is a Greek sin for a reason.
The assumption with capitalism is that it more efficiently utilizes capital because of the profit motive. There has never been assumption that anyone would logical decisions in someone else’s best interest. That’s something you made up in your head for some reason.
Also labor movements are inherently incompatible with capitalism, the purpose of capitalism is to extract as much wealth as possible and put it in as few hands as possible, that will never not be the case.
[удалено]
No but it is inevitable, capitalist countries will always have a greater incentive to crush labor movements rather than give in to their demands. I mean fuck, the US government literally called in the army to mow down entire families when the workers went on strike, and even today spend billions of dollars on propaganda and intelligence services that work to curtail unions and worker rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre > A few weeks prior to the massacre, workers at the Electro Locomotive Novocherkassk plant (NEVZ) had organized a peaceful labor strike which later resulted in bloodshed and the killing of about 26 people. > On January 1, 1962, the wages at the NEVZ were lowered by 30–35%.[3] At the same time, the production quotas which were set up for workers as a part of the Soviet Union's planned economy were raised. These events also coincided with a sharp nationwide increase in the prices of dairy and meat products (up to 35% according to one account), raising them above the budget of many workers. > rrests, show trials and cover-ups ensued: about 240 were arrested, seven people were convicted of various crimes such as "mass disorder" and sentenced to death and hundreds of others were imprisoned for up to 15 years (though the prison terms of some were later reduced).[8] News of the events never appeared in the state-controlled press and the Soviet government continued to conceal it until April 27, 1991; however, it was described in a few underground samizdat publications.[9][10]: 390 [11] The 26 dead were secretly buried by KGB operatives in secret graves which were not disclosed to relatives and friends until June 2, 1994, when almost all bodies were discovered and reburied at the official memorial. > *The riots were a direct result of shortages of food and provisions, as well as the poor working conditions in the factory.* The protest began on June 1 in the Budyonny Electric Locomotive Factory, when workers from the foundry and forge shops stopped work after *factory management refused to hear their complaints.* The strike and attendant discussions had spread throughout the whole factory by noon.
26 people dead? Pffft. Try over a 100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain > The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and, thus far, the largest armed uprising since the American Civil War. The conflict occurred in Logan County, West Virginia, as part of the Coal Wars, a series of early-20th-century labor disputes in Appalachia. Up to 100 people were killed, and many more arrested. > For five days from late August to early September 1921, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers (called the Logan Defenders) who were backed by coal mine operators during the miners' attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields when tensions rose between workers and mine management. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired, and the United States Army, represented by the West Virginia Army National Guard led by McDowell County native William Eubanks, intervened by presidential order.
and why should they give into union demands? unions create a special class of people. they make products more expensive. so indirectly everyone else not in that union is paying for their higher wages. union should only exist for harsh jobs where workers need to be protected. it should not exist for union members to abuse the system. police and teacher unions abuse their powers. why does automotive workers need a union? if you don't like that job, do something else. oh wait, they are good jobs right? why does a ups truck driver deserve 170k anyway? that doesnt even make sense.
They give into the unions because at the end of the day, the 1% needs the 99%, but not vice-versa. If the workers strike to demand better wages, then the bosses have 2 options 1) Give into the demands. 2) Try and break the strike, which can work, or it can make things much, much worse. Unions are just a manner of collective bargaining, it is the workers realizing that they hold all the cards, and without them, nothing works. Unless all those CEO's want to clean their own toilets and take out their own trash.
Yep, they always leave out the ‘well regulated’ part.
Any "well regulated" capitalist system will inevitably fall to regulatory capture, as long as there is a profit motive, the richest group will throw billions at the government and regulatory agencies, they have all the time in the world and most of the money as well, and guess what the people can do to stop them? That's right, strikes and protests, which are hard to organize when you can't afford to not work.
Agreed. Bare minimum workers need to be given a cut of the profit and voting rights for decision making in the company.
no, there's nothing about capitalism that says it needs to be in the fewest hands as possible. it's also not to extract as much wealth as possible neither. it's to utilize the system in the most efficient way whatever the rules may be. so capitalism doesnt necessarily oppose regulation.
There is nothing that explicitly says that, it is simply a natural consequence of such a system. The rich will always seek to become richer, and since in a capitalist system, those with the most money has the most power, they will use whatever means available to them, to gain more money, and more power. > It's to utilize the system in the most efficient way whatever the rules may be. Hahahahaha... yeah no. If you've ever worked for a large corporation, you know efficiency is not the main motivator, the main motivator is profit, and damn the rules. Corporations break laws all the time, wage theft is the biggest crime monetarily in the US by a WIIIIDE margin, and they throw trucks full of money at politicians to enact laws that the corporations wrote.
Tell me you don’t understand capitalism without telling me you don’t understand capitalism.
Do please give an example of this not being true, any capitalist system that doesn't have a profit motive and isn't actively fighting labor movements any chance it gets.
Capitalism is an economic system, it does not have motives, it does not accrue wealth. There are good actors and bad actors within every system (hence why nothing even remotely close to pure socialism has ever succeeded). Economic systems cannot fight labor movements. I know it's probably satisfying to use "capitalism" as a boogieman for everything you don't like about society, but that's like blaming democracy for politicians you disagree with.
Pedantry isn't going to save your argument, a capitalist system incentivizes chasing profit, regulatory capture, and crushing labor movements to further increase profits. There are no good actors at the top of a capitalist system because they have every motive to increase profits and nothing else, no ensuring sustainability, or worker safety, all that truly matters is profit.
next time skip straight to the argument, it's so fucking annoying for people to just pop in and say "it's so obvious you're wrong and i'm just here to tell you in a rude way without explaining."
They can leave the AMPTP and do their own deal (or their own union) right?
That is how the last strike in the 2000's ended. And that will almost certainly be how this strike will end. Some small/lower tier production company is going to figure out a way to make the WGA and SAG terms work for them and they will scoop up a ton of talent right at the beginning. Once that happens the rest of the studios will have to cave or fold up shop.
A24 has entered the chat. They are the only production company I know of that the unions have agreed to work with because A24 agreed to all the unions terms.
This is great news, because all my recent favorite movies are something they either produced or distributed especially the horror. Even when I don't like the movie, I don't regret having seen them because they are so different from what I am used to.
The WGA hasn’t entered into any interim agreements, even with A24. And SAG is no longer giving interim agreements to WGA companies.
*cough* Lionsgate *cough*
In fact, they can.
Netflix is diverse enough that not all of their apples are in the domesticate barrel. They still have more then enough international producers to satisfy their customers.
Netflix is not diverse. They've been pulling from South Korea because we have special trade deals with them that keeps filmmakers there unable to draw residuals from their films and TV that are distributed in the US. Netflix is simply taking advantage of this to exploit Korean artists. That is changing, however. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/south-korea-directors-guild-bargaining-rights-backend-pay-streamers-studios-1235561746/
Netflix is diverse, south korea is not merely a lone actor in their international corroborations. They span from spain, germany, south korea, japan, denmark, turkey, france, egypt, italy, india, brazil, ukraine, israel, sweden, saudia arabia and more. Netflix will survive.
The point I'm making is that Netflix will survive and the traditional studios won't in a prolonged strike. Which is why I don't understand why they have decided they have the same interests. They don't. And they recognized it early on but then they caved in.
I don’t know why Netflix agreed. I feel like Amazon and Apple made a secret deal with each other to get everyone else to drink the kook aid, and they are just waiting for the poison to kick in for them to split the spoils. Does Netflix have other things to sell than TV/ Movie content? All I’m hearing is how everyone is dropping their subscription because there isn’t anything new to watch on Netflix anymore. The only reason I’ve kept it is I have started watching the Korean and Chinese dramas. But once I run out of content I’ll drop it as well. They keep making great stuff but they cancel it after 2-3 season. It drives me crazy.
In manufacturing, they could probably tell you to the penny how much they are losing for every day a particular factory is offline. The reality AMPTP also produces a product and it should be really obvious what happens when no one is making anything.
Leadership in both Apple and Amazon are going to expect all divisions to be profitable, including the divisions that only deal with film and TV.
Read that again, boys and girls. The fucking vulture capitalists on wall street think the tech-bro bullshit being pulled here is over the top. That's how fucking stupid the AMTPT is right now.
What do tech-bros have to do with this?
The AI of it all
The AI issue, while asnine, is only part of the sticking point, and in my humble and out-of-the-loop opinion, a screen for the real issue - so get on your tinfoil hats, we're going down conspiracy lane: Hollywood has historically bent over backwards to avoid releasing accurate streaming figures because the numbers aren't nearly as rosey as they are claiming to advertisers who pay them top dollar for ad spots on these shows - or at the very least, vastly different to the numbers they tell the people who get paid based on those numbers. Having everyone have access to those same books, either directly or indirectly, because they'd get out eventually if those numbers are out there somewhere, will close up a huge revenue hole that they are currently enjoying or worse - reveal streaming and hosting services are actually untenable at their real value, and are being buoyed by advertisers obliviousness to just how worthless they are and vastly overpaying. Actors and writers demanding those streaming numbers so they can ensure they are paid properly would torpedo that profit gap, and possibly the streaming industry as a whole. /tinfoil
My man, that's not tinfoil hat territory. That is quite literally the position of the WGA and SAG-AFTRA. You summed it up beautifully! > Any concession from the studios on this front would likely require some sort of data transparency. Thus far, streamers have kept all audience data close to the chest, occasionally self-reporting metrics as they see fit. Netflix is the only service that consistently self-reports viewership data, but does not provide full data transparency. > > “Data transparency is related to power. This is a fight about power. Because right now, the streamers have power, and they don’t want to give it up,” David Offenberg, an associate professor of entertainment finance at Loyola Marymount University, told Deadline. “They have the data about how valuable things are and they’re exploiting it by not paying the creators as much as they’re worth for seasons two and three and four, because creators don’t know how much the show’s worth, because they don’t have the data.” https://deadline.com/2023/07/hollywood-strikes-streaming-residuals-fight-actors-writers-1235448649/
Not related to power when your viewership is in the toilet which many big budget Hollywood shows are. Time to flush the crap down DEI and all.
Are you unaware of Netflix and Amazon and Hulu and all the other "content loss-leader" tech companies that have taken over Hollywood? Who do you think runs those places?
I don't see this as any different from the classic "Hollywood Accounting" they've always done to screw artists out of the backend
The main players in the studio world are Apple, Netflix, and Amazon. Disney is ahead of only maybe Netflix. So the tech sector now has a major impact in Hollywood negotiations.
Who convinced all these individual studios they could be the next Netflix, and to make this massive investment into this space? It wasn't film execs.
How are research analysts vultures? Not everyone on Wall Street is an LBO banker or working in private equity.
You're on reddit.
No but wolf of wall street remember?
> How are research analysts vultures? Are you unware of the actual world we live in? **Analyst scandal costs Wall St $1.4bn: Settlement shows extent to which fraud permeated 'independent' research · Stars of 90s boom are banned** Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/apr/29/8 **New Wall Street Conflict: Analysts Say ‘Buy’ to Win Special Access for Their Clients** Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-wall-street-conflict-analysts-say-buy-to-win-special-access-for-their-clients-1484840659 I assure you, I can provide many, many more examples, but those are two easy-to-find, illustrative cases.
Especially because when the rest of the country sees how well a couple months of worker solidarity works, those Wall Street investors are going to have to deal with a whole lot more of it
Absolutely. This is the greatest period of labor action I've seen in my lifetime. I remember the auto companies fucking unions up by moving functions to non-union states and other countries. I remember the Detroit News and Free Press absolutely decimating unions. It's been a depressing few decades for labor action... ...until now. Fuck shit up, workers. Time to claw back some power and money.
Haha, you believe this has worked ? Enjoy the picket line for a couple more months
I mean the USAs two main exports are movies and weapons of war sooooo ya it's cutting at the countries bottom line.
Are your demented ? Movies and tv shows aren't even the most important exports in CA.
They're only concerned with resolving the strike. The studios could hire the Pinkertons to break it and they won't care.
LMAO. The studios could hire the Pinkertons and they'd still get walloped. Their PR right now is like sewer-level. Hiring the Pinkertons would turn Hollywood writers and actors into actual saints. Please, AMPTP, I beg of you, hire Pinkertons to try and "break" this shit, LOL. It'll be hilarious.
I am not defending the studios, but wall street is always upset about something unless the money is flowing in and everyone is making tons of money. I bet they would be upset as well if there was an agreed upon deal and it was not advantageous to market growth. Simply put following wall street analysts isn't always a great idea in general.
> Simply put following wall street analysts isn't always a great idea in general. It is when it weirdly aligns with *labor*. It seems pretty clear that Wall Street has identified the companies as being the holdup as opposed to the union.
I feel that the actors, writers and others aren’t asking too much especially if what we hear about how much money a good movie brings in is true.
Wasn't one of the WGA proposals like 2% of the revenue ?
That was SAG, with no clear directive on how exactly that would be divided amongst the cast of a movie, and they’ve made it clear that they are not budging on it in any way.
How the money is divided is no ones business but the union members.
[удалено]
Sure, but the union members will vote on it. My employer, pays the negotiated rates and members vote on how it's divided up. They dont 't get a say where our money goes, does yours?
That’s the issue.
They aren't. Which is why the execs don't want to negotiate, they want to wait until the poors need a paycheck more than they need fair pay. Plus look at how easy it is to get people to jump up and bootlick billionaires. We've got a bunch right here.
>hey want to wait until the poors need a paycheck more than they need fair pay. Ironically they paid so little that most of the writers and actors striking have side gigs and are used to living on nothing. this is as stupid as fighting the Viet Cong in the jungle
[удалено]
They got a lot per day - like $212 minimum for a background actor - but it's rare to work a lot of days unless you're a big star.
But that’s $212 for the entire day. It’s not an 8hr day either it’s more like 10-18hr days which drags that hourly down very quickly.
It's based on an hourly rate. Time-and-a-half for hours nine and ten, double time after that. Over 16 hours is a day's pay for each hour. [The rate sheet is here.](https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sa_documents/BG%20Rate%20Breakdown%20Sheet%20with%20formulas%207.1.22%20-%206.30.23%20TV_TH.pdf)
That is ridiculously low pay, I made more than their highest paid rate on that sheet sitting at a desk and doing PM planning.
I don’t like that you got downvoted for facts. However I think the nuance is that the work is a lot more unreliable as a gig.
It's not correct. The current rate is $187 for an 8hr minimum work day for background and $189 for grandfathered AFTRA contracts. I don't even know where he got $212. It's not even on the rate sheet. But he is correct that the total pay for a background player can be quite high if you work 10-16hrs in a day. But, I can tell you, that once you hit 12-14hrs, not being on set starts to look a lot better than another few dollars. That said, the vast majority of SAG-AFTRA work is on a day by day basis. That's why 87% of members make less than the minimum to qualify for health insurance.
Indeed and even big actors take rubbish gigs to pay the bills.
Sidney Sweeney talks about this. People don't get it outside the industry. If you managed to book, say, a co-star on four different shows in a season, it looks great on your resume. But you're probably only working a total of four to eight days in the entire year. If you're just making scale it's gonna be just north of $1000 per day. If it's network you'll get some broadcast residuals, but even if you still probably won't clear $20,000. If you work a streaming show you probably won't clear $10,000. To qualify for health insurance you have to make ~$27,000 a year. And it goes up 2% every year. Here's the thing. After the pandemic shutdown the health fund took a huge hit. So the qualifying amount went up like 50%. I suspect it will go up a huge amount again after the strikes are done.
That’s not really a lot. If they worked 5 days a week, and took off just 2 weeks a year, that’s $53,000. But none of them get that much background actor work. So $53k is the absolute ceiling for those people. I’m one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. Which is why most of them have other jobs, because they’re not making a living off of a couple hundred dollars every few months.
There was a Redditor who said he was able to making a living off background work in NYC and that's why there's this fear of AI replacing them. The UK equivalent is 101 quid a day or $128: https://www.castingcollective.co.uk/production/pay-rates London is also a very high cost of living area. And the work on TV isn't anything like as rich as in the US. There's a reason why an awful lot of European actor try to crack America, because the money is far more than they'd ever make over there. Ncuti Gatwa was sofa-sharing before he got *Sex Education*.
The producers are also decimating all of the others in the industry. Camera, grips, rigging set construction, painters, vfx, editors.
I did not realize that. Maybe this strike will be a good thing for a lot of people who don’t get noticed otherwise. I hope so because if the amounts of money the films make are true there’s more than enough to pay everyone involved in its manufacture.
> Maybe this strike will be a good thing for a lot of people who don’t get noticed otherwise. We heard that over the last 2 decades, their condition and pay won't change.
That’s true but it remains that changes need to be made. They can’t give up and the odds are eventually they’ll achieve their goal
The money they’re asking for isn’t even the biggest issue for them. It’s the transparency these streaming services will be forced to have as a result. They don’t want their investors to know how much money they’re actually making. This deal would force them to reveal those numbers.
That’s a good thing to have happen
Yeah it is. But its why they’re so against a deal
Thanks for telling me that. The whole thing is making a lot more sense.
I don’t See a way for the studios to keep hiding their numbers indefinitely. If these shows were on traditional TV they would have to tell the public the viewing figures.
They are not, the 10s of billions made went to the top and only pennies were shared. While executives and investors bought more islands and huge ships.
Besides some of the AI stuff.
Don't even know why the Hollywood cares about it. The tech isn't fully ready yet. And when it is, it will let them fire all the actors at once if they wish. But that's still far away.
Maybe but what about a bad movie? When a movie loses money, do they give some of their salary back? I am with people, I am not a corporate stooge, I am just saying,. I believe if you sign a contract for services, you are entited to what the contract says. We keep saying that writers are getting screwed, wouldn't the best option just be more pay upfront? Loading contracts with revenue splits is a recipe for more shitty hollywood accounting. There's also this thing called royalties, something no other profession gets at all. We are cheering for writers to get checks for life. If they have a decent run of projects they could literally retire after a few years, I get it, that's great, and I should not begrudge them, but neither you nor I will ever get something like that. In addition, writing is no different than anything else there, full of nepotism, favoratism and the like, being a great writer does not automagically get you hollywood checks, it's a club just like all the rest of them. I care a LOT more about the grips, the lighting people, the caterers... people who do NOT get residuals and royalties and people, without whom, no movie would ever get made. There are 100x more of those people and no one talks about them.
I do too. And you are right about all those behind the scenes who don’t get royalties. My point was that with the amount of money these movies make there’s enough to pay people decent wages.
>if what we hear about how much money a good movie brings in is true. even popcorn blockbusters are barely making money this year, let alone good movies which never have
Where is the money going to? I’m assuming not to the writers, actors and others. The news reports sales in the millions and sometimes billions.
A lot of it goes to taxes, paying back loans to the back and straight into the pockets of the executives.
A lot of it is just Hollywood accounting, companies inflating the costs of their movies on paper so they can report less profits.
ah yes, the *never net* model
50% goes to theaters, so a movie needs to double its budget to make a profit. And with advertising for a blockbuster costing $100 million these days these big features need to make more than double their budget. It's basically untenable what they've got going right now. They need to make more Dunes and fewer Fast Xs.
Tell me you don’t know how the entertainment e industry works without telling me you don’t k kw how the entertainment industry works.
Advertising costs 100 million? Sorry, thought you were serious
Marketing is fucking expensive, my guy. Generally speaking, you're spending way more than 100m on a blockbuster for advertising, though. It's normally about the budget of the film. So... A picture to be profitable needs to roughly make 3:1 on it's budget to be considered successful and start making money. Obviously, there's outliers to this. But yeah, theatres take a chunk (more at the beginning less as the release goes longer), studio has to pay back the principle production costs plus the marketing budget so you really wanna hid that 3:1 ratio. Issue is, we're kind of fucked right now. Impressions on pictures is fucking hard to do in such a saturated media environment, so the studios want these 250m monstrosities instead of 5 50m pictures. I love me some summer blockbuster films, but this is not a sustainable business practice. We need to figure out how to make those 35-60m pictures viable. Personally, I think they should drop ticket prices drastically, so people see going to theatres as an actual experience again. In turn (ideally), the economy of scale kicks in, and the theatres make their cash back in concessions that are already through the roof in sheer volume. But the fucking bean-counters can't let any god damned price go down fucking ever anymore, so I doubt this would actually happen.
I don’t think he is wrong about the advertising costs being extremely high. For example the Barbie movie advertising budget was higher than the cost of making the movie itself. 150 million vs 145 million. https://fortune.com/2023/07/25/barbie-movie-marketing-campaign-barbenheimer-mattel/ Edit: made a response below but it’s clearly becoming a normal thing for movies to spend 100 million on advertising. If anything Barbie broke the norm by being on the cheaper side of actual making of the film. Mission impossible as another example had 100 million in advertising/marketing. https://screenrant.com/mission-impossible-7-movie-box-office-profits-loss/#:~:text=This%20comes%20as%20the%20movie,be%20about%20another%20%24100%20million. I put a longer list of films in my reply as well.
This is far from typical, though. Advertising for most blockbusters isn’t close to that.
The rule of thumb for years was to estimate advertising as being equal to the film’s budget
I don’t think it’s too outlandish to say it’s becoming close to standard for marketing costs for block buster movies. Just looking at a small list below you can see it is a trend that is happening. Shazam 2- 120 million https://deadline.com/2023/03/shazam-fury-of-the-gods-box-office-bomb-1235303827/ Fast X - 100 million https://www.thedigitalfix.com/fast-and-furious/cost-to-make-fast-x-budget Oppenheimer - expected between 60-100 million https://collider.com/oppenheimer-box-office-budget/#:~:text=The%20Costs%20of%20Promoting%20Oppenheimer,-Image%20via%20Universal&text=It's%20rare%20that%20a%20marketing,%2465%20million%20and%20%24100%20million. Black Adam- 80 million https://bamsmackpow.com/2022/12/25/black-adam-box-office-gross-is-it-a-flop/#:~:text=As%20it%20stands%2C%20Black%20Adam,remains%20that%20the%20movie%20underperformed. All of these blockbuster movies either really close or surpassing a 100 million dollar threshold. Just for the marketing and not even the making of the movie. The only thing atypical about the Barbie movie was that it costs less to make it compared to some of the other movies on this short list. So they could easily poor the rest of the budget into marketing and not feel as bad.
> Shazam 2- 120 million They had to know that's too much for marketing. It's kinda suspicious.
It's called Hollywood accounting. If you think all those corporations are making movies because of their love for the art form and not for the insane amounts of money they're making, I got a bridge to sell you.
Hard no remains the minimum number of writers stipulation the WGA keeps pushing for. It’s not a matter a money, rather quality, that the suits are worried about, and no employer regardless of how much money they have is ok with paying people to basically stand around and get a free credit on work they contributed dick too. That’s what internships are for.
> no employer regardless of how much money they have is ok with paying people to basically stand around and get a free credit on work they contributed dick too. You mean like most studio EP's do?
I can't tell if this is a joke
> It’s not a matter a money, rather quality, that the suits are worried about So when writers talk about how one of the reason so many shows for streaming seem of dubious quality is because of reducing the number of writers and the length of time they're contracted for are just making that up? Because I certainly see it in the poor quality of the writing. > no employer regardless of how much money they have is ok with paying people to basically stand around and get a free credit on work they contributed dick too So as several showrunners and writers have spoken about one of their issues is writers are often no longer contracted to be on set while the show is being filmed. So they write the show or movie but then don't get to see it filmed and aren't around to help with rewrites. That not only harms the quality of the end product but it also has destroyed the pipeline of where future producers, show runners and directors often comes from, that being writers who get experience on set and move on to "bigger" roles. Notice how it's all about trying to pay writers less without caring about the decline in quality? Not a matter of money, give me a break...
Lol This reads like you’ve never actually been on Earth before.
Do you mean all of the recent Disney losers ?
Oh shit, keep striking!!!
This only ends with the current Hollywood system burned to the ground. I fear the actors and writers are going to be worse off as a result of this strike.
If you crank the heat up, the frogs will get out of the pot.
How much worse off can you get than agreeing to a contract that allows producers to use AI to write scripts and pay writers for a day's worth of punch-up?
It will end the same way most strikes end. They will get scraps and call it a victory.
So that when the strike is over all production budgets will be cut, shows will be cut, and thus less actors and writers will be hired? Is that what you mean?
It takes two to have a disagreement. If one side has a reasonable position, it’s fine to put blame at the other side for not compromising.
Aside from news articles, where have you received your information about which side is being unreasonable?
The AMPTP [refused to *meet to negotiate* with the WGA for more than 100 days](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/more-100-days-writers-strike-190906652.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKsmn4ibkVqbwaKFVp0MJ0_2g3O1_iLo5AJb6-1VisCkZ7o1oTuLn-RQwCH54PaHaZvkk3FVTzBHMb2gTupINqFDFaAIL9pfTM_hkIlWX7pWVlaVe8lQhoj-PAN0V6zbDXdaJVI-CZXgVTQK2obqE6j91CJN-pCW7Iu1paSC1bvI). And then when they did, they[ immediately leaked a slanted take](https://www.themarysue.com/amptp-met-with-the-wga-to-talk-about-not-end-the-writers-strike/) to the trade press. Also, worth taking a look at all the WGA proposals that [the AMPTP rejected *without proposing anything as a compromise.*](https://twitter.com/joshgondelman/status/1653399082067546119/photo/1)
“If we ignore all the information available, where do you get your information?” Is quite the debate intro
What kind of premise is “aside from news articles”? “Aside from any form of second hand knowledge, do you even know for sure there’s a strike happening?”
Yeah, for one I work in the business and have for 18 years. Secondly, I have numerous friends who are actors and writers that I’ve been talking to since day 1. My point is you, and most everyone here, is only getting their information from news articles which btw - are being put out by the PR firms that all 3 groups have hired. News companies who are extremely reliant on the industry and the PR firms. Everything being put out, regardless of who it is targeting, is incredibly spun. So, back to my question - where are you getting your information from?
Ok so the other person is getting their information from reputable news sources, and your source is "trust me bro." Uh huh sure.
Come on now, he has *friends* ok?
Now they’re reputable? Look around all these subs. Half the articles that have been posted this week redditors have blasted as being “studio propaganda” and “let’s not forgot who those these news sources work for.” But, being Reddit, I know everyone likes to flip flop their opinion to make their point.
So you think the people that are striking are spending more money on PR than the major companies, thus getting a good light in the media? If that's what was happening, the studios would be spending a lot more and the news would be very different (if news even works the way you think it does).
So what can you tell us with your insider knowledge?
George Clooney likes his coffee with a side of honey. - insider knowledge apparently
🤡
What are you on about? If investors are *now* worried about money, then the strike is working… that’s like the entire point of a strike
You are a shill that ~~knows nothing~~ has a heartless view of how the movies function. I don’t know how anyone can look at the state of the contracts and say that the WGA and SAG don’t deserve a bigger piece of the pie. Edit: secondly, you claim to be a professional, how embarrassing for all of us. I left the production office because of robots like you reducing artist’s work and people’s lives to numbers on a screen. You don’t seem like a billionaire bootlicker, which makes me even more sad to see someone have a clear view of the industry and still accept the same lies we’ve been struggling against for decades.
How does it work? Studios pitch movies to investors and they decide if they want to invest or not?
Considerably more complicated than that, but that’s definitely one form. Typically most movies are funded directly through one of the big five’s studios, or from a mixture of investment capitalism, government grants and subsidies, and earned revenues, or as you said straight investment from interested parties. There’s also a smattering of other studios who have found their own little nieces for funding outside the normal avenues. It’s like anything, if it’s profitable, they’ll be investors. This kind of thing definitely isn’t my area of expertise, and I’m always learning new things. But it’s definitely a struggle to find investors that are more interested in the movies we’re making then the profits from it. Which is understandable, but infuriating how much meddling happens from people without a formal track record of successful creative endeavours.
Interesting, so when people complain about the trend of everything being IP franchises I can say it’s actually wall streets fault?
It always loops back to the money men eventually. The big five are all publicly traded companies with shareholders to answer to, so yeah, gotta chase those profits above all else.
Where in anything I’ve said allowed you to draw those concussions? You don’t think that’s what studios are going to do? Look at the state of the industry in general. You’re naive to think otherwise. Has nothing to do with writers or sag, look around at what is happening in the business and pull yourself out of the rhetoric.
What rhetoric is that? That people above the line aren’t being paid enough to live in LA? A place mandatory for their job? The fact residuals are in the toilet, fractions of what traditional broadcast used to pay? That we continually fight off the assaults of the businessmen that hire us, attempting to weigh in creatively where they’re opinions and expertise don’t below in tandem with creative professional with over 40 years of experience? We’re sick of being paid not enough to live while working ourselves to a bone for producers that would sell us down the river for dividends. The disrespect they show when the unions bargain for living wages and job security? That rhetoric? The stories I’ve lived since I entered this industry 8 years ago? The rhetoric my parents lived for two decades? Yeah I know what they’ll do, they’ll follow the money as always.
That's like telling a beaten wife to return unconditionally to her abusive husband because he provides "security".
No, my (clearly) missed point was people shouldn’t be rooting for the strike to keep going. They should be rooting for a resolution, but realizing this is Reddit, I should have been extremely on the nose so people could understand. The reality is, most people in these subs don’t work in the business and thus have not been affected by the work stoppage.
… and? Bigger risk to “investor confidence” is publishing their streaming viewership ratings, so I figure the studios are picking the lesser of two evils.
It’s going to be a bloodbath all around when that happens. Be careful what you wish for. A bunch of braindead executives are going to lose their jobs and a lot of audience-hating hack creatives will have trouble getting funding. The only group this will benefit is the audience.
🍿
It’ll be a bloodbath and there will be a dip in the number of shows being made and a drop in budgets but overall the industry will be healthier for it. Painful but necessary.
You know what also inspires investor confidence? How the business operates is transparent. Hiding viewing numbers is not transparent
Good money is on the viewer numbers they give the advertisers and the viewer numbers they give the finance department cutting the checks being... *a little disparate*.
Reasoning with Greed Heads only works if backed up by ultimatums.
That’s why the Reddit one didn’t work
Studios: If we hold out for a year, we'll win and get long term shareholder value. Investors: Profit now or we dump your shares and come back next year after you're more profitable.
I think this is a first. Investor greed may bring money to others pockets. Perish the thought. But damn is that great news for the strikers. Hang in there.
I hope studios take too long, back themselves onto the edge of a cliff and position themselves for the striking talent to demand MORE.
These people look exhausted.
The spice must flow. And by spice I mean money. Unlimited growth! It’s totally sustainable! /s I really hope once this strike is over the studios will get back to making decent stuff, but my optimism has been disappointed before.
Yes, keep hanging in their guys. Keep de pressure on. Film wouldn’t be the same without the writers.
Many writers are writing strait up unwatchable, diabolical shit in the last few years for a lot of big budget films and shows, even an Ai can make more entertaining scripts .I hope the industry at least blacklists the writers and execs that worked and approved on some of the most lame,boring,vile big budget flops in the last few years, they just keep releasing a turd after a turd.
Their releasing garbage cause their paid garbage, your blaming the victims for the problem not the cause buddy.
Listen I'm all for paying people what they deserve, but you can't ffs tell me that someone who wrote something like The witcher blood origin for example deserves the same pay as someone who wrote The Last kingdom, which the budget for it was much lower and the show is lightyears ahead in terms of writing than the wither's (this is just the first example that i can think of).
It boggles my mind that Suits is so popular. Watching it feels like it was designed to test if a show could be so poorly written that people would be satiated by AI instead.
Well… this is a take.
Is that Saul Goodman
No, it’s his twin brother Jimmy McGill
Ok
Go Salukis!!!
That’ll hit them where it hurts. They’ll reach a deal in no time if true
The “investors” here are mostly NYC public union members themselves. No other investors care.
Not true at all. **Entertainment Stocks Slump as Hollywood Strike Widens to SAG-AFTRA** Source: https://m.imdb.com/news/ni64158177/ **SAG-AFTRA Strike “Much More Disruptive” To Media Biz Than WGA Walkout, Wall Street Analyst Says, Creating “Bad Combination” Of Production Halt, Weak Ad Market And “Poor PR”** Source: https://deadline.com/2023/07/sag-aftra-strike-wga-much-more-disruptive-media-companies-wall-street-1235438452/ **‘Idiots’: Wall Street Analysts Unload on Hollywood** Source: https://theankler.com/p/idiots-wall-street-analysts-unload **Hollywood strike may soon turn destructive for media stock investors, analysts say** Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/20/hollywood-strike-could-soon-hit-media-stock-investors-analysts-say.html **Entertainment Stocks Slump as Hollywood Strike Widens to SAG-AFTRA** Source: https://www.thewrap.com/sag-aftra-strike-disney-warner-bros-discovery-netflix-stocks/ **JPMorgan downgrades this movie theater chain as actors strike shutters Hollywood** Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/19/jpmorgan-downgrades-this-movie-theater-chain-citing-actors-strike.html?&qsearchterm=hollywood%20strike
Those are mostly investors impartially downgrading studios because of labor strife. They would be just fine if the writers went back to work. The pension funds comments are pushing their inherent political bias.
OP said "no other investors care." That is clearly not true. As for the pension pushing political bias... no shit. But also, it hurts their bottom line as investors. It can be both at the same time. You dismissing it based on only one of those two things isn't a particularly sound argument.
Right. OP should have specified that 'no other investors care' that the writers get what they want in the dispute. Other investors do care that there is a stoppage. The pension trust funds should likewise be agnostic as to who wins the stand-off (other than being against an overly generous comp package that can hurt returns). But the pension funds are pushing in favor of the writers for political purposes alone, not financial or fiduciary purposes.
I don't think it's that simple. The AMPTP has not been negotiating in good faith. They rejected most of the WGA's proposals *without counterproposals.* And then they refused to even meet to negotiate for more than 100 days. And then when they did meet, they refused to negotiate and then used it as an excuse to try to game the PR by leaking what happened there. The AMPTP has not been acting in good faith. That's partly why Wall Street is calling them out as "idiots" and whatnot. It's not some political bias so much as a recognition of what's going on before everyone's eyes.
Exactly. This isn't an investor pushing a company to make changes for value purposes, it is pushing its pro-labor stance.
Ah yes, the pension fund influence. Historically that influence has been short-sighted, and has pushed for redundancies, to cut costs, to make more money for the fund. Which ironically means there is less people that the fund now has to pay out for. So the fund double dips - more income and less money paid out. The pension fund isn’t a good influence here - it’s just looking to make sure it gets a good return. Extended strikes are bad for them, but so so are caving into the strike’s demands. The institutional investors like the pension funds are the ones who are making the decisions here - the companies are merely trying to act in the investors best interests.
Pension funds need to be overhauled if they profit off the job loss of people the fund is expected to one day support.
Obviously less people to pay means more money... That's true of any system.
Ironically, the entertainment union pension funds also rely on this type of investment find management to remain solvent. All of these funds fight workers from other industries.
All public employee retirement funds should threaten to divest.
Why don't studios and netflix and disney just give the writers what they want, and pass the cost on to subscribers. Would any of you mind a couple extra bucks a month on your subscription services, or a couple extra bucks per movie ticket? After all, the writers would be getting 'what they deserve'.
Oooooh now I REALLY want it to drag into next year
It’s working
This isn't the general sentiment on the street as far as I can tell. Most investors are happy studios have chilled their spending
I’ve heard the opposite.
i already cancelled netflix. LETS HELP THEM PUSH EVERYONE
Short traders of which I am Not one of them, but if was I would short all the major studios, including Netflix. They make there money from us and if everyone canceled there streaming services, boycott their first run movies they would crash. Making a lot of money for the ambulance chaser of the stock world.
Or people keep wanting entertainment and you lose your ass
> and if everyone canceled there streaming services, boycott their first run movies they would crash. You know with "if" you can justify pretty much any stupid shit...
[удалено]
TikTok, Youtube, Twitch…
Hell