Comments on: Potential Actor Strike/Boycott Threatens Oscar Broadcast

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:31:42 +0000

However, the Directors Guild spent thousands on researching the future of new media. The findings showed that the internet and other new media platforms would not be viable avenues of income until around 2014. The new contracts that the other 7 major entertainment trade unions worked out with the producers, and the one SAG needs to man up to, lasts for 3 years. That means that new negotiations can take place prior to 2012.

SAG needs to just take the deal now, save whatever argument they have for new contracts in 2011-2012, spend money on research to back their claims, and move on. With the US economy as it is now, it is absolutely the wrong time to strike. It would only demonstrate the greed and ignorance of SAG. I understand the majority of SAG actors are underpaid, but striking will do no one any favors.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:55:59 +0000

Its a bit more complicated. Sure, people like Tom Hanks or Brad Pitt rake in obscene amounts of money. However, the vast majority of working actors/SAG members barely eek by. Most of them do do via residuals. With TV residuals decreasing and the internet emerging as the future of broadcast, the actors feel that if they cave in now and get denied adequate residuals from the internet, then they will watch their futures get bleaker as TV residuals dwindle with nothing to replace it. And both the writers and the actors got a relatively weak deal on DVD sales in the past contracts, considering how much money that rakes in. I'm not saying I'm in favor of a strike. I've been working as a teacher so I know all about being underpaid, but it's not just about greedy spoiled actors.

By: aerinpegadrak

aerinpegadrak — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:08:44 +0000

Please. No matter what the actors say they're striking for, the underlying reason is to get more money. Not only is that horrifyingly greedy, but it undermines the very idea of a strike and saps its efficacy, to the detriment of people who really are facing poor working conditions and could use a strike to fight back. I doubt these whiny pampered babies are facing anything nearly as bad as other strikers have faced.

By: Vik

Vik — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:02:44 +0000

Add me to the list of people bewildered about what they are striking about. If it is higher pay, they deserve a sock in the face. I have been looking forward to next year's Oscars since 'The Dark Knight' released in July and I'm thrilled with the year's other top contenders as well. So they'd better not f**k around with the ceremony this time around as I'm sure there are loads of people like me who feel as strongly as me.

By: Alyjerk

Alyjerk — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:55:27 +0000

ah just get on with it and get it over with, we need films

By: adu

adu — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 06:02:03 +0000

Yeah, what's the reason exactly?

By: Jerzey Jon

Jerzey Jon — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:42:56 +0000

@angel: I hope they are not striking about higher pay. Why the f**k do they want more money for? Millions aren't enough? Getting paid higher than soldiers risking their lives isn't enough? Getting paid more than the president isn't a enough? Geez, i hope it's not higher pay, or they are some greedy "son of a bi**hes".

By: angel

angel — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:33:58 +0000

What are the actors striking about? Internet rights? Higher pay (I hope not this one, as they already get paid a ridiculous amount of money and have no reason to complain in this floundering economy)? I think that the awards season is when unsung people in the movie industry finally get their due, and it seems wrong to steal this night from them.

By: Cali Punk Rock Girl

Cali Punk Rock Girl — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:16:25 +0000

NOOOOOO!!!! Please no, not again!