Potential Actor Strike/Boycott Threatens Oscar Broadcast
It looks like it could be happening all over again
It's been nice not reporting any news from the bowels of Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood blog, but a new item cannot be ignored as she insinuates that the Screen Actors Guild may be targeting the 2009 Oscar awards as a means to get contract negotiations moving. I have been relatively mum on the subject since covering the writers' strike was a nightmare in and of itself and I just don't have the time or patience to go another round on the subject, but if the award season is going to be targeted once again I must say that does not make me happy.
Finke reports on an email she was able to obtain sent out by "Jennifer Heater, manager of the Screen Actors Guild's National Policy & Strategic Planning" and it goes as follows:
RE: Screen Actors Guild Negotiations Update
As part of our ongoing outreach to SAG members and other members of the entertainment community, we are holding a meeting for managers and publicists at Screen Actors Guild Headquarters in Los Angeles, the meeting should last about 1 1/2 hours.
We have received numerous inquires about the status of negotiations, and we’d like to have the opportunity to discuss the situation together. Please join us at this important meeting.
Please RSVP to Jennifer Heater.
In solidarity,
Alan Rosenberg, President
Doug Allen, National Executive Director & Chief Negotiator
Pamm Fair, Deputy National Executive Director
The email was sent to "every Hollywood and New York big-time publicists and talent managers" and Finke's sources tell her it is with regard to a "strike or boycott" with strike authorization ballots expected to be sent out some time after Christmas.
Considering the time table involved Finke implies last year's awful Golden Globes ceremony won't be likely to repeat as the January 11 broadcast date seems safe. However, she says she has heard talk "among the Hollywood CEOs about moving the Oscars' February 22nd date to later in the event of a strike authorization or boycott by the big actors union."
The last thing I want is for what I consider to be one of the most enjoyable nights in this industry to get tainted by yet another strike offering up an Oscar presentation filled with clips and boring retrospectives.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 9 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
NOOOOOO!!!! Please no, not again!
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.
@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".
Yeah, what's the reason exactly?
ah just get on with it and get it over with, we need films
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.
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.
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.
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.