New ‘Man Of Steel’ Television Spot #6 
UPDATE: At Least Seven Bidders For Hulu 
Hammond On Cannes: Suspense Builds To Sunday’s Palme … 
Cannes: Un Certain Regard Winners Include ‘The … 
SAG-AFTRA Sued For Witholding Foreign Residuals And … 
Harvey Weinstein Closes Prolific Cannes With Deals For … 
Cannes: Competition Movies Divide Critics; How Much Do … 
Zach Braff Ends $3+M Kickstarter Campaign 
Fox Unscripted TV Czar Mike Darnell To Exit 
NBC Sets Oklahoma Tornado Benefit Concert For May 29 
Cannes: Directors’ Fortnight Honors ‘Les … 
SHOCKER: Tom Cruise Exits ‘Man From … 
A+E Rebuild: BBC’s Jana Bennett To Run Bio And LMN … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Hannibal’ Hits Low, … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
UPDATE: Here is the definitive answer to whether there is now a de facto strike or a de facto lockout in Hollywood. I’ve repeatedly opined it’s nonsensical to think there’s been a de facto strike when it’s the Hollywood CEOs who control the movie production spigot and who’ve made the decision not to let films go forward even though SAG has said publicly it has no plans to even ask its membership for a strike authorization vote (step one before a strike is even contemplated). And let me also make it clear here and now that the moguls have told me the production stoppage has nothing to do with completion bonds and insurance. As one mogul clarified in response to my question about this: ”Most studio movies are not bonded — those are indie films. 
And no insurance, unless separately bought for huge money, insures against strikes.” Another mogul emailed me when I asked if completion bonds/insurance were the studios’ reasons for the stoppage, “…That has not been the focus of our internal discussions.” So what has been? ”Firstly, our productions are coming to an end, as planned. Secondly, it’s only prudent to know there is an agreement before committing millions of dollars of production which you may not be able to get back.” Meanwhile, SAG has signed more than 500 guaranteed completion contracts with independent producers of films, the top of which boast budgets between $14 million and $40 million dollars and represent in total hundreds of millions of dollars. But pro-AMPTP factions are out and about in Hollywood claiming that SAG has shut down the town. B.S.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Great! I’m glad we got that straightened out.
Um… oh. we’re still not working. I guess SAG still doesn’t have the leverage to get AMPTP back to the table. Deja Vu all over again.
It’s a lockout for sure.
It’s been planned.
The Studios are ready and following their playbook again.
I think it’s time for me to go to France and make that little foreign language film for the summer and fall.
I agree that the “de-facto” strike is designed to put pressure on SAG to capitulate. This is the seasonal slow period anyway, and a good number of TV shows have already shot numerous shows for next season. Of course this was designed to give the AMPTP a pad if SAG went on strike. It also gave them a pad to shut down and a patsy to blame it on. I doubt there would be much going on now anyway.
As to a strike, I can’t imagine any scenario where SAG could muster the 75% needed to get authorization. The AFTRA vote PROVED that. Thus the teeth were pulled from the Lion and all leverage is lost.
Again, do the math. I will assume 100% voter participation, but rest assured the most motivated membership faction would be the dual card holders which if taken into account would make my conclusions even WORSE for SAG.
The vote was a 62% (or 43,400) votes FOR ratification. It’s a safe assumption that those numbers would hold if it was a SAG ratifiction.
If ALL 26,000 evil non SAG members voted against the contract, that leave 17,400 SAG members who voted for Ratification.
That is about 40% of SAG members FOR Ratification. That leaves 60% who voted against Ratification, a far cry from the 75% needed to authorize a strike.
For all you isolationists, take a quick look at these numbers
Now, IF we had MERGED and the vote was for with the COMBINED membership of 146,000 we would have 120,000 current SAG members and 26,000 NON SAG members. That 26,000 would include MORE Actors.
The current ratio in AFTRA of dual (“real” actors if you will) to non-dual (those pesky Broadcasters and such) is 44,000 to 26,000 or 1.7:1. Meaning for every “Fake” Actor, there are 1.7 “Real” Actors.
IF we had Merged the ratio would be 120,000 “real” actors to 26,000 “fake” Actors or 4.2:1. Thus for every “Fake” Actor, there would be 4.2 “Real” actors.
The current environment in AFTRA actually gives MUCH MORE POWER to the “Fake” Actors than if we MERGED.
If we had MERGED, the lions share of power would be with the “Real” Actors. And as the consolidation was designed, those who were not part of the Actors membership (pesky Broadcasters and Musicians and such) WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED ON THIS CONTACT!!! Each member would have chosen what sections they wanted to belong to (there was some criteria, but I don’t recall what it was).
Think about that for a bit. It’s time to get the heads out of the sand and move FORWARD!
(Note, all references to “real” and “fake” actors are in quotes for a reason! I hear they like to be called “faux” actors anyway, but that’s just a bit pretentious for me)
Hey NotGoingToTip –
The “completion bond” argument is horseshit? What?
So, the only reason there is a work stoppage is because of the Studios? Interesting…
where are you now?
Been There is absolutely right.
We should have merged. There are people in SAG who think they are better than people in AFTRA and who voted against the merge. The result? The Producers laugh at us and use divide and conquer to weaken us.
If we had one union, SAG membership would dominate the new union. If SAG, AFTRA and Equity were all joined, we could have everybody represented by ONE union. SEIU has proven that one union can negotiate all kinds of diverse contract in different fields. I see nothing wrong with having a united Actors union negotiating contracts for acting in film, television, stage, voice-overs, hosting on television and radio, and even stage managers.
I will vote for any pro-merger slate at the next SAG election. End this ego and pride driven nonsense now.
Both actors unions are weaker because the merger failed.
I will vote for any pro-merger slate at the next AFTRA and SAG and Equity elections. This divide and conquer strategy weakens all of us.
SEIU has proven their ability to negotiate all different types of contracts.
I have no doubts ONE unified actors union can successfully negotiate contracts for film, television, stage, radio, internet, stage management, voice-over, acting and hosting.
SAG is only giving completion guarantees to projects that are not being financed by people with any ties to the AMPTP. I was supposed to work on a little $2 million film, but the plug got pulled on it because it couldn’t get a completion guarantee because 15% of the financing was coming from someone with ties to the AMPTP. In fact, the way money in the business works today, it is very difficult to find financiers who DON’T have ties to the AMPTP. Ask SAG, they’ll tell you this is true. It’s what they told us.
Like it or not, what SAG is doing IS hurting people. So what is this, collateral damage? I don’t see how letting little project go would hurt anyone. In fact, it’d really help make SAG look better if they instituted some policy that said that films under a certain budget threshold (say $5 million or so) would be allowed to continue shooting no matter what. Then they really would be the good guys who were just going up against the greedy corporate giants, not the little sharecroppers trying to eke out a living.
So if the studios don’t accept SAG’s demands it’s called a “Lockout”?
Not only do SAG and AFTRA need to merge, all of the talent unions need to coordinate their efforts and do a joint negotiation against the studios. At the very least, they need to sync up their contract expiration dates so that they can strike at the same time instead of separately.
It’s just divide and conquer. The studios have joined forces, why don’t the people actually making the films do the same?
Marcella,
No, when the Studio’s stop making movies it’s called a “lockout”. SAG wants to be back at work but the Studio’s don’t want to negotiate.
Dear huh? — The studios not making movies for fear of the actors going on strike and shutting down the production is not a “lockout”. If it’s so easy maybe the actors should finance their own movies.
All SAG actors better hope that this is a de-facto strike (ie caused by SAG) and not a de-facto lockout (ie caused by the studios).
A de-facto strike means that SAG is using the leverage of its membership’s skills in negotiations with AMPTP to force them tp make a favorable deal.
If this is a de-facto lockout, then the actors are in serious trouble. Because that means SAG has no leverage! If the studios of their own free will chose to stop productions and making money and there is no threat from SAG to strike causing it, well that would mean YOU HAVE ZERO LEVERAGE – because they don’t care if they shot anything.
So, either SAG is using its muscle to try and pressure the AMPTP to meeting their terms or the AMPTP is calling all the shots and telling SAG you come to work when you meet our terms see you then.
If you are an actor (or support the actors in this labor dispute) you better hope that this is a de-facto strike and not a de-facto lockout or the outcome from this situation is looking really grim.
Marcella – And what the studios Star in their own films?
Actor’s have been financing their own films for years. You ever hear of a little company called United Artists – Started by Douglas Fairbanks, Charles Chaplin and Mary Pickford and D.W. Griffith.
Lesson In Leverage is RIGHT ON.
Unfortunately for us actors, it is a de-facto lockout but the AMPTP can paint SAG as the bad guy because they went after AFTRA, drug their feet in starting negotiations and are now shooting down the “final” offer on the contract that was what every other major union accepted.
The AMPTP doesn’t NEED to get back to work yet. They can drag their feet for at LEAST a month or two, beat up SAG in the media and use their LEVERAGE to soften up SAG to accept the deal. Then they can begin their TV season like they had scheduled. Just wait until they start a new feature film under AFTRA’s new contract! That’ll be interesting.
SAG doesn’t appear to have the strength for a strike and any leverage they had was thrown away when they went after AFTRA and lost. Had they just let AFTRA ratify, they could still have the perception of pulling the strike card. But failing to win that battle, they lost all leverage.
And we all know that he who has the most leverage in a negotiation will always win.
John. United Artists? Really? That’s your argument? Name a company SINCE THE ADVENT OF TALKIES that was financed by actors.
So where’s the big PR. Firm now?
Where are the ad’s asking actors if they want to give their residuals to the big studios?
Where are the ad’s showing the billions of dollars the studios have made and are continuing to make ?
Where are the ad’s showing the highly anticipated BATMAN ? How about showing actors giving back their residuals to the studios for that film?
And the issues of consent?
There are a lot of actors that just aren’t grasping the magnitude of all this and they just want to keep working. Or they have quotes and agents powerful enough to protect them with clauses.
IT IS SAG’S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE GIVING AWAY !!!!
Where are the ad’s showing AFTRA’S broadcasters laughing at old re-runs of show that no longer pay residuals?
ADVERTISE FOR A STRIKE AUTHORIZATION…….
It’s the ONLY chance we have.
Scott – Marcella said – “If it’s so easy maybe the Actors should finance their own movies.”
Examples of Actors financing their own movies -
Spike Lee – “She Gotta Have It” And “Malcolm X” (the studios tried to shut him down and he went to Bill Cosby and his other Actors friends for funds.)
Jon Favreau – “Swingers”
Edward Burns – “The Brothers McMullen”
Kevin Smith – “Clerks”
Just to name a few.
Creative people will always survive and be able to create without the studios (AMPTP) – but the studios will die without the creative…
Scott – And companies started by Actors besides United Artists.
Robert Redford – Sundance Institute – not only has Mr. Redford (Actor) started the Sundance Institute, he started the festival and the whole movement behind indie film making – to get away from the studios all together.
And also let’s forget -
John Cassavetes – “A Woman Under the Influence” “Faces.”
These guys are pioneers…
John- are you high? UA? Really? Wow. I dunno what they’re teaching at USC’s film school, but stick to the keggers. The adults are talking.
I realize that this is a board devoted to, and populated by, anti-studio people, and the fact that it is moderated is also not lost on me.
Putting that aside, is there really such a lack of comprehension as to why any company which is in business to make money would not commence a business venture at a time where one of its needed raw materials could unilaterally and at a whim become unavailable? How can this possibly shock anyone? Unless and until SAG stops messing around, they always have the ability to try to call for a strike. Just because there is no way they could ever get a strike authorization doesn’t mean that its ok to start taking business risks.
And, regarding leverage, its not an issue of whether its ‘de facto’ or a ‘lock out’ and whether that classification causes leverage to be given to one side; it’s what each side does to protect itself from the other side getting leverage. If, with the possibility of the raw material disappearing, you decide to commence production anyway, you then put the supplier of the raw material at a marked advantage. If there is $x billion worth of production going on, SAG can jeopardize that at its whim. If there is no production going on, SAG can’t jeopardize it. Its not leverage, its a defense, and its VERY simple math. Why on earth would a business do anything else?
And, again … this ‘awful contract’ people keep talking about is the result of protracted negotiations, and a 100 day strike, which was ratified by two other unions. Stop referring to it as if it is just the words ‘you suck’ scrawled on a piece of paper.
Okay Marcella,
are you a moron? The studios have all the power…if they want to make movie they will…there is no fear of a strike…because SAG hasn’t called for one. The work stopage is due to the Studios and the Studios alone.
NotReally et. al.-
It may well be a poor business decision for the companies to do anything other than cease all production without a labor contract in force. And they are certainly within their legal rights to halt work.
But it’s still a “de facto lockout.”
Who is right, which side does or doesn’t have leverage, who is shilling for whom, etc., has no bearing on the correct use of the English language and the standard terminology surrounding labor issues.
A “de facto strike” entails a labor union advising it’s members not to report to work without calling an official strike. As of today, at least, that is not the case.
Even if they have justifiable business reasons for doing so, such as a fear of exposing themselves to significant losses if SAG does elect to strike in the middle of expensive productions, it is a matter of irrefutable fact that the AMPTP companies are responsible for any current work slowdown or stoppage.
Um, Nikki, do you have any idea how much it costs to shut down a feature and start it back up again? You have to travel everyone home, then back again – that’s dozens if not hundreds of plane tickets – extending leases on offices & stages, paying to hold your hotel blocks, storage, double shipping of all the equipment, and possibly losing half your crew when you do come back, adding days. Your $15 million movie quickly becomes a $20 million movie, and if the P&L for that film doesn’t work over $15 million, you can’t make it. The bigger studio projects that think they can absorb shutdown costs if necessary are CONTINUING TO FILM – so there is no de facto lockout, it is a de facto strike, with many lower-budgeted studio films unable to start production simply because of the risk of extra costs if SAG does strike. Learn a little about the business you try to write about, and have some sympathy for those of us who are freelance crew, losing money every freaking day now….
DLW – I appreciate that you acknowledged the positioning (which is infinitely better than those who are simply blindly on one side or the other), but I am not sure of your point.
You seem to be taking great pains to ensure that a label is placed. Is this because it is now going to be the cool thing to say ‘this is all the studios fault because we can call it a lockout’? If so, that’s fine, but the fine line distinction is quite lost on me.
It seems to me this is more like a “Pro-Life” vs. “Free Choice” argument. Both titles sound FANTASTIC. Who isn’t pro life? Who doesn’t want free choice? Of course the labels mean nothing, and they could not be more opposite. But they are labels, so yay!
Whichever label you wish to ascribe, resolution remains in SAG’s hands. As you acknowledged (thank you again – the absolute single-mindedness of most commentors can be maddening), it would be foolish, from a business standpoint, to do anything else until SAG puts away its weapon.