MembershipFirst Unveils Campaign Slate

COMMENTS (56)

• to suit,
  hey, we’re probably not going to see eye to eye on most things.
  obviously.
  and did SAG make some mistakes? sure.

  but these facts remain:

  the majority of DGA members don’t rely on residuals.
  ADs and UPMs don’t participate that way.
  young and journeyman directors in T. V. do,
  but the DGA is an elite group
  with many highly paid directors having points in a movie or points in the sale of t.v. show if it syndicates. many of these people are also producing their own films. they have production companies and any work stoppage, wherever it comes from throws a big monkeywrench in their plans.

  (i know you know all of this, i’m just spelling it out for readers who might not.)

  the DGA’s assessment of the viability of the internet as a delivery system IS VALID ONLY FOR THEM.
  their assessment was, “there’s nothing in this for US. let’s move on.”
  great. good for them. but what’s good for the DGA is not a usable template for SAG.
  throw into the mix an aggressive sister union with a beef against SAG
  who is only too willing to allow the AMPTP to play the two actor’s union’s against each other, and here we all are.

  and i understand, i do, that it’s just business. so you guys say
  “AFTRA is offering us the same actors at WAL-MART prices? great!”
  okay, what would the ‘ideal’ business model look like?
  how about one where YOU make a ton of dough with very little overhead?
  sounds kind of like the deal you’re offering in new media.
  the potential is there anyway, and if this thing takes off the way most people think it will, you guys will NOT want to revisit the deal in some hollow sunset clause. we were supposed to revisit DVDs in success and that hasn’t happened.
  so forgive us if we don’t trust you when you say we’ll look at everything again in 3 years.
  this is all just business.
  everybody is telling SAG to take this deal because until we do
  we’re endangering everyone’s rice bowl.
  what about our rice bowl?
  AFTRA has no consideration for actors and their livelihoods or they wouldn’t have sold them short in cable and now with this lousy new media deal. to them actors are little ATMs who are useful when it comes time to pay for broadcasters pensions.

  look, whoever you are… man or woman .. if you have a family and kids
  whatever your situation is… i wish you well.
  no bullshit. i want us all to prosper.
  we’re asking for a fair deal.

  Comment by harry98 — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 11:17am PDT  Reply to this post

• all actors should still be feeling the burn of the amptp wanting to “nurture the baby” in a good faith plea to sag that turned out to be anything but. the baby grew up to make a shit-ton of money worldwide, very little of which filtered into non-hyphenate actors’ bank accounts.

  sag’s current negotiating committee won’t be making that kind of mistake, and everybody should be grateful that the upcoming elections won’t unseat them. there’s some experience in that committee that couldn’t be matched by all the u4s candidates put together.

  Comment by kristy kreem — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 3:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear T-Rex:
  If your rant is an example of the subtle and brilliant tactics that SAG uses to negotiate the best contracts for it’s members and their industry…well, hate to point out the obvious…but God help y’all.

  Harry98:
  You some very good points, actually. And by the way, I’m not saying that the DGA deal itself is a good template for SAG, I merely think that the methodology the DGA uses to make deals is a good template for guilds in general.

  And, as I’ve pointed out before, the real difficult (and perhaps unsolvable) issue that SAG faces is not anything in the current deal, it’s not “new media” (which is a fiscal joke, trust me), or the level of residuals, or Guild minimums…it’s UNEMPLOYMENT.

  Vast, intractable, gut wrenching unemployment. I’ve been unemployed more than once and I HATED IT.

  As far as I know there is no other union or Guild in the United States that deals with such profound levels of unemployment. No one on this board seems to have analyzed the unbelievable effects a 90% (essentially) unemployment rate has on a professional Guild, both financially and emotionally. It’s such a big deal it’s almost beyond commentary…it makes the other issues look like a complete joke…like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic… Because, let’s face it, if you work, you make great money as an actor. It’s that simple.

  Do I have a solution? Sadly, no. But there has to be some way to ameliorate this, to put to creative use the vast energies of SAG. And picking apart compensation for the joke that is “new media” ain’t it.

  Comment by a suit — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 4:03pm PDT  Reply to this post

• kristy kreem:

  I agree. the whole idea that we have to argue about the amptp and aftra’s motives is utterly ridiculous. are these people ignorant or just naive?

  on the one hand they continue to babble on about merging with a union whose leader has publicly declared her intention to compete with sag by fucking actors out of a fair deal and getting them jobs at substandard wages, P&H, contributions, workplace protections, overtime, residuals and so on, and, on the other, we have people saying we should make a shitty deal with a bunch of soulless corporate toads.

  do these people have any dignity? are they so willing, and anxious even, to sell themselves and their fellow actors cheap because, on some level, they feel unworthy of respect?

  it’s actually a very interesting behavior to ponder:

  here’ my ass – sell it now! you aint got 50? I’ll take 25! I got bills to pay!

  Comment by T-rex — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 4:24pm PDT  Reply to this post

• hey, suit, most actors ARE unemployed, so, really, that’s not everybody’s biggest issue. actors subsidize their careers in many ways. my handyman is a really, really good actor. sometimes people recognize him when he’s at home depot buying handyman stuff. he also understands that if sag makes a bad deal, he’ll make more as a handyman than he ever will as an actor. he’ll also go fi-core if meryl streep takes his right to vote away. now THAT’S a real issue for sag.

  you know how a lot of actors are making money right now? internet projects. webisodes. brandon tartikoff knew where the future was, and before his death, he went into business with AOL to make tv shows. that was in 1997 and most people were still on dial-up modems and thought he was crazy.

  while we wait, maybe we should start negotiating directly with all the new internet broadcasting companies that are cropping up like weeds. time warner & michael eisner just raised a big buncha capital for an independent internet tv broadcasting company. from their web site:

  “About Veoh Networks, Inc.
  Veoh Networks is a new, innovative internet television broadcasting system that is able to reach hundreds of millions of broadband-connected viewers throughout the world. Veoh allows content producers from major entertainment studios and television networks to independent video producers and enthusiasts to deliver high-quality, full-screen video directly to consumers without financial, geographical or capacity restrictions found in traditional broadcasting systems. This democratization of video distribution fundamentally changes the dynamics of television, creating unprecedented choice for consumers and a compelling marketplace for content providers and advertisers. Veoh is privately held and backed by leading technology and media investors, including Spark Capital, Michael Eisner’s Tornante Company, Time Warner Inc. and Shelter Capital Partners. Veoh Networks is based in San Diego, California.”

  Comment by kristy kreem — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 8:50pm PDT  Reply to this post

• -kreem

  Once again you blame the AMPTP for doing their job. The only ones to blame for the first DVD deal and not re-addressing it is SAG’s lack of leadership and balls in past negotiations. That lack of leadership cannot be made up for all at once. That’s not how business works …… Let’s not forget this is a business.

  Start treating it like one and you will see results. Keep whining and you will loose greatly.

  Comment by #44 — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 9:26pm PDT  Reply to this post

• hey suit:

  spare me the “shocked – shocked!” – response to calling you out. your predecessors: the warner brothers, goldwyn. louie mayer, I guess, would have offend your sensibilities as well. those guys would have eaten you alive.

  no, I’M not negotiating. I’m just calling a spade a spade, and if you think new media is a “fiscal joke,” you’re a rather dim spade at that.

  which brings me, again, (you also didn’t answer my question) to the heart of the matter. tell us, karnak: why won’t the amptp give sag a percentage of revenue in new media from dollar one and first airing – especially since you’re apparently breaking the news that new media is a “fiscal joke?”

  see, the two don’t go together: hard line on new media, cause new media is… a fiscal joke? doesn’t really scan, does it? I assume you’re not negotiating on your side of the moat either. I don’t think the real suits would care for the whole “new media=fiscal joke” thing. just a hunch.

  as to your epiphany that sag has an unemployment problem? yes, it does. good noticing. the industry has plenty of actors to choose from, they just tend to hire the same 9 of them, figuratively speaking. sort of. they’re not very bright fellows, the suits, creatively, that is. they tend to rely on, well, creative people for that.

  and you actually put your finger on one of the main reasons sag is holding out. actors careers, generally, wax and wane. I assumed you knew this, but I guess not. so, the protections sag fights for help cover the actor in hard times: residuals is number one. hence, the current labor impasse.

  there are all kinds of fabulous actors who, contrary to the misunderstandings permeating the debate, don’t work much, for long periods. it’s the nature of the beast. there are few jobs, the competition is intense, and the actor has no real power, or protection in the industry, outside of sag.

  I worked with horton foote once (he’s a famous american writer you fucking moron) and he told me he moved to new hampshire and sold antiques for ten years. not one job. not one. he went on to win another academy award for best screenplay (he’d already won his first when hollywood decided he couldn’t write) and a pulitzer prize.

  so, you see, actors being out of work has more to do with the nature, the fickleness, the trends, the “list” some casting director presents as “acceptable hires” than it does anything else.

  are there shitty actors? you bet. lots. but the ones who stick around tend to be pretty good, because they’ve survived, simple as that. ruth gordon (“harold and maude”) called herself “call back ruth” because she always got called back, but seldom got the job. brilliant actress. then she said she looked around one day, and she’d outlived everyone. job, jobs, jobs. but before that? the suits had no idea she was so good, why? stupid.

  michael j. fox was an unknown canadian midget who brandon tartikoff famously predicted “would never be on a lunch box” after watching him audition for “family ties.” about a billion dollars later, fox gave him a lunch box with his picture on it.

  paramount, when they saw the rushes for “the godfather,” wanted to fire pacino and coppola. genius. charlie bludhorn of paramount, a dumb thug who happened to run a studio. wanted to fire pacino and coppola…

  the suits thought citizen kane was a disaster. greatest american film of all time, in any poll you look at.

  the whole town was positive “titanic” was going to bring down the whole business.

  the idea that you, a suit, would actually lecture anyone on anything, is just the bees knees.

  please, more of the negotiating 101 before I poop my pants in anticipation.

  Comment by T-rex — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 9:59pm PDT  Reply to this post

• to suit,

  okay, riddle me this batman:
  if new media is a joke, why are the conglomerates tripping over themsleves to set up all these new delivery companies for the internet?
  the list was at about 40 a month ago and i’ve heard that it keeps growing.
  i don’t know what your inside scoop is on how there’s no there there, but
  the bigshot’s behaviour indicates otherwise.

  the thing about our union being mostly unemployed is true, but there are reasons for it beyond the malignant comments saying that most don’t work because they’re no good.
  90% of us are unemployed at any given time. we kind of work in shifts.
  our careers are cyclical and often there seems to be no rhyme or reason why some people are getting jobs while others can’t get arrested.
  but here are a few things that always figure into it.

  a bunch of our members are seniors and there aren’t enough parts for seniors.

  a bunch of us are people of color, and while there are more opportunities than there used to be, there still aren’t enough, so this sizable group of talented people compete with each other for a relatively small number of gigs.

  some of us have physical disabilities and challenges. not alot of roles.
  if an actor loses a limb, they’re still an actor.

  and a bunch of us are women and you know how it is for women in this business as they mature.

  whatever the obstacles might be, these people don’t pack it in.
  they pay their dues and wait, ’cause in this business, you never know.
  these people are the reason the qualified voting idea that’s being bounced around is just wrong.

  anyway, these are some of our realities.

  Comment by harry98 — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 11:06pm PDT  Reply to this post

• #44

  you’re not an actor.
  i don’t know what you do for a living, but you’re not an actor

  and it’s ‘LOSE’, not ‘LOOSE’.

  Comment by harry98 — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 11:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “Once again you blame the AMPTP for doing their job. The only ones to blame for the first DVD deal and not re-addressing it is SAG’s lack of leadership and balls in past negotiations. That lack of leadership cannot be made up for all at once.”

  so, you’re criticizing the current negotiating committee for learning from past mistakes and having the balls to stick to the demands of a fair deal?

  Comment by kristy kreem — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 11:48pm PDT  Reply to this post

• harry98
  Boy you got me. You have totally destroyed my argument because I spelled something wrong. ……… LOL!

  kristy-
  Try and read the whole post next time. If you would like to comment at that time please do ………..

  Every time you Two post it is so obvious why SAG is stuck in the mud.

  Comment by #44 — Saturday August 9, 2008 @ 8:43am PDT  Reply to this post

• harry98

  So, I am not an Actor because I don’t agree with your politics ………. interesting. Once again you deliver a stunning argument.

  I did however agree with the “Riddle me this” post.

  Comment by #44 — Saturday August 9, 2008 @ 8:58am PDT  Reply to this post

• hey 44

  you got anything substantive to say? besides your opinion that sag leadership sucks?

  you actually KNOW anything?

  outside of “take the shitty aftra deal and live to fight another day” generalities, would you care to be specific about anything?

  as in, here’s an example of WHY sag’s concerns about this contract are baseless.

  or, here’s an example of exactly HOW sag FORCED aftra to break their word to negotiate with sag, as in the last 28 years.

  or, here’s WHY it will be o.k. for sag to allow the amptp to set a precedent on new media for non-union actors to fill.

  or. here’s WHY agreeing to a precedent that sag actors will get essentially no residuals from new media under this deal is o.k.

  or, here’s why sag should merge with a union ON RECORD as having lied and then undercutting sag to compete directly, by offering lower terms for aftra contracts?

  or here’s HOW u4s will SPECIFICALLY change things UNDER SAG LAWS that will change the current dynamic of this contract negotiation in any way?

  or, how, when u4s says “we want everything sag wants – and more!” they expect to get it, when, even if they run the table in the elections (unlikely), they will be sitting in front of the same amptp negotiators, and u4s won’t get it either?

  you see? if you actually open your mind to the possibility you might be misinformed, or just not know all that much about what your talking about, it’s a different story.

  try answering these questions. try to be specific, accurate, and make some kind of persuasive argument. THEN you may come off as something other than a dilettante talking trash.

  we’re waiting.

  Comment by t-rex — Saturday August 9, 2008 @ 3:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• o.k. folks – the evidence is starting to trickle out:

  1. a letter, from doug allen to kim hedgepath of aftra CONFIRMING that AFTER the “bold and the beautiful” bullshit -

  (“sag tried to take it away from aftra!” -

  April 14,2008
  To the members of SAG:
  LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!
  “NO CAST MEMBER OF THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL HAS BEEN SOLICITED BY ANY DIRECTOR OR ELECTED OFFICER OF SAG TO LEAVE AFTRA AND JOIN THEM…… PERIOD” –

  that’s a QUOTE from susan flannery, the actress from the soap herself.)

  – was denied by both doug allen AND susan flannery.

  and AFTER sag and aftra agreed on the bloc voting
  issue –

  (sag had reasoned that, since they represented 100% of film and 95% of primetime TV, that perhaps it would be a more fair representation of the two unions positions vs. management, that sag have more seats at the bargaining table, not a 50/50 split. aftra pitched a frothing at the mouth fit, and sag said “o.k. we’ll go 50/50 as we have before”)

  - that aftra had AGREED, in front of john sweeney, president of the afl-cio, to bargain together with sag, as they had for 28 years.

  this letter from allen to hedgepath CONFIRMS all this, which begs the question:

  why are aftra and u4s supporters CONTINUING to spread the falsehood that it was sag that “pushed aftra to bargain separately” which is clearly untrue. this letter confirms aftra BROKE THEIR WORD for one reason and one reason only: to compete with sag by undercutting actors for aftra’s own profit, increased jurisdiction and the power and leverage that would bring. in short, they stabbed sag’s leadership and sag’s actors in the back for their own personal gain.

  “in the best interest of actors?” you decide.

  2. the most recent filing with the department of labor PROVING, once and for all, that sag has a SURPLUS, and that, according to aftra’s department of labor filing, aftra has a DEFICIT.

  it’s right there in black and white.

  so, the question again becomes: WHY are aftra and u4s supporters CONTINUING to spread the FALSEHOOD that sag has been financially mismanaged by current leadership, when it is, in fact aftra that has been financially mismanaged, and sag that is financially sound? you decide.

  both these documents are available:

  1. any candidate for MF can show you doug allens letter

  2. go to http://www.sagwatch.com to see the department of labor filings

  Comment by T-rex — Saturday August 9, 2008 @ 8:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

• AND, by the way. you want to see the actual memo’s from the trustees (LEGALLY BOUND to tell the truth after their exhaustive investigation to joining the plans in 2003)themselves CONFIRMING that a sag/aftra merger was NOT in the best interests of sag, because aftra has a weak plan and sag has a strong plan and sag members would end up seeing THEIR pensions subsidizing aftra’s pensions, meaning lower sag benefits? go to saginfo.blogspot.com

  Comment by T-rex — Saturday August 9, 2008 @ 8:37pm PDT  Reply to this post

• i’m very concerned about whether the majority of union members — especially the very members that are trying to unseat membership first — truly understand what’s at stake when it comes to the new media issues of use and the re-packaging of original content.

  a huge part of what new media will deliver is archived actor content — interviews, promo pieces, etc., — that will be re-packaged as on-demand/pay-per-view/subscriber content, without compensation to the actor, without needing permission from the actor, and with the ability to alter the content without the actor’s permission.

  right now, under traditional media, permission from the actor must be obtained to use that actor’s likeness. when an actor’s likeness is used without the actor’s permission, the user (if busted) must pay a fine/fee to the actor.

  but if the amptp gets their way in terms of new media, actors won’t be compensated or in control of the use of their name and likeness, which is truly terrifying. the entire history of archived actor content (interviews, promo pieces, etc.) will be re-packaged, altered, and used in perpetuity by producers as promotional content for their new media projects, with no actor compensation or control whatsoever.

  this takes actor exploitation to an unprecedented level and will affect the livelihood and reputation of just about every single actor who’s ever worked in film or television.

  Comment by Anonymous — Saturday August 9, 2008 @ 11:28pm PDT  Reply to this post

• oops, i forgot to pseudo-identify myself in my above use/re-packaging of original content post.

  Comment by kristy kreem — Saturday August 9, 2008 @ 11:40pm PDT  Reply to this post

• just to slightly modify T-Rex’s information:

  folks should go to SAGWATCHDOG.COM to see the department of labor filings.

  it’s confusing, i know. sagwatch is sort of a pro-aftra site

  Comment by salamander — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 1:53am PDT  Reply to this post

• yeah – sagwatchdog.com for the dept. of labor filings.

  these quotes are from barry meyer, chairman of time-warner, and and jeff bewkes, at warner brothers, from TODAY’S NEW YORK TIMES.(8-10-08):
  ——————————————–

  The future, most agree, is seamless distribution of films to television using INTERNET TECHNOLOGY. But the big question facing Hollywood is, HOW FAR OFF IS THAT FUTURE?

  “Management’s biggest challenge is transitioning into this brave new world without trampling the massive revenue streams that have supported our businesses for so long,” Mr. Meyer says.

  And that, of course, brings Mr. Bewkes back to his central point: in a digital age, CONTENT BECOMES MORE VALUABLE, NOT LESS, BECAUSE IT’S CHEAPER TO DELIVER.”

  “THE PRODUCTION OF MEDIA CONTENT IS A GROWING CATEGORY” MR. BEWKES SAID. “IS THAT A GOOD AND PROMISING THING FOR US? YES.”

  Mr. Bewkes suggested that it would take THREE TO FIVE MORE YEARS before high-definition videos are delivered conveniently over the Internet.
  ————————————-

  So, “content is everything” and, it will be delivered over the internet in “three to five more years.”

  does this drive home WHY sag is fighting off giving “content” a huge non-union space to develop, and WHY sag is fighting off the phase out of residuals for the internet?

  Does any supporter of Unite For Strength or AFTRA think it would be a good idea to follow aftra and agree to just both those things, as aftra has already done, when it broke away from sag and cut a deal one on one with the amptp?

  Comment by T-rex — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 10:04am PDT  Reply to this post

• T-rex
  No I guess I don’t know anything at all…….

  Oh yeah,……. I know SAG still does not have a contract because they got bogged down arguing about DVD’s and gas money when the sole concern should have been New media.

  I am also amazed that everyone keeps saying AFTRA has no power and only a small percentage of the TV market, yet they are to blame……….

  We all know what went down with SAG and AFTRA. We also know that the current SAG leadership has had hostile relations with AFTRA . I don’t care what was said. The chickens have come home to roost. Now stop your whining and get off the AFTRA bashing. It doesn’t help your case. …. (for the record, I believe what AFTRA did was hurtful to all parties)…….. Move on!

  I never said “the current leadership sucks”……(your words). I said that they took their eye off the prize. I think that all people involved “think” they are doing what is best for the union. They took a militant stand and their bluff was called. ……. So now what do we do? ……… Come on answer man/woman,……. What is the next brilliant move? ……….

  And for the record … If you condescend to me one more time or call me a name. I will “NOT” respond to you because you will have proven you are not capable of having a rational debate. You can still get mad just don’t be a baby about it.

  Comment by Anonymous — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 2:05pm PDT  Reply to this post

• to ‘anonymous’

  you feel that what aftra did was hurtful to all parties.
  me too.
  move on? okay let’s try. what’s the next move?

  well, if the SAG membership was to vote this contract down and give leadership a strike authorization? i bet we’d have a contract we could be very happy with within a week or two.
  that’s just my guess.
  there is never a good time to strike. when times are bad, like now, folks say, “We can’t afford this. People are losing their homes.”
  when times are good, they say, “Don’t make waves! Things are good!”
  but the only thing that gets ownership’s attention is when you choke off their money.
  every thing that we enjoy now .. pension, health care, residuals… were won by our SAG predecessors who fought for them, some times by going on strike.
  when management proposes choking off our money, it’s
  ‘good business sense.’
  when we choke off their’s, it’s “ridiculous! preposterous! damaging to
  the industry!”

  the writer’s strike failed to produce a proper result, because they were undermined by the self-serving DGA and then WGA leadership was pressured by powerful factions within their own guild to cave.
  it often comes down to the ‘haves’ saying, ‘these are my
  money-making years! don’t fuck them up with your labor bullshit!’
  again, just my opinion of what happened.

  this time, the amptp is offering a bum deal for new media that could spell the end of residuals, and is asking for roll-backs in clips, and force majeure.
  if we take this deal, then maybe next time they’ll say “You know, we
  just can’t pay for all this health care anymore.”
  would you be ready to strike then?

  Comment by harry98 — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 4:53pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “anonymous”

  your signal’s fading buddy, “I don’t care WHAT was said” – is that the argument of a man, or a 5th grader?

  you’ve been challenged to respond with facts, not opinion. well, that’s opinion pal. going to “call me a name and I won’t respond?” go change your fucking diapers. get your shit straight, do some – even a minor amount of research – and then post something coherent for gods’s sake. you’re beginning to look really foolish.

  here’s some “facts.” I figure you probably already read them on the other thread under your other name or names, but, just to make it easy for you:

  go to sagwatchdog.com, you will see the department of labor filings showing, conclusively, that sag has a healthy surplus, and that aftra has an unhealthy deficit.

  that would lead one interested in facts (was it mark twain who called them “pesky things?”) to understand once and for all, that the perpetrators of the “sag is broke and it’s membership first’s fault” lie, either don’t know what they’re talking about, or, they’re just, you know, liars.

  second – going to any mf candidate and asking to see the letter that doug allen wrote to kim hedgepath (aftra queen) in march. it would, again, help with the facts see, because, in the letter, allen confirms aftra’s pledge made in front of afl-cio president john sweeney, to negotiate collectively with sag. this is AFTER the lie that sag tried to organize “the bold and the beautiful, an aftra show (go to http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/bold-beautiful-actress-susan-flannery-wants-to-set-the-aftra-sag-record-straight/) to see susan flannery’s own letter confirming THAT never happened) and AFTER the bloc voting issue was resolved to aftra’s satisfaction with a 50/50 split of seats at the negotiating board. (sag had the temerity, since they represent 100% of film and 95% of primetime television, to ask for a more reflective, proportional balancing of the seats, which sent aftra into a froth at the mouth frenzy) SO, you see, the allen letter, just released to all mf candidates, proves that roberta reardon LIED in making a public pledge to bargain together, and then went directly to the amptp and made a terrible deal. why? well, simple: to compete with sag at the expense of actors, and to fill up aftra empty coffers, increase it’s power, in short, make it a player, at the expense, again, of the actor, and at the expense of sag.

  this debate will resolve and fade, but the facts will remain. how unfortunate for 44 and lp and joe granville and all the others who consistently don’t answer specifics or cite proof, but engage in repeated, aggressive falsehoods to further their case.

  whatever happens, it aint gonna work guys. try checking the sources I cited and then replying SPECIFICALLY to those facts and tell us SPECIFICALLY what exactly mf has done to make you buy the fairy tale that aftra is the innocent party, and that mf needs to be replaced by u4s.

  it’s hard, I know, but, don’t forget: specifics. facts. I’ve cited several knocking down your arguments, now, you have to cite contrary facts – not opinions, not rumor – to prop up your case. that’s actually how this whole debate thing is supposed to work.

  Comment by T-rex — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 5:48pm PDT  Reply to this post

• T-Rex
  you are big and strong just like your name implies…and right too! About everything.

  Mazeltov.

  Comment by a suit — Monday August 11, 2008 @ 12:24pm PDT  Reply to this post

• suit

  thank you for the sincere compliments. good luck in your career as an executive in show business.

  and when you finally meet moses (mazeltov, I’m just assuming) and he asks you what you did with your life, you can tell him “I greenlit ‘sisterhood of the traveling pants 2′ ” to which moses will reply, “I liked the first one better.”

  Comment by T-rex — Monday August 11, 2008 @ 12:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

• t-rex:

  Hey! My projects are good projects! Well…except for that one…but that was assigned to me! Or was it? Maybe it was my idea…ah dammit….

  Have done a lot of movies and TV…some great, some just fun, some (I have to admit it) freakin’ embarrassing. And the weird thing is, sometimes the most embarassing stuff came when I was trying to do the best! And vice versa! Such an unpredictable business (Goldman was right).

  But seriously T-Rex, your concern about my afterlife has me thinking…

  …what will you say to Moses? What have you accomplished?

  Comment by a suit — Monday August 11, 2008 @ 4:34pm PDT  Reply to this post