6 PM UPDATE: It’s official — the SAG National Board has approved a 2-year tentative deal. The vote was 53.38% to 46.62% and SAG will recommend the pact. But there will be both “Pro” and “Con” statements sent to members with the ratification materials. The official SAG and AMPTP statements are below.
4:40 PM: I hear there hasn’t been the intense level of vitriol inside SAG’s National Board meeting about the tentative TV/Theatrical Agreement with the AMPTP. That’s because I’m told opponents of the terms of the deal will get to include their “Con” statement when it goes out to the 120,000-strong members (at least those in good standing). I applaud this very fair and balanced step towards educating the big union’s actors about whether they wish to ratify this pact or not.
The “Vote No” contingent believes that, once actors see on paper that their residuals will slip away, they’ll reject the contract. Interestingly, the official SAG statement about the contract doesn’t spell out the exact residuals called for in the agreement, even though other provisions are specified.
But the SAG National Majority is privately saying it’s counting on the “exhaustion” factor to ensure passage: that SAG members are so tired of how long it’s taken to reach a deal that they’ll “Vote Yes” just to end the prolonged process. Still, SAG’s new leaders are going to have to explain in their “Pro” statement why in the world they didn’t at least try to negotiate better terms. Because this is the AFTRA contract with a few bones thrown in for features that were expected to be included at the last minute no matter who was heading SAG.
However, SAG’s ex-leadership would never have allowed the awful force majeure “compromise” that SAG’s Leaders 2.0 agreed to that leaves too many individual actors without the protection of their union.
After the SAG National Majority fired National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator Doug Allen, disbanded the guild’s Negotiating Committee, and replaced it with an appointed task force, the new unit was handed a “Last, Best & Final Offer” by the AMPTP”.
The only term truly bargained was to trim the 3-year pact down to a 2-year pact so it would end the same time as AFTRA’s, and that was accomplished in backchannel negotiations with the Hollywood CEOs. The SAG National Majority’s thinking is that, then, both unions could merge and together negotiate better New Media terms since the Hollywood CEOs will better know their profit margins. But the “Vote No” contingent believes this is a hopelessly naive strategy. Because Big Media and its AMPTP has failed to make more lucrative agreements for each new technology that came along — first VHS, then DVDs, now streaming and downloading. So the fact is that not once have the studio and network CEOs been open to renegotiate the contract terms each time a new format caught on.
No one really knows if the pact will pass. ”It’s going to take a massive upheaval from the membership to change what they’re imposing on us,” one of my sources says, ”and we don’t have a leader now, just accomplices.”
Finally, I hope that no one plays fast and loose with this ratification vote. I hope there’s no attempt like IATSE did to claim a “No” vote is a strike authorization. (It’s not.) I also hope there’s no attempt to confuse the Commercials Contract with the TV/Theatrical Contract. SAG members deserve an honest and open discussion about the pros and cons.
Here is the officiaL SAG statement tonight:
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVES TENTATIVE
TELEVISION AND MOTION PICTURE CONTRACTS AND RECOMMENDS RATIFICATIONLos Angeles (April 19, 2009) – The Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors today voted 53.38 percent to 46.62 percent to approve and recommend to members, new, two-year successor agreements to the 2005 Producer-Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic Agreement and 2005 Screen Actors Guild Television Agreement.
The proposed agreement, covering actors in motion pictures and television delivers 3.5% effective annual increases comprised of a 3% wage increase and a .5% pension and health contribution increase upon ratification, and a 3.5% wage increase in year two.
The board passed the below motion shortly after 4:00 p.m. today:
It was moved and seconded that the National Board directs the Interim National Executive Director to send the tentative agreement between the Producers represented by the AMPTP and the Screen Actors Guild for successor agreements to the 2005 Producer–Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic Agreement and the 2005 Screen Actors Guild Television Agreement to the membership for ratification, with a recommendation from the Board to vote ‘Yes.’
Approved: 53.38% –46.62%“I urge members to carefully review both the pros and cons in the referendum materials, and exercise their right to vote,” said Screen Actors Guild National President Alan Rosenberg.
Interim National Executive Director David White said: “We are pleased that Screen Actors Guild members will soon be voting on a deal for television and motion pictures. We’re eager to get our members back to work and to focus now on the challenges ahead, particularly on initiating a comprehensive effort to thoughtfully plan for the future.
Our negotiating committee, task force and professional staff have worked countless hours on this agreement over the last year. On behalf of the National Board, I thank them for their time, commitment and expertise.”
Chief Negotiator John McGuire stated: “This tentative agreement delivers increased contributions to the SAG pension plan, increased minimums, a significant gain in background actor numbers from 50 to 55 over the term of the contract, and it tracks the new media provisions achieved by other entertainment industry unions. The term of the agreement puts SAG in sync with the other unions, and does not include the extended term recently proposed by the AMPTP.”
Provisions of the proposed deal include:
• A two-year term of agreement concluding June 30, 2011.
• Effective annual increases comprised of 3.0% in wage increases and .5% in pension contributions upon ratification, and a 3.5% wage increase one year following ratification.
• A new media structure that tracks those achieved by other industry unions, resulting in gains for actors including:
• Jurisdiction on all derivative, made-for new media productions; automatic jurisdiction on all high-budget, original, made-for new media productions; plus jurisdiction on low budget original, new media productions that employee at least 1 covered performer.
• Residuals for exhibition of TV and Theatrical motion pictures on consumer pay platforms (Electronic Sell Through) at a greater percentage than those paid for DVD distribution.
• Residuals for ad-supported streaming of feature films and television programs.
• Residuals for derivative new media programs.
• Additional 5 covered background actors in feature films. From 50 to 53 covered background positions upon ratification of the contract, and from 53 to 55 covered background positions in year 2. Adds 1 covered background position in TV, from 19 to 20, upon ratification.
• Increased compensation for guest star premium from 7.5% to 10%.
• Increased trailer money break from $2,500 to $3,000, or more per week.
• Increased overtime money break for three-day performers from $2,700 to $3,000.Ratification ballots will be mailed to eligible SAG members in early May, with an expected return date at the end of the month.
Tabulation will occur immediately upon the conclusion of balloting.Bargaining for a successor agreement to the 2005 SAG TV/Theatrical Contract began on April 15, 2008.
Here’s the statement by the AMPTP:
The new AMPTP-SAG agreement is the eighth major labor agreement reached by AMPTP since the start of 2008 and the 312th such agreement in AMPTP’s 27-year history. Because both sides were willing to compromise we now have an agreement that will provide SAG members with meaningful wage boosts, pension increases, first-class health benefits, and a complete set of new media rights and residuals. With this agreement in place, our entire industry can work together to overcome the enormous economic challenges before us.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







Hey, “Person With an actual Job” – I’ll refrain from calling you names because that’s generally not allowed here, nor is it mature. (And also because I think you already know what you are and you like being that person…) But, remember that scene in “Roxanne” when that fat guy in the bar attempts to insult Steve Martin by calling him “big nose”? Remember the outcome? (Hint: you’re that guy – or girl.)
You sound like one more non-actor who thinks what we do is easy. “…standing on your mark and reciting memorized words”. Remarks like that are shallow, ill-informed, and at the very least cheap. Very cheap. And this during a time when all guilds should be standing together to help each other keep our futures intact. You’re livin’ in the dark ages, pal.
Yes, acting pays well (when it pays) – just like many lucrative jobs out in the world for which people study, learn and struggle to climb that professional ladder. And our pay structure (including residuals) was set up many years ago by people from both sides who understood what was needed to make quality content – in both TV and Film. None of that need has changed for either side. Creatives (actors, writers and directors) in this industry are paid residuals – period – and there’s a long list of reasons why. That’s old news. [people like] You think it’s easy? Try it sometime.
I believe most actors (like myself) would be willing to accept a bit less pay during these tough financial times – IF the studios were hurting, which they’re not. Record box office these days, if you hadn’t read a paper recently. Millions being made on the web, with millions more to come. No, they’re “crying poor” and using this current economic crisis as a hammer to crush residuals completely, a goal which they’ve stated publicly in the past.
What we’re fighting for is less about what we get paid than how we get paid; i.e. profit participation (residuals). Actors are paid much less up front than writers or directors, which means we have to rely on residuals (more than those other guilds) to earn a living. Very simple.
We are not the multi-million-dollar, above-the-line actor/movie stars out there (whom you seem to deride). We are the corps of what’s being called ‘the middle class actor’ – the heart and soul of on-camera content – not the movie stars. Producers will try but they can’t do much professional quality production without professional quality actors. Those actors hold SAG cards, my friend.
And as to that “fat guy in the bar” with Steve Martin? A schooled, SAG card-carrying character actor, who made that scene perfect. Anything less… well, you get the point, don’t you?
In response to ANOTHER WORKING ACTOR’s comment “…I wish people, Nikki included, would stop with the canard that we’re ‘going to lose residuals.’ We’ve already lost them! I did a lot of hour long television in the last few years and how many episodes re-ran? Next to none..”
I too do hour long drams and I have experienced a tremendous showdown this year and have lived off of my residuals from the shows I did this and last season. So speak for yourself my friend or do better shows because for a lot of us residuals still mean everything. Almost everyshow I have done has rerun in primetime or otherwise, thereby helping me survive as some “name” actor comes in and swoops up my Guest Stars (more power to them, do what ya gotta do). The frame of mind “its your problem not mine” is what brings down unions. SHAME ON YOU.
I WOULD RATHER NOT WORK FOR A YEAR AND FIGHT THAN DEAL WITH A LIFETIME OF LOWERED WAGES. fools
“What were we suppose to ‘hold out for’ that would not have ultimately left us holding the bag?” –Todd Waring
Try this out, it’s simple & fair.
“When the companies get paid, actors get paid a percentage of that”
It’s now your team that not only fumbled the ball but got sacked in your own endzone by AMPTP.
Let me give you another chestnut:
If you don’t like what AFTRA pays don’t take AFTRA work. In fact resign from the outlet mall of entertainment labor unions and demand more (How do you think the execs get the big bucks, by begging Oliver Twist style to their boards of directors, “please sirs, I want some more”? Hell no, they insist on getting paid and so should you.). If you don’t believe you’re worth it why should anyone else?
As my mother used to say (may she rest in peace) you can’t be a doormat for others if you don’t first willingly lay down for them. AFTRA’s deal and SAGs require you to prostrate yourself before the execs so they can leave the tracks of their Guccis or Jimmy Choos on your back. You don’t have to do that at all.
a lot of people here are commenting that the writers “did nothing to help” during the sag negotiations. what were the writers supposed to do? talk to the producers on your behalf and get you a better deal? negotiate the contract for you? magically give you a strike authorization?
had sag struck you would have seen a lot of red shirts walking with you. god helps those who helps themselves.
I believe there’s a “Most Favored Nation” clause in the other unions’ agreements – if they give SAG more, then they’ll have to renegotiate with the other unions as well. If so, they screwed SAG pretty well. Take this deal, and all the unions get together next time. Well, maybe not the DGA. They do what they want anyway.
Person with an actual job…
You probably work in finance with the other geniuses. Acting as a career is brutal, especially when you have kids. You have very little idea what an actor goes through to stay an actor. Perhaps you should consider it before you share your shallow opinions.
And to Roberta Reardon, thank you for neutering two unions! I can’t wait to vote your ineptitude out of the office but I sure hope you’ll have the courtesy to leave the planet first.
Very similar story to the commercial contract…
This is the same type of residual give-away we saw with DVD. In a few years, when ABC, NBC, and CBS start calling themselves ‘dot coms’ instead of broadcast networks, and even local stations are in the same boat, there will be no over the air reruns to generate residuals. What we now call ‘Cable tv’ will soon be a wire to your router – THE INTERNET. If we’re making zero or close to zero residuals on everything then (which we will be under this contract) we are done earning any sort of real living in this business.
Nice job protecting any long-term prospects for actors working in television, SAG. It’s gonna be just a hobby for those who can still afford time off from waiting tables very soon. What did you gain by firing Doug Allen and throwing away over $1,000,000 in our dues money in the process? NOTHING.
To the jealous fucking ASSHOLE that “real job” is:
When producers make money off creatives’ work, those who created the work that makes the money get a cut.
PERIOD.
It’s absolutely criminal that ignorant jackasses like you, who likely could never create anything meaningful in their entire lives, don’t grasp the simple fairness in that concept. Instead, you support the equivalent of intellectual serfdom — making the rich who can’t create richer off the backs of those who can.
If you understood the first thing about how hard it is to create, you’d know how morally bankrupt your mindset is.
Todd Waring- Obfuscate all you like but maybe when you’re done with that you can find some fancy words to tell us deaf which of the roll backs you’re good with giving up. It’s not a matter of living with a contract that lacks improvements and gains. It’s a matter on giving up thing that we’ve struck for in the past and that once given up we’ll never get back. You do however make the case very effectively for all actors under SAG.
Sad but true, person with a real job is sorta correct. Realistically, an acting career is a passion, not a right. Just as investors and studios are exposed to losses if the picture underperforms, the same should be true on the other side. Residuals are silly … the actors who make a difference get pre-CBE deals and gross corridors anyhow. The rest are just cannon fodder and shouldn’t be allowed to share in the upside before there is one. After all (like Lew Wasserman said), you don’t pay the plumber a residual every time you flush the toilet. I’d rather see a living wage increase (minimums) and the union reduce the requirements for insurance (SAG needs to point the finger on itself for that one), as well as a buyout on all residuals at a minimum. The rest of the mumbo jumbo just cripples the industry and costs actors more jobs … time to wake up, the world has changed … and it values actors and product far less than it used to … so everyone needs to share in the hit.
Todd Waring-
Your argument has one fatal flaw: FAVORED NATIONS. If SAG gets a better deal DGA, WGA, and AFTRA contracts automatically jump up to the better terms.
On a side note, having worked with deaf performers, I think your assessment that deaf= stupid is as uniformed as the rest of your rant.
“Sad but true, person with a real job is sorta correct. Realistically, an acting career is a passion, not a right. Just as investors and studios are exposed to losses if the picture underperforms, the same should be true on the other side. Residuals are silly … the actors who make a difference get pre-CBE deals and gross corridors anyhow. The rest are just cannon fodder and shouldn’t be allowed to share in the upside before there is one. After all (like Lew Wasserman said), you don’t pay the plumber a residual every time you flush the toilet. I’d rather see a living wage increase (minimums) and the union reduce the requirements for insurance (SAG needs to point the finger on itself for that one), as well as a buyout on all residuals at a minimum. The rest of the mumbo jumbo just cripples the industry and costs actors more jobs … time to wake up, the world has changed … and it values actors and product far less than it used to … so everyone needs to share in the hit.”
Dear Ehrud:
I don’t know what AMPTP fan boi chat room you just crawled out of, but allow me to educate you on one or two points since you clearly don’t work in this industry.
1) Actors are not plumbers, you simplistic douchebag. Most actors and writers are constantly pounding the pavement (or their agents doors) looking for work. In television, some actors audition for roles weekly but maybe, MAYBE only get one or two gigs per year. The residuals help them through the times when they aren’t working which is more often than not. If the studios are profiting from the re-use of their work, why are the actors and writers not entitled to similar participation?
2) All non A-List actors are CANNON FODDER???!!! FUCK YOU!
3) Clearly you’ve never received a residual check that saved your ass, allowing you to pay your mortgage, feed your kids or keep the lights on. I have. So, fuck you twice.
4) If everyone needs to share in the “hit” as you call it, could you please tell me what “hits” Les Moonves, Peter Chernin and the coke snorting monkeys at NBC have taken? You know, for the “team”. G’head, I”m waiting…. I hear crickets. Fuck you thrice.
5) You’re right about one thing: Acting is a passion. As a working writer, I know that for most actors it’s a calling that nourishes the soul and is a career every one of them is proud of whether they’re working or not. I am sorry your life is so empty and unfulfilled, but that’s the great thing about watching our work; you get to live vicariously through us.
Nobody is claiming they have a right to work in this business, but we do have a right to be treated fairly and respectfully. Again, sorry McDonalds has treated you so poorly. Back to your mother’s basement for you.
In closing, please die in a fire with Dirk. He needs the company.
To: “a writer”
“a lot of people here are commenting that the writers “did nothing to help” during the sag negotiations. what were the writers supposed to do? talk to the producers on your behalf and get you a better deal? negotiate the contract for you? magically give you a strike authorization?”
Um, let’s see… maybe…
Write?
actor/director/WRITER
Reply to Comment by 8moviesfiveplays — April 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm: Thank you for getting it !!!
Now if we can get the rest to understand what a union is really for, we all will be in a better place.
Comment by Ace — April 19, 2009 @ 9:15 pm: “who said “no” and why. Remember who (on the board) is fighting for members and who is trying to weaken SAG to merge with AFTRA. Do not forget this!”
So true..Maybe someone should put forth a motion to Publicly show how each boardmember voted and let’s see who voted no on the motion.
“Excellent! Time for us all to get back to work! The 200 and some odd films can begin production”….Sounds like bargaining leverage to me,
“And is anybody really surprised that the WGA didn’t support us? ” What Bullshit!! We are not out on strike.
Comment by meredith — April 20, 2009 @ 10:57 am:
“THE ONLY SOLUTION IS FOR ALL THE CREATIVE UNIONS TO NEGOTIATE TOGETHER!”
What Bullshit again…Think about it…The key word is Think.
All it would take is one union low-balling the contract and then we are all screwed. That’s why I feel that all of our contract coming up at once is not a good idea.
I actually received a residual that netted $1 today. Well, guys’n'gals that’s 100% more than you’re going to get with this contract!
Well, between “Meredith” and “Emerson”, seems like the new shill mantra is “they’ve defeated us SAG-sters, so lets just lick our wounds and do the best we can”.
I don’t know who these people are, but they claim to be of us – SAG members – and seem to have “seen the light”, and though it ain’t pretty, the damage has already been done. We’ve supposedly “already lost … residuals”, as per Emerson. Meredith chants, “We have no power folks!”
Complete horseshit.
If you two people really are SAG members, you need to bone up on what a union does – and doesn’t do. We don’t give up before the battle is over. We don’t tell our union brothers and sisters that there’s no hope. You both absolutely have the right to air your opinions here (and most places), but do yourselves and your union a favor – stop being defeatist.
We, as union members (still and always) have every power we ever had – we have our vote(s), which is everything. Though our own management (The National Majority) has kowtowed (for reasons known only to them) to the AMPTP, that is absolutely no reason the membership has to do the same. This guild is run by us – the membership – not the board of un-directors, who have failed at almost every turn since their coup d’etat.
If a strike [authorization] is needed to get the AMPTP to play fair with us, so be it. It would be a shame for the moguls to let it go that far, but they’re playing tough – we can too.
But will we? Will we find our balls and play tough right back at them? Nothing stopping that except people who believe we’re already defeated. I repeat: there is nothing stopping us from getting a fair contract, except ourselves.
Think about that. Believe it, because it’s true.
This ain’t over ’til it’s over. Almost half of the National Board rejects this latest contract offer, for obvious reasons. They know that the voting membership (still and always) has the absolute power to fight for a fair deal. They know what rejecting this offer means, and what we, as guild members, will have to do about it if the referendum fails.
All it takes is enough of us to stand up and say “NO!” Each one of us has a vote; each one of us has the power to say “NO”, and the repercussions of those joined “NO” voices is deafening.
It’s really that simple. This is still a contract negotiation. Nothing is a done deal until the membership ratifies a contract.
Nothing is a done deal.
Dear Ehrud,
You (and Lew Wasserman) are right. You don’t pay a plumber everytime you flush the toilet. But if you (or Lew) want to keep using the same toilet when you move to a different house or even to a different room, ya gotta pay a plumber (and me) again. Or maybe you (or Lew) wanna turn that toilet into a sink or a bathtub. Gotta call the plumber again. Let’s say you wanna bust that toilet apart and turn the ceramic pieces into a table top. Ya gotta call the plumber again and maybe even a furniture designer and builder etc.
As long as the toilet is a toilet in the same bathroom, you (and Lew) are paid up. As soon as you wanna use that toilet in a different way or in a different room, ya gotta pay – again. Not the same as you paid originally for the toilet, just a little less to re-use it how you want.
Residuals were conceived because movies were made for movie theatres. When TV came along, suddenly movies that had long since realized their revenue life in the theatres were pulled off the shelves to generate new revenues in a new medium. These revenues were called “residual value”. It meant that there was “left over” “unforseen” value in previously completed product. TV shows were originally intended for one airing. When they were re-aired, a “residual” payment was in order because creative salaries included pay only for initial use. This kept salaries lower and gave maximum flexability to the network to re-run or not. After all why overpay for something that will only run once. Re-runs generated new revenue so “residual” pay was due for the “residual value” of the product. If there is no residual value then there is no residual (left over) salary due. Get it?
As for anyone on screen or behind the camera except the “star” being cannon fodder. Do you hire just anybody to fix your toilet? Cannon fodder? Call my company and you’ll never call anyone else. We do an expert job, are dependable, reasonably priced, and responsive whatever your plumbing needs. We’re pros and we are union. I can also refer you to any number of tradesmen just like me and the company I work for that can do anything you could need around your house – electricians, appliance repair, carpenters, painter/plasterers, roofers, masons (brick, mortar, and tile), interior and exterior designers, architects, excavators, ironworkers, etc. – They are also pros and they are also union. We are ready to do whatever you imagine needs to be done with expertise, efficiency and dependability and, God knows in this economy, we need the work. Call us and get it done right the first time or put an add in the paper and see who shows up and take your chances. You may get lucky or you might spend a fortune trying to save a few pennies and watch your house fall down around you. Cannon fodder indeed.
What a pathetic lot! “Actual Job” has a point – someone is bitching about making $65K for a part-time job! Get a life people. You’d never make that much money in any other field working part-time. You’re overpaid for what you do. There wouldn’t be a million and one people begging for the same job if you weren’t.
@Hank Yablonski
No offense Hank but far more than you need a good contract you need to get laid.
I do think there are good arguments for residuals for actors but sadly, other than “fuck you”, you haven’t made one of them.
It’s nice that residuals help actors pay the bills but this is not a BUSINESS argument for residuals. Most of us are free agents ultimately and if we can’t make deals to pay the bills then we should find other work. It’s sad but that’s capitalism. Remember, 75% of SAG makes less than $1,000.00 a year. And SAG has done absolutely nothing to help them. Should we? Or is that just the price of choosing this profession? There is much sweat being poured over the plight of the “middle class actor” when the actual amount of middle class actors in our union is less than 10%. FAR LESS than 10% actually but let’s just round up. So who should we be sweating over? It’s a tough question and I don’t have an answer.
The best argument for residuals is simply that it inspires the talent and helps the final product to give the artists involved at least some “ownership” of the final product. Since the last thing the studios want to do is give any real ownership they have caved in to the guilds and given some residuals. That’s the persuasive business argument you can make for them. And so if the studios want to use the best actors (which is the whole point of a skilled guild) they will have to pay these residuals.
The rest of it is arm twisting, strike threats, and people like you, Hank, who whine. Acting is an extremely tough, heartbreaking profession, a profession where the most respected guild still can’t keep 80% of their members employed enough to make the barest living. No SAG deal is going to change that. And let’s face it, no one in any faction of SAG is even trying.
Hey Hank, you’re a disease.
Okay let’s take a look at what will happen next. We (actors) will get our mailing asking us to agree to this piece of crap deal. Hopefully it will not be ratified by the membership. Then what? I would assume that the producers will go back to the waiting game and our weak leadership will sit on it’s hands and more money will be lost with everyone not working. So, why can’t we just get to the strike already? Seriously, why aren’t we being given the opportunity to vote on that!? I am sick to death of this. If we don’t strike and the waiting game continues guess who wins eventually? They do, because if we aren’t given an option to strike we eventually will wear down and accept these crappy terms. Our own leadership is wearing us down! This is treason. We must vote everyone of them out. All of them! And we must demand a strike vote right after we turn this piece of crap offer down.
To every SAG actor on here who will vote. Vote No on the TV/Theatrical and No on the Commercial. Why? Because of the “Favored Nations” clause. If we all vote no on both, the producers will have to give us better terms and if they don’t then we strike and I’m sure if not all but many other union members will ride the bus with us just so they can have the better terms too. Not one of my writer, director, etc friends are satisfied with their contract.
The TV series that I had one of the leads in is all over YOU TUBE…EVERY EPISODE…ALL 100 OF THEM…FREE!!! Another series that I had a lead role in is all over HULU…EVERY EPISODE…FREE!!! Thanks SAG! Once again you’ve buried your empty head in the sand and let us down!
Problem with the plumbing analogy today is that film’s today are more like a port-a-potties than a sturdy, old school john you can enjoy pissing in for life (and who moves a toilet around their house … you either buy a new one or move … duhhh … silly renter).
And since MOST films don’t make money in the theatrical space, maybe we should make all deals based on DVD/VOD/Television economics and then give a theatrical bonus if it actually reaches profit there … makes sense, right? After all, films are bought for their “DVD” value, not theatrical (as that’s just advertising and concession sales these days after the P&A is recouped).
NO!