‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $22M Friday For Lower …
Finally, Cannes Dealing! Radius-TWC Nabs Director’s …
Hammond On Cannes: Wet Fest’s Official Competition …
‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern …
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, …
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn …
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To …
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For …
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 …
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast …
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M …
Cannes: Music Box Snags Competition’s ‘Michael …
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; …
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits …
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B …
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV …
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant …
‘Scandal’ Finale On Small Screen And Onstage At …
‘Modern Family’ Gets Cable Makeover For Launch …
I’m told the Tom Hanks video is being shot today for the new SAG leadership. Eight of the “Vote Yes” videos are on the official ”SAG Communications Channel” on YouTube. (FYI, the guild’s new leadership removed all the videos at the previous leadership’s “Empower SAG YouTube Channel”…) Here’s the 9th and newest video that the SAG National Majority wants me to post to represent the “Vote Yes” side:
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ... Loading ...
Very reasonable sounding. Perhaps there will be more yes votes than all the screaming, hair-on-fire no proponents are anticipating….
I truly hope that people will watch this video and get the facts about new media. It is great to get the facts out there.
And sadly, I fully expect the Vote No contingent to watch this video and call the Vote Yes folks liars, traitors and cowards once again.
It’s a breath of fresh air to see a video with no contempt, no name-calling and just some good facts.
I’m voting YES.
Little Tommy Hanks, who takes his producer marching orders from the AMPTP (among others), will gloss over all of the traps in the so-called contract offer and put some pretty lipstick on the pig. He no longer fights for us! He no longer cares about us! He does not speak for us! He has forgotten the Guild that got him where he is today! He’ll vote “Yes” because he’s been told to. We will vote “No” because we must!
Have you noticed that on Facebook and YouTube, the SAG ‘majority’ has blocked all comments or taken off negative comments? Thanks for letting people speak freely, Nikki.
These phonies have turned off their “comments” section on all their videos. Oddly the pro “vote Yes” comments still show up below their vids.
They gagged our elected president and they post vids in a public discussion forum BUT block discussion.
They tried to take your vote with Affected Member Voting and now they subvert open discussion with their brand of censorship.
They can’t be trusted.
Vote NO.
wow! This is an unbelievably bad argument.
In this 9th video these SAG members are saying that the “poor producers” are making nothing – so why should they give us more % percentage, that is exactly why they should – nothing of nothing is nothing – right? or so your argument goes.
then why is that a problem to give us say 8% of your small profits now and then when you start making a lot more, we will still take 8%. why would they suddenly give us more? why if we give up force majeure and if we strike do not get paid, would they then suddenly go
“yup you guys deserve more?”
why is the percentage rates for example not just go steadily up in a 10 year increment? why? because they wwant to get rid of residuals all together and you YES vvoters will see that soon enough. not setting a precedent now in New Media will absolutely be a decision we will regret forever. I believe in qualified voting and I am shocked that SAG does not have that in place by now. after 35 plus years of acting I am now going to see my base income go down every year if we pass this vote. this is NOT a strike vote, it is a contract vote that if we do not say NO too SAG cannot go back and bargain with the producers. do not think for one second that they will ever give us more than 3%, and with the verbage in this lengthy 21 page contract – you can be rest assured that giving away what we are and willingly giving up force majeure, we will see many many people leave this business and have to change careers, please have a little courage and vote NO.
why would they post a video of someone that everyone knows is part of the AMPTP? Hello People…Tom Hanks owns Playtone. Look it up on IMDB.
It is so funny to see Bill Daniels picture on the right hand side of the screen. I bet Bill decides to sue SAG for having his picture on a pro-yes, pro SAG video. Anybody want to take the bet. If I win, send the money to the AFTRA foundation. If I lose, I’ll send to the SAG foundation. I’m putting up twenty bucks.
C’mon, Bill. You know you wanna.
One question.
So what happens when so called ‘TV’ is delivered to your home via the internet?
isn’t that the ‘new media’ everyone is concerned about. So if TV is delivered to your home through your interent source, it will be new media and therefore will enact the residuals negotiated in this crappy contract. The other residuals for ‘regular TV’ will just fade away like VHS tapes.
Who is asking me to vote yes?
Tom Hanks the producer?
Or
Tom Hanks the actor?
Its worth noting, that Tom Hanks might not even be eligible to serve on the SAG Board, because he is a producer.
The “Vote Yes” videos have all the sincerity of overly produced political ads. They are clearly scripted, slick and lacking in substance. The actors in these videos come across as unctuous and slippery. Their message: about as sincere as a McCain/Palin ad. Even those glib and happy actors don’t look like they believe in the product they are selling. The “Vote No” videos are substantive because they focus on what the contract actually says. My vote, if I had one, would go to the people who really seem to care about their fellow members and the next generation. I would say to the “Yes” campaign, your emperor has no clothes.
Not bad.
Can the next one address the issue regarding forced product placement? There’s got to be an out if it conflicts with an actor’s pre-existing agreement. Otherwise, the actor can be forced to breach a contract (at least that’s the concern raised in the “No” video). Is there a response to this concern raised in the “No” videos?
With 8 more to go, the “Yes” camp should be able to respond to the concerns raised by Mr. Sheen and Mr. Harris. If not, voters will have to weigh the importance of those issues.
These are all good people.They are talented and hard working.Trustworthy,solid. Can someone please explain how they can lend their good selves in service to this fart fume of a contract? I don’t understand.
During the first SAG Awards Tom Hanks pulled out his card and recounted how he had gotten it as a young starving actor auditioning for Bosom Buddies. The people who are voting NO on this contract are doing so for the actors and actresses who have the hopes and aspirations Tom Hanks had then. Hopefully, years from now they will look back and thank us for standing up for what is right rather than doing what was easiest.
OH. MY. GOD.
Nicki, I think you meant to put “starring PRODUCER Tom Hanks.”
NOT INTERESTED IN BRAIN WASHING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NO VOTE IS IN THE MAIL. I SAW THE TRUE COLORS AT THE INFORMATIONAL MEETING LAST WEEK. THE “YES” BAND IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT THIS CONTRACT “SUCKS”.
This post is neither overly produced nor slickly scripted. I’ve voted Yes…to a subversive contract that makes impossible the life I now enjoy. I’ve a pension from all three unions. I am an endangered species and this contract is a death sentence to the middle class actor.
So why did I vote Yes? The game is afoot. We content creators must exploit the tech curve acceleration to our advantage and create leverage.
How? Not a clue. But unless/until we find a way to be critical to or a genuine partner of emerging media, we will continue to suck hind tit.
Time to get creative. That’s supposed to be what they pay us for, right?
Aside from the fact that Tom Hanks makes $20 million a picture, plus box office gross, and he could care less about the middle class actor — Isn’t Playtone Pictures a member of the AMTP?
Not much of a conflict of interest there, huh?
Fuck you Tom Hanks.
“It’s gotta grow a lot more before it can even approach the profits being made in film and television”.
That statement conveniently ignores the fact that Internet distribution – profitable or not – is paying licensing fees TODAY. It’s also a tricky statement, because most of the new media focus has been on the movement of TV reruns to the Internet, while they include film in their comparison. The margin isn’t quite as wide as they’d have you believe, once you eliminate film from that comparison.
This piece focuses on Hulu as if Hulu is some be-all and end-all. NBC made over $1B in New Media in 2008. Warners was just bragging about the content they’re devising for the iPhone. Paramount used the iPhone to distribute Star Trek: Countdown comic apps. The studios are full-steam ahead into mobile content generation and distribution, and this offer doesn’t include residuals for that content. Already a good iPhone app, BTW, will sell units in the high-six to seven figure range.
They are also ignoring IPTV, which allows a direct connection between the flat panel in front of the barcalounger in the living room and the Internet. A Wired story this month ran product comparisons of three boxes, all under $300, that put Internet content directly on the TV at HD levels – either 1080i or 1080p, which rivals Blu-Ray.
Ned Vaughn in his “perspective” conflates box office grosses with PROFITS after Hulu paid licensing fees to the studios. That’s like comparing chickens and basketballs.
Notice how they conveniently leave out the low numbers for actual compensation from new media, and neglect to mention the 17 and 24-day free windows. Oh, and how about those residuals for downloads of TV and movies made before the early 1970s???
All those so-called protections in new media don’t set wage minimums, so the wage minimum is minimum wage – in California, what, $7/hour??? Oh, and that’s if the budget is over the minimums under which the moguls can produce NON-UNION content if we are foolish enough to accept this offer.
We’ll be armed with the facts? If we take this offer, we’ll be armed with empty toy water pistols.
All in all, I’d have to rate this particular piece very selective with the facts, and rather misleading to say the least.
The censoring of opposing points of view by SAG is not only all too telling, it’s frightening. I thought only the IA did that. I sincerely hope you guys can save your union before it goes over that cliff…
Nikki, Is there anything to guarantee that the votes are counted correctly?
It’s breathtaking that union members would actually go public making the economic case FOR the AMPTP and, effectively, AGAINST themselves — all while they are still de facto bargaining with them. It’s like Stockholm Syndrome. If the AMPTP were producing this video, it wouldn’t look much different from this, and they address none of the substantive ‘Vote No’ points. Very disappointing.
So which do I go with?…Frank Bank and Ken Osmond, who the AMPTP wants to continue to screw over after 50 years, or Tom Hanks, who doesn’t have to work another day in his life?
Blocking any comments from people opposing the AMPTP offer and only printing Yes comments? Sounds like the hide-in-the-shadows AMPTP propaganda machine SAGWatch. “Ich bin ein tool of the AMPTP.”
Vote No.