Big Problems Behind ‘G.I. Joe 2′s Big Delay
Apple Has Big Secret Surprises Coming Next Week – But …
Pete Hammond’s Cannes Wrap-Up: Video
Big Changes At AMC Entertainment: Q&A With Gerry Lopez
R.I.P. Jim Paratore
Jason Bateman, Zac Efron, Goldie Hawn, Leslie Mann Eye …
History’s ‘Hatfields & McCoys’ Sets …
New Feature: Deadline’s Weekly YouTube Channel …
Paramount Retitles Its Tom Cruise Film ‘Jack …
Does ‘The Avengers’ Illustrate How Marvel Will …
EMMYS: ‘Family Guy’ Calls Academy Voters …
‘Moonrise Kingdom’ Topples Record; …
eOne Confirms Talks To Purchase Alliance
Tony Blair: It Would Be Strange If Politicians Didn’t …
SUMMER SLUMP? Will Smith’s ‘MIB3′ Slows …
Cannes Finale: The Jury Talks And Hammond’s Analysis …
Nicole Kidman Speaks Out On Taking Risks, Roles And Taking …
USA: ‘Rebounding’ & ‘Modern …
R.I.P. Television Mogul Lee Rich
Cannes Biz Shines Despite Wind & Rain
Full 2011-2012 TV Season Series Rankings
SAG National Board member Scott Bakula made this video with Melissa Leo for the “Vote No” contingent. Released this morning, it’s titled “SAG UNION NOW!”:
Sally Field made this video for the “Vote Yes” SAG National Majority. It’s called “Make Sure Your Vote Counts”:
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ... Loading ...
Now wait a gosh darn second!
Did Sally Field just say that the new media provisions in this POS contract will “pave the way for the future”?
All this time we’ve been told that the “sunset clause” would protect us from the evils of the new media provisions. And we’ll fix it all in 2 years when we all get together. (Until another union goes in and sets the template and undercuts us again.)
Seems like there’s some “trickery” going on.
Ben There
I am so confused by all of this back and forth ‘vote no’ ‘vote yes’ Internet nonsense. It seems as though there will never be a resolution to this mess until ALL the actors get their shit together. Scott Bakula needs his residuals, Sally Field doesn’t? Aren’t they in the same Union? Oh wait, Sally has a series on the air and Scott does not. What about poor Tom Hanks??? Oh that’s right -Tommy PRODUCES a series…
What a mishegas.
I’d like to recommend a brilliant film to Ms. Field.
It’s called “NORMA RAE”
I don’t know who the star of that great film is (I believe she won some sort of trophy called an “Oscar” or something like that…anyhoo…..), but it’s about a woman who STANDS UP for a STRONG, UNITED UNION CONTRACT!
IMAGINE THAT! Hollywood and those freaky sci-fi pictures!
(I’m poking a little fun of course…Sally I LOVE you–I just do not agree with YOU on this!)
So, once again, can someone explain to me how Ms. Field is actually addressing ANYTHING of substance, as so many of the “stars” in the “vote yes” videos are also NOT doing? Is THIS the big bucks P.R. firm strategy our dues money are coming up with? :
“let’s get back to work” Um, you ARE working Sally – and pulling down a small boatload of money per week on “Brothers and Sisters.” Is it that you actually don’t understand, is there a cognitive bridge that has collapsed in your mind that fails to recognize the absurdity of YOU telling US “let’s all get back to work?”
There are raises in traditional media. Great. NEW MEDIA? WHERE ALL CONTENT IS HEADED? Please, I can’t imagine you have a CLUE what those provisions actually are. You couldn’t recommend this contract with a straight face if you did:
NO RESIDUALS FOR ALL ORIGINAL CONTENT MADE FOR NEW MEDIA.
MOVE-OVER, HAPPENING NOW, THAT, DUE TO NO NETWORK OR CABLE RERUNS IS DEPRIVING THE SAG MIDDLE CLASS ACTOR OF 1/2 to 2/3rds THEIR NORMAL TAKE ON EPISODIC WORK, DUE TO STRAIGHT TO THE NET AND NO RESIDUALS.
MOVE-OVER THAT WILL RECEIVE 17 to 24 WEEKS OF FREE – FREE! – STREAMING, THEN, $24 DOLLARS FOR 6 MONTHS RUN. ANOTHER SIX MOTHS? $48.
Are you even aware what any of this means?
A HUGE NONUNION SPACE VIOLATING THE CORE PRINCIPALS OF SAG, AGAINST WHICH SAG ACTORS WILL BE SCROUNGING FOR $100, $200 A DAY JOBS WITH NO WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS (Where will you be Sally, when the first kid or the first infant gets inured, or the first stunt person gets badly hurt or killed because this nonunion space is anything goes, no union protections, outrageously shitty salary, no P&H, no residuals – NOTHING?)
Where will you be then?
WHERE WILL YOU BE WHEN PEOPLE START GETTING HURT ON THESE SHOOTS AND CAN’T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE OF THIS CONTRACT?
SUNSET CLAUSE. ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW SALLY? IT MEANS NOTHING. IT HAS NO FORCE OF LAW AND WILL REQUIRE THE PRODUCERS TO CHANGE NOTHING IF THEY DON’T WANT TO.
UNION SOLIDARITY IN 2011? YOU SAY YOU GO WAY BACK AS DOES YOUR FAMILY? PLEASE CITE ONE TIME ALL THE CREATIVE UNIONS STRUCK TOGETHER. (that’s a rhetorical question) IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. HALF THE ACTUAL DIRECTORS IN THE DGA ARE ALSO PRODUCERS. YOU THINK THEY ARE GOING TO STAND WITH SAG IN 2011? AFTRA JUST STABBED SAG IN THE BACK AND TOOK 64 OF 70 PILOTS. YOU THINK AFTRA WILL STRIKE WITH SAG IN 2011? THE WGA JUST STRUCK. YOU THINK THEY’LL STRIKE AGAIN IN 2011?
AS soon as the producers get SAG to sign on the dotted line? They will begin to push as much content, as fast as they can, so it “originates from the internet” and is therefore subject ONLY to the new media portions of this deal. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
What’s the plan? What’s the PLAN??!!!! I keep hearing. well, as Alan Rosenberg so patiently explained to the NY crazies Monday night, the “plan” is, to vote this pig down, it will then be incumbent upon the national board to respect the wishes of the membership and send out an SAV and THIS TIME ACTUALLY SUPPORT IT.
THEN, we go in front of the AMPTP, and , for the FIRST TIME IN A YEAR, we wave an SAV in their face and say “give us a fair deal, or we strike.”
WHO KNOWS WHAT THEIR BREAKING POINT WILL BE?
We’ve never gotten our shit together enough – because of people like you – to ASK.
If they say “no?” WE STRIKE. We shut down their ONE GROWTH BUSINESS – feature films – ENTIRELY. How long do you think their corporate overlords are going to tolerate no product being made for the multi-plexes in 2010? How long do you think their shareholders will put up with a business plan that boils down to: “50 billion in profit is better than 47.”
Cause that’s what this is all about SALLY – GREED.
Pure, unadulterated GREED.
COULD the producers give us a fair deal in new media, a percentage deal, where we share in BOTH their losses AND their gains? Of course they could. But, as they announced in the NY Times in July of 2007, they want “to end residuals.”
Now, I’m sure you remember residuals, right Sally? You were a child star, but you’ve also had some rough patches before the movies kicked in, and NOW you’re on a TV show cause you can’t get any decent film roles. All of which is absolutely great – you’re a good actress and you’ve had a remarkable career. But I KNOW there have been times in that career when you NEEDED that residual check.
So, WHY are you turning your back on the SAG middle-class actor? WHY are you betraying them?
All we want is a FAIR contract – fair residuals, keep clip consent, no product endorsement without protection from firing if an actor says no, and payment if he or she says yes, and, keep force majeure as a collective bargaining provision – as it has been since the 1930′s.
What about THAT contract is NOT FAIR Sally? What about THAT contract makes you think the SAG middle-class actor doesn’t deserve people like you STANDING UP FOR THEM – RATHER THAN ABANDONING THEM?
What you are doing is shameful.
Hey, it’s Gidget at Tommy’s house! Recognize the room? I am sure that in the next few days, we will see who else was at the Producers’ party.
Thanks for the specific, and hard facts, Sally. Not.
I, and everyone I know, is or has already voted no. I pray to God that ‘United In Weakness’ does not get their wish, I really do. It would be a sad day for the labor movement.
Disgusting.
Sally,
Remember when your ‘leadership’ destroyed commercial work for actors?
Why would I listen to you now? About anything?
Melissa, that’s a nice piece of emotional gibberish, but in the real world of negotiation and leverage and strategy, it means nothing. Where were you when Alan and Anne-Marie and good ol’ Doug Allen (the Strategy Master) were banging so hard on AFTRA in the run-up to the negotiations? Yeah… that was a prime example of standing together, huh? Worked out real nicely didn’t it? You’re speaking for the wrong team if you want greater unity.
And Scott… oh, man… the majority of the board has no integrity? Scott Bakula, riding the Unity Express! So you gonna say the same thing about the majority of SAG voters if they pass this contract? Hey Scott, I like you as an actor – and you seem to be a nice guy – but what if SAG members send a message to the National Board that you don’t want to hear? What if they send a message that Alan, Allen, and AMJ costing us $85 million and 90% of TV pilots was utterly boneheaded? That it’s way past time to turn this thing around and hand it over to folks who actually understand that in order to get all the stuff you and yours talk about, you have to put yourself in a position to get it?
What if that’s the message they send, Scott? You gonna respect that? You gonna respect the integrity of THAT majority?
Sally, you’re a brilliant actress, no ifs, ands, or buts. The video is okay (a little warm and fuzzy for my taste), but you sure as hell have it right on the way to vote. I voted with you, and I’d bet a lot that a healthy majority of SAG members did too.
Time for a seance- can we raise the spirit of Norma Rae? But does prove how good an actress she was back in ’79
Sally,
This contract does not pave the way to the future for new? media. It paves the way off a cliff.
This is a NEGOTIATION. You are just waiting to re-negotiate and think you can fix the damage later. That is dangerous thinking. Your willingness to concede new media now leaves actors in a highly dangerous position. Furthermore, it is irresponsible.
Vote No.
It’s our work and our future.
LOVE it! Love. IT! We have ‘Norma Rae’ telling us to bend over to management, sign the contract and “let’s” get back to work. Ahhhh, the irony.
“Let’s get back to work”. – Sally Field
“Let’s.”
“Let us.”
Uh, who’s “us”, Sally?
No mention of the crude, expansive rollbacks that your other “us” actors would have to endure (but not you, huh)? No mention of the force majeure dollars that you’re allowing the AMPTP to sweep under the carpet and not pay to “us”? (It’s probably not your money anyway.) Or of those older actors – less fortunate than you – whose work before the mid-70s would be FREE for producers to use for profit in any media form and pay NO residuals…
That would be “US”, Sally, you self-serving, shallow, selfish, ignorant, narrow-minded…
Tell you what – how ’bout if we use some of your Flying Nun footage to sell panty liners? Your hat had “wings” back then – can you imagine your face on the front of some strange woman’s panties, your nun’s hat-wings wrapped around the crotch area. Is that okay with you? Tough shit if it’s not, because they won’t have to ask you for permission. Clip… clip… clip…
I know, I know… *patting you on the back* You think that since you’re “Sally Field” that they would never stoop to selling out your image like that. (But in your heart of hearts, you know damned well that those producers are nothing short of thieving rats who would sell out their own mothers to make a buck.) “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” selling wooden (garden) stakes @ Home Depot ™. Barbara Eden selling Genie ™ garage door openers. The late Fred Gwynne selling Munsters haircuts @ Supercuts ™…
That video was the best that you could do? Were you working with a script, because I really didn’t get any deep sense of commitment from your work. I could tell you were phoning it in, but your emotions didn’t show in the least. There are SO many reasons to vote ‘NO’. What’s in it for you, personally, to tell “us” to vote ‘YES’?
Enjoy your exile after “Brothers & Sisters”. The truth is, “We don’t like you – we really don’t like you.” You’ll be doing B-movie horror flicks within five years – Rhonda Shear, but without the tits.
See ya’, Froggie.
On the other hand, I think Scott Bakula sums it up perfectly. As of yet, I haven’t heard it put quite in those terms – and it all made sense. Thanks, Scott. Of course, my ‘NO’ vote went in the mail long ago…
Dear Nikki;
Back in February 2008, I was invited to attend a meeting held by SAG President Alan Rosenberg, SAG’s negotiator Doug Allen, Vice President Ann Johnson, other board members and some very recognizable actors including Tom Hanks and Sally Field. We were all there to talk about the concerns these actors had about negotiations. I believe it was in response to a letter written by some of these actors and published in Variety, demanding that SAG get to the table early and take a deal. No one has really talked about this meeting but there are a few things people need to know. During this meeting many questions were asked and I got the impression that both Hanks and Fields had very little interest in hearing or accepting the answers. At one point when Tom Hanks was invited to come and observe SAG’s wages and working conditions committee meetings he off handedly said,”Well, I don’t know if I want to be there when you’re deciding whether to to use plastic or paper cups on the set. You know what I mean.” He was very dismissive of the entire conversation. But Sally Fields was the worse. At one point, she put her hands up to her ears and said,”I don’t care about the answers, just take the deal.” But the worse was when Miss Johnson was telling her about how important residuals are for regular working actors and how she relied on her residuals when she was taking care of her terminally ill mother, Ms. Fields looked straight at her and said.”I’m not interested in hearing about your sick mother.” The whole room went silent. I think Miss. Johnson left the room for a while. The whole thing was so amazing. I went home that night and wrote in my journal for hours. I no longer watch any movie or tv show with Hanks or Sally. They really didn’t show any concern for the needs of regular actors. And to see them on SAGs vote yes videos just really pisses me off. They didn’t care then and they don’t care now. Especially Sally Fields. She was so rude and un-caring. And to see her act like she really cares in that video just proves what a good actress she is. She doesn’t care about how bad this deal is. She just wants to continue living the life she’s living. She’s powerful enough to have protections. Very few actors have that kind of power. That’s why there are unions, to protect the not so powerful. Tom Hanks doesn’t really care. He showed up during the commercial strike because he didn’t do commercials. That strike didn’t slow him down. And he doesn’t want to be slowed down by this contract. During that meeting they both told SAG just to take the deal and wait to fight later. Well, there may not be a “later”. Shakespeare wrote,”There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in the shallows and in miseries… And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.” Now is the time for SAG to take a strong stand. Not two years from now. If SAG waits, it may “lose our ventures.”
I was wondering if everyone understood that if the NO votes prevail nothing will change unless there is an immediate vote for a strike.
A year has been wasted and nothing has changed.
Is this the best SAG can do? I’m now convinced that the current SAG Leadership is depending on apathy and ignorance from the Membership to win the “yes” vote.
That would be Academy and SAG Award nominee and Independent Spirit Award winner Melissa Leo.
Hey it is Sally Field and Tom Hanks’ antique typewriters. Nice try Tom LOL.
VOTE NO.
wow. could sally’s video contain less substance? and does she really believe what little she’s saying? how could she?
a lot of people seem to not grasp the concept of the delivery system and how it relates to actors’ wages. even more destructive, quite a few actors don’t understand why their union might not be representing the best interests of its members. an actor asked me that very question the other day: why does all the official information from sag tell us to vote yes if it’s not in our best interest?
it’s really frustrating.
I want to expand on something that Mr. Bakula talked about in his comments. About how in this day and age of all media actors,actress their likeness is used in this internet age. Some for good and others for wrong. Just google any famous persons name and there you have images, etc.
What happens if there are privated DVDS made of the actors work this is a big issue in this industry and one that must be addressed. I fully agree with Mr. Bakula about residuals and but also we must not forget about those materials that are used and sold on the street.
Dear Melissa Leo,
What the F*$& does Barack Obama have to do with SAG?
Dear Scott Bakula,
Self-worth? Really? Maybe SAG and the AMPTP should get together, do some yoga and meditate. Problem solved.
This debate would comical if it wasn’t so sad. It’s totally disingenuous for any actor (looking at you Sally and Tom) to suggest that the current contract will do anything but diminish SAG’s power and the ability of actors to earn a living. Unfortunately, the opposition is vague, unconstructive, and ill-suited to thinking about anything other than their “self-worth”. This is a business not a Deepak Chopra convention.
Actors are so used to being coddled that when it comes time to do something for themselves all they can do is panic and bicker.
Wow…how can you compare the two videos? Sally Field shows more passion selling her Calcium supplements! Her argument is “I’ve been a member since the 60′s”??? That’s it?? Scott Bakula is my new hero :> Nicely stated! And if you’re still cleaning your desk and come across that ballot, vote NO and try to keep your desk cleaner in the future…you almost missed the June 9th cutoff when the ballot HAS TO BE in Washington, not postmarked, it needs to be there!
I’m not an actor or member of the industry but I watch this blog because of the good quality of reporting being done here on what’s going on in the industry. As a fan, I’m hoping there isn’t another strike so that the TV & films I love don’t get disrupted again. However, I have to say that from viewing all of these videos that have been posted over the past few weeks, the Vote No side seems to have more thoughtful, reasoned arguments, and if I *were* an actor I would be voting no. A lot of the vote yes people just seem to be saying some nice-sounding talking points without really discussing their implications, and even though everyone would like to get back to work, the contract does sound alarming especially from the perspective of non-major star actors. I will be very interested to see how this turns out.
Remember SAT analogies?
Hanks/Clooney : SAG :: John Wells : WGA
Just like Wells with writing, these guys stopped being actors first and foremost a long time ago. And just like with Wells, who came out with that unspeakable “wow, it’s a great deal — we won!” email on Craig Mazin’s blog right at the height of WGA negotiations in the strike — not to mention organizing the power dinner of A-list feature writers to undermine everything — Hanks and Clooney’s POVs are transparent.
Isn’t there a conflict of interest issue with some of these actors like Hanks? He seems to be more producer than actor these days, and that ratio will likely grow more top heavy as he ages. He already seems past that point where he’s not leading man anymore.
It seems as grossly inflated pay for “stars” diminishes that many of them may increasingly wear other hats, and turn to producing as a way to milk more money (because of course no amount of money is ever enough.) Perhaps they realize their own future revenue stream from acting will be minimal and are already thinking as management. Or, at least, working on behalf of management with whom they increasingly identify, and likely socialize.
Seems disingenuous for some of them to be using their influence for what might be a self-serving agenda at the expense of others.
Love actresses. Note that the first half of Sally’s vid was about….herself.
Heh.
The vote no side has a reasoned argument for voting no. The problem is that there is not a reasoned plan for what to do once that happens. SAG by not doing a thing, striking or closing a deal, has in essence set itself up to lose power either way. If they close deal, they’ve lost power. If they don’t close a deal, the will lose power. A no vote without a strike authorization is the worst of bad options. It seems as if everyone wants to rattle their sabres about fairness, yet nobody has offered the compulsion to force the AMPTP to go back to the table and close a deal. Not having a SAG deal doesn’t do anything. A complete shutdown does, but that would be a real sacrifice and nobody, reasonably so, wants to lose their income in this economy. SAG’s waffling and internal fighting has left it completely compromised at this point with no good options on the table. As much as people dig at agents, how SAG handled this whole situation explains why actors need them.
I love the fact that Sally mentions Reagan who as President of the US (not SAG) was a renowned union buster. Sally connects her roots with the guy who busted PATCO. Not my favorite SAG President by Sally seems to love him.