Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/26/2010 11:17:11 AM PDT by SMCC1
"Perhaps Bilbo Baggins' tale of wanderlust won't be leaving the Shire after all. Numerous international unions, including SAG and AFTRA, have sent out alerts advising members to ditch work on Peter Jackson's highly anticipated production of The Hobbit."
(Excerpt) Read more at eonline.com ...
The SAG can stuff it. There are 1000s,nay millions, of people waiting for this and they are ruining the party.
Gollum-ites every one.
I guess the results of this “boycott” would depend on the strength of the pertinent unions in New Zealand.
You ever work on a film? Film makers are will known for stiffing lower paid actors. I am with the union on this one. Not all unions are evil.
If the film makers could crush the actors unions, they would. They’ve tried. They can’t.
Rather amusing as the ones at fault in the LOTR revenue issues were the Hollywood studios who distributed the film. “Don’t go work overseas so we can rip you off in the customary fashion” seems to be the word of the day.
Thank you for the heads up. No, I didn’t know this and I agree not all unions, or union members, are evil.
“Stiffing” - as in not paying when there are funds are available to do so? Or you do mean not paying them very much?
Yes and yes. And worse.
I would modify and add.
Not all union members are evil, But most Union leadership is.
>>You ever work on a film? Film makers are will known for stiffing lower paid actors. I am with the union on this one. Not all unions are evil.
****
Yes, I do. Work and live in Hollywood CA.
2 sides I can work with: there are people who want to get into the biz and they are WILLING participants to whore themselves out for minimum wage. No problem. The system was set in place so SAG can eventually own you and get their cut. Central casting for example, will assign you to sets and shows for “bodies” and believe me, the producers NEED them and not the other way around. Now what if you hold both producers and SAG membership? The conundrum is the producers want to cut back cost and make a profit and you cant play both sides of the field. Like what 1 writer from HBO recently told me, ‘Im paying this amount of money so I can carry the un-talented hacks that pay their dues’.
Unions? It’s all about PC. It’s not PC to be king or a boss... but it is PC to own slaves if your boss is a union boss, just as only black people can own black slaves, having exclusive rights to call them by the N word... or women having exclusive pimp right to call her the B word... Communists and gays can call anyone f@g, gay, N words etc... you name it.
or else what?
Any documentation of what has been going on or do we just swallow assertions?
I may not think much of film makers but if forced to choose, I would side with them over the unions. No need to list the historical and present union "abuses" under the guise of "rules."
No one can be abused without their consent. Unless you are claiming physical abductions and slavery...
Brain dead and delusional doesn't begin to describe it.
The issue seems to be about "residuals." This is a good example of a good idea being perverted by the incompetent. I have no idea how "residuals" originated, but I would love to read an impartial book about its development and its ultimate self-destruction.
How many actors would agree to pay a plumber a "residual" every time they use a plumbing fixture? What is it about "acting" that makes them unique?
Extortion by the incompetent is still extortion no matter how you phrase it.
If producers make a lousy picture there are no residuals if people don't buy tickets.
I have a very strong suspicion that the concept of "residuals" originated in the competition to get great actors for a given film, in lieu of an exorbitant salary up front. It was offered, not demanded. It was still a take it or leave it world, as it should be.
If the pay for a job offered is not enough, don't take it. If residual is offered, good for you! It confirms you as a professional.
Being a union hood, with your selective history of the benefits of unions, simply marks you as an ignorant, delusional idiot.
I remember Henry Ford and his approach to unions. His workers, I suspect, were competent and diligent, not incompetent crybabies.
Sorry. If you don't want to hear about the history of abuse, then there is only one argument. Don't hire from unions and see what kind of films, or commercials you can make with out union actors.
Like I said, the producers have tried and couldn't do it. If the film makers can claim the rights of businessmen, than so can unions collectively bargain for what they want. The free market cuts both ways.
So do I.
Every 20 years or so, the producers decide to 'take their ball and go home'. The artists go on strike and everybody loses money for awhile until the producers realize they can't destroy SAG or AFTRA. Even the L.A. Times (AKA -mouthpiece for the Democrats) attacks the actors. They run out of scripts, and can't bring in the talent they want to make their shows. Both parties compromise and everybody loses money,. Actors are 'meat on the hoof' to the producers.
I am confused about this. The pictures have not been ‘greenlighted’, so the companies can’t sign any contracts with anybody yet, actors included.
I’ll bet all those union members have no problem eating fruits and veggies picked by illegal aliens, living in houses built by illegal aliens and hiring landscapers who are illegal aliens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.