The union would like performers “to share in the rewards of a successful show, without bearing any of the risk,” the group that lobbies for studios says.
The union would like performers “to share in the rewards of a successful show, without bearing any of the risk,” the group that lobbies for studios says.
“According to the group, the proposal gives performers their usual fixed residuals for streaming projects “also a new residual which ‘shares’ in revenue that is somehow attributed to the show.” The group added, “the Union proposes to ‘share’ in success, but not in failure. That is not sharing.” (Of course, before streaming entertainment arrived, actors did share in success but did not in failure — if a project was a hit and re-used or re-run, those performers were compensated with residuals beyond their upfront payments, but were not penalized if the project did poorly.”
This is the biggest sticking point apparently. The union seems to be asking for the same protection actors have historically had against failures. I don’t see a good reason in this article why they should be forced to share in failure when that has never been the case. The studio is, shockingly, just being greedy.
Actors absolutely take a hit when a project fails. Sure they aren’t on the hook for budget overruns, but if a major project fails, the starring actors see a decrease in demand for their services and likely lower earnings from subsequent projects
which initially reading sounds like “I mean that’s fair”, but then no actually it’s not. It’s not their fault studios keep rejecting good ideas for movies and instead doing reboots ad neaseum, sequels of sequels, and boring bland flat stories. If studios are so worried about failures… maybe they need to stop making such crappy movies instead of blaming actors.
I agree with you in spirit but…
Those crappy movies make billions… The good movies are the risky ones!
Look at last year, of the top grossing movies the top one that was an original (non comic book, sequel or remake) was the 11th most porofitable (and Chinese so unsure if it was actually original.) The next? 16th overall, Elvis. Which pulled in 287 million, or about 12% of Avatar 2’s take.
This year, well, we’ll see what Barbie pulls but right now the top 9 box offices are all remakes, comic book movies or sequels.
So we can blame the studios all we like but our wallets seem to betray us, making those crappy movies the profitable ones.
Elvis was still part of a trend, though. While not an actual sequel or remake, it follows in the footsteps of prior successful musician-based biographical dramas like Rocketman or Bohemian Rhapsody.
Hey at least the top gun sequel was actually good. I don’t think Sequels should be branded as crap movies by default, Sure F&F X and so forth are garbage but there are some genuinely good sequels too.
Just because it wasn’t dogshit doesn’t mean it was good. It was generic crap with a decent production value that appealed to a wide audience.
To clarify a point I haven’t seen brought up yet; lead actor contracts run the gamut on how they’re paid. If I recall correctly, Scarlett Johansson sued Disney for breach of contract when it offered the movie Black Widow on its Disney+ streaming service while it was still showing in cinemas. Johansson’s lawsuit argued that Disney violated her contract by debuting the film online and in theaters, which cost her up to $50 million since her salary was largely based on box-office performance.
So essentially, this is covering the “creative accounting” studios use to pay their actors as little as possible.
As if executives declare personal bankruptcy when a movie bombs.
I’m fairly certain executives don’t get residuals, they are salaried employees.
Maybe, but what a salary.