AEfx
Well-Known Member
See, that's where they lose the public. And not just because we now know for sure (like we didn't already suspect) that Smith is an big old bag of phony on his best day, LOL. It's also why the general media has really cut back on their coverage, because it's just not a topic most of America wants to hear about right now. Especially once the actors got involved. It was easier to feel bad when it was just the writers who are definitely underpaid and have been abused the most in the streaming wars.
To begin with, it is very difficult to have empathy for people in the entertainment industry (especially "creatives") when much of the rest of the country is scraping by to survive, our government and political system are under upheaval, etc. (And, if I am being honest, I don't think it helps when such a large amount of product that has come out of "Hollywood" in this ridiculous deluge of content the last few years has, frankly, sucked.)
But, but...wait! This is about "the little people", right? Well, that's where they start to lose the rest of us who see beyond the surface and full-well know that all actors aren't millionaires, and that there are some real grievances and pay disparity that absolutely are valid, etc.
Here's the thing - when 93% of your union makes less than $26K a year, that 93% are not professionals. They are hobbyists. Again, it is very hard to have much empathy because many of us would love to be able to devote ourselves to our creative interests full time and somehow get health care, a living wage, and a pension (??!!) out of it, but that's just not how the real world works. It may seem harsh to say, but if you are devoting yourself full time to perusing acting, and the most you are getting is a day or two of work a year laying on a slab as a background corpse on CSI, then no, you shouldn't expect to be able to live on just that.
Again, it's not that they don't have some very valid complaints - but when you break down the talking points, for the most part they are the same problems nearly everyone has in nearly every industry. Is it right that so many McDonald's employees need food stamps to survive that the company assists them in applying, when the CEO is taking in 20M/year? Pretty much everyone works "for the man" in one way or another. So the most that gets is, "I hear ya!" not, "those poor poor actors!"
Then there is the whole AI thing...that's a lot more to unpack, though, frankly, in terms of the actors, I think it's been overblown. The only likenesses the studios even floated was over background players ("extras"). With the writers, it is definitely more of a complex issue, though.
What's funny is - I think when this is over, one of the big "wins" for the actors is going to be that ask going back, and since it's about "the little guy" it will be seen as a great victory. The joke being, I don't believe the studios actually ever thought it would fly, it was one of those big asks they could then take back to look like they were "negotiating". And everyone will congratulate themselves for doing the right thing.
I don't believe for a second the issue will be totally settled there, though. Truth be told, there really isn't much of a need to have actual background actors on a set, particularly for large theatrical productions. They are all digitally manipulated at this point, and given the complexities of filming things like Marvel films, I can absolutely see why the studios would want to reign in that cost and hassle. I won't be surprised if in ten years, background actors don't exist anymore, in films like those at least. If all they want are digital people, there are millions of people who would line up to be scanned at Wal-mart for a $500 gift card, and sign over their likeness rights gladly - "Hey, I'm gonna be in the movies!"
