Might this finally and completely kill the chances of Joss ever working with her again?

Arsenal | August 17, 06:51 CET

Hun? Where did that thought come from?

I'm not even going to get started on my views towards the current SAG board. Bottom line, I feel they're trying to take advantage on the past writers strike to pull the studios over the barrel. The writers had a point and deserved their say. However, this current SAG board is trying to ride on their coat tails arguing over peanuts.

Arrg! Sorry, promised I wouldn't go there. I hope this upcoming vote will change the mindset upon the SAG board.

Madhatter | August 17, 07:50 CET

There is so much wrongness on every side of this current situation that it is hard to see who has the most right. Lots of grandstanding on all sides and from all factions and very little appearing to get done. Sure makes it look like actors in general have a real hard time playing well with others. IJS.

TamaraC | August 17, 08:36 CET

That sounds fairly dire. If there were a serious chance of a strike I would have heard about it by now though, right?

I don't know much about this stuff, so it all sounds dire to me.

dispatch | August 17, 09:22 CET

My understanding, dispatch, is that in order for there to be a strike, something like 75% of the SAG has to agree on it, and there's nowhere near that much support within the guild for a strike. So it's unlikely.

Someone, please correct me if I have this wrong.

Jobo | August 17, 10:03 CET

I've always wondered about the efficacy of having two separate actors' unions. When I did bookkeeping at a theater it was kind of a strain on actors who belonged to several unions (it ends up being a big bite out of their earnings). Unions should be working for the advantage of their members but you get the feeling sometimes that the members of the actors' unions are having to try very hard to get into and remain in good standing with their own guild.

embers | August 17, 17:17 CET

Dang, being an actor is so much more complicated than one would have thought. Why is everything so political?

Linnea1928 | August 17, 20:21 CET

Oh, good. So if I understand the possibilities here, we can see:

1) SAG's Membership First faction wins, and SAG stays separate from AFTRA, meaning that if the studios can get one to sign a deal first, they can put heavy pressure on the other to cut a deal.
2) SAG's Unite for Strength faction wins, but SAG doesn't merge with AFTRA for one reason or another, leaving everybody in basically the same position as they are in #1.
3) SAG's Unite for Strength faction wins, and SAG either merges with or grows closer to AFTRA, giving the actors a more unified front and increasing the chances of a strike in the event of a deal they perceive as unfavorable being offered.

Unfortunately, the one possibility I don't see here is:

4) The studios realize that they need the actors, writers, directors, cinematographers, et. al. as much as those people need them, and start planning how to work with their talent so it doesn't feel exploited. Simultaneously, all the Hollywood unions realize that if it weren't for the studio system as it exists, their work wouldn't get the worldwide exposure it does, and they would have much less bargaining power. In short, everybody just grows the f*** up and comes to the conclusion that they need each other, and decides to work that way.

Yup, it's official. I hate all of Hollywood now.

BAFfler | August 17, 20:27 CET

BAFfler, if you are going to hate everyone who only looks out for their own self interest then there aren't going to be very many folks left for you not to hate. Hollywood is no better or worse than any other industry. It is just better publicized.

TamaraC | August 17, 20:46 CET

I have to agree with TamaraC, BAFlier. The people in Hollywood know their business, and they're acting very grown up. When billions of dollars are being divvied up, people are going to butt heads.

witchlover | August 17, 21:20 CET

TamaraC: I absolutely disagree -- not with your statement, but with the implied premise that "any other industry" is the relevant benchmark. With the big studios doing their best to make sure their products are the only ones of their kind we see, and the unions doing their best to make sure that the movie business is one big closed shop, I'd say Hollywood is a lot worse than it could and should be. Then again, maybe it's just that my interpretation of capitalism/labor theory involves people and corporations beating their competitors on merit, and doesn't involve depriving them of chances altogether...

witchlover: There are always going to be conflicts over money. But Hollywood people, acting grown up about much of anything? You seriously expect me to buy that? Sorry, Charlie. No sale.

BAFfler | August 17, 21:54 CET

So you expect ridiculously large corporations and over politicized unions to act differently from other industries in this case? Why is that? Because the industry has some sort of connection to the arts? Really?

And I wouldn't want to say that your comment about corporations beating their competitors on merit is naive, but I certainly wouldn't define capitalism that way. Merit has nothing to do with it.

TamaraC | August 17, 22:00 CET

TamaraC: "And I wouldn't want to say that your comment about corporations beating their competitors on merit is naive, but..."

But you would. People who say "I wouldn't want to say..." are generally lying.

Funnily enough, I expect people and entities to act as they should, not as they do. That means I end up disappointed with a lot of people, but I accept that as the price for a high standard. So no, I don't accept "everyone else acts this way" as a good excuse. The fact that the studios and guilds in question are associated with the arts has nothing to do with my objection.

And I wouldn't want to say that your definition of capitalism is wrong, but...well, yes I would. If capitalism were actually working the way it should, the best products and the best people would win out. Granted, some so-called "capitalists" choose to be robber barons, marketing inferior products with misleading advertisements, crowding out the competition by closing off all avenues of entry into their industry, and refusing to pay their employees what they're actually worth. Maybe that's what you mean when you say "Merit has nothing to do with [capitalism]." But that doesn't make you right, any more than the selfish behavior of some politicians justifies a blanket dismissal like "Public service has nothing to do with politics."

BAFfler | August 17, 22:49 CET

BAFfler, you must see the world through a different lens where everything is sharply black or white, right or wrong. My lens makes things a lot more gray and blurry. I almost envy you your absolutism. Almost (by which I obviously mean, not at all).

I will continue to try to understand the complexity and every side of the issues being discussed before judging anyone involved.

[ edited by TamaraC on 2008-08-17 23:03 ]

TamaraC | August 17, 22:57 CET

I am completely adrift when it comes to properly understanding the situation regarding the SAG, but how does this equate to concluding that everyone in Hollywood sucks – and, for that matter, why should it mean that Joss Whedon and SMG could/would never work together again? Seriously, can someone explain in idiot terms what is happening?

alien lanes | August 17, 23:21 CET

Mostly uninformed speculation and conclusion jumping, alien lanes.

TamaraC | August 17, 23:25 CET

Black-and-white thinker? Hardly. There are exceptions to almost every rule, and only a few that are really ironclad. But I do mark a distinction between truly legitimate exceptions and those that some people would like me to accept as legitimate -- or if you like, between excuses for and explanations of behavior. I know plenty of people see that as black-and-white absolutism, for some reason. I guess they like to unnecessarily complicate each and every issue. So if that's your bag, good luck with that. For my part, I will continue to try and see the world as it should be -- which I guess could be seen as "uninformed speculation."

BAFfler | August 17, 23:38 CET

BAFfler, why do you think what the actors who support Unite for Strength are doing is not legitimate? They are, as I understand it, acting in what they believe to be the best interests of themselves and the acting community as a whole - I am not saying they are right or wrong, because I don't understand the position well enough to judge.

In a perfect world it might be nice to think that "everybody just grows the f*** up", but this is a far from perfect world and we are all rather less than perfect.

alien lanes | August 17, 23:53 CET

alien lanes, if you can go back and find a place where I say that I believe United for Strength is doing something illegitimate, then I'll apologize. That wasn't my intent. I understand that they are acting in what they believe are their own best interests, and given the way things are, they may well be right.

My whole point was that no matter who wins between MF and UfS, we're still going to end up with the situation between the studios and the guilds not substantially improved; the only thing different will be the balance of power between them. I don't think anyone would seriously disagree with that. Unfortunately, I then made an exaggerated statement to punctuate my post, as is my wont, and subsequently found myself on the receiving end of some rather pointed questions that were addressing the closing statement more than my main point -- which I readily acknowledge I brought on myself with my hyperbole.

BAFfler | August 18, 00:09 CET

BAFfler, I used the word legitimate because you had used it, but I seem to have misunderstood the meaning and intent of your earlier post. I am not trying to get at you in any way, or expect an apology for your stance, I am just curious. If you are saying you don't think the actions of Unite for Strength will substantially improve matters, are you saying they should do nothing and allow the status quo to remain, or do you think they should be looking to find a different way forward?

alien lanes | August 18, 00:20 CET

BAFlier - Your first post seems to amount to "can't we all just get along?" But these are real issues the two sides are split on. I admit I don't know the specifics of the dispute, perhaps you do. But to just say "the studios realize that they need the actors, writers, directors, cinematographers, et. al. as much as those people need them, and start planning how to work with their talent so it doesn't feel exploited." doesn't mean much unless you relate it to the dispute at hand. Does it mean the studios should just give in and give SAG whatever they want? Or does "...all the Hollywood unions realize that if it weren't for the studio system as it exists, their work wouldn't get the worldwide exposure it does, and they would have much less bargaining power" mean that SAG should just give in? Neither side is going to do that, of course. They're going to fight it out and eventually reach a deal because that's how these things are done. Maybe they can all get group therapy afterwards. ;)

witchlover | August 18, 00:49 CET

Did anyone catch last Friday's episode of Psych? The bad guys were the Soldiers Against Government (SAG) and they kept making SAG jokes, referring to SAG as ruthless and militant, it was pretty funny. "Nobody crosses SAG, not even one of their members."

Succatash | August 18, 03:50 CET

Succatash, I noticed that but didn't get the connection until you pointed it out. Thanks!

ricetxpeaches | August 18, 14:47 CET

Ofttimes differing complexities can look balck-and-white from each other's perspectives. Which isn't to say some people don't do black-and-white. Heck, my best friend in the 80s liked to insist he was one of the few people in the world who used colored logic.


More to the point of the article, looking at the list of names, it seems that this doesn't involve a lot of external-to-the-business politics, since it seems to cover the spectrum on that score. Which is good.

Seems, from outside,a logical move to me, as the interface between movies and TV is so porous now and has been a while. AGMA, AGVA, Equity, those have more divergent functions.

[ edited by DaddyCatALSO on 2008-08-18 21:38 ]

DaddyCatALSO | August 18, 17:56 CET

Let's all work on saying things in less confrontational ways. It'll be totally fun and afterward we can all have tea and biscuits (or get banned). Just sayin'.

zeitgeist | August 18, 19:51 CET

Hear, hear.

doghouse | August 18, 21:27 CET

Tea & biscuits! And badgers! Oh, wait, where am I?

korkster | August 18, 22:57 CET

Is Sage doing another "Making the Tea Tour". Ooh more new t-shirts!

samatwitch | August 18, 23:13 CET