• Home
• About Us/Contact
• Key Differences
• Phase 1
• Pension and Health
• Editorials
• Pre Blog Posts
• Letters to SAG
• The Kimbrough Collection
• Letters to SAGWatch
• NED Doug Allen
• Privacy Policy and any other Legal Notice We Think Of
• The Banned Words/IP List

25 Responses to “No Negotiations Watch:”

1. Thomas Frank says:
   October 10, 2008 at 15:03

   editor

   “I question these numbers.”

   sound familiar?

   explain the logic to me of “we agree to not be paid fairly because the studios and their parent companies are struggling in this economic downturn.”

   Boy, are the nay-sayers all too eager to help out the poor (literally) producers! “They’re struggling - how can we help out our good friends, the producers? I know, let’s argue amongst ourselves, and insist our leadership take an awful, precedent setting deal! They’ll be so kind to us when entertainment stocks recover! They’ll be banging down our door to be fair with us then!”

   Fair is fair. It doesn’t matter if it’s in good times or bad. To argue otherwise is to devalue oneself and show a distinct lack of nerve.

2. Anonymous says:
   October 10, 2008 at 16:13

   Thomas Frank,

   Are you really as dumb as your posts suggest you are?

   It has nothing to do with anybody wanting to help out the producers / studios. It is about common sense. When they are losing billions of dollars, who in their right mind believes they are inclined to give a better deal now then they were before?

   If you don’t grasp the gravity of the situation the media conglomerates (along with other major business and indivuals a like in this country) are facing right now, you should really consider registering at your local community college and take a Econ101 course.

3. just a thought says:
   October 10, 2008 at 16:35

   I guess that AMJ is wrong about these companies being recession proof.

4. Thomas Frank says:
   October 10, 2008 at 17:54

   Anonymous dumb person

   “NBC Universal bright spot on GE’s numbers”

   That’s from today’s new you moron.

   I’ll see you in econ 101. moron.

5. Anonymous says:
   October 10, 2008 at 18:41

   Thomas,

   I will indulge you. NBC Universal? I wonder why you would only mention them of all the big media companies. Could it be because they are the only one posting good financial results right now? And lets not get it twisted it has nothing to do with its ongoing business model and definitely not because of programs with SAG actors generating profits - NBC hauled in the cash from the olympics! I assume you already know that (sense the article from which you got the quote you posted identified the olympics as the reason NBC had the numbers it did - funny you didn’t mention it).

   Leaving aside that the olympics is why NBC Universal posted such strng quarterly numbers (and this is where that Econ101 class would help)… even if NBC was generating huge profits without the olympics, as long as its parent company is mired in financial crisis why would they decided to increase costs as opposed to oh I don’t know retain those profits to offset the struggles of other divisions?

   Sorry but your arguments don’t carry any water and the fact that you would post that quote about NBC completely out of context just confirms that you arn’t interested in reasonable dialog but rather just trying justify your position (even if it means using misleading information to support it)

   –
   Ed. Comment: As we noted - and as GE said in its press release with its earnings - NBC’s numbers were good only because of the bump they got from the Olympics, which generated a huge amount of revenue - and resulted in no SAG, and only some AFTRA employment - because most of the work was done overseas.

6. Locke says:
   October 10, 2008 at 19:02

   Can I point out that Doug Allen is constantly reminding everyone that Screen Actors Guild was founded during the great depression! I heard him say it again just the other night!

7. Voiceguy says:
   October 10, 2008 at 19:10

   One other significant challenge caused by economic turmoil and decline is that there will be all kinds of uncertainty within the executive ranks at the studios. People will be let go, or their business functions reorganized; others will be busily dusting off their resumés; and still others will be paralyzed by their unknown futures and trying to keep a low profile.

   In this kind of environment, bold decisionmaking is virtually impossible. Yet that is what SAG is seemingly demanding here.

   Thus, the real impact of the economic situation, in my view, is distraction. Studio executives are worried about their jobs, and worried about preserving their fiefdoms. The last thing they want to do is focus on SAG right now. Of course the prospect of a strike is worrisome, but it’s a distant worry right now.

   The AMPTP, of course, is simply blowing smoke when it cites the economy as a rationale for not yielding on any deal points. The deal points (other than DVD residuals) still in issue have minor direct economic impact. It’s simply a matter of who is going to make certain rules (things like product placement, clip consent, or New Media jurisdiction).

   But behind the AMPTP — the studio executives who theoretically are instructing the AMPTP — is chaos right now. Under these circumstances, what the AMPTP’s negotiators decide to do is likely to carry the day, because the executives aren’t going to want to stick their necks out to change anything.

   VG

8. William Charlton says:
   October 10, 2008 at 19:13

   Thomas Frank once again shows his —— streak, and because he’s being questioned, resorts to name calling. Poor little twit, no wonder no one wants to play in his sandbox. Boo hoo, run off to your mommy and play in her apron.

   I agree with anonymous. A class in human behavior might help as well.

   The numbers don’t matter, what matters is the mood. If AR and DA and MF had read the entire membership right(not just the MF hobbyists — as many of them seem to be, and yes, I’m gleefully using the word and pointing it at the very contingent that tossed it out at the rest of the country), as opposed to just their supporters, they would have picked up on the mood. Not that it wasn’t there to be heard. It was loud, and got louder. But the wheels are still spinning, and we’re still without a contract.

9. vested says:
   October 10, 2008 at 19:40

   I spoke with an A-list friend this afternoon, who tells me that many well-healed actors are literally leaving Hollywood, moving away. These are people who have been there for many years, making great six-and-seven figure livings, and whose names we all know. They’re leaving because there’s NO WORK. I asked where they were going, and was told that most of them seem to be moving back to what I’ll call “home turf.”
   Countless movie productions, drama series, and all else, have been shelved or canned, and the studio and production personnel and outsource staff right along with them.
   I saw an article the other day that outlined the tension that exists in this industry at present. Every production company is giving rapid-fire reconsideration to what people want to cast their eyeballs on in these turbulent times. There’s lots of juggling, shuffling, thinking, rethinking, everyone chattering, trying to second guess what’s going to happen, and most importantly - what’s going to pull the eyeballs? All this is going on, but not much production.

   And saying that we should get what we deserve even now, regardless what’s going on, reminds me of an intractable soon-to-be-ex, working through the lawyers. “Don’t confuse me with the truth! I already KNOW what I believe!”

   Does not engender affection or allegiance (unity?). Quite the opposite.

   V.

10. james says:
    October 10, 2008 at 19:56

    the funny thing is that membership first, need a reality check and the election didn’t do it so maybe the strike being voted down might help, plus tf if hollywood’s government is asking for 7 billion to prop it up how do you think a strike will help are you stupid enough to think that a strike is a good idea, do you think about others lives that will be affected striking in this climate over the ego’s of leaders who have lost the plot and are trying to claw back some credibility. they are meant to represent the sag not just memberships first opinions of stupidity 101 how to screw the states economy and not get a deal. get a reality check tom or a mental health evaluation.

11. William Charlton says:
    October 10, 2008 at 22:32

    Editors, seriously, you can let Thomas Frank be dismissive and call everyone names, and when I post a word that is actually relevant, you delete? What gives? If you have a questions about the relevance of that ism, please look at Wikipedia — there are several definitions, and though not an exact fit, more of the Paxton definition fits than doesn’t.

    –

    Ed. Response - We have no desire to censor anyone’s comments. It’s a lot of work to even deal with it…but we offered a warning to all on the last comment with name calling in it, and are just tired of the tone. But it doesn’t advance your argument to call him a fascist any more than it advances his argument to call someone a coward or ignorant.

    If you want free wheeling, knock yourself out, insult away space, try bbs.sagwatch.net. We’re trying to make the comment space here a place where the discussion is passionate, but civil. We’re trying to be even handed in our approach to this - if we fail in that regard, our apologies.

12. supermom says:
    October 11, 2008 at 06:44

    I think it was Fritz Perls who said anger is the flip side of fear. Who is the most angry person posting here? That is the one most consumed with fear and unable to deal with it, wildly projects it on others.

13. Neil Hassman says:
    October 11, 2008 at 07:58

    Re #s 7, 8 & 9:

    A big part of the reason I stayed on this site after the AFTRA debacle was you 3. Each of your takes on things has enormously influenced me in my daily dealings with actors, casting, studios, etc. I am really grateful to you all. Each of these [above] observations is incredibly relevant.

    But I am still so incredibly confused by MF’s retention of just enough power to continue on this trainwreck of a path. It is clearly a roadmap to oblivion for SAG, yet on their merry way they go…

    Can someone (other than Thomas Frank) please tell me why? Why are these intractable clowns still issuing statements, and acting, so contrary to the will and needs of the membership? How are they getting away with completely demeaning this great union in the eyes of almost everyone, but most importantly the employers?

    Every producer I speak with these days LAUGHS at SAG. It’s become a joke, the funniest part being calling for a strike vote almost six months after it would’ve had any relevance. A major show runner actually asked me the other day how long I thought it’d take for the “self-destruction of SAG” to be complete. That sent a chill down my spine.

    But made me wonder, will the real opportunity for the vast majority of SAG members be letting these hardliners destroy the union, so the reasonable people who remain can resurrect it?

    For a while now I’ve called it the SAG Doomsday Scenario, and it is getting close to being the only scenario left.

14. William Charlton says:
    October 11, 2008 at 09:11

    I’m okay with that — I would rather the discussion were civil, passionate and about ideas — not about how idiotic the person is — but I’ve been subject over and over again to TF’s dismissive arrogance, and was attempting to point out that that attitude is a large part of the problem within the governance of the guild, and, rightly or wrongly, I find more of it coming from those aligned with MF than otherwise. I like your blog because there is more true discussion here than name calling,

    And on we go….

15. Thomas Frank says:
    October 11, 2008 at 09:19

    fascist: “militaristic dictatorship” (websters)

    Charlton. I don’t know what to say. you’ve wounded me deeply. you ————-. You might apply this to the AMPTP and get somewhere. I’m arguing fighting OFF the militaristic (relatively speaking) dictatorship of the AMPTP. You are arguing appeasement and surrender, and the thought that the strike authorization may pass when it gets to the membership because they actually have some guts fills you and all the other girl scouts here on sagwatch with dread.

    Go bake some cookies.

16. Neil Hassman says:
    October 11, 2008 at 10:36

    Thomas Frank is Mr. Fred without the asterisks and lines. Compare the spellings and usages.

    Welcome back, Freddie!! Where ya been…writing/producing/directing/starring-in a new blockbuster?

17. JCisneros says:
    October 11, 2008 at 12:20

    It is very clear to me that certain people in SAG are laboring under false illusions.

    AMPTP is fully willing to let SAG continue this slow, tragio-comic meltdown. If they were unwilling to back down before the economic downturn, what makes anyone at SAG think for a minute they will reconsider now?

    Has SAG offered anything resembling a willingness to really negotiate instead of dictate terms? No. Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg are still shouting at the rain. If SAG survives, it will be a great day when Rosenberg loses because of his mishandling of this now full blown crisis. It is high time the majority of the National Board terminates Doug Allen as a malignant cancer to SAG. Terminate him with no golden parachute and a very clear black mark on his record, he is incompetent. If that isn’t termination for cause, I don’t know what it is.

    Folks are losing jobs, work, houses…and I blame people like Thomas Frank for this whole pack of nonsense. Where will SAG be after all the jobs go almost entirely overseas? I like standing on principle, but I like common sense even more.

    Take a fresh look at reality. SAG is losing, HAS LOST this argument. You won’t get a strike authorization and the REAL middle class actors are scared and suffering.

    Shame on you all.

    ~JC

18. William Charlton says:
    October 11, 2008 at 13:48

    Neil, I wish I knew, but the main reason is that the National Board hasn’t met yet — there should be some movement next weekend, especially when some of the new members weigh in — and there is some common sense thought and sentiment there.

    TF(and if your nom de post is any relation to Thomas Frank’s book on what’s the matter with Kansas?, and you are claiming that the SAG middle class is voting against its own economic interest, you are mis-interpreting the study of the book as it applies to ACTORS, but then what else is new?), but the fact of the matter is, MF is claiming that we all must unify, and if you criticize your government, you are anti-union, or anti-SAG.

    From Wikipedia: Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and corporatist ideology. It is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and which seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation, as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity —

    Though admittedly a little far-fetched, aspects of this definition could be applied to your arguments on these pages, as well as MF’s insistence that we all unify in the face of factors that seek to destroy the standing of all creative artists, but especially those in the film bastion of the world, Hollywood. You and your ilk seek to rule by decree, not consensus or debate, and when no one agrees with you, you start calling people names. You refuse to recognize that acting is a global profession, that there are actors that make their living in all the major cities in the US, as well as thoughout the rest of the world.

    SAG is a paradigm of a great union, a great guild, one that has stood its ground when necessary, one that has until recently, sought to engage and truly educate its membership though debate and consensus. We are now in danger of destroying it all because of a blind and misguided leadership that has put its ideals ahead of the needs of the working members. “Education campaigns” have become nothing more than propaganda missives from a flailing leadership and from certain members of the board who, as a friend of mine(another working actor, and former member of the board) put it, “don’t have a dog in this fight.”

    If my comments are read as appeasement, then you don’t know how to read. I agree with JCisneros in #17, SAG has lost this argument, lost this fight. If we had planned for it better, remained unified with AFTRA, done some major research ala the DGA — but no, we had to spend time, money and effort and print on how AFTRA was screwing us in Basic Cable, how its a union of scumbags and hobbyists, how the RBD and NYB aren’t really actors, and so on. Instead of building consensus, they sought to divide. And now we are faced with a problem from which there is no good way out — and the only answer they can come up with is to seek a strike authorization. What a joke. This is a catastrophic failure of leadership, and has threatened to tear the guild apart, and MF seems to be okay with that. Why?

19. Mike says:
    October 11, 2008 at 15:06

    JCisneros, you’re not even a SAG member.

20. Neil Hassman says:
    October 11, 2008 at 21:10

    Neither am I, Mike, what’s your point? And with only the one name, how do we know you are?

    I have a dog in this fight, 20 of ‘em, actually. Not to mention my countless friends and family affected by this bulls–t. I imagine JC, who cares enough to read and write here, does too.

    Again, what’s your point, semi-anonymous-Mike?

21. Thomas Frank says:
    October 12, 2008 at 17:16

    “SAG has lost this argument, lost this fight. If we had planned for it better, remained unified with AFTRA, done some major research ala the DGA — but no, we had to spend time, money and effort and print on how AFTRA was screwing us in Basic Cable, how its a union of scumbags and hobbyists, how the RBD and NYB aren’t really actors, and so on. “

    Dear Mr. ——————-This is an interesting display of the inside of your head. It shows the complete bankruptcy of your argument, how it is all based in your hatred of SAG and you love of the leaky rowboat full of fools known as AFTRA.

    Again, please answer how being unified with AFTRA - which SAG wasn’t because of AFTRA’s own choice - would have made any difference at all in the “please - no actually - we insist - violate your core principals” offer from the AMPTP?

    And again, since it wasn’t posted before, I’ll go with Webster’s definition of the f-word (is it really necessary to delete it editor? We’re all grown ups) instead of Wikipedia.

    I’n for fighting OFF the militaristic (relatively) dictatorship of the AMPTP. You, Mr. ————— are in favor of setting up shop under their shoes.

    Grovel, grovel.

22. William Charlton says:
    October 12, 2008 at 22:44

    you make my argument, Thomas Frank, as you would rather have a divided membership and a divided union. You have no interest in unity, unless its a unity of everyone agreeing with you. I said point blank that I love SAG as a union. How do you twist it around to say that I hate SAG? You grab onto any shred, and argue it as though it means something — the core principle resolution really is only a reiteration of what SAG has always stood for. Your hate is profound. You should maybe find another profession — most actors I’ve worked with love their job(when they have it) and are incredibly compassionate. You, on the other hand, are only interested in spewing hate, and your lack of compassion is profound. Your arguments lack any significant follow through, a you keep going back to whatever MF talking points are pertinent to you, as though they mean something.

    why are you interested in dividing the membership? What does it do for you?

23. Thomas Frank says:
    October 13, 2008 at 13:53

    “the core principle resolution really is only a reiteration of what SAG has always stood for.”

    Uh. What? Is that supposed to make any sense at all and persuade anyone of anything?

    Also - how ironic, coming from the hate-machine himself, William “the bald” Charlton. Hysterical - “you” want to divide the membership

    Again - 68-0 and 87%

    YOU are the hateful, divisive voice Charlton. It’s so absurd you try and turn your obsession and your incessant blogging AGAINST what the elected leadership of SAG is doing.

    You’ve truly lost your mind. Compassion? HA! where’s YOUR compassion for what Rosenberg and Allen and Johnson and all the others and all their supporters are going through while you blog hate to try and stop it?

    Compassion. Please. Look up the word,

24. William Charlton says:
    October 13, 2008 at 15:56

    back to grade school, for you, Thomas. You can’t read, and I’m sure your SAT score for comprehension would be in the lower 10%. Hate? Not there. And you didn’t answer my question. What does it do for you to divide the membership? If you’re wondering why I’m asking, read back through your posts, since you obviously can’t remember them.

    Am I supposed to be upset by you calling me “bald?”

25. Thomas Frank says:
    October 13, 2008 at 21:58

    “What does it do for you to divide the membership?”

    Look in the mirror Lex Luthor.

Leave a Reply