The Business: News, Rumours, Analysis, and More

[Jaded]

7 minutes ago, Bastet said:

UNO?!  Clue is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I enjoyed playing Uno, but how in the hell does that particular game remotely translate to a film?!  Clue was a very long time getting made, with multiple writers dropping out, because they couldn't figure out how the hell to make a script out of a board game.  And that game had locations, objects, and, you know, characters.  Uno is a deck of cards!

I love the Clue movie. My favorite person in it was Tim Curry. I have no idea how a movie could be made out of UNO either though.

[DearEvette]

11 hours ago, Jaded said:

I love the Clue movie. My favorite person in it was Tim Curry. I have no idea how a movie could be made out of UNO either though.

Ashley Nicole Black (who wrote for A Black Lady Sketch show and Ted Lasso) had a funny 'pitch'

 

[Trini]

21 hours ago, Bastet said:

UNO?!  Clue is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I enjoyed playing Uno, but how in the hell does that particular game remotely translate to a film?!  Clue was a very long time getting made, with multiple writers dropping out, because they couldn't figure out how the hell to make a script out of a board game.  And that game had locations, objects, and, you know, characters.  Uno is a deck of cards!

I'm no screenwriter, but I can imagine a concept wear characters would have to play out a game/quest in real life using Uno rules? But I think that might work best as a kids movie -- but after Barbie's success at PG-13, I doubt Mattel would 'settle' for that.

The article linked before about Mattel's in-development projects mentioned that one potential script had approached it as a heist movie.

----

I'm actually surprised there isn't more 'American Girl' content, which seems tailor-made for films. (I think there have been three DTV movies?) But again, maybe Mattel's not interested in being strictly for kids anymore.

[giovannif7]

Honestly, when the concept of turning a card game into a movie was raised, my first thought was Mille Bornes. I can't imagine it would be too hard to turn a cross-country driving/racing card game into a script with decent comedy, drama, romance and action - just draw elements from Around The World in 80 Days, The Great Race, It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World, The Fast and the Furious, Rat Race, etc. The card elements could easily be addressed by having the racers search for landmarks/signs (or be sent the cards via text by the race judges/organizers) that would either help give them an advantage or slow their progress, or even give a team the chance to choose to slow down other racers, like with U-Turns on The Amazing Race. It seems like a natural fit to me - and they'd have the option to do sequels with different casts and settings, if there is audience interest.

For those not familiar with Mille Bornes, here's a video that explains the basics:

 

[scarynikki12]

Adam Conover (Adam Ruins Everything) goes into a ton of detail on the strikes as a guest on this podcast:

They do briefly talk about reality tv in the wake of the last WGA strike. He points out the boom we all remember started before that strike and the idea it happened because of it is an AMPTP PR myth. One thing he didn't mention is they're so cheap to produce, and make the studios so much money, because there's almost zero unions working on those shows. I think it's something like some crew members on certain shows are part of a union but not one with any kind of real bargaining power. If the reality tv workers had SAG, WGA, DGA, PGA, IATSE, etc., type of support the studios would have to pay more which they absolutely don't want to do. 

Adam also didn't mention the animation guild which also has very little power, meaning all those animated movies we love are being put together by people who work hard and are treated like shit (no surprise with these studios). The good news is the WGA is looking into merging the two, similar to when SAG merged with AFTRA a few years back. I hope they're successful and animators start getting their due. 

[Kel Varnsen]

On 7/29/2023 at 12:24 AM, Jaded said:

have no idea how a movie could be made out of UNO either though.

Take any movie about playing high stakes poker, change the card game to Uno and make it a Walk Hard style parody of those movies.

[kiddo82]

57 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Take any movie about playing high stakes poker, change the card game to Uno and make it a Walk Hard style parody of those movies.

Rounders with Uno.  I'd totally watch that.

[Jaded]

Stephen Amell Criticizes SAG-AFTRA Strike as ‘Myopic’

[Anduin]

21 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Stephen Amell Criticizes SAG-AFTRA Strike as ‘Myopic’

What an idiot.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Jaded said:

Stephen Amell Criticizes SAG-AFTRA Strike as ‘Myopic’

That is entirely unsurprising. 

[scarynikki12]

Meanwhile a number of his old Arrowverse colleagues have happily walked the picket line and voiced solidarity with the WGA. Is he really so naive to think both unions are striking for fun? Neither group want to be striking, and have made this clear over and over, but it's necessary because the AMPTP refuses to negotiate on the contracts. It's not like AMPTP offered them a sweetheart deal and they still went on strike. Also, Arrow streams on Netflix, will undoubtably move to HBO Max* when that contract ends, and he's not going to get a dime in residuals from either company without SAG getting the contract they want. Since he makes a ton of money from small cons he's not hurting financially like so many actors and writers and maybe he somehow believes his situation is true for everyone? Finally, he's hardly a movie star so he's among the many who are in real danger of having their likeness copied and used in perpetuity and should be aware of this. The studios will probably agree not to do the AI crap with the Tom Cruises of the world (at least while they're alive) but they absolutely will for the Stephen Amells. If the AMPTP wins and one day wants to pull a repeat of the nonsense The Flash pulled with all the Arrowverse actors he won't have any power to stop them nor will he be compensated. He better hope the strikes work if only for his own livelihood. 

*The name change is stupid and I refuse to comply.

[Trini]

Are SAG actors even supposed to be at cons right now??

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Trini said:

Are SAG actors even supposed to be at cons right now??

They can as long as they don’t promote any projects made by struck companies. 

However, Amell has broke the strike guidelines by actively promoting Heels on social media. He has since deleted them. 

[NUguy514]

6 hours ago, Jaded said:

Stephen Amell Criticizes SAG-AFTRA Strike as ‘Myopic’

I'm sure he does think the strike is "myopic" in the actual sense of the word, although I have my doubts that he actually knows what that word means; however, he also calls the strike a "reductive" negotiating tactic, which...

There is nothing so pretentious as a fool with a few big vocabulary words at his disposal.

[supposebly]

13 hours ago, Jaded said:

Stephen Amell Criticizes SAG-AFTRA Strike as ‘Myopic’

Reading the comments underneath, it strikes me that I don't really understand this seemingly quite common anti-union sentiment in the US and where that originates from. I grew up in Germany and while we complain a lot about unions, no one I know would argue that they're useless and not necessary. They are often seen as the only thing standing between exploitation and a humane work life in a capitalist system.

Edited August 1, 2023 by supposebly

[Bastet]

I'm not familiar with Amell, but when I clicked on that article to read about his comments, I saw a new one, saying he's trying to walk back his statements:
 

Quote

Understandably, there has been a lot of reaction to the comments I made this weekend about our strike. To ensure there is no misunderstanding about my thoughts and intentions I’m providing what I actually said and clarity/context to ensure my feelings aren’t unintentionally misinterpreted. We all know soundbites can be taken out of context and I have too much respect for my fellow union members to not clarify the record.

What I actually said:
1 “I support my union, I do, and I stand with them.”This doesn’t need much clarity: My support is unconditional and I stand with them.

What I actually said:
2 “I do not support striking, I don’t.”
What this means in full context: I understand fundamentally why we’re here. My off the cuff use of the word “support” is clearly contradictory to my true feelings and my emphatic statement that I stand with my union. Of course I don’t like striking. Nobody does. But we have to do what we have to do.

What I said
3 “I think that it is a reductive negotiating tactic and I find the entire thing incredibly frustrating.”
In full context: I’m an actor and I was speaking extemporaneously for over an hour. I emote, but I certainly don’t think these issues are simple. Our leadership has an incredibly complicated job and I am grateful for all that they do. Despite some of my terrible early acting work, I assure you, I’m not a robot. From an intellectual perspective, I understand why we are striking, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t emotionally frustrating on many levels for all involved.

What I said
4 “I think that thinking as it pertains to shows like the show that I am on that that premiered last night, I think it is myopic”
What I meant: Nothing about the strike is funny but if I may self deprecate for a moment. I have no clue what I was trying to say here and who says, “I think that thinking…?” Perhaps it was an inarticulate shoutout to our crew and cast, who mean the world to me. I’m simply sad that we don’t have a chance to celebrate a show that all of us figuratively and I literally, broke my back for.

As I said from the jump, I want to ensure that my thoughts and intentions are not misconstrued. This situation reminds of the proverb, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” which apparently, after reading a limited amount of the commentary, is a place many of you would like me to visit. However, at least for the foreseeable future, I choose to stand with my union. When you see me on a picket line please don’t whip any hard fruit.

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Bastet

[Jaded]

5 hours ago, supposebly said:

They are often seen as the only thing standing between exploitation and a humane work life in a capitalist system.

In the US too many employers and people who can change things don't care if employees are exploited or if they have a humane work life. 

[proserpina65]

34 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I'm not familiar with Amell, but when I clicked on that article to read about his comments, I saw a new one, saying he's trying to walk back his statements:
 

 

In other words "My agent explained to me what a huge mistake I made when I gave those statements and I'm going to try and keep everyone from hating me and boycotting my projects.  Plus, I don't know what 'myopic' and 'reductive' mean".

[scarynikki12]

41 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

In other words "My agent explained to me what a huge mistake I made when I gave those statements and I'm going to try and keep everyone from hating me and boycotting my projects.  Plus, I don't know what 'myopic' and 'reductive' mean".

That and he probably got calls from his agent and/or his actor friends who reminded him SAG will  kick him out for scabbing. 

[scarynikki12]

Oh and a good contrast to Amell is Todd McFarlane. He’s a comic writer, founder of Image Comics, toy manufacturer, and SAG member. I was at his solo panel at Comic Con and it had been broken down into segments (his own comics, upcoming toys, Image in general, etc). One segment was for movies and he simply said he wasn’t going to talk about them because he’s a member of SAG and was on strike. Did a fist pump to emphasize and moved on. The con had many writers and actors in attendance for comic stuff and all made it clear they were on strike and weren’t going to anything even slightly scabby. Amell needs to start thinking before he speaks if he wants to keep his career.

[DearEvette]

Stephen Amell's statement is pretty tone deaf.  Here is a man who got into a profession with a strong union.  Got lucky enough to get cast in a show that ran for 7 years.  And because of the work his union has done in the past, he reaps the rewards:  guaranteed minimums, the residuals, health insurance etc.  But he is too selfish to understand that in order to keep those rewards and benefits you have to sacrifice. 

It isn't only words, but his actions speak louder.  He is was coyly promoting the new season of his show on his social media.  Disingenuously standing in front of a big billboard advertising 'Heels' and saying "I am allowed to be proud of the work I do ( while holding a phone camera so that the billboard is prominently displayed."  All for a streaming show that gets very little hype.  If the cast of Oppenheimer can walk off a red carpet he can restrain himself from standing in a parking lot in front of a billboard.

Also going to a Con.  There is a clip floating around of him on a panel saying what he is allowed to talk about (Per SAG-AFTRA rules you can't speak about past, present or future work done on struck projects) and then he says 'I am not allowed to talk about Arrow," after which he pauses and then says 'You know what, just fuck this, let's go."

I've never really liked the guy, he gave me smug asshole vibes in the few times I ever saw him during Arrow's run.  But I never gave him a second thought.  Now I actively dislike him.  Also I am glad people are reporting is ass to SAG.  Here's hoping he gets some sanctions because that just looks so flagrant.

[Bastet]

4 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

In other words "My agent explained to me what a huge mistake I made when I gave those statements and I'm going to try and keep everyone from hating me and boycotting my projects.  Plus, I don't know what 'myopic' and 'reductive' mean".

Yep.  (To be clear, I was not endorsing him - I'd never heard of him until today, and I'd never endorse anyone disparaging strikes/strikers - I just saw that by the time I clicked on the posted article, he'd already said more, and posted that new mouthful as an FYI.)

Edited August 2, 2023 by Bastet

[Annber03]

8 hours ago, supposebly said:

Reading the comments underneath, it strikes me that I don't really understand this seemingly quite common anti-union sentiment in the US and where that originates from. I grew up in Germany and while we complain a lot about unions, no one I know would argue that they're useless and not necessary. They are often seen as the only thing standing between exploitation and a humane work life in a capitalist system.

At one time, unions had a significantly larger role in U.S. society, but yeah, there is indeed a long explanation behind how the anti-union sentiment came about here in the States, and it largely has to do with politics. Let's just say the anti-union sentiment tends to echo a lot of the sane sentiments about other various issues that the U.S. has a lot of issues with compared to other countries.

And that's all the more I can say on that ,because site rules, but that's the long and short of it, pretty much. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

I've never really liked the guy, he gave me smug asshole vibes in the few times I ever saw him during Arrow's run.

Smug asshole vibes is a good description. Pretty much the only time I am aware of him outside of Arrow is when he is apologizing for something or other. 

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

Also I am glad people are reporting is ass to SAG.  Here's hoping he gets some sanctions because that just looks so flagrant.

I just saw a TMZ article that he went on TMZ live to defend himself. He says he disagrees with striking and thinks the union should return to negotiations. He’s such an idiot. I’m not even following the strike closely and still know the studios have been unwilling to negotiate in good faith.  

From TMZ:

Quote

Stephen's also caught the attention of SAG leadership ... and he said he's meeting with them later on Tuesday. He told us his goal for the meeting is to show union leaders he supports them while also offering up alternatives to striking.

The arrogance of thinking that he can break the rules set forth by the union and go into a meeting and offer “alternatives”.  
 

[scarynikki12]

8 hours ago, supposebly said:

Reading the comments underneath, it strikes me that I don't really understand this seemingly quite common anti-union sentiment in the US and where that originates from. I grew up in Germany and while we complain a lot about unions, no one I know would argue that they're useless and not necessary. They are often seen as the only thing standing between exploitation and a humane work life in a capitalist system.

In addition to what others have said there are anti-union people in unions. Two non-entertainment examples are at my work. Our regular mailman has ranted about unions many times over the years but likes his job (yes the things he likes about the job are due to the union and no he's not made the connection) and wants to keep it so he puts up with being a member. Our regular UPS guy does like his union and kept us updated on their negotiations but a coworker who filled in for him a few weeks ago ranted about how awful unions are and negotiating was stupid and they should just sign the new contract sight unseen. After this particular rant my boss and I shared a look because coworker was drenched in sweat (no exaggeration his clothes were dripping) and didn't seem to understand one of the union requests was to upgrade the delivery trucks to have air conditioning. I guess he would rather get dangerously dehydrated than be in a union? 

If various unions have enough members who are against the concept of the organization that can cause a lot of problems when it comes to contract negotiations and limits their power generally. Amell is clearly anti-union but, thankfully, the vast majority of his fellow SAG members disagree so this story won't have any impact. If he were at the fame level of Meryl Streep then maybe he could do harm but he's not and she and many more famous entertainers have spoken in favor of the strike. Colin Farrell walked the picket line the other day and has been speaking so eloquently in support of first the writers and now actors striking to get fair contracts. The Oppenheimer cast, which includes Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr, Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, and Florence Pugh all walked out of the premiere the second they got word the strike was on. Christopher Nolan announced them walking out and made it clear he was only staying in the capacity as director (DGA really dropped the ball for their members by the way) and voiced his support for his fellow writers and the actors. The director and cast of a major summer movie and Oscar frontrunner didn't hesitate to support their unions when called upon yet Amell thinks he shouldn't do the same? No one is requiring him to talk about the strike at all and he can use his platform at cons to talk about so many other things that wouldn't put his career at risk. 

[NUguy514]

8 hours ago, Bastet said:

Understandably, there has been a lot of reaction to the comments I made this weekend about our strike. To ensure there is no misunderstanding about my thoughts and intentions I’m providing what I actually said and clarity/context to ensure my feelings aren’t unintentionally misinterpreted. We all know soundbites can be taken out of context and I have too much respect for my fellow union members to not clarify the record.

What I actually said:
1 “I support my union, I do, and I stand with them.”This doesn’t need much clarity: My support is unconditional and I stand with them.

What I actually said:
2 “I do not support striking, I don’t.”
What this means in full context: I understand fundamentally why we’re here. My off the cuff use of the word “support” is clearly contradictory to my true feelings and my emphatic statement that I stand with my union. Of course I don’t like striking. Nobody does. But we have to do what we have to do.

What I said
3 “I think that it is a reductive negotiating tactic and I find the entire thing incredibly frustrating.”
In full context: I’m an actor and I was speaking extemporaneously for over an hour. I emote, but I certainly don’t think these issues are simple. Our leadership has an incredibly complicated job and I am grateful for all that they do. Despite some of my terrible early acting work, I assure you, I’m not a robot. From an intellectual perspective, I understand why we are striking, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t emotionally frustrating on many levels for all involved.

What I said
4 “I think that thinking as it pertains to shows like the show that I am on that that premiered last night, I think it is myopic”
What I meant: Nothing about the strike is funny but if I may self deprecate for a moment. I have no clue what I was trying to say here and who says, “I think that thinking…?” Perhaps it was an inarticulate shoutout to our crew and cast, who mean the world to me. I’m simply sad that we don’t have a chance to celebrate a show that all of us figuratively and I literally, broke my back for.

As I said from the jump, I want to ensure that my thoughts and intentions are not misconstrued. This situation reminds of the proverb, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” which apparently, after reading a limited amount of the commentary, is a place many of you would like me to visit. However, at least for the foreseeable future, I choose to stand with my union. When you see me on a picket line please don’t whip any hard fruit.

Yep, I was right: he has no idea what those words mean, and he's a pretentious fool.  And, judging on past behavior, a belligerent asshole.

[kiddo82]

First and foremost, I sincerely hope the workers get the best deal and conditions possible.  That said, it'll be interesting to see the fallout after the end of these strikes.  The CEOs are definitely going to learn the wrong lesson on this.  I don't see the likes of Zaslav or Iger taking a pay cut any time soon (and let's be honest, any sort of pay cut for them is couch change) and the burden will then be placed on the consumer.  The streaming bubble has already burst and box office receipts on the whole aren't exactly lighting it up.  Like I said, the studio heads could take pay cuts and they could knock it off with the massive price tags for some of these would be blockbusters that don't even break even. But they won't.  They'll just charge us more.

[DearEvette]

It looks like the AMPTP is actually making some moves to go back to the bargaining table with WGA. 

Sounds like there is dissension in the ranks of the AMPTP.  Which makes sense.  What works for streamers like Disney, Netflix and HBO Max *  doesn't necessarily work for Broadcast. 

 

On 7/31/2023 at 9:34 PM, scarynikki12 said:

*The name change is stupid and I refuse to comply.

Yup.

[absnow54]

9 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Sounds like there is dissension in the ranks of the AMPTP.  Which makes sense.  What works for streamers like Disney, Netflix and HBO Max *  doesn't necessarily work for Broadcast. 

But aren't all the broadcast networks owned by Disney, Universal, and Paramount? They've been adjusting by airing "streaming exclusive" shows like  Yellowstone on CBS.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, absnow54 said:

But aren't all the broadcast networks owned by Disney, Universal, and Paramount?

All except Fox. But even with the same parent company the individual branches are going to have often conflicting interests. 

[Spartan Girl]

25 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

It looks like the AMPTP is actually making some moves to go back to the bargaining table with WGA. 

It's about fucking time! Of course if they did this months ago, we'd actually have a fall TV season that didn't revolve around reruns and reality TV! Shitheads.

[shantown]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

Sounds like there is dissension in the ranks of the AMPTP.  Which makes sense.  What works for streamers like Disney, Netflix and HBO Max *  doesn't necessarily work for Broadcast. 

59 minutes ago, Dani said:

But even with the same parent company the individual branches are going to have often conflicting interests. 

I can see their being some dissent between the broadcast vs streaming halves of the big companies. But I wonder if there's also issue between the big companies (Disney, Paramount, WB, etc) and the ones that are in it for streaming only (Netflix, Amazon, Apple). Even the ones that are streaming only (Netflix) vs "have streaming but it's not their main source of income" (Amazon, Apple) probably have some conflict.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of offers the AMPTP bring to the table - they've got way more competing interests than everyone the SAG/WGA side does. Hopefully that cohesion helps the SAG/WGA side hold strong!

(and as a long time arrowverse watcher: Shut up, Stephen Amell.)

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, absnow54 said:

But aren't all the broadcast networks owned by Disney, Universal, and Paramount? They've been adjusting by airing "streaming exclusive" shows like  Yellowstone on CBS.

It isn't necessarily about who owns what but how revenue is generated across the different platforms and what the writing process is.  Broadcast gets revenue from ads.  And the ad rates for broadcast shows are set during the upfronts (which I don't remember if they even happened this year?). Meanwhile streamers are subscriber based and are backed by tech giants (Netflix, Amazon and Apple)

Writers rooms are different in Broadcast and streaming also.  Broadcast has full writers rooms and since most network shows have 20-22 episodes I've read that is like 45 weeks of regular employment for writers.  Whereas the trend in streamers is to have what they call mini-rooms which consists of only a few writers and to have them bust out all the scripts within weeks. And of course streamer 'seasons'  an be anywhere from 6-12 episodes. 

Broadcast also feels affects of the strike mych faster. The late night shows had to go dark immediately.  So immediate lost revenue.  Whereas streamers don't have those daily type shows.

And then we get to the Soaps.  Soaps are already on life support with only, what , like 4 of them left?  With the last writer's strike being considered a contributing factor to the demise of the other soaps. The soap actors are on a different contract so they are contractually obligated to report to work still. and since they don't go on hiatus like primetime, their need for new scripts is much more immediate than primetime shows.  But most of the  writers are WGA.  Hence the we get a soap like GH soliciting non-WGA writers to write. 

Here is an article from Deadline that talks about the differences.

[Milburn Stone]

8 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Like I said, the studio heads could take pay cuts and they could knock it off with the massive price tags for some of these would be blockbusters that don't even break even. But they won't.  They'll just charge us more.

But there is a limit to how much people are willing to pay.

The reason this strike will be prolonged is that the whole situation is between a rock and a hard place. If studio heads could solve the problem by giving the actors and writers everything they want, and then charging more to a consuming public who would willingly pay what's asked, it would have happened.

[scarynikki12]

52 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

And then we get to the Soaps.  Soaps are already on life support with only, what , like 4 of them left?  With the last writer's strike being considered a contributing factor to the demise of the other soaps. The soap actors are on a different contract so they are contractually obligated to report to work still. and since they don't go on hiatus like primetime, their need for new scripts is much more immediate than primetime shows.  But most of the  writers are WGA.  Hence the we get a soap like GH soliciting non-WGA writers to write. 

The general assumption is the scabbing writers may think this is a backdoor into the industry and they are going to get a rude awakening after the strike when WGA blacklists them. It’s happened before and they will do it again. I can’t remember the name but a WGA member wrote a twitter thread about how his mother scabbed in the 80s thinking her talent would impress the WGA so much they wouldn’t do anything. They blacklisted her as soon as they learned her name. The guilds aren’t fucking around.

In response to the question of ‘soaps will be hurt if they have to go off the air’, which we saw in the 90s when OJ was on trial, many writers pointed out the show producers aren’t barred from writing episodes or the studios could use this as an opportunity to prove their AI plans have merit yet they went straight for human beings to keep writing the shows.

I’m glad they’re willing to discuss returning to the table but this should be real and not a short term PR move.

[NUguy514]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

The reason this strike will be prolonged is that the whole situation is between a rock and a hard place. If studio heads could solve the problem by giving the actors and writers everything they want, and then charging more to a consuming public who would willingly pay what's asked, it would have happened.

It absolutely would not have happened because the studio heads do not care about writers and actors.  At all.  They care about spending nothing so that their shareholders are pleased.  That's it.  If the shareholders pressure them to settle because their bottom line is being adversely affected, they will, but they would never, ever, ever give the writers and actors everything they want; it would cost too much, even if they charged the consumers more for their products.

[Milburn Stone]

36 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

It absolutely would not have happened because the studio heads do not care about writers and actors.

They do care about product. They can go on only so long without it.

[kiddo82]

I think the rub is they only care about the product's ability to generate revenue.  A bad product that is profitable is more coveted than a good one that isn't.

Edited August 2, 2023 by kiddo82

[Milburn Stone]

16 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I think the rub is they only care about the product's ability to generate revenue.  A bad product that is profitable is more coveted than a good one that isn't.

I believe you're (sadly) correct, as it regards bad new product. But they can't get new product (good or bad) unless writers and actors cross the picket line. And the studios recognize they can only go so long without new product. Can they go on for a while? Sure, that's why they haven't gone out of business yet. But I don't think there's a one of them who regards the status quo as a long-term strategy.

[absnow54]

18 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I believe you're (sadly) correct, as it regards bad new product. But they can't get new product (good or bad) unless writers and actors cross the picket line.

The most obvious option for generating the most buzzworthy content would be a 100% AI generated product, but then they'll show their hand on where AI technology actually is, and how desperately they still need real writers and actors to generate content. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by absnow54

[Pothunter]

On 8/2/2023 at 9:48 AM, NUguy514 said:

Yep, I was right: he has no idea what those words mean, and he's a pretentious fool.  And, judging on past behavior, a belligerent asshole.

I may be wrong, but Amell's actions could have been deliberate to generate publicity about himself and his show. Entirely possible that a lot of people read the various articles and decided to give Heels and / or Arrow a try. Doesn't the saying go "There is no such thing as bad publicity?" 

Just a thought that struck.

[Ohiopirate02]

2 hours ago, Pothunter said:

I may be wrong, but Amell's actions could have been deliberate to generate publicity about himself and his show. Entirely possible that a lot of people read the various articles and decided to give Heels and / or Arrow a try. Doesn't the saying go "There is no such thing as bad publicity?" 

Just a thought that struck.

Which would be scabbing.  

[Pothunter]

36 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Which would be scabbing.

Agreed.

I was being a "suspicious bastard" like Sam Vimes. Cynic that I am, it struck me that the man probably accomplished what he set out to do without damaging himself too much.

[Ohiopirate02]

17 minutes ago, Pothunter said:

Agreed.

I was being a "suspicious bastard" like Sam Vimes. Cynic that I am, it struck me that the man probably accomplished what he set out to do without damaging himself too much.

His fellow actors will remember though, and some of those actors are also producers.  He may find himself working on hostile sets in the future or getting passed over for work.

[DearEvette]

5 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

He may find himself working on hostile sets in the future or getting passed over for work.

Yeah, even if SAG doesn't sanction him, some of the people I saw condemning him publicly on Twitter*  were showrunners.  While he may have brought some attention to his current show, it might have hurt his long game.

*I am not using he new name because it is stupid.

[starri]

Given the combination of the underwhelming performances of so many movies this summer, as well as the effects of the strikes, I'm wondering if we might finally start to see a course correction in Hollywood.  It's been a general trend for at least the last 60 years or so that the studio system breaks down every twenty years--which gave us New Hollywood in the late 60s and 70s, which lasted until about Star Wars, and then gave us the indie boom of the mid-to-late-90s.  We're overdue for an implosion.

I was thinking that too much power was concentrated in too few hands for it to really happen again, but pandemic + strikes + big box office misfires may have tipped the scales.  I can't want to see what happens.

[Ohiopirate02]

2 hours ago, starri said:

Given the combination of the underwhelming performances of so many movies this summer, as well as the effects of the strikes, I'm wondering if we might finally start to see a course correction in Hollywood.  It's been a general trend for at least the last 60 years or so that the studio system breaks down every twenty years--which gave us New Hollywood in the late 60s and 70s, which lasted until about Star Wars, and then gave us the indie boom of the mid-to-late-90s.  We're overdue for an implosion.

I was thinking that too much power was concentrated in too few hands for it to really happen again, but pandemic + strikes + big box office misfires may have tipped the scales.  I can't want to see what happens.

A24 has been killing it in recent years, so I hope the studios take the correct lessons from their success.  People want lower budget original movies.  No need to sink so much capital into franchise after franchise.  The studios outside of Disney need to diversify their offerings instead of trying to find the next Marvel.  

[scarynikki12]

I love this image

 

This was outside Universal yesterday. 

[Jaded]

I used to like him then his vaccine tweet happened. Then I found out he appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast. He's also a Jordan Peterson fan too apparently.

Zachary Levi Says His Joke About ‘Dumb’ Strike Rules Was ‘Taken Out of Context’

Edited August 5, 2023 by Jaded

[Ohiopirate02]

14 hours ago, Jaded said:

I used to like him then his vaccine tweet happened. Then I found out he appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast. He's also a Jordan Peterson fan too apparently.

Zachary Levi Says His Joke About ‘Dumb’ Strike Rules Was ‘Taken Out of Context’

I watched that clip, and no one was misinterpreting his tone and intent.  There is a way to follow the union's mandate and give the fans what they want, and that wasn't it.  I do wonder how many other actors are doing con appearances and following the rules while still giving the fans an enjoyable experience. My guess is every other one.  Zachary's speech was about assuaging his ego, and not the fans.