Everyone working on projects got residuals with network TV. I know we did as composers. Not anymore. The reason the fight is with writers and actors only is because unlike them we composers do not have a union to fight. If I say no to a project because the money is too low they can find people to do it for free. For a credit. 3 months work sometimes for nothing but a credit….
I’d say actors should get residuals because for as long as that movie/show exists, the actors name will be a selling point. For example, the only reason I watched Parks and Rec was after seeing Chris Pratt in Guardians. That show gained another viewer because of Pratt’s fame that came after the show had started airing.
So should actors from movies like Blair Witch Project get residuals? That movie is compose mostly entirely of unknown actors and non-actors and people watched it because of how scary it is.
Man I was gonna watch it with my gf, but then life happened and before I knew it it was a few weeks and and I said fuck it I’ll just wait till it finishes and binge it all in 1 day, I’m looking forward to it though
I think John makes excellent points about the whole situation. I dont think writers or actors should get residuals when others do not, who work just as hard. One could argue actors were once seen as the face of the movie and it was their star appeal that drew people to the movie, so they were worth more. But they should just be paid well.
3:29 I know people will get hurt by these words, but… PREACH JOHN, PREACH ! That’s just the truth out here. And again folk : what comes first ? The script ? The cast ? The money from the company to get the writers and actors to work in the first place ? So, when already paid to do a script, but then deliver bad and have the studio not making enough view with it, why should they get more residuals ? 🤦♂️ it gotta make sense on BOTH SIDES, don’t come on with saying it’s too less to make a living when already got paid upfront. Residuals is basically an extra.
Speaking as an actor it’s already hard enough to find consistent work with a decent pay. I can’t speak for set designers or costumes who don’t get residuals. But I can say that actors don’t get paid enough to just pay there rent or relocate just to work in Hollywood. If Disney making a billion dollars off avengers endgame then every actor should get a bigger piece of that pie instead of pennies on the dollar
members of production *should* get residuals. We have awards for set/costume design, if the acting community recognizes the value production crews create in spirit, they should compensate the crew accordingly. Why are companies themselves making money on productions they invested in long after their release as in the cases of classic films/shows being put out on streaming services? It's not a great devil's advocate argument
The main challenge when discussing this issue with people who just look at the screen and know little to nothing about production is they think just because a lot people are watching the show it means the show is making a profit. With how much input goes into movies and show these days, in-terms of people working on the show and marketing, etc very few shows make a profit. For example "The Sandman" a lot of people watched it but there was no clear green on where season 2 would happen or not (its not show friends its show business)
Well, it's easy. The other crew members do deserve residuals. Its just a lot harder for them to fight for it. Because, unfortunately, when actors or writers shout out on twitter they feel theyre being mistreated, people listen. When Steve from 7/11 says he's being mistreated no one cares. Sadly people don't bother thinking about the rest of the crew so they don't stand behind them. Its a sad truth. And they deserve to get residuals. If these CEOs can give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus pay, they can afford to pay residuals for certain shows and films. Period.
actors get residuals because they aren't studio employees. If you make a car you are an employee of the car manufacturer and once finish making one car you make another with same company tomorrow. Actors don't have that certainty and therefore get money on the back end. It's not a difficult concept. The studios liked it because it allowed them to reduce the financial costs up front and only pay big bucks if a project is successful. Remember if a project tanks the residuals are non-existent
I think since the actor is the draw they get the residual. When you watch FRIENDS they made that show popular. Their contribution is making you connect and giving you 22 minutes of happiness like a drug. Yes the sets are memorable but if the show does bad the set designers careers don’t get hit by it. Meaning if you an actor in enough bad stuff it can stop you from getting certain roles because your stock goes down in Hollywood. Your negotiated rates go down and as well as your audience draw. Your the one in the spot light being rushed by paparazzi not the bus boy or second AD. They are the face on the posters, the trailers and have to trust everyone else will make them look good so everyone can look good. So I can get why actors get residuals but maybe if they wanted to just get rid of residuals altogether and pay more upfront or in installments like a regular job that could be a more realistic alternative.
Without the massive marketing-spenditures there would be more money for residuals, wages and less risk at losing money. 100M for a production budget of 200M is insane.
It is a really valid argument. But actors, director and writer don't care about others. All they care about is showing their sorry states. I don't mind getting what they want because corporates are loaded and greedy. But it would be nice if everybody could get a living.
Would Secret Invasion be doing better if all episodes were dropped at the same time? Most times I would say no, but maybe some series are better binged.
If actors don't deserve to get residuals, then likewise people who post to RUclips don't deserve to get checks every month for the views their videos bring in. That profit should ONLY go to the Google/RUclips behemoth, and content creators should just be grateful for the "exposure" they get. RUclips is doing all the hard work in providing creators with this platform. It stands to reason that after, say, an initial payment upon upload (how does $100 sound?) that a creator gets nothing afterwards. I'm sure Mr. Campea would be fine with this. (This was sarcasm, by the way.)
@@theaverageone9289 - Creators take the risk? Is it akin to the risk an actor takes in upending their entire life, moving to L.A., working for 12 hours a day on a shoot that might last for months or even years (for TV shows) - making it essentially impossible to meaningfully pursue other careers? (Also, I realize that RUclipsrs don't get paid up front. I was saying that if RUclips replaced their system with how writers/actors are paid under the current movie/TV model, then content creators like Mr. Campea wouldn't be able to sustain themselves.)
I think what he was saying was that if actors are getting paid residuals then why don't others like set designers and costume designers get that. A juxtaposition of that for a RUclips video will be that RUclips gives monthly "residuals" for videos to the creator, and there are no such amount transferred to the person responsible for editing the video, or someone responsible for technical support for the video(which is a huge deal for shows like John's show)...I think that is a more apt comparison
The obvious problem with your argument is that actors get paid a pre-agreed upon negotiated fee for providing their services (just like anyone else). If RUclips paid an agreed upon negotiated fee to RUclipsrs first, then your arguement might have some validity. But since RUclipsrs do not get an upfront agreed upon negotiated fee first like actors, your comparison holds no water.
If an actor is in a popular show, then they can get typecast. Look at the cast of Gilligan's Island or The Brady Bunch. They had a difficult time finding work, because nobody could think of them except for those roles. Those roles were so popular that they kept them from getting other work. A cameraman or costume designer doesn't get typecast. That, and their union negotiated for it. It's show business, you get what you negotiate, not what you deserve.
What if for example Netflix sets a price for the platform like say 60-80% then the 20% of the subscription is divided among the shows you watched that month.
The main problem is that the current model of streaming just in general doesn't work on a financial level, and paying the actors more would make it even worse. The producers need to figure something out here that is much bigger than just the contracts with the unions.
I think if there is continual profits then yes, those other people should get residuals. I've never held anyone in higher importance than others. Except for the quality of their work amongst their peers.
@@ridhwanasgarali4231 so this would depend who actually is backing the funding for projects/movies/shows etc. One thing that is pointed out is how CEOs make millions year after year, yet they don't usually put up their own money for every project out there. Do if streamers are actually making money then how are they making a percentage of profits/revenue. They aren't being transparent with their numbers so it's hard to know. If s tied won't get residuals then they should get higher pay. This for foot everyone btw not just actors/writers. People in general should get paid a proper living wage.
John is approaching the residual thing all wrong. It’s not about why so and so deserves residuals and so and so doesn’t, it’s about what your position and Union has the power to negotiate. Crew members don’t have they same sway as actors. Actors are the ones people see and are attracted to to see a project. They can make producers give them things that an average crew member can’t. A Grip can’t demand twice a grip’s average salary because nobody is watching a film because Grip so and so worked on it. Actor’s know their worth and power.
Wait so white about star wars and ilm? We all know if it wasn't for ILM at the time to create and design that world to even make it work the unknown carrie fisher and mark Hamill couldn't make that work The first star wars movie to this day was a visual master piece of its time I'm not saying I agree with John just pointing out practical effect companies or ppl that worked on films like ilm
I came here to say the same thing. Audiences don't come to movies because of the set designs or costumes. Sure, they play a big part in the experience and suspension of disbelief, but people often watch movies for actors and directors. Audiences come for the performances and the stories. Everything else is still essential, but secondary when it comes to being profitable.
@soulkilaproduction5993, you can make an argument that special effects was as essential as the actors in that movie, but could you say that Empire and Return of The Jedi would have been as successful if the main cast had been completely replaced but they kept all the special effects team?
@juleswinnfield616 remember empire was split by critics back then but was still highly praised for its special affects not saying that empire isn't God tier cinema but what has sold Star wars has allways been the visual abd story alot of the greatest syfi and mostly just technical master pieces on top of great stories
And least just keep it a buck avatars story is so basic asf but the world is what sells and the visual team sells that the second movie is a bunch of newer young actors with cgi faces we barely know who they are minus sully and zoë
I heard that the members on the AMTP negotiation committee are basically suits who do not have a good understanding of the processes in the industry. Sure they know the big issues at a macro level but not have the right people in the room does not help any negotiation progress.
Yeah I was just asking about ppl that work with ILM With out ILM working as hard to making the set ships sound design work we all know star wars would be a commercial failure
Reflecting back I really wanna put wandavision under a microscope to see how it made us litterally keep refreshing the site to see if the latest episode had dropped. Meanwhile secret invasion I'm watching it while I eat dinner to multi task. Not on a TV like wandavision but on my phone. Secret invasion has the recipe to keep us engaged once the credits role but it hasn't done that for me after the first episode. Despite ep 2 having a cool ending. Ep 3 also having a shocker of an ending and also a game changing reveal. Ep 4 being a lil cliche but also a shocker. Despite all that I don't seem to be as invested. Maybe it's cause of the Marvel's trailer. Watching that I know nothing MAJOR is gonna happen to Fury. Or.. it's a misdirection.
do yo know what the British and other foreighn actors stance are? I mean Cumberbatch can go back to UK series but what happenes to US actors wanting to do some work in the UK during the strike?
Honestly the streaming system is not a fruitful as these companies think they are and they need to adjust their spending and consider advertisements. Because no one deserves to work two jobs and still not make enough to have a savings
In terms of actor renumeration I think all actors should get a fair standard upfront fee but there should be a facility to recognise bonus payments for other factors. This happens in so many industries so why should it not apply to actors and writers. The CEO in the studios get a standard fee but have clauses like if we achieve a % increase on profits then they are paid a bonus.
Why shouldn't the actors and writers get residuals? Are studios going to start giving away movies after the theatrical window? Give away TV shows after the first run? Streaming services are going to be free? Other professions do get residuals - if I go to a bookstore and buy a copy of Carrie, Stephen King gets a cut. If I buy the album Joshua Tree then Bono is getting a slice of the pie. If the studios are making money off the labor of others, labor have the right to share some of the profits.
@@Flubber-ee4no Except Uber drivers aren't doing something unique and original that a CEO then takes the credit for. However, if the current model continues in which the artists who create the product get paid like Uber drivers, the entire industry will eventually collapse on itself. Of course, the CEOs probably won't care at that point, since they'll have their nest eggs.
@@Flubber-ee4no Are you paying attention? The vast majority of them in fact are not being paid in any fair way, hence the strikes. It's also ironic that in order to minimize the contribution of the actors, you inadvertently emphasized the importance and indispensability of the writers.
Yes you can be nominated for the same category twice. John Williams has as composer. Not sure about actors because there are two separate ones but no one likes it because you tend to then cancel yourself out of a win
How is streaming video different from streaming music regarding residuals? Don't musicians just get a cut based on playtime? Shouldn't that be the same for video? And isn't the subscription the revenue generator in place of ads from network TV?
It's not that actors deserve residuals or royalties *_above_* other creators, it's what they negotiated through their union for broadcast TV and film decades ago, ergo what they feel should apply equally (or something equivalent - i.e. a cut of the subscription profits) for streaming services. Actors are not responsible for the perceived worth of the different departments of film making or TV production. I would say costumiers, set designers etc., (if part of a union) should also fight for higher pay if they find their wage/salary wanting. Studios etc. can definitely afford to skim the top of the highest paid earners & distribute its fees/profits more evenly than it does at present. When Capitalism somewhat aligns itself with a smidgen of Socialism, its staff members are usually the most content.
I think actors contribute a lot to the shows success. I think about Kevin Spacey being fired from House of Cards and most folks I know who watched said they lost interest. And other shows or movies who had a star that kinda made the show work and who had to be there to make content whole. I think it’s reasonable to get residuals.
But the actors/writers wouldn't get disproportionate residuals. If a movie isn't popular, then no one would purchase/stream the movie. That's the beauty of the residual system (or at least the version that I'm imagining). It only "pays out" to the actors/writers if the product is successful and the producers are *also* profiting. It's a win/win system. The only loss is that the CEOs would be making slightly less than their current obscene salary.
The reason why actors and writers get residuals is because they aren’t salaried workers and they don’t always get work. They have to live in an expensive city where the economy is getting harder for the middle class to thrive. The residuals is how a lot of them could stay afloat as they looked for more work. It’s how they made their living. They are an active part of bringing value to the companies and are getting shut out. Also this isn’t a matter of considering actors better than other people. That’s not a good take. This isn’t about worker vs. worker. This is about this group of unionized workers fighting for their rights, and part of those rights that they fought for decades ago was to get residuals to make their job stronger. That’s what their collective bargaining power won for them back in 1960. We’re seeing employee/employer conflicts bubbling up all over the economy. This is why the railroad workers went on strike. Why Starbucks and Amazon workers want to unionize. Why the UPS workers want to go on strike. This isn’t about pitting workers against each other. It’s about recognizing where the value for these products comes from and not taking them for granted. Collective bargaining is the best way for workers to fight for their interests. Also like someone else said if these actors don’t deserve residuals then RUclipsrs don’t deserve to make money on their videos beyond what RUclips initially paid them. Why should a RUclipsr keep getting money for a video when RUclips took the risk to create the site? All of the profit beyond the initial payment should just go to RUclips. You should just be happy that you got some exposure and that you got paid at all. Let’s see how RUclipsrs feel about that. Long story short, the reason why actors and writers get residuals is because they fought for that decades ago. That’s why. If the product they worked on still brings value to the company then the people who made that value should continue to be compensated. Not simply used to enrich other people who merely bought their labor.
John is so disingenuous to Secret Invasions. It's a good show and comparing it to Wandavision is stupid because Wandavision was during the damn pandemic!! People had no choice but to watch it
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
Everyone working on projects got residuals with network TV. I know we did as composers. Not anymore. The reason the fight is with writers and actors only is because unlike them we composers do not have a union to fight. If I say no to a project because the money is too low they can find people to do it for free. For a credit. 3 months work sometimes for nothing but a credit….
I’d say actors should get residuals because for as long as that movie/show exists, the actors name will be a selling point. For example, the only reason I watched Parks and Rec was after seeing Chris Pratt in Guardians. That show gained another viewer because of Pratt’s fame that came after the show had started airing.
So should actors from movies like Blair Witch Project get residuals? That movie is compose mostly entirely of unknown actors and non-actors and people watched it because of how scary it is.
I'd be happy to see a Secret Invasion recap of the series once it's finished. It's probably going to be my favorite MCU show.
Man I was gonna watch it with my gf, but then life happened and before I knew it it was a few weeks and and I said fuck it I’ll just wait till it finishes and binge it all in 1 day, I’m looking forward to it though
You don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate
Me .😢😮😮 Nnn
Bbcm
.....b
.,..
.ko.ppp😊I ........ Me
Good point john, the costume designers should get residuals as well.
1:13:12 For those who still don’t get the Residuals, how they are made and why it’s not that “easy” to pay more.
I think John makes excellent points about the whole situation. I dont think writers or actors should get residuals when others do not, who work just as hard. One could argue actors were once seen as the face of the movie and it was their star appeal that drew people to the movie, so they were worth more. But they should just be paid well.
3:29 I know people will get hurt by these words, but… PREACH JOHN, PREACH !
That’s just the truth out here.
And again folk : what comes first ? The script ? The cast ? The money from the company to get the writers and actors to work in the first place ?
So, when already paid to do a script, but then deliver bad and have the studio not making enough view with it, why should they get more residuals ? 🤦♂️ it gotta make sense on BOTH SIDES, don’t come on with saying it’s too less to make a living when already got paid upfront.
Residuals is basically an extra.
Speaking as an actor it’s already hard enough to find consistent work with a decent pay. I can’t speak for set designers or costumes who don’t get residuals. But I can say that actors don’t get paid enough to just pay there rent or relocate just to work in Hollywood. If Disney making a billion dollars off avengers endgame then every actor should get a bigger piece of that pie instead of pennies on the dollar
members of production *should* get residuals. We have awards for set/costume design, if the acting community recognizes the value production crews create in spirit, they should compensate the crew accordingly. Why are companies themselves making money on productions they invested in long after their release as in the cases of classic films/shows being put out on streaming services? It's not a great devil's advocate argument
The main challenge when discussing this issue with people who just look at the screen and know little to nothing about production is they think just because a lot people are watching the show it means the show is making a profit. With how much input goes into movies and show these days, in-terms of people working on the show and marketing, etc very few shows make a profit. For example "The Sandman" a lot of people watched it but there was no clear green on where season 2 would happen or not (its not show friends its show business)
This why i don’t like the weekly show drops cause if its not popular its dismissed and then it might as well be dropped all at once so we can binge it
Well, it's easy. The other crew members do deserve residuals. Its just a lot harder for them to fight for it. Because, unfortunately, when actors or writers shout out on twitter they feel theyre being mistreated, people listen. When Steve from 7/11 says he's being mistreated no one cares. Sadly people don't bother thinking about the rest of the crew so they don't stand behind them. Its a sad truth. And they deserve to get residuals. If these CEOs can give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus pay, they can afford to pay residuals for certain shows and films. Period.
actors get residuals because they aren't studio employees. If you make a car you are an employee of the car manufacturer and once finish making one car you make another with same company tomorrow. Actors don't have that certainty and therefore get money on the back end. It's not a difficult concept. The studios liked it because it allowed them to reduce the financial costs up front and only pay big bucks if a project is successful. Remember if a project tanks the residuals are non-existent
I think since the actor is the draw they get the residual. When you watch FRIENDS they made that show popular. Their contribution is making you connect and giving you 22 minutes of happiness like a drug. Yes the sets are memorable but if the show does bad the set designers careers don’t get hit by it. Meaning if you an actor in enough bad stuff it can stop you from getting certain roles because your stock goes down in Hollywood. Your negotiated rates go down and as well as your audience draw. Your the one in the spot light being rushed by paparazzi not the bus boy or second AD. They are the face on the posters, the trailers and have to trust everyone else will make them look good so everyone can look good. So I can get why actors get residuals but maybe if they wanted to just get rid of residuals altogether and pay more upfront or in installments like a regular job that could be a more realistic alternative.
Without the massive marketing-spenditures there would be more money for residuals, wages and less risk at losing money. 100M for a production budget of 200M is insane.
I feel like actors deserve residuals because they're using their likeness and people can recognize them and harass them.
It is a really valid argument. But actors, director and writer don't care about others. All they care about is showing their sorry states. I don't mind getting what they want because corporates are loaded and greedy. But it would be nice if everybody could get a living.
Would Secret Invasion be doing better if all episodes were dropped at the same time? Most times I would say no, but maybe some series are better binged.
If actors don't deserve to get residuals, then likewise people who post to RUclips don't deserve to get checks every month for the views their videos bring in. That profit should ONLY go to the Google/RUclips behemoth, and content creators should just be grateful for the "exposure" they get. RUclips is doing all the hard work in providing creators with this platform. It stands to reason that after, say, an initial payment upon upload (how does $100 sound?) that a creator gets nothing afterwards. I'm sure Mr. Campea would be fine with this. (This was sarcasm, by the way.)
@@theaverageone9289 - Creators take the risk? Is it akin to the risk an actor takes in upending their entire life, moving to L.A., working for 12 hours a day on a shoot that might last for months or even years (for TV shows) - making it essentially impossible to meaningfully pursue other careers?
(Also, I realize that RUclipsrs don't get paid up front. I was saying that if RUclips replaced their system with how writers/actors are paid under the current movie/TV model, then content creators like Mr. Campea wouldn't be able to sustain themselves.)
@@Ren_Davis0531 - Hey man. Borrow away!
Starts with the writers who come up with the script
I think what he was saying was that if actors are getting paid residuals then why don't others like set designers and costume designers get that. A juxtaposition of that for a RUclips video will be that RUclips gives monthly "residuals" for videos to the creator, and there are no such amount transferred to the person responsible for editing the video, or someone responsible for technical support for the video(which is a huge deal for shows like John's show)...I think that is a more apt comparison
The obvious problem with your argument is that actors get paid a pre-agreed upon negotiated fee for providing their services (just like anyone else). If RUclips paid an agreed upon negotiated fee to RUclipsrs first, then your arguement might have some validity. But since RUclipsrs do not get an upfront agreed upon negotiated fee first like actors, your comparison holds no water.
If an actor is in a popular show, then they can get typecast. Look at the cast of Gilligan's Island or The Brady Bunch. They had a difficult time finding work, because nobody could think of them except for those roles. Those roles were so popular that they kept them from getting other work. A cameraman or costume designer doesn't get typecast. That, and their union negotiated for it. It's show business, you get what you negotiate, not what you deserve.
Bingo you said it perfectly you get what you negotiate
You dont get what you deserve you get what you negotiate
Netflix did the higher upfront fee with the stars of Red Notice when Universal gave it up.
What if for example Netflix sets a price for the platform like say 60-80% then the 20% of the subscription is divided among the shows you watched that month.
The main problem is that the current model of streaming just in general doesn't work on a financial level, and paying the actors more would make it even worse. The producers need to figure something out here that is much bigger than just the contracts with the unions.
Technical jobs are more interchangeable than people who perform on screen
I think if there is continual profits then yes, those other people should get residuals. I've never held anyone in higher importance than others.
Except for the quality of their work amongst their peers.
@@ridhwanasgarali4231 so this would depend who actually is backing the funding for projects/movies/shows etc. One thing that is pointed out is how CEOs make millions year after year, yet they don't usually put up their own money for every project out there. Do if streamers are actually making money then how are they making a percentage of profits/revenue. They aren't being transparent with their numbers so it's hard to know. If s tied won't get residuals then they should get higher pay. This for foot everyone btw not just actors/writers. People in general should get paid a proper living wage.
Do reality TV stars on streaming services get more money from residuals than actors?
John is approaching the residual thing all wrong. It’s not about why so and so deserves residuals and so and so doesn’t, it’s about what your position and Union has the power to negotiate. Crew members don’t have they same sway as actors. Actors are the ones people see and are attracted to to see a project. They can make producers give them things that an average crew member can’t. A Grip can’t demand twice a grip’s average salary because nobody is watching a film because Grip so and so worked on it. Actor’s know their worth and power.
Wait so white about star wars and ilm? We all know if it wasn't for ILM at the time to create and design that world to even make it work the unknown carrie fisher and mark Hamill couldn't make that work
The first star wars movie to this day was a visual master piece of its time
I'm not saying I agree with John just pointing out practical effect companies or ppl that worked on films like ilm
I came here to say the same thing.
Audiences don't come to movies because of the set designs or costumes. Sure, they play a big part in the experience and suspension of disbelief, but people often watch movies for actors and directors. Audiences come for the performances and the stories. Everything else is still essential, but secondary when it comes to being profitable.
@soulkilaproduction5993, you can make an argument that special effects was as essential as the actors in that movie, but could you say that Empire and Return of The Jedi would have been as successful if the main cast had been completely replaced but they kept all the special effects team?
@juleswinnfield616 remember empire was split by critics back then but was still highly praised for its special affects not saying that empire isn't God tier cinema but what has sold Star wars has allways been the visual abd story alot of the greatest syfi and mostly just technical master pieces on top of great stories
And least just keep it a buck avatars story is so basic asf but the world is what sells and the visual team sells that the second movie is a bunch of newer young actors with cgi faces we barely know who they are minus sully and zoë
Ray: "What about making babies?"
RUclips: START THE COMMERCIAL!
I heard that the members on the AMTP negotiation committee are basically suits who do not have a good understanding of the processes in the industry. Sure they know the big issues at a macro level but not have the right people in the room does not help any negotiation progress.
Isn't the reason Rhode was recast in Ironman 2 was because RDJ was paid most of Rhode salary.
As a vfx animator I wish I got residuals
Yeah I was just asking about ppl that work with ILM
With out ILM working as hard to making the set ships sound design work we all know star wars would be a commercial failure
It would probably help vfx artists if they could form a union.
Reflecting back I really wanna put wandavision under a microscope to see how it made us litterally keep refreshing the site to see if the latest episode had dropped. Meanwhile secret invasion I'm watching it while I eat dinner to multi task. Not on a TV like wandavision but on my phone. Secret invasion has the recipe to keep us engaged once the credits role but it hasn't done that for me after the first episode. Despite ep 2 having a cool ending. Ep 3 also having a shocker of an ending and also a game changing reveal. Ep 4 being a lil cliche but also a shocker. Despite all that I don't seem to be as invested. Maybe it's cause of the Marvel's trailer. Watching that I know nothing MAJOR is gonna happen to Fury. Or.. it's a misdirection.
do yo know what the British and other foreighn actors stance are? I mean Cumberbatch can go back to UK series but what happenes to US actors wanting to do some work in the UK during the strike?
Honestly the streaming system is not a fruitful as these companies think they are and they need to adjust their spending and consider advertisements. Because no one deserves to work two jobs and still not make enough to have a savings
In terms of actor renumeration I think all actors should get a fair standard upfront fee but there should be a facility to recognise bonus payments for other factors. This happens in so many industries so why should it not apply to actors and writers. The CEO in the studios get a standard fee but have clauses like if we achieve a % increase on profits then they are paid a bonus.
Should Hollywood have a "democracy", for anyone connected it, on how everything should work by way of a vote?
Why shouldn't the actors and writers get residuals? Are studios going to start giving away movies after the theatrical window? Give away TV shows after the first run? Streaming services are going to be free? Other professions do get residuals - if I go to a bookstore and buy a copy of Carrie, Stephen King gets a cut. If I buy the album Joshua Tree then Bono is getting a slice of the pie.
If the studios are making money off the labor of others, labor have the right to share some of the profits.
@@Flubber-ee4no Except Uber drivers aren't doing something unique and original that a CEO then takes the credit for. However, if the current model continues in which the artists who create the product get paid like Uber drivers, the entire industry will eventually collapse on itself. Of course, the CEOs probably won't care at that point, since they'll have their nest eggs.
@@Flubber-ee4no Are you paying attention? The vast majority of them in fact are not being paid in any fair way, hence the strikes. It's also ironic that in order to minimize the contribution of the actors, you inadvertently emphasized the importance and indispensability of the writers.
Yes you can be nominated for the same category twice. John Williams has as composer. Not sure about actors because there are two separate ones but no one likes it because you tend to then cancel yourself out of a win
How is streaming video different from streaming music regarding residuals? Don't musicians just get a cut based on playtime? Shouldn't that be the same for video? And isn't the subscription the revenue generator in place of ads from network TV?
It's not that actors deserve residuals or royalties *_above_* other creators, it's what they negotiated through their union for broadcast TV and film decades ago, ergo what they feel should apply equally (or something equivalent - i.e. a cut of the subscription profits) for streaming services. Actors are not responsible for the perceived worth of the different departments of film making or TV production. I would say costumiers, set designers etc., (if part of a union) should also fight for higher pay if they find their wage/salary wanting. Studios etc. can definitely afford to skim the top of the highest paid earners & distribute its fees/profits more evenly than it does at present. When Capitalism somewhat aligns itself with a smidgen of Socialism, its staff members are usually the most content.
I think actors contribute a lot to the shows success. I think about Kevin Spacey being fired from House of Cards and most folks I know who watched said they lost interest. And other shows or movies who had a star that kinda made the show work and who had to be there to make content whole. I think it’s reasonable to get residuals.
1:17:59 damn…skipped RedOneRealTalk’s question..cause I can relate 😂
Imagine financing a 300M failure then having to pay residuals for years on end….
But the actors/writers wouldn't get disproportionate residuals. If a movie isn't popular, then no one would purchase/stream the movie. That's the beauty of the residual system (or at least the version that I'm imagining). It only "pays out" to the actors/writers if the product is successful and the producers are *also* profiting. It's a win/win system. The only loss is that the CEOs would be making slightly less than their current obscene salary.
Bruh Ray's joke about babies in the theater 💀
Lucas said Producers dont even put out the money they get loan from bank
And who do you think is responsible for paying back those loans????
@@johncampea filmmakers should take the risk themselves
Love your show John. Your the best host!
Based upon this debate there needs to be a lot more residual checks!
The reason why actors and writers get residuals is because they aren’t salaried workers and they don’t always get work. They have to live in an expensive city where the economy is getting harder for the middle class to thrive. The residuals is how a lot of them could stay afloat as they looked for more work. It’s how they made their living. They are an active part of bringing value to the companies and are getting shut out. Also this isn’t a matter of considering actors better than other people. That’s not a good take.
This isn’t about worker vs. worker. This is about this group of unionized workers fighting for their rights, and part of those rights that they fought for decades ago was to get residuals to make their job stronger. That’s what their collective bargaining power won for them back in 1960. We’re seeing employee/employer conflicts bubbling up all over the economy. This is why the railroad workers went on strike. Why Starbucks and Amazon workers want to unionize. Why the UPS workers want to go on strike. This isn’t about pitting workers against each other. It’s about recognizing where the value for these products comes from and not taking them for granted.
Collective bargaining is the best way for workers to fight for their interests. Also like someone else said if these actors don’t deserve residuals then RUclipsrs don’t deserve to make money on their videos beyond what RUclips initially paid them. Why should a RUclipsr keep getting money for a video when RUclips took the risk to create the site? All of the profit beyond the initial payment should just go to RUclips. You should just be happy that you got some exposure and that you got paid at all. Let’s see how RUclipsrs feel about that.
Long story short, the reason why actors and writers get residuals is because they fought for that decades ago. That’s why. If the product they worked on still brings value to the company then the people who made that value should continue to be compensated. Not simply used to enrich other people who merely bought their labor.
Get paid residuals for how hard it is to get a job.
Tenet is Christopher Nolan worst for me.
They know AI is coming for their jobs so they need to grab for every penny they can while there is still time.
John is so disingenuous to Secret Invasions. It's a good show and comparing it to Wandavision is stupid because Wandavision was during the damn pandemic!! People had no choice but to watch it