Where do I even start...? So, again: I'm going to really disagree, but much moreso on this one.
I used the term "creatives" because I was lumping them all together. As a group they should get more, be treated respectfully, and paid appropriately to their contribution. Which is the bulk of the movie.
Movies are art. Artists are required to make them.
Now, this could be just a misunderstanding in what I was getting at, but when you get a non-actor to perform, you get this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSQVVHyvOZU
It's most common in commercials where business owners think, "Psh! I can do that!" They can't. It's kind of endearing like a drawing by a two-year-old. But it ain't art.
We need art as a civilization. Can you imagine living without it? Without music, movies, stories, architecture (beyond "box for living in, box for working in")...etc., etc...? Neither can I.
Not just anybody can do it. I've seen people take years of lessons with no result. A lot of those actors weren't just found with no experience and groomed, either. Your example? Archie Leach? He did stage work, vaudeville stuff before being "scooped up".
There's a "lottery" aspect, but no moreso than the freak luck a lot of these studio heads have used to get where they are. In both cases a lot of hard work and maneuvering was employed to get there.
Again: if you don't have creatives as a workforce, *nothing* goes on screen, stage, page, or CD. Nothing. Zip. You get nothing.
And since, as a consuming public, or as an employer, we are reliant on the talents and abilities of these people, the producers need to pony up and pay them fairly, recognising that they are (again) 100% of the product.
That's why SAG and other unions negotiate in bulk, for crying out loud, it's because these studios would (and did (and do)) fleece creatives at every turn. I see it all the time, all around me, and it's grotesque, greedy, and awful.
Again: I'm not saying creatives can't be greedy or awful (cont.)
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9456)
4 years ago
(cont.) ...or that Rossum wasn't throwing a temper tantrum. I'm not saying she shouldn't have done what she did or not, I'm talking now about creatives as a workforce, as people, and as one of the best, most enjoyable parts of society.
I'm also not arguing that some of them "failed upwards" from modelling (or anything) and suck the life out of the creative industry. (Although, my choice would have been maybe Paul Walker - I happen to think Mark Hamill is a major talent - particularly as a voiceover artist).
Artists and creatives are under-valued and trodden on by producers and public all the time, and it's sickening.
The attitude that they don't deserve to be fairly compensated is baffling to me, and it really ticks me off.
In a nutshell: I think if a producer is planning to make millions (or, these days, billions) of dollars off of a movie, they can pay the actor whatever that actor is contributing. In the case of a major celebrity or a big name draw, that might mean part of the back end.
And that's more than fair.
Again: 100% of the product is thanks to creatives.
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
I simply think you over estimate the rarity of someone able to be creative, are there lots of people that can't act their way out of a paper bag? Sure. But it isn't as if you can't find good actors in lots of places. They simply aren't that rare.
Frankly I would probably think that the most rare creative today isn't the actor or director which are a dime a dozen, but rather the writers. Although in that category you don't have enough good writers which is why you get so much crap. Be honest, if you had the best actors, directors and everything else a piss poor script would still be a shit movie. Which is what seems to be churned out faster than shit from a goose.
Yet even though the industry is filled with shitty writers they are all getting residuals from what they produce because of the fucked up union contracts...
Then of course there is this notion of "fair compensation" What is fair compensation? Anyone working in the movie and TV production side is making a lot more than a minimum wage, and most of the so called creatives are making more than a so called living wage already, so why do they deserve a residual when they were all ready paid handsomely up front? Maybe it would be more fair to pay them all minimum wage if they were going to get residuals after all if they do good work and the show is a success they would reap those residuals like rain from heaven.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9456)
4 years ago
I really need to clarify this: by "creatives", I'm talking about everyone (cue Gary Oldman!) I mean actors, directors, writers, editors (who get Rodney Dangerfield levels of no respect), designers (costumes, lighting, etc.), choreographers...etc. Everybody.
Writers are certainly one of the most chewed-up-spat-out groups there are. People alter scripts without thinking about it, ignore them entirely...it's bad. We see eye-to-eye here.
By "fair compensation" I mean that these people are the product. There might be millions of them (true enough) but if you don't hire some of them (a fistful, good/bad, lucky, hardworking, childish - whatever) you CANNOT MAKE A MOVIE. I'm using caps there for emphasis.
You might be able to make a movie with different people, but whichever roster you gather, you owe them money. You also need to recognise that they (regardless of the pool to pull from) deserve to be compensated for the fact that they made the work and it relies on their creative spark. Let's also be honest about how important a particular team is. Firefly worked, in my opinion, because the team was solid and fit together so perfectly.
Unions can be a pain, but if they didn't exist here actors and writers would - I promise you - be required to pay studios to get their work done. I promise you. Because, as you rightly point out, there are a lot of people who want to work in the field. I'll acknowledge that on a supply-and-demand front you're on-track. They aren't uncommon, but they aren't everywhere, either.
And that doesn't address the problem that creatives are, as a group, requisite to make art.
You want to live in a society with art?
PAY ARTISTS!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9456)
4 years ago
PS
They deserve residuals because they did work once and then the producer can keep showing that work on TV, internet, DVD - whatever - for more and more money.
Also because a given talent is the reason that the show will be successful - according to studio math anyway. That's why they hire big name talent and pay top dollar.
Furthermore, the actor doesn't usually see a penny on merchandising (unless the actor is HUGE). So, action figures based off of Picard or Luke Skywalker? Stewart and Hamill get nothing despite that being their face, their image, their character who is popular.
Not to mention the basic capitalist principle that anything is worth nothing until somebody pays for it - then it is worth that amount - no more or less. So, if residuals are what the producer is willing to pay, then magic-o-presto, that's what the actor is worth!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9456)
4 years ago
PPS
Everybody in Hollywood might be making better-than-average money, but those careers often take ages to attain (not to mention expense to live and fail in LA before getting your big break), and more to the point, they represent a tiny fraction of the jobs in the industry. Most creatives need second jobs because producers won't pay enough money for those actors to live off.
So when an actor makes it to the top, grabs enough clout to be worth enough to make a producer sweat, and then uses that leverage to get a couple points...you're damn right I have 0% sympathy for the producer.
reply
share