Next Question
RSS
No! I understand the need for negotiating power and as an actor I'm generally more apt to sympathize with SAG on this, but in a recession a strike is the last thing the entertainment industry needs. I think that striking right now would be a terrible move, one highly detrimental to the future of entertainment. Don't bite the hand that feeds!
Source(s):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tvguide/392144_tvgif14.html
Permalink | Report
The movie industry needs to play their cards right, or else they'll end up like the music industry!
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Right now, everyone is hurting because very few studios are willing to start new projects if they think that SAG will strike in the middle. They would loose too much money... so instead, only a few people are working, SAG isn't making their point, and everyone is suffering. Mr. Rosenberg, what are you doing and why is it taking you so long?!?
Now isn't the time to be greedy. They should take the same deal that all the other unions took. Think about this: if they get a better deal than everyone else, what will keep other unions from striking to get the same deal? It could go on forever. It's time to fire Alan Rosenberg!
Permalink | Report
-HumblePieman
Source(s):
Lethal Weapons 1-4 & Braveheart.
Permalink | Report
tboz
Acting is not a skill, it's just "pretending". If you've ever played a practical joke on someone and been successful in fooling them, you are a more skilled actor than Tom Cruise. There is no reason someone should make hundred of millions of dollars per year for pretending.
There are a few specialized skilled (faking accents) that some people can do better than others. Most films do not call for these skills. Most films call for the simple kind of acting that we all do in our everyday lives. Let professional acting disappear as a profession and let directors hire non actors for the roles. Plenty of good films are made this way (Paranoid Park for example).
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$5
December 16, 2008 01:50 AM
Should the Screen Actor's Guild go on strike?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| December 16, 2008 01:54 AM |
Source(s):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tvguide/392144_tvgif14.html
Permalink | Report
Other Answers (12)
December 16, 2008 01:56 AM
More and more of the youth is gravitating to the internet (look at us!) for entertainment. I think SAG has a duty to take care of their members, but part of that involves making sure their industry continues to thrive. They shouldn't go on strike. The writers went on strike, and I know many of them who had to pull their children out of preschool because they were out of work for literally months; and the writers didn't even get much out of that negotiation either. The movie industry needs to play their cards right, or else they'll end up like the music industry!
Permalink | Report
December 16, 2008 01:58 AM
Yes, The Screen Actors guild should strike if they feel they have been wronged in anyway. Artist Guilds and unions are the only way for working class people in a capitalist society to voice their concerns and protect themselves against abusive employers. The big wigs at the top of the entertainment industry are earning millions of dollars off of the true creative work done by the true artists of SAG. Artists must always unite if they want their voices heard.
Permalink | Report
December 16, 2008 02:00 AM
No. It looks like they won't get the 70% from the acting members to be able to approve the strike authorization anyways. Right now, everyone is hurting because very few studios are willing to start new projects if they think that SAG will strike in the middle. They would loose too much money... so instead, only a few people are working, SAG isn't making their point, and everyone is suffering. Mr. Rosenberg, what are you doing and why is it taking you so long?!?
Now isn't the time to be greedy. They should take the same deal that all the other unions took. Think about this: if they get a better deal than everyone else, what will keep other unions from striking to get the same deal? It could go on forever. It's time to fire Alan Rosenberg!
Permalink | Report
December 16, 2008 02:39 AM
We must look to Mel Gibson, who will clearly be asking himself, "What would Jesus do?" As the answer is unhelpful, and potentially distracting, he will likely need to resort to a coin flip or eenie-meenie-minie-mo-ology. -HumblePieman
Source(s):
Lethal Weapons 1-4 & Braveheart.
Permalink | Report
tboz
December 16, 2008 02:55 AM
Usaully one ceo's salary is equal to all of the workers combined...I don't think you have any evidence that fare wages are the reason why companies charge more for products. why blame the workers when you can just as easliy point hte finger at the people hired to run the company, all responsibility inevitably lies with the CEO.
Tip tboz for this comment
Report
December 16, 2008 06:03 AM
Yes. They should go on strike and stay on strike forever. Acting is not a skill, it's just "pretending". If you've ever played a practical joke on someone and been successful in fooling them, you are a more skilled actor than Tom Cruise. There is no reason someone should make hundred of millions of dollars per year for pretending.
There are a few specialized skilled (faking accents) that some people can do better than others. Most films do not call for these skills. Most films call for the simple kind of acting that we all do in our everyday lives. Let professional acting disappear as a profession and let directors hire non actors for the roles. Plenty of good films are made this way (Paranoid Park for example).
Permalink | Report
December 16, 2008 08:34 PM
Can the majority of Hollywood's non A-list actors even AFFORD to go on strike right now? To strike during this recession is ludicrous...I'm not saying that their demands and rights are not important, but simply that one should make sure that they can feed themselves for the next few months before they go on strike!
Permalink | Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
- Arts & Design
- Beauty & Style
- Books & Authors
- Business
- Cars & Transportation
- Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
- Education
- Entertainment
- Environment
- Fitness
- Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
- Health
- History
- Hobbies
- Home & Garden
- How Tos
- Humor
- Jobs
- Legal
- Local
- Love & Relationships
- Mahalo Answers Community
- Money
- Music
- News
- NSFW
- Parenting
- Pets
- Science & Mathematics
- Services
- Shopping
- Social Science
- Society & Culture
- Sports
- Technology & Internet
- Travel
- Video Games
Welcome New Members
- bonnieduvallgar..., November 25, 2009 06:45 AM
- sheepskins, November 25, 2009 06:33 AM
- xdbutcherx, November 25, 2009 06:31 AM
- guruveer, November 25, 2009 06:27 AM
- hotsaleoutlet, November 25, 2009 06:21 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More