I’m surprised to learn the residuals aren’t on a per-stream basis. Or something quantifiable.
Well that’s the crux of the biscuit. It may be quantifiable but the only one quantifying it are the streaming companies. And they ain’t talking. TV ratings are handled by an independent source. Movie box office is known. Streaming numbers are secret and proprietary.
In solidarity with the strike, host Mayim Balyk, Jeopardy writers, and some winners have said they won’t return until the strike is done.
Nitpick but the reason that the writers are absent isn’t out of solidarity but because they are WGA members and are actually on strike.
Yes, of course. I should have been more clear. I wouldn’t have thought they were “pure” WGA, instead of some specialized offshoot), if I hadn’t learned it from this article, just because I never considered Jeopardy as having writers like a sitcom.
The Rock just made a “7-figure” donation to the Actor’s Relief Fund.
Damn, that’s impressive.
Click for video.
offensive comparison hidden by puzzlegal
Thích Quảng Đức did it better.
From the Times, it seems that actors are paid a small piece of the entire streaming revenue for a company, and not on a per view basis. For syndicated shows and ads residuals are based on the number of markets it runs in, for cable they are based on the number of showings of an episode. It would make sense to have it based on the number of times a show is viewed, but as you say that’s a deep secret.
Moderating: that was off-topic, and while i can see why your mind might have gone there, the comparison is deeply offensive. Please don’t do that again. DM me if you want to discuss.
I have no way of independently verifying it but from what I have seen actors post, it’s an extremely small piece of the streaming revenue.
I think if the residuals were based on the number of streams, it would be possible to backtrack and learn how many streams there were and the streaming services seem to want to keep that secret.
The real bitch of it is when the writers strike was happening at least all the writers were still working. Sure, they weren’t getting paid for anything, but best believe they all had side projects that got loads of attention.
Here the Johanssons and Clooneys are great, but starving actors are just starving.
I suspect that most SAG actors, who don’t make a lot of money from acting, also are not acting full-time, even when not on strike, and that they have side gigs (or not-so-side gigs) that actually pay the bills.
I’m not saying that being on strike isn’t also hurting those actors financially, but I suspect that most of them had already been relying on other sources of income.
Sorry if I’m being dense, but what do you mean? The writers would be writing pilots (and what not) and shopping them around? Or they were writing for non-union jobs like speeches? Something else?
Maybe writing stuff and putting the finished product on the shelf for when the strike ends.
I would guess:
- Writing scripts on spec, to be shopped around after the strike ends
- Writing other things (short stories, novels, articles, etc.)
I imagine that the first category wouldn’t be bringing in any immediate cash, and the second category might not, either.
Of course they weren’t selling anything and no one was meeting to discuss the next episode or movie script. However, nothing can stop a writer from creating and you do not have to clock in for that. So while the benefits will be down the road in future pilots or kernels of ideas for future projects this work was happening during the strike.
Acting for pay is different.
Certainly the writers have time to pursue their own personal projects – even with a few fellow co-writers, but it seems like an over-simplification of their careers. I would guess most would do better with a few more credits as a staff writer than cranking out the great American novel.
Not that you’re saying that. I just don’t think there’s much of a gap in how the strike affects a writer vs. an actor.