Possible SAG Strike The Next Hurdle For TF2?

In what seems like back-to-back troubles for the film industry, right after the Writers Guild of America (WGA) three-month long interruption of television shows and movie developments, the looming possibility of a strike by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has become the next hurdle for the entertainment industry.

Due to this, many major Hollywood studios are reluctant to schedule start dates for movies that will not wrap up filming before June 30th, Variety reports. The studios are worried about the cost of restarting of a film that has already started but needed to halt production - a price tag cited by some executives as being anywhere from $1 to $5 million per film.

"Transformers" director Michael Bay tells Variety that the possibility of a SAG strike makes the process of "Transformers 2" harder, but not impossible. "If there is a strike, we shut down, but shutting down isn't that big a deal," Bay said. Stating that during the time of not filming, he could make deals involving logistics and locations.

Mr. Bay has obviously been known to accommodate when things are out of his control. Such as when the WGA was on strike, he finished a story outline for "Transformers 2."

Regardless, the movie will definitely suffer. The writers are still playing catch-up after getting back the trio of writers, Ehren Kruger, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.

Mr. Bay says that writers are working feverishly in what he jokingly calls "Michael Bay jail," which is where the writers hole up in a beautiful suite where "they are getting a lot of work done." "Hiring three writers was unusual, but it has been a godsend in getting us to where we need to be," he says.

There is a bit of a bright spot to this looming cloud, though, George Clooney and Tom Hanks, along with many other top actors, are urging SAG leaders to avoid a strike scenario and begin negotiations as soon as possible.

Data Center

Member Comments

Last 10 comments - ( Read All Posts )

Haggisjin 2008-03-04 @ 6:50 am

MATT DAMON!

Hobbes-timus Prime 2008-03-04 @ 6:02 am

HEY, GUYS, COULD NYONE EXPLAIN ME WHAT A SAG STRIKE IS??
SORRY, I KNO WHAT A STRIKE IS, BUT SAG..., WELL HERE IN MEXICO I DUNNOH WHAT IT MEANS HAHA, SORRY...

BUT DARN IT!!, WHATEVER IT IS, IT SOUNDS PRETTY BAD OR AT LEAST NOT AS GOOD 4 TF 2

SAG = Screen Actors Guild. It's a union that is compromised of professional actors for TV and movies.

cheetor182 2008-03-04 @ 5:47 am

HEY, GUYS, COULD NYONE EXPLAIN ME WHAT A SAG STRIKE IS??

SORRY, I KNO WHAT A STRIKE IS, BUT SAG..., WELL HERE IN MEXICO I DUNNOH WHAT IT MEANS HAHA, SORRY...

BUT DARN IT!!, WHATEVER IT IS, IT SOUNDS PRETTY BAD OR AT LEAST NOT AS GOOD 4 TF 2

Agent Zero 2008-03-01 @ 1:38 pm

And don't give me the "oh, there are so many starving actors in Hollywood" argument...I guarantee they're not the ones who start the strikes...it's the ga-billionaires!

All members of the Guild vote on whether to strike. The starving ones way outnumber the millionaire ones, and without a majority vote there is no strike.

While you are 100% correct, it won't matter. There's a huge difference between the reality of the matter and how people (the general public) views the matter.

The fact is that the leaders of any SAG strike are going to be the big guys and girls. Joe Schmoe the extra isn't going to be the one giving interviews, making speeches that get the media's attention.

People like George Clooney and Alec Baldwin are going to be the ones front and centre in the public's mind pushing for the SAG cause. And that will lead to public apathy at best.

"What? Millionaire George Clooney's on strike? Screw him and SAG!"

It won't matter if the strike's actually working for a better deal for the starving no-names, that's not how the public's going to view it. The public's going to see it as a bunch of millionaires angeling for even more cash. With the writer's strike, yeah people could support that. Maybe the writers do get shafted when compared to the actors, directors, producers, ect....

But an actor's strike? That'll gain almost zero public sympathy because the public will view it as a greedy ploy by millionaires to get even more cash, even if that's not the reality of the situation.

edit-typo

( . Y . ) 2008-03-01 @ 7:37 am

Oh yeah. I live about 10 miles from Cinram, a major DVD producer.

Hobbes-timus Prime 2008-03-01 @ 7:29 am

But I'd strongly agree with you that the artists and craftsmen that actually work on the film are the ones that need more...the set designers & art department, cinematographers, animators, editors, audio techs, mastering...and let's not forget the graphic designers, authors & QC that produce the DVDs...basically, the production & post crews that play the key role in bringing these films to life, allowing them to be seen at all, and then further distributing these works to all parts of the globe. That's who I think should be getting a bump in their paychecks!

:clap That's me!

( . Y . ) 2008-03-01 @ 6:31 am

A tangential angle.

/sorry

nortagem 2008-03-01 @ 5:44 am

I don't know what hornet country is, but if you guys think I'm wrong about this...fine. I'm not going to argue about it.

I've lived in California, and never seen a state more ruined by greedy union negotiations (and political mismanagement for that matter)...so, I don't have much love for them.

And I never said that actors, directors or writers didn't deserve to get paid...not sure where you're getting that from. Of course they deserve to get a slice of the pie. I simply think that a lot of them are sometimes over-compensated. And I certainly don't think studio execs and bankers need more money...the 'banker & stockholder' comment seems to be entering 'hornet country'.

But I'd strongly agree with you that the artists and craftsmen that actually work on the film are the ones that need more...the set designers & art department, cinematographers, animators, editors, audio techs, mastering...and let's not forget the graphic designers, authors & QC that produce the DVDs...basically, the production & post crews that play the key role in bringing these films to life, allowing them to be seen at all, and then further distributing these works to all parts of the globe. That's who I think should be getting a bump in their paychecks!

Don't take it personally that I don't whole-heartedly support the strikes of the writers & actors...I'm just coming from a different angle, that's all.

Hunter Rose 2008-02-29 @ 9:01 pm

And don't give me the "oh, there are so many starving actors in Hollywood" argument...I guarantee they're not the ones who start the strikes...it's the ga-billionaires!
All members of the Guild vote on whether to strike. The starving ones way outnumber the millionaire ones, and without a majority vote there is no strike.
No doubt all members vote, and no doubt the starving ones outnumber the millionaires...but if Mr. Bigshot gets Mr. Smallfry to agree to strike with promises of more money, better benefits, etc...what do you think Mr. Bigshot has to gain from it...you can guarantee A LOT MORE! The rich get richer...you know the rest. I can't help thinking that 'greed' factors into these decisions, my friends.I'd also have to agree with Blitz-wing though...let'em strike...maybe that would indeed give us more Classics!

Not true at all.

The strikes are about the basic minimums of the contract between the actors and the studios. The rich actors, names like George Clooney, can negotiate for whatever it is they want over and above those minimums, and they get them. They're not going to get more by striking. The only reason for them to strike is to give the lower level Guild members leverage. Things will only improve for the people whose names and faces you don't recognize. The rich stay rich, but they won't get richer. The poor get relatively less poor.

:pfx

Nortagem is way off... Almost in Hornet country hes so wrong.

The contracts are for the bare minimum payments. People like George Clooney (to continue the example) haven't delt with bare minimums in many many years.

But let me ask this - if you dont think that the actors, directors, or writers deserve to get paid (because clearly they are spoiled for doing very little work) - who do you think should keep revenue of a hit film?

A studio executive somewhere?

A banker? Stockholders?

If you don't want the artists and craftsmen that actually worked on the film to see the profit - who do you recommend get it?

Hobbes-timus Prime 2008-02-29 @ 8:54 pm

And don't give me the "oh, there are so many starving actors in Hollywood" argument...I guarantee they're not the ones who start the strikes...it's the ga-billionaires!
All members of the Guild vote on whether to strike. The starving ones way outnumber the millionaire ones, and without a majority vote there is no strike.
No doubt all members vote, and no doubt the starving ones outnumber the millionaires...but if Mr. Bigshot gets Mr. Smallfry to agree to strike with promises of more money, better benefits, etc...what do you think Mr. Bigshot has to gain from it...you can guarantee A LOT MORE! The rich get richer...you know the rest. I can't help thinking that 'greed' factors into these decisions, my friends.I'd also have to agree with Blitz-wing though...let'em strike...maybe that would indeed give us more Classics!

Not true at all.

The strikes are about the basic minimums of the contract between the actors and the studios. The rich actors, names like George Clooney, can negotiate for whatever it is they want over and above those minimums, and they get them. They're not going to get more by striking. The only reason for them to strike is to give the lower level Guild members leverage. Things will only improve for the people whose names and faces you don't recognize. The rich stay rich, but they won't get richer. The poor get relatively less poor.

Post A Comment Now (membership required)