MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

SAG Fight Tonight!

The growing wave of pre-contract civil war at SAG is making the WGA guys look like a bunch of unmitigated geniuses.
There are three fronts in the war.
1. We Don

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “SAG Fight Tonight!”

  1. hendhogan says:

    you have some facts wrong, david.
    1) the traditional split between SAG & AFTRA is film versus video. film being the historic purview of SAG and video AFTRA’s. the advent of digital video has put the two guilds at logger heads, as both claim a piece of it.
    2) AFTRA has and had primetime, network television contracts. Mostly sitcoms going back to (at least) the early 90s. indeed, it was because of this that SAG started giving out contracts with AFTRA terms.
    3) SAG has a history of undercutting their own contracts. where once their were just two types of feature contracts (regular budget/low budget), there are now 3 low budget contracts. limited exhibition contracts (which while paying $100/day stipulated that if sold the actors must be paid the difference between that and regular SAG scale) were replaced by ultra low budget contracts (which also pays $100/day, but no deferrment of scale should pic sell).
    4) WGA had a similar situation in qualified voting. they solved it by offering reduced dues payments for those who do not qualify as voting members. that is how it passed their own membership vote. considering the people in power right now owe that power to the “great unwashed” see a tooth and nail fight over this issue (regardless if it is a good idea).
    5) unmentioned in your article is that SAG is a house divided against itself. the hollywood board rules as their votes count more than the other branches. SAG NY is disgusted with how things are being run (but have not the votes to do anything about it).
    i could go on about how stupid it is that SAG tried to sever relations with AFTRA, but this post is already too long.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon