I'm all for protest, but what is booing at David Ruffin supposed to solve?

http://michaelfairma...amc/2011/09/21/

Nice, lengthy, interesting article written by Michael Fairman. It has a lot of interviews with the cast of AMC. Here's a little excerpt that made me chuckle ;-)

Surely Daniel Cosgrove is being self deprecating saying he was 40 pounds heavier on World Turns--though he was chunkier I guess, and did seem bored with the role so his zombie comment makes sense.

I could be wrong but MEK sounds very burned out and in need of a very long break.

Didn't I read PP wants Julie and Broderick/Nixon?

Personally, PP's choices of keeping the same creative teams isn't very appealing... Nixon consulting is a good idea but both AMC and OLTl suffer from over-reliance on soap cliche plotting. Fresh blood is needed.

I'm mixed. I think, aside from some annoyance with Project Orpheus, I largely really enjoyed Broderick's last few months on, the show came a long way--and it sounds like she worked closely with Nixon. Nixon probably couldn't keep on as closely, btu she does sound like she'll be a part of PP. But I also think fresh blood is important--and I wonder about Julie. Maybe she'll be better without Frons, but those last five+ years when Nixon apparentlyw asn't allowed input, etc, were under her as well.

Those articles were lovely. I especially liked what people like Jill Larson and JR Martinez had to say. He's just blossomed on this show, and regardless of the way he and other characters of color were sometimes fobbed off, he's such an engaging, charming, joyous guy who is legitimately talented and yes, sexy. I think AMC should always be so proud of what they did with that guy. He has a natural spark. That someone who has been in the industry since childhood, like Beth Ehlers, couldn't see it still surprises me. And she basically signed her death warrant in daytime as a result.

Edited September 22, 201114 yr by Vee

Lucci, the actors, Agnes mean Pratt first and foremost when they talk about AN being pushed out and horrible story causing horrible ratings. But, Pratt had good ratings for his first 8 months, really good numbers. It's when he slowed down with his quick-shot character assassinations that the numbers went down. I do think destruction like he did ultimately does and did drive away more of the every-day viewers over the long-term.

I actually kinda disagree here. I think Pratt'sfirst few months (maybe not eight but certainly four or five) were actually pretty good, he injected the show with energy, brought back some pretty good humour that had been missing, used the whole canvas--and at first seemed to largely, more or less, get the characters. It was after that I saw all these WTF character moments serving plot.

I started watching OLTL for the first time right before or right during the Gottlieb/Malone run. It was maybe 6 months before the rape storyline, around the time of the Alex/Bo/Cassie storyline with Alex trying to drown Cassie. It really was a great few years for that show. Like you, I do credit that rejuvination to Gottlieb more than Malone because she left before him and the difference was almost immediate and not nearly as appealing and fresh.

That's around when I started (well, with the gay storyline which I believe was first)--and I agree. I think when Gottlieb left it got a bit rough, but not so bad (wasn't much of Vicki's DID after her?) but the bottom really fell out when Griffith left as co-HW, and the show became a mess of Irish mobs, etc (and got even more muddled when Malone left a year later)

Interesting, if AFTRA can get past that this is beneficial to the actors who are exhausted and/or want to try other things. It would be a good forced learning curve for the writers. It may lead to rotating front-burner stories, writing for more of the cast, maybe more creativity due to less exhaustion from constant front-burner stories for the same characters. But then there's the actors who want a steady job and would like that guarantee so who am I to want AFTRA to get past that. If I were in those actors shoes I'd want the guarantee.

I think there is good and bad here. The idea of no quarantees may help with cost and may provide some latitiude in allowing actors more freedom to do other projects but without knowing who and how long someone is around and when how do you plan arcs if Ryan/CM can pick up and walk anytime if he gets another gig. THe guarantees people have to remember may have sounded great from an actors perspective but they really helped protect the show more than anything especially considering the shows could drop actors at 13 or 26 week cycles. Then again it also stifled the shows so its in some ways a catch 22. To me it makes sense if they outline guaranteed pay and then lock actors into shortterm contracts for arcs. Thats kind of how PT does it for non contract actors.

I don't know what the other major points were. Jacob Young I thought mentioned no guaranteed pension plan which they all have now. THat in itself kind of shocks me as most other industries have had to move away from that so cynically I don't find that a terrible thing but so be it.

Edited September 22, 201114 yr by JaneAusten

Could somebody help me out here and explain exactly what "guarantees" are? I think I get it but the union stuff always confuses me.

A Guarantee Could say u air 3 days a week. If u air less u still get paid for 3 shows a week and if u air more, u get overtime

They need to give everyone at least 2 day work week guarantee or give everyone a yearly salary

Every actor signs a contract but the guarantees are what makes the performer a contract performer since they have a guarantee of x air shows a week

Recuring actors still sign contracts but they have no guarantees and then that puts the power in the actors hands to decide if they work or not

So If there are no gauarantees everyone would be recuring and no one bound to the show

They must have guarantees since 6 actors have agreed to do this with PP

Edited September 22, 201114 yr by John

Could somebody help me out here and explain exactly what "guarantees" are? I think I get it but the union stuff always confuses me.

Contracts in todays world guarantee an actor so many days per week, per month at a minimum. So someone like CM likely for example has a 3 day a week guarantee 52 weeks a year meaning he gets paid for that whether they use him or not. So in essence you have a set salary. And as we have seen AMC in particular frequently goes over guarantees requiring they have to pay the actor more or in many cases with the vets, don't use them enough so they are in a sense over paying those people. The vets also have higher daily rates which is why you many times see shows shove a lot of newbies on screen because they cost less.

This is why I say locking people in short term for story arcs makes more sense. And I think even seasonal or a novella approach might actually be more conductive to not only the economics but also doesn't force the show to have to use certain characters time and time again, burning through too much story for them in too short a time.

Edited September 22, 201114 yr by JaneAusten

Contracts in todays world guarantee an actor so many days per week, per month at a minimum. So someone like CM likely for example has a 3 day a week guarantee 52 weeks a year meaning he gets paid for that whether they use him or not. So in essence you have a set salary. And as we have seen AMC in particular frequently goes over guarantees requiring they have to pay the actor more or in many cases with the vets, don't use them enough so they are in a sense over paying those people. The vets also have higher daily rates which is why you many times see shows shove a lot of newbies on screen because they cost less.

I think Gauarntees in the past had to do with how many episodes they were in on air per week. Maybe if they go with how many days they work per week it would be easier to do?

Okay thanks. That's what I thought although I didn't know about the overtime thing. Yeah, I can see why PP or any new player might want to get rid of that.

Another question: since the union stuff is apparently still up in the air that means that all these contracts people are signing are tentative, correct? If the union stuff falls apart then they would have to amend or renegotiate?

Okay thanks. That's what I thought although I didn't know about the overtime thing. Yeah, I can see why PP or any new player might want to get rid of that.

Another question: since the union stuff is apparently still up in the air that means that all these contracts people are signing are tentative, correct? If the union stuff falls apart then they would have to amend or renegotiate?

No they are legal they just kick in when the AFTRA stuff is settled. I think all the major Points are worked out But Lawyers take time finalizing things

I also believe another option is to do a monthly salary guarantee regardless of how much the actors work or not

A Guarantee Could say u air 3 days a week. If u air less u still get paid for 3 shows a week and if u air more, u get overtime

They need to give everyone at least 2 day work week guarantee or give everyone a yearly salary

Every actor signs a contract but the guarantees are what makes the performer a contract performer since they have a guarantee of x air shows a week

Recuring actors still sign contracts but they have no guarantees and then that puts the power in the actors hands to decide if they work or not

So If there are no gauarantees everyone would be recuring and no one bound to the show

They must have guarantees since 6 actors have agreed to do this with PP

If you recall they signed 6 actors and its pending AFTRA approval which they will need if the shows air on cable.I have no idea if they can move forward online with these folks if AFTRA does not approve this.