Jump to content

2023 Writers + Actors Strike Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 626
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I was thinking about the threat that they want to hire writers by the day & by the week & do away with the 13-week work cycle. Imagine if a producer was hired to produce the opening credits, only, another the closing credits, then 6 producers to produce 20 minute each of a 2-hour film, I wonder if then they would see how ridiculous an idea it would be to hire writers like day laborers where you drive up in your pick-up & grab 2-5 people to go write for that day!! 

Don't you think that is a holdover from when they were two separate unions?

Edited by Donna L. Bridges
typos are always with us
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Zack is saying to cancel your Peacock subscription!

https://www.threads.net/t/CupMBPVx5wN

Not an actor/writer/in the industry, but want to help? Cancel your subscriptions to streaming platforms

Please register in order to view this content

it goes a long way and hits them (studios) in the place they only seem to care about: their wallets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, I agree with that. However, it seems unreasonable to me that they are separate, different contracts with different terms & the only reason I can think of that might apply would be their once being separate unions & this being a vestigial organ like the appendix! But, it may not be. May just be a mystery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In terms of cancelling subscriptions to streaming, I'm through with the idea that consumers should force corporations to do what is right.  I get that people outside the entertainment industry want to support the creatives.  But, it is not the moral burden of the consumer to ensure that employees are given their fair share of the profits made from the products that they create.  That is the job of the federal government.  I think a smarter response, is to urge fans to vote for representatives who value worker's rights over the growth of big business. 

Remember when we were told that unemployment rates would skyrocket if private companies had to provide medical insurance?  Remember when we were told the same thing about minimum wage increases, safety regulations, and equity and inclusion? They were wrong, and they tried to frighten people not to vote in their best interest. 

The rhetoric around "rich" strikers is the same idea.  They are trying to deceive people that only the leisure class has the privilege of time or money to strike for fair compensation.  Meanwhile, if congress would regulate AI, rather than holding bogus hearings pretending not to know the racist implications of nationalism, we would all be protected.  Don't get fooled that this strike is about people being able to buy a bigger pool.  These are issues that will have an effect on most jobs in the next decade.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Okay one question I have that I haven’t seen answered yet is, can actors from network code SAG shows like daytime do interviews and appearances or not? I wonder if some in solidarity won’t of course…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There's some humorous irony in the fact that earlier in the week there was so much criticism online about Ms. Drescher's presidency, then one great speech later everyone is like, president for life!  Actors love a good performance.

I think her later answer about being pictured with Kim Kardashian was equally great.  Kim K has become a code word for entitled privilege (for good reason), but it is interesting to see how the media uses her image to discredit those in her presence.  Fran's point was that professional women have to juggle many priorities, and just because her work is glamorous, doesn't invalidate the fact that it is a job.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It seems to me like Fran was actually negotiating in good faith, and yet keeping notes of the stupidity they were being presented.  That’s why she had that initial statement that everyone reacted to with the letter- and that caused her some grief in public from her union because she wasn’t out right slamming the studios then.  Next we have the Brand appearance, also out of context, enduring more public attacks and chagrin.  But that speech was a real rallying cry, and even if faked, timed beautifully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • The eternal dream...him begging to get with her included. 
    • On the other hand, I still find episodes of TV with people smoking in front of babies shocks me into nervous giggles.
    • Word of advice... you have to view the show without the 2025 lenses.. which means you need to 86 the misandry.
    • i love reading other posters alternate takes and scenarios. Yours would have really upped the tension.
    • Amanda is not my cup of tea. That's all I'm gonna say. She's repetitive and childish. She acts like a brat with her parents and has this constant "I'm not satisfied or happy" look on her face. The actress is okay in my opinion. I'm not impressed by anything I've seen her do so far. But she's okay.  BUT Amanda's repetitive scenes with Sam are the ones that I want to fast-forward the most. They just have 2  topics they like to talk about... and it's always "You are infringing on my right to be a powerful career woman! I need to be outside dating men for a job, so I can WORK and prove I'M NOT A RICH GIRL ONLY!" and he's like "You and your family are buying me a career and I don't want it! I WANT TO BE ABLE TO STRUGGLE and be poor and you guys ARE denying me the opportunity by giving it all on a silver platter" This is their main storyline for me... and it's just annoying when it's the same every single episode. It's a fake struggle that I don't buy. These people are so spoiled by this point and have everything... don't make me suffer listening to them bicker how amazing their life is, so they are unhappy about that. Just a personal view. I'm not saying THIS IS the situation. My view is also restricted, since I'm only 4-5 months into the episodes. 
    • It's shocking to see Steffy look down on anyone. She was the new generation HO for years. I mean... she was nasty and using sex to seduce married-engaged-in-relationship-men all the time. She was embracing it fully. Bradley was accenting on the fact that Taylor's daughter had become Brooke 2. I remember how disgusting it was when she was using Hope's virginity to her advantage and offering to f-ck the guys that wanted Hope. It was ABSURDLY nasty.  Then couple of years ago Bradley decided we should forget about it and made Steffy BECOME her grandmother. IN AN INSTANT. There was no build up to it. Which aged the f-ck out the character and made her unbearable. Because it's one thing to see an actual matriarch, older woman doing these things, being a moral judge... but it's complete joke to see the ex-ho acting like this. Ex-ho that is still incredibly young and has no right acting like she is better that anyone or... a moral JUDGE. Steffy and Hope's personalities got swapped!!! That's the irony of it. So any time these gang-style of fans come attacking Hope... for acting like a "slut"... I pinch myself - their HEROINE Steffy was doing this HARCORE. Are these people oblivious or just pretending not to remember. How can you stan a moral judge... that attacks "sluts" and also stan the same type of behavior you are attacking... years ago. How does this happen. But I repeat myself at this point.  I agree with everything you said 100000 percent. It's the truth. At least in my eyes. 
    • The Amanda pregnancy was a blunder. Amanda and Sam were AW's best bet for a starcrossed supercouple. Young love destined to be turn apart by outside forces and misunderstandings . Battling for years to finally get together. Instead AW had them married and pregnant within a year.  
    • It is his fatal flaw.  He's smart, cute, and loyal.  But, a total chauvinist pig.  We're looking through a 2025 lens, but April's from a wealthy family, (that she recently met), she should be allowed to contribute to her own home. Especially if Draper is going to work for the Crime Commission, rather than joining Mike's private law firm (did I get that part correct?) How about smoking while the baby is in the room?  It all looks nuts by current standards. Raven was married to Geraldine's son Kevin, but had an affair with Logan (whom Geraldine also considered like a son). Raven got pregnant by Logan, then Kevin died (long story short).  The part you need to know is that Raven was bored being a mother to Jamey (check out my member name).  So, she starts going out to Elliott's club and leaving Jamey with April.  Logan is not happy that Raven keeps leaving their baby all around town.  And thus, Geraldine is not pleased with Raven either. Draper and Logan are frequently rivals in the courtroom.  FYI --- Draper is also Raven's step-brother (her mother married his father). Raven's real name is Charlotte. But, one day [she] was sitting on the lawn and saw this beautiful black bird with shiny wings fly by. [She] wanted to be that bird. So beautiful. So free. With beautiful black wings…"    @chrisml you'll hear that story soon, and I envy you getting to see it the first time.
    • There is a time... till the old storyline is cleaning up... where it's still kinda annoying. For me it was. That's a personal opinion. But in 10-20 episodes more... you'll find yourself enthralled. It's not even begun. I'm so glad to hear your reviews! And excited of what's to come for you! 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy