Comments on: Actors Going on Strike

By: jabberwock

jabberwock — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:13:32 +0000

Given all that we are faced with as a society...the obvious response is "Who cares" and "Why does it matter?" Maybe they can line up behind GM and all the other failures and ask for "gummit help." Spare me

By: capital L

capital L — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:07:30 +0000

Why doesn't the SAG simply charge higher fees to it's richer members and transfer this money to it's less successful members. Progressivism & welfare on the "home front" as it were.

By: SAG going on strike? | BitsBlog

SAG going on strike? | BitsBlog — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:54:38 +0000

[...] way of OTB, where Joyner says: It’s difficult to imagine a less sympathetic labor class — or one less in need of collective [...]

By: charles austin

charles austin — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:29:00 +0000

Just because someone wants to be an actor it doesn't mean they are entitled to make a living at it. I'm pretty sure the demand for actors is much smaller than the supply.

Since I don't watch TV that involves actors or bother with theaters more than the increasingly small handful of movies that are worth it each year, I could care less.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:23:15 +0000

James, I think you need to look at the bigger picture here. Only about 10% of the membership of SAG makes $30,000 or more. Most SAG actors make less than $7,500 a year from acting. The work environment includes high pressure, lousy hours, and poor treatment. Most actors aren't Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. Most aren't even Alan Rosenberg. Indeed, it's the rare actor that can maintain a middle class lifestyle let alone a lifestyle of the rich and famous. Here's the Bureau of Labor Statistics info on actors, producers, and directors.

By: just me

just me — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:26:40 +0000

For the most part color me unsympathetic.

Looks like we are in for another season of new reality TV shows.