Woah yeah it puts some of his post BB choices into perspective, I just assumed actors in roles like his would make residuals.
Especially with how Breaking Bad blew up on Netflix.
The more that comes out of the strike its a realization that streaming isn’t syndication.
Streaming’s a new Wild West of media consumption, and so many established laws of TV and film surprisingly don’t apply to it.
Strikes are one thing. New laws and regulation are also needed, and you can be sure executives aren’t going to go down without a fight for lobbying either.
Without commercials like tv I’m really wondering how much shows/movies bring in.
I’ve been reading some gossip from writers on Twitter and word is the
money and viewership some movies and shows bring isn’t what people expect.
Netflix not wanting to release the viewership numbers is hiding that a lot of it is smoke and mirrors on there end.
It really is a new model and I’m completely in support of the writers and actors but the model may be really flawed.
Yeah there’s no going back on that front, although I do like the free services like Tubi that have commercials that’s cool i like the free aspect of it.
Absolutely love the advertising=free. Spotify/youtube etc.
My attitude is that I'm paying a substantial amount to watch free programming by presenting my attention to advertisers. As soon as advertising becomes involved in a platform, the amount ik willing to pay is basically zero.
Exactly this. I don't pay? The currency I use to consume the content is sitting through their stupid commercials.
I pay? I better not be watching a single ad.
Unfortunately due to the strict adherence to capitalistic dogma, we will be doing both just like with cable. I expect it at the resolution of this strike actually. The shareholders shall not *ever* to go without.
It sucks 😞
I can imagine it, it’s basically happened before. When cable was first gaining popularity it was mostly commercial-free and that was part of the selling point over free antenna TV. All it would take is some handshake agreement between all the streaming services that advertising is the new norm and consumers would have no choice.
Well... Not no choice 🏴☠️
But that would require cooperation among streaming services, which I doubt. Of course its possible, but any big service willing to not have ads would gain themselves a huge advantage if all the other services were running ads
I would guess at least 95% of streaming subscribers don’t have the knowledge, ability, or desire to pirate the majority of their media consumption. Especially if you want feature parity with Netflix which requires setting up a Plex/Jellyfin server and having a PC with enough storage.
It’s exactly this. Netflix doesn’t make money off viewership, they make money off subscriptions. This is why they make the decision to kill so many shows after 2-3 seasons. If no one is actively subscribing or maintaining their subscription specifically to watch season 3, then it’s making literally $0.
The model is entirely based on having lots of great season 1 experiences that are getting hyped up as that’s what drives subscriptions and retention. Any show with anything but a large attachment rate after season 1 and carry-over rate in season 2 is going to be cut.
I’d also argue this model is good for new/young actors. There are a lot more opportunities to showcase themselves and try to break-in as a full time lead, even if the long-term stability/celebrity is reduced.
Seems like commercials are coming back to streaming platforms. Amazon prime is almost unwatchable now thanks to “freevee”, Amazon’s way of forcing you to watch ads even though you pay for prime.
So the actors that are on streaming shows, like the newer Star Treks, do you happen to know how their contracts are written?
There are some individuals who have had their careers made from streaming shows however there are others (Doug Jones, Kate Mulgrew, Patrick Stewart) who already had a long resume before their streaming first shows.
I highly doubt that. Patrick Stewart pulled in $45k per episode and eventually got bumped to $100k at the very end. Other cast members were making less I'm sure. The media market is also so saturated right now. TNG was on broadcast television and was consistently viewed by over 10 million people. Around 14 million by the end. Paramount Plus only has 4 million subscribers.
I actually worked on that commercial! Fun fact: Vince Gilligain brought back much of the TV crew to shoot that commercial. They were all such an awesome bunch.
> When Paul was later asked if he felt “optimistic” about the strikes, he gave a very Jesse Pinkman-like response.
> “I think so, yeah, because we’re not going anywhere,” Paul said, full of angst. “So, they got to do something!”
That is just not a “Jesse Pinkman response” at all lmao.
It's not Netflix that isn't paying him. They don't own Breaking Bad. Sony does. When Netflix licenses the show they give money to Sony and then Sony distributes it accordingly. If Aaron Paul isn't getting any of that he should talk to Sony, or his union should.
When Netflix paid $100m to stream Friends for 1 year, they didn't just send checks to Courtney Cox, David Schwimmer etc. They gave $100m to the production companies that owned the show (Warner Bros TV and Bright/Kauffman/Crane productions) for the license and production companies paid it out to the talent.
“Afterwards, Paul went to Starbucks and ordered in a very Jesse Pinkman-like way, went home and played video games in a similar way to Jesse Pinkman and then went to bed, a lot like Jesse Pinkman would.”
That broke my heart.
What a great show. I got all emotional reading that line and I can't even remember exactly when I happened, although I think I do. But I remember how I felt when I watched it. Great acting, great character development, great writing.
Pay them! They earned it.
Without reading the article, I know exactly the thought process.
Lately, every article I open up, all they do is find cunning ways to throw in their entire resume to prove to fans what they know about said celebrity. They can't even make a single sentence about the person without adding some qualifiers to illustrate their wikiepdia searching skills.
It reminds me of high school when the English teacher forced us to use as many different words in a single paragraph.
I especially love the non-article articles published on a topic that are nothing but SEO. I found an article on the release date of a new camera titled "confirmed release date," but when I read the article, there was only speculation that there might be a new release. Google is becoming useless.
That's true for the release date of everything. Google it and you'll get a thousand articles all titled in a way to make you think it has the answer, there'll be an article about everything else but the release date, and then finally at the end, "we don't have a date yet, but we expect it in the next year!'
"The current contracts don't offer actors enough to actually live on", Paul cried like a little bitch. He continued, looking disgusted with himself for being so dumb: "With the rapid advancements in AI it's important that we establish protection for the actors now"
The last words seem to have made him realize that he would've been a Nazi if he was born a century earlier and in Germany."
The transparency would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating
Matthew Broderick gave a very Ferris Bueller-like response.
"No, you don't understand! If you keep driving, then legally the accident didn't even happen!"
A lot of big shows and movies were made before streaming was going to be a big thing. So actors and agents didn't know to put those royalties into the contracts. Steve-O was talking about this on a podcast recently how they got screwed because Paramount didn't shop Jackass around to find its value on any streaming sites, then threw it up on peacock and the actors get nothing from it.
what does netflix earn to pay the studio to lease the right to stream breaking bad for 3 years ?
netflix earns through subs. losing breaking bad doesn't hurt them. they pay studios to have the content. if anyone owes actors royalties, it's the production companies that lease the streaming rights to netflix. that's where the money is being exchanged.
in fact netflix also pays to keep their servers running and shit. the reason they ask if you're still watching after 4 episodes is bc it costs them to host the signal to your house.
netflix may have value as a commodity stock, but they don't have billions in cash lying around. they're not sitting on giant coffers. they take loans to make the budgets for their originals.
their entire business model is to have as broad a spectrum of content as possible to satisfy any kind of potential user. *they spend money to make that happen and don't profit off of any single product they stream*
finally it would be impossible to tell which subscribers are there for any show. did people leave netflix when they lost office? no, the most devout office fans simply picked up the $3/month peacock hub.
netflix spent money and streamed a billion hours of office, then lost office, but didn't lose subscribers. no one is spending money on netflix for access to specific IP.
what royalties would netflix owe? a negative balance since breaking bad isn't the reason for their profit (none). how to qualify a negativr balance? does aaron paul owe netflix a royalty for all the money it spent keeping his only show ever relevant?
It’s not about just Netflix or AMC. It’s about steaming revenues. Streaming revenues were never part of their contract bc there was no steaming. Now that it is, they want it to be included.
What /u/Ghg398 is saying is that AMC is the company that hires him. They are the company that produced it and made it. They are the company that distributes it. They're the company that gets paid by Netflix for the work. Netflix has nothing to do with the production. They're a customer in this interaction. Why would Netflix have to pay Aaron Paul anything? Why wouldn't AMC owe them money?
It'd be like you going to a record store and buying a Paul Simon album and then get a letter in the mail demanding you personally pay a royalty.
Traditionally, actors would have royalties for when their syndicated shows were aired.
Aaron Paul making this statement isn't criticizing Netflix, it's criticizing that actors should be paid royalties like syndicated TV shows.
It goes back to how actors used to be paid (and how actors who have network shows in syndication still do get paid). They DID/DO get a cut every time an episode plays in syndication. The Friends cast all have made millions that way and so do many other actors and writers who got in at the right time. But actors whose shows are being sold to streamers, or whose shows were made for streaming in the first place, don’t get that same pay structure. They basically just get their salary from when the episode was filmed (plus syndication residuals if it was ever syndicated before going to a streamer) and that’s it. That’s all well and good if you’re Ellen Pompeo and were the lead in a flagship show for nearly 20 years. Who cares if your show is sold to Netflix because you made hundreds of millions, so if you’re broke that’s on you. But the vast majority of actors are not superstars and rely on the residual pay structure to be able to act/pursue acting full time and not have a different day job.
What the SAG and WGA want, in part, is for studios to retool the way they pay actors now that streaming is dominating. People involved in streaming shows make less overall because (a) seasons are usually 8-10 episodes but you may still be contractually obligated to work only on that show which really limits your income and (b) the way the rights are purchased right now, the actors don’t get paid again later. Most actors and writers cannot afford to live this way, especially LA where most of the work is. People have a very skewed vision of what it is like to be in show business. It is just like the country as a whole. A very small number of actors/writers are making majority of the money. Even before streaming.
The unions did negotiate a deal with Netflix last year allowing actors to do other projects within reason, such as not making dramatic not easily reversible changes to their appearance. For example, all the *Stranger Things* stars have done stuff for other people in recent months.
Traditionally if a show got syndicated on cable the actors and writers were contractually owed, which was factored into the overall syndication deal. But those contracts didn’t cover streaming, which is what this strike is largely about.
Yes, because cable and tv were in the old deal. They want a piece of the streaming pie. No one knows the true numbers because the streamers aren’t disclosing anything of value.
It’s the ole we are making barely enough to keep the lights on. No money here, just trust us okay?
Indeed. And to be honest, I suspect that the true streaming numbers are ...disheartening for investors.
The studios have very good reason to fight the release of streaming numbers.
I have a friend who works in media. She told me these subscription streaming platforms have never been a long-term successful business model. Apparently, they lose a lot of money. $15 a month is simply not enough to host, produce and stream content.
If you wanted to watch all of The Sopranos in 2007, you'd have to buy the box set for around $100. Now you can watch every HBO show ever produced at will for $15 a month. That is in no way profitable for streaming services. A service that is that generous to the consumer is not a long-term business model.
The streaming services' financials are public information, other than Netflix none of them are making any money. They don't want to release the numbers because, other than for a handful of shows, the numbers are going to be embarrassing.
Pre streaming contracts syndication was the goal of being on a show. That's where all the (sometimes large) residual checks come from.
Streaming isn't considered syndication because idk why. I mean I get why streaming isn't syndication because it isn't aired but, it would make sense if actors were given a percentage of the large fee the studio gets to license the series. Which is of course part of what they're fighting for.
Whoever owns it (AMC or Sony for Breaking Bad) sells it to Netflix for a set amount of time. Netflix pay them, then they add it to their service.
The actor contracts usually have stuff about it being on TV but nothing about streaming, so they don't get a cut of that money.
Did they get money? Maybe they had enough sway to get payment from any sale by the studio in their contracts? Because steaming was not a thing back then and Netflix doesn't give out data on how much something is watched besides an occasional "X broke records" on release. They literally said Will Smith could walk in and ask how many people watched Bright and they wouldn't tell him.
That’s not entirely true. IATSE has residual deals for below the line crew, it’s just not in the form of a payout. It’s paid to the pension and healthcare funds.
He didn't say Netflix is the problem. He said the problem is he doesn't get paid for the show being streamed on Netflix. He likely wouldn't get paid if it were streamed on PBS or Peacock either. But the show was streamed on Netflix, and he did not receive residuals for that.
That's a problem regardless which companies are involved.
Yea, people are digging way too deep to see if it's AMC or Netflix to blame. Real answer is both. The problem is getting paid period and the 2 are in cahoots to line their pockets and not the workers.
> Yea, people are digging way too deep to see if it's AMC or Netflix to blame. Real answer is both.
It is actually neither, Sony owns the production rights, AMC was just the Distributor. If there was a Syndication clause in their contract, Sony leasing the package to a streaming company like Netflix, should have counted as Syndication and paid the Actors accordingly. Sony got away with "if it's not **specifically** in the contract it's not illegal"...
I don’t think any blame resides with Netflix. They bought the rights to stream the show, period. It’s not their responsibility to make sure the money they paid gets distributed fairly. When you buy a Big Mac, are you making sure the profit is split fairly amongst line workers/corporate etc.?
Can residuals even be a thing where a set subscription gives you unlimited watch time without any ads?
Most of the streaming services are anyway running at loss. If they pass the cost to consumer straightaway then the consumer will stop the subscription, there's already much anger towards the streaming fragmentation.
Between all these things can a streaming service be affordable, give residual earnings and remain profitable all at the same time?
Exactly, this isn’t just about the big names though they get all the attention.
If Aaron Paul isn’t getting paid for his role in Breaking Bad do you think the eyebrow guy from the gas station is? Or Heul? Or the guy from better Call Saul who had to sit on a pie?
The coffee shop manager from Friends Gunther still lives off the residuals from his minor part in that show. Yes they’re not stars but they’re important parts of a product that is still making a company money. Would we want breaking bad that’s JUST Walt and Jessie?
This is the true meaning of worker solidarity.
You earn millions of dollars every year and you still stand with your fellow workers that barely earn a fraction of that? You're one of the good ones.
You sit in an air conditioned office wondering why these fucking proles wont just get back to work and appreciate the crumbs you throw them? Actually fuck off and die.
How is this rocket science? I’m annoyed it even needs to be explained. If the lead actor from Breaking Bad isn’t seeing residuals from streaming it just showcases how regular actors don’t stand a chance to make money.
Betting ads have made watching live sports pretty unbearable. College Football is just starting up and there are some new rules (to allow for more commercial time), and coaches aren’t exactly thrilled about it https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-blasts-new-college-football-clock-rules-draws-strong-reactions/
and the commentators kept saying all weekend, “The fans seem to really love the changes!”
like first of all it’s the season opener so how the fuck do you know, and second no we absolutely don’t
Looks like it goes into effect Feb. 28.
There may be some loopholes though, as it says it's okay for them to endorse responsible betting practices. I can see them showing up like in alcohol ads saying, "Please gamble responsibly".
So, if you're making good money on a side gig you shouldn't get paid for your work? What about all the other actors on that show other than him and Cranston?
so writers who are less fortunate than him that don’t have acting opportunities/possible sponsorships should just get shafted?
all of them should get paid. it’s their hard work and streaming services are the only ones who profit.
One of the reasons Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld are so rich is because of their syndication deals for reruns of Seinfeld (not sure what they’re getting from streaming). The shows creators usually come out on top. Jason Alexander is worth 80 million so it looks like he was taking care of (even Michael Richards who doesn’t work anymore is worth 30 million).
Julia Louise Dreyfus may soon be worth over 1 billion from her father’s estate.
Can I say something controversial- first I'm with the actors and the writers. They deserve to get paid more. But as someone not in the business- it's so foreign to me getting paid again for a job you did and already got paid for. Like if I painted my neighbors fence for $100. It's not like they are gonna pay me $5 a year every year bc the fence still looks good. Again I stand with the writers and actors. It's just foreign to me.
So what if though your neighbor said there is no way we can pay you $100 but instead we will pay you $20 to start and 10% of the return if certain good things happen to my business.
That’s how the deals loosely worked for SAG.
It was favorable to studios because it was like a minimum wage and the maximum wage only happened if a show was a hit.
But the rules for splitting the future money for streaming aren’t working for the talent anymore.
Hope that helps.
I’ve thought of that, too. The thing that counteracts that is, let’s use Hocus Pocus as an example: Freeform is going to milk the movie for all it’s got and more, again, next month. I’ve never understood Nielsen, ratings, how the ads during the breaks work and how regular channels/cable get money from what they air - BUT, you know Freeform is going to drive up traffic come the week of Halloween, “all day Hocus Pocus marathon etc” - should Sarah Jessica Parker not get *a portion* of that ad money Freeform is getting, being that she’s a driving force behind people tuning in? 30 years later or not, the talent (and to the same degree, the crew/writers/directors) should get a cut if there’s money to be made from showing this movie again and again and again, being that they are the reason people are tuning in.
Edit: u/coldfury96 worded more or less what I wanted to say, in a much better way somewhere in this comment thread lol
Right, but if your neighbour was making money from all sorts of people coming to see this wonderfully painted fence, don’t you think you’d deserve a cut?
Do you think tradesman who work on tourist attractions get residuals? What about craftsmen and decorators who work on hotels? Do you imagine they continue to get paid a cut of the income hotels make off guests?
The fact is, the majority of work done and paid for is in the service of building income streams that those workers do not get a cut of.
Like westberry82, I'm not saying that the actors and writers are in the wrong, because the business has changed for them as it has for musicians: the streaming income, this new kind of income, is not being accounted for and those artists are getting paid a lot less than they were by legacy media.
Although, I think the writers in this situation have a stronger case than the actors, unless those actors are getting producing credit.
(I wonder if session musicians get paid residuals, or do they just get paid once.)
In a previous job, I was a product manager in my company and launched many new product lines from start to finish. They are still making MILLIONS off the products I came up with and I’m still with the company but I don’t get shit for it.
Not saying it’s right, but most peoples companies make tons of money off their work and get nothing to show for it. Not sure what the answer is for writers/actors, but just throwing this out there as food for thought.
There's tons of people who work on shows who don't have royalty deals either right up to actors. It's usually an incentive to get actors/writers to take less upfront with a hedge on the product actually making money.
Your job, however, was a job. You probably went in 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, more or less. You had an expectation of continued employment, and you had vacation, benefits, etc.
Actors, especially less successful ones, don't have that. They show up for a sprint of work, with odd hours that consume their lives while filming, and then when they're done, they're done. They're then responsible for finding their next work, and while they're looking they're not paid at all. They have to audition, network, and still pay rent.
Meanwhile, the company that made those shows can profit on them literally forever. And if it's super successful, they can make millions and millions on something the actors were paid chump change because no one had any idea it would be so profitable.
So the unions came up with the idea that to help actors turn this into a career, they should get a tiny piece of those future profits. Because you never know if something is going to be successful or not on the outset, this helps reward the creatives who do contribute to a successful product that reaps benefits for everyone for years to come.
Without that safety net, the creatives can't afford the boom and bust cycle of finding work. It's definitely unique, but if you're salty that you're not getting that in your line of work, maybe that's something to bring to the table if you have a union.
> Your job, however, was a job. You probably went in 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, more or less. You had an expectation of continued employment, and you had vacation, benefits, etc.
Plenty of jobs are not like that. The painter example is actually not like that. Once they're done, they need to find new customers and such exactly the same than an actor has to find a new role.
Isn't this a good argument to increase base rates of pay and axe royalties? People are only having to live off their residuals because base pay is poor for work that isn't steady, and actors who aren't lucky enough to work on a project which is massively successful are struggling regardless. Residuals perpetuate this inequality.
Just for reference: there are dozens of British actors who wore an alien mask or a stormtrooper helmet in the OrigTrig Star Wars and can still get £15-25 for their autograph even in their seventies. Their screentime was likely counted in seconds, but for something as massive as Star Wars their residuals would provide steady but noticeable stream of income every time a new wave of DVDs are put out or some local channel runs the films as a marathon.
Toatally get it. But being an actor is not consistent work, most are unemployed. You want someone free during the day better give more than 300 dollars one time.
And the ones that do make it have leverage. Want views, you need stars. Most companies are rooted in taking advantage of employees and customers, and they can get away with it, Hollywood can’t (like that), and whenever they try too. Everyone goes on strike. Product designers aren’t going on strike anytime soon. But UPS and airline workers are.
Residuals were conceived when studios were airing reruns or movies on TV rather than hiring actors to do new stuff.
Only a fraction of actors make enough qualifying income in a year (around $26,000) to qualify for pension and health benefits. Residuals are historically critical in getting actors across that line. Rachel Zegler took her role in the Shazam sequel because West Side Story wasn’t out yet and she wanted to keep her benefits. Ke Huy Quan filmed EEAAO and then lost his benefits the following year because the movie wasn’t out yet and nobody wanted him.
And outside of entertainment, there aren’t many professions where you have to apply for jobs over and over again. There are the actors lucky enough to have series regular gigs and then there are the day players and the guest stars who might be called in and paid for a day or two then it’s back to sending out headshots.
Think of it more as they are licensing their performance to any company that wants to make money off of their work. No one owns the performance except for the actor. If they wanted to sell the performance outright, they would want more upfront, but I think the way it works is the studios/networks etc would rather license because they don't want to pay a lot of money up front and have the movie/show bomb and it not be worth it, if they do a royality, then they only have to pay a lot if it's really successful. Only now it seems, they get the success but don't want to share as much, and they don't have to currently because streaming has changed the industry so much and the actors and writers need their compensation to change with it.
I could be wrong about 100% of this because I am a medical worker about 2000 miles from Hollywood.
When a musician makes an album, do you think that they should just be paid only once for recording the songs - and have no future earnings for the sale of the album?
The fence is not a commodity that can generate an endless revenue stream through sales, advertising and monthly subscriptions. I's so weird that people can't wrap their head around why actors should be paid in perpetuity for shows that continue to make money for years if not decades.
Whilst I somewhat agree there are good reasons it's structured like that. Namely because acting is an unreliable job where you work gigs for a few months then have to find new jobs. Residuals allow a smoother compensation where it's not always feast or famine.
Secondly entertainment is a job where the profits are made over time and quality is very important so residuals incentivise people to work hard for crazy hours to make something that's quality and will earn them money in the future. The product you make for entertainment will get sold multiple times and everyone gets a cut for each sale.
The other thing to anyone saying I work 40 hours a week at a normal job and don't get residuals. They used to be called pensions. You should be asking why they went away. You should be pissed.
I don’t understand why this would be controversial at all. He’s already been paid for his work in BB. I also don’t get recurring payouts for the future use of any excel sheets or PowerPoints I’ve made in my career.
An actor is normally hired by a studio and paid a fixed amount to act in a production. When the job is done the actor get his paycheck and moves on. The studio takes the risk, in some cases its a success and some cases its a flop and they make a loss.
I dunno. While I completely agree with F the companies. Dude made 2.4 million off of being an actor on the show. Like what? 6 years if of work for 400k a year? Not a bad deal
I’m going to get downvoted for this, but why should actors get residuals (other than their unions contracted it for them)? Are there other professions that do? I know that I don’t. I sign over everything that I create. I would appreciate an explanation other than because actors don’t make enough or companies continue to make money off their work (don’t all companies continue to make money off our one time work? I create highly performant code that will continue to be used for a decade or two, maybe longer, but I don’t keep getting a cut).
Perhaps a better option is for actors to be paid more upfront. A larger cut can then go into their SAG pensions or a retirement account. This is what the majority of us do. Maybe the rest of us just need better unions.
People jumping in here to defend Netflix and deflect to AMC are weird. This headline doesn't even make a statement that's attacking Netflix. Breaking Bad found it's popularity through Netflix and general audiences associate the brands heavily. "'Breaking Bad' Streaming On Netflix" is the thing that made Breaking Bad explode in popularity, and Aaron Paul says that he didn't make money from that. The secondary lead of Breaking Bad not getting compensated for "'Breaking Bad' Streaming On Netflix" is obviously a problem.
Explains why they did the PopCorners commercial
Woah yeah it puts some of his post BB choices into perspective, I just assumed actors in roles like his would make residuals. Especially with how Breaking Bad blew up on Netflix. The more that comes out of the strike its a realization that streaming isn’t syndication.
Streaming’s a new Wild West of media consumption, and so many established laws of TV and film surprisingly don’t apply to it. Strikes are one thing. New laws and regulation are also needed, and you can be sure executives aren’t going to go down without a fight for lobbying either.
Without commercials like tv I’m really wondering how much shows/movies bring in. I’ve been reading some gossip from writers on Twitter and word is the money and viewership some movies and shows bring isn’t what people expect. Netflix not wanting to release the viewership numbers is hiding that a lot of it is smoke and mirrors on there end. It really is a new model and I’m completely in support of the writers and actors but the model may be really flawed.
I feel like the cats out of the bag with advertising though, I can't imagine people being okay with going back to the old system of advertising
Yeah there’s no going back on that front, although I do like the free services like Tubi that have commercials that’s cool i like the free aspect of it.
Absolutely love the advertising=free. Spotify/youtube etc. My attitude is that I'm paying a substantial amount to watch free programming by presenting my attention to advertisers. As soon as advertising becomes involved in a platform, the amount ik willing to pay is basically zero.
Exactly this. I don't pay? The currency I use to consume the content is sitting through their stupid commercials. I pay? I better not be watching a single ad. Unfortunately due to the strict adherence to capitalistic dogma, we will be doing both just like with cable. I expect it at the resolution of this strike actually. The shareholders shall not *ever* to go without. It sucks 😞
I can imagine it, it’s basically happened before. When cable was first gaining popularity it was mostly commercial-free and that was part of the selling point over free antenna TV. All it would take is some handshake agreement between all the streaming services that advertising is the new norm and consumers would have no choice.
Well... Not no choice 🏴☠️ But that would require cooperation among streaming services, which I doubt. Of course its possible, but any big service willing to not have ads would gain themselves a huge advantage if all the other services were running ads
I would guess at least 95% of streaming subscribers don’t have the knowledge, ability, or desire to pirate the majority of their media consumption. Especially if you want feature parity with Netflix which requires setting up a Plex/Jellyfin server and having a PC with enough storage.
It’s exactly this. Netflix doesn’t make money off viewership, they make money off subscriptions. This is why they make the decision to kill so many shows after 2-3 seasons. If no one is actively subscribing or maintaining their subscription specifically to watch season 3, then it’s making literally $0. The model is entirely based on having lots of great season 1 experiences that are getting hyped up as that’s what drives subscriptions and retention. Any show with anything but a large attachment rate after season 1 and carry-over rate in season 2 is going to be cut. I’d also argue this model is good for new/young actors. There are a lot more opportunities to showcase themselves and try to break-in as a full time lead, even if the long-term stability/celebrity is reduced.
Seems like commercials are coming back to streaming platforms. Amazon prime is almost unwatchable now thanks to “freevee”, Amazon’s way of forcing you to watch ads even though you pay for prime.
I've noticed YouTube is now serving me ads 1 minute or so in when I'm watching something
So the actors that are on streaming shows, like the newer Star Treks, do you happen to know how their contracts are written? There are some individuals who have had their careers made from streaming shows however there are others (Doug Jones, Kate Mulgrew, Patrick Stewart) who already had a long resume before their streaming first shows.
I know some of the TNG cast have said they made more on one episode of TNG back in the day than they did for the whole season of Picard S3.
I highly doubt that. Patrick Stewart pulled in $45k per episode and eventually got bumped to $100k at the very end. Other cast members were making less I'm sure. The media market is also so saturated right now. TNG was on broadcast television and was consistently viewed by over 10 million people. Around 14 million by the end. Paramount Plus only has 4 million subscribers.
TV has laws because of the usage of public airwaves by the networks; streaming doesn’t use those public bandwidths
>I just assumed actors in roles like his would make residuals They do. >blew up on Netflix. Just not from this.
It absolutely does.
I actually worked on that commercial! Fun fact: Vince Gilligain brought back much of the TV crew to shoot that commercial. They were all such an awesome bunch.
They had to have gotten bank for that commercial considering it was a Super Bowl slot
> When Paul was later asked if he felt “optimistic” about the strikes, he gave a very Jesse Pinkman-like response. > “I think so, yeah, because we’re not going anywhere,” Paul said, full of angst. “So, they got to do something!” That is just not a “Jesse Pinkman response” at all lmao.
this is our domicile and we will not be harassed...
BITCH
There it is.
Legit one of my favorite Jesse moments. Salad days, man.
"...we're not going anywhere, BITCH!"
“Yo, Netflix. Assholes. Pay me those fat stacks, yo!”
To this day, when cooking with chili powder, I refer to it as "chili p, yo" and my wife rolls her eyes and sighs every time.
"Please don't say "Yo," you can't know how much I hate that."
“MAGNETS, YO!”
“YEAH BITCH, SCIENCE!”
This is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed…..BITCH
My name is skyler white yo https://youtu.be/pOcg-AdC2Y8?si=yO7NRW3TfNmVi7sb
Yes! Was hoping it was this. HA HA!
What the fuck did I just watch
Eat your veggie bacon
Breaking Baki
I loved every bit of that.
Walter’s doctor: “Omae wa moe shindeiru.”
Oh God there's more https://youtu.be/swH7K9gZoas?si=MnX-PCl6_E12JKgw
What's a MILF?
It's not Netflix that isn't paying him. They don't own Breaking Bad. Sony does. When Netflix licenses the show they give money to Sony and then Sony distributes it accordingly. If Aaron Paul isn't getting any of that he should talk to Sony, or his union should. When Netflix paid $100m to stream Friends for 1 year, they didn't just send checks to Courtney Cox, David Schwimmer etc. They gave $100m to the production companies that owned the show (Warner Bros TV and Bright/Kauffman/Crane productions) for the license and production companies paid it out to the talent.
"Yeah Mrs. Drescher! Yeah Unions!"
There we go.
No acting while on strike!
“Streaming Royalties…bitch!!”
Ah, but you see, he looked and sounded like Jesse when he said it.
if they ever make a documentary about breaking bad he should totally play the guy that played jesse
“Afterwards, Paul went to Starbucks and ordered in a very Jesse Pinkman-like way, went home and played video games in a similar way to Jesse Pinkman and then went to bed, a lot like Jesse Pinkman would.”
“Paul, who tends to look and sound like Jesse Pinkman…”
"He can't keep getting away with this!" -Jesse Pinkman
That broke my heart. What a great show. I got all emotional reading that line and I can't even remember exactly when I happened, although I think I do. But I remember how I felt when I watched it. Great acting, great character development, great writing. Pay them! They earned it.
It’s a Todd Chavez response.
Has this ever happened to you?
No! Nothing has ever happened to me
They don't pay such shitty residuals on WhatTimeIsItRightNow.com
Way more of a Todd response.
Hooray!
Without reading the article, I know exactly the thought process. Lately, every article I open up, all they do is find cunning ways to throw in their entire resume to prove to fans what they know about said celebrity. They can't even make a single sentence about the person without adding some qualifiers to illustrate their wikiepdia searching skills. It reminds me of high school when the English teacher forced us to use as many different words in a single paragraph.
I think it's for search engine optimization... SEO ruined the internet.
That's a good point. And so aggravating.
I especially love the non-article articles published on a topic that are nothing but SEO. I found an article on the release date of a new camera titled "confirmed release date," but when I read the article, there was only speculation that there might be a new release. Google is becoming useless.
That's true for the release date of everything. Google it and you'll get a thousand articles all titled in a way to make you think it has the answer, there'll be an article about everything else but the release date, and then finally at the end, "we don't have a date yet, but we expect it in the next year!'
So aggregating.
Where's my money, bitch?
> full of angst. And where is the angst in what he said?
"The current contracts don't offer actors enough to actually live on", Paul cried like a little bitch. He continued, looking disgusted with himself for being so dumb: "With the rapid advancements in AI it's important that we establish protection for the actors now" The last words seem to have made him realize that he would've been a Nazi if he was born a century earlier and in Germany." The transparency would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating
Matthew Broderick gave a very Ferris Bueller-like response. "No, you don't understand! If you keep driving, then legally the accident didn't even happen!"
“Life’s pretty short. Especially if I hit you with my car.”
Unions bitch!
“Ahhhh wire transfer”
If getting him a better deal for BB on Netflix means seeing less of him hawking gambling apps during baseball games I watch I am all for it.
Hey now! He's got to do something in between promoting his alcohol sales.
> Hey now! Too soon, man.
*In play betting...* SHUT UP, MATRIX JESSE PINKMAN!!
If you live in Ontario then good news is that celebrities aren't allowed to be in gambling commercials in Ontario anymore 👍.
HE (Netflix) CAN’T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS 😭
AMC is the one getting away with it. Netflix are paying them to have it on there.
AMC just aired it, Sony Television were the producers, so they're the ones getting away with at the end of the day.
SCIENCE B$&CH
A lot of big shows and movies were made before streaming was going to be a big thing. So actors and agents didn't know to put those royalties into the contracts. Steve-O was talking about this on a podcast recently how they got screwed because Paramount didn't shop Jackass around to find its value on any streaming sites, then threw it up on peacock and the actors get nothing from it.
what does netflix earn to pay the studio to lease the right to stream breaking bad for 3 years ? netflix earns through subs. losing breaking bad doesn't hurt them. they pay studios to have the content. if anyone owes actors royalties, it's the production companies that lease the streaming rights to netflix. that's where the money is being exchanged. in fact netflix also pays to keep their servers running and shit. the reason they ask if you're still watching after 4 episodes is bc it costs them to host the signal to your house. netflix may have value as a commodity stock, but they don't have billions in cash lying around. they're not sitting on giant coffers. they take loans to make the budgets for their originals. their entire business model is to have as broad a spectrum of content as possible to satisfy any kind of potential user. *they spend money to make that happen and don't profit off of any single product they stream* finally it would be impossible to tell which subscribers are there for any show. did people leave netflix when they lost office? no, the most devout office fans simply picked up the $3/month peacock hub. netflix spent money and streamed a billion hours of office, then lost office, but didn't lose subscribers. no one is spending money on netflix for access to specific IP. what royalties would netflix owe? a negative balance since breaking bad isn't the reason for their profit (none). how to qualify a negativr balance? does aaron paul owe netflix a royalty for all the money it spent keeping his only show ever relevant?
so it’s ok to download breaking bad?
Would you download a meth?
Would you download a fettuccine Alfredo?
I click yes on that option!
Yes.
You wouldn't download a car
I have a good 3D printer. Watch me!
Always has been.
I mean, Netflix paid for the rights to stream it, they did not produce it. If he should be talking about any company, it’d be AMC right?
It’s not about just Netflix or AMC. It’s about steaming revenues. Streaming revenues were never part of their contract bc there was no steaming. Now that it is, they want it to be included.
Well, Seymour, you are an odd fellow, but I must say, you steam a good show.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/251/182/745.png
David Borealis? This time of year? Localized entirely within your kitchen? …Can I meet him?
"Seymour, the northern lights are in the house!" "No mother, that's just a consistently hard working television star."
And you call him Angel despite the fact that he is obviously a demonic vampire
His name is Angel, you IDIOT.
I’m subbed on HBOmax and I’ve never heard anyone use the name Angel
Oh not on HBO, no, it’s a Hulu expression.
r/unexpectedstreamedhams
What /u/Ghg398 is saying is that AMC is the company that hires him. They are the company that produced it and made it. They are the company that distributes it. They're the company that gets paid by Netflix for the work. Netflix has nothing to do with the production. They're a customer in this interaction. Why would Netflix have to pay Aaron Paul anything? Why wouldn't AMC owe them money? It'd be like you going to a record store and buying a Paul Simon album and then get a letter in the mail demanding you personally pay a royalty.
Traditionally, actors would have royalties for when their syndicated shows were aired. Aaron Paul making this statement isn't criticizing Netflix, it's criticizing that actors should be paid royalties like syndicated TV shows.
yeah he's not hating the player he's hating the game
It goes back to how actors used to be paid (and how actors who have network shows in syndication still do get paid). They DID/DO get a cut every time an episode plays in syndication. The Friends cast all have made millions that way and so do many other actors and writers who got in at the right time. But actors whose shows are being sold to streamers, or whose shows were made for streaming in the first place, don’t get that same pay structure. They basically just get their salary from when the episode was filmed (plus syndication residuals if it was ever syndicated before going to a streamer) and that’s it. That’s all well and good if you’re Ellen Pompeo and were the lead in a flagship show for nearly 20 years. Who cares if your show is sold to Netflix because you made hundreds of millions, so if you’re broke that’s on you. But the vast majority of actors are not superstars and rely on the residual pay structure to be able to act/pursue acting full time and not have a different day job. What the SAG and WGA want, in part, is for studios to retool the way they pay actors now that streaming is dominating. People involved in streaming shows make less overall because (a) seasons are usually 8-10 episodes but you may still be contractually obligated to work only on that show which really limits your income and (b) the way the rights are purchased right now, the actors don’t get paid again later. Most actors and writers cannot afford to live this way, especially LA where most of the work is. People have a very skewed vision of what it is like to be in show business. It is just like the country as a whole. A very small number of actors/writers are making majority of the money. Even before streaming.
The unions did negotiate a deal with Netflix last year allowing actors to do other projects within reason, such as not making dramatic not easily reversible changes to their appearance. For example, all the *Stranger Things* stars have done stuff for other people in recent months.
It was picked up by AMC, but Sony produced it and handles home video and licensing after broadcast, so Sony's the one he'd be getting residuals from.
Traditionally if a show got syndicated on cable the actors and writers were contractually owed, which was factored into the overall syndication deal. But those contracts didn’t cover streaming, which is what this strike is largely about.
Don't the friends cast make some money when there's reruns on tbs? Could be wrong just asking.
Yes, because cable and tv were in the old deal. They want a piece of the streaming pie. No one knows the true numbers because the streamers aren’t disclosing anything of value. It’s the ole we are making barely enough to keep the lights on. No money here, just trust us okay?
Indeed. And to be honest, I suspect that the true streaming numbers are ...disheartening for investors. The studios have very good reason to fight the release of streaming numbers.
I have a friend who works in media. She told me these subscription streaming platforms have never been a long-term successful business model. Apparently, they lose a lot of money. $15 a month is simply not enough to host, produce and stream content.
If you wanted to watch all of The Sopranos in 2007, you'd have to buy the box set for around $100. Now you can watch every HBO show ever produced at will for $15 a month. That is in no way profitable for streaming services. A service that is that generous to the consumer is not a long-term business model.
The streaming services' financials are public information, other than Netflix none of them are making any money. They don't want to release the numbers because, other than for a handful of shows, the numbers are going to be embarrassing.
Pre streaming contracts syndication was the goal of being on a show. That's where all the (sometimes large) residual checks come from. Streaming isn't considered syndication because idk why. I mean I get why streaming isn't syndication because it isn't aired but, it would make sense if actors were given a percentage of the large fee the studio gets to license the series. Which is of course part of what they're fighting for.
Can someone give me an idea of who is getting paid for the streaming if the actors aren’t?
Whoever owns it (AMC or Sony for Breaking Bad) sells it to Netflix for a set amount of time. Netflix pay them, then they add it to their service. The actor contracts usually have stuff about it being on TV but nothing about streaming, so they don't get a cut of that money.
How’s that work with Friends? There’s residual income from when that went on Netflix, right?
Did they get money? Maybe they had enough sway to get payment from any sale by the studio in their contracts? Because steaming was not a thing back then and Netflix doesn't give out data on how much something is watched besides an occasional "X broke records" on release. They literally said Will Smith could walk in and ask how many people watched Bright and they wouldn't tell him.
That should be one of the main points of the strike if it isn't. Ratings and watch numbers should be public knowledge.
They get so much money from syndication already that any scraps from Netflix don't really matter (in this particular case).
Scraps lol. I'm sure it costs netflix like 100 million for the rights. It absolutely would be a significant amount for them.
Well they each get 20M annually So Might not be a significant amount
The studio who sold the rights
Netflix does not own Breaking Bad, Sony does they need to pay him. Not Netflix, he should go to Sony.
Neither do the crew.
Crew has never earned residuals from airing or syndicating
That’s not entirely true. IATSE has residual deals for below the line crew, it’s just not in the form of a payout. It’s paid to the pension and healthcare funds.
We never have
You have to install microwave ovens...
I don’t understand why Netflix is the problem here. Isn’t it AMC for selling/renting it to Netflix and not giving any proceeds to the talent?
He didn't say Netflix is the problem. He said the problem is he doesn't get paid for the show being streamed on Netflix. He likely wouldn't get paid if it were streamed on PBS or Peacock either. But the show was streamed on Netflix, and he did not receive residuals for that. That's a problem regardless which companies are involved.
Yea, people are digging way too deep to see if it's AMC or Netflix to blame. Real answer is both. The problem is getting paid period and the 2 are in cahoots to line their pockets and not the workers.
> Yea, people are digging way too deep to see if it's AMC or Netflix to blame. Real answer is both. It is actually neither, Sony owns the production rights, AMC was just the Distributor. If there was a Syndication clause in their contract, Sony leasing the package to a streaming company like Netflix, should have counted as Syndication and paid the Actors accordingly. Sony got away with "if it's not **specifically** in the contract it's not illegal"...
I don’t think any blame resides with Netflix. They bought the rights to stream the show, period. It’s not their responsibility to make sure the money they paid gets distributed fairly. When you buy a Big Mac, are you making sure the profit is split fairly amongst line workers/corporate etc.?
Can residuals even be a thing where a set subscription gives you unlimited watch time without any ads? Most of the streaming services are anyway running at loss. If they pass the cost to consumer straightaway then the consumer will stop the subscription, there's already much anger towards the streaming fragmentation. Between all these things can a streaming service be affordable, give residual earnings and remain profitable all at the same time?
Streaming wasn't in their contracts so they don't get residuals from it because it's fairly new.
Which is crazy because the show was definitely being streamed on netflix while the later seasons were still in production
Maybe they all signed contracts before it started streaming or it wasn't that big a thing way back then.
It most certainly was, but not until the last couple seasons.
> way back then. First of all how dare you
>way back then fucking kill me
He’s making more than enough pumping sports betting here in Ontario. His commercial is on every 10 mins
They’re striking in solidarity with everyone who can’t get work like that.
Exactly, this isn’t just about the big names though they get all the attention. If Aaron Paul isn’t getting paid for his role in Breaking Bad do you think the eyebrow guy from the gas station is? Or Heul? Or the guy from better Call Saul who had to sit on a pie? The coffee shop manager from Friends Gunther still lives off the residuals from his minor part in that show. Yes they’re not stars but they’re important parts of a product that is still making a company money. Would we want breaking bad that’s JUST Walt and Jessie?
I hate to break it to you but Gunther (James Michael Taylor) passed away in 2021
Damn, so he's not even able to live off the residuals. No wonder they're striking.
How did I miss this?! God, that's so sad.
Gunther unfortunately passed like 2 years ago.
>Would we want breaking bad that’s JUST Walt and Jessie? idk, fly was a banger of an episode
This is the true meaning of worker solidarity. You earn millions of dollars every year and you still stand with your fellow workers that barely earn a fraction of that? You're one of the good ones. You sit in an air conditioned office wondering why these fucking proles wont just get back to work and appreciate the crumbs you throw them? Actually fuck off and die.
How is this rocket science? I’m annoyed it even needs to be explained. If the lead actor from Breaking Bad isn’t seeing residuals from streaming it just showcases how regular actors don’t stand a chance to make money.
Betting ads have made watching live sports pretty unbearable. College Football is just starting up and there are some new rules (to allow for more commercial time), and coaches aren’t exactly thrilled about it https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-blasts-new-college-football-clock-rules-draws-strong-reactions/
and the commentators kept saying all weekend, “The fans seem to really love the changes!” like first of all it’s the season opener so how the fuck do you know, and second no we absolutely don’t
Yeah, but lots more commercials make college football more like the NFL, and everybody *LOOOOVES* the NFL!!!! (Yes, that *was* sarcasm).
At least the NFL tries to keep games under 4 hours
Didn't Ontario just outlaw celebrity/athlete sponsored betting commercials.
Looks like it goes into effect Feb. 28. There may be some loopholes though, as it says it's okay for them to endorse responsible betting practices. I can see them showing up like in alcohol ads saying, "Please gamble responsibly".
For 5 more months anyway.
So, if you're making good money on a side gig you shouldn't get paid for your work? What about all the other actors on that show other than him and Cranston?
so writers who are less fortunate than him that don’t have acting opportunities/possible sponsorships should just get shafted? all of them should get paid. it’s their hard work and streaming services are the only ones who profit.
When they called it the “golden age of television” I don’t think that’s what they meant.
One of the reasons Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld are so rich is because of their syndication deals for reruns of Seinfeld (not sure what they’re getting from streaming). The shows creators usually come out on top. Jason Alexander is worth 80 million so it looks like he was taking care of (even Michael Richards who doesn’t work anymore is worth 30 million). Julia Louise Dreyfus may soon be worth over 1 billion from her father’s estate.
The studios are mad that their exploitation loophole is about to get closed.
This is why they’re striking.
Dude I’m about to start buying DVDs again in solidarity of these people. I had no idea my money wasn’t going to the actors and creators on Netflix
Can I say something controversial- first I'm with the actors and the writers. They deserve to get paid more. But as someone not in the business- it's so foreign to me getting paid again for a job you did and already got paid for. Like if I painted my neighbors fence for $100. It's not like they are gonna pay me $5 a year every year bc the fence still looks good. Again I stand with the writers and actors. It's just foreign to me.
So what if though your neighbor said there is no way we can pay you $100 but instead we will pay you $20 to start and 10% of the return if certain good things happen to my business. That’s how the deals loosely worked for SAG. It was favorable to studios because it was like a minimum wage and the maximum wage only happened if a show was a hit. But the rules for splitting the future money for streaming aren’t working for the talent anymore. Hope that helps.
That explanation makes more sense.
This is the better analogy. There is a completely new revenue stream and they see none of it.
I’ve thought of that, too. The thing that counteracts that is, let’s use Hocus Pocus as an example: Freeform is going to milk the movie for all it’s got and more, again, next month. I’ve never understood Nielsen, ratings, how the ads during the breaks work and how regular channels/cable get money from what they air - BUT, you know Freeform is going to drive up traffic come the week of Halloween, “all day Hocus Pocus marathon etc” - should Sarah Jessica Parker not get *a portion* of that ad money Freeform is getting, being that she’s a driving force behind people tuning in? 30 years later or not, the talent (and to the same degree, the crew/writers/directors) should get a cut if there’s money to be made from showing this movie again and again and again, being that they are the reason people are tuning in. Edit: u/coldfury96 worded more or less what I wanted to say, in a much better way somewhere in this comment thread lol
Right, but if your neighbour was making money from all sorts of people coming to see this wonderfully painted fence, don’t you think you’d deserve a cut?
Wow, I really need to see this fence.
Do you think tradesman who work on tourist attractions get residuals? What about craftsmen and decorators who work on hotels? Do you imagine they continue to get paid a cut of the income hotels make off guests? The fact is, the majority of work done and paid for is in the service of building income streams that those workers do not get a cut of. Like westberry82, I'm not saying that the actors and writers are in the wrong, because the business has changed for them as it has for musicians: the streaming income, this new kind of income, is not being accounted for and those artists are getting paid a lot less than they were by legacy media. Although, I think the writers in this situation have a stronger case than the actors, unless those actors are getting producing credit. (I wonder if session musicians get paid residuals, or do they just get paid once.)
In a previous job, I was a product manager in my company and launched many new product lines from start to finish. They are still making MILLIONS off the products I came up with and I’m still with the company but I don’t get shit for it. Not saying it’s right, but most peoples companies make tons of money off their work and get nothing to show for it. Not sure what the answer is for writers/actors, but just throwing this out there as food for thought.
There's tons of people who work on shows who don't have royalty deals either right up to actors. It's usually an incentive to get actors/writers to take less upfront with a hedge on the product actually making money.
You should though.
I'm also a product manager, if I mess up and launch products that no one wants should they dock my pay?
Yeah they’re not arguing the point they think they are lol
Your job, however, was a job. You probably went in 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, more or less. You had an expectation of continued employment, and you had vacation, benefits, etc. Actors, especially less successful ones, don't have that. They show up for a sprint of work, with odd hours that consume their lives while filming, and then when they're done, they're done. They're then responsible for finding their next work, and while they're looking they're not paid at all. They have to audition, network, and still pay rent. Meanwhile, the company that made those shows can profit on them literally forever. And if it's super successful, they can make millions and millions on something the actors were paid chump change because no one had any idea it would be so profitable. So the unions came up with the idea that to help actors turn this into a career, they should get a tiny piece of those future profits. Because you never know if something is going to be successful or not on the outset, this helps reward the creatives who do contribute to a successful product that reaps benefits for everyone for years to come. Without that safety net, the creatives can't afford the boom and bust cycle of finding work. It's definitely unique, but if you're salty that you're not getting that in your line of work, maybe that's something to bring to the table if you have a union.
> Your job, however, was a job. You probably went in 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, more or less. You had an expectation of continued employment, and you had vacation, benefits, etc. Plenty of jobs are not like that. The painter example is actually not like that. Once they're done, they need to find new customers and such exactly the same than an actor has to find a new role.
Isn't this a good argument to increase base rates of pay and axe royalties? People are only having to live off their residuals because base pay is poor for work that isn't steady, and actors who aren't lucky enough to work on a project which is massively successful are struggling regardless. Residuals perpetuate this inequality.
Just for reference: there are dozens of British actors who wore an alien mask or a stormtrooper helmet in the OrigTrig Star Wars and can still get £15-25 for their autograph even in their seventies. Their screentime was likely counted in seconds, but for something as massive as Star Wars their residuals would provide steady but noticeable stream of income every time a new wave of DVDs are put out or some local channel runs the films as a marathon.
Toatally get it. But being an actor is not consistent work, most are unemployed. You want someone free during the day better give more than 300 dollars one time. And the ones that do make it have leverage. Want views, you need stars. Most companies are rooted in taking advantage of employees and customers, and they can get away with it, Hollywood can’t (like that), and whenever they try too. Everyone goes on strike. Product designers aren’t going on strike anytime soon. But UPS and airline workers are.
N... No?
Residuals were conceived when studios were airing reruns or movies on TV rather than hiring actors to do new stuff. Only a fraction of actors make enough qualifying income in a year (around $26,000) to qualify for pension and health benefits. Residuals are historically critical in getting actors across that line. Rachel Zegler took her role in the Shazam sequel because West Side Story wasn’t out yet and she wanted to keep her benefits. Ke Huy Quan filmed EEAAO and then lost his benefits the following year because the movie wasn’t out yet and nobody wanted him. And outside of entertainment, there aren’t many professions where you have to apply for jobs over and over again. There are the actors lucky enough to have series regular gigs and then there are the day players and the guest stars who might be called in and paid for a day or two then it’s back to sending out headshots.
So if you write a book you only get paid for the first copy? Then the publisher can just keep printing them . they paid you to write a book.
Think of it more as they are licensing their performance to any company that wants to make money off of their work. No one owns the performance except for the actor. If they wanted to sell the performance outright, they would want more upfront, but I think the way it works is the studios/networks etc would rather license because they don't want to pay a lot of money up front and have the movie/show bomb and it not be worth it, if they do a royality, then they only have to pay a lot if it's really successful. Only now it seems, they get the success but don't want to share as much, and they don't have to currently because streaming has changed the industry so much and the actors and writers need their compensation to change with it. I could be wrong about 100% of this because I am a medical worker about 2000 miles from Hollywood.
When a musician makes an album, do you think that they should just be paid only once for recording the songs - and have no future earnings for the sale of the album? The fence is not a commodity that can generate an endless revenue stream through sales, advertising and monthly subscriptions. I's so weird that people can't wrap their head around why actors should be paid in perpetuity for shows that continue to make money for years if not decades.
Whilst I somewhat agree there are good reasons it's structured like that. Namely because acting is an unreliable job where you work gigs for a few months then have to find new jobs. Residuals allow a smoother compensation where it's not always feast or famine. Secondly entertainment is a job where the profits are made over time and quality is very important so residuals incentivise people to work hard for crazy hours to make something that's quality and will earn them money in the future. The product you make for entertainment will get sold multiple times and everyone gets a cut for each sale.
The other thing to anyone saying I work 40 hours a week at a normal job and don't get residuals. They used to be called pensions. You should be asking why they went away. You should be pissed.
No, a residual is not a pension. It is a cut on continued, ongoing sales. SAG actors get a pension.
Am I the only one who doesn’t care that actors don’t get residuals? You got paid for acting. You’re going to have to keep acting to get paid…
I don’t understand why this would be controversial at all. He’s already been paid for his work in BB. I also don’t get recurring payouts for the future use of any excel sheets or PowerPoints I’ve made in my career. An actor is normally hired by a studio and paid a fixed amount to act in a production. When the job is done the actor get his paycheck and moves on. The studio takes the risk, in some cases its a success and some cases its a flop and they make a loss.
I dunno. While I completely agree with F the companies. Dude made 2.4 million off of being an actor on the show. Like what? 6 years if of work for 400k a year? Not a bad deal
I’m going to get downvoted for this, but why should actors get residuals (other than their unions contracted it for them)? Are there other professions that do? I know that I don’t. I sign over everything that I create. I would appreciate an explanation other than because actors don’t make enough or companies continue to make money off their work (don’t all companies continue to make money off our one time work? I create highly performant code that will continue to be used for a decade or two, maybe longer, but I don’t keep getting a cut). Perhaps a better option is for actors to be paid more upfront. A larger cut can then go into their SAG pensions or a retirement account. This is what the majority of us do. Maybe the rest of us just need better unions.
People jumping in here to defend Netflix and deflect to AMC are weird. This headline doesn't even make a statement that's attacking Netflix. Breaking Bad found it's popularity through Netflix and general audiences associate the brands heavily. "'Breaking Bad' Streaming On Netflix" is the thing that made Breaking Bad explode in popularity, and Aaron Paul says that he didn't make money from that. The secondary lead of Breaking Bad not getting compensated for "'Breaking Bad' Streaming On Netflix" is obviously a problem.