SAG strike may not deal networks crippling blow

If an actors strike really does come to pass, don't worry. You won't have to do without "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" or "Saturday Night Live." Even certain scripted series, such as CW's "90210" and CBS' "Gary Unmarried," would be safe. And thank the gods in heaven that Fox's sitcom "Til Death" wouldn't suffer from a walkout. 

Dark clouds of labor trouble are again circling Hollywood. But the environment for the TV industry looks considerably different than it did when the writers strike began a little more than a year ago, scuttling much of the networks' 2007-08 season. That's because a larger number of shows this time around simply wouldn't be affected.

Last week, the Screen Actors Guild, whose members have worked without a contract for months, announced it would push for a unionwide vote to authorize a strike. If that vote passes -- which many observers consider unlikely, given the current turmoil in the larger economy, but certainly not impossible -- an actors walkout could happen as early as mid-January. (Sources at the networks and the unions were happy to talk off the record, but no one would agree to be quoted by name discussing a sensitive labor situation.)

When the writers began striking last November, it didn't take long for the pain to spread, because few shows didn't depend on Writers Guild talent. Performers, moreover, felt squeamish about crossing picket lines, partly because they knew the other trade unions would soon be negotiating with the studios and networks over such contentious issues as residual payments for digital content. So the strike not only walloped dramas such as "Lost" and "24," it put the kibosh on "Daily Show," "The Late Show with David Letterman," "SNL" -- the list went on and on.

Since then, however, not only writers but directors, broadcast performers and "below-the-line" production workers have forged new deals with the studios. That's stranded the actors on a bit of an island, at least in terms of negotiating leverage.

Meanwhile, producers have pushed to get more series covered under a deal with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, which has traditionally represented broadcasters and generally has a more harmonious relationship with the studios than SAG has had. Such series include ABC's midseason sitcom "Better Off Ted," with Jay Harrington and Portia de Rossi, and Fox's space spoof "Boldly Going Nowhere," currently eyed for the fall. Current shows such as "Gary Unmarried," "Rules of Engagement," "90210" and, yes, "Til Death" are also covered by AFTRA. And of course, AFTRA already covers most unscripted series, such as "Survivor," "American Idol" and "Deal or No Deal," which were left unscathed by the writers strike and wouldn't be impacted this time around either.

If it seems like AFTRA's clout in prime time is growing, well, it is. And that's because of the way TV shows have traditionally been apportioned between the two performers unions: SAG covers filmed projects, AFTRA those on video. The unions have dual jurisdiction for material recorded digitally -- and that's where AFTRA is seeing a big upswing. In fact, the trend toward more AFTRA shows represents a return to the state of the industry prior to the 1980s, when expensive filmed shows such as "Hill Street Blues" began operating under SAG deals.

SAG still covers the big filmed shows such as "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation." But even there, the networks might not suffer as much as they did during the writers strike. Many shows began production earlier than usual this past summer, so they have finished shooting a large number of episodes. One network source said some series have already completed photography on 15 to 17 episodes and would probably be close to having finished a full season order by the time any strike started.

None of this means the TV business would escape injury if an actors strike really does come to pass. On the contrary, production schedules for many filmed shows would be thrown into chaos once again and the industry would suffer further ill-timed disruptions at a moment of heightened economic vulnerability.

But the writers strike meant crumbling ratings and truncated seasons for many shows. Fox's "24" alone ended up with a delay that will amount to an 18-month interval by the time it returns in January. Compared with that kind of upheaval, viewers this time might hardly notice any difference.

--Scott Collins 

 

Comments

[Rocco]

SAG will NEVER get that vote. Too many members either don't want a strike, or realize that Allen and Rosenberg make Bush and Paulson look competent.

[Jill Matson]

Saturday Night Live?! It would be a godsend if that piece of junk (is it supposed to be a comedy show? Are its scripts written by professionals or -- unfunny -- grade-school kids?) were affected negatively by a strike. A person has to be quite desparate to be sitting in front of the TV on a Saturday evening tuned to SNL, years and years past its prime.

[Enid bubblebutt]

Til Death? are you serious? see...when writing a column, the reader cannot infer sarcasm without a hint or nod towards it and I hope for your sake (in being a entertainment columnist) that you were joking around. Otherwise, you should be given a vacation so you can take some time to view real comedy and your job given to the intern working in the office because they have better taste in entertainment than you do. I mean....it's well know though out the office. I figure this might jump start a comedic awakening for you. yackitty yack I never talk back

[Dana Kaminski]

If there is a strike, why is everyone assuming that it will last a long time?
Does the AMPTP want to go broke too?

Don't think so.

The only ones that are truly broke, "EVER-BROKE", are actors.
In some way, it seems, that our culture seems to feel that actors shouldn't then, make sure they are paid , for New Media work. (That is exploding faster than anyone imagined; and all the studios have invested in heavily. They assure their stockholders of it...)

Isn't it co-dependent, in some way, to ask actors to continue to martyr themselves, so that they will be taking care of the rest of the economy, and other people in other professions?

Huh?
How can the other professionals keep writing on these comment boards, with vitriol, no less; demanding that the actors accept poverty in the future. Accept a contract that may possibly do away with the acting profession altogether.
Really. I don't get it.
Do people actually believe that actors are that out of their minds, that they aren't thinking logically? That their demands couldn't be valid, and imperative? That they can't do math??

Or is it that they just aren't the big power, here, so they don't count. Why not?

What gives others the ENTITLEMENT to make these judgments, and demands, that aren't based on the facts?
And why not write the AMPTP then, and tell THEM to pay for talent, so that the actors won't strike.
To pay fairly.
Why aren't people really looking at what the actors points really are?
I can't believe that such slanted slurs are made or allowed, in journalism. In conversation. Why is it okay to do it to this group, what is it about actors that allows people to denigrate them and insult. Worst part, have no empathy or understanding.

I find it shameful.

Talent is one of the beautiful manifestations of mankind. Arts are trumped by money + business, duh, I know that. Isn't it time to change that around a little. Aren't we a bit more humanitarian, and literate?

I think it's time we respected it a little more, and paid it. Planned for that as a valid component of a business prospectus and strategy, when developing new forms of entertainment where actors will be working, Instead of the opposite, which is what is being proposed now.