More opportunities less pay for actors

[lambert]

Seems like most working actors were living better twenty years ago. Foreign shoots using more than just a star or two seemed pretty common. Today you negotiate with sag as a foreign producer, sign a less strenuous contract and pay a star or two and hire non American if at all possible for the rest of the cast. In the states lots of opportunities to produce yourself but much of it seems little more than vanity productions to build up a reel. I get that global rule 1 changed the cast make up of foreign productions puting protections in place. It seems that it's becoming untenable for those without financial resources to survive as a working actor today, or am I missing something?

[rsbush]

You're not missing anything. Unless you get a gig as a series regular, you can work ten weeks a year (which is a whole lot, by the way) and still be poverty level.

[OldCorpse]

Is this good or bad? I mean, it's bad that you can't make a living being a "working joe" actor (rather than star), but it's good to at least have a chance at hitting star level because you're are allowed to work at all. The other way, sure, the "working joe" actor makes a good living, but you get very few jobs in the first place, it becomes a much more exclusive club that's hard to break into. A lot of access means you get more chances at striking it big (becoming a star, or minor star, or just a "name actor"), but the downside is that meanwhile you're starving. What's better? I don't know. Probably if you are confident that you have the talent to make it big, then you want access, and are happy to get more shooting opportunities to showcase your talent and get more shots at getting noticed, and don't mind starving because you figure it's temporary until you hit it big. But many people think they have talent (or even do have it), and through luck of the draw end up with the short straw and starve until life passes them by, never making it. It's a tough business. I don't know - which is better?

[rsbush]

It surely isn't better if 20 years ago you were making $250,000 for the same 10 jobs you're making $25,000 today. That's the reality for veteran working actors. While most people dream of being stars, most actors would be very happy to be able to make a decent living.

[lambert]

For me it's giving me more opportunities as writer who has turned to producing out of necessity. I'm sag eligible but don't consider myself an actor . A lot of people forget about the waste that occurred before the corporation s moved in to Hollywood in a big way. I had an older actor tell me about his good friend being brought out to wyoming or Montana for 3 days on cimino heavens gate. He used to go down every morning ready to work only to be told his scene wasn't shooting today. He spent close to 11 or 12 months waiting till finally his scene shot. He did very well. Used to chat with a restaurant owner/ actor that was the stand in for Kevin Bacon on a film that had series problems. He spent the last few weeks sleeping on the set getting paid enough to pay cash to open the restaurant just from that gig. I know change is inevitable and the only thing artists can do is educate themselves about the whole process. I know taxes , budgets , pages of contracts, insurance, reality of distribution isn't fun to study but today it requires much more effort to make a living than in the past. sorry just rambling on a bit.

[Run&Gun]

It's pretty much an exact parallel of what's been happening behind the camera, too. When we started making the leap to HD, rates jumped 80%-100%, now the industry is full of people working for rates as low or lower than they were 15-20 years ago and working harder for them.

[OldCorpse]

It surely isn't better if 20 years ago you were making $250,000 for the same 10 jobs you're making $25,000 today. That's the reality for veteran working actors. While most people dream of being stars, most actors would be very happy to be able to make a decent living.

Yes, of course. But what about the guy who wouldn't have had a job in the first place 20 years ago? He'd have made $0. Today, he gets the opportunity and at least makes $Little... sure the 20 years ago guy takes a pay cut, but now there are TWO people working instead of ONE. That's the advantage of MORE opportunities vs disadvantages of lower pay. Something has to give. Less competition, higher pay, more competiotion lower pay. But which is better overall for the entertainment business? Many would argue it's better with more opportunites, more product, more choices. Today you can find every niche, but conversely, you might not make a living working on that content. Tough dilemma.

[rsbush]

Actors have always had the opportunity to work for little or no pay,Theater. We don't need more opportunities that don't pay. Two people working for next to nothing instead of one being paid decently, doesn't seem like a good thing to me. It seems like the money is taking advantage of the talent. Preying on people's dreams. I just don't see any upside to this.

[lambert]

The race to make the cheapest most efficient films that will get butts in the seats or eyes on a flatscreen will continue will continue for sure. Need to shoot a scene that takes place in Iowa but your shooting in bulgaria. Not a problem that union actor in London will do it for with a perfect accent. That 2000$ a week post technician in la will run you 500$ in Sofia.most of the dairy farms in my area have become completely automated. Need someone to do some repetitive online tasks I've got the perfect person for you in Manila (virtual assistant) at $3 an hour. More good news that persons cousin is learning the newest fx program . I've benefited from the changes in way business is conducted today. I don't begrudge any person to make a living. I am much better better off than I was 20 years ago but wondering where it's going from here.