I remember Hugh's comment (in jest) on - was it with Colin Ferguson early this year? - that a "little" strike would be nice, because he doesn't like to work . . . (of course, we know how hard he does in fact work!). Is there any knowledge of his position on the strike?

I remember Hugh talked about it in both Furguson's and Leno's, somehow jokingly, as I suppose he didn't want to get into a further complecated discussion in interviews. Last time we saw him demonstrate alongside the writers with placards in video, but this time, considering the his status with somewhat enviable incomes and of being an English actor in Hollywood, I don't think we'll know his standpoint so fast and clear...especially when there's controversial discussion whether the strike is appropriate or not in this timing...but that's just my guess. May I ask some questions here? I know every actor who starts working in America should join the union, so Hugh should be a member of SAG for...how long? more than 10 years, for sure. Then, what is the qualification to be listed in A-list? The income? The status as an actor? The length of being a member? or...all these combined? Sorry if I'm asking a basic question. My friend is a fan of James Denton, who is among 130 A-liste actors against the authorization of the strike, so I'm asking for hersake, too. :)

It's not a question that an actor should join a union, but rather that they have to join a union. Production companies are linked to two different unions -- SAG or AFTRA -- and as a cast member, you have to belong to the union, so even if HL didn't support the union for some reason, he'd still be required to be a member. The fact that there's a competing union -- AFTRA -- which already signed a contract with the producers also complicates things. By the way, here's what Wil Wheaton had to say about the issue in his blog: For the SAG board to even consider voluntarily stopping work when we're falling deeper and deeper into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression isn't just stupid, it's recklessly irresponsible. SAG needs to face the reality we're stuck with: AFTRA sold us out. AFTRA fucked all actors everywhere by negotiating with the AMPTP on their own and agreeing to shockingly horrible terms. The AFTRA negotiators failed all actors, whether they're currently SAG, currently AFTRA, or are still hoping to join. Those "negotiators" should be ashamed of themselves, and they shouldn't be allowed in the same building as a contract ever again.

Wheaton doesn't pull his punches, does he? That question about who are a-list and who are not is a tricky one. As far as I know, most people use it to refer to only the very top people in the business. Some think only the very top earners of the movie business deserve to be a-list, but most will concede that stars of top TV shows also rank up there. The ranking is based partly on earning power, partly on length of time as a top player in Hollywood, and partly just the plain old opinion of whoever is speaking. To be honest, I've never heard of James Denton being referred to as an a-lister, and I wouldn't expect him to be.

Zumi, there is no official a-list. It's just a label people give the big stars. You could put the label on anyone you want to, but if you say some mid-level celebrity is a-list people will think you are nuts. The contract covers two basic types of payments. First is the salary people earn for showing up when they've been hired. That doesn't affect people like Hugh Laurie or Peter Jacobson or the Patient of the Week. Their salaries are negotiated and in their contracts. It does affect the people who you never heard of -- the people in the clinic waiting room or the nurse in the OR with one line. They get paid "scale." That is the minimum pay the union contract has negotiated. What they get paid is based on how many days they work and whether or not they have a speaking part. Then there are other payments. These would also probably be covered in Hugh Laurie's contract, but not in the patient of the week's. First there are residuals. Once upon a time, producers said that if they paid all the salaries at the beginning they couldn't afford to make the movie or TV show. So they agreed to pay part up front and the rest (the residual) once they started making money from selling the show. In a later contract, the producers got the residuals cut even though that was part of the basic salary. Once upon a time, those were the only payments. The movie showed in the theater or the TV show ran and that was it. Then the producers started selling movies to be shown on television after they had finished in their run in the theaters. Next came VCRs and DVDs. When they came into being producers said no one knew if they would make any money with these brand-new ways to sell the shows so they would pay the actors (and writers, directors, and members of other unions) very little and, by the time the next contract came around, they'd raise the amount if these ways of selling things would be successful. But, when it was contract time, they producers refused to pay more even though they make a lot of money (sometimes most of their money) selling that way. And now there is the Internet. When you watch a streaming video, the actors do not get a single penny. And the producers want to keep it that way. There are a lot of other issues other than basic pay and I've simplified the issues a lot, but you get the idea. Only a very small percentage of actors have all these things covered in their contracts. Most actors only make a few thousand dollars a year (if they find any acting work at all) and need the protection of the union. And the actors who don't need it (hopefully) support the union because they know how lucky they are and want other actors to be treated fairly.

Thank you Namaste and DOB1234 for answering and correcting my misconceptions! and thank you Poeia for all the trouble you took for answering my elementary questions! Now I got the general idea on the working environment of the actors in Hollywood, and how important this coming negociation is. Thank you again!!

If anybody's curious, you can find of the more than 1,500 names on the "no strike" petition here. Lots of familiar names (Pierce Brosnan, Alan Alda, Kevin Spacey) but also a lot of folks I've never heard of, who probably make up some of the rank and file. ETA: Both PJ and OW are on the petition, but I haven't seen any of the other House players.

Jesse is on the petition. I understand the reasoning behind this (and I'd hate to see a strike) but if they think that 3 years down the road they'll get credit from the other unions, much less from the producers for having taken the high road now, they're delusional. ETA: I think they'd be better off continuing to negotiate, and hope the economic climate improves after January 20.

How can they continue to negotiate if the AMPTP won't sit down with them? There was an article in Hollywood Reporter today that Warner Brothers TV is suing CBS for non-payment of fees related to Two and a Half Men's good ratings. These guys won't even pay each other! I don't see why anyone would trust them to pay anything beyond salary to the little guys.

Tentative deal for SAG and AMPTP according to Hollywood Reporter

AdAge has a story today about Hulu.com. Hulu's Traditional TV Ads Lure TV Viewers Away NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Hulu, the online video site backed by Fox, NBC Universal and ABC, is using millions of dollars worth of traditional TV ads to lure viewers away from TV. According to CEO Jason Kilar, the strategy has been incredibly effective. In his on-stage interview at the 4A's Leadership Conference, Mr. Kilar said Hulu's Super Bowl ad was directly responsible for increasing the online video portal's business by 49%. Also, curiously, Mr. Kilar revealed that Hulu does not have -- and does not want -- a marketing department. What I found interesting about this is that one of the major issues on which the networks dug in their heels during negotiations with the different unions was Internet revenue. The last time around, the networks said tapes and DVDs were too knew to predict future revenue. If they were successful, the unions would receive payment in the next contract. When the next contract came, the producers fought against payment. This time they said there was no way to determine whether online would become a source of revenue and any payments should therefore be in the next contract but three of the major networks are actively backing an online project designed to move viewership from TV to online.

I've been transcribing episodes again (in case anyone doesn't know, clinic_duty is back.) It's much easier to transcribe them off Hulu than TV (the closed captioning stays visible when you hit pause.) But they haven't changed which episodes are available since Both Sides Now was put up. So I wrote to Fox. I'm second to none in my admiration of the last 5 episodes of House this year. But I want to know if these will be the only episodes available online between now and September 21. When you showed reruns during the breaks in the middle of the season those episodes were online 8 days later. Considering the length of the summer break, I would hope that a similar rotation of episodes will be available. Probably - due to the new contracts borne from the guild negotiations and the writer's strike last year - restricting us from providing free streaming for any length of time What burns me up (and the reason I'm posting it in this thread) is that they're blaming the unions. They have nothing against the networks providing streaming video if they are paid for their work. The networks charge advertisers for streaming video and they refuse to give the people who created it their fair share. :thumb down: (I need an emoticon with steam coming out of it's ears but this will have to do.)