October 15 2007
SAG charge made Fox stop the Buffy theatrical showings.
MTV article says we've been speculating about the wrong union.
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
sungafan | October 15, 19:59 CET
dreamlogic | October 15, 20:17 CET
ChosenOne5376 | October 15, 20:17 CET
SAG wants what it is entitled to, fair enough. Fox caught unaware is looking at big unexpected bill and doesn't want it to get worse, fair enough.
What disappoints me is that neither was in a hurry to communicate with the fans (the customers). It should be obvious to all parties that OMWF, BtVS, and Firefly are breaking new ground.
So it comes to an unexpected stop.
Talk to us.
We may be unhappy, but we'll understand.
We want the entire chain to make a fair profit so we can have more.
A "we have minor issues to work out, give us 30 days" or a "we have some serious issues to negotiate, it may be a few month or more" is better than leaving us to speculate.
Free kudos to the first party to issue a press release to the fans.
ETR grumpiness
[ edited by Loose Deckplate on 2007-10-16 03:30 ]
Loose Deckplate | October 15, 20:24 CET
IrrationaliTV | October 15, 20:31 CET
Doesn't matter, it's a union thing. If it doesn't meet the union's criteria for waiving fees, the actors have to be paid.
Sounds like all involved are at least trying to work out the details, though.
Wm54 | October 15, 20:32 CET
While it's frustrating I don't actually think we have any right to be kept informed. There's a business issue that FOX needs to work out with the various unions (SAG if this article is to be believed) and needs to sort that out. As a viewer I don't see why that allows me to be privy to the ins and outs of contractual disputes.
helcat | October 15, 20:43 CET
Yeah. As more and more of this comes out, it's looking to me like Criterion might turn out to be the actual weak link in this chain -- and not, despite the knee-jerk reaction here and elsewhere, Fox.
[ edited by theonetruebix on 2007-10-16 02:50 ]
@theonetruebix | October 15, 20:45 CET
Haha, sorry, that's just funny. Churches?
mister0 | October 15, 20:47 CET
Loose Deckplate | October 15, 20:49 CET
Anyway, I think it's a case of people not believing that someone would go to a theater, see a TV episode and treat it like the second coming of "Rocky Horror". Once they saw they were really popular, at least enough to get press, they indeed looked into whether all the royalties were paid for. Since Joss knows about this now, I'm sure they'll come up with a plan to keep it going...as along as it includes a clause forbidding the use of the word "Buffyoke".
impalergeneral | October 15, 20:50 CET
Why is that funny? Churches sometimes run film nights and whatnot. Remember, the comment isn't about Buffy specifically, it's about what non-theatrical public performance rights are. It falls perfectly within the non-theatrical license which, apparently, was the only thing Criterion was supposed to be permitting.
ETA, because I'm having a problem with this quote:
This is kind of deceptive (by which I do not mean it was intended that way).
What appears to have happened was that Criterion was issuing licenses for theatrical performances when it wasn't supposed to be doing so. In other words it has nothing to do with the show getting so big it suddenly "became" a theatrical public performance. It always was a theatrical public performance, and apparently Criterion never should have allowed them.
[ edited by theonetruebix on 2007-10-16 03:00 ]
@theonetruebix | October 15, 20:53 CET
I'm not saying that we need to know the details.
I am saying that it would have been considerate if both SAG & Fox had said something to the effect of "Hey, we didn't plan for this. Give us a moment to figure this out so the screenings can continue. We'll let you as soon as possible."
And I'm not saying that the current behaviour surprises me, only that both could've done better by the people with the money.
Loose Deckplate | October 15, 21:00 CET
At the Alamo shows, that's what they call the non-musical bit they do between the lead-in episode and OMWF. They get two people from the audience to perform the Angel and Buffy lines from the "morning after" scene in "Innocence". It's even funnier when they get a guy to do Buffy's lines.
Wm54 | October 15, 21:03 CET
And as a working screen writer, doesn't Joss have to be a member of SAG? That would be some kind of ultimate irony, but also might work to the advantage of sorting this out.
Has everyone signed the petition??
Shey | October 15, 21:07 CET
Why do you say that? It's a specific response from a Fox spokesperson regarding Criterion, McClung, Buffy, and the license agreement. And churches. When I read that, I instantly imagine a congregation on Sunday morning watching Buffy in their church clothes. Heh.
mister0 | October 15, 21:08 CET
Yeah, I don't know about this. Criterion simply must know the difference between theatrical and non-theatrical rights, and which they are allowed by Fox to offer. Either they don't know the difference, or they aren't actually looking at the requests for public performance licenses to make sure they are non-theatrical only.
And as a working screen writer, doesn't Joss have to be a member of SAG?
SAG = Screen Actor's Guild, nothing to do with screenwriting.
Why do you say that?
Because what they are referencing is the form of license all of their material has available via Criterion. It's not just "this is the license we offer for Buffy" -- it's the same for everything they do through Criterion. That was my only point. Heh.
[ edited by theonetruebix on 2007-10-16 03:20 ]
@theonetruebix | October 15, 21:15 CET
It also occurs to me that I am probably expecting Hollywood to act like a normal business. sigh.
Loose Deckplate | October 15, 21:17 CET
Sigh. It's always irritating when journalists foul up little details in a story that could be so easily verified with a minimum of fact-checking. Had the author bothered to take 30 seconds to do a Google search for web pages, news stories or blogs containing the term (total search results = ZERO), he might have known to double-check with his source. Sure, it's a little detail, but sloppiness like that calls the more important details into question, such as the SGA vs. WGA distinction.
Not to mention the fact that people may actually start using that bizarre term as a matter of course.
BrewBunny | October 15, 21:24 CET
BrewBunny | October 15, 21:26 CET
I'm not so naive as to think that those at the top aren't trying to get their pound of flesh out of this. But if SAG is indeed the sticking point, I'm wondering .... how has this been handled re. the Rocky Horror screenings?
And again, has everyone signed the petition? :)
Shey | October 15, 21:37 CET
it comes from an article posted on June 30th from the KING TV website in Seattle. So, it seems to be pretty new.
impalergeneral | October 15, 21:48 CET
dreamlogic | October 15, 21:53 CET
BrewBunny | October 15, 21:55 CET
I guessed I missed that part of the article.
mister0 | October 15, 21:55 CET
BrewBunny | October 15, 21:57 CET
It's just the way this seems to be playing out. Criterion "is a non-theatrical distributor of feature films licensed for public performance in the United States", according to their own website. Non-theatrical is just that: Libraries, private clubs, cruise ships, prisons, churches. For whatever reason, they've apparently been granting public performance licenses to theatrical venues/circumstances. That sure sounds, to me, a lot like there's an issue at Criterion.
Unquestionably, as still more of the story gets told over time, something might crop up to shift who appears to be the weak link in the chain. But what we have so far is pointing to Criterion.
I guessed I missed that part of the article.
The article is misleading. While the Fox spokesman refers to "it" (OMWF), the license he's referring to is your basic non-theatical license, which is the business Criterion is in.
[ edited by theonetruebix on 2007-10-16 04:00 ]
@theonetruebix | October 15, 21:58 CET
I can think of a number of ways a contract between Fox and Criterion could muddy those waters. For example, they might have been authorized to license occasional one-off theatrical showings. Or to license a single venue (whereas the sing-a-longs under discussion might appear to be a wider release). It certainly appears that the use for admission receipts matters since a charity fund-raiser seems to have been acceptable; maybe Criterion thought they were dealing with a non-profit. Without seeing the contract terms, of course, we can't know what might have caused the confusion, if any.
Wm54 | October 15, 22:03 CET
[ edited by Wm54 on 2007-10-16 04:06 ]
Wm54 | October 15, 22:03 CET
So, I had no idea there was any issue with the license, and until this week was not told that it was even a potential issue. Period.
Of course I understand SAG's position (or any other union's), and that everyone should be paid appropriately by the studio, and I agree. I certainly hope that quote about six figures isn't true - because we haven't even come anywhere near that kind of revenue. This isn't a hard-core film release or anything, it's just midnite shows that only play one city at a time. It's been successful, but filling the theatre for two shows a week doesn't really add up to big bucks.
As for "Buffyoke", that's always the phrase MTV has used. We never called it that. I think they just picked it up from the pre-show on-stage acting gag that we do. Did... Choke...
Buffy SingALong | October 15, 22:04 CET
There has to be some way of working this out. I don't begrudge the stars getting residuals, but if the actors' TV residuals are in the small pocket-change amounts for syndicated showings to TV audiences bigger than all the OMWF singalongs combined to date, then how does the SAG come up with a six-figure amount that Fox owes? Sure, there's ticket sales. But TNT sells ad time for BtVS/AtS syndication. Why the huge bill?
deanna b | October 15, 22:10 CET
Technically speaking that's a public performance in a non-theatrical setting. Technically speaking, anything beyond watching the DVD at home is a public performance.
@theonetruebix | October 15, 22:15 CET
My guess is the purpose was to get FOX's attention. If there is nothing in the SAG contract specifically about theatrical showings for TV shows then the whole issue is likely to require quite a bit of wrangling to determine at what level the actors should be compensated.
helcat | October 15, 22:38 CET
dreamlogic | October 15, 22:41 CET
This sort of line continues to confuse me. We're talking here of 20th Century Fox Television, not the FOX television network. It's the latter that has routinely messed with us. The former has generally been fairly supportive.
@theonetruebix | October 15, 22:47 CET
I doubt SAG will ever extract any money out of this for the actors involved, but they may put a stop to the practice, thus protecting the members of their guild for something they should rightly be compensated for.
TV actors are paid their salary and residuals for each and every screening of each episode of the show and possibly an amount for DVD sales. Even if there is a contingency for public showings, clearly the actors weren't being remunerated in this case.
It makes a lot of sense that this situation has arisen because of SAG - it's a much, much more powerful union than the screenwriter's equivalent (WGA).
crossoverman | October 15, 23:03 CET
dreamlogic | October 15, 23:13 CET
cabri | October 15, 23:26 CET
This is a really simplistic view of the world. They may work for NewsCorp. That doesn't mean every body and soul at 20th Century Fox Television is a rabid clone of Rupert Murdoch. It was 20th Century Fox Television that let Joss shop around for a new home for Firefly, for example. They could have stood in his way. There are a number of ways they've been helpful over the years (some known, some not so much).
@theonetruebix | October 15, 23:46 CET
dreamlogic | October 16, 00:21 CET
I don't understand how big business works. I don't really understand how the various corporate divisions of the Fox Entertainment Group fit together and how they fit within the umbrella of NewsCorps. If it's anything like my employer, a huge collection of seperate public service institutions and organisations, often competing with one another, but generally assumed to be one single entity, I can only assume it does not work as a unified whole.
alien lanes | October 16, 01:34 CET
paying Criterion something for the showings.
One question that occurs to me is what is the difference
in price between a Theatrical and Non-Theatrical showing?
Anybody know ?
Secondly who handles theatrical showings for Fox since
it clearly is not Criterion?
[ edited by JDL on 2007-10-16 08:11 ]
JDL | October 16, 02:08 CET
Jesus, not even in jest man, please ? It's too early for images like that ;).
I think that's a good point alien lanes, as soon as we see 'Fox' we're predisposed to thinking the worst (with good reason in the case of the network). Maybe "20th" or "TCF" (or "Twen-Cen Fox", yo ;) would be better for the studio arm ?
And AFAIK, they've always been fairly supportive of Joss' stuff, given it as much of a chance as they realistically can (and he stayed with them through Buffy, Angel and Firefly so must have some time for them) so i've nothing particularly against them personally. That said, obviously they're still a large company so ultimately their bottom line is what matters to them and they never have our best interests front and foremost, s'just the way it is (which is why we're not owed any kind of explanation, even if it'd be nice - and probably even good business - to give us one).
Saje | October 16, 03:39 CET
Simon | October 16, 04:00 CET
20th Century Fox is the good, upstanding brother, who can be wrong but has a general sense of loyalty and some understanding of justice; FOX is the seedier, coke-addled brother who blows off the rest of his family and genuinely doesn't give a shit about anything except for himself and his hot little girlfriend (Nielsen?).
UnpluggedCrazy | October 16, 05:39 CET
I believe we might all stop cheering them if they decided the comic books were making too much money, and they needed to revisit that contract, too.
That probably won't happen (knock on wood), and might be a silly example, but I don't think that the fact that they've tried to maximize their profits off of the TV shows in the past means that we have a relationship with them, as fans, and have to trust them.
And if people want to differentiate good guys and bad guys within the corporate entity, the legal department is doing this stuff. They've probably got little to do with the creative executives that Joss used to work with, if those are even any of the same folks now.
dreamlogic | October 16, 07:01 CET
The video on that page was fabulous and made it all look so damn fun.
missb | October 16, 07:49 CET
And if it turns out that Dark Horse never had the rights to publish the thing it'd be fair. As it is the comics seem on solid ground, with signed contracts with FOX while the singalongs were based on verbal agreements with an intermediary who doesn't actually seem to have had the rights to grant in the first place.
helcat | October 16, 08:11 CET
They are demanding royalties for something they don't own?
They don't own the Buffy characters/performance, Fox does, no?
Almost feels like a MIAA/RIAA deal here where they claim to be
collecting for the talent but the talent never sees the money.
TaraLivesOn | October 16, 08:19 CET
They are demanding royalties for something they don't own?
They don't own the Buffy characters/performance, Fox does, no?"
Well the main actors receive money (residuals) every time an episode is aired on TV (the extras won't and I've no idea about the guest stars but the regulars at least receive residuals) so they do have an ongoing interest. So if they earn for repeat TV showings why should they not also receive money from theatrical showings?
helcat | October 16, 08:40 CET
If the latter, why are SAG charging anyone when they're presumably there only to represent actors with a grievance ?
(genuinely asking BTW, i've no idea myself)
Saje | October 16, 08:45 CET
helcat | October 16, 08:53 CET
And not to further muddy the waters re: Criterion, but they do also do theatrical licensing as well as non-theatrical, and that's not unusual. I worked for a company whose business was primarily non-theatrical showings, but we also handled theatrical bookings, mostly for rep houses that were showing older films. My venue for CSTS has used Criterion to license discs for public showing when he couldn't get film prints in time for his showing.
MaryQue | October 16, 09:04 CET
According to Elaine A. Clark's career guide:
SAG handles all film. AFTRA handles broadcasting, news, soap operas, talk shows, audio tape, video tape, and disc jockeys.
Commercials on film fall under SAG's jurisdiction, while commercials on tape or digital equivalent medium can be under either SAG or AFTRA contract.
So I wonder if the problem may be more than residuals, maybe it's a question of scale and union jurisdiction.
Loose Deckplate | October 16, 09:17 CET
(though for all we know someone might have made a complaint)
Could be, if not SAG are pre-emptively representing their members which makes them a pretty attentive union. Do they do IT ? ;)
Saje | October 16, 09:30 CET
DaddyCatALSO | October 16, 09:38 CET
It's worth keeping in mind that Fox pulled *all* their shows from theaters in response to this, not just Buffy. Now, I do think it's possible that Buffy formed a large percentage of the theatrical showings of Fox shows (which might make the figures a bit high), but we don't really know that. It's also quite possible that Buffy only represents a slightly higher than average percentage (and thus that sort of a bill would make more sense).
seasleepy | October 16, 10:11 CET
And, yeah, I was going to point out that Criterion is not a "non-theatrical" distributor. They handle theatrical and non-theatrical for pretty much all of 20th Century Fox's catalogue product (ie, anything that isn't a new release).
Buffy SingALong | October 16, 10:41 CET
That's odd, since I thought Universal's catalogue has handled by Swank.
@theonetruebix | October 16, 10:49 CET
Doing the actual math (using a ticket price of $15), it looks like a gate of $10k to $15k per showing. This lists 17 sellout cities. So we're talking and estimated $150k to $250k just from the sellouts before expenses (theater rental, whatever they paid Criterion, travel, etc), and the real number could be $100k more than that.
So while these numbers are estimates (doesn't count all cities, just sellouts, doesn't figure the lower ticket prices, etc), it is easily in the six figure range for gross revenue. Net? Maybe not.
heliograph | October 16, 10:57 CET
1) All of the showings so far, not just the upcoming ones.
2) Since this model is so new, they could be operating using a standard that is based on what would be charged on TV. It sounds like a lot of this is unknown territory, so the finer points have never been addressed.
Znachki | October 16, 11:18 CET
I didn't say he got *all* his video licensing through Criterion. The title in question when I visited the theatre was "Young Frankenstein," a Fox film.
MaryQue | October 16, 11:26 CET
Also, the residual model for film could/probably require payments that are much higher than for "TV work" another avenue that could present 20th with a bill that exceeds revenue.
As this is new ground, I would suspect that SAG has used the most actor-favorable interpretations in it's calculations. If there is room for a lot of renegotiation and if it's likely to have long-term new category effects, both sides will be trying to achieve the most favorable position possible.
Loose Deckplate | October 16, 11:47 CET
SAG - Would that be the Sys Admins' Guild?
Imagine, on your next IT project you'd get scale, residuals, and a vote in the Oscars!
How much are the dues?
Loose Deckplate | October 16, 11:54 CET
Buffy SingALong, if you have any sort of written contract with Criterion and you're out of pocket, personally, I'd go and speak to a few lawyers on a discuss-for-free basis.
gossi | October 16, 12:03 CET
@theonetruebix | October 16, 16:57 CET
That quote is not really applicable here. You will notice it specifically mentions commercials. SAG also represents TV actors whose shows are filmed rather than broadcast live or put on video. I have no doubt SAG represents the actors on all the Whedon shows. I am also sure that this has, as a couple people pointed out, everything to do with making sure that actors do not miss out on a piece of the pie if it is going to become common for TV shows to be shown in theaters. SAG and AFTRA are already having to play catch-up to try to get a piece of the DVD sales. SAG will not want to fail to represent their members interests if those DVD's are now going to spawn theatrical showings. Oh, and SAG and AFTRA work together all the time. They have been talking about combining into one union for decades, so would not look to that for the problem.
I also noticed the word "penalties" and figured that was the reason for the amount of money they are looking for. If an employer does not pay the actor what is owes they are liable for penalties to give incentive to employers to play fair from the beginning. In this case I agree that it is probably also a negotiating ploy by the union.
As far as why the union would be demanding the money, they would be speaking on behalf of their members. That way the actors are not in a position of demanding anything from their extremely powerful employers who may never employ them again. The unions will also often be the one to hold a bond big enough to make sure that the actors get paid and/or transported home in case a company folds after it has taken a group of actors to the middle of nowhere. So the demand makes perfect sense.
newcj | October 16, 17:05 CET
No harm, no foul. My theater manager's a nice guy, and during my several visits between last year's CSTS and this year's, we spoke of many things ... including his licensing experiences with Criterion. I was getting an unreasonable quote from the Criterion rep regarding "Firefly" episodes, so I was looking for any advice in dealing with them. We showed "Done the Impossible" instead, which should tell you how that all worked out....
"Serenity," blessedly, was run from a 35mm print supplied by Universal.
MaryQue | October 16, 17:43 CET
I want my church to be first! Our board president is a huge fan of all Jossian things. (We're Unitarian Universalists, where atheists and pagans are common.) OMWF could play in UU churches across the country! Our Wiccans could give classes. Our vampires could... wait, we don't actually have vampires.
Suzie | October 16, 19:13 CET
Are you really sure about the vampires? Cause there are these rings that allow them to move about in daylight. And they could just be real careful about what they touch in a church. Remember that guy on The Office. He was able to still be out in daylight.
[ edited by Anonymous1 on 2007-10-17 02:25 ]
Anonymous1 | October 16, 20:23 CET
That the Whedon actors are under SAG is news to me and good to know. Is this the case for all of the shows? The whole catalog was pulled. (I don't know. I live far away from Hollywood) If 20th's TV actors are usually under SAG, then great it removes a possible issue. It did not occur to me, nor did I mean to imply a turf war between the two unions.
The why of the union demanding money wasn't my point, the how (much) was. If there are no specific rules for this (I don't know) then it's new ground. The union will want to set precedent, create new rules, and maximize the members' position. The studio will to try to do the same for itself. While that is an issue between themselves, it could mean additional delay for us, the fans.
Loose Deckplate | October 16, 21:20 CET
electricspacegirl | October 16, 22:25 CET
Eric G | October 17, 00:11 CET
Huh?!? Condescending? Sorry, I was just trying to be informative and not let us end up following a red herring into union territorial disputes. This was especially true because the territory of SAG vs. AFTRA is confusing even to actors. That is why there are documents like the one you quoted. As I said, the difference used to be live/video vs. film, but with digital I'm not sure how the unions are splitting the pie these days as I have been away from it for a while. I am pretty sure AFTRA still represents newscasters and such, I don't know if they have anyone else on TV anymore.
The rest of the post had to do with other things said by other people on the thread.
newcj | October 17, 06:24 CET
Suzie | October 17, 19:59 CET