SAG-AFTRA Voice Actors Now on Strike Against a Number of Game Companies

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

A year ago, Wil Wheaton wrote this article a year ago when SAG-AFTRA was holding a vote on whether or not to give the union authority to strike.

Something seriously sketchy, besides the mo-cap work without a stunt coordinator: "Our employers want to be able to fine the union $50,000-$100,000 if your franchised agent doesn?t send you out on certain auditions (like Atmospheric Voices or One Hour One Voice sessions)?"

Wanting to fine the union if agents don't send actors out to auditions.

"If your agent chooses not to submit you for certain auditions, our employers want to put into our contract language forcing SAG-AFTRA to revoke your agent?s union franchise. This would mean that your agency would not be able to send you out on any union jobs, including those in animation, TV/film, commercials, etc."

Publishers wanting SAG to cut off agents and actors from all union jobs if they decline auditioning for certain parts? What the ever living fuck.

Yeah, that's pretty shitty and it really shows the inflated sense of worth the gaming industry had. That's essentially asking for the infamous Blacklist back in the early days of Hollywood which was a disgusting practice that is one of the most shameful things the film industry ever engaged in.

 

[Fox12]

A year ago, Wil Wheaton wrote this article a year ago when SAG-AFTRA was holding a vote on whether or not to give the union authority to strike.

Something seriously sketchy, besides the mo-cap work without a stunt coordinator: "Our employers want to be able to fine the union $50,000-$100,000 if your franchised agent doesn?t send you out on certain auditions (like Atmospheric Voices or One Hour One Voice sessions)?"

Wanting to fine the union if agents don't send actors out to auditions.

"If your agent chooses not to submit you for certain auditions, our employers want to put into our contract language forcing SAG-AFTRA to revoke your agent?s union franchise. This would mean that your agency would not be able to send you out on any union jobs, including those in animation, TV/film, commercials, etc."

Publishers wanting SAG to cut off agents and actors from all union jobs if they decline auditioning for certain parts? What the ever living fuck.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Did he ever specify who the employer was? I wouldn't put it past EA and their ilk.

This reminds me of back when GTA IV came out and the guys who played Nico and Roman raised a bit of a stink over the lack of residuals, despite starring in what was the biggest entertainment release of that year. I can sort of sympathise; GTA IV came out around the same time as Iron Man, and there was a bit of buzz at the time that it might actually overshadow it. But the dude on the poster for Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr., made millions off it and kept making millions, while the dude on the poster for GTA IV, or rather his voice actor, was paid for his initial work (I imagine standard by-the-session rates) and then kind of faded into obscurity. With cases like that, it's no wonder voice actors would argue for more money.

If VA's want movie star money/fame then they are in the wrong business. The fact of the matter is that they are not an essential part of the process. Directors, authors, and big film stars get residuals in film because they have leverage.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

A year ago, Wil Wheaton wrote this article a year ago when SAG-AFTRA was holding a vote on whether or not to give the union authority to strike.

Something seriously sketchy, besides the mo-cap work without a stunt coordinator: "Our employers want to be able to fine the union $50,000-$100,000 if your franchised agent doesn?t send you out on certain auditions (like Atmospheric Voices or One Hour One Voice sessions)?"

Wanting to fine the union if agents don't send actors out to auditions.

"If your agent chooses not to submit you for certain auditions, our employers want to put into our contract language forcing SAG-AFTRA to revoke your agent?s union franchise. This would mean that your agency would not be able to send you out on any union jobs, including those in animation, TV/film, commercials, etc."

Publishers wanting SAG to cut off agents and actors from all union jobs if they decline auditioning for certain parts? What the ever living fuck.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Did he ever specify who the employer was? I wouldn't put it past EA and their ilk.

Presumably the "coalition of Interactive Video Game Publishing Companies" whos statement on the strike was the only one linked to in the OP. The coalition presumably consists of the publishers and voice acting companies SAG-AFTRA is striking against, also listed in the OP.

 

[hermes]

Yeah... no. Pretty much everybody else on the development side deserves royalty before voice actor do. People play game for the gameplay, the story, the competition or the graphic. Very few people play because they heard the game had awesome voice acting, the only game I can think of that could sell itself with that is Bastion and that's a small indie title. VA can just go at the back of the queue, or not, if they strike they'll just be replaced by somebody else, since, again, there pretty expendable.

That is a pretty lousy position to stand on. As a developer, I can tell you: developers deserve royalties, true; but it is not their guild fight to defend the rights of every single person wronged in the development of a game, nor should they wait for every single injustice committed to every single party that might deserve it more is resolved before voicing their concerns. If developers want change to happen on their front, their guilt should be the one to push it (and then, maybe, the SAG could support them, but we can't expect others to start fighting for us).

If any kind of social change worked that way, people from the black suffrage would still be waiting for women suffrage to be resolved, who would still be waiting for the release of slaves...

 

[ecoho]

this is the problem with unions if the bad members get paid less because they are well bad then the good ones have to be paid the same or they have to pay the bad ones as much as the good ones. Personally I think VA like Jennifer hale and David Hayter would do better without the union as they would be judged on theyre sole acting ability and as such get massive paydays. I honestly don't know if any of the good VA involved with this are truly wanting this as Union strikes tend to be because the low end of the pool is getting paid what theyre worth and don't like it. Oh well this just means well get new VA talent and the union will fold when its biggest members withdraw from it after their contracts with the union come up and they are making less money while being in the union.