Yeah right. This is one entertainment arena where an actor, wether its an A lister or a Z lister, has zero power. If the video games power that be have any brains, they will give a collective finger to the Screen Actors Guild and tell them to shove their strike (re: greed) where the sun don't shine.
I am just getting sick and tired of the already rich attempting to use their power to get even more money without having to earn it. They signed a contract for X amount to do Y work. If they didn't like the pay, they should have agreed to do the work. Its that fucking simple. I know I don't like what I get paid and I have the option to quit for that reason (of course unlike the rich, that would be disasterous). Just because after the fact they decided maybe they didn't get such a good deal doesn't mean they should be able to force it on others. Again, I am sure there are many many workers who wished they negotiated a higher pay scale but again thats life. Quit and move on, or in this case, don't sign the damn contract.
This strikes smells of the same stink that swirls around the Baseball and Hockey strikes. Its all about the greed for the already stinky rich. "To deny working-class performers their fair share of the tremendous profits their labor helps to generate is illogical, unreasonable and unjust," John Connolly, president of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists said recently. We all know damn well this has nothing to do with the working class. Its about the A listers who get a pile of dough for a few hours of work and decided they wanted more. Hell, just like baseball, even those poor "working class" slobs are getting an obscene amount of money, $278 an HOUR, in fact. I would love to get that much money in an hour. Hell for me to make that much, I have to work about 20 hours. My 20 hours of dealing with asshats on the phone for one hour of them speaking into a mike from a script. Give me a break.
Yeah, yeah some sympathetic fool will say "but they have no insurance and don't have regualer 40 hour a week jobs." My response is "so?" They made that choice. They went to explore a dream or whatever and if they can't make enough to live off of it, tough shit. Just like businessman who are forced to end their dreams and close up shop, may these actors need to do the same if can't make enough to live off of. Its their choice that put them in that situation, its not up to others to bail them out for no damn good reason. Again, they don't like the pay, don't sign the contract. Its all about choice people.
Fortunatly, video game companies have a choice. Which is truly give them the finger. After all about the ONLY reason voice acting matters is in games based off of movies. That the studio's choice to do that in attempt to get more tickets and DVDs sold. Video gamers will not miss them if not made, video game producers probably don't need to add those dogs to their repuation. I am sure most would agree that if, because of the strike, a game based on a movie, never had voices in it again, we all wouldn't care one damn bit.
"They have no leverage," Yankee Group analyst Mike Goodman said of the voice actors.
"In 99 percent of all games, the voice actors are irrelevant. You replace one voice actor with another nonunion actor and no one will know the difference." Really, if need more voices to continue the give crappy performances, bad line readings, etc, I am sure its easy to find any shmoe on the street that is just happy for the privilage. There are a legion of gamers out there who would probably "act" not only better, but do it for free, just to have their name in the end credits. Maybe explore that option rather then give into these greedy fools.
John Connolly, president of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists said recently. "It is simply shortsighted to believe that consumers don't care about the artistic quality of the characters." Quality is good, we want it, but really how often is there any quality in the voice "acting"? Most of the time its leaden readings that a 6 year old could do better, or worse, its crap taken right out of the movie without even needing the actor to "work" that day. No what that guild needs to understand, and video companies need to hammer home, is that they need video games far far far more then video games need them. At the very least if video game companies going to give in (as I am sure they will), at least make them work for it, force them to give a performance, to "work" for that obscene amount of money, rather then the crap gamers have been getting for over a decade.
Finally, what about the creators, designers, coders, producers, managers, etc of all the people that helped create the game. What about them? Apparently to the Screen Actors Guild they are nothing. Not only not relevant, but having nothing to do with the success of a game. Apparently in their world, a game's success is 99% voice acting and 1% design. That too is a reason to not give in. If they yield to a bunch of greedy actors, then suddenly everyone else that had a stake in the game will also want their share of the pie. That alone should make the companies give the finger to em.
No comments:
Post a Comment