Yes, they had to strike

I am a SAG AFTRA-, WGA-franchised agent.

I represent 38 clients. Only five of those clients make the required $26,500 needed to get health insurance. Why is that? Because the old residual model provided a way for non-stars to make a living and feed their families. In the advent of streaming, actors collect checks of $50, $20, $10, $1 and two bloody cents. All the while the CEOs are making millions. In the network residual model, a day player would make the scale payment of about $1,000 and then when it re-aired the actor got another $1,000. Uh, that’s a huge difference. Compare $1,000 and $50 or les.  For the artists, residuals have decreased every year and the AMPTP wants to use AI to scan extra actors and use their image again and again without payment. Yes, they had to strike and will win. The question is how much industry revenue will California lose, how many actors and writers will lose their homes and apartments?

— Liz Raci, Burbank

Striking writers and actors

I think that both sides, writers, actors and management should talk 24/7 to reach an agreement. The longer all this lasts the more damage is done to everybody.

— Richard Metzger, Porter Ranch

I’m with the writers’ and actors’ strike all the way

Strike action is a legitimate move on the part of actors and writers to protect their profession. Historically, powerful union groups and studio executives have been at odds over technology advances in the entertainment industry. AI technology poses a threat to most studio actors and writers. About 90% of union employees will be affected, rather than the celebrities who can buy multimillion-dollar houses.

— Stephen Lucas, Van Nuys

Who really cares?

These guys have been well-paid for years; now times are changing. Let’s be honest; TV shows have been going down the tubes for years and as for the movies they are few and far between. With all the apps available and YouTube these guys can stay out forever and they won’t be missed.

— Paul Spencer, Huntington Beach