218
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
218 points (97.8% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
17 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He’s not an actor and he’d already had this job. It would’ve been cool if he joined the strike but it’s not something to hold against him, either
Is it really nothing to hold against him though, when the person he's replacing did join the strike?
The person he’s replacing is a member of SAG AFTRA (and maybe also WGA?) and he’d already been hired as her replacement. She’s not going on sympathy strike.
I...don't see how that changes anything I said. It still sounds like Jennings is replacing someone who is striking.
A scab is hired to replace someone who is striking. He had previously (as in years) been hired to replace Bialik when she was unavailable. Due to her commitments to the strike, she is unavailable. He, not being a member of the WGA or SAG, has no commitments to the strike, but does have commitments to his contract, which states he is to replace Bialik when she is unavailable. Does that make sense?
So Jennings had a clause to replace Bialiik, and it's being used to make them scab?
Sounds very scummy on the network's part.
It's not scabbing if it's already your job. He's not being hired to replace her, he already works for them.
Edit: Yes, it's still scummy on the network's part, but that's no surprise.
She's literally an actor and thus a member of the union that is striking. He is neither.
The important part is that he is already an employee there who does this job already, while not being union. If he wasn’t and he was hired to do the job because he’s not union he would be a scab.
Why is Jennings not part of SAG? I find it hard to believe the union is cool with a host not being a member unless they don't care about game show hosts in general, which is on them.
If an accountant leaves his profession to become a commercial pilot, does he get a pass to fly when the rest of the pilots go on strike?
Hosting a TV show is totally an acting gig and I absolutely hold it against those who side with management during a strike.
Granted I already dislike him for additional reasons, but even if I didn't hate him already I'd be disappointed by this move.
Not according to the union's own rules, it's not. You can have your reasons for disliking him, but at least base them in facts.
At any rate, this dumb argument is a distraction from the real enemy, which is greedy fucking studio execs who so all be run out on a rail. They could end this strike tomorrow without being a penny poorer for it.
I'm not in SAG and not bound by their rules on what to consider actors.
I'm saying a host "is an actor" in the same sense Rob Gordon says bass guitar and lead guitar are the same job.
You mean they're all performers?
I mean they should show eachother solidarity.
"Ken is an actor" in that being a presenter is not different enough a job for this fight not to be his profession's fight.
I mean I’m pretty sure SAG directly disagrees with you about that as they don’t cover presenters.
It would be nice if they would open their doors more but they won’t even cover wrestlers.
I never said dude was in the same union. I said he should be showing showbiz solidarity.
You said you considered him an actor - the union that is striking does not. That seems pretty obviously relevant.
Does that extend to the gaffers and everyone else who would get fired? I don’t really think you understand the details of this. Hollywood unions have done a very good job of insulating themselves from retaliation after strikes - everyone has to do it so it’s pretty hard to hold striking against anyone. Plus whatever is baked into contracts. Jennings would be striking alone, unprotected. It’s kind of weird that people are holding him to this when the union isn’t.
Yes, in a broad sense. The fact he's not in SAG doesn't make presenters, actors, improv performers, hosts, stand-up comics any less all the same cloth—any more than the existence of non-union actors.
I'm calling it a dick move to not show solidarity, not a violation of a specific union contract.
Mayim Bialik chose not to present questions while the question writers were striking and Ken Jennings could have done so too.
I judge him for that choice.
But then it sounds like he could easily be retaliated against by the network since he isn't part of the union and not being covered by it's protection. I don't think I can fault him for that.
Had my opinion on his character already not been colored by his past actions I may be more inclined to accept that explanation.
I went into this with the view that he's a dick already.
So even if I didn't believe solidarity was even more important in the face of potential reprisal I wouldn't be very inclined to charitably read any of his actions.
It is two things: