|
Post by blef on Dec 29, 2008 17:53:12 GMT -5
What about strikes? If actors go on strike then no wrestling. I dont like that. For the time being - due to the economy - no one is striking. There was supposed to be a SAG strike early next year, but that is not happening because of how it would affect the rest of Hollywood in this economy.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Dec 29, 2008 17:57:44 GMT -5
But wrestlers ARE stuntmen of a higher calibur. Have you ever watched an amazing fight sequence in a movie? Chances are you have. Do you mean to tell me that those two (or more) stunt fighters are somehow different than pro wrestlers in a sense of having to have perfect timing, work well together, and know how to make things look real without actually damaging one another? Pro wrestling merely ups the ante by performing live and having to get everything right in one take. Other than that, it's exactly the same. Stuntmen get injured all the time just like pro-wrestlers. I think in trying to say wrestlers are insulted by being called stuntmen is disrespectful to all the training and hard work Hollywood stuntmen have put in to get to where they are. Real stuntmen are not people like that idiot Steve-O. Stuntmen are people who put in so much disciplined effort to pull off amazing spectacles to wow audiences. Sound familiar? Major kudos for this post. I was just about to say the same thing. I agree. I hate how some people in the pro wrestling community try to devalue stunt work when it so similar to what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 29, 2008 17:59:17 GMT -5
I have wonder for awhile now how SAG or the Stunt Actors haven't tried to get wrestlers to join. With all the out of the ring crap WWE has them do at times you would think they would fit in to either one.
Wouldn't guys like Piper, Hogan and, Austin have had/or currently have memberships thanks to their screen work? Also Helms and Kanyon were stuntmen in Ready To Rumble and I would think the Stunt Actors Guild would have thrown a massive fit if they weren't member before or joined after filming.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,038
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 29, 2008 18:01:39 GMT -5
I have wonder for awhile now how SAG or the Stunt Actors haven't tried to get wrestlers to join. With all the out of the ring crap WWE has them do at times you would think they would fit in to either one. Wouldn't guys like Piper, Hogan and, Austin have had/or currently have memberships thanks to their screen work? Also Helms and Kanyon were stuntmen in Ready To Rumble and I would think the Stunt Actors Guild would have thrown a massive fit if they weren't member before or joined after filming. You underestimate their arrogance.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 29, 2008 18:02:46 GMT -5
I have wonder for awhile now how SAG or the Stunt Actors haven't tried to get wrestlers to join. With all the out of the ring crap WWE has them do at times you would think they would fit in to either one. Wouldn't guys like Piper, Hogan and, Austin have had/or currently have memberships thanks to their screen work? Also Helms and Kanyon were stuntmen in Ready To Rumble and I would think the Stunt Actors Guild would have thrown a massive fit if they weren't member before or joined after filming. You underestimate their arrogance. Maybe, I would think the added money from more members would trump that though.
|
|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Dec 29, 2008 18:10:06 GMT -5
Good God, what an absurd comment. I just figured he copy pasted a TNA thread comment on Lance Storm. "He don't know what he thinks!" sort of deal. Did my comment just get compared to Lance Storm's remarks? If so, I feel I accomplished something and will be taking it as a compliment. In all seriousness....while unionizing wrestling has obvious benefits to the performers it also could not be set up in an entirely fair way. It has negatives to it as well. Wrestling has lasted this long without being unionized...I don't see why a change needs to be made now.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Dec 29, 2008 18:15:25 GMT -5
I just figured he copy pasted a TNA thread comment on Lance Storm. "He don't know what he thinks!" sort of deal. Did my comment just get compared to Lance Storm's remarks? If so, I feel I accomplished something and will be taking it as a compliment. In all seriousness....while unionizing wrestling has obvious benefits to the performers it also could not be set up in an entirely fair way. It has negatives to it as well. Wrestling has lasted this long without being unionized...I don't see why a change needs to be made now. Because about 5% of the old timers say Vince is a big meanie, that's why!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 29, 2008 18:33:15 GMT -5
This is the most ingnorant thing I've ever heard. Hasn't wrestling fought it's entire existence agiainst this STUPID misconception? But wrestlers ARE stuntmen of a higher calibur. Have you ever watched an amazing fight sequence in a movie? Chances are you have. Do you mean to tell me that those two (or more) stunt fighters are somehow different than pro wrestlers in a sense of having to have perfect timing, work well together, and know how to make things look real without actually damaging one another? Pro wrestling merely ups the ante by performing live and having to get everything right in one take. Other than that, it's exactly the same. Stuntmen get injured all the time just like pro-wrestlers. I think in trying to say wrestlers are insulted by being called stuntmen is disrespectful to all the training and hard work Hollywood stuntmen have put in to get to where they are. Real stuntmen are not people like that idiot Steve-O. Stuntmen are people who put in so much disciplined effort to pull off amazing spectacles to wow audiences. Sound familiar? Jerry Lynn talked about being a stunt man in a movie, and how he suggested wrestlers go into doing stunt work. They have mats. Thick mats. And not only do they have thick mats, but they are given a completely script on how to wrestle. I'm guessing that's why wrestlers maybe fighting the idea that they are completely stunt men, because there's much too it. They're magicians, cherographers, producers, directors, stuntmen, and actors/actresses all rolled up into one. A lot not good actors, but hey, actors none the less.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,894
|
Post by Sephiroth on Dec 30, 2008 1:11:36 GMT -5
You know, I've actually long thought that WWE should add some acting classes to its training camps. It might actually help improve the mic work of some up and coming performers. I developed this idea when I considered that Mick Foley-who is one of the greatest stick men of all time-pretty much applied method acting to his characters. He made Cactus Jack and Dude Love and Mankind and storylines like the ECW heel turn and his feuds with The Rock and Triple H work so well because he had such an intense psychology about it. He didn't just stand with a microphone and talk, he really performed and tried to get his point across. Look at guys like Kane or Santino or Golddust-they make those characters work so well because they inside the character's head and think his thoughts. There is some acting going on there. So maybe WWE should have some acting coaches added to their veteran wrestlers to help train the new talent.
|
|
|
Post by blef on Dec 30, 2008 10:53:32 GMT -5
Did my comment just get compared to Lance Storm's remarks? If so, I feel I accomplished something and will be taking it as a compliment. In all seriousness....while unionizing wrestling has obvious benefits to the performers it also could not be set up in an entirely fair way. It has negatives to it as well. Wrestling has lasted this long without being unionized...I don't see why a change needs to be made now. Because about 5% of the old timers say Vince is a big meanie, that's why! .....that's because 95% of the old timers are dead.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Dec 30, 2008 11:14:26 GMT -5
Huh. I had never thought of that, in regards to SAG. Interesting take.
Personally, it's a little tough to swallow, since they're more athletic than most, but it is an unconsidered path. As long as there was a middle ground that could protect wrestlers' health, and wouldn't put indies out of business, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by sexualvanilla on Dec 30, 2008 13:05:58 GMT -5
Wasn't Mick Foley part of SAG? He mentions getting a SAG membership in his 2nd book but never heard anything after that
|
|
|
Post by Muskrat on Dec 30, 2008 13:16:54 GMT -5
Wasn't Mick Foley part of SAG? He mentions getting a SAG membership in his 2nd book but never heard anything after that I was just gonna mention that. In his 2nd book Foley said the biggest reason he did that appearance on G vs E was that he was able to get his SAG card after that. Side not, if I'm not mistaken isn't WWE films done without any SAG, WGA, DGA members? Because I think that gives a pretty good idea of McMahon's feeling on those
|
|
|
Post by Sumbody Gon' Get Dey Kneelift on Dec 30, 2008 13:30:18 GMT -5
This is the most ingnorant thing I've ever heard. Hasn't wrestling fought it's entire existence agiainst this STUPID misconception? They're stuntmen/actors/performers. That's like TRIPLE SAG.
|
|
|
Post by Sumbody Gon' Get Dey Kneelift on Dec 30, 2008 13:32:23 GMT -5
I have wonder for awhile now how SAG or the Stunt Actors haven't tried to get wrestlers to join. With all the out of the ring crap WWE has them do at times you would think they would fit in to either one. Wouldn't guys like Piper, Hogan and, Austin have had/or currently have memberships thanks to their screen work? Also Helms and Kanyon were stuntmen in Ready To Rumble and I would think the Stunt Actors Guild would have thrown a massive fit if they weren't member before or joined after filming. You underestimate their arrogance. And you wildly overestimate it. Even extras with a single line will get in if they're in any kind of major production.
|
|
h
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,734
|
Post by h on Dec 30, 2008 14:15:36 GMT -5
McMahon: These people are actors, not wrestlers. SAG: Then they should be unionized. McMahon: No, they shouldn't. They're wrestlers, not actors. Government: Then you should pay taxes. McMahon: No, I shouldn't. This is acting, not wrestling. SAG: Then they should be unionized. McMahon: I thought we agreed that they're wrestlers, not actors...
And so on and so forth, like a terrible version of Abbott and Costello. How absurdly arrogant. And how anyone can defend both sides of his argument (or, more accurately, both of his arguments, since they're self-contradicting) is beyond me. But then again, this is also the man who brought you:
McMahon: You work for me! You have no freedom to work elsewhere. Wrestlers: Can we get health benefits, then? McMahon: No, I'm not your employer. You're independent contractors. Wrestlers: So, can we work for other companies as well? McMahon: No, you work for me. Wrestlers: How about some health benefits, then? McMahon: From who? Me? I'm not your employer!
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 30, 2008 15:21:55 GMT -5
You underestimate their arrogance. And you wildly overestimate it. Even extras with a single line will get in if they're in any kind of major production. I thought the requirement was that they had to have at least one line in a union production or something like that? I think it's an interesting concept, but there are so many other factors at play. First off, would SAG want to include wrestlers to health plans, where they risk jumping up the costs because wrestlers are sure losses to insurance companies? Would wrestlers even want to join? Since it would require, per bylaw, that they can only work on projects associated with SAG, they couldn't work anywhere that doesn't have that agreement, including WWE and any Indy's that would likely not make those arrangements. If they were to include wrestlers, would wrestling promotions suddenly be required to enter these negotiations? If yes, it could be a major strike against indy promotions, because if anyone is successful enough to enter WWE and become SAG, they can't accept bookings from most indy promotions, who likely wouldn't have an agreement since most indy performers probably couldnt' afford the dues and most indy promoters couldn't afford the benefits. If not, what's the point? They wouldn't be raking up salary in SAG productions, thus wouldn't be eligible for the benefits, if I understand the guild's rules right. Thus all that really happens would be the potential hit on the SAG's health plan since wrestlers would suddenly be eligible. The SAG has power that virtually no other union has, the kind that any other union would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for. Neither side may deem it in their best interest to join each other. That's why I don't think this is likely at all to happen. The wrestling industry just doesn't seem suited to the strict rules that SAG has. If wrestling was to join them, they'd probably have to write a set of rules specifically for it, which doesn't seem likely.
|
|
|
Post by TRUTH TELLER on Dec 30, 2008 19:09:19 GMT -5
McMahon: These people are actors, not wrestlers. SAG: Then they should be unionized. McMahon: No, they shouldn't. They're wrestlers, not actors. Government: Then you should pay taxes. McMahon: No, I shouldn't. This is acting, not wrestling. SAG: Then they should be unionized. McMahon: I thought we agreed that they're wrestlers, not actors... And so on and so forth, like a terrible version of Abbott and Costello. How absurdly arrogant. And how anyone can defend both sides of his argument (or, more accurately, both of his arguments, since they're self-contradicting) is beyond me. But then again, this is also the man who brought you: McMahon: You work for me! You have no freedom to work elsewhere. Wrestlers: Can we get health benefits, then? McMahon: No, I'm not your employer. You're independent contractors. Wrestlers: So, can we work for other companies as well? McMahon: No, you work for me. Wrestlers: How about some health benefits, then? McMahon: From who? Me? I'm not your employer! Holy Crap, you are to be commended. With a bit of sarcasm you managed to produce the best and most extensive argument I've ever seen against Vince's wishy-washy B.S. stance on what wrestlers really are. After reading this, a person would have to be kind of half retarded to side with Vince. He cannot have it both ways. One day, someone will force him to choose.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 30, 2008 19:13:42 GMT -5
I remember Raven is part of SAG now.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,038
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 30, 2008 20:09:50 GMT -5
You underestimate their arrogance. And you wildly overestimate it. Even extras with a single line will get in if they're in any kind of major production. But they're still actors. Actors don't likely want to be lumped in with anyone else, or porn actors would be able to be in SAG. Don't they act too? Hell, most do their own stunts.
|
|