Audio Edition – October 18th 2005

It’s that time of the evening… the blessed time for THe Audio Edition!

Today Doug and I talk a bunch about the upcoming Transformers film and a recent roundtable discussion the writers of the project shared… actually we talk a LOT about the transformers in this one. We also touch on the recent comments by Pierce Brosnan about the new casting for James Bond, some of my favorite podcasts that I enjoy listening to, the philosophical discussion about it actors should be paid residuals or not and a few things more.

You can download this installment of The Audio Edition here

To subscribe to the podcast of The Audio Edition on iTunes copy this link and then paste it into iTunes-Advanced-Subscribe to Podcast.

SHOW NOTES: ** This is important. The Audio Edition is meant to be conversational… and it’s your turn to be involved in that conversation. Use the comments section of The Audio Editions to post YOUR show notes. Thoughts you had about the topics… interesting links to things related to the topics. Share your thoughts and links with the rest of us to keep the conversation going. The “show notes” are now yours to write!**

Comment with Facebook

7 thoughts on “Audio Edition – October 18th 2005

  1. Hey Trysop…

    Yes… actors are artists… but the movie is not theirs. A painter paints a masterpiece… and it’s HIS work. He didn’t have one person do the blue strokes… one do the red storkes and another paint all the black.

    Actors are just one small part of films. They didn’t write the story… they didn’t direct it… Actors didn’t do the special effects… Actors didn’t film the shots… Actors didn’t build the sets… Actors didn’t get the funds together to do the project… Actors didn’t light the scenes…

    If a movie is a work of “art”… then you can’t equate the hired hands known as actors to the Painter. The Painter is the director. Or maybe the screen writer… and a thousand other people who work on a film and contribute to it’s making.

    Should they all get royalties to the movie too? If not… why not?

    Cheers.

  2. JohnIan is SPOT ON. Actors are ARTISTS. What about authors, painter and designers??? Do they not deserve to make money off each copy sold? I don’t think you’re looking at movies as an artform, John – it’s not just a product.

  3. AAAHHHH Man I can’t wait for this movie, brings back some fantastic memories.

    Oh and guys thanks for reminding about the status grids on the back of the transformer boxes….the things you forget that once were so important :(

    Was I the only one that had the problem when rubbing the transfer of the face to reveal if it was autobot or decpticon that it slides of the toy…..Darn glue!

  4. I agree with Doug that Starscream is one of the big three, but unfortunately he won’t be appearing. Chris Latta, who did the voice, died of a cerebral hemorrhage back in 1994 at the age of only 45.

    So no more Starscream. No more Cobra Commander either. : (

  5. Soundwave the iPod!!! Think of the toy, an iPod that turns into a robot but also plays music!

    Seriously, I’m not sure how they’re going to pull off Soundwave, if they’re doing everything to scale (why Megatron has to be a tank). Even if he’s Steven Spielberg’s home theater system, he’ll still make a rather puny killer robot.

  6. Al right.

    Here’s the deal.

    In the days of old, a thespian would sign a contract or agree by handshake to play such-and-such a role. That part would be exclusive to that venue or tour depending on how successful the play is. When it is time, be it age, injury, backstage conflicts or boredom that actor would leave that role; someone new replaces him/her. People might ponder about the last person in that character, but that’s about it.

    Today. A thespian signs a contract to play such-and-such a role for movie/TV production. His/her image is recorded. The actor gets paid. But that image is now selling that product (to infinity), the world at large now connects that image to that movie/TV production. An icon. Millions are made, based on that icon, that image.

    Studios make tons of money based on the sold rights to a person’s appearance, prohibiting that person from selling items that bear his/her picture in any shape or form related that icon. In effect, the actor no longer own’s his/her form. Something so unique from birth is now lost, raped if you will. It’s studio owned.

    In the same way someone buys a web domain for five dollars and makes tons of money off that name. Lets say Mr.T-Stories.com. What once was a family friendly site is now a gay porn fiction local. Huge amount money is generated from that site. Legally Mr. T is screwed, he sold that domain. The new owners can do whatever they want.

    Lets get something very straight. Studios are evil. They lie. They cheat. They steal. If they can get away with it, they will. They make tons of money off actors image’s (tee-shirts, mugs, poster, ect), but without residuals, thespians would be screwed more over than they already are. And it’s not as much as you expect. I remember watching “Entertainment Tonight” some years back, an actor talking about his residual check (from a TV show in syndication), $5.00. Well, buy me Porsche.

    While it is true that now contracts included reruns and DVDs, this is somewhat new. It didn’t used to be like this, actors had to fight for this ability. While not movie industry – same deal. I remember the story of Sting. He didn’t think his record company was being truthful about his books. He asked nicely to see his own bookkeeping, they said no. Sting ended up suing his label to see his HIS OWN records. Yeah. As I wrote, they lie. They cheat. They steal. It’s imporant for actors whose images MAKE money to have some kind of crumbs from their likeness. You want to become a movie star, but want to retain your soul. Apple was wrong not consulting first.

    As for you Q John. Other tradesmen (and women) are interchangable to that job, very “Metropolis” in nature. Their image isn’t an avatar to that role. Actor’s are. Simple as that.

Leave a Reply