How is this even an argument? Actors are often presented with multiple contracts when working in film/television/commercials, they can either opt for the full upfront salary or the they can opt for a reduced payment but with added royalties.

It's not ridiculous, not every actor makes it big so they take residuals for every gig(even the big ones) because they never know if they will get major roles again due to typecasting, or whatever reason. Take Tony Todd for example, a brilliant theatre trained actor, who on rare occasions has been allowed to showcase his acting abilities, but has been typecast and now has to rely on residuals from his major work(candy man movies) and money for guest roles and voice acting roles, which isn't that much, and has to last the actor a couple months and support their family. Tom Wilson has to rely on his royalties from bttf because he has a family, it doesn't mean he can't hate the movies that made and killed his career. Luckily he was in a major movie last year called The Heat.

It's called having gratitude for the people who made you rich and famous
www.jmberman.com
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas

How is it hypocritical for him to accept payment for his work and not give you something you'll sell to make money from his work? He doesn't owe you anything. What the beep is with people thinking this guy owes them autographs?

He sounds like a real Butthead to me!

You are an idiot.
Because someone else wasn't (in your baseless opinion) paid adequately, it means the actors also shouldn't be paid adequately? That's your solution?
Moron.
Actors are OVERPAID. Nobody on earth deserves $20M a pop for standing in front of a camera and reciting dialogue that someone else wrote, for 12 hours a day, a few months a year. That's just ridiculous. Residuals are crap too. The only people who should get residuals are the studio and the distributor. The cast and crew were paid way back when. They don't need to continue getting money for something they did years ago.
Tell me, are the families of the workers who built the Hoover Dam getting a percentage of the profits made from people visiting the dam and taking the tour?
Are the relatives of the architects who build the Empire State Building getting a kickback for every office that sets up in there? How about the families of the people who built the Brooklyn Bridge or the Golden Gate Bridge? Do they get money every time someone crosses?
Therefore, why the hell should someone continue to get money for something they already did and got paid for?
beep Hollywood!

You are an idiot.
Because someone else wasn't (in your baseless opinion) paid adequately, it means the actors also shouldn't be paid adequately? That's your solution?
Moron.

People like YOU are the reason salaries suck these days.

You probably haven't heard about this, but during the Oscars this year, there was an outcry of people wanting some respect thrown the way of the special effects artists, hence a lot of people put an image of a green screen as their Facebook profile pic in recognition. This is because the FX departments on these movies are getting ripped off. They're being underpaid to create the graphics and animation that becomes mindless eye-candy in all the aimless blockbusters coming out these days. These movies make a mint, but how much do you think the FX people get? Barely a fraction.
I take it you're a member of the 1%? That seems to be your mode of thinking.

They should be left out. There are hundreds of different people that could have operated the cameras or built the sets. But there is only one author and on person per role that made it successful. That's why they deserve the checks afterwards.
I think I am taking all of this rather well.

Probably, but those things are different from a movie. A novel is written by one person, sometimes two, then it gets published, then it gets sold in stores. The store, the publisher AND the writer profit. Same with the cure for cancer. If one person creates it, then gets it mass produced, b68then sold in drug stores, all of the above profit. In the case of a movie, it involves numerous people with numerous pieces of equipment. In addition to movie theaters, video stores and production companies profiting, so do the principal actors, the director, producers and writers do too, but what about the people who operated the equipment that made the movie? They shouldn't be left out.

So, if a writer writes a very successful novel or a scientist finds a cure for cancer, someone else should make the royalties but not them?
I think I am taking all of this rather well.

This message has been deleted.

And how about all the people who built the sets? Built the5b4 Delorean? Set up the lights, the cameras, the special effects? They should get some too, shouldn't they?

This message has been deleted.

No, it isn't. Why should you still be getting paid for something you did 30 years ago? In the case of retirement pensions, you've worked for 30 years and b68built up a sizeable chunk of change to live on. When you work on a single project, you're paid for it at the time. Do you think the families of the architects who built the Empire State Building received residuals every time somebody set up an office there?

That's a ridiculous argument.
Web
www.jmberman.com
Fcbk
https://www.facebook.com/catnipdream

The actors did it one time, they got paid for it, they move on. The studio still distributes the movie or TV show said actors were in, therefore they keep generating revenue.

Why is that excessive? The studios still make money on it so shouldn't the actors?
Web
www.jmberman.com
Fcbk
https://www.facebook.com/catnipdream

Well, contrary to belief, the BTTF movies didn't make him a billionaire, so he's got to support himself somehow. Sure he has minor acting gigs here and there, but I doubt he'll ever be in something as big ever again.
On the other hand, I do think actors getting paid royalties, particularly large amounts, for something they did decades ago, is a bit excessive.