KITT wants more DVD residuals

[Michael Pajaro]

The Screen Actors Guild is trying renegociate the amount of money actors receive for DVD releases. Variety quoted William Daniels, former SAG president, as saying "I'd heard that 'Knight Rider' is coming out on DVD, and I am going to get pennies out of it. The Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers say that they need all the DVD revenues because of losses from their features? Well, I say this: Actors are supposed to pay for their mistakes? I don't think so."

[FuzzieDice]

Wow. I would have thought, with what we have to pay for the set, that the actors (especially William Daniels who was a major star of the show playing the voice of K.I.T.T.) would have got more than just 'mere pennies'! In K.I.T.T.'s own words: "Ugh! Unforgivable!"

[HondaSiR]

If William Daniels only got pennies out of the DVD release, I wonder how much Patricia and David got...nickels and dimes?!? Goodness, no wonder David's been in and out of rehab so many times. This is just too much!

[knightdriver]

Unfortunately, that is happening with alot of the 80's shows that are
now surfacing on DVD as well as syndication.

I just read the other day that the stars from the Tv show "Married With
Children" only get 68 cents for each episode that gets syndicated. Now
THAT is getting screwed. Luckily that show tends to air every 3 seconds
so they get a little for thier efforts.

Hopefully the Knight Rider stars will egt thier just rewards in the long run.

If the movie does indeed happen, they should clean up nicely. Lets
keep our fingers crossed for them as well as hopes to see a featured film
in the next century.

[Michael Pajaro]

It's a complicated issue... Personally I'd like the entire cast to get a ton a money from the DVDs. But playing Devil's Advocate for a moment:

How many people here still get paid for work they did 20 years ago? Hollywood is a very strange business. For starters, generally speaking actors on network series are very well paid for their efforts. They signed contracts in which they agreed to a certain salary, and usually agreed to a small amount of residuals from future broadcasts in syndication. The studio might reserve all other rights and future profits coming from the show. Now that the DVD craze has caught on, some actors want to go back and change the conditions of the agreements they made in the 80s. That might not be fair.

It does seem ridiculous at first that actors only receive pennies per broadcast. But we have to keep in mind that they already made their small fortunes while the show was still in production, and they shouldn't be expecting to make a living from residuals.

I'm no expert on Hollywood salary negotiations and I'm really not a Corporate Studio Spokesman at heart. But I don't shed too many tears for (some) actors who earned tens-of-thousands of dollars per episode, who now want even more.

[Lost Knight]

My thoughts exactly. Although I understand the concept that it's the principle behind the matter "I should get a cut of profits from work I did," I really don't have much sympathy for Mr. Daniels or the rest of the cast in terms of trying to profit even MORE from work they did 20 years ago. So they don't make as much as they want to be making from DVDs for their work that made them rich. Cry me a river.

Firstly, yes, they have already made their fortunes from Knight Rider in the 80s, as well as gaining international fame and arguably even had their careers launched from the show.

Secondly, it was 20 years ago in a much different world....they signed contracts based on the conditions and circumstances in Hollywood at the time. I really don't think it's fair 20 years later to say "Hey, wait a minute, I want more money for this now!" That's not the way it works for the rest of the world, and the way it should work is that you learn from your mistakes like everybody else and make better deals next time.

Donald Trump says he got "screwed" out of money for the first season of The Apprentice, and he didn't get more money for the first season, instead he asked for more money for the second season (now that they knew it was a ratings hit) and any future seasons. Don't get me wrong, I love the cast of Knight Rider like everyone else here, but when it comes down to it, it's a job, only a job that happens to pay much better than most.

If William Daniels or the rest of the cast gets more money from DVD profits, guess who pays them a large percentage? That's right, us (among studios and stores as well). The problem with this world is that the so-called "middle class" (if you ask me there is only rich and poor) are always the ones paying to make the rich richer. Personally as someone who is considered "middle class," I certainly shouldn't be responsible for making rich people richer. ALL celebrities (not just some), or the rich, should be giving money to charity, not trying to make more for themselves off of people with less money. There's just only so much fortune you actually need. How much is enough?

If you have a good paying job and are fourtunate to become rich, or develop a career, you make your rules accordingly and be smart about decisions you make if you want to be paid the most you possibly can for your work. It's not like these actors never made their profits from their work, (if they did work and never got paid for it, then years later another company makes profits and pays them crap, that's a different story), but to me it just seems greedy. Anyway, that's my opinion on the whole thing, but I'm no expert on how this whole process works either.

[Lost Knight]

Patricia McPherson actually quit acting altogether and used her fortune and fame for the preservation of Wetlands. Props to her for that.

[FuzzieDice]

FWIW, I gave the actors the benefit of the doubt because we don't know what really went on, what the contracts actually say and what amount is being given to who.

I think I read it that Mr. Daniels was concerned that the producers were getting a disproportionately large amount compared to the actors. Like 2% for the actors and 98% for the producers, etc. which I admit wouldn't be exactly fair.

[Skav]

what about the stunt guys? they deserve a little credit with this too, especially Jack Gill.

[knightshade]

I really don't think it's fair 20 years later to say "Hey, wait a minute, I want more money for this now!"

But that's exactly what the studios are getting. No one, in 1982, could have foreseen DVDs. Is it fair to say that when a new technology comes along, only the studios get to profit from it? They are still using the actor's performances, the writer's creations, the artists sets (and admittedly, TV and movies are an odd form of art because it's such a huge collaboration). The business of side of art is to be to separate the artist from their creation, to make money off of something that someone else did. The music industry is crazy in my opinion too because musicians make pennies (literally) on their CDs too. I understand that the producers and companies and people who take the risks to make a movie or a CD or whatever need to get paid for their investment. But I also know I'd rather see the artists get a bigger cut than someone who's sole involvement in a project is for the money. I like to think that at least some of the people who put their creativity and soul into a project would be the ones to profit most from it -- not just the people who put their money into it. And I realize that probably KR might not be a good example of this, being maybe not the highest form of art, eh-hmm, but if William Daniels can lead the charge to get actors a few more pennies on DVDs, more power to him, in my opinion.

[FuzzieDice]

Well said, Knightshade.

[Lost Knight]

What it comes down to basically is each person's point of view on the issue. If you think about it, producers are the ones that create the show. This is Glen Larson's brainchild. The actors are the ones we see and care about, but all the behind-the-scenes work and effort is really on the studio's part. They are investing their money and creating the show as well as taking a chance.

The actors do put their heart and soul into their work (I think this was most evident in David Hasselhoff's case because it seemed that he had a lot to prove at the time), but, in actuality, they are kind of the puppets (although that sounds harsh) used to make the producers' show work.

The studios are getting a larger chunk of the profits I think because they are the ones taking the old film and converting it to DVD, designing the packaging and developing the special features, marketing strategies, etc. The actors were there to act, although the way it seems to work in Hollywood is that the more popularity you achieve, the higher your pay. At the time the actors' popularity wasn't nearly as large as it is now, however.

My point here is that the proportions may not be equal in terms of pay concerning actors compared to studios, but the studios are the ones reviving the show, so I think this is the reason they are making more off of the show now than the actors. I do admit that perhaps the actors should be making a little more off the profits because "pennies" does seem a bit extreme (but those pennies add up per million copies of each set to a decent chunk of money), but I feel that the studios, creators, and producers still should make a little more because they have created the show in which the actors worked on.

[knightshade]

That depends on the producer, Lost Knight. In many cases, I think (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong here) a producer is simply the go to person to shepard a project around. He (she) is responsible for getting monetary backing, making sure the project stays on schedule and within budget, and generally interfacing with the business types at the studios. Yes, not all producers are like that. Joss Whedon is intimately involved with his projects. He writes/directs/produces. From the tidbits that you pick up from DVD commentary, it's his vision that is going on screen -- his shows are his babies and in my mind he falls right in the 'artist' catagory. I wouldn't begrudge him anything.

Larson, well, from the DVD commentary it sounds like he was very involved with casting and the tone and feel of the pilot. But then he turned over the reins to someone else and walked away to do the Fall Guy. And that's fine. I think he deserves to be paid handsomely for his idea.

But I don't think that Larson is making that much more than the actors on this DVD set (and I could be completely wrong on that). I think that the people getting the lion's share of the profits are the CEO, executives, and stock holders at Universal. As well as any company subcontracted to produce the DVDs. And the reality is, to make a series or movie come to fruition you need people like that. That's fine. I also know that some part of that profit is going to be used to bankroll something else, so that's good. Art has to be a business to actually be able to be seen and heard by people. But I still think the artists involved (actors, writers, directors, idea men, visionaries, etc), deserve the biggest piece of the pie.

And you're right, it is personal opinion. Some would say that people fronting the money are risking their livelihood every time they back a project, so they deserve a big payoff. But for me, I never had the courage to try to make a living doing something creative, because it's so hard to actually be successful, so I have nothing but respect for the people who try and succeed.

More money to the formerly starving artists, I say.

[Lost Knight]

It's kind of ironic that these actors used to be starving, then hit super-stardom and made their small fortunes in which money became no object. But years later as their careers have blossomed, they are concerned with their pay which consists of pennies! They've become rich but get paid pennies in the case of the DVDs...very ironic, I think.

[FuzzieDice]

Knightshade you are sweet.

I do web site design, graphic/digital art, digital photography. I had attempted at one time to sell my artwork online via one of those clip art sites (they since went out of business). It's not easy. And you are right, it's hard to be successful. I love it though. I am the type that could never do anything unless it's creative work.

I learned something while working via a Clip Art site, and also if you sell your wares via Cafe Press (tried that a couple times too and am thinking of trying again sometime in the future). For you to get your product out there, you almost have to have a distributor or agent as it were (ie. in my case the clip art site or Cafe Press). These places will take a percentage of what you sell to cover THEIR costs.

For instance, suppose the site you're selling through will sell your product but there's a base price you MUST charge your customers. This base price covers the site's cost in creating the product and hosting space for your store or product. Then you mark up that price a few dollars and that difference is what YOU get. The agent site gets more. For instance, maybe, say if the agent site has a base price on T-Shirts set to like $20. So if you charge your customers $40 so you could get that same amount as the agent gets, you might not sell very much because the T-Shirt then becomes too expensive. So you end up getting a lesser portion of the total price as the agent site would. Or, some sites will take a percentage of your sales based on the price you set for the product.

So you can also see why a lot of creative works are so expensive. Most of that isn't going to the artist. It's going to the agent, seller or site/storefront, etc. The artist might not always get that big a cut.

Also a lot of what the agent/seller gets is a fee for advertising or having your work on their site. Exposure. That is the most expensive (and the #1 necessary) thing an artist needs to survive.

Yes, it's a very difficult thing to get into. I've aspired to be an artist since my teen years, and even took formal art instruction and have a certificate. But I'm not rich and probably never will be. Who knows.

All I know is from a graphics/digital artist's perspective dealing with internet marketing and sales. It can be a whole different world in Hollywood. But I'm thinking it might also not be so different. Just to get your "name in lights" - that alone can cost a pretty penny.

It would be nice to get at least equal share of the commission but often times the reality is that the artist gets much less than that from what the consumer actually pays.

[Michael Pajaro]

I am not overly sympathetic towards stars who want to change the terms of old contracts. But why I actually do support William Daniels is because I don't believe it's just about him getting money for Knight Rider; he is looking forward, so that when new contracts are written up the actors get their fair share of a much larger pie.

[Lost Knight]

That's pretty much my case, setting a new standard so the same things that actors find wrong right now don't occur again in the future. This obviously would now apply to DVD sales, but also contracts should include rights to profits from any future type of distribution from shows that they have worked on so that this situation doesn't occur again.

I feel that it's easy to feel sympathetic for the actors because they are the ones we watch, they are the ones we care about, and they are the ones whose careers we follow, but that is because they are doing their job-- acting. I try to view the situation objectively without a biased opinion...of course I love William Daniels, David Hasselhoff's, etc. work, but my point of view is based on unbiased opinion.

I am all for the idea of making as much money as you can for your work....that could be considered greedy but it is more smart at the same time. However, I feel it's a different situation trying to amend the clauses of a written contract, because otherwise it defeats the purpose of a contract, especially one signed 20 years ago. Making a deal to make as much as you can for your work is one thing, but trying to make as much as you can for former jobs in which you no longer work for is a different story that is open to debate. Again, because of the unusual business of Hollywood and the recording industry, this leaves the logistics to opinion.

[Michael Pajaro]

New piece of useless trivia I saw today:

William Daniels was the past president of SAG. The past treasurer of SAG was Kent McCord, who played grown up Boxey in Galactica 1980, in which William Daniels guest-starred.

Small world.