TV and Movies

[gertrudecloset]

Sports and Acting Musicians are under the same Umbrella considered "Entertainment"   The same can be said for a modelling career.  The super models are paid enormous amounts of $$ because of their supposed "shelf life."  Many start too young at the ripe old age of 12 or 14.  I think that's shameful, but it's not my business as I am a parent would not allow my child to do this.

Actors are not created equal.  You have box office sure fires with certain actors.  A list, B list actors and so on.  Many who don't ever get leading roles, but they're working.  The notion that any of them get anywhere near the same amount as others do is really naive.  Since they themselves are their own brand; they command a salary based on how well they are liked by generating ad revenue.  They negotiate their wages.  Most of us can't do that in our places of work.  You either like your salary or you don't and you move on to a job that will pay you what you think you're worth.

Actors, actresses and musicians are only as good as their last project.  This is why they venture off into other ways to have income.  Passive or otherwise.

No one's tax dollars pays for entertainers.  It's a self sustaining industry.  They pay their taxes, FICA and other wages just like the rest of the working world. 

[Spurt]

---

@gertrudecloset wrote:

Sports and Acting Musicians are under the same Umbrella considered "Entertainment"   The same can be said for a modelling career.  The super models are paid enormous amounts of $$ because of their supposed "shelf life."  Many start too young at the ripe old age of 12 or 14.  I think that's shameful, but it's not my business as I am a parent would not allow my child to do this.

Actors are not created equal.  You have box office sure fires with certain actors.  A list, B list actors and so on.  Many who don't ever get leading roles, but they're working.  The notion that any of them get anywhere near the same amount as others do is really naive.  Since they themselves are their own brand; they command a salary based on how well they are liked by generating ad revenue.  They negotiate their wages.  Most of us can't do that in our places of work.  You either like your salary or you don't and you move on to a job that will pay you what you think you're worth.

Actors, actresses and musicians are only as good as their last project.  This is why they venture off into other ways to have income.  Passive or otherwise.

No one's tax dollars pays for entertainers.  It's a self sustaining industry.  They pay their taxes, FICA and other wages just like the rest of the working world. 

---

@gertrudecloset 

You are totally right, we create these so called "celebs" with our money and what we watch (ratings)....but too many times these days patrons walk out of a movie theater (or turn off their streaming device) dissatisfied with the entertainment quality....

Yes they pay their taxes, but who pays their salaries, the customers, and look at how the price of a movie tickets have gone way way up and even the refreshments at a theater...(more so than anything else!!!) We pay our hard earned money for these mostly mediocre performances....I know awhile back the movie industry was really struggling and in trouble ...we sent a message back then by going with other forms of entertainment and not so much movies....we should do the same now... JMHO. Its a shame some of the animated movies are better than the ones with live actors (many of my friends said the animated film "Soul" should have won for best picture--better than the other movies that were nominated)

JMHO but to me Gollywood has lost its glitz and glamour there are no real "stars" they all are mediocre and interchangeable----unlike the "Golden Age" of Hollywood with stars like---Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Cable, Betty Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Myrna Loy, William Powell, Gary Cooper, Ginger Rogers, Fred Astaire..........  Great actors, and they arent even from my era, Im too young, but I can recognize the quality.....

Todays actors have to take off their clothes and "do the act" for you to know they are in love.....the actors from the golden age could do it with just "a look" fully clothed--you could sense it coming from the screen! 

It seems these days we have too many so called "psuedo celebs" just check the contestants from Dancing With The "Stars" or "Celebrity" Family Feud"...or 100,000 Pyramid game show, or they are judges on one of the many talent shows....The reason they dont get much work, or can't find a project is they are all just a "dime a dozen", nothing special....their agent finds the best they can ..... too many careers are so short lived....the quality isnt there....and its JMHO....

At least the sports athletes are screened by scouts, front office experts, and coaches, so they actually MUST HAVE talent to get on the field...yes, there are busts, but they dont stay in the sports career long---meanwhile mediocre actors seem to hang around...I dont understand the continued admiration for these mediocre "stars"...........

Nice chatting with you......

[gertrudecloset]

@Spurt 

Yes they pay their taxes, but who pays their salaries, the customers, and look at how the price of a movie tickets have gone way way up and even the refreshments at a theater...(more so than anything else!!!) We pay our hard earned money for these mostly mediocre performances....I know awhile back the movie industry was really struggling and in trouble ...we sent a message back then by going with other forms of entertainment and not so much movies....we should do the same now... JMHO. Its a shame some of the animated movies are better than the ones with live actors (many of my friends said the animated film "Soul" should have won for best picture--better than the other movies that were nominated)

You are misguided on how actors receive their pay.  Yes viewership is involved and you have to have fans, however when being part of big budget film the studio pays them first.  So in fact, people are paying the studios when we go to the movies and watch blockbuster films.  It's all mixed up in their together. For the tv viewership it's about ad revenue.  Sponsorship of a show by many products.  The big companies pay a hefty price to sponsor a show.  Nowadays there are so many commercials in one sitting of a show it's hard to tell which company is actually sponsoring the show.  Back in the day you always knew who sponsored a show on tv becaused you were told during a break.  While the public does in fact have some involvement of how much an artist is paid, that also depends on how well he markets her/himself.

I don't agree with your interpretation or conclusions about celebrities.  It has been a business model that has evolved over the years to make many wealthy.  There is nothing wrong with that.  On the other hand, some other actors don't become as successful and are relegated to small parts whenever they can get them.  Remember also, that you nor I have to like them for them to still be considered a celebrity.

Celebrity

Prominent person or group who commands some degree of public fascination and appears in the media

Celebrity

Celebrity is a condition of fame and broad public recognition of an individual or group, or occasionally a character or animal, as a result of the attention given to them by mass media. A person may attain a celebrity status from having great wealth, their participation in sports or the entertainment industry, their position as a political figure, or even from their connection to another celebrity. 'Celebrity' usually implies a favorable public image, as opposed to the neutrals 'famous' or 'notable', or the negatives 'infamous' and 'notorious'.

In conclusion, you as a patron, are typically paying a company who then pays the actor/actress/musician/comedian/ball player/boxer/model.  You don't have to support any of it, however revenue will be generated through advertisement and mass appeal.

[Mindy D]

---

@ValuSkr wrote:

I cut cable long ago, but it's hard to feel sorry for cable companies.  They've written they're own death warrant.  For so long, they raised prices every year and refused to negotiate.  Going forward, they'll make more of their money off internet subscriptions.

As far for consumers, they'll have to make do with less. Who needs hundreds of channels anyway.  Just subscribe to the ones you really want.

---

@ValuSkr @I think that with all the a la carte services, we will end up paying more than we have been for cable. 

[Mindy D]

---

@Spurt wrote:

---

@stevieb wrote:

@Spurt  My jury is still out as to what I'll do about TV but I can say that while I allegedly have hundreds of channels at my beck and call with cable, I watch very little on any of them and without adding more and more channels to my already exorbitant cable bill, the pickings are quite slim. Supposedly, in my area, I can get over 70 channels with an antenna. I need to investigate what they are and then, perhaps, I'll consider going that route and adding a streaming service or two. One things for certain, Cox Cable is not cutting me any deals so should I later decide to reup with them, I feel certain they'll welcome me back and probably give me some sort of time limited new subscriber discount. I'd probably stick with them for phone and internet, as I still prefer to maintain a land line, of course, need an internet provider and am not interested in going over to Verizon or one of the fly-by-nights. Overall, television viewing and managing options has become a travesty.

---

@stevieb 

TV has become one of these you can't win for losing proposals......All these cable channels and nothing to watch has become a daily mantra for me...😣😡

I researched and with an antenna Id get few options (but check this out, Id get DUPLICATE QVC and QVC 2 channels 😄)....Since Im a sport's fan with a streaming service you either dont have an option to view local sports and/or sport's channels due to licensing contracts with TV networks, cable systems, and the sport's leagues. Or I can switch to satellite, Direct TV, and pay a "measely" $400 extra to watch NFL games, and $182 for NBA games in addition to the satellite TV costs)....Even subscribing to a streaming service will cost extra for sports if they offer it at all.......

I guess my taste are weird because some of the other channels like TCM and AMC also a few other channels I like just happen to be on the "SPECIAL" tiers or "ENTERTAINMENT" packages that cost extra...so there goes more money....  

Overall I found out it would end up costing me $35 extra a month to cut the cord to stream to get the FEW channels I actually watch now....😡 (including internet service)....Google "Cord Cutting Calculator" and articles on Cord Cutter's Guide...which will help you evaluate and calculate your options...

And I like I said these networks that merged into streaming services, taking a line from an old Carpenter song---"They've only just begun" and its just a matter of time before they tap into their "gold mine" and start going up in price ..............

---

@Spurt @Hi, SPURT. We have DirecTV satellite and we get the sports programming that comes with our premium package. We don't pay for any additional sports programming, so I'm puzzled as to why DTV was going to charge you $400 extra plus $182 extra. Maybe these two come with extra programming the way MLB EXTRA INNINGS does. Have you checked which games you can't see with a premium DTV package that includes all the ESPN channels? Which games can you see with the charges packages? You don't have to respond to my questions. They are not really intended to be questions, just as suggestions posed in the form of questions. 

[ValuSkr]

---

@Mindy D wrote:

---

@ValuSkr wrote:

I cut cable long ago, but it's hard to feel sorry for cable companies.  They've written they're own death warrant.  For so long, they raised prices every year and refused to negotiate.  Going forward, they'll make more of their money off internet subscriptions.

As far for consumers, they'll have to make do with less. Who needs hundreds of channels anyway.  Just subscribe to the ones you really want.

---

@ValuSkr @I think that with all the a la carte services, we will end up paying more than we have been for cable. 

---

They won't, if they're able to control themselves and subscribe selectively.  If they try to replace everything they had with cable back-in-the-day, then, yes, they will pay more.

I've been able to make do with less quite well.

[Mindy D]

---

@catter70 wrote:

I also have RCN cable but no other choice in cable carriers. My bill went up around $30 or so, but as far as I know, I've lost no channels. I don't have a smart TV, so I guess if I wanted streaming I'd have to use my computer to watch. I complain about the cost of cable, but almost half is taxes, etc. I did call the cable co. when my bill went up and at least they took off $15.00 as a long time customer discount. Not sure I'd want Dish or the other as they also take channels away. Seems like they have you over a barrel no matter what you do.

---

@catter70 @There are some very inexpensive devices that easily attach to the back of your TV that turn it into a smart tv. You don't have to unhook your cable to use them. Roku is one such device. There are models that run about $30 to others that cost more. Just look for streaming devices. They are called streaming devices or digital media devices. No computer is necessary to use the devices and they can be easily removed from the TV and carried into anther room or taken on a trip. 

[Spurt]

---

@Mindy D wrote:

---

@Spurt wrote:

---

@stevieb wrote:

@Spurt  My jury is still out as to what I'll do about TV but I can say that while I allegedly have hundreds of channels at my beck and call with cable, I watch very little on any of them and without adding more and more channels to my already exorbitant cable bill, the pickings are quite slim. Supposedly, in my area, I can get over 70 channels with an antenna. I need to investigate what they are and then, perhaps, I'll consider going that route and adding a streaming service or two. One things for certain, Cox Cable is not cutting me any deals so should I later decide to reup with them, I feel certain they'll welcome me back and probably give me some sort of time limited new subscriber discount. I'd probably stick with them for phone and internet, as I still prefer to maintain a land line, of course, need an internet provider and am not interested in going over to Verizon or one of the fly-by-nights. Overall, television viewing and managing options has become a travesty.

---

@stevieb 

TV has become one of these you can't win for losing proposals......All these cable channels and nothing to watch has become a daily mantra for me...😣😡

I researched and with an antenna Id get few options (but check this out, Id get DUPLICATE QVC and QVC 2 channels 😄)....Since Im a sport's fan with a streaming service you either dont have an option to view local sports and/or sport's channels due to licensing contracts with TV networks, cable systems, and the sport's leagues. Or I can switch to satellite, Direct TV, and pay a "measely" $400 extra to watch NFL games, and $182 for NBA games in addition to the satellite TV costs)....Even subscribing to a streaming service will cost extra for sports if they offer it at all.......

I guess my taste are weird because some of the other channels like TCM and AMC also a few other channels I like just happen to be on the "SPECIAL" tiers or "ENTERTAINMENT" packages that cost extra...so there goes more money....  

Overall I found out it would end up costing me $35 extra a month to cut the cord to stream to get the FEW channels I actually watch now....😡 (including internet service)....Google "Cord Cutting Calculator" and articles on Cord Cutter's Guide...which will help you evaluate and calculate your options...

And I like I said these networks that merged into streaming services, taking a line from an old Carpenter song---"They've only just begun" and its just a matter of time before they tap into their "gold mine" and start going up in price ..............

---

@Spurt @Hi, SPURT. We have DirecTV satellite and we get the sports programming that comes with our premium package. We don't pay for any additional sports programming, so I'm puzzled as to why DTV was going to charge you $400 extra plus $182 extra. Maybe these two come with extra programming the way MLB EXTRA INNINGS does. Have you checked which games you can't see with a premium DTV package that includes all the ESPN channels? Which games can you see with the charges packages? You don't have to respond to my questions. They are not really intended to be questions, just as suggestions posed in the form of questions. 

---

@Mindy D 

I appreciate your information.....The NFL has an exclusivce contract with Direct TV .....which the NFL just renewed....

When I called, the NFL Ticket or NBA Pass were free as an introductory offer.....I would have to pay extra once the contract came up for renewal...

This was what info I got from Direct TV---2020 NFL SUNDAY TICKET is $293.94 (6 payments of $48.99) and 2020 NFL SUNDAY TICKET MAX is $395.94 (6 payments of $65.99). New customers that sign up for DIRECTV are eligible to get 2021 NFL SUNDAY TICKET MAX at no extra cost when they sign up for CHOICE or above base package. Each season thereafter, they will need to subscribe and order NFL SUNDAY TICKET or NFL SUNDAY TICKET MAX.  

The cheaper NFL package is for a limited selection of NFL games of teams not broadcast in my area.......

And for all that money this is what you get....DirecTV Sunday Ticket only covers regular season, Sunday afternoon games that are out of your market. As an alternative, you can subscribe to a streaming service such as Sling TV or YouTube TV, both of which give you access to NFL Playoff channels such as FOX, ABC and CBS

Only Monday Night Football is broadcast on ESPN....not the Thursday or Sunday games....And no local NBA Spurs games unless it was a national telecast from ESPN/ABC/TNT......due to licensing restrictions