Rachel Zegler is rumored to be suing Disney for...... well, I'm not sure.She has single handily destroyed any good will between her and a movie audience with her attitude. Not everything she said was all that damaging, but she did not stop it when she had the chance and her follow up comments only made it worse.
Maybe....Disney should sue SAG/AFTRA. Rachel is one of their union members of which Disney is obligated to use. So if a union worker loses money for the people that are forced to hire actors from the union, shouldn't the company be reimbursed by the union? SAG is always talking up the concept of "Premier Talent" or "Bankable talent" so they can charge studios more to use their members because they'll bring in profits from the box office. So if one of their union talents does the opposite, doesn't that constitute fraud in some sense. Yes, Disney didn't have to use Rachel Zegler, but were they warned ahead of time that Rachel was an oral loose cannon?
Disney fired Gina Carano for a post that was nothing until they made it something.Gina sued and won as she deserved to, but Rachel is kind of another story. Rachel proudly boasted that she didn't need anyone's business if they didn't agree with her.
It'll be interesting how history remembers these pages being written. It will also be interesting if investors and producers learn a valuable lesson as well. I would hope actors are figuring this out.
2 people like this
moral of the story, be careful when dealing with Rachal Zegler
3 people like this
There are consequences for actions. Back in the old days the talent knew that they could support causes and the studio would help them with statements to the press. Now any talent (including producers, directors) can make a negative impact. And then they wonder why no one wants to hire them.
4 people like this
To your point about holding the union liable...
No one is FORCED to use a SAG-AFTRA contract. There are Lifetime movies that are non-union. Most commercials are non-union. Tons of indie films are non-union. So that's a choice, not a mandate.
The reason it's a foregone conclusion that any big budget project goes union is because almost every "name" talent is a member of SAG-AFTRA.
But in the end, SAG-AFTRA guarantees protections FOR the actor, not a product FROM the actor. SAG-AFTRA wouldn't last 5min if they were in any way held liable for conduct on set, talent level, or box office return.
3 people like this
Philip David Lee thanks for raising this. Hmm….I think there are many truths here depending on which angle we’re looking at this from. All angles are valid. For example, a young actor is still maturing and might at times make blunders (as we've all surely done at times) but they carry the weight of being in the public eye (unlike most of us). At the same time studios hire actors not just because they have the right personality (don’t make blunders) but due to a mix of talent, fame, availability, and more.
It’s tricky to hold an entire union accountable for the individual choices of one of its members. Not to mention the way social media can amplify everything. Hopefully we can find a way to learn the lessons without scapegoating any one individual in particular.
3 people like this
Philip David Lee I think at the end of the day, it's for the studios or the production to decide if they want to work with someone or not. And everyone in the entertainment business needs to be conscious of what they post on social media. But this is true for everyone, as employers and colleges are checking social media posts. Actions have repercussions -look at what happened with EMILIA PEREZ and the star of that movie.
1 person likes this
Every one brings up great points. Suzanne Bronson I'm not always politically correct on social media, but then, I'm not much of a player on there so I have no problem standing behind anything I share, ridiculous people I might insult, or issues that I feel defy logic and common sense, but then I'm not influencing anyone either. If anybody want to go toe to toe with me, it's their breath to waste. Neither one of us is going to listen to the other no matter how many "facts" we use to back up our beliefs. While Rachel Zegler's political views may not align with others, her attitude towards her co-stars and her audience was insulting to them. Congressmen cannot join together on a positive direction so I doubt that an actress should be speaking out on anything that is so emotionally charged as political issues. I know you don't insult your audience by saying you don't need their business.. De Niro didn't do The Alto Knights any favors with his primitive rants against his political party's opponent. He literally had no substance to his arguments and instead cursed and insulted anyone that disagreed with him. Trying to sway public opinion once they've made up their mind is like trying to stop the waves from hitting the shore by just yelling at them.
Matthew Cornwell SAG may not have strict rules written down but they have understanding with them as well as distribution that their union actors are essential with their terms "Premium talent, A-List talent and bankable talent." Trust me, there are unspoken agreements between SAG and studios. When is the last time Disney made a nonunion project? The budget would be smaller and the Disney name would still carry it through distribution especially if they touted it as a movie that's finding new talent to introduce to the world. Why not make lower risk projects if they have a pathway to make a profit instead of a $300M loss?
So yes, while you can't blame SAG entirely, you can't let them totally off the hook either. Everything about entertainment is a discipline to the craft. If you want to lay down laws to govern a part of that craft, if the rules you establish wind up destroying the very industry you claim to be a part of, you must shoulder some of the responsibility.