Nikki Finke is reporting that it's not true.

Clooney's longtime publicist Stan Rosenfield emailed me today: "Yes, the story is 100% false. The only thing he EVER said was he would not cross a picket line. The writer never called me or anyone I know of to check it out."

There's a proportion issue too - sure, Clooney makes obscene amounts of money. As do about a hundred other people at his level, and maybe a thousand or so a notch down. Most people are making a living ranging from comfortable to scraping for rent. Not terribly different than just about any other industry, and quite possibly far less, just better publicized.

Clooney has also been involved in many social and political issues over the years, and has done many personal project films.

I noticed the UA deal failed to materialise. I wonder if Nikki Finke buggered it up by running the story early.

I noticed the UA deal failed to materialise. I wonder if Nikki Finke buggered it up by running the story early.

I always thought it was odd that it was being "announced on Sunday." Why not Monday?

I suspect we'll hear something, confirmation or denial, tomorrow.

Not terribly different than just about any other industry, and quite possibly far less, just better publicized.

Well, a couple of years ago (when I was thinking about trying to get into acting) the average actor in the UK earned 10,000 sterling per annum, iirc. I would imagine that most actors stateside are equally strapped for cash, even though the big names earn shitloads of cash. The people at the top in any industry are earning shitloads of cash.

Most actors stateside are waiters or temps.

I do think the curve is a bit steeper for actors than most, though. I don't imagine the best garbage collectors in the world earn over a thousand times what the average one makes.

One of the big things that got me riled up about the NHL strike was some players' attitude that they were being robbed with their paltry $8 million dollar salaries for being better than anyone else at smacking a piece of rubber around with a stick. Dude, that's a skill with no intrinsic value beyond how many people you can entertain by displaying it, and it was very clear that that number was not high enough to sustain the escalating payrolls.

It's the same thing with actors. If you can get a movie $100 million in business just by being in it, you're worth the $25 million paycheck. If you turn in devastatingly skillful renditions of King Lear that will only half fill a 500 seat theatre, better brush up on your clerical skills.

Ok, this may be just me, but a red scarf from Andi would be much more likely to get me to donate than a script. IJS.

Lack of other response makes me think I totally missed the chance to get them into carepackages for the writers. Tell ya what, libkitty, you donate to the Work Stoppage Relief Fund [link] , send me the receipt, and I'll send you one of the scarves. Any one else who wants a red scarf, same deal, there are four of them. At the end of the week any that are unspoken for I'm giving away elsewhere. If I get really wacky, they might end up with family.

Well, a couple of years ago (when I was thinking about trying to get into acting) the average actor in the UK earned 10,000 sterling per annum, iirc. I would imagine that most actors stateside are equally strapped for cash, even though the big names earn shitloads of cash. The people at the top in any industry are earning shitloads of cash.

I think that I read somewhere that less than ten percent of the members of the Screen Actors Guild make enough money acting to live on. (it might have been two percent). Also, I saw a special about working actors back when I was in college and thinking about it, and this woman said "I've been waiting tables for 15 years, but if I ever have to write down my profession, I say 'actress'. " That was rather sobering.

So you know that Leno thing where WGA attacked him for writing his own monologue. Craig Mazin points out that Leno's monologue is not written material under the current strike rules. He cites (and parses) the passage that defines what isn't strike-prohibited written material:

material written by the person who delivers it on the air unless such person has written material for delivery by another person as well as by himself/herself on that particular program; provided that, unless elsewhere herein excluded, the following shall not be excluded: Such material written for any dramatic programs, and such material written for comedy-variety programs broadcast in prime time on a basis of once-a-week or less unless the material was completely written for another purpose prior to such person’s engagement.

I guess NBC was right. [link]