Megan Fox snarkily flouts SAG-AFTRA’s controversial Halloween guidelines
Megan Fox wanted to make sure the union saw her Kill Bill-inspired costume
Aux News SAG-AFTRA
Earlier this month, SAG-AFTRA leadership released an oddly anti-fun statement asking its members not to dress up in any Halloween costumes “inspired by struck content”—as in, characters from movies and TV shows owned by the studios they’re currently striking against—and to instead dress as “generalized characters and figures” like “ghost, zombie, [and] spider.” The guidelines weren’t received particularly well, and after a little backlash that involved Ryan Reynolds saying he would call his daughter a “scab,” the union released a second statement confirming that the children of SAG-AFTRA members could still wear whatever costumes they wanted to.
Well, it is now Halloween weekend, and—shocker—a lot of famous people ignored the whole “dress up as a generic ghost and not a famous fictional ghost” thing. One of those people is Megan Fox, who attended a Casamigos-sponsored Halloween party this weekend while dressed as Gogo Yubari from Kill Bill, alongside Machine Gun Kelly as The Bride herself (not a bad concept, even if Machine Gun Kelly’s execution wasn’t particularly inspired), in conscious violation of the guidelines. And just to make it a little clearer how Fox felt about being told to dress as a generic ghost, she uploaded a bunch of photos of the costumes on Instagram and cheekily tagged SAG-AFTRA.
Of course, other famouses this weekend—including at this same Casamigos party—wore illegal costumes. For example, Chord Overstreet and Glen Powell went as Ricky Bobby and Cal Naughton Jr., but they just look like a couple of bros who wanted to say “If you don’t chew Big Red, the fuck you” all night rather than stick it to any wet blankets out there.
But there were also celebrities who followed the rules, like Kyle MachLachlan and Desiree Gruber, who went as… Pickleball zombie and carnivorous squirrel trainer? If those are licensed characters, then we want to know where we can watch whatever thing they’re in.
210 Comments
I can see the argument that this was a weird move by SAG…But how boring, contrarian, self-absorbed, and/or privileged do you have to be to defiantly “protest” it.
It’s a real “no one comes out of this looking good” situation.
Probably the best approach would have been for SAG to issue the request in a cheeky, lighthearted way, as a gentle reminder. SAG members obviously are not allowed to promote struck work, and they’re unarguably correct that dressing up as struck characters in public constitutes promoting struck work, but there are so many goddamn idiots out there (several of whom have had a days-long shouting match in this very comments section) that anything but the kid-gloviest approach was doomed to rile up the goddamned idiots.
Los Angeles really takes Halloween to the next level. I hadn’t considered how seriously all the actors, models, makeup artists, costume designers, etc. would celebrate a holiday where you wear costumes until I witnessed it in person. Kind of obvious in hindsight though.
I should mention here that I was high as shit (hey it’s legal in California) and had completely forgotten that it was Halloween.
This is exactly what happened to me this weekend. Went out to catch some ridiculous Italian horror movie in Glendale and was confused by all the costumes. Oh right. Halloween on Monday! Damn you, edibles.
Well I don’t mean to harsh your mellow but Halloween falls on Tuesday this year.
Going to blow your mind then when i tell you its Tuesday!
Wait…Did I miss a memo? Is it Daylight savings time change again?
A lot of make up artists and special effects people make a nice chunk of change putting together fancy celeb and other rich folks costumes for Halloween. I have a friend who is a prop maker and he funds his families Christmas present budget on the side work he gets for Halloween each year. On a good year he makes “Take the family of four to Disney World for a week and stay on site” levels of money doing it on what is a generally slow time of year for most productions. With the strike still shutting down a lot of work it’s even more important this year as it may be “put food on the table” money now
Then I felt just like a fiendIt wasn’t even lose to HalloweenRIP Bushwick
Am I supposed to be outraged that Megan Fox “flouted” the “anti-fun” Halloween outlines?
Well, it’s a Barsanti newswire, so if you’re looking for some sort of POV to anchor the snark to you’re out of luck.
We’ll it’s “illegal” ya know.
Right? I refuse to be angry that Megan Fox dressed as a character from a 20-year-old Tarantino film that she has no connection to and that has no new material in the production pipeline at all.If she’d dressed as April O’Neil, a character she was actually once employed to portray, or as whatever Mortal Kombat character it is she’s voicing now, or even as some unrelated character from a soon-to-be-released property, I’d see the complaint here. But this is…this is nothing.
“But this is…this is nothing.” – The AV Club
Advocating for this was terrible strategy by SAG-AFTRA. It makes the union look like a bunch of joyless assholes, and there is no way that wearing a Halloween costume from a movie or TV show has any meaningful effect on the studios’ bargaining leverage. It gains them nothing, and costs them sympathy from the broader public.
yes?
I refuse to believe that there’s a human being actually named Chord Overstreet. Sounds like a self-insert character from an anime based on American showtunes of the ‘50s.
Doki Doki Footlight-Kun? I love that anime! Have you read the manga it’s based on?
“/You’re/ Olympic pole-vaulting hopeful Brent Underjaw!?”
Roll Fizzlebeef!!!
Big McLargeHuge!
Bob Johnson!
Drake Tungsten
Biff Hardstrong
I’m mentally pronouncing it with a “ch” like “church”. Well, like “chode”, if I’m being honset.
He’s from nashville, but is actually a songwriter’s kid which (kind of?) explains it. I am jokingly convinced most country artist names are impossibly anglo, made up stage names and imagine some kid in an executive’s office: “you got a great sound kid, but the name- herchel abdul kowalski? that’ll never sell. pick from either johnny freedom or dallas davidson (a real name)“
Who ironically spends time busking in the subway…
Sounds perfectly human to me… but the guy’s an actor. The name sounds like it should be the name of a douchey front man for a pretentious indie band.
lol. chord overstreet’s name is chord overstreet
Chord Overstreet is a plausible name for an actual NASCAR driver.
JFC.Easiest goddamn boycott ever. One night of the year, don’t wear a costume that supports the bosses that want to break your Union and destroy your livelihood. It’s not denying yourself a necessary product or service. It isn’t even a real inconvenience.Dress up as the vengeful ghost of Joe Hill FFS.
“I never died” says he quoth the raven
Lol.
Except it doesn’t.If you buy a yellow jumpsuit and a prop katana to call yourself “The Bride”, not a dime goes to any movie boss. If anything you’re basically pirating their IP.
No.You are literally turning yourself in to a walking advertisement for the product.
A twenty year old product. It’s fine. SAG should worry about actual issues and not this stupid shit
No.It is a product that is still well known enough that we are discussing it now. This is also about solidarity and standing with your Union.Once again, this is the EASIEST boycott ever.
Ugh, you choose to die on this most sanctimonious yet incorrect take of a hill? This may not be why labor isn’t as popular as it should be, but it doesn’t help.
I think unions doing things its members consider outside their core mandates (especially where money is involved) is a big reason for erosion in union support.
Yeah I’d agree with that assessment for sure.My bigger issue is public sector unions. Even FDR thought they were a bad idea. Government employees essentially form lobby groups that can spend union dues on electing candidates that will vote for all sorts of things that benefit the union members over the general public. See: Double dip pension deals like in California, and police unions that keep the police unaccountable for their actions.
Fuck off, bootlicker. The union that protects a custodian working at a public university is not the same as a police union protecting murderers, you credulous moron. Besides, your side already got what they wanted with the Janus decision. Why is lobbying bad only when unions do it? Do you know what they call corporate influence in politics? Lobbying.
Since ApeWhoHathNoNa… is in the grays – and he deserves to be for saying “Fuck off, bootlicker,” and calling me a “credulous moron,” – I’m replying to myself.This kind of insulting garbage is exactly what drives many workers who would benefit from unionization to vote against unions. When unions have never really attempted to unionize your profession, pro-labor folks hurling insults at the slightest sign of disagreement makes them think that you’re at best extremists, and at worse, they sense the veiled threats behind the language that are aimed at anyone who is perceived as against them.This is why I bring up public sector unions; I personally support private sector unionization, to ensure both capital and labor have power, but oppose public sector unions for the reason I stated. But holding such an opinion gets me called a “bootlicker,” and “credulous moron,” and to be told to “fuck off” by pro-union folks. This sort of, “if you don’t support all unions no matter what, you’re anathema and persona non grata,” is not productive, if you want to encourage people who would benefit from unionization to actually support unions. This statement is a perfect example:“Besides, your side already got what they wanted with the Janus decision.”You assume that, because I disagree with labor on some point, that I simply MUST be pro-management. I am neither; why would I be pro-labor when I’ve not once in my career witnessed unions show any interest in unionizing my profession? But that doesn’t make me “the other side.” I’m pro-compromise.“Why is lobbying bad only when unions do it? Do you know what they call corporate influence in politics? Lobbying.”I happen to agree with this, if you can hear me over your insults. Either corporations AND labor unions should be able to lobby and contribute to campaigns, or NEITHER should be able to. Either would be fair.
…why would I be pro-labor when I’ve not once in my career witnessed unions show any interest in unionizing my profession? Guess what? Unions don’t appear out of thin air. They take worker action from within the industry, not from the outside. There’s pretty strict laws around it, thanks to our corporate overlords undermining workers’ rights. Start talking to your colleagues and form one yourself. You could be the change you want to see, instead of repeating management talking points. If all it takes is insults to keep you parroting the company line, you never approved of unions in the first place. Just because we have similar economic interests and I see you as my class peer doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to call you an idiot on occasion. Be well.
If established unions have so much trouble unionizing new professions, how likely is a brand new union going to be successful? All the recent unionization efforts that I’ve seen succeed are existing unions moving into new professions.It is never appropriate to insult people for disagreeing with your views. It certainly won’t motivate me to go form a union. 🤣
Again, if insulting you turns you off from unions you never supported them in the first place. Don’t ever go to a construction site, your delicate constitution couldn’t handle it. But guess what? When the boss tells one of them they have to crawl into a sewer without hazard gear, or walk on a beam without proper harnessing, they all walk off a job.
Who the fuck is dying on a hill here? She benefits from the Union she is a member of, that membership voted to strike, the leadership said don’t do a very simple thing and she chooses to be an immature contrarian. If she can do better, she should run for President in the next election and not be a fucking baby.
You, who won’t shut up about it already.Here’s a hint: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Many of us side with unions in principle, but are turned off by screeds like this. Many of us do not care for the incendiary us vs. them rhetoric in the American adversarial union model.The cooperative model in Germany, where the unions have corporate board representation, so they can work with capital to find compromise solutions that work for both, is just VASTLY superior. VW tried to adopt it at their Tennessee plant, but that model is illegal in the United States under federal labor law. So now that plant has no union at all.
I’m not sure how anti-labor law in the US is influenced by Fox being a fucking baby but I guess it shows how people can’t even not wear an outfit for one fucking day, expecting them to vote for leaders and policies that benefit working people is just a bridge too far.
It’s not affected by Fox, but people’s opinions are definitely affected by some strident pro-labor folks being obnoxious, like you.
I’m sorry that you can’t appreciate how much the Labor Movement has helped the average American and how much that threatens the powerful and wealthy. I hope that is just out of ignorance, an ignorance that is fueled by the anti-worker propaganda financed by a small minority of monied miscreants, and not out of personal malice.I can pretty much guarantee that if you aren’t in a Union, you have somehow benefited from Union action, whether through wages being driven up by negotiated salaries in industries related to yours or even by worker safety regulations that Unions have been at the forefront of. If you haven’t, you should find a better way to spend your daddy’s millions than wasting your time attacking pro-Labor content on the interwebs.Solidarity brother!
I know what unions have done throughout American history to get protections like the 40 hour workweek, and the advent of OSHA. But what have they done for me lately? I support the UAW for negotiating for a 32 hour workweek for 40 hours pay; however, their tentative deal with Ford does not include this provision. If the UAW was truly working to improve working conditions for all working Americans, they would have insisted upon that provision above all else. Instead they took a deal that helps auto workers and no one else. I don’t work in the auto industry, so I don’t see the UAW as caring about workers beyond their immediate membership.Now, it’s entirely possible Ford said that they wouldn’t entertain the 32 work week proposal under any circumstances. If this is the case, Fein should say as much.FWIW, while I am not interested in discussing my profession in this forum, I will say that my particular profession is employed by companies that have OTHER professions represented by unions in their employ. In this case, the union is the SEIU. This union has never once attempted to unionize my profession at my employer, at least in the decade I’ve worked there.Since the SEIU never attempts to unionize my profession, do they not view my profession as labor? If we can’t be labor, then clearly we must be the enemy. So, when that union wants more money for its membership, they are competing for resources with my profession. Workers in my position really can’t be blamed for thinking that their interests are opposed to the union’s, especially when people like you are TELLING us we are the enemy.The thing is, a lot of people in my profession do NOT want to be paid a scale based on years in service. There’s a large performance gap between people I’ve worked with in my industry, and this skill gap is exploited by pro-management folks to deter workers from supporting a union by making them think that this difference in skill wouldn’t be accounted for in a union environment.In reality, in a unionized environment, we would still have positions based on skill vs. years of service, but the pay scales WITHIN those various roles would be collectively negotiated and probably would have to be based on years of service. Where you fall in the current scale for your position depends on how badly your hiring manager wanted your skill set, how much was budgeted for the position, and both you and your management stack’s negotiating skill.The reality is that, if they unionized my profession, some things would change. People who are have poor negotiating skills – or have managers with same – would do better. People who are crack negotiators, or who THINK they are – would possibly do worse, since the negotiated union scale would even the playing field between those groups. Also, folks with unique skill sets might do worse. The reality is that most people would probably do better with the union, but it is the job of unions and pro-labor advocates to clearly advocate for the benefits that a union could provide them, NOT to treat ANY non-management worker with contempt, simply because that worker doesn’t feel that unions as they currently exist in the US have their best interests at heart.But, instead you accuse me of inheriting millions of dollars. Not only do you assume that my failure to agree 100% with pro-labor dogma means I must be a millionaire, but you manage to also insult me by assuming that, if I was a millionaire, that I couldn’t possibly have been self-made! Do you not see that this is counterproductive? When has insulting someone, or othering someone, ever resulted in convincing them of the righteousness of your cause? Disagreement is not an attack; that you don’t understand THAT, means you will never be my brother. I will not show solidarity with anyone who cannot brook any deviation from the correct dogma. THAT streak of intellectual intolerance costing the labor movement its critical mass of support, IMO.The irony is that I think strong unions are BENEFICIAL to capitalism as a system; I just think the adversarial labor union model in the United States is actually detrimental to both business and labor. Germany’s collaborative labor union model is, IMO, one of the reasons that manufacturing is still a strong part of Germany’s economy. The benefits of this flow to both business and labor, because they’re more motivated to compromise in a way that helps both. Perhaps if this model was legal in the US, our manufacturing sector would be as strong as Germany’s; after all, they’re no better or smarter than we are.
Bruh, do the barest minimum of research before you start talking shit about SEIU. They support unions beyond their immediate sphere of influence. You sound like you might be a grad student or academic professional. Here’s SEIU’s contact info, talk to them yourself about staring a union on your campus:https://www.seiu.org/about#contact-usHere’s the other campaigns they support: https://www.seiu.org/about#campaigns
I am neither a grad student, nor do I work in academia. Stop making assumptions.I work in healthcare. I won’t share my profession or my employer, but I can tell you that the SEIU represents nurses at some of the hospitals owned by my employer, though not all. While the SEIU has attempted to organize nurses and other professions at my organization, they have not ONCE approached my profession about being represented by the SEIU at my organization during the decade I’ve worked here.I see how hard it is for existing unions to expand into new professions; I do not feel it is worth my time to attempt the Herculean task of starting a union from scratch.
Maybe someone else will do it for you.
Maybe if some established unions showed any interest in my profession, greatly increasing the chances of success, then I’d support them. But they haven’t, perhaps because they don’t think they can offer enough benefits to convince us to join.PS – I dismissed your other reply, as it’s clear you’re not interested in engaging with any of the other points I offered for discussion. Unless you do so, this conversation is over.
I know of plenty of health professions that are unionized, PTs, ARTTs, etc. I’m sure you can find a similar profession that is Unionized and contact Union officials that can be helpful. It will be hard and you will probably face vicious opposition. Good luck.
I work in healthcare, but do not provide patient care. That said, as I just said in my other response to you, do not expect me to engage you in conversation, until you show a willingness to engage with my points and refrain from ad hominem attacks. Until then, don’t waste either of our time.
But have they approached your profession about being represented? I feel like you’ve posted… gosh, just like a whole bunch of times now… and nowhere in there do you mention if your profession has been approached. It’s just not come up once or twice or thrice or four times or every other sentence.
I said, “might.” I’m sad you work in healthcare. The industry needs compassion. You fall very short of that ideal. Maybe you work in billing, lol……they have not ONCE approached my profession about being represented by the SEIU at my organization during the decade I’ve worked here.Then get off your ass and contact them yourself. Ask them how you can be an advocate for worker action and if there’s any way to start a campaign within your profession. Jesus, what a self-involved weiner.
I just looked at those campaigns. None of them are in my profession, and things like “fight for $15/hr” are not relevant to my profession. My state’s minimum wage exceeds that, and I am certain that people in my profession are making quite a bit more than $15/hr anyway.
How dare a nation-wide union advocate for things that don’t absolutely 100% involve you and your specific circumstances?! Yes, it must be the union’s fault.
Unions don’t organize themselves. Get working.
Yep, didn’t bother engaging with any of my other points. Dimissed.
Your points are irrelevant. You are a whiny baby that will gladly complain what others do but is too scared to defend himself. As far as insulting goes, your first response to my thread was insulting. You set the tone, cupcake.Be careful with that dismissal button it goes both ways.
I did defend myself in my post. You got dismissed because you ignored my points and replied with one sentence.You think I insulted you when I called your take sanctimonious? Meanwhile you’re calling people bootlickers?Frankly, at this point, I wish there was a block button rather than a dismiss button. I will not engage you in conversation again, and if you start replying to me, I will dismiss every one.If, at some point, you’d like to engage in thoughtful, respectful conversation and an open exchange of viewpoints, I won’t even ask for an apology; just reply to me in a polite, engaged fashion, and I will happily forgive. Otherwise, have a nice life.
I don’t believe I used “bootlicker”, I think that’s the crazed management shill that seems to have a head injury.I’m fucking tired. There is no valid reason to defend Fox on this. She’s in the Union, the Union leaders were legally elected by the members and the Union is on strike. Follow their directives. She can run against them next election if she wants. The directive to not advertise for the entities is certainly reasonable and not difficult.For your situation, you do have my sympathy. Organizing is hard and there is a multi-billion dollar industry that is paid well to crush it. There are Unions, SEIU and CWA are two that come to mind, that organize health care workers, professional or not. You can contact them and ask questions. You might even be able to do so anonymously at first. Employers can be very vindictive. Good luck.
Thank you. I apologize as you are not the one who said “bootlicker.” You did, however, use “management stooge,” “management shill,” and “worker hating strike breaker,” and telling people to fuck off. Admittedly, it wasn’t directed at me; i conflated two people saying “fuck off,” and it was the other one who said it to me. I regret the error and am sorry.I want to point out that I didn’t even defend Fox on this; I don’t care enough to. My point is that this particular subject is not a winning one; it ended up being kind of a bad look for SAG-AFTRA. If you’re pro-labor and want to be effective and gaining support for your cause, this seems like a subject best left to quickly rot and disappear from the public consciousness.I appreciate the sympathy. The thing is that, while I work in the health care industry, what I do isn’t viewed as being a health care profession. It’s really a specialized field to support those who provide care. Whether we are too small a field, or simply not viewed as being sufficiently ripe for unionization for other reasons, I cannot say.It’s also worth noting that many healthcare companies are not-for-profit, so we aren’t competing with ownership over the profits. It’s really a zero-sum game at these not-for-profits between unionized workers, non-unionized workers, and management, and in the grand scheme of things, management isn’t that highly compensated, at least compared to the executive compensation at for-profit companies in the healthcare space, like at health insurance companies.In a situation like that, the unions representing current some professions at those companies really would improve their negotiating position by trying to unionize as many different professions at those companies as possible. Not focusing resources on this makes it easy for management to take anti-union talking points to non-unionized staff, because it can easily put the unionized employees against the non-unionized ones. After all, strikes do impact non-unionized staff with layoffs and reduced budgets. Solidarity between the two groups is hard to maintain when the union makes no attempts to broaden their scope to other professions in the business.
And perhaps the most pointless as well.
“And perhaps the most pointless as well.”I wonder what’s next? Boycotting anything that was ever promoted in a movie via product placement?
I’m tired of people saying “It’s so easy to not do this thing that offends me” as though how easy it is is a good reason to not do it.
i bet you’d absolutely scream scab at ryan reynold’s 8 year old unironically
Holy fucking shit.A contrarian can’t even follow a simple dictate to honor a boycott and you start screeching “what about the children”?Change your avatar and start reading up on labor history and policy.
He can have at it – I don’t need a bunch of soccer hooligans chasing me around.
When your union wants to dictate how you dress, speak, and act outside of work hours then it is time to break the union. Not even the studios are that authoritarian.
Nonsense. The guideline is not promote struck IP. When Megan Fox, a celebrity, dresses as a character in struck IP and posts it all over social media, that clearly a promotion.
The guideline is irrelevant. Worse, when you’re dictating how people dress and speak in their private non-work lives, your guideline is fundamentally wrong. It deserves to be broken.
The guideline is very relevant. The strike serves to demonstrate the value of the labor the striking workers provide. In this case, wearing the costumes and posting to social media very much functions as value provided to the struck companies. Increasingly, actors engagement on social media is part of their hiring process; they are frequently asked about their social media followers in auditions. The idea that it’s not helping the studios when a star like Fox posts to social media is just plain wrong.
Yes.
Trade unionism is about freeing workers form the power of their employer to control the lives of workers. When the union begins dictating how its members dress, speak, and express themselves in their private lives then the union has become the oppressor. Its dictates deserve nothing but derision and being broken.
“deserve nothing but derision and being broken.”JFC, dude. You’ve turned a disagreement about a policy request into “BURN IT TO THE GROUND!!!!”. Don’t be a fucking maniac.
There is no justification for any organization trying to control the way you dress, speak, or express yourself when you’re not working. Any company demanding that power should actively be disobeyed. Any other opinion is crazy.
I wouldn’t go that far. If you worked for a business and could easily be identified as being an employee (especially if you had a front facing role), and you went out in public dressed in a Nazi uniform, I believe the company would be justified in taking action against you, up to and including dismissal.(Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am *not* comparing dressing up in a Halloween costume for struck content to dressing like a Nazi. I’m just responding to the blanket statement that there is “no justification” with an admittedly extreme example.)
Define “trying to control”. HOW is there any control? Show me where threats have been made, tacit or otherwise, and I can maybe see your point. But AGAIN, what are the consequences? What is SAG going to do to Megan Fox?Also, you keep calling them a “company”. They’re a union. They might have some organizational structure that makes them kind of like a company but nobody “works for” them except their admin folks. Megan Fox doesn’t work for SAG. So again, it’s not a demand, it’s a request. Because they can’t make demands of their members.I think that request is sort of silly. I understand where they’re coming from, but I also understand why actors are pushing back. There’s really no need for you OR dudebra OR Abradolph or anyone else to be getting sooooo strident and hung up on this. This is an F5 tempest in a Thumbelina teapot.
The union is not an oppressor because it points out the ways that the labor of union members contributes to the profits of their employers. Removing the benefits that the employees provide is a key part of striking. Advising union members to not provide the service of advertising and promoting struck IP through their social media is an entirely reasonable request and very much in line with union goals to gain leverage and end the strike in the unions favor.
See, this clearly explicates why it might make sense for the union to take this position. It’s amazing how this is much more effective at changing my perspective than insulting me is!
Yes.
If you are in a Union and can’t do one simple thing that doesn’t harm you in the least and show some solidarity, you need to think about what trade unionism is.
Trade unionism is about freeing workers form the power of their employer to control the lives of workers. When the union begins dictating how its members dress, speak, and express themselves in their private lives then the union has become the oppressor.
No.Trade Unionism is Collective Action. The rights of workers are protected collectively.
COLLECTIVE.The Union members voted the leaders in that are making policy for the Union and have also voted to strike. If she disagrees with the policy of the Union she has volunteered to be a member of and benefits from, she is free to run for office in the next Union election or to leave the Union and lose its benefits and protections. Otherwise, she should stop being a goddamn baby and undermining her Union’s leadership.
Collective?More like corporate.Your union is just another business, another monopoly pretending to protect people’s rights while claiming the power to dominate and control how they think, speak, and act. And like most corporate monopolies it hides its actions under the guise of the common good.Fox didn’t voluntarily join the union. No actors or actresses voluntarily joined the union. SAG is a monopoly with monopolistic control over every major studio production. If you ever hope to act in a major production you have to join it and pay it for the privilege of acting. When you have to join and support a monopoly in order to work nothing you do is voluntary.Further, the policy of the union is irrelevant. Individual rights trump the rules laid out by corporate monopolies to control the lives of their employees. That you don’t understand this is the proof that you don’t understand what a union is or how one actually functions.
“Right to Work”. There it is.
Fuck off, you worker hating strike breaker.
You’re literally hating a worker for living her private life and demanding that a monopoly have the power to dictate how she dress, speak, and act in her private life.You’re the worst kind of corporate bootlicker. The kind who thinks the monopoly has a right to demand you lick its boots.
Your pro-management talking points are spot on. If you don’t work for a Union busting consultant, you could.I’m glad that people are finally waking up to the damage that anti-worker/anti-Union lies that you and your like spew are harmful, even deadly. If you want affordable health care in this country, having a Union is practically necessary. In nearly every metric of quality of life, Union households fare better than non-Union ones.I’m glad for the recent successes of Unions. UPS Teamsters, UAW, the Writer’s Guild and hopefully more to come. I’m glad that President Biden has come out solidly pro-Union. Unions even help those that aren’t in them by raising the floor for salaries and benefits for ALL WORKERS.Solidarity, brother.
Unions are wonderful. In addition to everything you just said, they also don’t control the way that you dress, the words that you say, or how you express yourself. Unions enhance freedom, they do not require the sacrifice of it.That you are out here intentional distributing anti-worker, pro-monopoly propaganda of the worst and most typical kind – portraying the sacrifice of freedom and submissions to corporate masters necessary for wealth and comfort. The only question is whether you do it out of ignorance, maliciousness, or merely because you enjoy the flavor of rubber.
Both of you assholes are being the most strident dicks in the entire universe. But FWIW, what are the actual fucking CONSEQUENCES here? Because your vocabulary continues to insist on some kind of oppression but if there are no actual fucking consequences to the SAG request it’s not really oppression, is it? It’s a fucking request.Knock it off, both of you, or I’ll turn this car around, I swear!
Right?
Do you have a head injury?
Unions aren’t monopolies, you willfully obtuse potato. Sorry, Dr. Potato. How about this: why don’t you wave your hands around, open a portal, and fuck right off.
The problem is that people won’t see him as a corporate bootlicker, but rather as pro-union and also obnoxious. A lot of folks who are just working stiffs but don’t support unions, because they find this sort of rhetoric as anywhere from too-black-and-white, or veiled threats of violence if you don’t show “solidarity to your brother.” Why should I show solidarity with someone when I work in a white collar job that organized labor has alternately ignored or treated as the enemy.You can convert petit bourgeois in some professions from pro-management to pro-labor if you A) actually attempt to engage with that profession to try to unionize it, and B) dial back on the name-calling and extreme statements. If you don’t do A, that profession doesn’t think of other union members as brothers, since they’re not being advocated for, and if you don’t do B, non-union professionals will think that the pro-labor folks view them as the enemy, as pro-management. Why should I support labor if they view me as the enemy?
“Why should I support labor if they view me as the enemy?”Because you can’t control what other people think and making your support contingent on being treated the way you want demonstrates a LACK of ACTUAL support. This is a ridiculously selfish position. This is the position of every progressive ally who makes their support contingent on being acknowledged as an ally. Sorry dude, some people whose ideals you agree with are going to hate your fucking guts. Nothing you can do about that! I’m a (mostly) straight white middle-aged man. If a twentysomething black woman tells me to go fuck myself because I’m white and male and in my 40s, despite supporting BLM and feminism and young people, I TAKE THE HIT. Because believing in the aims of BLM and feminism and young people doesn’t require that Black people or women or young people LIKE ME.
We talking about some members of a movement disliking allies or most of them?
I said “some”. If I meant “most” I would have said “most”.And even IF I agreed with this bit of unsubtle snark, I would still feel the same. Too fucking bad if EVERY member of a movement or group I agree with hates my guts. My agreement, my support, my belief in their aims is still NOT CONTINGENT on whether or not they like me. That is not the point of being an ally.
Belief in a group’s aims doesn’t mean you have to support that group. Supporting good ideals doesn’t automatically make someone good, and I think if a group of people were consistently hostile to people trying to support them that would call into question whether they(not their aims) were worth supporting.
Sure. But that doesn’t actually happen. That is something that overreactive snowflake idiots PRETEND happens because they can’t take the occasional critique from someone who doesn’t like them personally. I used hyperbole to make a point but I have never experienced the kind of consistent hostility that you’re implying in your post. It’s a strawman excuse to not make an effort.Furthermore, the post from which these responses was generated was an answer to the question of “Why should I support labor if they see me as the enemy?”. Except “labor” doesn’t “see me” as “the enemy”, a couple of responses on an AV Club article overreacted and called that person a corporate bootlicker. And just because a couple of dipshits overreact to a disagreement over union policy does that mean that labor isn’t worth supporting? And if your support of union organization is contingent on a couple of rando dinguses not getting aggro online, then you *don’t actually support union organization*. You support tribalism.(Incidentally, there are a couple of very strident pro-union folks in the comments who deserve an equal amount of thumbing my nose at them for being fucking ridiculous. As the large Austrian man slathered in stupid sparkly white makeup once said, “Everybody chill!”)
Can we celebrate Halloween and then, the next day, “think about what trade unionism is?” Is it OK if I complete your condescending homework assignment then?
No.
You fundamentally do not understand collective action.
I fundamentally do. You fundamentally do not understand unions. Your union is just another corporation controlling how people live.
Your latest response further confirms how you do not understand collective action and therefore, the labor movement as a whole. This is a boycott of the entities that SAG is striking against. Very simple. She’s being a contrarian baby.
SAG is being the whiny baby, crying that someone would dare dress and speak in a way it doesn’t like. Your apologetics for monopolies is silly and unconvincing.
Management shill.
I’m not the one kissing the feet of monopolies.
How? You spew the talking points of a management stooge.
I’m not the one saying monopoly corporations have the legal right to dictate how a person speaks, dresses, or expresses themselves. You are. You’re an apologist and enabler for monopolies and corporations everywhere. You’re anti-union at your very core.
SAG is striking against Spirit Halloween?
Someone should.
Easy sure but also pointless.
He chooses to die on this most sanctimonious yet incorrect take of a hill? This may not be why labor isn’t as popular as it should be, but it doesn’t help
This is not what “literally” means.
Literally.Literally dressing up like a character in the literal film and posting it on social media is literally advertising for it.Literally.
Oh, shut up. It’s one fucking night.
Nah. Call bullshit wherever you see it, especially when it’s coming from inside your own building.
“but muh attention”
How does dressing up as a character from a 20-year-old movie meaningfully “supports the bosses?” Do you think Megan Fox, like, paid royalties because she put on a wig and a schoolgirl uniform?SAG-AFTRA has a lot of public sympathy here, and it deserves it. But efforts to tell everyone to “dress up like Joe Hill” feel like that terrible Krasserstein Super Bowl tweet, “While many of you are yelling ‘Go Patriots,’ or ‘Go Rams,’ I’m yelling, ‘Go ROBERT MUELLER and the rule of law!”
You should dress like Melania. It suits you.
I can see asking actors not to dress as characters from currently airing or soon to premiere properties to continue the push not to give the AMPTP free advertising during the strike, but I think banning all character-related costumes is counterproductive. You want people to be thinking about all the cool properties they’ve enjoyed in the past, and realize they’re not getting any new installments until the big corporations stop acting like misers and agree to treat their workers fairly.
It gets worse. SAG demanded Megan temporarily change her last name from Fox as it could provide free publicity for the network.
Research has found that fully three quarters of movie purchases are based on which properties inspire sexy Halloween costumes.It’s why there’s so many films about nurses.
I’m guessing there must be a lot of Harley Quinn costumes then.
Judging from what I saw this weekend, yes there are. Of course I also went to a church event with my parents on Sunday and saw a little girl dressed as Harley (and I mean modern Harley, not the one from the old BTAS days) which inspired a real old man “what are those parents letting her watch?” feeling in me
Harley has been increasingly rolled into DC’s attempts to do girl-power type stuff aimed at tweens. She’s one of the DC Superhero Girls in that lineup for example.
She also has her own animated series which absolutely should not be seen by tweens, ever.
Ah, well that probably explains it. My only knowledge of her appearances since the DCAU days is Suicide Squad, The Suicide Squad, and the HBO Harley show, none of which are really appropriate for kids. (Well, and comics, but kids don’t actually read comics these days)
:O !!
How do you think ‘The English Patient’ got financed?
“banning all character-related costumes is counterproductive”That may be why SAG_AFTRA did not ban all character-related costumes.
Could an actor go as a character from a movie that is in public domain? Like Count Orlok from Nosferatu? How about a movie that isn’t available on home video or streaming? Like could an actor go as Buddy Christ from Dogma?
Yes.
SAG members should be free to dress as a character from a terrible movie, to remind people to feel disdain for the studios and moviegoing in general. I’m dressing this year as Eddie Murphy’s character from One Thousand Words in solidarity.
What, not Norbit?
NO! Nor Notbit, Nearbutt or even Nitwit.
How about Nier: Buttomata?
sure
Everyone wants to be a One Thousand Words Eddie Murphy, but secretly fears they are a Norbit Eddie Murphy.
No, you should just be a generalized Count or a generalized Nose.
You really aren’t going to mention that her costume is literally “inspired by struck content”? I.e. the mace that caved in Gogo’s skull. This costume is like an onion and I love it.
Quietly brilliant, if it was intentional.
I don’t know who Desiree Gruber is, but she’s doing an excellent job of pulling off that carnivorous squirrel trainer look.
Oh like you know who Chord Underhill is?
One of Bilbo’s cousins, innit?
Vote with your wallets people. Don’t see Kill Bill when it comes out.
Underrated comment.
But it’s okay to watch Volume 2, right?
OK, but what if that boycott kills the chance of a sequel?
It . . . follows?
Where do I vote to send the dopes upthread arguing over this into the Phantom Zone? That is where my money is going.
“Other famouses”Chord Overstreet and Glen Powelluhhhmm?
What? You chord under the street or something?
People worked really hard over the last decade to make Halloween as annoying as Christmas and they really succeeded.
I am once again asking James Gunn to cast Madelaine Petsch as Poison Ivy once the SAG-AFTRA strike ends.
Where did they manage to find a c. 1991 Sears photo studio to take their picture?
You can rent the rarest of venues with The CW money.
I’ll allow it.
Madelaine Petsch: she’s like the thinking man’s Lili Reinhart.
She also has a perfect ass.
I don’t understand what harm could be caused by partying in an outfit inspired by any source. Couldn’t it be viewed as a type of protest, as in “get this sh*t worked out so that we can get content back on the air because we’re reminding people of what they’re missing?”
SAG has been overreaching with this strike as a way to act like they are doing anything right now except floundering against the studios. The writers guild kicked ass and got shit done but SAG is to busy telling people what costumes to wear and telling non-union content creators who specialize in movie content to not talk about movies during the strike.
That’s exactly what happens when you elect a feckless dilettante like Drescher over someone who’s actually serious about helping members like Matthew Modine.Modine only lost by 1587 votes, too. Maybe if more than 27% of members voted it would’ve turned out differently.
but…but…vote or die?
The Modine, the Mo’betta!
While I think the costume guidelines are perhaps a bit silly, you do know they’re doing more than just that, right?
In theory they are but given their progress I’m not sure.
Yes, by all means, let’s blame the union for the lack of “progress” and not the AMPTP.
SAG said don’t post pictures dressed as characters from struck work, which is consistent with the previous direction to not promote struck work.What they did NOT do is tell their members to not dress as any movie or TV character. Their info sheet even gave an example that animated TV shows are non-struck work.Also, take into account what SAG-AFTRA’s response has been to Megan Fox: nothing.
Yeah. What’s your point? Mine was that it was stupid press release put out to make it look like SAG is getting anything done instead of the truth which is their wheels are spinning. And yes I realize that the studios have to come back to the table as well but it seems to me that SAGs tactics have been mostly toothless so the studios see no reason to end the strike quickly.
My point is that you’re lying about what SAG-AFTRA actually demanded from its members.
Union member (steward, trustee, negation committee) here. I support nearly all Unions. But fuck them if they try and control my life outside work. That’s what companies do; try and control you at every level. Fuck. That. Also, Fox and Kelly are nothing people.
She’s a celebrity and a working actress. She’s literally working every time she goes outside, but especially when she goes to a celebrity event with press coverage. This is bad form for a union member. They aren’t “controlling her life,” they published guidelines. It wasn’t a big ask. As a union member, you understand how appearances matter during a strike, no? Or are you a liar on the internet? Btw, I was just as hot and bothered when Fran Drescher appeared in photos with Kim Kardashian, who crosses picket lines. Solidarity is solidarity. You shouldn’t abandon it when it’s slightly inconvenient.
I don’t think you can both say they’re just guidelines and argue Fox shouldn’t have been free to ignore them. Either they should guide her behavior or they shouldn’t.
And what terrible fate has she suffered besides a bunch of horny dorks on the internet defending her? I’m not saying she should be imprisoned, but it’s shitty antagonistic behavior for someone who doesn’t understand or care about solidarity. She’s free to leave the union if she wishes, but she knows that could harm her prospects at future work. You know, the thing the union is working toward securing a fair wage for her labor?
Nobody lies on the internet.
“Control my life outside work”Is that what’s happening here? If you’re a SAG member doing something that promotes struck work, is it okay simply because you’re not getting paid for it? I can understand SAG being pissed if one of its members was going around doing press for a struck movie but saying “Nah, it’s fine, I’m not getting paid for it.”
So brave of you to say that about someone you’ve never met and literally know literally nothing about them.
I don’t understand this and you’re not the only one saying it.“try and control my life”HOW? It’s a request. Has SAG-AFTRA actually outlined actual consequences for rejecting this request? Is there any discussion of tacit consequences, like unwritten blackballing? If not, it’s not control.
They should all be suspended as soon as the strike is over.
she’s not a good actress so i think its fine
interesting…
Wow she dressed at a character from Kill Bill, now I will pay a streaming site to watch it and also swear eternal loyalty to the studio system. The whole SAG Halloween guidelines are stupid. Forbidding members from promoting new works makes sense but dressing up as a twenty yesr old character doesn’t hurt anyone
I assume “Chord” rhymes with “lord” but “Chord (rhymes with board) Overstreet” is a Bobson Dugnutt-ass name.
I am very much enjoying so many’s interpretation of this man’s name being “a pre-internet japanese person’s idea of a ‘very american’ name”
How are “rhymes with lord” and “rhymes with board” different?
There Goes Rhymin’ Mythagoras
If I *had* to guess (and I don’t, so feel free to tell me to fuck off), I’d say “board” probably has a slight diphthong. The ‘o’ in “lord” is just an r-colored vowel whereas the “oa” in “board” is a slight “o-ah”, with the “ah” also being r-colored.But then I watch a lot of Charismatic Voice youtube videos…
Quite simply: I’m an idiot. How about…sounds like “I finished all my chores. I chored today.”
There goes her Oscar.
She don’t need no Oscar, she has a Machine Gun!
Doesn’t seem that hard to keep to a generic costume, especially when referencing old content can theoretically put more money in the studios’ pockets, on top of the fact that their libraries cushion their need for new content.
In general, the burden is not on people to justify whether it would be “hard” to not do a thing. The burden is on someone trying to constrain their behavior to justify that constraint.
My economic future doesn’t hinge on a good deal, and I sort of managed to get to a justification with relatively little effort. Maybe it was bad messaging by the executive team at SAG, but it definitely feels like obstinance for the sake of obstinance.
People don’t like being told what to do without sufficient reason. If you want to call that “obstinance,” OK.
No one exists who is named “Chord Overstreet.”
so brave…
I’ll die on this hill.
I don’t believe you . . . you’re a liar . . .
A celebrity dressing up as a movie character is lame unless it’s done in a way to demonstrate technical effort or subvert expectations. They have access to wardrobe collections and professional makeup artists that most people could only dream of. Being a different flavor of hot chick when your daily brand is “hot chick,” is corny. Flaunting breaking the guidelines and tagging them in the post is petty contrarianism. I know there’s a lot of anti-union temporarily embarrassed millionaires who post on this site, but if you believe the work you do matters and has value, then publicly going against leadership just plays into the hands of management. That’s what grievances are for. Complain there. Americans are allergic to solidarity.Also, boo to Ryan Reynolds for taking the guidelines out of context to make the union look bad. I know you’re a billionaire or whatever, but stop being such a knob.
It’s also worth asking if that *particular* character was the best choice for Fox. It’s not quite “Emma Stone cast as a Hawaiian in an actual studio film” levels of oof but it’s not great.
Kyle MacLachlan could have gone as ‘Generic Thirsty Desert Warrior Who Walks Without Rhythm’.
I don’t get it why would going out as kim kardashian break the rules?
I am NOT a generalized nor a figure!