The TV Zone

Oh yes, the actors.

In all this talk about writers and yesterday's Writers Guild of America vote, we almost forgot about them. But this oversight should be corrected shortly. Here's why: There's pressure mounting on the Screen Actors Guild, the larger and certainly more visible union that represents just about everyone that works in FRONT of the camera, to start negotiating its next contract.

SAG's deal is up June 30 but per the trades this morning, the studios want to get the Guild to the table quickly - perhaps to seal a deal similar to the one the writers just agreed to?

As evidence of this pressure, here's a fascinating nugget in Dave McNary's piece in Variety this morning: "Studios are indicating to agents this week that they're generally holding back on commitments to feature projects until SAG signs a new deal - particularly since they've been stockpiling features in recent months as a hedge against a SAG strike."

But here's the big question: Will actors embrace the writers deal? The WGA deal is considered roughly similar to the Directors Guild deal, signed earlier, but SAG disparaged the DGA deal at the time. So...how does it feel about the new WGA deal?

It's unlikely the actors will go on strike, but really, who knows for certain. Here's one intriguing development: There's a huge fissure between the haves and have-nots in the union, with working actors - a total of 800, in fact - having signed a petition demanding a "qualified voting requirement."

This means...that only working actors making a buck - apparently at least $7,500 a year - would be allowed to vote on the new contract. Their fear? That those who aren't working, or the vast majority of actors, will vote for a strike.

(That guy pictured above - can't think of his name at the moment - wants SAG to get talking.)