SAG says actors won't do Globes
It's official: No actors will show up
By DAVE MCNARY
SAG president Alan Rosenberg has announced that not one of the more than 70 actors nominated for a Golden Globe will attend the Jan. 13 ceremonies because of the WGA's plans to picket the event.

The Globes have been thrown into turmoil and uncertainty due to the WGA's refusal to grant a strike waiver to struck Globes producer Dick Clark Prods., which offered to accept the same terms as David Letterman's Worldwide Pants banner. Instead, the guild has said it will picket the Globes, skedded to air on NBC, which has become a prime target of the WGA's strike campaign in the past few weeks.

Rosenberg, who made the announcement Friday afternoon, has been a staunch supporter of the two-month strike.

"After considerable outreach to Golden Globe actor nominees and their representatives over the past several weeks, there appears to be unanimous agreement that these actors will not cross WGA picket lines to appear on the Golden Globe Awards as acceptors or presenters," he said. "We applaud our members for this remarkable show of solidarity for striking Writers Guild of America writers."

In response, Dick Clark Prods. issued this statement: "Dick Clark Productions has reached out to the WGA on numerous occasions, from the very beginning of the WGA strike, and offered to enter into an interim agreement similar to the agreement reached by Worldwide Pants on behalf of the "Late Show with David Letterman" for the "Golden Globe Awards" -- as well as all of our other programs. We are disappointed that the WGA has refused to bargain with us in good faith. It is apparent that we are being treated differently from similarly situated production companies.

"Dick Clark Productions is an independent production company that is not a member of the AMPTP and which has not authorized the AMPTP to represent it in the 2007 WGA negotiations. We support the WGA in their efforts on behalf of writers and hope that they will reconsider their position with regard to negotiating an interim agreement with us."

More @ http://www.variety.com/VR1117978475.html

So now SAG actors can't accept their awards that they earned with their completed work because the WGA and AMPTP are fueding over future productions?

Actors? How would you feel if you were robbed like that?

I don't think it's saying they can't accept their awards, but rather they WON'T accept their awards -- out of respect for what the writers are after.. That's how it reads to me anyway.

Strikes are meant to be inconvenient, if they weren't, they wouldn't have any effect.

Yeah thats what I meant. SAG has mandated that the actors can't accept their awards on stage on television and receive the applause of their peers for their hard work.

It also doesn't make sense to me. The WGA doesn't hire the actors, the AMPTP members hire the actors, so why would SAG want to side with the WGA?

SAG has mandated that the actors can't accept their awards on stage on television and receive the applause of their peers for their hard work.

"We applaud our members for this remarkable show of solidarity for striking Writers Guild of America writers."

They are saying that the MEMBERS have unanimously agreed not to cross the picket lines. No one is mandating anything.

It also doesn't make sense to me. The WGA doesn't hire the actors, the AMPTP members hire the actors, so why would SAG want to side with the WGA?

It's called union solidarity. While writers may not hire the actors, they all deal with the studios and are sticking together to show that none of them can be taken advantage of by the AMPTP.

Strikes are meant to be inconvenient, if they weren't, they wouldn't have any effect.

Exactly. It sucks in the short term for a tiny handful of actors, but it helps everyone in the long term.

They are saying that the MEMBERS have unanimously agreed not to cross the picket lines. No one is mandating anything.

I'd be interested to find out how that statement is defined.

It's called union solidarity. While writers may not hire the actors, they all deal with the studios and are sticking together to show that none of them can be taken advantage of by the AMPTP.

How about sticking with the AMPTP and showing the writers can't hold the actors jobs hostage, especially when dealing with productions not handled by the AMPTP?

Exactly. It sucks in the short term for a tiny handful of actors, but it helps everyone in the long term.

By everyone, you mean the WGA?

I'd be interested to find out how that statement is defined.

You're not the least bit interested in how that statement is defined. You've already made up your mind that it means that the actors were ordered against their will to avoid the Globe cast, and would have otherwise gladly crossed the picket lines because a shiny gold statue is more important to them than sticking up for fellow artists in the industry.

How about sticking with the AMPTP

Is that supposed to be funny?

By everyone, you mean the WGA?

Nope. If the writers cave, it makes it much more difficult for the actors and directors, whose contracts are coming up this year, to negotiate favorable terms. If the writers stick to their guns and get a fair deal on internet residuals, then it makes it easier for other unions to do the same.

Something to consider WideShot.

The SAG contract expires in June. One of the things they want is
what the writers want - a piece of the internet revenue. If the
AMPTP breaks the WGA and doesn't give them a piece of the action,
then they can use that against SAG. The SAG leadership knows that.

One thing that makes unions and guilds strong is when other unions
and guilds refuse to cross another's picket lines. We are all in
this together. And it's a great show of solidarity that SAG is
honoring the WGA strike.

I understand your anger. In answer to your question "How would you
feel if you were robbed like that?" I would feel terrible. But if the
actors give in now and don't show solidarity with the WGA, they
are very likely to not get what they want when their contract expires.
How about sticking with the AMPTP and showing the writers can't hold the actors jobs hostage, especially when dealing with productions not handled by the AMPTP?
That's exactly what Variety wants. They have been very anti WGA from
the beginning and they will continue to be against SAG as long as
they side with the WGA.

I know there are SAG members who side with the AMPTP and there are
WGA members who side with the AMPTP. But the leadership of both
guilds don't. There was a vote and the majority of the members
chose not to cross the picket lines. That is how it's defined -
by a vote.

You're not the least bit interested in how that statement is defined. You've already made up your mind that it means that the actors were ordered against their will to avoid the Globe cast, and would have otherwise gladly crossed the picket lines because a shiny gold statue is more important to them than sticking up for fellow artists in the industry.

Thats not it at all. And don't tell me what I'm interested in. I'm not a SAG member and so I don't know what took place at their meeting. I do know how unions work, however, and it isn't a democratic exercise.

Here's another quote from the article:

"Rosenberg also announced SAG is urging its members to appear on the two Worldwide Pants shows that have waiver deals with the WGA -- "Late Show with David Letterman" and "Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" -- but indicated they should avoid other shows. That would include "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," although Rosenberg did not specify any other show by name.

"Actors who are asked to appear on the struck network talk shows will have to cross WGA picket lines, creating the same situation that has led to the consensus among actors to skip the golden Globes," Rosenberg said. "As I have said since this strike began on November 5th, we must stand united with our brothers and sisters at the WGA."

Sounds like the actors made the decision on their own eh?


Is that supposed to be funny?

I'm sure this strike is a real laughing matter to actors who can't find work at the moment and have bills to pay.

Nope. If the writers cave, it makes it much more difficult for the actors and directors, whose contracts are coming up this year, to negotiate favorable terms.

That I understand.

If the writers stick to their guns and get a fair deal on internet residuals, then it makes it easier for other unions to do the same.

If it has its intended effect. Sooner or later they're all going to need work.

I'm not going to get into who I think is wrong or right in the strike. Only that unions are greedy and often cause more problems than they solve.

Something to consider WideShot.

The SAG contract expires in June. One of the things they want is
what the writers want - a piece of the internet revenue. If the
AMPTP breaks the WGA and doesn't give them a piece of the action,
then they can use that against SAG. The SAG leadership knows that.

One thing that makes unions and guilds strong is when other unions
and guilds refuse to cross another's picket lines. We are all in
this together. And it's a great show of solidarity that SAG is
honoring the WGA strike.

I understand your anger. In answer to your question "How would you
feel if you were robbed like that?" I would feel terrible. But if the
actors give in now and don't show solidarity with the WGA, they
are very likely to not get what they want when their contract expires.

That's exactly what Variety wants. They have been very anti WGA from
the beginning and they will continue to be against SAG as long as
they side with the WGA.

I know there are SAG members who side with the AMPTP and there are
WGA members who side with the AMPTP. But the leadership of both
guilds don't. There was a vote and the majority of the members
chose not to cross the picket lines. That is how it's defined -
by a vote.

IMO the DGA and SAG have a lot more to bargain with than the WGA does. Everything else you said though makes sense and I agree with.

I just think its a real shame that these actors who took roles, like for instance Daniel Day Lewis, years ago before this crap ever happened, live with the role, become the person, and turn in a fantastic performance, only to have them prevented from even getting their pat on the back from their peers because a union that is not even their own, is at war with their bosses. Its just a really sad thing. If the DGA announces the same, that would be as much of a shame.

I'm not going to get into who I think is wrong or right in the strike. Only that unions are greedy and often cause more problems than they solve.
Well there it is, isn't it? You are hardly neutral. You feel
unions are greedy and often cause more problems than they solve.
I imagine it would be nearly impossible for any union member to
change your mind.

Just as I'm not neutral. I'm a member of WGA and four IATSE
locals. There is nothing a non-union person can say that will
make me leave the union. I don't agree with every move my unions
make, but they have helped me more than they have hurt me.

So it looks like there is a stalemate here. You feel we writers
are wrong in - as you put it - holding actors jobs hostage. I
feel we all need to stick together to get better financial
agreements from the producers. You feel the writers don't have as
much to bargain with as actors and directors. You and Variety. I
feel the script is extremely important to a production and is as
important as the actors and directors.

I too, think it's a shame and a really sad thing. But I'm glad
that SAG has shown solidarity with us.

IMO the DGA and SAG have a lot more to bargain with than the WGA does. Everything else you said though makes sense and I agree with.

I just think its a real shame that these actors who took roles, like for instance Daniel Day Lewis, years ago before this crap ever happened, live with the role, become the person, and turn in a fantastic performance, only to have them prevented from even getting their pat on the back from their peers because a union that is not even their own, is at war with their bosses. Its just a really sad thing. If the DGA announces the same, that would be as much of a shame.

That's exactly one of the MAJOR reasons the WGA is sticking to their guns... Directors don't write movies -- except writer/directors -- not a lot of them around. Actors don't write movies... Without the writer, there IS NO MOVIE.

Without the director, there is still a movie.
Without the actor, there is still a movie.
Without the writer, there is NO movie.

However, because writers started out being not much more than a janitor cleaning a bathroom, actors and directors have become the movie Gods and this just ain't the way it should be... But it's cool -- it's been done already and it's not likely to change in our lifetime.

However misguided the WGA may or may not appear, they simply want writers to be recognized for their contribution to the MATERIAL.

They aren't... At least not in the same vein as actors and directors... And they certainly should be.

I am happy to support your opinion because it's a free country but I would have to agree to disagree because those are the very kinds of opinions that perpetuate actors and directors as the movie Gods.

I'm not even a member of the WGA and never will be because I don't like unions myself but I am a professional writer and have been WGA eligible for a long long time. One of the reasons I am not a member is so I can perpetuate my own agenda when it comes to writers being recognized for their contribution to a movie.

On this agenda, I stand united with the WGA even though I am not a member.

filmy

Well there it is, isn't it? You are hardly neutral. You feel
unions are greedy and often cause more problems than they solve.

I don't see how the two make me non-neutral towards this strike? I've worked for two organizations and was represented by a union. They are a necessity, but that doesn't mean they have the business they are involved with in their best interest. Thank god for them, they helped to end unsafe work conditions and radically unfair pay, long work without overtime, non-allowed breaks, etc. Often times, the things unions seek are not reprieve from anything inhumane.

So it looks like there is a stalemate here. You feel we writers
are wrong in - as you put it - holding actors jobs hostage.

I didn't say wrong. The writers are holding the actor's jobs hostage. They are the ones on strike, and they are not writing material for the producers or actors. The producers are not on strike here.

You feel the writers don't have as
much to bargain with as actors and directors. You and Variety.

Whoa man, take off the tin foil hat. I don't know what Variety supports I just read their RSS feeds.

I feel the script is extremely important to a production and is as
important as the actors and directors.

So do I. But we're leaving out the producers and I think they're real important too.

"that has led to the consensus among actors to skip the golden Globes."

Sounds like the actors made the decision on their own eh?

That's exactly what it sounds like.

Only that unions are greedy and often cause more problems than they solve.

Do you have ANY idea what the writers are striking about? They want to be paid when the shows they create get seen on the internet, shows that the networks sell ads to and make money from. The studios, the ones that YOU think the actors and directors should side with, are telling the writers that those shows are "promotional" and therefore no one is entitled to any of the ad revenue from them. And while they are telling the writers and actors that digital downloads make no money, they are telling stockholders at the same time that they expect revenue from digital downloads to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue in 2008.

Who sounds greedy here? And the actors are supposed to turn their backs on their fellow unions and join with the big corporations?

I don't see how the two make me non-neutral towards this strike?

You said that the unions are greedy and think, rather bafflingly, that the actors should side with the same big studios that are trying to screw everyone out of their due residuals. I don't think that counts as "neutral."

And here's more news about the GG:

The WGA has stated that they will not picket the Globes as long as the ceremony isn't telecast. If the HFPA holds the ceremony without airing on NBC, the WGA would encourage their own writers and the other unions to attend.

The WGA isn't against anyone receiving their due recognition. Their beef is with NBC, not with the HFPA.

Do you have ANY idea what the writers are striking about? They want to be paid when the shows they create get seen on the internet, shows that the networks sell ads to and make money from. The studios, the ones that YOU think the actors and directors should side with, are telling the writers that those shows are "promotional" and therefore no one is entitled to any of the ad revenue from them.

Who sounds greedy here? And the actors are supposed to turn their backs on their fellow unions and join with the big corporations?

As I said, I'm neutral. I'm not a member of either. If I was a WGA member, I would likely find their standpoint as right, and producers wrong. If I was a AMPTP member, I would think they were right. If I were a SAG member or DGA member or WGA member, I would see the AMPTP as the big bully who is unwilling to give us a bigger piece of the pie. All of this is great until people get fed up with having no work. Then lets see what happens. In turn, it should mean GREAT things for indies who are not members of these unions.

Thats neutral.

Meanwhile, as a fan of several nominated people for the awards, I think its just plain stupid that those people shouldn't be allowed to accept an award on stage for work completed when all companies were in agreement.

But what is interesting is your decision to focus on just the AMPTP as the bully in the new media campaign. What if the AMPTP gives the WGA 2.5% for new media? Then SAG and DGA and who else will come forward and request 2.5%. Is that fair? Can anyone even calculate how much might be left for the producers, most notably the ones who actually put up the money, and the distributors should that happen?

You said that the unions are greedy and think, rather bafflingly, that the actors should side with the same big studios that are trying to screw everyone out of their due residuals. I don't think that counts as "neutral."

You say due residuals. I'm not in a position to say whether 2.5% is due residuals. The issue of whether SAG should side with the WGA or embarass their bosses and possibly the whole of the awards system in Hollywood is seperate from "big studios trying to screw everyone." You're one sided. I think both have a very good point.

I do know how unions work, however, and it isn't a democratic exercise....

...Sounds like the actors made the decision on their own eh?

...I'm sure this strike is a real laughing matter to actors who can't find work at the moment and have bills to pay....



...actually, it probably was democratic....

I think that, as usually is involved with unions, being able to pay bills is part of why there is a strike in the first place.....


....Only that unions are greedy and often cause more problems than they solve.

Whether unions are greedy or not will forever be up for debate. However speaking as a member of the UAW -- Michigan is a Union state, UAW was in the tv station where I worked -- There is never a union brought into a "shop" that doesn't need one. If everyone felt they were being treated fairly, there would be no strike. And unions support other unions because that is their strength.

The money from internet sales and what have you has to be going somewhere. In the long run it would seem that for everyone involved to see some of that revenue would be fair to everyone. SAG made the decision to strike with WGA.

A pat on the back is great, but it seems as though the strike and its possibilities are more important to its members. Money talks and this is Hollywood, right? :hmm:

-- spinner :cool:

Here's the deal...

If you JOIN the Union, these things like STRIKES are an occupational hazzard. They GO ALONG WITH THE TERRITORY.

When you KNOW THAT UP FRONT and of course YOU SHOULD, then you must know how Unions work. You must know that other unions won't cross picket lines. You must know that unions stand together.

You must know that or DON'T join the union. Or, as in my situation -- you know that and you still don't join.

In other words, I made a conscious choice here. I know what I'm missing out on and I know what I'm not missing out on.

But as for the Golden Globes and all the other union workers that aren't in the WGA, they know this is an occupational hazzard of being a member of a union. Yes, some will complain. Some will say to take the deal, yada yada yada but at the same time, realistically speaking, they all know that they just have to wait until union leaders come to the conclusion that they have gotten the best deal they're going to get.

In my own humble opinion -- it's the mindset that directors and actors contribute more to the material than writers do that hurts everyone especially the writers.

You don't see a writer getting $25 Mil a picture. Well again in my humble opinion, I don't think anyone deserves that much per pic except maybe the writer... Without the writer, there is no movie yet of the three -- directors, actors, and writers, the writer ON AVERAGE -- gets paid the least except for the A-List writers but compared to A-List directors and actors?

FUGHEDABOUDIT.

We've been led to believe that it's the actors and directors that make the movie and certainly to a certain degree that's true but not without a writer beating that fucking story out beat by fucking beat over a 6 month to 2 year period.

So while we weep for union workers (not just WGA) being out of work for now (I sympathize -- I really do -- I have a mortgage like everyone else), they chose to be in the union and the benefits/penalites for making that choice -- at least for now -- is being out of work.

I find it no different than making the choice to rob a bank... Rob a bank, risk going to prison. Occupational hazzard.

No different than making the choice of becoming a doctor... Graduate from med school, work 36 hour shifts as an intern. Occupational hazzard.

No different than making the choice of becoming a salesperson working on straight commission and not making a sale this week so no check. Occupational hazzard.

filmy

Filmy, you summed it up perfectly.

The strike is by-no-means getting out of hand. You have to understand that this strike will go down as being one of the most important... even possibly the most important turning points in the entertainment industry.

As of now, almost no one but the studios themselves are getting a cut of online profits. The studios claim online downloads don't make them any money -- when they know it's a bold face lie.
Seriously, how can you not make money from selling a digital product on iTunes and similar services? There is no manufacturing, no physical product, just a digital download that probably costs them less then $5 once Apple has taken their cut. When you sell a download for $10-$15, they make a larger profit than selling a physical DVD.

Then there are studios putting up TV episodes and films online to stream for free, they claim it's just promotional and they make no money from it... When they sell dedicated (and very expensive) ad space -- both banner ads on the webpage and commercials during the video.

The thing is, the studios want to to trick everyone into believing there's no money to be made online, so when the Internet becomes the main distribution platform -- they will already have everyone locked into unfavorable contracts.
The writers aren't stupid, they know the Internet is the future, hell -- cable television as we know it today probably won't exist in 5-10 years. It will all be on demand via the Internet... Same with movies, you won't have to go out and rent movies or wait for Netflix, you'll just select what you want to watch with your remote (I'm aware you can already do this with certain technologies, I am merely pointing out it will become the new standard).

Quite simply, this is a war we can not let them win. The WGA, SAG, DGA all need to band together and make sure they come out on top -- no matter what it takes.
They aren't fighting for just themselves, they are setting the path for all future filmmakers and everyone involved. I am eternally grateful for their efforts.

There is overhead in Digital downloads. The servers and the bandwidth take millions of dollars of hardware and telecommunications connections. If you consider the sheer scope of iTunes and that they house all of the content available to most everyone on the freaking planet for download at any given point in time, you're talking many Terrabytes of storage (if not Exabytes).

More than likely, that kind of bandwidth needs at least a OC1 (thick internet pipe) if not larger to handle the 1amount of traffic and the size of the files being transferred. The connection alone costs 10-20k per month. Downloads come from real places, not some the magic ephemera of the internet, so the distribution chain has lots of cost associated with it...and more downloads means more cost, just like in traditional distribution.

So the writers (whom I support) wanting more money cuts into that as well...and as I understand it, the internet distro is the big deal item for this strike. With contracts coming up as mentioned for the DGA and SAG, They want cuts of the internet downloads as well as their current contracts don't cover download at all...they were penned before that was a reality, therefore not considered at all in the contracts. Right now, the studio gets it all form downloads.

Whoa man, take off the tin foil hat. I don't know what Variety supports I just read their RSS feeds.

Tin foil hat? You think I'm crazy?

Variety has been very anti WGA from the start. They, too, feel as
you do. That the directors and writer have a lot more to bargain
with than the writers. And that's why the writers are playing
hard ball. The producers also think the directors and actors have
a lot more to bargain with than the writers.

I guess the reason I thought you weren't natural is because of
your "greedy" statement. That seemed to indicate that you have a
negative feeling towards unions.
What if the AMPTP gives the WGA 2.5% for new media? Then SAG and DGA and who else will come forward and request 2.5%. Is that fair? Can anyone even calculate how much might be left for the producers, most notably the ones who actually put up the money, and the distributors should that happen?
Yes, I think it's fair. And yes, people can calculate how much is
left over after 7.5% is given to the guilds.

IF the directors ask for 2.5%. Since most of the DGA members
aren't directors and don't share in the profits, the DGA isn't
going to ask for a share. What the producers are worried about is
the SAG asking for a share.

But I do understand that as a fan of several of the nominated
actors you feel bad for them. I do too. I also feel for the
writers who won't be able to go up to the stage and accept their
award. I hope that this action by both unions will bring the
producers back to the table so a deal can be worked out.

But then, I'm still wearing a tin foil hat.

Knightly, that's why I mentioned Apple probably gets around a $5 cut for each download, maybe more, maybe less. But they are definitely making enough to cover their expenses. And bandwidth/storage is constantly expanding and becoming cheaper.

Take a look at Amazon S3 for example:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=16427261

5 years ago, I would have never believed those prices would have been possible. $0.15/month for a gig of data and another (avg) $0.15 per GB transferred, all misc expenses like the connection pipe are included.
Imagine someone like Apple coming in and getting a wholesale discount, they'd probably pay $0.10/month per GB of storage and $0.10 per GB transferred. So, roughly $0.40 for each 4GB DVD quality download that's sold for $10-$15 (~$5 cut for Apple). Television episodes through iTunes float around 250MB, a cost of roughly $0.025 per $1.99 download -- that's a considerably high profit margin on both accounts.

I'd say it's safe to assume Apple doesn't own a majority of their own storage hardware, it's more economical for them to use server farms all over the world. They pay for storage and transfers, and split the backbone connections (most likely OC-48, 2.488 Gbps) with other businesses within the same farm. It keeps their costs as low as possible.

Man, we've gone horribly off topic. I apologize, everyone.

Tin foil hat? You think I'm crazy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat , I was making levity of your lumping me in with Variety. Apparently the reference isn't as well known to you.

I guess the reason I thought you weren't natural is because of
your "greedy" statement. That seemed to indicate that you have a
negative feeling towards unions.

I do feel unions become greedy after they've corrected any unsafe working conditions. And they will continue to do so until they run the industry right out of business. That is their job, its what they get paid for, to create a better environment for their members, regardless of the effect on the industry or the employers. It is the same with all unions.

Yes, I think it's fair. And yes, people can calculate how much is
left over after 7.5% is given to the guilds.

IF the directors ask for 2.5%. Since most of the DGA members
aren't directors and don't share in the profits, the DGA isn't
going to ask for a share. What the producers are worried about is
the SAG asking for a share.

My question was, if the reasoning for the strike and the union solidarity was that if they didn't AMPTP would be able to shut out all unions on new media or other requests, then it follows that the AMPTP must be thinking the same thing regarding giving the WGA 2.5% of new media, that the other two can request such and threaten a strike if they don't get it.

Now my question to you is, is that 2.5% for SAG as a whole on a picture or is that 2.5% per agreement?

That's kinda what I thought. People who wear tin foil hats are paranoid and crazy.

I'm crazy, but I'm not sure that lumping you in with Daily Variety
makes me paranoid.

And that's why I don't see you as neutral. You believe something
about unions that I see as bias against them - something I think
is incorrect. Certainly incorrect from my (not neutral)
experience. None of the unions I belong to want to run the
industry out of business. You feel that way, and I won't argue
your point. But it doesn't appear to be a neutral stand.

Of course the AMPTP is thinking that. They shut out the writers
from home video revenue in 1988 and reaped the benefits. They
hope the WGA backs off on their demand so they can keep more of
the revenue. That's good business. And if they give in to the
WGA, SAG is going to ask for the same thing. 5% of new media
revenue going to writers and actors is something the studios do
not want to do.

But in the eyes of many - including Variety - it's greedy for the
writers to want a piece of the action. Something as both a writer
and producer, I don't understand. And I admit I'm not neutral on
the subject. That 2.5% is going into someones pocket. The
producers want it in theirs, the writers want in in theirs.

Where I am neutral is I see both sides. The producers take the
financial risk so they want the largest share. The writers see
their contribution as essential and worth not only a fee up
front, but a percentage on the back end.

Greedy? Maybe.
Trying to run the industry out of business? Not from my POV.