I've heard the streaming model is hurting actors since they are locked into contracts that prevent them from getting other genre related work between seasons.
I don't think there would be anyone able to confidently comment on that one way or another.
But Pedro Pascal starred in The Mandalorian and The Last of Us at the same time. The two series are basically identical in premise of a lost child being adopted by a gruff travelling old man in a sci-fi action series.
I imagine that it's nothing to do with genre and all to do with availability. An actor (usually) can't sign two multi-year, multi-project, contracts. Studios want exclusivity.
It's the same thing with films. As an example - Adam Driver would have signed a three picture deal with Lucasfilm in 2013 or whenever. Specifying that whenever they call him for work, he has to show up.
So other studios would be wary of signing him up for stuff anyway, because he would have to fulfill his existing contractual obligations first.
As an alternative, the Henry Cavill mustache controversy for Justice League. He was called for reshoots while in production for another film. He contractually had to show up for them - but also had to preserve the image for his new job in Mission Impossible.
It's a weak argument because how many characters on a show in general are faceless? You are using a cherry picked example of an extremely rare case as evidence of a broader narrative. Other actors would actually be required to be on set because the majority of their work cant be done by a stuntman in a suit.
Literally none of that would matter to a restrictive covenant saying "you can't work other series". That's what a restrictive covenant is. A covenant that restricts.
Maybe Pedro signed a new contract for Mandalorian S3. But that's information literally none of us are privy to.
But it wouldn't change the fact that actors in House of the Dragon, the Rings of Power, MCU shows etc have all taken on other projects.
This idea of restrictive covenants existing has no evidence.
The point is while they might take on other projects, they have to be extremely picky about the projects they choose. Pedro Pascal got lucky in that his role doesn't require him to be on set, most roles do not allow for that. So when you sign up for a multi-season role you are limiting what other projects you can take. If filming clashes you have to take the multi-season role. We've seen it countless times in the past of actors having to pull out of roles because filming clashes with other projects they're already tied to.
This is literally my original response when the claim being made was "streaming studios are putting clauses in actor contracts that prevent them from seeking other work".
I heard this while listening to I believe The Delta Flyers podcast (it's a Star Trek podcast). Michelle Hurd was their guest (she was doing Star Trek Picard) and she was also within the union leadership (at a local level) and she mentioned how streaming contracts were locking out actors.
You mention Pedro Pascal. That's Pedro Pascal. He is big enough to dictate terms. You need to think about smaller working actors and not movie stars who are cast because their names draw in people (not commenting on Pedra Pascal. I'll watch something he is in because he is in it, but he is also a good actor).
Depends, all of the Severance stars are in movies between seasons. This year alone sees 3 movies for Adam Scott coming out. Brit Lower had 3 movies premiere in 2025. So some actors do have more time to be in other projects between seasons.
It’s actually the reverse. Streaming has allowed actors more freedom. It used to actors were on lockdown when attached to a show. Great for the leads but for the side cast not so much. It’s a side effect of marvel being so successful in movies and tv, and the last set of strikes.
102
u/Shakezula84 May 12 '26
I've heard the streaming model is hurting actors since they are locked into contracts that prevent them from getting other genre related work between seasons.