# Writers strike is a go



## Grog (Nov 6, 2007)

As most of you have no doubt heard by now, the WGA and the studios could not come to an agreement, and the writers strike has begun. This article here is one of the best I've found for summing up the issues at the heart of the strike, and the impact it might have on your TV viewing schedule.


			
				Alan Sepinwall said:
			
		

> Without boring you too much with talk of contract law, what it boils down to is this: for decades, the TV business was set up in a way in which everyone -- the studios, the writers, the directors, the actors -- made a lot of their money on reruns, both reruns on the networks and in syndication. Whenever a writer's episode got repeated, he'd get a check.
> 
> In the current market, however, reruns are dead or dying. Fox never airs repeats of "24," for instance, or ABC with "Lost." Now the money is on DVDs and, soon (if not now), the Internet. The WGA has already lost the battle on DVDs, thanks to a short-sighted agreement on home video rights in the '80s (back when no one thought that people would pay money to own dozens and dozens of unwieldy videotapes); they get a tiny percentage for all those DVDs on your shelf. The Internet, however, is uncharted territory. No one knows how much money is there, but everyone knows that's where the business is moving, and the WGA -- and, when their contracts come up next year, the actor and director unions -- wants their piece of it. The writers say they only want what they're entitled to, the studios say they're being unreasonable, negotiations have barely progressed at all, and so now the writers are on strike.



It looks like both sides are digging in for a long strike, so after the networks run out of canned episodes to show, start looking forward to a lot more reality TV.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 6, 2007)

Bah. I have a whole lot of writer friends; I hope it's settled soon.


----------



## Kida (Nov 6, 2007)

How does this affect shows past this season? Massive cancellations?


----------



## Steve Jung (Nov 6, 2007)

Late night talk shows will be affected tomorrow, I think. Soap operas have a week lead time. Prime time shows have a couple months.


----------



## Grog (Nov 6, 2007)

Kida said:
			
		

> How does this affect shows past this season? Massive cancellations?



After this season, if the strike is still ongoing, the studios will have two choices - either try to find writers who will cross the picket lines, or simply not produce any new shows and try to fill the gaps in their lineups with reality TV and such.

But, compounding the problem is the fact that next year, the directors' and actors' guild contracts come up for renewal. And I suspect that that's the reason that the studios are taking such a hard line with the writers when it comes to digital distribution - if they give the writers a piece of the digital distribution pie, they'll have no choice but to give the directors and the actors their cuts as well. The studios don't want that. They want to keep all that money for themselves.

So who knows what the picture will look like next year.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 6, 2007)

Were it not for this thread I  -- and I suspect a majority of the viewing public -- would not even notice.  

I don't know if that makes me happy or sad.


----------



## Mark (Nov 6, 2007)

No _30 Rock_ and _How I Met Your Mother_?  No the _The Daily Show_ and the _The Colbert Report_?  How will I live without the laughter?


----------



## Villano (Nov 6, 2007)

Kida said:
			
		

> How does this affect shows past this season? Massive cancellations?




I found this article covering some of the shows affected: 



> WGA Strike: How It Will Affect You
> 
> The Writers Guild of America (WGA), the union representing nearly all TV and movie writers in America, has decided to strike after negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), an organisation that represents American film and television producers. The strike, happening from 12:01am on Monday 5th November American time, will mean the total freeze in the writing of scripts and will affect a large number of TV shows, some immediately, others over the next few months.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 6, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Were it not for this thread I  -- and I suspect a majority of the viewing public -- would not even notice.




Oh, I disagree. If we come out of the mid-season break--that is, head into February, give or take--and none of our favorite shows are on, I think people would notice.

Me, personally? I'm going to cry like a little girl if I don't get full seasons of NCIS, Bones, Supernatural, CSI, and CSI: NY.  (Thankfully, my other must-see is Stargate Atlantis, which seems safe.)


----------



## ssampier (Nov 6, 2007)

I hope they can come to an agreement that's win-win.

As for reality shows, ironically enough, I thought they _had_ writers (very few go into syndication/DVD though).


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 6, 2007)

Honestly, I hope it works out well for the writers. They get no real recognition for their work beyond the show's credits (which are shown so fast in such a small font that it's almost meaningless), so I think it's not too much to ask that they get more money.

I am, however, quite worried about not getting more of Heroes. And Heroes: Origins is canceled?! Surely that can't be right?!

Also, it's a bit odd that the ABC listing has nothing about Boston Legal.


----------



## Grog (Nov 6, 2007)

Here's another post about the issues involved in the writers' strike from Mark Evanier.



> I don't mean to cry poverty here...just misrepresentation of the norm. Some writers do receive staggering sums of cash. This is generally because they contribute to something that makes even more staggering sums of cash. No one is expecting you to feel sorry for them but don't pretend we're all in that tax bracket. Besides, very little of the current contract dispute pertains to them, at least on a monetary level. The contract is all about setting minimums and the really rich writers didn't get that way working for minimums.
> 
> I can explain this better with the actors. The average actor is not Leonardo DiCaprio, considering which of his $15 million dollar offers he'll take next. The average actor is more like Herman Krellman, waiting tables at night and hustling to get auditions by day, hoping to land a two line part on some show every so often. Next year, when the Screen Actors Guild contract is up for renewal and the Producers try to lower costs there, they'll point to Leonardo and say, "Look how overpaid these actors are!" And then they'll (a) push for contract terms that will not significantly affect Mr. DiCaprio's income but will lower Herman's pay the next time he gets a job...and (b) offer Leonardo $25 million for his next movie.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 6, 2007)

So, the stumbling block is getting royalty from motion picture download over the internet?

I don't see why that's a problem. Give writers their royalties for every episode or film being bought and downloaded over the internet. If that result in jacking up the price, so be it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 6, 2007)

Give away money? Madness!


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 6, 2007)

I'm suprized by the idea of "just switch to reality TV" and the claims that the reality shows aren't affected as well. I suppose it's possible that the writing done on those shows isn't officially screenwriting by the terms of the current contract (I seem to recall past arguments about that issue) and thus they can get away with having non guild members doing it.

Edit : I want to see a list like the one above for the shows that will effect my household - what happens to the Good Night Show? and the Let's Go Show? Is Zaboomafoo still in production????  Luckily Thomas and a lot of the Kahuna Meatball's other favorites are british imports....


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Bah. I have a whole lot of writer friends; I hope it's settled soon.




I feel for the writers if it is not settled soon.  And I fear for the health of a few shows I really like.

But, overall, I gotta say - if there isn't any good TV, I have a cornucopia of novels to read, and games to play.  Having less TV to watch isn't going to be much of a hardship.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 6, 2007)

It'll be interesting to see what existing shows do when the writers come back though; they'll have to be some pretty interesting in-character alterations made to fit the fact that not as many episodes were made this season.


----------



## Lockridge (Nov 6, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I feel for the writers if it is not settled soon.  And I fear for the health of a few shows I really like.
> 
> But, overall, I gotta say - if there isn't any good TV, I have a cornucopia of novels to read, and games to play.  Having less TV to watch isn't going to be much of a hardship.




Good point,
So no TV means more time for playing D&D, trying other games, reading the stack of unread books on my shelf, taking walks, trying new places to eat, hanging out with friends, watching some TV show DVDs that I haven't had time for (such as Babylon 5 - bought it on sale but no time to watch it).  Oh, and of course more family time is always good.

Hmm...bad thing?  not sure...


----------



## Jubilee (Nov 6, 2007)

I haven't watched "live" TV in about 5 years, so I'm largely unaffected, although my husband and I have gotten addicted to Lost on DVD, but we haven't seen season 3 yet.. I was considering going to the trouble of watching Lost on my fuzzy, poor-reception, no-cable TV if we caught up before it started, but now I guess I won't bother.  I hope they still finish out the season eventually..

I have been very much looking forward to the release of the Futurama movies, I wonder if they will be affected?? I would cry! 

I am fully in support of the writers guild standing up for their right to a slice of the internet money pie, though!


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 6, 2007)

> It will also mean a change of lifestyles for some as they will spend more time away from the TV due to the lack of programs to watch



Epic win!


----------



## Villano (Nov 6, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I am, however, quite worried about not getting more of Heroes. And Heroes: Origins is canceled?! Surely that can't be right?!




Keep in mind that we don't know how many episodes of Origins were even written.  With the strike, they aren't going to be getting any more scripts.  If they have only a couple completed scripts, it isn't worth going into production.  Plus, from what I understand, Heroes was planned to air for 1/2 a season, take a break, and return with the second half of the episodes, with Origins filling in during the break.  By the time the strike is settled, we may be past the point of being able to film something and get it on the air for the break (I think the last strike lasted 5 months).  For that matter, will they even bother to take a mid-saeson break now?  

I suppose it could be put back on the table for next year, but it looks dead for this season.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 6, 2007)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I hope they can come to an agreement that's win-win.
> 
> As for reality shows, ironically enough, I thought they _had_ writers (very few go into syndication/DVD though).




They do have writers, they are just not covered by this particular union.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 6, 2007)

The Production Companies are not holding out on DVD and Internet fees to the writers because of the the writers. Most people agree that the writers need to get some portion of that money, and the few pennies the writers are asking for isn't a material issue in themselves.

The issue is that this strike is expressly being hailed as precedent for the other union contracts (SAG and the Directors Guild (DGA)) in the entertainment field that will be coming up later this year and early next year.  In fact, the directors guild came very close to backstabbing the writers guild behind the scene on this issue.  The writers were at one point convinced to hold off on a strike pending the upcoming directors guild negotiations later in the year or in January.  However, it came out that the directors were secretly negotiating with the producers without the writers, and for a deal that was likely to undercut the writers.  That pissed the writers guild off (understandably), and became a driving factor in the strike.  The WGA had to demonstrate that it had influence, right away, before the directors issue could officially come to the table later in the year.

Which of course just highlighted the precedential nature of the WGA strike for the future directors and SAG negotiations.

So now the Producers feel stuck that if they settle with the WGA then all the other unions will grab their piece and, at a time when business is relatively bad, cause some serious damage to the production companies.  Meanwhile, the WGA is stuck having to strike now or else have to deal with the risk of the other unions cutting a deal without them.  Which means it is unlikely for either side to really want to settle until the next round of union contracts comes up in late December or early January.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 6, 2007)

Villano said:
			
		

> I found this article covering some of the shows affected:
> 
> 
> > ABC
> ...



So we can either watch *The View* or 3 shows on USA Network?

I never thought I'd consider getting cable again...


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 6, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> They do have writers, they are just not covered by this particular union.




Which is one of the other sticking points in negotiation (that I hope gets resolved in the union's favor personally).


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 6, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> It'll be interesting to see what existing shows do when the writers come back though; they'll have to be some pretty interesting in-character alterations made to fit the fact that not as many episodes were made this season.




It depends on how many shows they've got in the can already- either written scripts (a lot of scripts were already turned in ahead of the strike- perhaps even ahead of schedule in anticipation of the strike). It also depends on production schedules- some shows, like Lost and 24, may not be affected much at all, depending on how quickly the strike is settled, as they were already set to be straight half-season runs, rather than full (year) season runs.


----------



## Insight (Nov 6, 2007)

This is also an opportunity for any unguilded (which hopefully also means unproduced) screenwriters, such as myself.  Gotta get some scripts done!


----------



## YourSwordIsMine (Nov 6, 2007)

Well, I'm not too worried. Season 3 of Avatar: The Last Airbender isnt affected so thats all I care about.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 6, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Which is one of the other sticking points in negotiation (that I hope gets resolved in the union's favor personally).




Uh, as far as I know that is not a matter of negotiation.  Like I said, the writers DO belong to a Union, they just don't belong to THAT union.  Why would you want to force them to change unions? They voted to be in the other union.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 6, 2007)

Insight said:
			
		

> This is also an opportunity for any unguilded (which hopefully also means unproduced) screenwriters, such as myself.  Gotta get some scripts done!




Only if you plan on not working in that industry after the strike ends...


----------



## YourSwordIsMine (Nov 6, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Only if you plan on not working in that industry after the strike ends...






Yeah... you really dont want to be a "scab" in Hollywood... bad idea...


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 7, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Give away money? Madness!



Either that or use WotC's business model:

1) Lay off the in-house writers.
2) Hire them as independent freelanced writers under a work-for-hire contract as needed (basically agrees a one-time payment for their submitted work).
3) Writers have no say since they sold their material.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 7, 2007)

Does this in any way affect the Terminator tv series that is supposed to be forthcoming?


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 7, 2007)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Does this in any way affect the Terminator tv series that is supposed to be forthcoming?



I dunno. Is the _Sarah Conner Chronicles_ already in production shooting? How many episode scripts have their writing staff have completed and ready for shooting?


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Uh, as far as I know that is not a matter of negotiation.  Like I said, the writers DO belong to a Union, they just don't belong to THAT union.  Why would you want to force them to change unions? They voted to be in the other union.




Huh- didn't realize they pulled their efforts on that. The WGA had been working for that goal up through October, at least. Union busters in the AMPTP and others had been working against them, though.


----------



## Tonguez (Nov 7, 2007)

Huh of the list I only watch 3 shows and the only one I'd miss is scrubs (heroes and supernatural were the other two) of course we still have UK, Canadian and Australian TV


----------



## sckeener (Nov 7, 2007)

I feel for the Daily Show/The Colbert Report.  Their bread and butter is politics and they missed the Nov elections for this year and this strike is expected to continue until next year...which means they are most likely going to miss the primaries. 

I get more information from their non-news than the news stations.  I'm going to miss them.

Thanks Villano for the list of shows and the likely effects.  Does anyone have word on other cable shows....like Dexter, Weeds, Californication, Tell me you love me, etc? 

Californication finished its opening season...but does this mean that the next season will be delayed.

Anyone know how long the last strike lasted?  I only remember the strike in the 80s and it seemed long then.


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm curious as to how this works.  Does it only keep writers from presently writing, or are they also not selling scripts? Like say, could someone sell an old script, or would that be a violation? Or could they simply re-use old scripts for other shows and simply change character names?

(Yes, I realize most movies get revised a lot after the script is sold, but still, just curious)

And just how much would breaking the actually hurt a career in Hollywood. Wouldn't it just annoy the other writers, but not so much the directors/producers/actors?  Inter-union solidarity really only flows from the bottom up, not the other way around.

For instance, I can remember several years ago, the local stadium workers were on strike. Yet did the baseball players union (or umpires) strike as well, or even honor the picket line? No, they still played in the stadium full of replacement workers. The writers are probably on a similar spot on the totem pole.

And what about writers from other countries? Hong Kong and Bollywood have thriving film industries, and most of the film talent there has no chance in Hollywood (and if they do, they tend to be treated horribly, having to work on Van Damme movies, until in at least one case, they are literally driven insane)


----------



## Grog (Nov 7, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how this works.  Does it only keep writers from presently writing, or are they also not selling scripts? Like say, could someone sell an old script, or would that be a violation? Or could they simply re-use old scripts for other shows and simply change character names?



None of the strikers are providing the studios with scripts. That would defeat the whole purpose of the strike. As for writing, writers can write stuff at home and just not give it to the network. A strike is a great opportunity for a TV writer to work on a pilot or a novel, which he or she might not otherwise have the time to finish.

But as for scripts for shows currently in production, none are being worked on right now, and work won't begin again until the strike is over.



			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> And just how much would breaking the actually hurt a career in Hollywood. Wouldn't it just annoy the other writers, but not so much the directors/producers/actors?  Inter-union solidarity really only flows from the bottom up, not the other way around.



Crossing the picket line would do tremendous damage to a writer's (prospective) career in Hollywood. A writer gets hired by the showrunner, and 99% of the time, that's another writer. I'm sure you can see the problem there.



			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> And what about writers from other countries?



Writers not currently working in America aren't members of the WGA, so they aren't striking. However, I know that the Writers Guild of Canada has told its members not to sell any scripts to American studios until the WGA strike ends, so there may be repercussions even in other countries.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Nov 7, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how this works.  Does it only keep writers from presently writing, or are they also not selling scripts? Like say, could someone sell an old script, or would that be a violation? Or could they simply re-use old scripts for other shows and simply change character names?
> 
> (Yes, I realize most movies get revised a lot after the script is sold, but still, just curious)
> 
> ...




For silly reasons, I have a subscription to *Variety* this year, and I've been reading their (pre-)strike coverage a lot lately.

The WGA has laid down some very harsh rules for this strikes.  Writers can, basically, do nothing.  And if you're not a guild member and break the strike, they want to blacklist you for the future.

Even worse, the WGA has ordered that its strike guidelines even apply to writers not in their union.  Most animation writers are in a different union, so they're not happy at all about that.

The extreme rules are getting the WGA a lot of bad press in Hollywood.  It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

I think you would actually find many of the actors sympathetic to the writers.  A few years ago, the Broadway producers tried to reduce musician use (and use recorded music instead--makes perfect business sense because it's cheaper).  The musician's union went on strike--no biggie, but the actors supported the strike and shut down Broadway for several days.  So, if the Hollywood actors sympathize with the writers, a "writers only" strike can have a huge effect.

Since the WGA covers "America" only, I sense an opportunity for other countries to get product shown in the U.S.

What would a Bollywood version of Heroes look like?!


----------



## Mark (Nov 7, 2007)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> What would a Bollywood version of Heroes look like?!





With an American geneticist?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 7, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> And just how much would breaking the actually hurt a career in Hollywood. Wouldn't it just annoy the other writers, but not so much the directors/producers/actors?  Inter-union solidarity really only flows from the bottom up, not the other way around.
> 
> For instance, I can remember several years ago, the local stadium workers were on strike. Yet did the baseball players union (or umpires) strike as well, or even honor the picket line? No, they still played in the stadium full of replacement workers. The writers are probably on a similar spot on the totem pole.



But you are looking at a highly skilled union vs a largely unskilled union. If the Daily show, for instance, has Bob, James and Jeremy the consistently funny and dependable writers who go on strike in solidarity with their union, sure, it's tempting right then to have Joe from accounting who's always wanted to be a writer put together some stuff for them, and maybe it won't totally suck.... but then Bob, James and Jeremy's union gets things worked out, and they say "We're looking forward to coming back, but this will be a union show again, right?" Joe is back in accounting pretty quick. And then, when every other show in town has their dependable, consistently good writers back on staff, if those writers say "you buy a script from Joe and you are telling us you don't want us back afterall".... 

If the union was overall bad for writers and there was this huge untapped pool of equivelent talent just waiting fr their chance to be scabs, that would be one thing. But I'm gonna guess that the go to writers are in the union, and it will be the rare studio who is willing to lose them for all their projects for one scab's basicly decent script. Maybe that's not how the business works at all, but that's the way I would bet.


----------



## Grog (Nov 7, 2007)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> I think you would actually find many of the actors sympathetic to the writers.



The actors are sympathetic to the writers, for one very simple reason - their own union's contract comes up for renewal next year, and they're also going to have to make a deal with the studios over compensation for digital media. The writers' contract is being looked at as a precedent for the deal the studios will make with the other unions, and that's likely why the studios are taking such a hard line with the writers. The few pennies the writers want for digital media don't mean much in and of themselves, but if the studios agree to give the writers a chunk of the digital distribution profits, they'll have to give out even bigger chunks to the directors and the actors next year.


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 8, 2007)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> I think you would actually find many of the actors sympathetic to the writers.  A few years ago, the Broadway producers tried to reduce musician use (and use recorded music instead--makes perfect business sense because it's cheaper).  The musician's union went on strike--no biggie, but the actors supported the strike and shut down Broadway for several days.  So, if the Hollywood actors sympathize with the writers, a "writers only" strike can have a huge effect.




One of the news reports I was listening to Monday said that a lot of shows could shut down production if the Teamsters decided to honor the strike.  I've heard nothing about this since, so I assume it didn't happen.



			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Or could they simply re-use old scripts for other shows and simply change character names?




During the 1988 strike they created a new "Mission: Impossible" series with Peter Graves leading the group as Jim Phelps (Greg Morris' son actually played the role of Barney Collier's son in the series).  They only did 4 of the old scripts before the strike ended and had new scripts after that.

So it is an option.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 8, 2007)

One thing to be frightened of a prolonged strike:

_Kid Nation_ sequels.
_Kid Nation_ marathon.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 8, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> One thing to be frightened of a prolonged strike:
> 
> _Kid Nation_ sequels.




If they do make one I hope it isn't _Kid Nation Extreme Make Over Edition_...  There is nothing worst then a pre-pubessent premidona who was entitled by a tvshow AND dresses up in skimpy clothing.

However, I would watch _Kid Nation: Uganda_ just in case one of those annoying brats decided to walk into a landmine.


----------



## Silver Moon (Nov 8, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> During the 1988 strike they created a new "Mission: Impossible" series with Peter Graves leading the group as Jim Phelps (Greg Morris' son actually played the role of Barney Collier's son in the series).  They only did 4 of the old scripts before the strike ended and had new scripts after that.



The same thing happened with Star Trek: The Next Generation.   They began production during the 1988 strike using an old unused script from what was going to the Star Trek II television series (which eventually became the movie Star Trek The Motion Picture).   They just changed the names Ilea and Decker to Troi and Riker and produced the 2nd season opener "The Child".    They started to do that with another old Star Trek II script but then the stike ended and they were flooded with new scripts (that second Star Trek II rewrite was later finished and became the episode "Devil's Due").


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 8, 2007)

What about South Park? I read an article saying they were a non-WGA show. Is that because it's animated, or because the two writers also own the show?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 8, 2007)

The strike also mostly affects TV production. Its not that the movie studios don't use the union, but because they are all sitting on piles of unused scripts. The movie studios have this habit of buying scripts for movies they may or may not produce because the decision to cancel a movie project often happens after the script is submitted unlike TV shows that pretty much only buy the scripts once they are committed. So while our TV shows may dry up there should be no problems with going to the movies unless the strike somehow drags on for years.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 8, 2007)

Apparently there are some "Writer/Producers" who are not members of the union and there is no problem with them contiunuing to write.  I've heard of at least a couple of these people who have said they will honor the strike and will not write.

I also heard a news report of deliveries not being made across picket lines, so I assume the Teamsters have begun honoring the picket line as well.  

Two things I expect from all this: 
1) TV shows on the chopping block will get a stay of execution during the strike since the networks won't want to roll out other shows or additional reruns in those slots.

2) Howie Mandel and "Deal or No Deal" seven nights a week.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 8, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> If they do make one I hope it isn't _Kid Nation Extreme Make Over Edition_...  There is nothing worst then a pre-pubessent premidona who was entitled by a tvshow AND dresses up in skimpy clothing.
> 
> However, I would watch _Kid Nation: Uganda_ just in case one of those annoying brats decided to walk into a landmine.



My wife and I must be the only ones who love this show.  It's just hilarious every week at how you can tell these kids parents form the way these kids act.


----------



## Grog (Nov 8, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Apparently there are some "Writer/Producers" who are not members of the union and there is no problem with them contiunuing to write.  I've heard of at least a couple of these people who have said they will honor the strike and will not write.



I don't think there are very many non-union writers working in Hollywood. Link/source?

Also, here's an interview with Ron Moore, executive producer and showrunner for Battlestar Galactica, talking about the studios' attitude toward web content.



> For Moore, "Fundamentally this is about the internet, and this is about whether writers get paid for material that is made for the internet or if they're paid for material that is broadcast on the internet that was developed for TV or movies." Moore shared a story to illustrate the scenario, saying "I had a situation last year on Battlestar Galactica where we were asked by Universal to do webisodes [Note: Moore is referring to The Resistance webisodes which ran before Season 3 premiered], which at that point were very new and 'Oooh, webisodes! What does that mean?' It was all very new stuff. And it was very eye opening, because the studio's position was 'Oh, we're not going to pay anybody to do this. You have to do this, because you work on the show. And we're not going to pay you to write it. We're not going to pay the director, and we're not going to pay the actors.' At which point we said 'No thanks, we won't do it.'"
> 
> "We got in this long, protracted thing and eventually they agreed to pay everybody involved. But then, as we got deeper into it, they said 'But we're not going to put any credits on it. You're not going to be credited for this work. And we can use it later, in any fashion that we want.' At which point I said 'Well, then we're done and I'm not going to deliver the webisodes to you.' And they came and they took them out of the editing room anyway -- which they have every right to do. They own the material -- But it was that experience that really showed me that that's what this is all about.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 8, 2007)

ka blink.

That quote is why studios suck.  On one hand they are all about protecting their own content and going after people who "share" it but then they would rather throw their own employees under the bus then give them the proper credit they deserve.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 8, 2007)

If there is a writer's strike, why is everyone typing/posting?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 8, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If there is a writer's strike, why is everyone typing/posting?




Because most of us aren't WGA members or ever expect to be, so we can continue to scab all we want on these boards.


----------



## Pyrex (Nov 8, 2007)

Here's a  link to a YouTube video explaining things from the writers side.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 9, 2007)

Also, check out their web site at http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/ and make sure to sign the petition!


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 9, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> However, I would watch _Kid Nation: Uganda_ just in case one of those annoying brats decided to walk into a landmine.



Wow, no love for Ugandans.  :\


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 9, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I dunno. Is the _Sarah Conner Chronicles_ already in production shooting? How many episode scripts have their writing staff have completed and ready for shooting?




I was reading a story on ICV2 that mentioned that since 24 has been pulled from the schedule (they don't want to start it until they are sure they can finish it) that the _Sarah Conner Chronicles_ will now premiere in 24's 9 pm slot in January.


----------



## Steve Jung (Nov 9, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> What about South Park? I read an article saying they were a non-WGA show. Is that because it's animated, or because the two writers also own the show?



If I read the news correctly, writers for animated shows aren't part of the WGA.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 9, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Wow, no love for Ugandans.  :\




Quite the opposite.  I have no love for the children on Kid Nation. 

I only selected Uganda because it's recent 20 something year long civil war was likely to have  produced a number of errant landmines and because its mentioning is not as politically divisive as other regions in this world.  

If it was feasible, I'd ship the Kid Nation children to Antarctica to face an icy death, but unfortunately that would put unspecified number animals at risk of being clubbed to death by starving children.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 9, 2007)

There's an interesting (and somewhat alarming ) article in this weeks LA Weekly by Nikki Finke.

Her blog at http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/ also has daily updates on the situation.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 9, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I was reading a story on ICV2 that mentioned that since 24 has been pulled from the schedule (they don't want to start it until they are sure they can finish it) that the _Sarah Conner Chronicles_ will now premiere in 24's 9 pm slot in January.



I knew they already shot the two-hour pilot, but how many more episodes after that have already been shot?

Sad but a wise move to postpone _24._


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 9, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Quite the opposite.  I have no love for the children on Kid Nation.
> 
> I only selected Uganda because it's recent 20 something year long civil war was likely to have  produced a number of errant landmines and because its mentioning is not as politically divisive as other regions in this world.
> 
> If it was feasible, I'd ship the Kid Nation children to Antarctica to face an icy death, but unfortunately that would put unspecified number animals at risk of being clubbed to death by starving children.



Honestly though, for anyone whose watched the show, its no different than if someone took a camera to a camp for 6 weeks (and skillfully) did not tape of the adults.  It's good entertainment.  Interesting to see these kids make decisions. Though I some things (rootbeer in the shape of beer bottles, a tavern, dancing for money) obviously shouldn't be going on.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 9, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Though I some things (rootbeer in the shape of beer bottles, a tavern, dancing for money) obviously shouldn't be going on.




OT: My friend and I always laugh and make drunk jokes when the kids go to the tavern to do root beer shots and sulk.

I enjoy the show (though I can't stand the little prom queen). I just wish they'd institute some penalties against her and her posse (which, the last show I saw, they were going to start doing- finally). I also think it would be cool if the kids had a jail, or if Greg and Blaine decided to get a gang of their own together to terrorize the town as outlaws or something. If I were there, I think it would be cool and funny to do, if only to see if the producers would step in and do something about it.


----------



## Insight (Nov 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Only if you plan on not working in that industry after the strike ends...




I support the union's right to strike, no question.

However...

There are non-WGA signatory production companies that take submissions from unproduced writers (who therefore do not qualify to join the WGA).  Most writers like myself who cannot join the WGA can submit work to non-signatory prod cos without scabbing as long as I don't sign an agreement until the strike is over.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 9, 2007)

I crossed the picket line yesterday (a friend was trying out for "Deal or no Deal", and I might end up as one of her "supporters").

I noticed something...ALL the picketing writers had a serious beer belly going on.  I mean, there were over a dozen, and all of them were not just a tad overweight (because really, few among us are not a tad overweight), but they were seriously in need of some weight loss.

Which, of course, they were getting at the moment.

I heard someone on the radio across the street from the Burbank strikers make the exact same observation...so I guess it holds true for at least two major locations of the strike.

So, maybe something good will come of this strike after all...some well needed exercise! 

I do find it a bit disturbing that people have linked to no less than four different sources for news on this issue, and one petition-signing campaign as well, and ALL of them are from the writer's perspective (several directly from a striker).  Kinda a biased view of the subject matter if all you read is one side's views.  The writers have some good points, and I think in general I come down slightly on their side, but the Producers have some good points as well, and they seem to be going unnoticed.  

If anyone is curious about the Producer's perspective, you can see some of it here (though warning, some strong language used):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/6/153456/262


----------



## Grog (Nov 9, 2007)

Getting the producers' point of view on the strike is all well and good, but that article was just a rant as far as I could tell.

Anyway, nothing I've heard from the producers so far has addressed the central issue of the strike - namely, that the writers want to be paid for their work, regardless of what medium is used to deliver it to viewers. The fact is that the studios don't want to pay _anyone_ - the writers, the directors, the actors - for content shown via the internet. "The Office," for example, had full episodes shown on NBC.com, and NBC sold ads that ran during the episodes, and the network called them "promotions" and didn't pay anyone one red cent for them. How many people here would start working for free if your boss demanded it?

One thing I think a lot of people don't realize is that, for a Hollywood writer, it's easily possible to be considered basically washed up by the time you're 40. The reason being that Hollywood is obsessed with the 18-34 demographic (the majority of stuff they produce is for that age group), and Hollywood CW says that you can't write for that demographic if you're much older than they are. It's often extremely difficult for a 40+ screenwriter to find work, and so residuals are literally all they have to feed their families with. They can't afford to get cheated out of them just because the delivery method for their work has changed.


----------



## Pyrex (Nov 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I do find it a bit disturbing that people have linked to no less than four different sources for news on this issue, and one petition-signing campaign as well, and ALL of them are from the writer's perspective (several directly from a striker).




I think that's because, on the whole, articles by-and-for the writers come across as more (ahem) well-spoken.

They're less ranty and whiny than, say, the producer article you linked making the writers seem more reasonable (and, ergo, in the right) than the producers.

Which may or may not actually *be* the case; but as I haven't seen any article from *either* side that says anything other than "we want more money and they don't want to give it to us" I don't really feel qualified to speak on which side may be "right".


----------



## Grog (Nov 9, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Which may or may not actually *be* the case; but as I haven't seen any article from *either* side that says anything other than "we want more money and they don't want to give it to us" I don't really feel qualified to speak on which side may be "right".



The whole thing basically comes down to one simple question - do you think that the writers (and the directors, and the actors) should get paid less (or, in many cases, nothing at all) because their work gets shown on the internet rather than on TV?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Getting the producers' point of view on the strike is all well and good, but that article was just a rant as far as I could tell.




About a third of the articles posted here are essentially rants.



> Anyway, nothing I've heard from the producers so far has addressed the central issue of the strike - namely, that the writers want to be paid for their work, regardless of what medium is used to deliver it to viewers.




Please share the sources you have heard from the producers.  That was my point, we are hearing only one side in this thread.  If you have articles from the producers side that you think are not rants, then share them.  If not...they when you say "nothing I've heard from the producers so far..." what is it you mean?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> The whole thing basically comes down to one simple question - do you think that the writers (and the directors, and the actors) should get paid less (or, in many cases, nothing at all) because their work gets shown on the internet rather than on TV?




That is an overly simplified answer.  I know you feel strongly in favor of the writers, but pretending the Producers do not have a side of their own is kinda silly.  

Again, do you know the Producers opinion on why they have not settled on the internet answer? Hint - the answer is not "we just want all the money".  Even the WGA admit it's WAY more complicated than just a case of money.


----------



## Grog (Nov 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> About a third of the articles posted here are essentially rants.



So far in this thread, I've posted three articles and one other person has posted one. None of them were rants.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Please share the sources you have heard from the producers.  That was my point, we are hearing only one side in this thread.  If you have articles from the producers side that you think are not rants, then share them.  If not...they when you say "nothing I've heard from the producers so far..." what is it you mean?



I mean exactly what I said. I have not heard anything from the studios that addresses the issue of "new" media, and why they should have to pay less (or even nothing at all) for material shown online as opposed to on TV.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> That is an overly simplified answer. I know you feel strongly in favor of the writers, but pretending the Producers do not have a side of their own is kinda silly.
> 
> Again, do you know the Producers opinion on why they have not settled on the internet answer? Hint - the answer is not "we just want all the money". Even the WGA admit it's WAY more complicated than just a case of money.



Where has the WGA admitted this?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So far in this thread, I've posted three articles and one other person has posted one. None of them were rants.




I disagree, but lets leave it at that.



> I mean exactly what I said. I have not heard anything from the studios that addresses the issue of "new" media, and why they should have to pay less (or even nothing at all) for material shown online as opposed to on TV.




OK then we are miscommunicating.

Please post an article you have read, other than the one I linked to, that you think fairly represents the Producers side of this strike.

If you have not read an article, other than the one I posted, from the Producer's perspective, then say so. 



> Where has the WGA admitted this?




In their discussions concerning the formula.  The WGA went in asking for a rigid formula for internet royalties, but came out of the negotiations admitting the issue is far more complicated than that, since it doesn't allow any flexibility and could essentially eliminate some internet advertising for their own shows.  What the formula will eventually end up looking like is yet to be seen of course, but I think both sides now know that it's going to be complex, and will have to deal with some hard accounting issues that have to take into consideration risks of illegal copying and distribution, free shows, cross-promotions, and all sorts of complex issues that makes a fixed formula a less than optimal solution.

While I come down slightly on the side of the writers in this debate, I do agree with the Producers on one key point - The writers should have started discussions 6 months ago when they were asked to, because this is a complex set of issues and trying to rush it at the last minute didn't have a great chance of success.


----------



## Grog (Nov 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> OK then we are miscommunicating.
> 
> Please post an article you have read, other than the one I linked to, that you think fairly represents the Producers side of this strike.
> 
> If you have not read an article, other than the one I posted, from the Producer's perspective, then say so.



Define what you mean by "fairly represents the Producers side of this strike." There are tons of "he said, she said" articles about the strike out there with statements from both sides - I don't think I need to link to one, we can both agree that they exist, no?

But - repeating myself yet again - I haven't seen anything in the news from the studios that explains why they should have to pay less (or even nothing at all) for online content.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> In their discussions concerning the formula.  The WGA went in asking for a rigid formula for internet royalties, but came out of the negotiations admitting the issue is far more complicated than that, since it doesn't allow any flexibility and could essentially eliminate some internet advertising for their own shows.  What the formula will eventually end up looking like is yet to be seen of course, but I think both sides now know that it's going to be complex, and will have to deal with some hard accounting issues that have to take into consideration risks of illegal copying and distribution, free shows, cross-promotions, and all sorts of complex issues that makes a fixed formula a less than optimal solution.



It still all comes down to a question of money, and the studios not wanting to pay the writers (and the directors, and the actors) a fair share for their work. The fact is that the studios are already making money for online content. If you watch an episode on a network's website, you will see ads, which obviously, the network charged money for. And so far, they've been very stingy about sharing any of that money with the people who made the episodes. I'd like to see that practice end, and obviously, so would the writers.


----------



## sckeener (Nov 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I noticed something...ALL the picketing writers had a serious beer belly going on.  I mean, there were over a dozen, and all of them were not just a tad overweight (because really, few among us are not a tad overweight), but they were seriously in need of some weight loss.




Ha!  reminds me of the UPS 1997 strike.  Though I understand this writers strike, the 1997 UPS strike was just silly.  The teamsters just wanted to flex their muscles.  

I was tech support at UPS in Houston during the time.  I was non-union, so I had to go to work.  The ones picketing were fat and drinking beer.  One of them even threw a beer can at my car.  

And it was all stupid.  I saw the contract before the strike.  The teamsters had already gotten permission to strike before they even saw the contract.  They went on strike and then after UPS caved, they signed the same contract.  It was ridiculous to go through all that...to bring UPS to a halt and drag Clinton into it....just to send a message to all the other companies that the teamsters were a political force.  In the end the employees/union members are the ones that got screwed because they would have gotten a $1500/employee signing bonus if they didn't strike. Since it was the same contract, I felt bad for all the employees that I knew were struggling who didn't get that money.  The scabs that crossed got the money...

I also remember this one mechanic who started a fight with a manager 15 minutes before the strike was supposed to start....he was fired on the spot.  He became the most vocal striker and when the strike was over, he got his job back.

The teamsters leave a bad taste in my mouth. I quit UPS afterwards.  I wish they had broken the strike.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Define what you mean by "fairly represents the Producers side of this strike." There are tons of "he said, she said" articles about the strike out there with statements from both sides - I don't think I need to link to one, we can both agree that they exist, no?




So far, except for the "rant" I posted, all the other articles are expressly favoring the writers side of the debate.  I am asking that you post something that expressly favors the producers, so we can read both sides of the debate.  You said so far you had "heard nothing from the studios" about an issue.  OK, so, what HAVE you heard from the studios, as opposed to hearing it from the writers talking about their view of what the Studio position?



> But - repeating myself yet again - I haven't seen anything in the news from the studios that explains why they should have to pay less (or even nothing at all) for online content.




Have you seen anything from the Studios at all? On any topic? Actually from the Studios? I mean, it would be easy to say right now "I have not heard anything from the Studios saying that people should brush their teeth every day" and conclude the Studios are against brushing your teeth every day, but that would not be logical.

From what I can tell, in this thread, nobody has read the actual Studio position on this topic.  They've just read the view of the writers on what the writers think the Studio position is, and that is the obvious "they are just greedy bastards".  



> It still all comes down to a question of money, and the studios not wanting to pay the writers (and the directors, and the actors) a fair share for their work.




I disagree.  It's more complicated than that.  And your use of "fair share" means you are looking at it with a biased view.



> The fact is that the studios are already making money for online content.




Right now, that is not correct.  I've read a lot of the financial documents of the studios, and the stock reports, and the dispute with Apple over it, and right now the Studios have not found a way to make the internet sales do anything other that come up with a slight loss, and sometimes a break-even.  They are not currently making money from it.  And the WGA position is not that they believe the Studios are currently making money from it, but that they WILL eventually make money from it, and they want a set formula in place to deal with the issue when it eventually comes up.  

The Studio position (though again I would like to read more about it, from their side) seems to be that a fixed formula would be a bad idea until they can experiment with the medium and work out formulas that work for different kinds of online projects.  Eisner said some interesting things on the subject that basically said "WGA is stupid for drawing a line in the sand on this issue before the issue is ripe, because they will shoot themselves in the foot just like they did with DVDs last time around".  Here are some quotes:

http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9812703-36.html?tag=cd.blog



> If you watch an episode on a network's website, you will see ads, which obviously, the network charged money for. And so far, they've been very stingy about sharing any of that money with the people who made the episodes. I'd like to see that practice end, and obviously, so would the writers.




I have not read anything at all that indicates the ads are producing a profit for the online projects.  Indeed, given the Producers position that their work to distribute online is not only so far costly, but causing people to rip it off and distribute it for free and therefore decrease the viewing of the live TV shows themselves, I find it hard to believe you have read anything that shows solid evidence that it's been profitable at all so far.


----------



## Grog (Nov 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> From what I can tell, in this thread, nobody has read the actual Studio position on this topic.  They've just read the view of the writers on what the writers think the Studio position is, and that is the obvious "they are just greedy bastards".



Fine. If you're so hot on getting us to see the studios' position, why don't you share it with us?



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I disagree.  It's more complicated than that.  And your use of "fair share" means you are looking at it with a biased view.



Calling a payment of four cents on a $20 DVD unfair isn't biased, it's just common sense.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Right now, that is not correct.  I've read a lot of the financial documents of the studios, and the stock reports, and the dispute with Apple over it, and right now the Studios have not found a way to make the internet sales do anything other that come up with a slight loss, and sometimes a break-even.  They are not currently making money from it.



No offense, but I find that very hard to believe. Oh, don't get me wrong, I can believe that they made a bad deal with Apple over the iTunes side of the equation, but as far as showing episodes on their website? If they're not paying the writers, directors, or actors anything for them, what does it cost them to show those episodes online? Nothing except their bandwidth costs. I have a really hard time believing that they can't make that up and more with advertising revenue, because the fact is, ads during internet episodes are _more_ valuable than ads during TV episodes, because you can't skip them.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Fine. If you're so hot on getting us to see the studios' position, why don't you share it with us?




That's exactly what I have been trying to do.  I posted two of them now, and I am trying to articulate some of the combined stuff I have seen in some financial docs and other places. I will look for more articles, but that was my whole point - has anyone read any good articles from the other side on this and if so can they please post them?



> Calling a payment of four cents on a $20 DVD unfair isn't biased, it's just common sense.




First, that whole four cents thing is a bit inaccurate.  On a standard 1 million unit sale of a DVD, a writer garners at least an additional $64,800 beyond initial compensation (on 5 million units at least $324,000; on 10 million units $648,000, etc.).

Second, my "more complicated" was directed at the online issue and not the DVD issue.  The DVD issue is relatively easy.  My understanding is that during the last negotiations the WGA withdrew the DVD issue.  It's the online and "new media" issue that is the complicated part of this dispute.



> No offense, but I find that very hard to believe. Oh, don't get me wrong, I can believe that they made a bad deal with Apple over the iTunes side of the equation, but as far as showing episodes on their website? If they're not paying the writers, directors, or actors anything for them, what does it cost them to show those episodes online? Nothing except their bandwidth costs.




If people copy the online content and distribute it themselves to their friends, causing those people to not watch the actual show at all whereas they would have previously watched it, then it's costing them money.  In addition, putting it up online costs money, and not just in bandwidth.  There is an army of guys right now dealing with online issues at the studios, they make decent money, and right now those departments are not considered profit centers but "potential future profit centers".  In other words, they are a write-off right now.  Like Eisner said, it's their own darn fault for talking up the online stuff before it was making money in order to impress investors, as it had the unintended result of actually convincing non-investors like the writers that it really was currently profitable when it's not.



> I have a really hard time believing that they can't make that up and more with advertising revenue, because the fact is, ads during internet episodes are _more_ valuable than ads during TV episodes, because you can't skip them.




Right now, as far as I can tell, they are not profitable.  While you cannot skip over those ads, it's very hard to even convince advertisers to place them and pay well for them, and sometimes the ad you are seeing is actually a FREE ad attached as a special to an TV ad deal, which serves essentially as a placeholder to try and show that the advertising in that media can work.

If you have any evidence that the online shows are making a profit, could you link to it?  Given how worthwhile it would be as information for investors in those Studios, and how the disclosure requirements for public companies require announcing material profit centers of the company, it should be out there.  Right now, as far as I can tell, it's not.  And, that's because they are not right now turning a profit, but are buried in advertising and promotional costs as a negative and not a positive.

Here are some additional facts from the AMPTP site:

1) As the WGA knows and its own records will attest, writers are paid residuals on permanent digital downloads. 

2) As the WGA knows and its own records will attest, writers are paid residuals on pay-per-view digital downloads.

3) When the WGA went on strike, an offer to pay writers for Internet streaming was on the table.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> That's exactly what I have been trying to do.  I posted two of them now, and I am trying to articulate some of the combined stuff I have seen in some financial docs and other places. I will look for more articles, but that was my whole point - has anyone read any good articles from the other side on this and if so can they please post them?




I think the reason you're not seeing them is because, as Grog pointed out, the studios aren't talking. The AMPTP hasn't issued any press statements other than Nick Counter's press release following the breakdowns of the talk (which they issued despite, as has been reported in numerous places, an agreement to have no press releases about- a condition the AMPTP put on the WGA). Since then, they've made no moves to go back to the bargaining table, issued no press statements, nothing. 

The only thing I have been able to find is a decidedly uninformative and insubstantial disclaimer about their role in things on the front page of the AMPTP website.



> SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT…
> 
> As the WGA knows and its own records will attest, writers are paid residuals on permanent digital downloads.
> 
> ...




(Maybe their PR people went on strike, too?)

Anyway, if you haven't already, you might want to poke around there for something. Maybe you'll find something more substantive than I have.

[EDIT- Actually, I do see a clip from Variety that notes Nick Counter saying he expects the AMPTP to be negotiating next with the Director's Guild rather than the WGA. Which doesn't exactly speak much for how concerned they are with the writers. Although I suppose it's theoretically good news that they're getting a jump on the DGA talks, which contract doesn't expire until June. *shrug*]


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 9, 2007)

Bill Handel, a talk radio guy out here, says he will be interviewing someone from the Producers perspective on Monday.  I will try and listen to the show and post what I hear.  Handle is pro-writer on this issue, but he will probably be relatively fair to them and let them get their side out at least.


----------



## Grog (Nov 9, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> First, that whole four cents thing is a bit inaccurate.  On a standard 1 million unit sale of a DVD, a writer garners at least an additional $64,800 beyond initial compensation (on 5 million units at least $324,000; on 10 million units $648,000, etc.).



First, how many DVDs sell that many units?

Second, what's the studio's take on that same million unit sell-through? The figures I've read put the studio's gross on a $20 DVD at $9. Even using the most generous estimates for promotion costs, payouts, etc., they're still clearing a few million dollars profit on that DVD that the writer is supposedly getting $64k for.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> If people copy the online content and distribute it themselves to their friends, causing those people to not watch the actual show at all whereas they would have previously watched it, then it's costing them money.



How many people go through the trouble of copying an episode off a network's website and stripping out the commercials (not an easy thing to do)? Now compare that to the number of people who tape an episode off TV and give it to their friends, or simply download the episode through BitTorrent or some filesharing program? This argument carries no weight. 



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> In addition, putting it up online costs money, and not just in bandwidth.



What's the additional cost? The salaries of a few technical guys? Please.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> There is an army of guys right now dealing with online issues at the studios, they make decent money, and right now those departments are not considered profit centers but "potential future profit centers".  In other words, they are a write-off right now.



This claim doesn't mean much, considering that it's coming from a group of people who are masters at "massaging" numbers to hide profit. Remember, we're talking about the same studios who claimed they lost money on _Forrest Gump_, despite the fact that the film grossed almost $700 million worldwide on a production budget of $55 million.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Here are some additional facts from the AMPTP site:



Those are facts, but they're highly misleading. The offer on the table was to pay the writers the DVD royalty for online viewing, rather than the broadcast royalty. This will amount to a huge paycut for the writers over the next few years as more and more stuff moves online.

If you're trying to get me to feel sympathy for the studios, it's not going to work. They make money hand over fist and then do their damnedest to avoid sharing it with the people whose work made them that money in the first place. They always have.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 10, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> First, how many DVDs sell that many units?
> 
> Second, what's the studio's take on that same million unit sell-through? The figures I've read put the studio's gross on a $20 DVD at $9. Even using the most generous estimates for promotion costs, payouts, etc., they're still clearing a few million dollars profit on that DVD that the writer is supposedly getting $64k for.
> 
> ...




Ah see I was going into this thinking you wanted to hear the positions of both sides, and like all complex issues in life see if you could find the truth that lay somewhere between both positions.

I could point by point rebut your response, but to what end? As you said, there is nothing anyone could say that would get you to change your view.  You feel it's the writers whose work makes all the money...as if that's the only crucial component to making a TV show or movie.  I don't think that.  I think it's one of hundreds of elements, and if you take away any of those elements you don't have that show or movie.

This debate doesn't belong here.  Perhaps we can take it to CircvsMaximvs if you are looking to debate the topic.  For me, I just wanted to see the other side, and I have.  I still actually tend slightly towards the writers side of the debate, but I am not so blinded by one side that I have become incapable of understanding the other side.


----------



## Grog (Nov 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I could point by point rebut your response, but to what end? As you said, there is nothing anyone could say that would get you to change your view.  You feel it's the writers whose work makes all the money...as if that's the only crucial component to making a TV show or movie.  I don't think that.  I think it's one of hundreds of elements, and if you take away any of those elements you don't have that show or movie.



And now I see that you aren't actually interested in debating my points, but rather setting up straw men and debating them instead. I never said that the writer's work makes all the money - which is why I don't think the writer should get 100% of the profits from a show or a movie.

If you want to talk about what I _actually say_, instead of what you want to pretend I said, we can have a discussion. Until then, we're done.

And, for anyone else looking for information on the strike, these two posts (one and two) go into the issues in-depth. They're long, but worth the read.


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 10, 2007)

I am deeply amused that Mistwell's pro-producers article comes from DKos and he plans to cite a pro-writers view from Bill Handel.  Bravo for ironically against-type sourcing.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 10, 2007)

Entertainment Weekly has an interesting article on the strike.

Particularly salient is:



> Complaints about tactics, timing, and the problematic personalities at the negotiating table shouldn't obscure the fact that the position of the AMPTP (the producers' negotiating alliance) has been, and remains, ethically indefensible on the two issues that matter most — residuals and new media. Let's look at residuals first. Currently, for every dollar spent on a DVD, writers receive about one-third of a penny. They would like, instead, to receive about two-thirds of a penny. The AMPTP's first response to this was to waste weeks by advocating a complete abolition of the residual system. Why, they argued, should writers get paid anything for their work after it's released? Studio chiefs who are smart enough to know better even hauled out a tired old maxim attributed to the late MCA titan Lew Wasserman — ''My plumber doesn't charge me every time I flush the toilet'' — and repeated it in perfect ... lockstep.




Leno and Conan O'Brien have declined to cross picket lines now, sending studios scrambling for anyone stupid or desperate enough to host The Tonight Show etc. Joan Rivers is probably waiting by the phone right now.

Interesting 'What If?'  about a Comics Writer's Union at Newsarama, with various people in various orbits of the industry giving their opinion on such a thing.


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 10, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Entertainment Weekly has an interesting article on the strike.
> 
> Particularly salient is:
> 
> Complaints about tactics, timing, and the problematic personalities at the negotiating table shouldn't obscure the fact that the position of the AMPTP (the producers' negotiating alliance) has been, and remains, ethically indefensible on the two issues that matter most — residuals and new media. Let's look at residuals first. Currently, for every dollar spent on a DVD, writers receive about one-third of a penny. They would like, instead, to receive about two-thirds of a penny. The AMPTP's first response to this was to waste weeks by advocating a complete abolition of the residual system. Why, they argued, should writers get paid anything for their work after it's released? Studio chiefs who are smart enough to know better even hauled out a tired old maxim attributed to the late MCA titan Lew Wasserman — ''My plumber doesn't charge me every time I flush the toilet'' — and repeated it in perfect ... lockstep.




Is it certain that they sincerely were going for that, or were they just moving their position away from the status quo towards their ideal result in order to get more negotiating leeway? 

Proposing zero residuals puts their starting position equally distant from the status quo as the writers, putting them in a much, much better negotiating position (a neutral negotiating space) than creating a situation where they defend the status quo and the writers wants more (a highly writer-sqewed negotiating space).

It seems that this is a sound negotiating tactic, so long as they don't get too much backlash over it.


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 10, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Interesting 'What If?'  about a Comics Writer's Union at Newsarama, with various people in various orbits of the industry giving their opinion on such a thing.




The thing with writing in general, is there is usually a whole lot more people who want to do it, than are actually working at it.  

I'm not saying writing isn't a skill, but it's something that pretty much every literate person can do, as opposed to something like say, designing a bridge or airplane, or performing surgery.

Sure, there are quality issues, but that's always been the case (Sturgeons' Law).  So I don't see how it can get much worse (especially in Hollywood's case).

I think the writers in Hollywood were able to unionize mostly because for the most part, it didn't really matter, Hollywood was making so much money, they didn't care (or because the Writer's union was so inept, they actually thought it was a plus).

I think the writers know this, which is why all the blacklisting stuff has been rattled about, like threatening poor Ellen de Generis (who is still upset over dog). They're afraid they can be replaced and no one will know the difference. (or much of one)

But stuff like that wouldn't work in the comics industry, since there are ever fewer writing positions available. And also in comics, there's a potential to hit it big that doesn't exist in Hollywood - a really good comic writer/artist can become well known among fans, then start his own indie press, and sell a limited run or graphic novel. And maybe get it picked up by Hollywood for big bucks (Spawn, Sin City, 300, The Crow, etc).  

Anyway, in stuff like this, the people who really get hurt are the consumers (since any increase in money the writer's guy won't come out of the studios pocket, but result in increased DVD prices) and the people who work on shows but aren't "talent".


----------



## Grog (Nov 11, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Anyway, in stuff like this, the people who really get hurt are the consumers (since any increase in money the writer's guy won't come out of the studios pocket, but result in increased DVD prices)



Actually, this isn't true. DVDs have been a mass-market item for a long time now, so you can bet that the studios have figured out the maximum prices that the market will bear, and are charging them right now. It's basic economics - once an item has been on sale for a while (and oftentimes it doesn't even take very long), the seller will figure out the highest price they can charge before further increases start to result in prohibitive losses in sales.

By way of example, say you charge $20 for a DVD. If you double the price to $40, and your sales drop by less than 50%, you made money. So you have a strong incentive to find the price point where the number of sales multiplied by the amount you're charging gives you the maximum profit. And the studios have certainly figured that out by now. They're at the point where raising DVD prices will end up reducing their profits.

Think about it - if the studios could simply pass the cost of what the writers are asking for on to the consumer and continue making exactly the same profit that they are now, would they be fighting this hard against the WGA? Of course not. The reason they're fighting this hard is because anything more they give to the writers is going to come straight out of their profits.

And anyway, given how little the writers are asking for, price increases aren't an issue anyway. It's not like the studios could really raise prices by four cents per DVD, after all.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 11, 2007)

So, then, worst-case scenario is people end up watching less TV. The horror.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 11, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Anyway, in stuff like this, the people who really get hurt are the consumers (since any increase in money the writer's guy won't come out of the studios pocket, but result in increased DVD prices) and the people who work on shows but aren't "talent".



They're asking for 4 cents more per DVD. I suppose I'll be "hurt" by that, but it's an incredibly mild wound.

EDIT: Sorry, I see that the 4 cent figure has already been mentioned. It's still a small amount of money, and is likely designed to be used as a starting point.


----------



## Mark (Nov 11, 2007)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> Is it certain that they sincerely were going for that, or were they just moving their position away from the status quo towards their ideal result in order to get more negotiating leeway?
> 
> Proposing zero residuals puts their starting position equally distant from the status quo as the writers, putting them in a much, much better negotiating position (a neutral negotiating space) than creating a situation where they defend the status quo and the writers wants more (a highly writer-sqewed negotiating space).
> 
> It seems that this is a sound negotiating tactic, so long as they don't get too much backlash over it.





If the writers went in the opposite direction and asked for all of the money, would that have been sound?  Some positions just amount to negotiating in bad faith.  It is probably inevitable that the writers will get more of the pie.  The longer the delay, the more the other side can get in the meantime.  I wonder how many millions of dollars they get for each day they can delay negotiating in earnest?


----------



## Pyrex (Nov 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> The whole thing basically comes down to one simple question - do you think that the writers (and the directors, and the actors) should get paid less (or, in many cases, nothing at all) because their work gets shown on the internet rather than on TV?




While I agree that they should be paid, I can't reasonably comment on *how much* they should be paid.


----------



## Pyrex (Nov 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Calling a payment of four cents on a $20 DVD unfair isn't biased, it's just common sense.




Really?  Then what would be 'fair'?

If I go to Costco, and spend $20 to buy season N of _Funny Sitcom_, how much of that $20 should each of the writers who contributed to that season get?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 12, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Really?  Then what would be 'fair'?
> 
> If I go to Costco, and spend $20 to buy season N of _Funny Sitcom_, how much of that $20 should each of the writers who contributed to that season get?




Compared to what amount?  How much does everyone else who worked on the DVD or that show make?


----------



## Pyrex (Nov 12, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Compared to what amount?  How much does everyone else who worked on the DVD or that show make?




That's exactly my point.  

I posted above that I had no idea if what the Writers were asking was reasonable.

Grog said he felt that $0.04 per $20 in DVD sales was "unfair" so I asked him to back it up.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 12, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> They're asking for 4 cents more per DVD. I suppose I'll be "hurt" by that, but it's an incredibly mild wound.




The only price I've seen quoted is that they currently get 1/3 of a cent per DVD and they want 2/3 of a cent. The other side to all this is not the DVD market but the Internet.

An interesting exerpt from Evanier's blog:

_But so far, the mob that yells, "Take the offer and let's get back to work" has been pretty much non-existent. Why? Well, a huge reason is that the idea of agreeing to let the studios make as much money as they can off the Internet with us receiving bupkis is just too outrageous. Even those whose hearts are with Management have a hard time siding with that one. But there's an even bigger reason that no one in the WGA wants to take the offer and that is that there is no offer.

It struck me the other day that that's one thing that's different this time. My last four strikes, the Producers had presented us with a unilateral and rotten contract proposal — a few increases in minimums, generally below the cost-of-living rates...a few rollbacks, some of them quite large...and there's always one little item that we can celebrate as a "gain." Usually, these offers aren't even a product of two-way negotiations. Usually, the Producers just refuse to listen to anything we want to say and instead hand us a bad "take it or leave it" offer and to leave it means to go on strike. This time, there have been some talks — apparently fruitless — that have led to no offer. There is no piece of paper that the "Don't Strike" mob can wave about at the moment and insist is good enough.

As I understand it, the Producers' position at this moment is as follows: Take the two most important issues — DVDs and Internet delivery — off the table. Drop all your demands in those areas and then (and only then) we'll sit down with you and make a decent offer that covers the other stuff.

So if someone asks you why the WGA is striking...well, there it is. We haven't accepted the deal because there is no deal. All there is is a demand that we surrender before they'll discuss surrender terms. Matter of fact, given the Producers' long history of "negotiating" by dictating their terms and then walking out of the room, it's unlikely _ 

From the NY Times: 


_The motivation for this drastic action — and a strike is drastic, a fact I grow more aware of every passing day — is the guild’s desire for a portion of revenues derived from the Internet. This is nothing new: for more than 50 years, writers have been entitled to a small cut of the studios’ profits from the reuse of our shows or movies; whenever something we created ends up in syndication or is sold on DVD, we receive royalties. But the studios refuse to apply the same rules to the Internet. 

My show, “Lost,” has been streamed hundreds of millions of times since it was made available on ABC’s Web site. The downloads require the viewer to first watch an advertisement, from which the network obviously generates some income. The writers of the episodes get nothing. We’re also a hit on iTunes (where shows are sold for $1.99 each). Again, we get nothing._

Particularly telling is this, since all indications so far are that this will be a long strike:

_If this strike lasts longer than three months, an entire season of television will end this December. No dramas. No comedies. No “Daily Show.” The strike will also prevent any pilots from being shot in the spring, so even if the strike is settled by then, you won’t see any new shows until the following January. As in 2009. Both the guild and the studios we are negotiating with do agree on one thing: this situation would be brutal._


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 12, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Leno and Conan O'Brien have declined to cross picket lines now, sending studios scrambling for anyone stupid or desperate enough to host The Tonight Show etc. Joan Rivers is probably waiting by the phone right now.



Lets leave direct insults out of this. 


Studios need to launch a _"The SWG wants to stop free web content!"_ statement.

Personally I find it kind of funny since it sure seems writers are very quick to use Unions as transparent masks for organized crime...


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 12, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Studios need to launch a _"The SWG wants to stop free web content!"_ statement.




I'll think about that statement when I am forced to watch commercials while watching the my favorite NBC program on NBC.com.

No wait.. I already HAVE to do that.  I guess that content isn't technically free then.  At least I don't have to have a subscription.... YET.  If I do, I'm pretty sure the SWG will not be the only culprits behind that decision.


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Really?  Then what would be 'fair'?
> 
> If I go to Costco, and spend $20 to buy season N of _Funny Sitcom_, how much of that $20 should each of the writers who contributed to that season get?



More than four cents, that's for sure.

Like I said, the studios' gross on a $20 DVD is about $9. What do you figure their profit is? $5-6 per disc? And the writers get four cents? Does that seem right to you?

And that's not even getting into the fact that total DVD sales figures are infamously untraceable in Hollywood, so the writers (and the directors, and the actors) have no idea if they're even getting paid what they should be under the terms of the current deal.


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Personally I find it kind of funny since it sure seems writers are very quick to use Unions as transparent masks for organized crime...



Organized crime? What are you talking about?


----------



## Pyrex (Nov 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Like I said, the studios' gross on a $20 DVD is about $9. What do you figure their profit is? $5-6 per disc? And the writers get four cents? Does that seem right to you?




I don't know.  Can you point me to any data as to how accurate your $6 guess is?  How much of that $6 goes to the actors/producers/writers and how much to the studio's bottom line?

I don't know if $0.04 is fair, because I don't know where the rest of the money goes.

Similarly, I can't even begin to comment on how much writers (or anyone else for that matter) should get paid when an ep is streamed (or sold) over the internet because I have no idea how much money changes hands or where it goes.


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> I don't know.  Can you point me to any data as to how accurate your $6 guess is?  How much of that $6 goes to the actors/producers/writers and how much to the studio's bottom line?
> 
> I don't know if $0.04 is fair, because I don't know where the rest of the money goes.




http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/movies/13leip.html

Turns out I was wrong about the figures. Studios sell DVDs wholesale for $16; subtract $2 for manufacturing costs and $2 for marketing costs, and they're making $12 *profit* per DVD. Of which they give the writers four cents. There's something very wrong with this picture.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 13, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Studios need to launch a _"The SWG wants to stop free web content!"_ statement.




Which would be as much a bald-faced lie as many other statements studios have made. The content is paid for by the advertisers and currently the writers, actors and many others are not being paid for their work being shown in another media because studios are still trying to pretend the net is not a medium while at the same time gearing up to offer large amounts of content that they then promote heavily.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Here are some more facts from the Producer's perspective (since, again, I think that perspective is pretty under represented in this thread):

In 2006, the average MPAA film cost over $100 million to produce, market and distribute in the domestic market, and approximately another $40 million if released overseas.

Revenues obtained in the initial market of release no longer cover the costs of production, much less distribution and marketing.  There is no such thing as supplemental or ancillary or secondary market any longer and hasn’t been for years.  All windows and media are needed for the vast majority of productions just to recoup initial costs, much less break even or make a profit.

In television, some 85 - 90% of series fail before they can be syndicated.  The average deficit (production costs less license fee) for the first season of a one-hour series is $26.4 - $33 million and is $8.8 - $15.4 million for a half-hour series.

For the 2006/07 television season, 6 of the TOP 10 series were non-scripted programming.  For the 2007/08 television season, scripted series hit an all-time low of 67% down from 81% just two seasons ago (that represents 64 of 96 series on five networks).

On a standard 1 million unit sale of a DVD, a writer garners at least an additional $64,800 beyond initial compensation (on 5 million units at least $324,000; on 10 million units $648,000, etc.).  So can we PLEASE stop tossing around this 4 cent number.  It's not an accurate number.  And yes, it's a STANDARD sale unit of 1 million DVDs, not an exception.  Remember, sales includes to rental companies.

According to WGAw, 4,434 of its working film and television members earned a combined $905.8 million in 2006, not counting pensions or health care or any other benefits. The average member earned $204,295 and over half earned at least $104,750. The WGA noted that these numbers are based on earnings reported for dues purposes and thus do not fully reflect above-scale payments. According to studies, workers in the media business earned on average just under $70,000 per year and the average person in Los Angeles earned just over $46,000.  In 2006 more than $260,000,000 in record-breaking residuals was paid to WGAW members.  Over the past 10 years, Producers paid in excess of $10 billion in residuals, including at least $1 billion to WGA members.  

While it is easy to think of "producers" as "evil corporations", the producers in this case are members of the AMPTP, and often make LESS than writers.  Indeed, a person with a writer/producer dual role is common, and those people make a lot more money on average than someone who is just a producer, and those writer-producers are for the most part on strike as well.  A lot of producers in television are actually relatively low down on the totem pole.

As agreed to in past negotiations, the writer gets paid (plus gets pension and health contributions) for projects made specifically for New Media. The amount of the compensation is not a fixed amount, but negotiated by the writer (and/or his/her representative) with the producer.  For replays on New Media, the writer gets paid a residual from New Media usage when the consumer pays to view a TV program or a feature film for a limited period of time and when a consumer downloads a permanent copy of a TV program or film (electronic sell-through).  When the WGA went on strike, an offer to pay writers for Internet streaming was on the table.  

The WGA has, as one of its demands, a royalty payout BEFORE the property becomes profitable. That means the writers want to be paid royalties (not initial pay for their work, but pay that is supposed to be based on success of a project), if a film or television show flops or worse, loses money.  That means they feel they deserve money before anyone else, including everyone from the lowest gaffer to the actors, directors, catering, everyone.

The WGA strikers have blocking drive ways (something strikers are not allowed to do), streets (also not something they are allowed to do) and targeting specific famous actors (and calling the media in to cover it) to stop productions on shows that were already written.  This, despite the fact that the writers worked furiously right up until midnight to submit those scripts, and got paid for those scripts, and now are using tactics to stop filming on those scripts that they got paid for.  This has put hundreds of employees out of work who are not wealthy, who made a lot less than the writers, and who really have nothing do to with this strike and just want to do their jobs and get paid and maintain their mortgage and families.  And those people reasonably believed they could plan to work at least on the remaining scripts in many of those series, and have no backup plan to cover their lost income (though many were working on a backup plan for later, when the scripts were supposed to run out).

The AMPTP attempted to start negotiations with the WGA 7 months ago, and told the WGA that some very difficult and complex issues regarding New Media needed to be discussed and those discussions should start early so as to avoid having to rush.  The WGA refused to meet early, and only agreed to start negotiations on the day of the deadline to start negotiations (the old contract mandates a minimum 1 month negotiation time frame).  In that month, they only met 19 times, and as expected couldn't come to an agreement.  When the east coast midnight deadline hit, the AMPTP asked the WGA to hold off on the strike at least for a few hours while they were still negotiating (prior to the west coast deadline).  The WGA refused, and initiated the strike during the negotiations - which obviously put a pretty serious taint on those negotiations.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Which would be as much a bald-faced lie as many other statements studios have made. The content is paid for by the advertisers and currently the writers, actors and many others are not being paid for their work being shown in another media because studios are still trying to pretend the net is not a medium while at the same time gearing up to offer large amounts of content that they then promote heavily.




Why does this false claim keep getting repeated?  MOST web content is currently covered by the existing agreement for royalties (downloads and pay per view).  It's ONLY free streaming content that isn't currently covered, and when the negotiations broke off there was an offer on the table to cover that as well.  The discussion is over increasing the pay for that content, not that nothing is being paid for most of it. And, in fact it is true that most of it is not at all profitable and indeed is currently a loss.  It probably will make money in the future, which is why they are gearing up to offer large amounts of content and promote it heavily, but right now it really is not.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/movies/13leip.html
> 
> Turns out I was wrong about the figures. Studios sell DVDs wholesale for $16; subtract $2 for manufacturing costs and $2 for marketing costs, and they're making $12 *profit* per DVD. Of which they give the writers four cents. There's something very wrong with this picture.




Dude, that is NOT NOT NOT profit for the project itself.  How can you possibly not subtract the cost of making the friggen movie/show that is left over from the typical loss of first release?  And it was even mentioned in the very article you linked to, in the paragraph right above the one you are quoting.  



> A typical studio movie costs nearly $100 million: an average of $63.6 million to make and $34.4 million to market. Theater exhibitors - Regal, AMC, Loews, and the like - generally keep 50 percent of their box-office sales, which means that a movie must sell nearly $200 million worth of tickets worldwide to return $100 million to the studio and thus break even in its theatrical release.
> 
> Since few movies earn that much at the box office, the studios have increasingly relied on the home-video market, where the equation is much more in their favor, to help recover losses and make a profit.




And the same article then goes on to explain that returns are also taken out of that $12 "profit", and that failures are becoming more common.


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Here are some more facts from the Producer's perspective (since, again, I think that perspective is pretty under represented in this thread):



Since you're presenting all these things as facts, I'd like to see some sources before I accept them as such.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why does this false claim keep getting repeated? MOST web content is currently covered by the existing agreement for royalties (downloads and pay per view). It's ONLY free streaming content that isn't currently covered, and when the negotiations broke off there was an offer on the table to cover that as well. The discussion is over increasing the pay for that content, not that nothing is being paid for most of it.



Yes, writers currently get the (abysmally low) DVD rate for internet downloads, and the offer on the table for streaming content was the same (abysmally low) DVD rate. And it's worth point out that the AMPTP's first "offer" in the negotiations was not only to pay the writers nothing for streaming content, but also to redefine existing residuals so they'd get nothing for downloaded content, either. That explains why there wasn't much negotiating earlier this year; when the studios are sticking to a position like that, there's not much to talk about, is there?



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And, in fact it is true that most of it is not at all profitable and indeed is currently a loss. It probably will make money in the future, which is why they are gearing up to offer large amounts of content and promote it heavily, but right now it really is not.



Again, I'd like to see some sourcing for this "fact." And I'd like it to be something more concrete than simply a statement from a studio executive, considering that we're talking about an industry that's so infamous for corrupt accounting that they actually have the term "monkey points."

And also, it's worth pointing out that this is exactly how the writers got screwed the last time around. Back when movies were first being sold on VHS, the studios said exactly the same thing that they're saying now. "It's too new! We don't know how much money we can make here! We need you to take this crappy deal while we grow the market and find out if there's any money to be made in home video." And then when DVD came along, the studios said "It's home video, same as VHS," and that's how the writers ended up where they are today. I think it's understandable that they don't want the same thing to happen again.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Dude, that is NOT NOT NOT profit for the project itself. How can you possibly not subtract the cost of making the friggen movie/show that is left over from the typical loss of first release? And it was even mentioned in the very article you linked to, in the paragraph right above the one you are quoting.



$60 million is the _average_ movie budget. That average is skewed by the handful of $100-200 million "blockbusters" the studios produce every year. The majority of movies are made for less than that $60 million figure. Ditto for the marketing figures - most movies don't get nearly $30 million in marketing.

So you can't take it as read that every movie loses money at the box office. For some films, that $12 per disc is pure gravy to the studios.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Since you're presenting all these things as facts, I'd like to see some sources before I accept them as such.






			
				Grog said:
			
		

> If you want to talk about what I _actually say_, instead of what you want to pretend I said, we can have a discussion. Until then, we're done.




Make up your mind.  Are we done from your perspective, and you're going to ignore what I post, or did you want to discuss it still?

And yes, I was responding to you...because I never declared discussion done (just the long point by point where you dismiss everything and demand more sources to any response).  You seemed to have ended our discussion from your end.

As for what you would like to see, you've already made it clear you have no intention at all of considering the other side, as you already made up your mind.  If it's sourced from a Producer-biased source you have said it is all lies, and if it is sourced from a Writer-biased source you have presented it as all truth.  So, why would I engage further in that? At this point, I care about those who want to know both sides and make up their minds.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 13, 2007)

I really don't understand all of the details of this, but...

A lot of the Anti-Writers side of the debate seems to be "if we pay you for this, then it won't be profitable/possible". But, that kind of argument is completley nonsensical. If you can only afford to do something if you don't pay the most important people in creative production (writers, directors, actors, etc), then you shouldn't be bothering to do so in the first place. Paying such people should never be considered to be an optional expense.

The entire argument that writers and others should abandon guarantees on their contract of getting paid for something, just becuase a new media is unreliable or unprofitable at the moment, is also completely flawed. As has been said before, contracts last longer than market conditions do, and previous contracts set precedent for new ones. As such, any argument based on current or temporary situations should not be applied to a long-term thing like a contract.

Also, Mistwell, you would probably serve the "producer's" case a lot better if you left out all the emotional pleas about the way strikers are blocking streets and somehoe snubbing their noses down at other people in the industry. Those have nothing to do with the debate at hand. If anything, it just makes it look like you have a personal axe to grind in this debate.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Also, Mistwell, you would probably serve the "producer's" case a lot better if you left out all the emotional pleas about the way strikers are blocking streets and somehoe snubbing their noses down at other people in the industry. Those have nothing to do with the debate at hand. If anything, it just makes it look like you have a personal axe to grind in this debate.




Bad behavior of a party is not relevant to the debate? And I am not in any way emotional about this.  It's relevant in my opinion to the issue.  As long as we hear all the bad behavior of the Producers (which we have, repeatedly, in this thread, with no responses from anyone else to it including yourself), I think it's relevant counter point.  I'm just reflecting what I am seeing in this thread.  Like I said, I am actually slightly on the writers side in this debate (though apparently nobody believes me when I say that).  I am trying to give the other side.  

For whatever reason, an awful lot of folks seem to want to critically think hard about the Producer's side of things and try and poke holes in those points (which is fair), but won't do the same for the writer's-side of the debate even for points the writer's make that are on their face fairly unsubstantiated (which is not fair).  If you really are not sure where you stand, then why am I the lone voice even bothering to question the writers-side of the debate in this thread?

Heck, you even started your post with "the anti-writers side", which is on it's face a very biased approach.  Nobody is anti-writer in this debate.  A lot of producers ARE writers or want to be writers, and this is really a family fight that turned dirty.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 13, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Personally I find it kind of funny since it sure seems writers are very quick to use Unions as transparent masks for organized crime...




Um... bwah?

Quote?  Link?  Article?  Substantial evidence that backs up your (flagrant and outrageous) claim?

Ladies and Gentlemen... are... are we just making stuff up now?


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Bad behavior of a party is not relevant to the debate? And I am not in any way emotional about this.  It's relevant in my opinion to the issue.  As long as we hear all the bad behavior of the Producers (which we have, repeatedly, in this thread, with no responses from anyone else to it including yourself), I think it's relevant counter point.




No, behaviour is not always relevant. The alleged bad behaviour of the producers in this dispute is entirely germane to the core issues of the dispute - i.e. it involves actions taken relating directly to subject matter of the negotiations, and thus is relevant. The alleged bad behaviour of the writers is tangential at best - involving how the writers are behaving on the picket line, and thus really isn't relevant.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Here are some more facts from the Producer's perspective (since, again, I think that perspective is pretty under represented in this thread):




You might want to stop arguing. Everything you say just seems to make the producer side in this even more unreasonable than before.



> _In 2006, the average MPAA film cost over $100 million to produce, market and distribute in the domestic market, and approximately another $40 million if released overseas._




And? The cost of making a motion picutre is something that is entirely in the control of the studios. It is their choice to make monstrously expensive pictures with all the bells and whistles glopped on. Furthermore, this "average" appears to be highly misleading, padded by a handful of extraordinarily expensive pictures among many more reasonably priced pictures. A better measure than the "average" would be the median cost. And that's not even persuasive - because the cost of a picture is still controlled by the studios. If they can't make a profit on a $200 million production, they only have themselves to blame.



> _Revenues obtained in the initial market of release no longer cover the costs of production, much less distribution and marketing.  There is no such thing as supplemental or ancillary or secondary market any longer and hasn’t been for years.  All windows and media are needed for the vast majority of productions just to recoup initial costs, much less break even or make a profit._




You are looking at this from the wrong direction. Costs of production, distribution, and marketing have grown because the revenues are available. Not because there is some immutable law that states that these costs must be that high. Studios have decided to take for granted that this gravy train is available and pumped up their costs as a result. This is not a mandatory action on their part, and now that the writers (and soon, actors and unions) have called them on it, they are throwing a hissy fit like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

And since production companies are notorious for engaging in creative and sometimes fraudulent accounting, inflating their costs by attributing unrelated and sometimes imaginary costs to the budget of a production, the level of sympathy they deserve when they cry poor is nonexistent.



> _On a standard 1 million unit sale of a DVD, a writer garners at least an additional $64,800 beyond initial compensation (on 5 million units at least $324,000; on 10 million units $648,000, etc.).  So can we PLEASE stop tossing around this 4 cent number.  It's not an accurate number.  And yes, it's a STANDARD sale unit of 1 million DVDs, not an exception.  Remember, sales includes to rental companies._




Becased on the figures that have been provided, the production company's total net on that 1 million unit sale is about $12 million. That means that the writer's royalty on the DVD sale represents 0.0054$ of the total net revenue gained by the studio on that 1 million units.

So yes, the 4 cent figure is not accurate. The real numbers actually make the production companies look _much worse_.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 13, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Um... bwah?
> 
> Quote?  Link?  Article?  Substantial evidence that backs up your (flagrant and outrageous) claim?
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen... are... are we just making stuff up now?



Entertainment media using the “Union with Mob ties” humor seems fairly common to me. Off the top of my head…

Futurama: 2-13 "Bender Gets Made (a.k.a. Bendfellas)"

Simpsons: 4-17 "Last Exit to Springfield"
[Homer is elected union kingpin] 
Homer: So what does this job pay? 
Lenny: Nothing. 
Homer: D'oh! 
Lenny: Unless you're crooked. 
Homer: WOOHOO! 

Movie: Eraser had a fantastic running gag with this subject with the union mobsters being on the protagonist’s side.
Tony Two Toes: "We heard you was loading a ship without the assistance of bona fide union labor. Say it ain't so."   

"Let me explain something to you. Nothing moves off these docks without it getting loaded by the union."


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 13, 2007)

Interesting article from almost 3 years ago when the SAG was negotiating.  Sure, there is revenue generated by DVD sales and internet generation.  I understand the writers wanting their piece of the action, but at the same time the writers get a minimum, whether the show or movie is a hit or it sucks.  

The movie 300 was a huge hit.  It had a budget of about $60 million.  Worldwide box office receipts were $456 million.  Theaters keep about 50% of the box office receipts, so that comes to about $228 million for the studio.  It has sold an estimated 8.33 million DVDs* so far.  If the studios get about $12 for a DVD, as stated earlier, $100 million for the studio.  The $0.04 per DVD for the writers comes to $333,000 to divide.  The actors' $0.15 gets them about $1.25 million.  No idea what the director's cut is.  So, based upon a huge hit movie, the writers do look like they are getting the shaft.  

But...

The movie Evan Almighty was one of the biggest losers of all time in absolute dollars.  With a budget of $175 million, its worldwide box office gross was about $172 million.  At 50% of the box office, Evan Almighty lost about $89 million dollars.  It has so far sold an estimated 1.2 million DVDs*.  At $12 per DVD for the studio that comes to about $14.4 million, so it is at a loss of about $75 million dollars. The writers cut of the DVD sales comes to about $48,000 to split and the actors get about $180,000 on a movie that still has not made a profit.  

The article I linked above said that the actors backed down on higher DVD revenue rather than change the model so that movies have to make a profit before they start getting a residual.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.  In the meantime, I will catch up on recorded shows, rent some DVDs of movies I never got to see and maybe will be able to spend a little more time with the family with the TV turned off because there won't be anything worth watching.  

* DVD sales estimates taken from The Numbers.com


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> The article I linked above said that the actors backed down on higher DVD revenue rather than change the model so that movies have to make a profit before they start getting a residual.




Production companies have developed a nasty reputation for cooking the books to make almost every movie fail to make a "profit", even apparently highly successful movies (such as _Coming to America_ or _Forrest Gump_). Look up the term "monkey points" for a complete explanation.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> And also, it's worth pointing out that this is exactly how the writers got screwed the last time around. Back when movies were first being sold on VHS, the studios said exactly the same thing that they're saying now. "It's too new! We don't know how much money we can make here! We need you to take this crappy deal while we grow the market and find out if there's any money to be made in home video." And then when DVD came along, the studios said "It's home video, same as VHS," and that's how the writers ended up where they are today. I think it's understandable that they don't want the same thing to happen again.




Not to mention it's a pretty indefensible position, IMO, when you consider they're asking for residuals. IE, if the studios cannot and do not make a cent, they obviously won't be paying out- .001% of nothing is still nothing. On the other hand if and when they do make a profit on it, it stands to reason that the creative minds that allowed such content to generate money should benefit as well.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 13, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Also, Mistwell, you would probably serve the "producer's" case a lot better if you left out all the emotional pleas about the way strikers are blocking streets and somehoe snubbing their noses down at other people in the industry. Those have nothing to do with the debate at hand. If anything, it just makes it look like you have a personal axe to grind in this debate.




RE: Strike practices- this sort of thing goes on a lot in any kind of strike- people violating the Union rules (on both sides, I might add). They may not care, they may be ringers brought in to fill out picket lines, they may be told to do this by less than scrupulous union leaders, whatever. The actions of a few bad apples in the picket lines, reprehensible as they may be, shouldn't be taken as representative of the union as a whole.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 13, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You are looking at this from the wrong direction. Costs of production, distribution, and marketing have grown because the revenues are available. Not because there is some immutable law that states that these costs must be that high. Studios have decided to take for granted that this gravy train is available and pumped up their costs as a result.




Robert Rodriguez has some funny anecdotes about this in his book "Rebel Without A Crew", about how when he went to Hollywood to work on a big budget movie for the first time, he was doing the editing and post-production work himself, saving a lot of time and money as a result, and was told point blank that he couldn't do it, that's not the way it's done (in fairness, part of it was due to union issues). It's really pretty funny (and sad).


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, behaviour is not always relevant. The alleged bad behaviour of the producers in this dispute is entirely germane to the core issues of the dispute - i.e. it involves actions taken relating directly to subject matter of the negotiations, and thus is relevant. The alleged bad behaviour of the writers is tangential at best - involving how the writers are behaving on the picket line, and thus really isn't relevant.




How they are behaving on the picket lines is a tactic they are using to attempt to force the Producers back to the negotiation table, and weapon to attempt to gain leverage in those negotiations.  It's relevant.  It's not like I was discussing personal behavior at home - it's a part of the strike.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Production companies have developed a nasty reputation for cooking the books to make almost every movie fail to make a "profit", even apparently highly successful movies (such as _Coming to America_ or _Forrest Gump_). Look up the term "monkey points" for a complete explanation.




You keep putting this out like it's fact when it's not.  The writer's share isn't based on the profit numbers you seem to think they are.  They ARE part of those "cooked books".  There is no allegation on the table from the WGA that the Producer's are inaccurately reporting numbers TO THEM.  The writer's have a quite powerful audit right, the same right as the Producer's have in fact, and both the Producer's Union and the Writer's Union are working from the same sets of numbers for this issue.  Again, people keep trying to portray this like the big corporations against the littler writers, when in reality it's the big Writer/Producers against the Producers, both of whom have been making good money all along and both of whom are simply arguing about how to divide their own profits between them.

If you guys are going to continue to through this point out there like it is true, then prove it.  And not by citing old cases from before the current system or concerning other parties, but from the WGA.  Show me where they are saying they feel the profit numbers reported to them are false and cooked.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Becased on the figures that have been provided, the production company's total net on that 1 million unit sale is about $12 million. That means that the writer's royalty on the DVD sale represents 0.0054$ of the total net revenue gained by the studio on that 1 million units.
> 
> So yes, the 4 cent figure is not accurate. The real numbers actually make the production companies look _much worse_.




Apparently, you have confused the word "gross" with the word "net".

The Producer's GROSS that sum, not NET that sum (the confusion came from using the word net to examine the DVDs separately and not the context that they actually contain a movie or TV show that cost money to make).  The article made it clear they then deduct the loss from the release, which is substantial, and then the loss from returns, which is also substantial and growing as places like Walmart take over that part of the industry.  The Producer's made it clear, the articles make it clear, and I think the evidence bares it out that the DVDs are not an integral part of the ability to profit from a movie, and not a secondary line of profits.  Continuing to mischaracterize  it as otherwise isn't helpful to anyone.


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Make up your mind.  Are we done from your perspective, and you're going to ignore what I post, or did you want to discuss it still?



When you come in posting a bunch of stuff as fact, people have the right to ask you to provide support for these "facts." I did it when I was asked, you can do the same.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And yes, I was responding to you...because I never declared discussion done (just the long point by point where you dismiss everything and demand more sources to any response).  You seemed to have ended our discussion from your end.
> 
> As for what you would like to see, you've already made it clear you have no intention at all of considering the other side, as you already made up your mind.  If it's sourced from a Producer-biased source you have said it is all lies, and if it is sourced from a Writer-biased source you have presented it as all truth.  So, why would I engage further in that? At this point, I care about those who want to know both sides and make up their minds.



So, in other words, you're saying that you can't or won't back up the things that you're claiming as fact. So why should anybody accept them as such?


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 13, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> The actions of a few bad apples in the picket lines, reprehensible as they may be, shouldn't be taken as representative of the union as a whole.



 They have stood up to be counted together, They either have to chose to remove the rot themselves or they are condoning such behavior through their silence. If someone in a picket line provokes a fight with someone outside the line, those around him must make the choice to ostracize him form their line. Otherwise is it a common sense observation the others in that line will join in a fight


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Entertainment media using the “Union with Mob ties” humor seems fairly common to me.



Are you seriously citing Futurama and The Simpsons as evidence that real-life Hollywood unions are corrupt?


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Are you seriously citing Futurama and The Simpsons as evidence that real-life Hollywood unions are corrupt?



Is that seriously how you are reading my posts on this subject?


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> A lot of the Anti-Writers side of the debate seems to be "if we pay you for this, then it won't be profitable/possible". But, that kind of argument is completley nonsensical. If you can only afford to do something if you don't pay the most important people in creative production (writers, directors, actors, etc), then you shouldn't be bothering to do so in the first place. Paying such people should never be considered to be an optional expense.



Indeed. That nonsensical argument gets taken on in this post, which I linked to earlier in the thread:



> [The studios] have stated that they need they need the flexibility of not paying residuals in order to experiment with digital models. Why are they "experimenting"? Well, in theory, to find the digital model that is the most efficient and most profitable. Aces. A system that will work flawlessly even though they've developed it without a chunk of its operating costs in place.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, if your brother said he was going to open a bar and see how it went without paying for any alcohol or hiring bartenders or figuring out the cost of a liquor license, and then if that succeeded he'd add the booze and personnel and get the paperwork nailed down, you'd rightly think he was an idiot. Studios say the same thing annnnnd ...


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> frankthedm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From my perspective it seems like writers use the "orginized crime controling unions" as a fairly common plot element in thier work. I seems like someone thought i said "writers are very quick to _call_ Unions transparent masks for organized crime".


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Apparently, you have confused the word "gross" with the word "net".




I misspoke (misspelled?). My point still stands. The studio does a 1 million unit delivery, and can expect to get about $12 million dollars gross. The writers get 0.005% of that. This makes the studios look very bad.



> _The Producer's made it clear, the articles make it clear, and I think the evidence bares it out that the DVDs are not an integral part of the ability to profit from a movie, and not a secondary line of profits._




Which is irrelevant, since the ability to control costs related to movie production lies _solely within the purview of the producers_. If they want to control costs so that initial theater ticket sales cover the costs of production, they can. Cherry picking additional revenue and saying it is "necessary" to keep it all to themselves to make a movie profitable is putting the cart before the horse.



> _Continuing to mischaracterize  it as otherwise isn't helpful to anyone._




Thus far, you haven't made an argument of any weight whatsoever for the producers. In point of fact, it seems to me that you have made arguments that just make them look much worse than any article supporting the writers has been able to do.


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> From my perspective it seems like writers use the "orginized crime controling unions" as a fairly common plot element in thier work. I seems like someone thought i said "writers are very quick to _call_ Unions transparent masks for organized crime".



Oh! Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> When you come in posting a bunch of stuff as fact, people have the right to ask you to provide support for these "facts." I did it when I was asked, you can do the same.




No, that's not what happened.  Your "facts" challenge came after you said we were done.  So I am asking if we are done, or if you want to discuss things still.




> So, in other words, you're saying that you can't or won't back up the things that you're claiming as fact. So why should anybody accept them as such?




No, I am not saying that.

Why are you continuing with the aggression? Do you want to discuss, or do you want to fight? If it's fight, let's take it to CircvsMaximvs.  If you want to discuss, then please cut out the dismissive passive aggressive stuff and strawman claims for exaggeration effect.  You just did it with FrankTheDm as well, so it's becoming a pattern in this thread.  And given that FranktheDm and I tend to think fairly differently about many topics, that's probably meaningful.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I misspoke (misspelled?). My point still stands. The studio does a 1 million unit delivery, and can expect to get about $12 million dollars gross. The writers get 0.005% of that. This makes the studios look very bad.




Only if you then show the studios are getting a huge net from it.  But, given I've already given you the stats that they are not, I am not sure how it makes the studios look bad.  I mean, if you just state it without mentioning that the studios have been taking it on the chin lately, then sure out of context it looks bad.



> Which is irrelevant, since the ability to control costs related to movie production lies _solely within the purview of the producers_.




Ha! Surely you jest.  You think market forces play no impact on the production of film and television? That Producers don't have to compete, can force advertisers to charge nothing, and don't have to pay top dollar for actors and directors and writers to get people to see their movies?  Come on.  This is a business.  There is no such thing as being able to control all costs just because you are the guy raising funds and allocating a budget.



> If they want to control costs so that initial theater ticket sales cover the costs of production, they can. Cherry picking additional revenue and saying it is "necessary" to keep it all to themselves to make a movie profitable is putting the cart before the horse.




How?  How can they do this, given the change in the market?  You think the producers just like losing money like they have been lately? That they are doing this for the fun of overspending?



> Thus far, you haven't made an argument of any weight whatsoever for the producers. In point of fact, it seems to me that you have made arguments that just make them look much worse than any article supporting the writers has been able to do.




Honestly, I think that is just your opinion, and you came into this already being in favor of the writers.  I think the facts I cited are compelling enough to make one at least question the writer's position if you come in as undecided.  But if you are already decided, then of course your perspective will be "anything you say will likely reinforce my opinion that I am right", much like any debate.

I'm posting the other side for people who remain undecided and want to see both sides.  That's it.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why are you continuing with the aggression? Do you want to discuss, or do you want to fight? If it's fight, let's take it to CircvsMaximvs.





Folks, above is a case in point.  In most cases, it takes two to tango.  If you feel someone is being too aggressive, getting aggressive back at them does nothing to alleviate the situation.  it is what we moderators call "escalation".  We ask all of you to avoid this.

If you have a problem with someone else being aggressive, you can report the post to the moderators - there's a little exclamation point icon you can click at the bottom of each post for the purpose.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 13, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> They have stood up to be counted together, They either have to chose to remove the rot themselves or they are condoning such behavior through their silence.




Certainly. Having some knowledge of how these Union strikes play out, I'm going to make an assumption that anyone not acting properly will also be disciplined appropriately.

To hold out one or two instances of behavior that is against rules as an example of how the entire strike is being played out, however, seems to me to be an overgeneralization.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> How?  How can they do this, given the change in the market?  You think the producers just like losing money like they have been lately? That they are doing this for the fun of overspending?




Of course, part of the problem in general may be ridiculous expectations of exactly what constitutes reasonable profit. 

(Not a dig at you- just a dig at overblown salaries among production staff, actors, and others in general. Of course, the same issue exists in pretty much all levels of industry- corporations, sports, etc.)


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Of course, part of the problem in general may be ridiculous expectations of exactly what constitutes reasonable profit.
> 
> (Not a dig at you- just a dig at overblown salaries among production staff, actors, and others in general. Of course, the same issue exists in pretty much all levels of industry- corporations, sports, etc.)




But it's not their expectations.  They are public companies, and have a responsibility to their stockholders.  Right now, some of those studios are actually declaring losses, not profits.  And that's not some funny money accounting, since as I said these are public companies regulated by the SEC.

I think "Studios should pay everyone less across the board so their movies can be profitable while in theaters" isn't going to fly with ANY of the unions involved.  Remember, the Producer's belong to a union as well.  As do actors, and directors, and most of the laborers involved.  It's just not a solution that can realistically work.


----------



## Grog (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No, that's not what happened.  Your "facts" challenge came after you said we were done.  So I am asking if we are done, or if you want to discuss things still.



What I want is for you to provide some support for the things you are claiming are facts. And I want you to leave the personal comments out of it this time.

Now, are you willing to do this, or am I wasting my time?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Bad behavior of a party is not relevant to the debate? And I am not in any way emotional about this.  It's relevant in my opinion to the issue.  As long as we hear all the bad behavior of the Producers (which we have, repeatedly, in this thread, with no responses from anyone else to it including yourself), I think it's relevant counter point.  I'm just reflecting what I am seeing in this thread.  Like I said, I am actually slightly on the writers side in this debate (though apparently nobody believes me when I say that).  I am trying to give the other side.



My point was that the actual managing of the strike has no relevence to the _reasons_ for the strike. If we are talking about whether the writers are justified in starting a strike or not, the details of the strike itself are irrelevent. The same can be said concerning your mention of the other people who are making less money than the writers. The fact that they are making enough money or not is irrelevent to the writer's own issues. Finally, so far, while there have been many nasty claims about the producers, they only pertain to the reasons for the strike, not the act of the strike itself, so I am not contradicting myself here.



> For whatever reason, an awful lot of folks seem to want to critically think hard about the Producer's side of things and try and poke holes in those points (which is fair), but won't do the same for the writer's-side of the debate even for points the writer's make that are on their face fairly unsubstantiated (which is not fair).  If you really are not sure where you stand, then why am I the lone voice even bothering to question the writers-side of the debate in this thread?



I never said I didn't have a stand, I just said I don't know the details (such as how much people deserve to be paid, and such). I just said the kinds of things that should make people think they should ignore my opinion, not that I don't have an opinion. Right now, I am favoring the writer's side.

However, I dislike your implication that I made a choice on my stand (or that others in this thread have done so) arbitrarily, and are deliberatly ignoring one side in order to further my (our) own views. That is unfair and untrue. I am simply making a choice based on the information and views expressed in this thread. I think that is as impartial as I can be expected to be. It just happens that, in this thread, a pretty good case has been made for the writers to have good reason to strike.

After all, I have no interest in this strike, outside of entertaining myself in this thread. I don't even watch much TV that would be affected. I don't think I am obliged to do a lot of research on something which doesn't concern me. I will leave that kind of thing to someone trying to mediate negotiations and end the strike. 



> Heck, you even started your post with "the anti-writers side", which is on it's face a very biased approach.  Nobody is anti-writer in this debate.  A lot of producers ARE writers or want to be writers, and this is really a family fight that turned dirty.



All I meant was the "group of people who don't want to pay the writers any more". If you would care to notice, I am just trying to find a word to describe such people _without using the word producers_, for the same reason you just mentioned. If you have a better term, go ahead and explain it.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I think "Studios should pay everyone less across the board so their movies can be profitable while in theaters" isn't going to fly with ANY of the unions involved.




Not exactly what I said. 



> Remember, the Producer's belong to a union as well.  As do actors, and directors, and most of the laborers involved.  It's just not a solution that can realistically work.




I wasn't presenting it as a solution to the current problem, just making an observation on what I believe is a trend that pervades a lot of areas (and I did mention several of the above groups in pointing it out).


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 14, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Studios sell DVDs wholesale for $16; subtract $2 for manufacturing costs and $2 for marketing costs, and they're making $12 *profit* per DVD..




Having managed a video store, I can say those numbers seem way off.  The sellers of DVD might end up paying $16 for each DVD, but out of that you have to count transportation, the distributor's costs, etc.  I'd believe $8 or maybe even $10 per DVD.  $16 just doesn't allow for the DVD prices we see in the market.


----------



## Grog (Nov 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Having managed a video store, I can say those numbers seem way off.  The sellers of DVD might end up paying $16 for each DVD, but out of that you have to count transportation, the distributor's costs, etc.  I'd believe $8 or maybe even $10 per DVD.  $16 just doesn't allow for the DVD prices we see in the market.



The NYT article says that the studios sell DVDs wholesale to retailers, which would mean there are no distributor's costs involved. But, if the numbers seem off to you, all I can suggest is to contact the reporter about it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 14, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Robert Rodriguez has some funny anecdotes about this in his book "Rebel Without A Crew", about how when he went to Hollywood to work on a big budget movie for the first time, he was doing the editing and post-production work himself, saving a lot of time and money as a result, and was told point blank that he couldn't do it, that's not the way it's done (in fairness, part of it was due to union issues). It's really pretty funny (and sad).




Which is one of the reasons, or the major reason, he's not a member of the Director's Guild? Or was it something else?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> What I want is for you to provide some support for the things you are claiming are facts. And I want you to leave the personal comments out of it this time.
> 
> Now, are you willing to do this, or am I wasting my time?




Most of the facts came from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers page.

Some came from the articles I had previously quoted.  

One came from a writer friend of mine (he supports the strike, but does not agree with the demand to be paid before everyone else, and is upset about the lack of negotiations 6 months before the deadline when the Alliance first asked).


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 14, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> The NYT article says that the studios sell DVDs wholesale to retailers, which would mean there are no distributor's costs involved. But, if the numbers seem off to you, all I can suggest is to contact the reporter about it.




Like that would do any good.  

I did check to make sure the major distributors are still dealing with DVDs, and confirmed they are (Ingram for instance).  Some companies are likely dealing directly with the studios (Blockbuster did for many titles while I was there), but it's certainly not all and only the largest companies can afford to do that.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> My point was that the actual managing of the strike has no relevence to the _reasons_ for the strike.




The thread was not limited to just reasons for the strike.  Post number one was essentially "let's talk about the strike, and it's ramifications".  People starting posting about what jerks the Producers were being.  I didn't see you object to those posts.  So if your objection is "stick to the the more limited topic of reasons for the strike", I have not seen you chastise anyone else for not sticking to that limited issue when it came to bashing the Producers for their bad behavior.



> If we are talking about whether the writers are justified in starting a strike or not, the details of the strike itself are irrelevent. The same can be said concerning your mention of the other people who are making less money than the writers. The fact that they are making enough money or not is irrelevent to the writer's own issues.




The writers are striking with a claim that the Producers are taking too much money and not giving enough to the writers, and many people have mentioned in this thread that the writers are underpaid.  It's absolutely relevant to state that they are actually doing quite well on average. and some are millionaires, and some of the people they are striking against make LESS money than them.  I am sure you can see why that would be relevant to this discussion, given it directly contradicts some claims made in this thread.  It's OK that I am responding to points made in the thread, right?



> Finally, so far, while there have been many nasty claims about the producers, they only pertain to the reasons for the strike, not the act of the strike itself, so I am not contradicting myself here.




There was an accusation of "Union busters in the AMPTP and others had been working against them"  Later, someone linked to this blog, which details various bad behavior from the Producers since the strike started titled "The CEOs Aren't Playing Fair".  Then there was a link to this article  detailing claims that the Producer's duped the writers and lied after the strike happened.  Then someone posted this article claiming the Producer's have been dishonestly working the press corp.  So to address your claim that the pro-Writer's position in this thread hasn't ever bashed the Producer's behavior since the strike, as opposed to simply focusing purely on reasons for the strike itself, I feel you are wrong.



> I never said I didn't have a stand, I just said I don't know the details (such as how much people deserve to be paid, and such). I just said the kinds of things that should make people think they should ignore my opinion, not that I don't have an opinion. Right now, I am favoring the writer's side.
> 
> However, I dislike your implication that I made a choice on my stand (or that others in this thread have done so) arbitrarily, and are deliberatly ignoring one side in order to further my (our) own views.




I absolutely did not accuse you of arbitrarily coming to the conclusion that you side with the writer's.  You in fact came to the same conclusion I did.

I did however say that you already came to that conclusion, and that you are reacting as most people react to things they perceive as questioning their prior conclusion - to try and poke holes in it rather than sit back and carefully consider it.  Most people, myself included most of the time, carefully consider things before we draw a conclusion, and not after we have already done so.



> That is unfair and untrue. I am simply making a choice based on the information and views expressed in this thread. I think that is as impartial as I can be expected to be. It just happens that, in this thread, a pretty good case has been made for the writers to have good reason to strike.




Fair enough.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> The NYT article says that the studios sell DVDs wholesale to retailers, which would mean there are no distributor's costs involved. But, if the numbers seem off to you, all I can suggest is to contact the reporter about it.




What about selling something wholesale tells you that no distribution costs are involved.  How do you think the wholesale DVDs get to the retailers?

My company sells graduation gowns wholesale to some retailers.  There are substantial costs involved beyond manufacturing costs.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 14, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Which is one of the reasons, or the major reason, he's not a member of the Director's Guild? Or was it something else?




I'm sure it contributed to it, but the main reason (final straw?) was that they wouldn't allow both he and Frank Miller to share directorial credit on Sin City. (RR said that his artwork in the GN was the primary influence behind his directorial choices, and the DGA said that wasn't enough, FM would have actually had to be a co-Director on the film, sharing duties, etc.)


----------



## Grog (Nov 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Like that would do any good.
> 
> I did check to make sure the major distributors are still dealing with DVDs, and confirmed they are (Ingram for instance).  Some companies are likely dealing directly with the studios (Blockbuster did for many titles while I was there), but it's certainly not all and only the largest companies can afford to do that.



Well, according to this article, 40% of DVD sales go through Wal-Mart alone. Add in all the other big retail chains, like Best Buy, etc., and I'm sure that they account for well over half of U.S. DVD sales. With the studios selling direct to the major retailers, distributor "middleman" costs are kept to a minimum, so I suspect the numbers in the NYT article are accurate.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Well, according to this article, 40% of DVD sales go through Wal-Mart alone. Add in all the other big retail chains, like Best Buy, etc., and I'm sure that they account for well over half of U.S. DVD sales. With the studios selling direct to the major retailers, distributor "middleman" costs are kept to a minimum, so I suspect the numbers in the NYT article are accurate.




Given Walmart sells DVDs for $14.87, it seems the article must be at least somewhat inaccurate.  The other article cited said that the Writer's Union felt that the Producer's were keeping $10.55, not $12.  I think it's safe to assume the WGA is probably more accurate than some writer who seems to be citing numbers off the top of his head rather than stressing the accuracy of those numbers (he starts by saying "for example" and then says "about" throughout the paragraph, I think to stress that these numbers are not to be taken as gospel).


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The writers are striking with a claim that the Producers are taking too much money and not giving enough to the writers, and many people have mentioned in this thread that the writers are underpaid.  It's absolutely relevant to state that they are actually doing quite well on average. and some are millionaires, and some of the people they are striking against make LESS money than them.  I am sure you can see why that would be relevant to this discussion, given it directly contradicts some claims made in this thread.  It's OK that I am responding to points made in the thread, right?



I reject this claim entirely. We live in a capitalistic society, not a communistic society. How much a person deserves to be paid _never_ depends on how much someone else deserves to be paid (with only a few minor excpetions). So what if they get paid more than the next guy? Good writing requires a _lot_ of talent and skill, and should be rewarded more than jobs which don't require that same level of talent and skill. Or are you saying that it would be unjust for a surgeon to ask for more pay, just because he is already better paid than a nurse?

Edit:I decided to just leave my argument concerning an actual point worth talking about. I am getting tired of the rest...


----------



## Grog (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Given Walmart sells DVDs for $14.87,



This is incorrect. That's the lowest DVD price Wal-Mart offers, and only they sell some titles for that price. If you look at their top sellers page, for instance, there are only a few titles there selling for $14.87.

But, in any case, whether the studio profit is $12 per DVD or $10.50 doesn't really make a substantial difference for the purpose of this discussion.


----------



## Grog (Nov 14, 2007)

Here's another article - this one discusses the fact that the writers are striking against the big Hollywood studios, not the individual producers:

Producers say don't blame us



> To clarify their point, the informally organized group of producers signed a joint statement asking the print and broadcast media to quit referring to the strike between the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers as between "writers and producers."
> 
> "Actually, the Writers Guild is negotiating against an entity that represents studios, networks and multinational conglomerates," said Linda Goldstein Knowlton, whose producing credits include the film "Whale Rider."
> 
> ...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2007)

*Mistwell* and *Grog*:

Both of you are generating complaints at this point.  Last warning - tone it down.  Consider the possibility that the entire picture is pretty well obscured, and that the other guys may have some valid points.  And be nice and polite about it, on your best behavior, or your participation in this discussion will be ended.  

If this is somehow unclear, please take it to e-mail.  Thank you.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 14, 2007)

Thanks for that last post Grog.  My wife and I were just wondering about this last night.  We assumed there must be some entity representing the studios, but were trying to figure out how the individual producers fit into this.  We have heard that there are several producers honoring the strike, which didn't make any sense if they were on the opposite side of the table.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Only if you then show the studios are getting a huge net from it.  But, given I've already given you the stats that they are not, I am not sure how it makes the studios look bad.  I mean, if you just state it without mentioning that the studios have been taking it on the chin lately, then sure out of context it looks bad.




It doesn't matter how much their net is in this case. The studios appear to gross about $12 million on that million unit delivery. The writers currently get paid about 0.005% of that. Note that this is not 5%, or even 0.5%, this is five thousandths of one percent. Whether or not the studios net a ton or not on a DVD sale, the fact that the writers get five thousands of one percent simply makes the studios look bad. Worse even that saying the writer gets 4 cents per DVD.



> _Ha! Surely you jest.  You think market forces play no impact on the production of film and television? That Producers don't have to compete, can force advertisers to charge nothing, and don't have to pay top dollar for actors and directors and writers to get people to see their movies?  Come on.  This is a business.  There is no such thing as being able to control all costs just because you are the guy raising funds and allocating a budget._




They don't have to pay an actor $20 million or do a full blown $40 million advertising campaign if they do not want to. Lots of movies are made for well under $100 million, and most of those appear to actually make money. The decision to lay out huge amounts of money on a particular movie is entirely within the perview of the studios. They make the decisions concerning how much money to budget and can figure out a way to stay within that budget. If they are losing money by being profligate, that is _their_ problem alone.



> _How?  How can they do this, given the change in the market?  You think the producers just like losing money like they have been lately? That they are doing this for the fun of overspending?_




Once again, you seem to be mistaking "opportunism" or "set in stone reality". The costs of these productions have grown, not because of some law mandating that they do so, but rather because studios decided they could get the additional funds from DVD sales and other aftermarkets. Costs have grown to encompass expected revenue. The problem is that the studios have decided that this additional revenue belongs entirely and exclusively to them - and that they don't have to bother to share it with anyone else. That is poor planning on the part of the studios, but not an immutable fact of life.



> _Honestly, I think that is just your opinion, and you came into this already being in favor of the writers.  I think the facts I cited are compelling enough to make one at least question the writer's position if you come in as undecided.  But if you are already decided, then of course your perspective will be "anything you say will likely reinforce my opinion that I am right", much like any debate._




No. I looked at your stuff intiially thinking "hey, the studios might have a point", but things like 5 thousandths of a percent, and the fact that you seem not to understand why costs have grown, getting the cause and effect exactly backwards has convinced me that the stuidos not only don't have any very good arguments, but if this is the best they can come up with, they have _no_ arguments.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Given Walmart sells DVDs for $14.87, it seems the article must be at least somewhat inaccurate.  The other article cited said that the Writer's Union felt that the Producer's were keeping $10.55, not $12.  I think it's safe to assume the WGA is probably more accurate than some writer who seems to be citing numbers off the top of his head rather than stressing the accuracy of those numbers (he starts by saying "for example" and then says "about" throughout the paragraph, I think to stress that these numbers are not to be taken as gospel).




That changes the figures paid to the writers to 0.006% of the total gross. Which still makes the studios look very bad.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I think "Studios should pay everyone less across the board so their movies can be profitable while in theaters" isn't going to fly with ANY of the unions involved.  Remember, the Producer's belong to a union as well.  As do actors, and directors, and most of the laborers involved.  It's just not a solution that can realistically work.




It is certainly possible to make a movie for less than $100 million. It is certainly possible to make a movie for less than $60 million. Many movies are made for significantly less than those figures. It isn't the various guilds that make movies cost that much - it is all the bells and whistles added to them.

By the way, in 2006, the average movie cost $65.8 million to make according to the MPAA. http://www.cinematical.com/2007/03/08/mpaa-in-2006-an-average-movie-cost-65-8m-to-produce/. That means that lots of movies were made for less, while some were made for more. For every $268 million dollar _Spider Man_ movie, there are five or so movies that only cost $20 million to make up for it. So controlling costs is clearly possible for the studios, they just don't choose to do it with some productions.

So whining poor is simply a red herring on the part of the studios here.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 14, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Entertainment media using the “Union with Mob ties” humor seems fairly common to me. Off the top of my head…




Ah ok, my mistake.  I didn't seen anything in your post that clued me into the humor, so it just went over my head.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I reject this claim entirely. We live in a capitalistic society, not a communistic society. How much a person deserves to be paid _never_ depends on how much someone else deserves to be paid (with only a few minor excpetions). So what if they get paid more than the next guy? Good writing requires a _lot_ of talent and skill, and should be rewarded more than jobs which don't require that same level of talent and skill. Or are you saying that it would be unjust for a surgeon to ask for more pay, just because he is already better paid than a nurse?
> 
> Edit:I decided to just leave my argument concerning an actual point worth talking about. I am getting tired of the rest...




Again, it was a response to people saying that the Producer's are evil wealthy corporations.  If the wealth of the Producer's is not relevant to you, then I can see why the wealth of the Writer's is not relevant to you.  But, it seems to be relevant to some people, and those people may find that information useful.  If a wealthy writer striking for even more money puts a poor grip or gaffer out on the streets to lose his house because he cannot pay his mortgage, for some that is meaningful.  I agree with you that it shouldn't necessarily be important, but for some it is.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> This is incorrect. That's the lowest DVD price Wal-Mart offers, and only they sell some titles for that price. If you look at their top sellers page, for instance, there are only a few titles there selling for $14.87.




It's what they sell new bigger movies for.  So unless you are claiming they sell them for less than they buy them for, the numbers are not adding up.

Indeed, I checked some wholesale prices through my business contacts, and they look to be around $10.90.  You can believe that or not.  But that seems to be the real number.  And the wholesale number of course does not account for marketing or shipping or packing or manufacturing.  So the real profit margin on DVDs is likely around $6.00 or so to the Producers. At least, that is my estimate.



> But, in any case, whether the studio profit is $12 per DVD or $10.50 doesn't really make a substantial difference for the purpose of this discussion.




Indeed.  Let's leave it at "Producers make much more on DVDs than writers.  They will make much more on DVDs than writer's even if the Producer's entirely gave in to the demands of the writers."  The question is whether the Producer claim that they are taking massive losses on theatrical releases and use the profits from DVDs to compensate for those losses just to be able to inch towards breaking even, on most projects.  That point remains disputed.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Thanks for that last post Grog.  My wife and I were just wondering about this last night.  We assumed there must be some entity representing the studios, but were trying to figure out how the individual producers fit into this.  We have heard that there are several producers honoring the strike, which didn't make any sense if they were on the opposite side of the table.




For the most part, Producers who are honoring the strike are Writer-Producers (which is common - so common there are a set of rules covering just them).


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter how much their net is in this case. The studios appear to gross about $12 million on that million unit delivery. The writers currently get paid about 0.005% of that. Note that this is not 5%, or even 0.5%, this is five thousandths of one percent. Whether or not the studios net a ton or not on a DVD sale, the fact that the writers get five thousands of one percent simply makes the studios look bad. Worse even that saying the writer gets 4 cents per DVD.




I think if you think the net doesn't matter, then we are not communicating.

Let's say a film costs $63M to produce, and $37M to promote, so it costs $100M to make.  It makes  $100M in theater sales, $50M of which goes to the theaters and $50M of which goes to the studio.  So the studio is currently down $50M.  The movie then goes to DVD, and costs $2M to produce and $2M to promote.  It sells 1M copies, with 5% returns, so sells a total of 950K at $10.88 profit each (according to the WGA that is the correct number), for a total profit of $10.3M.  The studio is now down $39.7M on the project, and still owes the writer $64,800 beyond their initial compensation.  The writers are arguing they should instead be paid $129,600 instead at this stage.

So yes, it is highly relevant what the net is in this case.  The DVDs are not looked at in a vacuum.  They are part of the entire project, and their profits are a critical element of the entire project.  You cannot just consider the DVDs profit margins without looking at the cost of the movie that is on that DVD.  If you do, you're not getting the full picture.



> They don't have to pay an actor $20 million or do a full blown $40 million advertising campaign if they do not want to.




Yeah, and they don't have to be in business either.  Paying those fees is what employs those writers.  I assure you, the writers do not want to see a reduction in those costs - indeed they have said they are in solidarity with the actors and want to see the actors paid more as well.  This is a business, and it is driven by market forces.  Market forces dictate those fees, not the studios.  There really isn't a choice about it.  That is the cost of doing business in this industry right now.



> Lots of movies are made for well under $100 million, and most of those appear to actually make money.




The numbers hold true generally speaking below $100M we were just using that as an example.  But you are wrong - small movies are not doing well right now.  Indeed, that is a big complain in Hollywood right now - they are being drowned out by the big movies such that small movies are no longer profitable.



> The decision to lay out huge amounts of money on a particular movie is entirely within the perview of the studios.




This is not a realistic position.  It's no more the decision of the studios than any other industry that is strapped by high costs due to competition.  The studios are not an exception to capitalism - indeed as publicly traded companies they are MORE beholden to market forces than most companies.



> They make the decisions concerning how much money to budget and can figure out a way to stay within that budget. If they are losing money by being profligate, that is _their_ problem alone.




It is everyone's problem in that industry.  It is the writers problem, and the directors problem, and the actors problem, and everyones problem.  You're view that Producers are just crazy lunatics burning money because they feel like it is really not realistic.  They are all in it together, and all reacting to the same market forces anybody else is reacting to.  It's just people in business.



> Once again, you seem to be mistaking "opportunism" or "set in stone reality". The costs of these productions have grown, not because of some law mandating that they do so,




The law of supply and demand actually is the cause.



> but rather because studios decided they could get the additional funds from DVD sales and other aftermarkets. Costs have grown to encompass expected revenue. The problem is that the studios have decided that this additional revenue belongs entirely and exclusively to them - and that they don't have to bother to share it with anyone else. That is poor planning on the part of the studios, but not an immutable fact of life.




Not really...this was planning done by the Producers along with the Writers and Actors and Directors as well.  They ALL agreed to lump the aftermarket in with the initial showing to assess the value of the project.  If you want to change it to look at DVDs in a vacuum and theatrical releases in a vacuum, I assure you the writer's will be rapidly unemployed and out of business.  They don't want the thing you seem to be advocating.  It is not in anybody's best interest.  They just want more fees on the DVDs - not to separate the DVDs from the theatrical numbers.



> No. I looked at your stuff intiially thinking "hey, the studios might have a point", but things like 5 thousandths of a percent, and the fact that you seem not to understand why costs have grown, getting the cause and effect exactly backwards has convinced me that the stuidos not only don't have any very good arguments, but if this is the best they can come up with, they have _no_ arguments.




I'm sorry you feel that way.  If you have some proof that my cause and effect is backwards, please link to it.  I'd love to see something that says that market forces were not the cause of increased production and advertising costs on movies.


----------



## Felon (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Again, it was a response to people saying that the Producer's are evil wealthy corporations.  If the wealth of the Producer's is not relevant to you, then I can see why the wealth of the Writer's is not relevant to you.  But, it seems to be relevant to some people, and those people may find that information useful.  If a wealthy writer striking for even more money puts a poor grip or gaffer out on the streets to lose his house because he cannot pay his mortgage, for some that is meaningful.  I agree with you that it shouldn't necessarily be important, but for some it is.



It should not be news for anyone when I say that many folks have very childish, simplistic modes of thinking. They want to split the sides up into "bully" versus "underdog"---mainly because WGA-penned fiction has ingrained that scenario into our minds in thousands and thousands of movies and TV shows. We think we have to find someone to root for. 

The first big reality check is that it's all about money, regardless of the side. The writers are looking out for their welfare, and to blazes with the gaffers and grips and us, the viewers. 

The second big reality check is that unions have a nasty habit of taking for granted the members they are supposed to represent. It is usually not a big love-in where every little guy gets his say in matters. It's usually a minority of major players making all the decisions for everybody else, and unleashing holy hell on any dissatisfied members that don't step in line with their leaders' will. Point of fact: you may or may not want to join a union, but usually you wind up doing so because you _have_ to, and this is the case with the WGA.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> By the way, in 2006, the average movie cost $65.8 million to make according to the MPAA.




I don't think that is correct. It cost $65.8 million *to produce*, which is what that article says. Production costs do not usually include marketing costs.  Marketing costs tend to be about 50% of production costs.  So the total to make was probably $98.7M, which is pretty darn close to my example $100M (and $100M was a lot easier to calculate).

But really, the numbers hold true for smaller productions as well.  Let's take for example the movie 30 Days of Night, which did reasonably well.  It cost $30M to produce, and $15M to market, for a total cost of $45M.  It made $48.7M domestically and internationally, for a total of $24.35 to the studio, for a current loss of $20.65M.  Lets say it sells 1M DVDs as standard, gets the 5% returns, gets the standard $10.88 profit per DVD sold, for a total of $10.33M.  The film is now at a loss of $10.32M (and that is for a movie that did relatively well).  They are going to hope that the DVDs sell better than the 1M, and that they get additional aftermarket money to make up the loss.  It's going to be rough, but if they can get 2M DVDs sold, they will squeak out a profit and probably get a sequel.

Studios pay for almost all of their movies from a handful of success stories. They were hoping for a SAW II type movie. "Saw II," cost just $4 million to produce, $2M to market, and  earned $87 million in theaters for $43.5M to the studio, which is a massive profit (not including the DVDs).  That money went to make up for *many* movies that had losses for the studio.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I think if you think the net doesn't matter, then we are not communicating.




The net doesn't matter ever in Hollywood. The net is an illusionary number. The only thing that matters is the gross - and the question is "how much of the gross should writers get from DVD sales". Whether the studios make money or not is not the writer's concern - it is up to the studios to control their own costs to a degree where they can make a profit. The question is "how much of this giant revenue stream should the writer get".

Saying they should get six one thousands of a percent just makes the studios look bad.



> _Let's say a film costs $63M to produce, and $37M to promote, so it costs $100M to make.  It makes  $100M in theater sales, $50M of which goes to the theaters and $50M of which goes to the studio.  So the studio is currently down $50M.  The movie then goes to DVD, and costs $2M to produce and $2M to promote.  It sells 1M copies, with 5% returns, so sells a total of 950K at $10.88 profit each (according to the WGA that is the correct number), for a total profit of $10.3M.  The studio is now down $39.7M on the project, and still owes the writer $64,800 beyond their initial compensation.  The writers are arguing they should instead be paid $129,600 instead at this stage._



_

And once again you act like it is set in stone that movies cost this much to make and market. It clearly does not. Like I pointed out before, for every Spiderman 3 which costs $258 million to make, you have to have five movies that only cost $20 million to make. The studios have only themselves to blame for being unable to engage in cost control. It is up to the studios to control their own costs to be able to make a profit within the expected range of their revenues, and it is not the writers' responsibility to help them out. When you cut up the pie so that one side gets six thousadns of a percent of the revenue, there isn't much call to be sympathetic when the other side cries poor.




So yes, it is highly relevant what the net is in this case.  The DVDs are not looked at in a vacuum.  They are part of the entire project, and their profits are a critical element of the entire project.  You cannot just consider the DVDs profit margins without looking at the cost of the movie that is on that DVD.  If you do, you're not getting the full picture.

Click to expand...



And once again, you get cause and effect backwards. Studios could make movies in a manner that they would turn a profit on the theatrical release. They don't because they have come to expect that the DVD sales and other secondary markets will be entirely theirs and make otherwise unprofitable pictures break even. It is not that the secondary markets are necessary to make the movies profitable, it is that the revenue from the secondary markets has caused studios to increase the amounts they spend up front. The writers are merely saying that more of that huge additional revenue stream should be theirs. And the studios are whining because they have developed a sense of entitlement that they never should have had in the first place.

Until you figure out that it is the added revenue that drives the increase in amount spent, and not the other way around, your arguments will not make any sense._


----------



## Grog (Nov 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> The first big reality check is that it's all about money, regardless of the side. The writers are looking out for their welfare, and to blazes with the gaffers and grips



Actually, the gaffers and grips and other production crew members have a lot at stake here, too. While they don't get residual payments directly, residual money does get contributed to form their pension and health insurance plans. If the studios succeed in cutting off (or greatly reducing) residuals for material shown on the internet, then as more and more stuff moves online, those pension and health insurance funds are going to disappear.

So while the writers are unquestionably looking out for themselves (a fact which I don't think anyone here has tried to deny), if they can force the studios to make a fair deal for residuals for online content, the gaffers and grips and everyone else will benefit, too.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> The second big reality check is that unions have a nasty habit of taking for granted the members they are supposed to represent. It is usually not a big love-in where every little guy gets his say in matters. It's usually a minority of major players making all the decisions for everybody else, and unleashing holy hell on any dissatisfied members that don't step in line with their leaders' will.



Well, in this case at least, that isn't true. The contract negotiations are about setting minimum payments for a writer's work, and the major players in the WGA don't work for minimums, so that has no effect on them. The major players already get sweet residual deals that make them millions of dollars, and they aren't going to be getting any more after the strike is over, regardless of what happens with the contract. The strike is about making a deal for the rank and file.

And, the WGA put the question of a strike up for a vote before all its members, and the members voted over 90% in favor of striking, so there you go.


----------



## warlord (Nov 14, 2007)

So Fox is making new episodes of Family Guy without MacFarlane because he's busy striking. Can you say dick move?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The net doesn't matter ever in Hollywood. The net is an illusionary number. The only thing that matters is the gross - and the question is "how much of the gross should writers get from DVD sales". Whether the studios make money or not is not the writer's concern - it is up to the studios to control their own costs to a degree where they can make a profit. The question is "how much of this giant revenue stream should the writer get".
> 
> Saying they should get six one thousands of a percent just makes the studios look bad.




It's not six one thousands of a percent.  It's actually MUCH more, when you look at the percent of PROFIT.  Which is what payments after the initial payment to work are supposed to be based on.

Net matters.  Of course it matters.  Writers are paid to write stories that make money.  Like I said, your analysis is NOT the analysis supported by the writers or their union.  They do not want to pretend that DVDs are looked at in a vacuum and the net for the movie that the writer wrote is not relevant.  They would all be out of business if the industry did what you seem to be advocating.  You really do stand entirely alone in the opinion that "making a profit for a project" is not a concern for all the parties involved, including the writers.  I mean, what kind of business do you think it is where profit would not be relevant?



> And once again you act like it is set in stone that movies cost this much to make and market. It clearly does not.




It does.  I don't know how much more evidence you need than the entire capitalist system! Show me (and them) evidence that they are burning money for no good reason.  We would all like to see it.  Every player in Hollywood would love to see it.



> Like I pointed out before, for every _Spiderman 3_ which costs $258 million to make, you have to have five movies that only cost $20 million to make. The studios have only themselves to blame for being unable to engage in cost control.




What makes you feel that those 5 movies would have done better than the one movie? I just showed you an example of a $30M movie that results in the same kind of failure.  It doesn't seem productive for you to ignore the example based on your own description.



> It is up to the studios to control their own costs to be able to make a profit within the expected range of their revenues, and it is not the writers' responsibility to help them out.




They are doing their best, and part of that, by agreement of the writers as well, is to consider the theatrical release, the DVDs, and all other aftermarket sales as part of the whole package and not distinct parts that should be looked at out of context in a vacuum.  You are the only one claiming each portion should make a profit on it's own - which would result in the writer's being fired en mass.



> When you cut up the pie so that one side gets six thousadns of a percent of the revenue, there isn't much call to be sympathetic when the other side cries poor.




Again, it's a percent of profit, not of gross, and as a percent of profit it is MUCH larger.  You're playing to a false talking point meant to manipulate you emotionally, and not a logical calculation based on the actual facts.  If it costs me $10 to make a T-shirt, and I sell the T-shirt for $11, and I give you $.50 as the artist who made the image on the shirt, you have not received 4.5%.  You received 50%.  That is reality.  That is how business works.  You get a piece of the profit of the work you contributed to, not a piece of the total sale amount.



> And once again, you get cause and effect backwards. Studios _could_ make movies in a manner that they would turn a profit on the theatrical release.




How.  Spell it out.  They want to know.  I want to know.  Writers want to know.  EVERYONE wants to know how to make the market change based on studio decision-making alone.



> They don't because they have come to expect that the DVD sales and other secondary markets will be entirely theirs and make otherwise unprofitable pictures break even.




Indeed because the market changed such that people like to watch movies from home more often, and the writers and producers and all other major players got together and they all agreed to accept that change and go with it.



> It is not that the secondary markets are necessary to make the movies profitable, it is that the revenue from the secondary markets has caused studios to increase the amounts they spend up front.




Prove it.  If it's not necessary, then prove to me how it is done.  I have given you numerous examples to show why it works that way.  Your turn.  Give me a link at least to anyone who agrees with your position that all theatrical releases should be profitable in and of themselves without any DVDs or other after-market stuff.  If you are right, there should be hundreds of articles on the subject.



> The writers are merely saying that more of that huge additional revenue stream should be theirs. And the studios are whining because they have developed a sense of entitlement that they never should have had in the first place.




I think that is a mischaracterization of what is going on.  While I agree the writers deserve more, it is not because studios are whining  based on a sense of entitlement.  They are whinning because they are facing a massive loss of profit in recent years, with an upcoming actors and directors negotiation coming up, and a rapidly changing market based on the internet and DVRs and other new media that they don't understand yet.  They look at the audio recording industry, and TIVOs, and illegal ripping and downloads, and free media, and declining box office sales, and angry investors, and they are panicking over what could happen.  And let me tell you, most of the writers are thinking the exact same thing.  This really is a family fight.



> Until you figure out that it is the added revenue that drives the increase in amount spent, and not the other way around, your arguments will not make any sense.




Well, they won't make sense to you, but I suspect at least that part makes sense to everyone else.  I think everyone else understands that this about shares of profit, and not about shares of gross revenue, even if they disagree with the Producer's across the board.  Gross revenue is not really relevant to the debate.  when people say "Their fair share slice of the pie" the "pie" is profits, not all the money that goes back and forth in the entire industry.  Arguing that the writers deserve more of the profit for movies and TV shows they write makes sense.  Arguing that writers deserve more money if they write stuff that bombs, because profit doesn't matter, does not make sense.  It's a capitalist business, not a collective redistribution of wealth.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 14, 2007)

warlord said:
			
		

> So Fox is making new episodes of Family Guy without MacFarlane because he's busy striking. Can you say dick move?




If you are looking for sympathy for MacFarlane, you won't find it from me at least.  My animator friend worked for him for many years, and left for the Simpsons because MacFarlane was over the top [that word you just used that starts with a D]


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> The second big reality check is that unions have a nasty habit of taking for granted the members they are supposed to represent. It is usually not a big love-in where every little guy gets his say in matters. It's usually a minority of major players making all the decisions for everybody else, and unleashing holy hell on any dissatisfied members that don't step in line with their leaders' will. Point of fact: you may or may not want to join a union, but usually you wind up doing so because you _have_ to, and this is the case with the WGA.




While I will agree that this may often be the case, it doesn't seem to apply this time around. From everything I've read and heard, the WGA members are all pretty well in synch on this one. It's one of the things that is markedly different from the last time they struck, in '88, in fact (where the Union was roundly criticized for caving in too easily on demands, such as screwing up the video residual negotiations.)


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Give me a link at least to anyone who agrees with your position that all theatrical releases should be profitable in and of themselves without any DVDs or other after-market stuff.  If you are right, there should be hundreds of articles on the subject.




The studio system was making plenty in the way of profit off of mere theatrical release alone well up until the home-video market exploded in the 70s/80s. Just because ancillary markets have come along to demonstrate there are additional revenue streams doesn't mean that the theatrical release model is not sufficient to work in and of itself- it's the expectations that those secondary markets created that caused the change, and the anticipated additional revenue from them.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 15, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> The studio system was making plenty in the way of profit off of mere theatrical release alone well up until the home-video market exploded in the 70s/80s. Just because ancillary markets have come along to demonstrate there are additional revenue streams doesn't mean that the theatrical release model is not sufficient to work in and of itself- it's the expectations that those secondary markets created that caused the change, and the anticipated additional revenue from them.




Uh...it changed then because the home video market changes the theatrical market.  Did you think it was just an amazing coincidence that fewer people went to the movies as video rentals increased?  Come on now, I have seen you in threads where people would rate new movies with the word "Rental" or "Cable".  You know what that means for the theatrical release!

The "ancillary" markets are not always "additional" revenue, they are usually REPLACEMENT revenue.  People who would have gone to the movies to see a movie sometimes now instead wait to rent it or even buy it or see it on cable (and was also starting to grow at that time as well - remember when ON TV was the only cable station).  It sounds to me like you are living in the 1970s and have not caught up with the impact that cable and rentals and the internet have had on theatrical viewing.  It's not the same market it used to be, and studios had to adapt or die.

Really, I think you are a party of one of this aspect of the issue. Pretty much everyone knows that rentals and cable and the internet all had an impact on the theatrical market, and that the markets are considered together and not separate.  And I am having trouble seeing how this part of the debate in this thread is productive - the WGA is not arguing to separate the markets again, nor are the Producers, nor are the Actors or Directors or anyone involved.  So what is the point of debating it?


----------



## Pyrex (Nov 15, 2007)

Here's a link to a hilarious video on YouTube by one of the writers of The Daily Show.

Independent of the validity of his talking points, it's funny stuff.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 15, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Here's a link to a hilarious video on YouTube by one of the writers of The Daily Show.
> 
> Independent of the validity of his talking points, it's funny stuff.



Funny stuff indeed. "Which is it?" also a reasonable question.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 16, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Uh...it changed then because the home video market changes the theatrical market.  Did you think it was just an amazing coincidence that fewer people went to the movies as video rentals increased? ...The "ancillary" markets are not always "additional" revenue, they are usually REPLACEMENT revenue.




Of course it is additional revenue. If the studios had not opted to go into the home video system as it came about, there would be no market for it- ie, there would _only_ be the box office market. 



> It sounds to me like you are living in the 1970s and have not caught up with the impact that cable and rentals and the internet have had on theatrical viewing.




Yo, yo, Mr. Kotter! It's like, so weird that you're gettin' personal.



> It's not the same market it used to be, and studios had to adapt or die.




It's not as if the home video market is just this beast that spontaneously generated out of nowhere and the studios had to somehow come to terms with it. Home video - video = home?

That market exists only because the studios decided it would be a good source of additional revenue and a way to compete with what they viewed as their biggest competition, television. But to suggest they have no say over where it goes or what happens to it, is pretty unbelievable.

The fact that that market is factored into production costs nowadays only speaks to their lack of desire to make the theatrical market profitable on its own terms, it doesn't make it impossible to make them so.



> And I am having trouble seeing how this part of the debate in this thread is productive - the WGA is not arguing to separate the markets again, nor are the Producers, nor are the Actors or Directors or anyone involved.  So what is the point of debating it?




_You're_ the one that raised the question addressing how theatrical releases could be profitable on their own; I was pointing out that that's exactly what they were in the beginning of filmmaking. Question, rebuttal.

You want something more productive? How about cutting exorbitant salaries of those involved as a means of reducing above the line costs (producers, directors, actors, yes- and even some writers; including all the attendant "camp followers")? How about figuring out ways to make the theater going experience better, to encourage people to come in? (Whens the last time you saw any innovative changes there? And yes, I realize that has a lot to do with the theater owners- how many of them refuse to make the switchover to digital projectors citing costs?- but the studios, as owners of the products, certainly have influence here). How about figuring out how to make tickets less expensive to the moviegoer (again, that cutting production costs issue)? How about not making arrangements to have the DVD come out so soon after release (going to your point about people just waiting for it to leave the theaters)?


----------



## DM_Matt (Nov 16, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Of course it is additional revenue. If the studios had not opted to go into the home video system as it came about, there would be no market for it- ie, there would _only_ be the box office market.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Its not like leaving the home video (now DVD) market is an option now, and delaying the DVD's significantly could lose them more in lost interest in buying after all that time, lost goodwill, and increased piracy that it gains them in increased box office receipts.  The market is as it is now, and that is the environment everyone has to compete in, even if the studios got it that way in the first place.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 16, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Of course it is additional revenue. If the studios had not opted to go into the home video system as it came about, there would be no market for it- ie, there would _only_ be the box office market.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So it sounds like you are saying nobody forced the studios to make VHS and DVDs of their movies, and so it's their fault.  In other words, they could just stop issuing DVDs of their movies, and stop selling them to cable and TV as well I presume, and that would solve the problem.   Well, sure it would - and end the strike right now since any percentage of zero income is still zero.  But, you had to admit that is an incredibly unrealistic and silly solution.  As long as you and I both agree that nobody is going to cease making DVDs and putting movies on cable and TV and the internet, then we are stuck debating the reality that those things exist.  And as long as they exist, the market is different that it used to be, and theatrical releases are not going to be profitable on their own and should be lumped in with all the other venues to decide if a movie is worth making or not.



> _You're_ the one that raised the question addressing how theatrical releases could be profitable on their own; I was pointing out that that's exactly what they were in the beginning of filmmaking. Question, rebuttal.




Yeah but your answer was "if DVDs and Cable and releases of movies to Television and the net all went away, that's how you would make theatrical releases profitable".  It was AN answer, but it wasn't a REALISTIC answer.

[quite]You want something more productive? How about cutting exorbitant salaries of those involved as a means of reducing above the line costs (producers, directors, actors, yes- and even some writers; including all the attendant "camp followers")?[/quote]

Also unrealistic, as none of the parties would agree to that.  I thought this was a debate about what is actually happening, not hypothetical situations that cannot ever be real.



> How about figuring out ways to make the theater going experience better, to encourage people to come in? (Whens the last time you saw any innovative changes there? And yes, I realize that has a lot to do with the theater owners- how many of them refuse to make the switchover to digital projectors citing costs?- but the studios, as owners of the products, certainly have influence here).




Actually theaters themselves have made huge strides towards that in recent years and they are just getting better this very year.  There is a thread about that topic on CircvsMaximvs.  



> How about figuring out how to make tickets less expensive to the moviegoer (again, that cutting production costs issue)?




Ticket prices do not seem to be cutting into profits.  Indeed, they seem to be doing the opposite.  As prices increase, the number of people who decline to see the movie does not decrease a proportionate amount.  Hence my movie theater is now $13.00 a ticket, but is a much better theater than others.  



> How about not making arrangements to have the DVD come out so soon after release (going to your point about people just waiting for it to leave the theaters)?




Again, it doesn't seem to have cut into profits at the theaters.  So much money comes in on the first weekend of a film, and so much seems to taper off to nothing after the fourth week, that I think you will see this trend continue.

I really do not see a realistic way to make theatrical releases profitable in themselves without drastically damaging the other formats so much that it wouldn't be worth it for everyone, including the writers.  It all has to be considered together, and like I said even the writers admit that is the case.  They might try to fudge it with PR stuff to the public by misrepresenting their share of the DVDs and pretending that the studios don't carry forward a loss to set off against the gains from the DVD sales, but in the negotiating room and every time other than during the strike they all are fully willing to admit it's all gotta be considered together or else everyone is out of business.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2007)

> Yeah but your answer was "if DVDs and Cable and releases of movies to Television and the net all went away, that's how you would make theatrical releases profitable". It was AN answer, but it wasn't a REALISTIC answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The point is, they need to find a compromise. This means nobody gets exactly what he wants, but it will still be something they can accept.

Edit: And I hope they do it soon, in the interest of all TV and Movie geeks


----------



## Grog (Nov 17, 2007)

Writers and studios agree to resume talks after Thanksgiving

Good news. Let's hope they can come to a fair resolution of this conflict.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 18, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Here's a link to a hilarious video on YouTube by one of the writers of The Daily Show.
> 
> Independent of the validity of his talking points, it's funny stuff.




I just came across this and was about to post it, but after checking it turns out you had beaten me to it.

Good quality writing and funny too.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 21, 2007)

Producer's Guild just posted this opinion piece from the LA Times on their website.


http://www.amptp.org/

Los Angeles Times | Opinion

Can the strike be settled?
Cut the theatrics, say the producers.
By Nick Counter on November 17, 2007

Producers in Hollywood absolutely believe that writers should be compensated for their work in new media. They also believe writers deserve to share in whatever success new technologies bring to studios. Producers have already put their money where their mouth is by paying millions in residuals for permanent and pay-per-view downloads.

Unfortunately, the theatrics and carefully designed photo opportunities of the last two weeks have obscured the fact that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers clearly supports writers having a fair share in opportunities presented by digital distribution.

The leaders of the Writers Guild of America know that during the last bargaining session Nov. 4, the producers proposed a residual rate for streaming shows and offered WGA members exclusivity in writing derivative programming made for new media — two proposals that were of utmost importance to WGA members — in order to make a deal that was fair to all. Unfortunately, the WGA leadership went on strike while that offer was on the table, ending negotiations.

What the WGA leadership is really asking for strains the test of reasonableness, and the problem is that few people outside the bargaining room know what’s actually at issue.

In short, the guild is demanding an unjustifiable increase in the residual rate that writers receive for downloads, money they receive in addition to the salary they were paid in the first place (the WGA’s 4,434 working members make an average of $200,000 per year). They are also demanding a percentage of the advertising revenue earned by the networks from ad-supported streaming.

However, the WGA’s contract is not with networks, it is with producers, who receive no proceeds from these advertisements, just as they receive none of the revenue achieved by networks through commercial television.
And what they don’t want their membership and the public in general to focus on is that it’s the producers who shoulder all the risk in a business in which most motion pictures lose money, and the vast majority of television shows either never get past the pilot episode or never achieve profitability.

Regardless of whether a show or a movie is a hit or a flop, the writer is paid.

In addition, members of the Writers Guild and its sister guilds are covered by the country’s finest healthcare and pension plans, and our contribution to those plans has consistently increased while other industries’ contributions have decreased.

Further, the economics of the media business are changing. Producers are faced with soaring production and marketing costs, a DVD business that is to the Internet, a softening syndication market and an increasingly fragmented advertising and viewing landscape — all of which are creating real challenges that everyone in this business is facing.

It’s unfortunate that this wholly unnecessary strike is threatening to financially devastate the hundreds of thousands of people in the Southland whose livelihoods depend on a thriving and working industry. It must end, and end soon.

What will it take to end the strike and to get the contract resolved?

The AMPTP is prepared to negotiate if the Writers Guild sincerely expects that a deal can be made. It’s time to stop the posturing and the mischaracterization of positions and get on with the hard work ahead of us.

The WGA has to start dealing with the 21st century realities of our business so that we can craft a new contract that protects the interests of all entertainment industry employees.

We’ve accomplished this in the past. We can do it again.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 3, 2007)

The strike is obviously still ongoing. The latest news is here.. 

From ComicBookResources: 

The late night scene is getting more complicated, as Variety talks about Jay Leno's attempts to ease the financial burdens of his staff out of his own pocket, despite not owning his show as Letterman does (and some have accused Leno of cheaping out). 

The networks aren't taking the strike lying down, as is reported in this New York Times article: "NBC has made an ambitious deal, apparently the first of its kind, to buy a two-hour -- or perhaps even three-hour -- block of prime-time programming from outside producers, ... This would be cheaper than both scripted and reality programming. Crafty. 

Finally, we received an email from "R. Pincombe" who wrote, "I'm afraid it's innacurate [sic] to say that Canadian are striking in solidarity with the WGA. We held our troubled negotiations over many of these same issues earlier this year (We voted to strike also but negotiations resumed) and now have a signed agreement in place with CANADIAN producers and we must honour [sic] that. However, we will NOT work on any US based shows, some of which are produced here or have Canadian ties. We are also demonstrating at various locales in solidarity. We have also united with the writer's guilds and unions of other countries to pledge our support and attempt to raise awareness of the issues. Other ways to help the WGA are being discussed." So there you have it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's not six one thousands of a percent.  It's actually MUCH more, when you look at the percent of PROFIT.  Which is what payments after the initial payment to work are supposed to be based on.




And on this, you are just flat wrong.



> _Net matters.  Of course it matters.  Writers are paid to write stories that make money.  Like I said, your analysis is NOT the analysis supported by the writers or their union.  They do not want to pretend that DVDs are looked at in a vacuum and the net for the movie that the writer wrote is not relevant.  They would all be out of business if the industry did what you seem to be advocating.  You really do stand entirely alone in the opinion that "making a profit for a project" is not a concern for all the parties involved, including the writers.  I mean, what kind of business do you think it is where profit would not be relevant?_




It is not a concern _for the writers_. A writer is much like any other worker working for another. He puts in his input, but the entity producing the final overall product is the entity that has the responsibility to make the product profitable or not. Does GM ask the line workers at their factories to make sure their cars sell for a profit? No, they don't, and the line worker doesn't really care either. It is up to GM to make the cars turn a profit, _and GM alone_.



> _It does.  I don't know how much more evidence you need than the entire capitalist system! Show me (and them) evidence that they are burning money for no good reason.  We would all like to see it.  Every player in Hollywood would love to see it._




They can, and do, make movies that cost far less than the "average" given. Hence, there is prima facie evidence that Hollywood producers _could_ control costs if they truly wanted to. But they don't. Watching the production process of a Hollywood movie is often like watching a drunken sailor on payday. I don't have a lot of sympathy for hungover sailors with no money the next day.



> _What makes you feel that those 5 movies would have done better than the one movie? I just showed you an example of a $30M movie that results in the same kind of failure.  It doesn't seem productive for you to ignore the example based on your own description._




Cherry picking a single example doesn't make your case. The reality is that I ignored your anecdotal data because it is completely worthless.



> _They are doing their best, and part of that, by agreement of the writers as well, is to consider the theatrical release, the DVDs, and all other aftermarket sales as part of the whole package and not distinct parts that should be looked at out of context in a vacuum.  You are the only one claiming each portion should make a profit on it's own - which would result in the writer's being fired en mass._




Now you are pretending I made an argument I didn't make. I said that if the studios wanted to, they could structure their costs to make a profit on just the theatrical release. No one said to compartmentalize the profits, because the profits don't really matter in this dispute. Only the revenues. You see, writers are a _cost_, not a partner in a profit sharing plan.



> _Again, it's a percent of profit, not of gross, and as a percent of profit it is MUCH larger.  You're playing to a false talking point meant to manipulate you emotionally, and not a logical calculation based on the actual facts.  If it costs me $10 to make a T-shirt, and I sell the T-shirt for $11, and I give you $.50 as the artist who made the image on the shirt, you have not received 4.5%.  You received 50%.  That is reality.  That is how business works.  You get a piece of the profit of the work you contributed to, not a piece of the total sale amount._




You are wrong. The artist is a cost for you. And the cost is 4.5%. Not 50%. The artist doesn't care what your profit is, he cares what your revenue is. He wants a share of the total revenue, not your profit, because he has no control over how you control your other costs.



> _How.  Spell it out.  They want to know.  I want to know.  Writers want to know.  EVERYONE wants to know how to make the market change based on studio decision-making alone._




This is very basic economics. Expected revenues grow - in this case, they grew because of the previously untapped market of DVD sales. Studios anticipate the increasde in revenues, and change their behaviour accordingly, greenlighting budgets based upon these expected increased revenues. Costs grow to meet the increased revenues, because studios decide that they can get away with paying the increased costs as a result. Costs generally increase to meet expected revenues, not the other way around. Studios _could_ take a more conservative approach and not raise their costs as much, or to include the cost of writer residuals in those calculations. As of yet, they haven't.



> _Prove it.  If it's not necessary, then prove to me how it is done.  I have given you numerous examples to show why it works that way.  Your turn.  Give me a link at least to anyone who agrees with your position that all theatrical releases should be profitable in and of themselves without any DVDs or other after-market stuff.  If you are right, there should be hundreds of articles on the subject._




We have a hundred years of pre-DVD movie and television productions that somehow survived. Look at, for example, _Hill Street Blues_, now available on DVD. Is the revenue stream from that anything _other_ than a huge windfall? Now, someone was able to make that show originally without anticipating the after market, and somehow make it profitable. Are you saying that modern production companies aren't as skilled at dealing with costs as they were circa the early 198os?



> _I think that is a mischaracterization of what is going on.  While I agree the writers deserve more, it is not because studios are whining  based on a sense of entitlement.  They are whinning because they are facing a massive loss of profit in recent years, with an upcoming actors and directors negotiation coming up, and a rapidly changing market based on the internet and DVRs and other new media that they don't understand yet._




That they understand enough to publicly state they anticipate billions in revenue from it. And tell that to their stockholders. And the loss (if there is a loss) is _their own damn fault_. I can't be any clearer on this. When your costs exceed the expected revenues from your product on a regular basis _you are doing something wrong_. When it is an industrywide phenomenon, your industry is behaving stupidly. Expecting the writers to pick of the slack for your stupid decisions is just idiotic.

Your arguments still don't make sense because you have cause and effect backwards.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 3, 2007)

Please don't stray into rudeness and insults.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 18, 2008)

DGA just reached a deal with the producers.  Which means the WGA is probably toast.  DGA got done in 6 days what WGA has failed to be able to do in many months.  With the DGA defecting, it likely means SAG will crack the same deal, and WGA will have to give up the strike or accept that deal as well.  But with the money they have lost with this strike, they cannot possibly hope to make up that lost revenue over the 3 years of the new deal.  

My guess is the strike will end in a month or less.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 18, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> DGA just reached a deal with the producers.....My guess is the strike will end in a month or less.



Agreed, once one union deals the others will fall in line or be left out in the cold - writers will settle or their union will cease to exist - no other real alternatives from what I see.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 24, 2008)

Crap. WGA dropped it's Reality TV  demands. Looks like they figured it was better to cave on that one (for now) while sticking to their guns on the royalties issue.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 24, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Crap. WGA dropped it's Reality TV  demands. Looks like they figured it was better to cave on that one (for now) while sticking to their guns on the royalties issue.




Damn.  And I was hoping that this year would bring forth all sorts of British television to the US.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/b...en=bdf485ec2a348d98&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

Deal to End Hollywood Writers’ Strike May Be Near

By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: February 2, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Informal talks between representatives of Hollywood’s writers and production companies eliminated the major roadblocks to a new contract, opening the prospect of a tentative agreement between the parties as early as next week, according to people who were briefed on the situation but requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak.

A deal would end a crippling writers strike that is now entering its fourth month.

The agreement may come without renewed formal negotiations between the parties, though both sides still need to agree on specific language of key provisions. If that process goes smoothly, an agreement may be presented to the governing boards of the striking Writers Guild of America West and Writers Guild of America East by the end of next week, the people said.

The breakthrough occurred Friday after two weeks of closed-door discussions between the sides. Even if approved by leaders of the guilds, a deal would require ratification by a majority of the more than 10,000 active guild members.

Writers walked out on Nov. 5 after failing to reach a new contract with producers in months of difficult bargaining. Talks resumed briefly in December, but quickly broke off again. The latest round of talks came in the wake of a tentative contract agreement between producers and the Directors Guild of America.

That deal confronted many of the same issues that have troubled writers — including difficult questions related to pay for digital distribution of shows and movies — and paved the way for Friday’s movement toward a deal.

A final sticking point had been compensation for television programs that are streamed over the Internet after their initial broadcast. Companies were seeking a period during which they could stream such shows without paying a residual, and wanted to peg payments for a year of streaming at the $1,200 level established in the directors’ contract. Writers were seeking 1.2 percent of the distributors’ revenue from such streams as a residual. How that issue was finally resolved in the informal talks remained unclear as of Saturday afternoon.

Spokesmen for the West Coast writers guild and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The sides have been operating under a news blackout.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 13, 2008)

Strike over:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/strike-end-game-wga-members-vote/

WGA accepted the doubling of DVD residuals, despite their earlier rejection of that offer.

WGA abandoned their claim to reality TV writers and Animation writers.

WGA got some streaming revenues and other online revenues.  Unclear so far if what they got is what was essentially earlier offered and rejected, or if it was an actual gain.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 13, 2008)

A bit disappointing that so few WGA members actually voted (3,775 out of 10,500. Not even as many as voted _for_ the strike- 5,500.) I'm curious as to how/why that happened- if they just didn't care or what. I know there was some talk about the possibility of the WGA ending the strike before allowing the members to vote, which I'm at least glad to see didn't happen.

In any case, the members have yet to vote to ratify the contract, which while it may seem a formality, could potentially be a sticking point, depending on what else comes out about the terms that they agreed to.

Now there's the SAG contract talks coming up in a few months. That should be interesting.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> WGA abandoned their claim to reality TV writers and Animation writers.




They've been wrangling over that for years now, and they're not going to give up on it. Hopefully they'll get something worked out for those soon. It wasn't as key to this whole thing as the residuals issue was.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 13, 2008)

I have a feeling alot of them simply wanted to get back to work.


----------



## Felon (Feb 13, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Strike over:
> 
> http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/strike-end-game-wga-members-vote/
> 
> ...



I'm glad that animation and reality show writer guilds won't be forcibly annexed into the WGA. I'm a major fan of workers' rights, but once labor unions start forcing membership on people (and by "forcing" I mean that the alternative is not being able to work in your chosen field), then they've become bullies in their own right. People should join unions because of the benefits they offer.

In this instance, it is particularly ridiculous to go on strike and then state as one of your demands that whatever little safety net that exists against future strikes be yanked away.

I gotta say, I am not empathetic with the writers on this one. I hope it did cost them.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 13, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'm glad that animation and reality show writer guilds won't be forcibly annexed into the WGA.




Well, to be fair, the writers on animation and reality shows would actually _like_ to be covered by the WGA. At least that's the way I understand it from reading and seeing complaints by people in those fields. As I understand things, they are _not_ currently covered by _any_ guild, and thus have very few benefits and little protection as far as their workers' rights go (I've seen others in this thread say that they do have a guild, but that isn't the case to my knowledge).

Now, obviously it's a case by case thing (some shows doubtless give better wages and benefits to writers than others), and so there are probably some who don't want to join a guild. Heck, I find it ridiculous that my job with the city deducts some money from my paycheck for the guild despite not belonging to it, so I'm not unsympathetic to the concept of forced joining. Just wanted to clear the record in regards to the WGA and the reality/animation shows.

Just found this open letter to the AMPTP also, which is from a reality show writer.


----------



## Mark (Feb 13, 2008)

No one ever gets all they ask to get, nor do they expect it.  They got more than they had before the strike, which is for the good.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> I gotta say, I am not empathetic with the writers on this one. I hope it did cost them.




Good for you. We always need more people to side with those who routinely screw those who work for them. I mean really, we gotta make sure to stick it to the people being screwed or else everything will fall apart.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Good for you. We always need more people to side with those who routinely screw those who work for them. I mean really, we gotta make sure to stick it to the people being screwed or else everything will fall apart.




While my feelings towards the writers are not as negative, I will say that the more I've seen of the strike, the less I feel the "Writers Good, Studios Bad" thing.  It was a highly convoluted situation that I think both sides misrepresented to their own advantages.  At the end of the day, the average WGA member makes a lot of money (something like 200K/year); producers and studios just happen to make a lot more.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> While my feelings towards the writers are not as negative, I will say that the more I've seen of the strike, the less I feel the "Writers Good, Studios Bad" thing.  It was a highly convoluted situation that I think both sides misrepresented to their own advantages.  At the end of the day, the average WGA member makes a lot of money (something like 200K/year); producers and studios just happen to make a lot more.




The "average WGA member" thing is highly misleading. A handful of WGA members make a lot of money. Most don't. More to the point, reality show writers and animation writers are routinely screwed by their employers, and most make very little money.

Basically, the key here is that one side in this argument has a long history of lying and screwing just about everyone they do business with. That side is not the WGA. The producers and studios simply don't have any kind of reasonable argument that could be made for their side if they didn't resort to wild misrepresentations.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The "average WGA member" thing is highly misleading. A handful of WGA members make a lot of money. Most don't. More to the point, reality show writers and animation writers are routinely screwed by their employers, and most make very little money.




Absolutely. The average WGA writer does not make 200k. At best, the "average" writer earns about what your average middle income worker does- I'd guess somewhere in the 30k to 60k range. Certainly livable, but the lion's share of the WGA membership are not in stable, month to month jobs, and can go several weeks to months between jobs as well.

Reality writers are definitely by and large screwed over by the system, and apparently animation writers are as well (which is something I didn't realize until recently- I wasn't even aware the WGA was trying to get them instated as guild members, though I've known about the reality writer situation for some time).


----------



## Felon (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Good for you. We always need more people to side with those who routinely screw those who work for them. I mean really, we gotta make sure to stick it to the people being screwed or else everything will fall apart.



You've made a lot of statements that you don't seem to feel compelled to back up with anything other than vitriol. Writers don't pony up any money. They aren't even coughing up equity. Why are they entitled to a slice of the profits when they aren't bearing any of the financial risk? They should get a paycheck when the work they generate isn't profitable, and then reap royalties when it is? Cake and eat it too?

Despite the quaint desire to have an underdog to root for, the truth is that everyone is out to screw everyone. Every little group is trying to look after their own members' interests. Producers, writers, directors, everybody. There are no victims, just some groups are worse victimizers than others.


----------



## Felon (Feb 14, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Absolutely. The average WGA writer does not make 200k. At best, the "average" writer earns about what your average middle income worker does- I'd guess somewhere in the 30k to 60k range. Certainly livable, but the lion's share of the WGA membership are not in stable, month to month jobs, and can go several weeks to months between jobs as well.
> 
> Reality writers are definitely by and large screwed over by the system, and apparently animation writers are as well (which is something I didn't realize until recently- I wasn't even aware the WGA was trying to get them instated as guild members, though I've known about the reality writer situation for some time).



Honestly, if the big problem with being a writer is lack of job security and being screwed by their employer, then it sounds like the writers feel the same pinch that every middle-class American is feeling. 

Does anyone really think the writers are suffering worse than an auto assembly line worker? Those guys don't get a slice of the profits based on how well the cars they build sell. Many businesses no longer offer any kind of health insurance to permanent employees, for instance. And in many states, at-will-firing laws get passed to deny employees the luxury of a labor union. It's tough all over.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> You've made a lot of statements that you don't seem to feel compelled to back up with anything other than vitriol. Writers don't pony up any money. They aren't even coughing up equity. Why are they entitled to a slice of the profits when they aren't bearing any of the financial risk? They should get a paycheck when the work they generate isn't profitable, and then reap royalties when it is? Cake and eat it too?




Because the work is, to a certain extent, the result of their effort. Residuals are the element that make most writers willing to accept lower pay up front: if studios were willing to pay more up front, they might not have to give residuals. Any time you see someone accepting deferred compensation, it is usually the employers idea to have it as such, to reduce their up front costs (in point of fact, it is the studios who originally wanted to give residuals, on the theory that they would have to pay less up front, and only pay out more if a project was successful enough to be shown repeatedly).

The reality is that writers get paid less up front than they would if they were not promised residuals. Now, studios are making a pile of money in various areas and not paying residuals on them, which justifiably makes the writers unhappy.



> _Despite the quaint desire to have an underdog to root for, the truth is that everyone is out to screw everyone. Every little group is trying to look after their own members' interests. Producers, writers, directors, everybody. There are no victims, just some groups are worse victimizers than others._




Very few groups are so out to screw those who they work with that their business practices have become notorious as a result. The movers and shakers of the movie and television industry is one of those groups, with the monikers "Hollywood Accounting" and "Monkey Points" being coined to describe some of the most egregious known examples.

Of course, engaging in illegal labor practices by misnaming positions to prevent them from being eligible to join a union, and then firing the people in those positions when they bring an action to rectify that situation is probably worse than engaging in deceptive accounting practices. And the studios do that too.

So really, the studios have no leg to stand on here. None at all.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Does anyone really think the writers are suffering worse than an auto assembly line worker? Those guys don't get a slice of the profits based on how well the cars they build sell.




For a lot of unionized jobs, they do - it is called profit sharing.



> _Many businesses no longer offer any kind of health insurance to permanent employees, for instance. And in many states, at-will-firing laws get passed to deny employees the luxury of a labor union. It's tough all over._




Most unions place, as a high priority, getting their members health insurance. In many ways, unions are a way of increasing the number of employers who offer health insurance. In the case of the WGA, those who are members of the union are entitled to health insurance, while the reality show and animation writers are the ones who usually don't get it as a benefit of their employment. (And the uninsured issue, while an issue, is somewhat overblown - about 85% of U.S. residents have health insurance, which means most employers are still providing it).

Just about every state has at-will laws - that's the default condition. The union contract may change that, notwithstanding the at-will law. That's one of the benefits union members usually have. What you may be thinking of is "right-to-work" laws that some states have, but they don't prohibit unions either, they just make it impossible to have a "closed shop".


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 14, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Honestly, if the big problem with being a writer is lack of job security and being screwed by their employer, then it sounds like the writers feel the same pinch that every middle-class American is feeling.




That's exactly the case. I'm not sure where (or even if) you might have gotten the impression that it was any different. It is their visibility (the US being such an entertainment minded nation, in many ways) that makes this an issue. 



> Does anyone really think the writers are suffering worse than an auto assembly line worker? Those guys don't get a slice of the profits based on how well the cars they build sell.




The UAW is the single largest union in the nation, with so much political and economic pull that it puts the WGA and every other union to shame. I'd definitely say that the writers are worse off than auto workers, though again, their situations are fundamentally the same (corporations looking to find every way possible to maximize their own profits at the expense of the worker).

Autoworkers generally (as I understand it) have an ability to get stock in their company, as well, which is something writers don't have.



> Many businesses no longer offer any kind of health insurance to permanent employees, for instance.




And a lot of businesses that never offered health insurance to part-time employees do so now. 



> And in many states, at-will-firing laws get passed to deny employees the luxury of a labor union. It's tough all over.




Again, nobody's saying that it isn't. I'm not really sure what your point is.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The "average WGA member" thing is highly misleading.




Hmmm, true.  If the number I mentioned (Don't remember where I found it... NPR maybe) is a true mean, then a few well paid writers would inflate that number dramatically.  What might be more interesting is seeing the median and mode salaries for WGA members.  I'd be curious to see those numbers.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Hmmm, true.  If the number I mentioned (Don't remember where I found it... NPR maybe) is a true mean, then a few well paid writers would inflate that number dramatically.  What might be more interesting is seeing the median and mode salaries for WGA members.  I'd be curious to see those numbers.




Just as an example, James Cameron is a member of the WGA - and is compensated substantially for his writing. It takes a _lot_ of $20,000 a year screenwriters in the same pool he is in to result in an "average salary of $200,000".


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, the writers on animation and reality shows would actually _like_ to be covered by the WGA. At least that's the way I understand it from reading and seeing complaints by people in those fields. As I understand things, they are _not_ currently covered by _any_ guild, and thus have very few benefits and little protection as far as their workers' rights go (I've seen others in this thread say that they do have a guild, but that isn't the case to my knowledge).




That is not accurate.  

First, they do not want to join WGA.  They could at any time.  There is nothing at all stopping them from joining.  In fact, it would be illegal to try and stop any animator or reality show writer from joining the WGA.

Second, animation writers DO belong to another union.  It's the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE).  They have a sub-section called the Animation Guild, which is specifically for "creative artists, *writers* and technicians" working in animation. WGA was literally trying to steal IATSE members by force, using the production contract to do it.  It was an incredibly stupid power play, made primarily by one main guy at WGA (who will likely see the loss of his own job, quietly, in the next year).  You can view the IATSE/Animation Guild position on the strike here: http://www.animationguild.org/_Home/home_FRM1.html .

Third, as for reality show writers, it's an incredibly complex issue.  I'll try to sum it up simply: the people who write reality shows almost always also produce them, and direct them, and edit them, and even act in them sometimes!  They cannot really join one union without having a conflict of interest, since they do the work of all the unions, and cannot with confidence state at any given time what percentage of work will fall where.  It's totally chaotic, and on the fly.  They decide as things happen if someone needs to become an editor that hour, or write something, or direct a scene, for film a scene, or mike a scene, or walk by the background of a scene, or do the work of a producer.  WGA knows this.  They know that the way the contracts work for reality show employees they could never actually gain the benefits of a writing contract because they would never have the "primary" role of writer.  But, they would still have to pay dues.  

The whole "animation and reality show writers" claim was purely a power play, and I thought it was a very ugly and stupid thing to go after.  WGA rank and file didn't want it, the animators and reality show "writers" didn't want it, and the only folks that wanted it were the ones trying to increase WGA jurisdiction because it meant more money for the union and more power because of additional members.  I'm really glad those claims were ditched, and the guy who was so obsessed with them was moved entirely out of the negotiation process in the end (and I am betting will be fired).


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Good for you. We always need more people to side with those who routinely screw those who work for them. I mean really, we gotta make sure to stick it to the people being screwed or else everything will fall apart.




Acting like Hollywood Writers, who earn an average income far above almost anyone on this board, are the poor oppressed folks always getting screwed by The Man, isn't very persuasive.

Whether you side with the WGA, the Producers, or are neutral on this issue, I think it is very silly to try and portray it as "The Man Keeping the Poor Little Workers Down".  This was an in-house feud between two unions with on-average wealthy memberships.  And while there are some "little guy" writers involved, it's no more or less than the number of "little guy" producers involved.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Absolutely. The average WGA writer does not make 200k. At best, the "average" writer earns about what your average middle income worker does- I'd guess somewhere in the 30k to 60k range. Certainly livable, but the lion's share of the WGA membership are not in stable, month to month jobs, and can go several weeks to months between jobs as well.
> 
> Reality writers are definitely by and large screwed over by the system, and apparently animation writers are as well (which is something I didn't realize until recently- I wasn't even aware the WGA was trying to get them instated as guild members, though I've known about the reality writer situation for some time).




Guys, they released the actual numbers for the full time writers.  It was a real average of $200K a year, not an average skewed by a few extremely highly paid guys.  Remember, these folks live here in Los Angeles.  Average pays for all jobs are higher than most other places in the country.  It really, truly was $200K actual average, not $30K to $60K.  And while it obviously will be lower for part time workers, it SHOULD be lower for part time workers!

As for animation and reality writers - see my other post on that issue.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Acting like Hollywood Writers, who earn an average income far above almost anyone on this board, are the poor oppressed folks always getting screwed by The Man, isn't very persuasive.




Nice shilling. I'm sure your corporate masters are pleased.

And I don't remember saying that the writers were "little guys" (except, in relative terms, they are). If you are getting $100,000, but the people you work for are screwing you out of $200,000, you are still being screwed. The fact that the studios want to screw the writers on a regular basis is not excused by how little or how much the writers make to begin with.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Third, as for reality show writers, it's an incredibly complex issue.  I'll try to sum it up simply: the people who write reality shows almost always also produce them, and direct them, and edit them, and even act in them sometimes!  They cannot really join one union without having a conflict of interest, since they do the work of all the unions, and cannot with confidence state at any given time what percentage of work will fall where.  It's totally chaotic, and on the fly.  They decide as things happen if someone needs to become an editor that hour, or write something, or direct a scene, for film a scene, or mike a scene, or walk by the background of a scene, or do the work of a producer.  WGA knows this.  They know that the way the contracts work for reality show employees they could never actually gain the benefits of a writing contract because they would never have the "primary" role of writer.  But, they would still have to pay dues.




Of course, the fact that every time reality show writers try to join the WGA, the studios fight them tooth and nail at the NLRB and then fire all those seeking to join the union at the earliest possible opportunity pretty much shows this claim to be the total lie that it is.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Most unions place, as a high priority, getting their members health insurance. In many ways, unions are a way of increasing the number of employers who offer health insurance. In the case of the WGA, those who are members of the union are entitled to health insurance, while the reality show and animation writers are the ones who usually don't get it as a benefit of their employment. (And the uninsured issue, while an issue, is somewhat overblown - about 85% of U.S. residents have health insurance, which means most employers are still providing it).




WOAH there.  

You have not read the union agreements apparently.

For most Hollywood unions, you do NOT get *any* actual benefits unless you are employed FULL TIME in that field, AND you make a lot of money at it.

Your average part time writer, or director, or producer, ends up paying dues and not getting benefits (they are Associate members, not full members).  Only those full time people, who are making the $200K average per year, are the ones getting the benefits.  For the WGA, less than half of it's members belong to their health care plan.

And just to show how in-house this fight was, the health care and pension plan the WGA uses is the same one the Producers use.  It's jointly run by WGA and AMPTP.

And IATSE by the way, who covers animation writers, has essentially the same kinds of clauses.

As the husband of a SAG actor, and a lawyer who has director and producer and writer clients, let me assure you that your perception of these unions and organizations that protect the little guy in that industry with benefits like health care is not really accurate.  It's only the already successful full time people who get those benefits.  In my opinion, and the opinion of an awful lot of rank and file members, the little guy gets screwed by those unions, stuck being forced to join, and forced to pay dues, but without the benefits that the full time workers get.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> WOAH there.
> 
> You have not read the union agreements apparently.




Woah there. You apparently didn't read the post I was responding to, because if you did, you'd know how silly the little diatribe you just made really is.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Nice shilling. I'm sure your corporate masters are pleased.




I have no corporate masters.  In fact, though I don't represent a lot of clients these days, when I do it's individual writers, producers, directors, and actors.  I have *never* represented a corporation in the entertainment industry.

But thanks for that totally unfounded personal attack! Always nice to know what kind of guy your talking to.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I have no corporate masters.  In fact, though I don't represent a lot of clients these days, when I do it's individual writers, producers, directors, and actors.  I have *never* represented a corporation in the entertainment industry.




You sure do a great job impersonating a corporate shill online.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Of course, the fact that every time reality show writers try to join the WGA, the studios fight them tooth and nail at the NLRB and then fire all those seeking to join the union at the earliest possible opportunity pretty much shows this claim to be the total lie that it is.




I disagree.

They can, and do, join the WGA.  It would be a ULP to fire someone for joining, easily proved, with build in heavy damages.

So, if you are going to call my claim a lie, the burden is on you to prove it.  NLRB cases are public.  Provide links to what you just claimed to have knowledge of.  Let's see it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> They can, and do, join the WGA.  It would be a ULP to fire someone for joining, easily proved, with build in heavy damages.
> 
> So, if you are going to call my claim a lie, the burden is on you to prove it.  NLRB cases are public.  Provide links to what you just claimed to have knowledge of.  Let's see it.




This is not too hard. Writers for _America's Top Model_ voted to join the WGA. They were fired for their trouble.

http://defamer.com/hollywood/top/hollywood-protestwatch-writers-vs-top-models-189137.php
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-08-10-reality-tv-strike_x.htm



> On November 6, 2006, WGAw filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board after Top Model producers said the next season of the show will be produced using a new system that would not require writers. President Patric Verrone said: "..as they demanded union representation, the company decided they were expendable. This is illegal strikebreaking...."




http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6389164.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP&nid=2228


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Woah there. You apparently didn't read the post I was responding to, because if you did, you'd know how silly the little diatribe you just made really is.




You brought up the issue of health care benefits and unions, relative to THIS discussion.  I brought up the fact that the unions involved in THIS discussion don't give the benefits you are talking about.  And you don't think that is relevant to this discussion?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This is not too hard. Writers for _America's Top Model_ voted to join the WGA. They were fired for their trouble.
> 
> http://defamer.com/hollywood/top/hollywood-protestwatch-writers-vs-top-models-189137.php
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-08-10-reality-tv-strike_x.htm
> ...




In my opinion, you just proved my point.

I said it would be a ULP to do so.  You just quoted the ULP claim.  If it went down the way the union says, they will win and the Producers will pay buckets in penalties (hence the "illegal to do that" part).  If it didn't go down the way the union claims, then their allegation was false.  Any way you look at it, THAT is the ULP I was talking about! It's illegal to fire someone for attempting to join a union, and if you do fire someone for doing it you get an Unfair Labor Practices claim slapped on you for breaking the law.  Much like it's illegal to steal something and if you do steal something you get a theft charge slapped on you for breaking the law.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You brought up the issue of health care benefits and unions, relative to THIS discussion.  I brought up the fact that the unions involved in THIS discussion don't give the benefits you are talking about.  And you don't think that is relevant to this discussion?




I brought up health insurance in response to a poster claiming that most unions don't do anything to help the middle-class stay insured - a claim which is clearly false since the bulk of "working class" unions mae health insurance a big priority. I noted as an aside that WGA members are entitled to health insurance whereas animation and reality show writers typically are not, but the actual issue concerns unions working to get health insurance for their members in general.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> In my opinion, you just proved my point.
> 
> I said it would be a ULP to do so.  You just quoted the ULP claim.  If it went down the way the union says, they will win and the Producers will pay buckets in penalties (hence the "illegal to do that" part).  If it didn't go down the way the union claims, then their allegation was false.  Any way you look at it, THAT is the ULP I was talking about! It's illegal to fire someone for attempting to join a union, and if you do fire someone for doing it you get an Unfair Labor Practices claim slapped on you for breaking the law.  Much like it's illegal to steal something and if you do steal something you get a theft charge slapped on you for breaking the law.




Your point was that studios fire reality show writers who try to join the WGA? Because that's what happened here.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I brought up health insurance in response to a poster claiming that most unions don't do anything to help the middle-class stay insured - a claim which is clearly false since the bulk of "working class" unions mae health insurance a big priority. I noted as an aside that WGA members are entitled to health insurance whereas animation and reality show writers typically are not, but the actual issue concerns unions working to get health insurance for their members in general.




But what you noted about this actual topic (writers and health care) was not accurate.  Your average WGA members are no more or less entitled to health insurance than your average animation writer.  Animation writers are covered by the IATSE National Health and Welfare Fund.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Your point was that studios fire reality show writers who try to join the WGA? Because that's what happened here.




No, that is the claim made by the union, not the finding of facts.  If the union can prove their claim, they will get huge penalties and damages against the Producers.  That's how all legal systems work - you make an allegation, you bring your claim, and you see if your claim proves out.  

My point was that it would be illegal to fire someone for trying to join the WGA.  And in my opinion, linking to a ULP claim against the Producers for doing that sort of thing IS my point - that is how you punish this kind of illegal act, by filing an ULP claim.  The union is even quoting the law that I am referring to in their filing.


----------



## Storm Raven (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No, that is the claim made by the union, not the finding of facts.  If the union can prove their claim, they will get huge penalties and damages against the Producers.  That's how all legal systems work - you make an allegation, you bring your claim, and you see if your claim proves out.
> 
> My point was that it would be illegal to fire someone for trying to join the WGA.  And in my opinion, linking to a ULP claim against the Producers for doing that sort of thing IS my point - that is how you punish this kind of illegal act, by filing an ULP claim.  The union is even quoting the law that I am referring to in their filing.




Oh wait, Nickelodeon did it too. Your house of cards seems to be falling apart.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowl...each_other_it_happened_at_spongebob_70634.asp


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You sure do a great job impersonating a corporate shill online.



See ya.

Folks, don't be rude to one another. It's possible to disagree without coming across as a jerk.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Feb 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Your point was that studios fire reality show writers who try to join the WGA? Because that's what happened here.




His original point was that Reality Show writers could join the guild if they wanted to, but it would not necessarily be advantageous for them.  And yes, studios can fire writers for wanting to join the union; he didn't dispute that, but rather that action's legality.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> First, they do not want to join WGA.  They could at any time.  There is nothing at all stopping them from joining.  In fact, it would be illegal to try and stop any animator or reality show writer from joining the WGA.




Obviously anyone can join the WGA, provided they meet the proper criteria. The issue is that reality show writers and animation writers are not covered *for those particular jobs* by the guild. So, sure, if they have a job writing for scripted television, they'd benefit from anything that any other WGA member did. If they continue to work on "The Moment of Truth", though, the WGA wouldn't be able to provide them with any kind of protection. 

Basically, the only people working in reality shows and animation that can get any kind of WGA coverage are those who are also working in other WGA covered fields- scripted television, movies. But let's be clear- it's not like those jobs are a dime a dozen.

As for not wanting to be covered- we can go back and forth with "he said, she said" here, but from the (admittedly small) number of people I know involved in that particular facet of the industry, as well as from things I've read and heard, there are plenty of writers on "reality shows" who would love nothing more than to be considered eligible to join the WGA _on the basis of their work on reality shows_, which is all that many of them do.



> Second, animation writers DO belong to another union.  It's the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE).




I stand informed. As I noted, though, I really am not all that familiar with animation writers or their situation. It's really only the reality show writers and the WGA that I have any familiarity with.



> WGA was literally trying to steal IATSE members by force, using the production contract to do it.




I'll take a look at that link. I remember reading that one of the WGA frontmen was also an animation writer and wanted to join the WGA- maybe that's the guy you're talking about.



> Third, as for reality show writers, it's an incredibly complex issue.  I'll try to sum it up simply: the people who write reality shows almost always also produce them, and direct them, and edit them, and even act in them sometimes!




Wow- overstate much? The writers on these shows are not, by and large, the producers, editors, and/or directors and actors.

The hyphenates you are talking about are, as you say, generally members already of one or more guilds and thus aren't a point of concern here. It's the uncovered writers that are- and those are the majority.


----------



## Felon (Feb 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Woah there. You apparently didn't read the post I was responding to, because if you did, you'd know how silly the little diatribe you just made really is.





			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I brought up health insurance in response to a poster claiming that most unions don't do anything to help the middle-class stay insured - a claim which is clearly false since the bulk of "working class" unions mae health insurance a big priority.



I guess you didn't read the post you replied to either. I actually didn't claim that most unions don't provide health care. What I said was that there is a growing trend of _businesses_ dropping any form of health care.

For all the indignation you've expressed about the producers' misrepresentations, it is irksome that you have exhibited a cavalier attitude about how you represent other people. It does not serve to enhance credibility.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 15, 2008)

> Wow- overstate much? The writers on these shows are not, by and large, the producers, editors, and/or directors and actors.




I didn't overstate it.  Yes, they are those other things.  I know many of them.  There is even one that is a poster on another board I frequent, though she doesn't tell people what she does.  The writers on reality shows are in fact usually at least one of those other things, though sometimes they don't even get a credit for one of the other jobs (in fact, OFTEN they don't get credit for all roles they play, just one of them).  I was describing the standard for that industry, though there are some exceptions.  You can see some of these folks on a couple of cable station shows sometimes (I saw one on Kennedy's show for example), and they talk about how many different hats they have to wear when working reality shows.  That is the nature of that industry, due to how low the budgets are.

Here, I will give you an example.  I found this completely randomly in IMDB (not one of the ones I know).  Jonathan Murray is listed as a Director, a Writer, and a Producer for this "Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Inferno" show.  That's not unusual.



> The hyphenates you are talking about are, as you say, generally members already of one or more guilds and thus aren't a point of concern here. It's the uncovered writers that are- and those are the majority.




I was not talking about hyphenate writers when speaking of reality shows, at least not in the traditional usage of that word in the industry.  As you said, a traditional hyphenate is covered under a union contract of some sort.  Reality show folks however, who don't necessarily know what kind of job they will be doing for a particular day well in advance, are not the traditional hyphenates you're referring to.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 15, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Here, I will give you an example.  I found this completely randomly in IMDB (not one of the ones I know).  Jonathan Murray is listed as a Director, a Writer, and a Producer for this "Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Inferno" show.  That's not unusual.




Jonathan Murray- of Bunim/Murray. The single largest (arguably) "reality show" organization around. I don't think he really qualifies as the sort of "rank and file" reality show writer we're referring to that would benefit from some sort of union membership. Maybe back in the days of the first Real World (back in '92) he would have. These days though, with the success of that group, while he's certainly got oversight on the direction of the show, and multiple hats- he's not the guy that's breaking his balls day in and out watching the dailies, making notes, deciding on the characters and the directions, writing out story beats and sending them to the editors in post-production every day for peanuts. I'm sure he puts a lot of time (and overtime) and effort into things, but he's definitely a hyphenate in every sense of the word.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 15, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Jonathan Murray- of Bunim/Murray. The single largest (arguably) "reality show" organization around. I don't think he really qualifies as the sort of "rank and file" reality show writer we're referring to that would benefit from some sort of union membership. Maybe back in the days of the first Real World (back in '92) he would have. These days though, with the success of that group, while he's certainly got oversight on the direction of the show, and multiple hats- he's not the guy that's breaking his balls day in and out watching the dailies, making notes, deciding on the characters and the directions, writing out story beats and sending them to the editors in post-production every day for peanuts. I'm sure he puts a lot of time (and overtime) and effort into things, but he's definitely a hyphenate in every sense of the word.




Like I said, I picked randomly.

I could name three people I directly know who fit exactly what I was referring to, but I kinda don't want to drag them into it.

And I checked the first one of those three, and was slightly surprised to find that, though I know for sure she directed an episode of a show, and produced several, and edited one, she is listed as only the associate producer on the show and has no edit or directing credit on any episodes.  I guess that is not that surprising.  But she is a rank and file person on the show I am referring to (or was, before it ended).


----------

