Good For Us...Or Good For All?

Excellent arguments; excellent explanations all around. Congratulations Craig + the group! I think this is a new solution and if it works, more writers and executives will be open to such ideas. Easier for you because Wells did it, and now it will be easier for someone else because you guys have gotten FOX to take the plunge. Make sure you exceed expectations so that other Studios want their own groups and more writers get these same advantages.

Thanks Craig, you put to rest all my worries and explained the concept and deal in very clear terms. Good luck to you and all the 9 writers as you write the new myths, the NEW franchises! (or just more great stand-alone films, like “Little Miss Sunshine”) :-)

I’m really interested in any ‘postitive’ movements in the industry of writing.

Could I ask what the extent of the limitations are for persuing something like this (something remotely similar, even)? eg. Location (ie. Toronto vs LOS ANGELES)? Success? etc.

Like how I worked eg., ie., and etc all in one sentence? :P

Thanks for explaining things further. I think anything that sets a positive precedent for writers, and grants them more power in the process, is an awesome thing.

Granted, y’all are powerhouses in today’s industry. But tomorrow? There will be new powerhouses. And because of what Wells did, and you all did, they’ll be able to negotiate an even better deal.

I think you said it quite well - it’s up to the WGA to raise the floor, so we’re on an even playing field. It’s up to our more successful writers to raise the ceiling.

I have to say, I don’t understand how anyone would think this would be BAD for the guild’s negotiations. Presently, it would have effect, as the fruits of your deal haven’t come, yet, but down the line, when (hopefully) you’ve all written successful films that have made lots of money, the guild can point to how successful it is and use it to negotiate more. I think the `fall out’ for this deal will not be felt for years, and it can ONLY be positive. That is unless all your movies tank- not that you needed any added pressure. It;s true, though. The more successful your films are, the better it is for you AND the guild.

I, personally, do not understand the criticisms. They seem, well, rather bitter. You haven’t set up some sort of script factory where you’ll each be pumping out a couple of scripts a year. It’s one script each. And is it really any different than all the other deals that all the other writers make? Sure, the rewards are potentially bigger, but it is really no different than, say, John August taking less for writing The Nines in order to direct it. Does that hurt the guild?

Personally, I am anxious to hear what type of scripts you guys will be writing. I’m betting most, if not all, will be trying to write the next Matrix (which has been mentioned), instead of the next Little Miss Sunshine (however good that film was). This is your chance to possibly make BIG money. I would probably be swinging for the fences and try to make a franchise.

Hey, Craig—

On a marginally related note (and apologies if this was obvious in your prior description and I missed it), will the studio have any input other than “friendly” into what the scripts in question will be about? (Even in broad terms like genre, etc.?) Or is this a truly blind deal where whatever you all decide to write, they’ve bought, at least through the initial script-acquisition step?

Granting the even-stronger-than-usual incentives to shoot for broad commercial appeal in your offerings…if you decided to take this opportunity to finally write that heartfelt, caveman-era relationship drama/murder-mystery you’d always dreamed of doing someday, does the deal you’ve made contain any explicit barriers that would prevent you from doing so?

Reason I ask: To me, the most intriguing aspect of all this is that it does represent an abnormally large bet on the writer’s judgment, as opposed to the usual reliance on the judgment of pretty much everyone but. (That “gun” you mentioned above is not an insignificant item, and is seldom found occupying these particular hands….) I just wondered how far that courtesy extended.

Is Fox’s “Fantastic Voyage” remake the first of these nine scripts, or just a coincidence?

Craig: many thanks for the further explanation. And again, congratulations to you, Ted and the others involved. It will be exciting to see how this all plays out in the next several years.

Scott asks: “Is Fox’s “Fantastic Voyage” remake the first of these nine scripts, or just a coincidence?”

Either people are not paying attention or I am going senile.

The deal is for each of them to write an original script (as you can read in John August’s rundown of the deal: “We’re each committing to writing an original (i.e. not an adaptation) for Fox - our next original script, in fact.”)

How would Fox’s Fantastic Voyage remake be the first of those scripts? How could a remake, based on a pre-existing film, be one of the original scripts mentioned by John and Craig?

If you will pardon a very minor bit of nitpicking:

You refer here to Rambo as a character created for movies. Actually, he debuted in David Morrell’s novel FIRST BLOOD.

will the studio have any input other than “friendly” into what the scripts in question will be about? (Even in broad terms like genre, etc.?) Or is this a truly blind deal where whatever you all decide to write, they’ve bought, at least through the initial script-acquisition step?

No, just friendly input. It’s a blind deal. If we decide to write something under this deal, we write it.

No, the remake of Fantastic Voyage was something Cormac and I had worked on over the summer and is NOT part of the Writing Partners deal.

On a side note, our first studio movie was a spec (The 6th Day with Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Craig,

Thanks for responding and I got some emails, too. From a board member who talked to Patric. He’s a little more ambivilant than you’re assuming.

Also, calling an argument “cuckoo land” doesn’t rebutt the line of reasoning. The point is you guys put in the effort to raise the ceiling for yourselves and, I love that, because as Holly said, it does give writers the clout of A-list directors and actors (hopefully!) But, in the long run, as the Wells deal and the Sony deal, it probably will do nothing for other writers. Nothing changed with the Wells deal or the Sony deal.

“So any time someone writes for more than scale? Separate deal. Oh, how about this one? CREDIT BONUSES? Separate deal. Not in the MBA.

If I?m to follow your logic, then pretty much every single working screenwriter in the WGAw is, um, ?no longer part of the union.?”

You’re starting to see the point. That’s why this is a tougher issue to address that you’re making it out to be. We are a guild/union, but there are so many issues that are negotiated separately or not at all or swept under the rug. Like free re-writes. As one honest A-lister told me, “When I do a free re-write, it’s not as free as yours because it’s amortized over a million dollars.” But it still forces other writers to do the free rewrites. On the positive side, I have experienced the benefits such as health care (personally) in a great way and will always be greatful to be part of the guild.

But I thought you and Ted and some of the other writers had a vision for the guild that matched mine. Raise the minimum for all. And you don’t need to make fun of this, too, since we both know that no one gets scale after a first sale. I mean the other issues. The kind of issues you guys negotiated for.

Also, I’m not the only one who feels this way. I’m just the only one stupid enough to post and take the lumps! Others won’t even post anonymously…

But, if I end being wrong, I’d love that even better.

And here’s an unexpected twist. One of your critics wants to set up another “group,” but joked, that once every group is set-up, and the A-listers distributed and tapped out (for clout), who’ll be left? Writers who couldn’t find a chair when the music stopped!

My only question is why do think that Fox was so interested in pursuing this deal? Neither they nor any other studio has shown a desire to put original material into theaters, despite the proof that original material seems to perform better. The over-reliance on sequels and branded material seems to put the lie to their desire for fresh material.

Is it because they get first crack at original material from proven writers? Maybe so, but if that is the case, they could’ve cut a deal like this with any screenwriter with a track record. Their enthusiasm for this deal seems to have come as almost a surprise to them - the Welles deal not withstanding.

Is it because they see the value contributions that a writer can make to the filmmaking process outside of delivering the vessel/script? Um … yeah, right.

I know this is a bit conspiratorially minded, but do think it’s because they see this as a way to get out of the MBA and any other agreements made with the guild. Personally, I think that if they can’t do it now, they will point to this agreement, the Welles deal, and any other future (and seemingly inevetiable deals) as reasons to scrap what they will term as “antiquated ways of doing business with creative talent.”

I, too, would love to be wrong like TheInterpreter, but I’m just not feeling like I will be. And let’s be sure here, it’s not because I dislike the deal. I think it’s great and hope to make similar deals as I climb the ranks to the A-list. I just don’t trust the reasons why studios would be willing to accept such a sweeping change in the way they do business with screenwriters after 80 years of shit rolling downhill.

Interpreter:

“But, in the long run, as the Wells deal and the Sony deal, it probably will do nothing for other writers.”

Why would this group of writers be obligated to do something for other writers? This is just a very well negotiated contract for future services … every time you make a deal with a studio, are you going to make it on behalf of other writers too?

This group of writers doesnt represent the Guild, or purport to, so how could they do something that the Guild should do?

“Nothing changed with the Wells deal or the Sony deal.”

That’s wrong — obviously, the Wells deal (and perhaps the Sony deal) paved the way for this deal. And this deal may pave the way for the next.

If the studio way of getting out from under the MBA is to offer terms better than the MBA, then I’m all for it.

I don’t even understand how Craig, et al were supposed to have negotiated this or any deal for the entirety of WGA writers. Did Patrick give Craig and the rest negotiating power for the Guild and I didn’t hear about it.

Cuz that’s big.

When I read about the deal I was happy for you and the others. I wasn’t sure how I felt about it in view of my own situation as a new writer trying to break in. Thanks for the further explanations.

TheInterpreter -

I think you’re being very blind and selfish about the impact of this deal. You want these guys to give something up for you … although, honestly, why on earth do you think that the studios would give something up for you on a deal with John August?

It’s nonsensical.

Or, let me put it this way: the next time you are offered a deal that’s over scale, do I understand your correctly that your response would be, “No, I won’t take it. Give me scale, and take that extra money and put it in a pot for everyone?”

Seriously? Is that what you do? You’re not earning scale … so I assume you’re turning around and giving that money to the union?

Or is this just a sacrifice you think other people should make?

If the way actors and directors have been treated is any guide, this - which is a fantastic deal for A-list writers - could turn into a fantastic deal for mid-list writers. Because once that precedent is out there, it’s harder and harder for the studios to say no to it.

The notion that gross points would ever become part of the MBA is, well, absurdly naive. They’re not part of the MBA for actors or directors. And the idea that A-listers shouldn’t take these perks unless they’re given to everyone is a sure-fire way of making sure that nobody ever gets them.

“That?s wrong ? obviously, the Wells deal (and perhaps the Sony deal) paved the way for this deal. And this deal may pave the way for the next.”

It will pave the way for the next deal. Better get into that group or you’ll be left out in the cold.

“I think you?re being very blind and selfish about the impact of this deal. You want these guys to give something up for you ? although, honestly, why on earth do you think that the studios would give something up for you on a deal with John August? “

Every man for himself vs. Every man for the Guild. That’s my point. Don’t get your panties in a bunch. At this point, no one is sacrificing anything for me or any other writer. BTW, the studios made deals with some writers in the group to get deal with other writers in the group. It’s done all the time in other ways all over Hollywood. It’s called leverage. My point is that this could be how the Guild works. Think about it.

“And the idea that A-listers shouldn?t take these perks unless they?re given to everyone is a sure-fire way of making sure that nobody ever gets them. “

That’s nonsensical. Nobody else is going to get them unless everyone agrees not to work for less. That’s the idea of collective bargaining and striking.

Teddy — That’s the view from some other WGAw members whodon’t want to join this discussion. I don’t know if it’s paranoid, but, in general the timing couldn’t have been worse.

“…but, in general the timing couldn�t have been worse.”

Wha..? The proximity of the Writing Partners deal to the WGA negotiations is no more causal than its proximity to the recent Stock Market correction or the earthquake in Peru.

I did find myself wondering…

When you call it a “Co-Op” does that mean there is equal profit sharing amongst all those writers who get a script produced?

And if so, doesn’t that mean Ted and Terry are getting hosed? ;-)

And may I ask what the business structure is, or is that too proprietary?

(Ie 401(c)3, Corporation, LLP, etc.)

The Interpreter,

Your posts smack of a `that’s great, but what’s in it for me?’ attitude. I understand your concerns, but I think they’re a little selfish and unrealistic. It’s kind of like a kid getting an ice cream cone and another one complaining that the kid not getting an ice cream cone for everyone. If the kid had demanded 200 ice cream cones he would gotten none. Not sure how that helps anyone.

I do have a couple of questions to ask, though. You complain, but what would YOU have done in that situation? Would you refuse a deal like this? What would be the point of that?

Your argument reminds me a little of the argument I had with a striking transit employee, who felt that every single working person should be able to make enough to buy a house and send their kids to college, including someone like a video clerk. Obviously it simply doesn’t make sense. The minimums for WGA members are already pretty nice. It’s why so many people are trying to BECOME screenwriters. Whining about 9 people getting a good deal from the studio simply because it didn’t help you, or the guild, in the process, really does sound selfish. Especially considering you, from what I gather, don’t even use the WGA agreement in negotiating your deals, since you don’t work for the minimums. How exactly is THAT helping the guild?

How about we all go back to writing instead of harping/fawning over a deal we have nothing, at present, to do with.

I think The Interpreter’s point is not about what’s in it for me. It’s about what’s in it for every writer. What’s in it for me is the entire problem with the way the Guild works now.

“every single working person should be able to make enough to buy a house and send their kids to college”

What’s wrong with that?

As someone said in an earlier post, try to look at the broader issue and you’ll see the other side of the argument.

A hundred little cabals negotiating for themselves might not be the best scenario for the Guild.

Especially considering you, from what I gather, don’t even use the WGA agreement in negotiating your deals, since you don’t work for the minimums. How exactly is THAT helping the guild?

Every writer negotiates their own deal. That’s the way the system is set up. I don’t know how it helps or hurts the guild, but that’s the way business is done. The main complaint that I’m getting from these boars is that this doesn’t act to unify the writers, but splinters them going into negotiations.

Okay, I officially think TheInterpreter is a fake.

Here’s why:

Thanks for responding and I got some emails, too. From a board member who talked to Patric. He’s a little more ambivilant (sic) than you’re assuming.

In addition to a lovely note from Patric, I also got one from Board member Howard Rodman. In addition to Patric and Howard Rodman, Phil Robinson, Tom Schulman and Ron Bass all serve together on the board, and all three are in the Warner Brothers co-op.

So…the President and four Board members (three of whom are close political allies of Patric) are all either congratulatory or doing the exact same thing…but I’m supposed to believe this guy?

Fake.

The internet is fun. Mostly.

What? You mean it’s NOT Charles Randolph?

““every single working person should be able to make enough to buy a house and send their kids to college”

What’s wrong with that?”

It’s not feasible and completely unrealistic. You think the corner video store will be able to stay in business if they have to pay their employees $60K a year? If they are able to stay in business, how much do you think it’s going to cost to rent a video? Prices will skyrocket in order to pay for the salaries of everyone. Then, salaries will have to increase so all the employees can afford everything they are promised. It’s a vicious, if completely predictable, cycle.

I worked at a video store when I was young, and I had no problem making next to nothing. Why? Because I knew that it was just temporary and that eventually I would be making a lot more than that at a different job. And you know what? I was right. Video clerks SHOULDN’T be making enough to buy a house and send their kids to college. It’s an undemanding job that requires no skill and is something a teenager can do. Why on earth should you be paid a lot for that? A lot of those jobs are called entry level jobs for a reason.

As for what is best for the guild, what is most important, is what is best for the writer. the guild is, and should be, secondary. Without the writer, there is no guild.

“So?the President and four Board members (three of whom are close political allies of Patric) are all either congratulatory or doing the exact same thing?but I?m supposed to believe this guy?

Fake.

The internet is fun. Mostly.”

There are other Board members, my friend. And I really didn’t mean to piss you off so much. I’m not fake, but, possibly, cowardly!

If you’ve only heard congratulations than you haven’t heard from a good cross-section of WGAw members who have opinions about the Guild. And NOBODY is jealous. Just some people are reacting the same way they did to the Wells co-op.

At least, I see from some of the newest comments that other points of view are coming to the surface.

But I won’t post anymore unless asked to contribute more. I can disappear like Turman from the WA.

I will say one last thing, Craig. You must have unlimited energy to do the blog and have a career. Josh couldn’t keep his up and he says he didn’t know what he was thinking when he started it.

As for me, my draft that’s due tomorrow isn’t going to be ready just because of this simple two day interchange!

Good luck and CONGRATS!

< As for what is best for the guild, what is most important, is what is best for the writer. the guild is, and should be, secondary. Without the writer, there is no guild >

Wow! That’s exactly the opposite of what a union is all about. If that’s a comment from a guild writer, you guys are in trouble.

Unions are socialist constructs where class amongst members is negated for equality. When one member (or nine) breaks the chain the Union is broken. But in this case the WGA has been broken for a long time.

There is no solidarity. There is no goodwill. We cannibalize each other just to get a payday. And this is called capitalism.

A true union is what the nine have created above. They are all equal and they are all looking out for each other’s interests.

In reality, the Fox deal does little to help or hinder any but the nine participants involved. To claim it aids or hurts those not involved is pure hubris.

Boy, so many romantics out there…

Unions aren’t socialist constructs where individual interests are negated for equality.

Unions are collective bargaining agencies that set MINIMUM terms of employment. Not maximum terms.

Baseball players? That’s a great union. Do they all earn the same amount? NO.

Nor are the 9 of us equal. Ted and Terry make more than I do. They still do. Why shouldn’t they?

TheInterpreter:

I don’t have unlimited energy.

I actually feel a bit woozy right now.

“Wow! That’s exactly the opposite of what a union is all about. If that’s a comment from a guild writer, you guys are in trouble.”

And that is why unions piss me off. I will admit that I am not a big fan of them. Never have been. They have a time and a place, but a lot of union members seem to get their head so far up their union, that they fail to see the big picture.

And what I meant was that the guild is there for the writer, not the other way around. I don’t think any aspiring screenwriter is toiling away on their script dreaming of how they can further the agenda of the guild. Will the existence of the guild help them if they are able to sell it? Sure. Should they be grateful for that? Sure. That’s why they will pay their dues and vote, if they want, and strike, if necessary. Does that mean they should temper their own career goals if it doesn’t advance the guild? That’s stupid. That actually HURTS the guild. The guild should be a springboard, not a chain. A lot of critics seem to forget that.

I feel bad for Craig. In the last couple of weeks, he’s shared with his readers a very nice email, only to be blasted as a lair and a fake, and then shared some absolutely fantastic news, that give a lot of lesser writers hope and something to aim for, and he gets blasted as, in not so many words, a traitor. He’s doing a great service with this site, and I wouldn’t blame him one bit if he decided to shut it down. I, for one, would be sorry if he did, but I would completely understand. The internet is full of assholes, and a lot seem to come to this site.

“Unions are socialist constructs where class amongst members is negated for equality. When one member (or nine) breaks the chain the Union is broken. But in this case the WGA has been broken for a long time.”

In other words, you don’t think talent and hard work should be rewarded. The lazy hack should make the same as the hard working writer turning out hit after Academy Award nominated hit. Why on earth would anyone, other than the lazy hack, want to belong to an organization like that?

Tim W.

I don’t disagree with you. A true Union has no interest in the individual only in what that individual can do for the greater good. Obviously, that is not the ideal in a capitalist society. That is why Unions don’t work in a capitalist society. That is why we shouldn’t have unions in a capitalist society. Unions in a capitalist society do exactly as you fear. It allows lazy hacks to ride the coattails of the talented and hardworking.

Craig,

Least we forget, “Workers of the world unite.” Unions, historically, come from socialist (to make it clear for the less informed: Communist) roots. The word Union means to unite! And it may be my romanticism, but I think of unity as the acknowledgment of equality as apposed to power in numbers or simply a negotiation point. The goals of unions, initially, was to abolish the bourgeoisie and to create a world where no class exists. Of course this is an ideal and doesn’t allow for cheaters (re: Stalin, Castro).

But it is true, most modern unions (all) do not exist in this form (the WGA being a good example). There are multiple reasons for this. I blame Adam Smith… no, I blame Darwin. Adam Smith’s capitalistic model fits nicely into Darwin’s theory of natural selection. The fittest will survive and the scraps will roll down through the hierarchies. Which brings us back to cannibalism.

And you’re right. The nine is not a union in the classical sense, but it is a union by your own definition. You’ve negotiated a minimum (300,000) with a ceiling as high as your quotes and percentages will allow.

And to repeat: “To claim [the deal] aids or hurts those not involved is pure hubris.”

Belated congrats to Craig and Ted (and to John August and Terry Rossio, whose websites I also read and enjoy)! It’s an amazing deal which can only benefit ALL writers—even if all it does is reinforce the novel idea of the writer as a creator/collaborator and not some hamster on a treadmill typing away on a keyboard. It would seem to me that these agreements/relationships would be beneficial during WGA negotiations with the studios possibly being more interested in maintaining a good relationship with their “partners.”

Kudos to you and the group! Thanks for paving the way for us future A-listers—and thanks for your unlimited energy in maintaining your awesome blog.

Interpreter is fake.

If he were a mad scientist, he’d be Dr. Fakenstien.

If were an ABA basketball player, he’d be Dr. Fake.

If he or she were a large body of fresh water, he’d be a fake.

If he were a Japanese liquor, he’d be Fake. Best served warm.

If he were a chilly bit of percipitation, he’d be a snow fake.

This is a most excellent deal. I’m very happy for the lot of you.

But as someone who occasionally puts a pencil to paper, I demand to be given equal share in the deal RIGHT NOW, as well as 55% of your income and a 747 with a full tank of gas.

Otherwise you are a traitor.

I don’t think there’s a necessity to form co-ops simply because we did or the Wells group did. Obviously, I think there’s a tremendous advantage to them, but these things live and die on the market strength of the collectives that form them. Best advice on that sort of thing comes to me from Michael Eisner, via David Zucker. “You can get what you can get.”

This nagged me last night.

I was initially very excited by this deal from the perspective of the profile of writers and how it may help in erasing some low man perceptions that even many writers themselves are locked into. I still am excited about that. I love the terms “partners in production” and “creative control” used where writers are concerned. In this way, I have hope that it will be good for all, for more writers to put these things on the table, for the overall esteem of writers, the overall regard for writers.

But…

the co-op stuff bothers me more and more. If you think there’s a tremendous advantage to them, there probably is - if you’re already a well-established writer. You are one of many currently well-established writers and if this practice DOES catch fire (and why wouldn’t it if there’s a tremendous advantage) what chance would those trying to break in have against hordes of a-list co-ops with multi-script multi-year deals? This is a potentially disastrous disadvantage for anyone who hasn’t already made it, don’t you think?

I’m not making any character judgments, but after really thinking about it and listening to all sides, I am stuck in a very weird paradox of optimism and pessimism over this deal.

I’ve decided that The Interpreter has this figured out. I currently work at a video store and I also demand to be able to buy a house and pay for college for the kid I don’t yet have.

Anyways, this is quite possibly the stupidest argument in internet history and the fact that Craig tolerates it is beyond my levels of comprehension. You’re a better man then me!

Congrats on the deal, thanks for the blog, and I hope you have a fabulous day. Don’t let the jealousy get you down.

Hommade Bomb,

It’s posts like yours that chase away interesting perspectives from real working writers. I asked “The Interpreter” to post on this site about this issue even though I disagree with him. He agreed to do so, though anonymously, and generated a stir. He’s real and, as it turned out, he was right to post anonymously.

Now, he’s stopped because of fools like you. Even Craig gave him a rather polite “woozy” good-bye in response to his own polite good-bye.

Regardless of your ad hominem attacks, the issue is not a fake and will come at the last Outreach meeting on the 29th. See you there unless you’re the fakie.

By the way, the debate will be polite and the bigger issues the WGA faces in the negotiations will be addressed. Personally, I think this will neither hurt, nor aid, the negotiations. But I don’t discount that it turned off some members, especially those on the fence about the supporting the WGA during this critical time.

EM

Travis,

Did anyone answer your question yet?

[quote]When you call it a �Co-Op� does that mean there is equal profit sharing amongst all those writers who get a script produced?

And if so, doesn�t that mean Ted and Terry are getting hosed? ;-)[/quote]

No. We don’t share each others’ profits as far as I understand it. If T&T write a script and it gets made, they alone get the 2.5% FDG.

Isn’t that right, Craig?

Clearly I have no idea how to use HTML tags. ;)

As I’m not part of the collective, I can’t officially answer it, but from what I’ve read here and on the other sites, it’s not a profit sharing collective. If Ted and Terry’s movie makes a lot of money, no one else in the collective gets a cent. The collective has simply been put together to have more clout with the studio in order to get the deal they did. As John wrote on his site:

“Here’s the pitch: “How would you like nine original scripts by some of the top feature writers for less than what you’d pay for one of them normally? But wait! There’s more!””

Individually, they couldn’t have gotten a deal like this, but if Fox thinks they will get nine fantastic screenplays from A-List writers for less money (meaning less development costs), they are willing to share some profits on the back end.

As I said, though, I’m not part of collective, so I can’t for sure say. I’m just not sure if Craig wants to comment any more on this, so I have no idea whether he’ll answer the question.

< I?m not making any character judgments, but after really thinking about it and listening to all sides, I am stuck in a very weird paradox of optimism and pessimism over this deal.>

Sara — Me too. Right now, IMHO, it’s not a good thing. But I’m probably in the minority. There are other writers looking to form co-ops and recruit A-listers to join. Kind of unions within unions. Looking at it from the studio perspective, it looks like a win for them (there’s another post as to why.) Looking at it from the co-op perspective, it looks like a win for those writers. But from the broader union perspective, it would probably be better to harness that A-list strength for everyone.

I have a question though, Craig, if you’re still reading this, or if anyone else is. Is this deal for a film (like a one-picture deal) or a script? What I mean is that if Fox decides not to go into production with a script, does that mean that that writer’s deal is done? Can they bring another script to Fox for the same deal? It would be a shame if all one or any of you got out of the deal was $300K. It would be quite anti-climactic.

Marianne:

That’s right. We’re not in each other’s pockets in any way.

EM:

I’m trying to be polite. On the other hand, TheInterpreter is questioning my loyalty to my union, and I take that very personally.

Sara wrote:

this practice DOES catch fire (and why wouldn’t it if there’s a tremendous advantage) what chance would those trying to break in have against hordes of a-list co-ops with multi-script multi-year deals?

Guys, you’re not looking at the hard numbers here, nor the reality of how people are currently hired.

Consider this: the amount of scripts that co-op writers can generate hasn’t changed AT ALL. At an A-list level, you don’t look for work or send out scripts that don’t get bought. If you want to write one script a year, you will. If you want to write five scripts a year, you will. And you’ll be paid.

Therefore, there is NO effect whatsoever on the volume of assignments being soaked up by these collectives, okay? Doesn’t that make sense?

If anything, as I think Ted’s already mentioned, we’re doing newbies a favor by no longer soaking up so much damned development money.

If they only have to pay me $300K for a script, that leaves them more money than before to pay YOU for a script. Dig?

But if anyone has an objection predicated on the notion that this group of writers will be occupying more “script space” than they ever did before…then it’s a faulty objection.

We will not.

I know this is only an “if”, but IF more than a few of these co-ops are formed … the spec market is only so big, isn’t it?

So, if we’re talking about co-ops for original material, rather than assignment work on existing material, it seems very possible that A-listers would be assuming much more spec market type scripts than they previously did.

I’m just trying to understand, not rain on anyone’s parade. Dig?

Craig,

I said you were being polite and so was The Interpreter. It’s some of the other posters that aren’t looking at the issue that are being impolite.

Someone up there, said unions within unions. That’s a good take on the issue. Why not harness the power of A-listers to help all the union writers. Too idealistic? The systems doesn’t work that way? Who knows? In a way, it does work that way. Just imagine the way the studios would treat writers if the union didn’t also represent the A-listers! Maybe, the union could be the big co-op and harness the A-listers in a bigger way. Okay, now, I’m rambling, but you get it.

Sara,

Here’s the deal. Everyone is getting squeezed. You’re not raining on anyone’s parade. The buyers are. So if the A-listers can guarantee a minimum for originals — In effect, a blind deal, they won’t get squeezed as much and are protecting their down side.

The market is tougher. People are getting half their quotes. One A-list writer who normally would sell a script (if it was wanted,) had to meet three times with the studio so they could grill him first. And when they eventually said yes, they paid him half his quote.

Who knows how the negotiations are going to turn out, but hopefully, there won’t be to many co-ops negotiating separate deals at the same time.

EM

Sara:

No, the spec market is elastic, pretty much like any speculative market. For instance, the “gold prospecting” market doesn’t set limits on how much gold can be discovered.

If you discover it, the market grows.

In a similar fashion, good specs are like gold to the studios. The more they find, the more they buy.

Not so with assignments, rewrites and adaptations, which are limited by the amount of property the studio already owns.

EM:

You wrote:

Why not harness the power of A-listers to help all the union writers. Too idealistic? The systems doesn’t work that way? Who knows? In a way, it does work that way. Just imagine the way the studios would treat writers if the union didn’t also represent the A-listers!

Well…exactly. By agreeing to walk a picket line with the 2000 screenwriters or so who aren’t A-listers, I think the A-list crowd is donating its power in a huge and significant way already.

In addition, the top 200 screenwriters probably account for nearly half of the dues revenue at the WGAw.

In short, A-list screenwriters and A-list television showrunners are the brass knuckles on the union fist. It’s tempting to say “Do more!” but I’m not sure there’s anything else we can do beyond the greatest sacrifice—withholding our work.

What I’m curious to see is what happens with the next hot spec script or pitch by an A-list writer who isn’t in one of the co-ops. Will he be able to demand similar terms on a spec sale or original pitch? I would imagine the backend ceiling has been opened on big spec deals now, and we might see situations where a writer gets true gross. Any thoughts on the likelihood of this?

Unlikely they’ll get this deal (because part of this deal rewards the upfront risk we take, and individual spec sellers aren’t assuming risk with a studio that wants the spec), but now if anyone ever says to an agent “Writers don’t get first dollar gross,” the agent can replay, “Yes they do.”

C.

The number of movies studios make per year is not limitless, and of those movies, over the past seven years, the percent of original films has shrunk, steadily, from 59% to 47%.

In the Variety article about this deal, John August says the studios want to spend money on movies they think they’re going to make, which tend to be adaptations and sequels.

An emerging or unsold writer has always had to compete with pros for sales of original work - on an individual basis - but, should this trend grow and teams of A-list writers, through their collective clout, by-pass the speculative stage of multiple original script sales, he’ll STILL be competing with pros who aren’t in a co-op, but on top of that, the opportunity will be reduced.

Isn’t that a realistic assessment of what could happen?

I’m sorry. I know this is a great deal for you guys, and I don’t mean to diminish the possible plusses for writers, but I don’t want to ignore the possible minuses, either. I’m not trying to be argumentative about this, just circumspect.

Sara,

Just my .02 in good faith.

I would not get too caught up in analysing it. Any one of these writers, on nearly any day of the week, coul walk in a sell a spec they wrote to someone, somewhere, for a price. You and I could not do that. Okay, I might be able to flog one for $5 at Starbucks but lets leave that alone for now. :)

They are only contracted to one studio out of all of the ones out there.

Only two things seem to remain constant in screenwriting. No-one knows anything and if you write a great commercial script, it will find a buyer. The MBA assures you of minimum amounts, your agent can try and get higher amounts.

Personally, I think this is a great deal for the writers and might actually help negotiations for the WGA(cue lightning flashes and thunder).

This group(like others) have negotiated more control and potentially, more money.

The other side will see that and may think, hell, don’t let all of these inkslingers get that, agree to what they want now and wrap it up before they start asking for more. You never know.

Me, I’m just trying to write. cheers Dave.

I believe that if you write an original spec a studio loves, no deal any other writer (or group of writers) makes will affect whether or not that studio will buy your script.

Case in point, Gary Whitta’s amazing spec THE BOOK OF ELI, sold a couple of months ago to Warner Brothers, home of the original writers co-op with 20 members… now has the Hughes Brothers attached to direct and is fully rocking toward production. I know of a few other originals bought by WB in the months leading up to and immediately after the announcement of their co-op… and I don’t really even keep up with these things.

I believe what we did with this co-op will be a helpful negotiating precedent for all writers at all levels. Any time the ceiling gets higher, it’s a good thing for those in the profession… ask any baseball player… where the AVERAGE salary rose to $2.6M in 2006.

Craig,

What’s weird about your and the John Wells deals is when did any of the key writers involved join the “we don’t want to be rewritten” bandwagon?

You and Ted always argued against me in having the WGA get involved in discouraging rewriting. (Ted argued very forcefully there was nothing wrong with current studio practices of replacing writers at a moments notice.) You both advocated and voted for policies that helped rewriters get more credit for doing less work. And when you were on the Credits Committee with me you had no interest in trying to push forward rules that might discourage rewriting, even of original screenplays.

John Wells was even more firm on the subject. He refused to allow the membership to even vote on rules to discourage writers from rewriting original screenplays. Many of the other writers in his collective were also publically in favor of rule changes that helped rewriters over original writers.

As far as I know, all the other writers in both deals have been at least MIA on the subject. So why the sudden change of heart as a key element of the deal to supposedly accept less money up front for more “creative control.” I’d sure love to see the actual contract terms.

Also, it seems odd that both your and Wells deals seem to provide a nice cushion for the writers involved (many of whom are key figures in the WGA) going into a possible strike. Must be nice knowing that during a two or three month strike you can write an original and get $300,000 the minute the strike is over.

Oh, by the way, how’s that police case going with the Guild staffer who stole money from the 20 million dollar unpaid foreign residuals fund? Is the LAPD all over it? I haven’t read anything about it in the LA Times from Verrier since his boss Jim Bates took a job at Sitrick. At the time, Verrier seemed to think it was a big story.

JF

JF:

Fair questions.

I’m not a member of the “no rewriting” bandwagon. I’m a member of the “don’t rewrite ME” bandwagon. And even under this arrangement, once the green light comes, I can be rewritten.

Barring rewriting is a bad thing, IMO. However, in an arrangement where I’m assuming risk and not selling my script for seven figures, I think holding the gun of creative control as leverage toward reversion is a terrific thing for me…if the studio agrees to it.

Yes, I believe that rewriters should be held to the same standards of authorship as any writer. Still do.

As for Wells, I can’t speak for him other than to say that we already have bad rules on the books that “discourage” rewriting (all they really do is penalize rewriters…rewriting continues unabated, of course), so why would we want more of that?

For me, the creative control is about two things. First, I want creative control. I think I’ve earned it. Second, I want to keep the script pure of rewriters so that the reversion terms I’ve bargained for are meaningful.

As for your theory that $300K is a cushion for a strike, well, I apologize for being vulgar, but I don’t think anyone in this group needs a cushion for the strike. We’re all doing pretty well. In fact, it’s quite likely that I won’t get my $300K for an original before a strike. I’ve got to finish the movie I’m doing, then I have a rewrite I’m scheduled to do for Bruckheimer. That will probably take me up to the strike.

As for the rest, I have no idea. Been kinda busy.

Shit is getting muddy here. I think Lawton kind of, halfway, exposed that people who do rewrite work don’t like the idea of being rewritten themselves.

So, a few big writers put clauses in the co-op that kind of, halfway, protects them from being overly rewritten. I’m not sure if there’s anything hypocritical about that.

I do rewrites. I write originals. I hate the way my originals have been rewritten and would love to not have it happen again.

But fuck rewritting. It’s a diversion. The real question here is: how does this co-op help or hurt non-Alisters?

I don’t see any ways this hurts me, a Non A-Lister. Just don’t. To me, this is a push towards writers getting more control and more money. No one knows how the ripple will go. No one knows if this will even work. But it could somehow turn into a huge boon for us “baby” writers. Could ruin us, too.

But to me, the scariest thing about being a writer in hollywood is the feeling that over the last 5 to 7 years the noose has been closing. It seems like there are less jobs. And that feeling, true or not, is scaring people into thinking that the people who have jobs are gonna make it worse.

Vagina.

Vaghinah en’deed monseur Beomb.

Va’sghinah EN…deed!

The discussion had moved past this, but it looks like the experiments with the site format ate the comments. However, I’d like to address this point:

I think Lawton kind of, halfway, exposed that people who do rewrite work don’t like the idea of being rewritten themselves.

I don’t care about being rewritten, because that can only happen after the studio has decided they won’t be requiring Terry’s and my writing services any longer, regardless of what we may want.

That’s what I don’t like, giving studios the unilateral authority to end my involvement in the movie. After they’ve made that decision, whatever decision they make next isn’t a particularly big deal to me. But, given the alternative of the project being shelved entirely, I actually prefer they commission further drafts from other writers, and I hope that one of them can accomplish what Terry and I couldn’t: deliver a draft that the studio produces.

It may end up I don’t like the work other writers delivered, but I’m not going to shit on them for taking the job, and I’m not going to blame them for what was, in reality, the studio exercising the authority over our work that we granted them.

In the Fox deal, we weren’t trying to negotiate a “no rewriters” term, and failed — we were trying to negotiate terms that limited as much as possible the studio’s authority to unilaterally remove us from our own projects. And, given the constraints the of the “Consultation After Assignment” term of the DGA Basic Agreement, and the “meaningful consultation” clause most major actors have in their individual contracts, that’s exactly what we accomplished.

In order to solve a problem, you must first accurately identifty the problem — and, when it comes to studios commissioning work from multiple writers on the same project, the problem is not other writers.

• Ted

Ted -

Good points. But what about other writers who get commissioned by the studio to write further drafts of a script you and Terry have been working on and instead of making an honest attempt to deliver a great story said writer/s choose to aim for the 30% mark to get the credit, i.e. residuals?

I hear this happens, and I hear it’s often detrimental to the script.

Any thoughts?

Johnny —

Well, I don’t think that’s done nearly as often as writers accuse other writers of having done it. But even if that’s the case every single time, it doesn’t matter. Why someone else writes what they write doesn’t alter the fact that, ultimately, it’s the studio’s decision as to what literary material from which writer they’re going to use in their movie.

Also: No matter what someone hired to “rewrite” Terry’s and my work does — or why he/she does it — it has no impact on our work. What it impacts is the studio’s movie. This is an aspect of our profession that far too many writers simply don’t understand — as evidenced by the belief that if we owned the copyright in our work, it would prevent “rewriting.”

It wouldn’t — because “rewriting” is, in actuality, from the pov of copyright law, identical to adapting. If I assign to a studio the right to make a movie from my novel, absent any other contractual terms, then that means the studio has the right to use as much or as little of my novel as it wants in its movie; it also has the right to acquire or commission additional material to use alongside mine.

This is precisely what happens in the case of screenplays. The studio acquires the right to make a movie from my work as part of the copyright in the work — and that gives the studio the right to adapt my screenplay for use in their movie any way they want.

When they hire someone else to “rewrite” my screenplay, what they are really doing is commissioning additional literary material from someone else for possible use in the same movie that mine is intended for. The other writer’s material may be adapted from mine, or it may be entirely the invention of the other writer, sharing only superficial similarities (like character names) or underlying ideas (like “four ex-Marines pull a bank job”).

All of the yelling and ranting and j’accuse-ing that writers level at other writers about this issue is absent any real understanding of the realities of, not just the film industry, but filmmaking. When writers say “I don’t want my screenplay rewritten by someone else,” what they are really demanding is, final authority over the story and dramatic content of the movie. We say, we want creative control over our screenplays, but what we’re really demanding is creative control over the studios’ movies.

Which, no kidding, would be ideal — but if someone can tell me how slinging mud at other writers and screwing with the credit arbitration guidelines so as to deny some writers the rights they are guaranteed under the MBA gets us that … please, explain.

• Ted

What’s the long answer?

Seriously…

All you say is true. Legally. or rather contractually. Those are the terms as they apply. I suppose the diea would be to change those terms.

While rewriting doesn’t impact your work, it can impact your credit. And that’s teh crux of the matter, isn’t it?

Especially if one views rewriting as a form of adaptation. In which case your draft becomes the source material for subsequent drafts by other writers. An original writer deserves credit for his contributions even if they don’t end up in the film.

I think the issue some take with rewriting is not so much the process in and of itself. It’s less about ego and creative control than about credit resulting in residuals. In other words it’s a monetary issue - gasp.

That, and artstic acknowledgement. It’s pretty neat to see your name blazing ten feet tall and luminous, no?

Point is, I believe the ‘being-rewritten pill’ would be a lot easier to swallow for many writers if the terms were amended as to give ALL writers who contributed literary material to the production of a motion picture a little something something called screen credit.

But that’s a different can of worms…