Aaaaaaand.......we're back (mostly)

Okay, seems to be working well.

Remember, when you go to sign in, pay attention not only to the username and password fields, but once those are filled in, you also need to select the proper ID service. For most of you, that will by TypePad (although if you also run a Movable Type blog, you can use Movable Type to log in).

I’ll try and put a more thorough tutorial up for this on the weekend if people are having problems.

Before attempting to sign in, you’ll need to register your ID with TypePad.

Go to http://typepad.com to do that.

Just testing…

testing typekey thingy…

Ok, here I am.

BTW, once the template fixes are back, the comments will be properly spaced apart, and the comment numbers will also return.

Hopefully today.

Sorry…I’m hearing a couple of days now.

But at least we’re functioning. We’re ugly…but we’re functioning.

Welcome back.

I stand by my Little Mermaid comments.

Suck a dorsal, Lowell.

Too weird.

How long do we have to wait before we can all start arguing again.

A lot of trouble to go through just to see a little mud slung.

Seems to be working… (I’m composing now, so I’m saying that with a heapin helpin of faith…)

Good to have comments back.

Testing… Testing… Testes…

Now, are we going back to the ye olde parchment design or this new SqueekyClean(TM) stuff?

S.A.:

Parchment will be back, along with the quill. Couple of days, I’m hearing.

Yay! I can now sling mud.

Okay, really, I can go back to lurking, but I reserve the right to sling mud, should mud need slinging.

RED

Yay for parchment!

And quills!

It’s ‘mazin’.

In the pipe, five by five…

Kevin,

I would think we could start arguing now.

I must say, having to remember to click “typekey” before signing in is a pain. It’s gotten me every single time. Is there any kind of shortcut?

Can’t find a script to shove up your… am I typing wrong?

I thought I heard that the “shoving your script up your butt” was M. Nights Shamalamadingdong’s secret, script writing formula?

It’s nice to be back.

Well done to everyone concerned.

I noticed that the names are now above the comments instead of below. Is that something the WGA was able to negotiate? What did you have to give up to get that?

I’m not sure why this article made me think of The Artful Writer…

…oh, wait. Yes I am.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111302302_pf.html

Hello World!

Keaton is short for Karen Baird-Eaton (for those who want to know).

A form???!? The horror! The horror!

Very disturbing, filling in all those blanks…

so detailed…so permanent…so formal…so grown up…

Fine. Artful Writer Fan, coming out of the closet.

I have been thinking about this quote from David Young that I read in the LA Times: “I just lay back and look at the havoc I’ve wreaked”. Now, I know he is saying this in regards to the production that has been shut down. I also know that he is saying this to point out that the WGA has been more effective at its strike tactics than the AMPTP ever could imagine.

I guess what bothers me is that you writers have to constantly explain to crew members and assistants that it is actually the AMPTP that has cost them their jobs. Isn’t David Young kind of putting his foot in his mouth here? I don’t think this is a smart quote. Instead, it should have alluded to all the havoc that the AMPTP has caused by not going back to the table with a fair deal.

Am I alone here? Anyone have thoughts on this?

A group of Crows are called a Murder, a group of whales are a pod, and a group of geese are a gaggle. What would be the name for a group of writers? A quill of writers? And conversely, what would a group of moguls be called? Asshole? An asshole of moguls? Or how about a greed? A greed of moguls?

shaun said:

I thought I heard that the “shoving your script up your butt” was M. Nights Shamalamadingdong’s secret, script writing formula?

No, MNS’s secret formula is to pull scripts OUT of his ass.

shaun said:

And conversely, what would a group of moguls be called? Asshole? An asshole of moguls? Or how about a greed? A greed of moguls?

A shvitz of moguls, after their native habitat, the steam bath.

Natalie said:

I don’t think this is a smart quote. Instead, it should have alluded to all the havoc that the AMPTP has caused by not going back to the table with a fair deal.

I agree. Words are touchy things. I could envision someone making a video for YouTube using that quote and contrasting it with images of economic disruption to rank-and-file workers and suppliers.

I’ve heard it’s easy to get a bad case of the “greeds” in a steam bath. Makes one happy when the doc says, “all you’ve got is a case of the herpes”.

TEST

Variety’s much more balanced Scribe Vibe posts an item about the IATSE President sending a strongly-worded letter to the WGA heads.

I thinks it’s been abundantly clear over the last couple weeks that the troops are great — great morale, motivation, and imagination. Moreover, great support from the other troops in SAG and the trade unions. But I am concerned that the generals aren’t doing the soldiers justice.

Steven, Wow, wow, wow. I wondered when IATSE was going to make a public statement. Yikes! Not pretty!

What I have learned is that pointy letters like the one from IATSE are actually a GREAT opportunity (in spite of their intent to shut one down - this one has a bad case of told-you-so-itis) when one does not REACT to them but instead sees them as an opportunity to correct and reframe the perception of the readers.

It is a whole new opportunity for creating a dialogue. One must write the letter with the larger audience in mind and not just get in a tit-for-tat with the original letter’s content…

Isn’t David Young kind of putting his foot in his mouth here?

Yes, he is.

And that’s probably going to be part of my next essay on all this.

So for those of you who have been building up your “Craig is a traitor/scab/self-hater/Stockholm Syndrome Sufferer” ammo, fear not. You’ll get a chance to fire away shortly.

Craig,

You forgot Houseboy. Which is just about right on par as “Nazi”.

Yikes.

Kevin:

It’s a black thing. You wouldn’t understand.

Success!

All I had to do was create a new email account since my first attempt didn’t get a confirmation #, but still managed to keep me in the system so I couldn’t reenter my normal email.

Apropos of nothing, I’ve been watching some NBC shows online. Suddenly, the ads are gone. The act breaks are all promos for other NBC shows. Coincidence?

While there are some painful truths regarding the actions of Verrone and Young in that letter, Tom Short is hardly in a position to hold himself up as the selfless defender of the underclasses and valiant facilitator of labor peace.

The last time I looked out my window I.A. Local One still had Broadway shut down in the midst of the most crucial season for the theater and dependent businesses.

It seems fairly clear to me that Tom Short is influenced more by his distaste for Verrone and Young than an interest in serving the interests of all showbiz workers, interests that can only be served by finding common ground and unity among unions.

Yeah, here’s the cool-headed guy asking for ego to be put aside.

“the house of hate commonly known as the Writers Guild of America West”

DLW said:

It seems fairly clear to me that Tom Short is influenced more by his distaste for Verrone and Young than an interest in serving the interests of all showbiz workers, interests that can only be served by finding common ground and unity among unions.

The WGA leadership should have put more effort over the past year into building bridges and repairing fences with the other unions, especially IATSE. That said, the strike is on, and it’s not the right time to try to score revenge points on the WGA. Let that sort of infighting take place once the main battle with the AMPTP is over.

I agree on both points. Because what I’m seeing here is an arm wrestling match on the deck of the Titanic.

Oh ok…

While Craig’s working on his latest assault on the Guild and our strike, I’m gonna regale you all with a view from the street, some words written by a real writer, one of the best I know. When she’s not getting caught up in the shit here, Kay Reindl manages to squeak out some of the best writing on the strike out there. If you want more, go to her site http://seriocity.blogspot.com/

Just seemed like a perspective this place could use, cos the cold cynicism of the self-proclaimed “moderates” can get to be a bit much sometimes.

Here’s Kay (And yes, she gave me her permission to post this):

The Meaning of Soul

…based on stuff that’s gone down on other blogs of late, I have some shit to say. Before I get to that, I just wanna say that no matter what anyone else says about honoring contracts and what have you, the showrunners have seriously stuck their necks out for the rest of us during this strike. They’re taking serious hits, and they’re fucking rock stars to me right now. I believe that one of the most important aspects of a showrunner’s job is to protect the writing staff. Right now, every showrunner who’s walked off his or her show is protecting all of us. That’s an extraordinary example of character. Thank you.

Recently, there have been ongoing discussions about whether writers deserve what we’re asking for. Tempers are high; we all get that. This strike is affecting a lot of people, not just the writers. But I’m not speaking for anyone else here. Not directors, actors, producers, studio executives, networks or fans. Not even really writers. Just me.

Writing seems to be one of those professions that people don’t really understand. They understand novel writing a little bit; novelists are smart. They use pens and typewriters and create serious-sounding things like manuscripts. They have publishers and editors. They go on book tours and wear tweed jackets with smart-looking elbow patches. And when their books sell, they make money. But when a TV writer or a screenwriter wants the same deal, people go, “Whoa… hang on there, Sparky. Aren’t you rich enough?” They’ve somehow decided that Stephen King and JK Rowling deserve their millions, but TV and film writers do not. Whether or not film and TV writers are rich enough is irrelevant. A writer who makes huge buckets of money and a writer who lives half the year on unemployment are due exactly the same deal — a fair one. And that’s what the writers want.

So why are writers in Hollywood treated so poorly? Why do TV and film writers take it on the chin over and over again? Why do we fold? Why do we cave? Why do we thank people like Chernin, Moonves and Iger for the beating and then come back for more? Why can’t we all be Harlan Ellison, absolutely refusing to work for free? Well, people inherently know we’re pushovers. It’s so hard to break into this business that we will do anything we can to get that break. What that usually means is, we write on spec. We do free rewrites. We take notes from anybody who shows interest in our work. We write free projects for producers, all while ignoring the little voice that goes, “Um… you know this guy’s a total idiot, right?” We try to think commercially, because this is a commercial business. Our instincts, once so wild and creative, now have to be directed. We think in genres, in trailers, in taglines. When thinking about a TV pilot, we think first about how we would pitch it. Is the title catchy? Is the logline simple and clean? Are the characters different but the same? What about the idea itself? Is it just edgy enough, but not so edgy that it scares executives? Will this show pair well with “Chuck?”

In Hollywood, we aren’t thinking about the work from our point of view. We’re thinking about how it will be received by the people with the money — producers and executives. We’re thinking about directors, and whether or not an actor is going to want the part. We worry when we hear a similar idea. We’re helpless and angry when nobody wants to hear an idea that we KNOW is solid and right. But initially, we’re excited about new ideas. They have possibilities. They’re grand and important and fun. They’re exciting and magical. Suddenly, you’re no longer tired or scared or frustrated. The idea spreads its wings, and it’s a fucking fantastic feeling.

But if you’re working in a commercial medium, those wings have to be clipped. Either you’re going to do it, or an executive or producer will. It’s inevitable. What’s been interesting about the occasionally vehement strike discussions is how many people will say, “You chose to be in this business. What are you complaining about?” As if we don’t have a right to be frustrated and pissed off because our job is perceived as something that’s a constant vacation. This fight, this argument, this discussion… it’s not about money. It’s not about how I have SUCH a cooler job than someone who teaches, or bags groceries, or does whatever people in finance do (seriously, I’m a financial dunce and I just don’t get it). It’s about soul. It’s about those wings. I hope everybody get a chance to experience that in their job, but I feel that they don’t.

Yeah, this is a great job. And it’s seemingly impossible to convince people that even thought it’s great, it’s also soul-crushing and hard. Because we’re putting our brains and hearts and ideas out there every day, and there’s always some Chernin/Moonves configuration that is going to strip the soul out of it and mine it for the only thing they care about — money. And that’s the business, isn’t it? That’s what we chose. We didn’t walk into this going, “I’m gonna change how Hollywood works, yo!” But there’s always been a disconnect between the creative part, and the business part. With all the big companies now owned by soulless corporations, that has just gotten worse. Studio heads are no longer creative guys who are also business savvy. They’re all bean-counters now. All that matters are the numbers, which explains the reliance on testing.

So the executives only care about profit. And since we’re giving up our creativity to them, the writers only care about respect — the respect the Hollywood writer has never been given and has never been able to take. But these CEOs, these executives, they’ve got the mercenary heart of Han Solo, minus the roguish charm, wit and soul. Money is all that they love, so that’s what they will receive. And that’s all they respond to. So by asking for money, by asking for our fair share of the profits they continuously rake in (and gloat about, on the YouTubes), we are demanding respect.

This is not something the Hollywood writer is comfortable with. If we emerge somewhat unscathed from our work, we’re grateful. And geez, if we manage to produce something that we’re actually proud of, we’re giddy. But more often than not, who you are — what you itched to create — is crushed under the boot heels of the corporation before you’ve put pen to paper. There are the myriad outlines, the studio and network notes, the drafts that have to go through several hands, the budgets, the director, the actors, the editor, and then back to the executives again. Film and TV are collaborative mediums, it’s true. But the element of collaboration is getting buried beneath the demands of production, of non-writing executive producers, of hangers-on who don’t contribute to the project but take huge chunks of the budget. Collaboration doesn’t mean meeting the demands of the marketing department, who can’t be bothered to really, sincerely do their jobs, but who want you to make everything easy for them. Collaboration isn’t about people who are so threatened by the emergence of somebody truly talented that they would rather destroy a show than have people think they weren’t the geniuses behind it.

It’s not about collaboration anymore. Now, it’s about people grabbing their piece and damn the rest of us. And regardless of how disastrous the climate is, of how the writer will tell himself not to care because nobody else does, a new idea will always spread its wings. And the writer will sit there, in Starbucks or Swork or his garage, and thinks, “This time, it’s different. This is the one. This is the story I was meant to told.”

And the CEOs seriously don’t want to give us four cents for that.

Don’t get it. What does any of that have to do with magic cake?

With regard to “The Meaning of Soul,” I haven’t seen where the possessory credit or creative control have been cited as central issues in this strike. The one part of this essay that makes sense in the context of this strike is this: the AMPTP sees everything in terms of money, and if the WGA wins the money issues it’s striking over, the AMPTP will give the WGA the only kind of respect they can give. Ignore getting strokes or kind words or admiration or appreciation from management, and focus on the cash.

Looks like I’m in.

Kay,

If you’re reading this, that was well fucking said.

I think you totally nailed the reality of what it is to be a working writer and how we’re perceived by our employers and the general public.

On another note, I just wanted to say or maybe even point out, that if we have any chance of winning this thing we really need to cut the personal bullshit and unite.

I mean really unite.

The true test of solidarity is not just about uniting with those that we agree with but uniting with those we sometimes vehemently disagree with. We just have to keep in mind that regardless of what we think of each other personally, we all want the same thing.

We may have different views on how or why we got here but we’re here now. And yes, it’s pretty easy to find malice or conspiracies with those we don’t like because well…we don’t like them. But at the end of the day it’s gotta be:

The WGA vs. The AMPTP

We’re all guilty. I’m guilty, Craig’s guilty, Josh is quilty, Ted’s guilty, we’re all guilty of attacking each other but as we enter the 2nd week of this strike…it’s all gotta stop.

Word on the street is that this strike is gonna last at least until January but we shouldn’t treat this as a foregone conclusion. I believe we could be applying more pressure. This is a very small town. We need to find a lot more productions going on and strike there as well. I think it’s great to picket at the studios but it would be even better to try and shut down the productions that are shooting in mid-sentence. We need to make it as hard as possible for people to shoot.

Anyway, that’s all I gotta say.

Did I miss something? What happened to the forum?

Vagina.

Test…

I’m using my LJ acct.

This page looks funny.

Right?

DLW, refering to the strike by IATSE Local One wrote: It seems fairly clear to me that Tom Short is influenced more by his distaste for Verrone and Young than an interest in serving the interests of all showbiz workers, interests that can only be served by finding common ground and unity among unions.

You’re assuming Tom Short made the decision for Local One to go on strike. My info is that he didn’t, and that he wasn’t particularly happy about that strike, either.

First of all, a strike that goes to January will go to June. There’s no reason to negotiate past January as television season will be lost and pilot season as well.

Secondly, and this is for Craig & Josh, in my trials a tribulations to get typekey working, I just got sent the login/password of Josh Olson from Typepad. I don’t know why. Not going to use it, but Josh you should change it just in case it got sent to someone else.

Kevin A wrote: We need to make it as hard as possible for people to shoot.

Is it possible that would only have the unintended effect of sending more productions out of town, accelerating runaway production and thereby hurting below-the-line crews even more, while not harming the AMPTP in any meaningful way?

I’m sure a lot of nonunion entertainment labor in North Carolina and Canada and Timbuktu would love for the WGA to implement this strategy. Thought it would cause some delays, it might even save the producers some money. But the damage to local production could be severe and lasting.

Good to see things getting back to normal. Now see if you can fix that strike thingy as well! 8)

Kevin,

I gotta love ya, man. I really do.

Try reading every goddam thing I’ve said since this began.

You actually get it for once, you just don’t apply it. Yeah, we ARE in it to win it, and it’s essential that people realize exactly what the situation is. It’s NOT business as usual.

We are at war with people who are openly hostile to the labor movement in America, not just screenwriters. Unlike some people, you get that there’s more required of us than just putting down our pens (if I hear one more person suggest that it’s somehow unethical to break a contract DURING A STRIKE I’m going postal). That’s great. That really is.

Since this began, all I’ve been preaching is unity. All I’ve argued for is a united front against these people.

And with one or two exceptions, all Craig’s done is attack us. Whether he’s openly attacking our leadership, or going out of his way to criticize us in the most picayune way possible (attacking obscure cartoons, posting rumors that paint us as dimwits, etc.), he’s been fairly consistent in his attempts to undermine the strike. When he HAS been cited elsewhere, it’s been used AGAINST us.

I don’t post here now cos I don’t like Craig. I post here because he’s managed to turn himself into an honest to god media source, and he’s done it at our expense, and the message he’s getting out is hostile to us. It is absolutely essential that if he’s not going to get it (or own up to it) that other people do.

Happily, they seem to. In spite of Craig’s assertion that our cause is lacking a clear explanation, and Ted’s seven hundred paragraph mud puddles, the overwhelming majority of Americans actually understand what’s happening here, and they support us.

Your enthusiasm and passion are well placed. Your intentions are good. But do not think to equate the individuals who come here to undermine Craig with Craig’s undermining of all of us as a whole.

And if you’d actually stop and read for a moment, you’d even understand the analogy I used. I don’t think Craig’s a stooge. He doesn’t do this as an employee of the studios. He’s not paid to undermine the strike. I commented on this in one of our first encounters - he’s so used to his exceptional and unique deal with his studio that he doesn’t realize what the rest of us deal with daily. His perch is so cushy in a way that is so NOT commensurate with what he does, he sees this struggle in very different terms from the rest of us.

So yeah. I’m with you. We need to all be together on this. Perhaps, for the duration of the strike, you’ll join me in setting aside personal bullshit and addressing only how we can win this. And perhaps you’ll go the next step, and join the rest of us in criticizing the voices that seek to slow us down or do us damage.

Brian,

Thanks for the heads up. Changed it.

Great security here!

Thanks, Craig.

(test)

Josh -

In your response to Kevin saying basically that the WGA’s efforts may be hurting below-the-liners, you say: “Yeah, we ARE in it to win it”. Very tough talk. Yes, you are being selfish. And that’s…OK. But don’t then start crushing your fellow writers for being selfish. Just a thought.

Stooge

Josh -

I am sure many of the people here are anti-war. You know how every time someone says something negative about the war the right shouts em down with “you are unpatriotic” or “you don’t support the troops” or “you are aiding the enemy”. Well, you are behaving the same way. As writers and theoretically proponents of free speach, you should respect dissent even amongst your own. In fact, it’s fair for people to question the tactics of the WGA leadership. More to the point, it’s healthy. The goal is to get the best deal possible. Blindly following bad tactics may help for “unity” sake, but hurt for ultimate outcome. The strike goes on longer because everyone thinks their shit don’t stink and you keep feeding the “damn it! I want respect” monster that is meaningless in this debate.

Also, the AMPTP people are not so stupid to think that every single writer is in lock step or even has the same interests. Showrunners are different the Story Editors, etc. So seeing some dissent is just meaningless in terms of questioning solidarity. Whatever that even means in this context.

Why don’t you try using words, something you should be good at, to try and change people’s minds, instead of just insulting them and shouting them down. Try and persuade Craig. Probably more effective and…also…just less dickish.

Stooge

Josh,

What you and Kay miss - sadly - is this isn’t about morality or respect or any of the other quaint notions that frame your world view.

No.

This is about writers negotiating their economic value with the primary consumer of their services.

That is all.

It has nothing to do with public opinion. Nothing to do with creative value. Nothing to do with so many of the cliche mantras which infest your & Kay’s posts.

Until you and your cohort are able to articulate what your economic end-game is, you are the destructive force in the debate. You are nothing more than the proverbial Englishman shouting louder and louder to the Frenchman.

Personally, I believe you are smarter than this, able to see such a quagmire, and rise above it. It begins with finding the common ground between Craig & Ted, rather than categorically dismissing them.

lt

Productive striking:

15 warm able bodies (prodigal offspring of writers non-eligible; those cherubic babes wired on soda and pizza Monday made for good C-story lines only) show up and replace the 15 (or 27, or whatever the agreed upon number is for that week) WGA negotiating team members on the picket lines. Then those negotiators plant their steadfast behinds at the negotiating table and demand that their respective counterparts show up and enagage in a dialogue.

Everyday from this day forward.

Nothing says “We’re trying to negotiate” quite like showing up and sitting down at the negotiating table day in and day out. Even if the opposition refuses to join them. Rather - especially if the oppostion refuse to join.

The negative press the Studios will receive from not showing up will grow exponentially with each passing day.

The negotiators can even pull four hour shifts as not to make the task (and empty room) too trying. I think the picket lines could spare these individuals for such a measure. Granted the loss at Universal’s ‘Parade of Stars’ might have lost some of its luster, but I doubt it - those aren’t the faces middle America is interested in seeing.

Perhaps this might expedite this untenable stand off. Before January rolls around and the same tactics will be equally as relevant. And two months late.

Josh Olson said:

Your enthusiasm and passion are well placed. Your intentions are good. But do not think to equate the individuals who come here to undermine Craig with Craig’s undermining of all of us as a whole.

I must be missing something. I thought that the entire focus of the strike was to undermine the AMPTP’s bargaining position. Now you’re saying that undermining Craig is a secondary objective worth spending effort on?

You’re welcome, Josh. But just so everything’s clear. It wasn’t this site that did it. It was Typekey/Typepad.

“So yeah. I’m with you. We need to all be together on this. Perhaps, for the duration of the strike, you’ll join me in setting aside personal bullshit and addressing only how we can win this. And perhaps you’ll go the next step, and join the rest of us in criticizing the voices that seek to slow us down or do us damage.”

I don’t understand how in one paragraph you can call for unity and seek to divide at the same time. Unity, as I’m interpreting from you, is not criticizing during a time of strike. You here you are critizing.

Thanks for posting it, Josh, and thanks to the people who read it and liked it. To those of you who are having trouble wrapping your minds around the point, read more closely:

“So the executives only care about profit. And since we’re giving up our creativity to them, the writers only care about respect — the respect the Hollywood writer has never been given and has never been able to take. But these CEOs, these executives, they’ve got the mercenary heart of Han Solo, minus the roguish charm, wit and soul. Money is all that they love, so that’s what they will receive. And that’s all they respond to. So by asking for money, by asking for our fair share of the profits they continuously rake in (and gloat about, on the YouTubes), we are demanding respect.”

I’ll spell it out more simply if your boy heads hurt: to the studios, money = respect. Ergo, in order to get respect, we ask for money.

Get it now?

LT…well said.

I will add that people like Craig definitely have nothing to fight for here. They can negotiate for whatever money they want and probably get it, because they have seriuos clout and leverage. They are striking for YOU, Josh, and yet you mercilessly skewer them. Shit, if anyone has the right to speak here, it’s those people. The people losing literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for rights that do nothing for them and everything for you.

Stooge

lee said:

This is about writers negotiating their economic value with the primary consumer of their services.

That is all.

Yep, pretty much. I’d include a contribution from public opinion, but only inasmuch as public opinion shapes and forms demand for entertainment product.

Kay -

How much money =’s respect? Seriously, is there a rough dollar amount? If they paid you in say gold instead of off a percentage of streaming receipts would you be ok with that?

Also, in your blog, you stated that you don’t get paid for itunes downloads. You are wrong. As you should know, you get paid the DVD rate per download. Streaming is the issue. Why are you misinformed and in turn misinforming other people?

Stooge

Test

Kay,

A fine piece of logic. So let me ask a simple question:

What is your economic end-game?

Are you able to quantify your “respect” in monetary terms (i.e. 0.6-0.9% of gross revenue)?

lt

Kay Reindl said:

I’ll spell it out more simply if your boy heads hurt: to the studios, money = respect. Ergo, in order to get respect, we ask for money.

Get it now?

Understood, agreed. Just one caveat: If the other side offers the money, take it, even if it doesn’t come with any other recognition or tokens of respect or honeyed words.

I’d like to revisit the nature of the SRCC and the idea of a black list. How is that process going to work?

Ex: Spec script by non-wga writer is finished and submitted to producers in October. Draft is accepted but writer retains rights, no option signed. No more writing is required though. Producers decide to seek indie financing through non-stamped sources and start sending the script out now. SRCC discovers that said script is floating around. Is that writer going to be blacklisted? Does the writer have a responsibility to say to producers, ‘sorry you can’t send my shit out, even to non-stamped $ while writers are striking in the union that I am not yet a part of? Is that writer a hypocrite for walking the lines while his producers are out trying to raise money?

Curious…and wouldn’t mind seeing the comments on this board provide some real information rather than the ‘craig sucks, no he doesn’t’ that seems to be the standard…

Thanks.

Re-reading this:

“Ergo, in order to get respect, we ask for money.”

So you don’t really NEED the money or WANT the money, you just want what it symbolizes?

I guess you aren’t greedy, but you sure are an selfish, insecure, asshole. I can’t believe you would strike and cost people their jobs (you know the nice person that got you coffee called a writer’s assistant) merely because you didn’t feel respected.

Stooge

“Stooge”

For the record, I disagree with the bulk of your views. Craig does have an economic dog in this fight. As do you. As does Josh, & Kay and I.

This is a big, big deal.

It’s not about calling people names. There’s been enough of that. No. Instead, it’s about finding the Rosetta Stone equivalent that bridges the valid artistic passions which fuel theatrical writing and the economic value a market places upon those activities. It’s a non-trivial problem. It’s the primary value of this blog.

lt

LT,

Respect.

First off, if you do strictly features…this fight isn’t yours. This about the streaming of television shows. Movies aren’t ad supported outside of the traditional tv broadcast. If you have clout in this business, this fight is marginally yours…but any revenue you would receive v. what you are losing every week simply doesn’t come close. It’s a net loser. Craig is most certainly acting against his OWN interest for the good of his fellow writers.

I don’t know that it’s as important as you believe or have been led to believe. At the very least, not right now. Maybe in 3 years or 5 or 10, but this fight certainly doesn’t need to be done now.

How much money are you talking about? Why is it so important (genuine here)? Please, though, don’t give me rhetoric. Give me something…persuade me.

Btw, I use Stooge because that’s what I’ll be called anyway, so why not embrace it.

Stooge

Lee, “What is your economic end-game?

Are you able to quantify your “respect” in monetary terms (i.e. 0.6-0.9% of gross revenue)?”

Absolutely. Doubling the DVD formula would be great. Getting money for streaming video would be fantastic. Keeping our health and pension plans and not raising the minimum for the health plan would be sublime.

You also said this: “Stooge”

For the record, I disagree with the bulk of your views. Craig does have an economic dog in this fight. As do you. As does Josh, & Kay and I.

This is a big, big deal.

It’s not about calling people names. There’s been enough of that. No. Instead, it’s about finding the Rosetta Stone equivalent that bridges the valid artistic passions which fuel theatrical writing and the economic value a market places upon those activities. It’s a non-trivial problem. It’s the primary value of this blog.”

Fabulous. Sincerely. Stooge is aptly named. And he can call me whatever he wants. As long as someone with “AMPTP” in his moniker is popping a vein out on his forehead, I’m good.

Stuiec, “Understood, agreed. Just one caveat: If the other side offers the money, take it, even if it doesn’t come with any other recognition or tokens of respect or honeyed words.”

I don’t give a damn if they say we’re greedy, worthless mofos but give us some movement on what we want. As I said, money’s the only thing they understand, and it’s the only way they’ll show respect. And respect means that we get compensated for the myriad ways they shit on us. I’m fine with that. We can’t communicate with aliens, and that’s what they are.

Y’all are taking it a mite literally, I think. I guess passion went out with the strike. I’ll just tiptoe back to the novel now…

Kay is so quiet…she is busy reading her book called “How To Alienate People By Being A Condescending Jerk”.

Stooge

Check that…writing it.

Nice to see you dropped the notion of getting paid on downloads. At least you are wising up!

Stooge

Will someone please explain the “this fight shouldn’t be fought now” philosophy?

Is there a rationale that it will be EASIER to get in the next couple of contract renegotiations? Or is it just that you don’t expect to be in the business down the line?

The question of whether to strike is in the past. Strike has happened. And, frankly, as damaging as it is to my business, I would like to see the issues resolved without the necessity of work stoppages down the line.

Stooge,

“I am sure many of the people here are anti-war. You know how every time someone says something negative about the war the right shouts em down with “you are unpatriotic” or “you don’t support the troops” or “you are aiding the enemy”. Well, you are behaving the same way.”

No, I’m not. We’re not sitting on the sidelines here. If you want to use that metaphor, we ARE the troops. And generally, as a rule, if you’re a troop in combat and you’re denigrating your C.O. within earshot of the enemy, you ARE aiding the enemy.

“Why don’t you try using words, something you should be good at, to try and change people’s minds, instead of just insulting them and shouting them down. Try and persuade Craig. “

Not gonna happen. And in case you hadn’t noticed, I AM using words.

Last one and I gotta split.

Kay - it don’t take much to strike on principle when you basically haven’t been employed since 2005 (I doubt those couple of episodic script fees are tiding you over). People are actually sacrificing here. Have some sympathy.

Stooge

Hey, to the person who got sent Josh’s stuff…

That’s very bizarre. Can you describe what exactly you did to get it?

Also, can you send me your email, or email Josh…and send him the info you got so that he can see if it was actually his info?

Something’s really weird here. That shouldn’t be possible. I’m hoping that the info you got is wrong and not his login info, but some weird autofill glitch from your browser or something.

Eric Devlin Taylor,

I think that’s a brilliant idea. I have no idea if it’s even possible, but I love the intent and the idea.

Stooge,

“I will add that people like Craig definitely have nothing to fight for here. They can negotiate for whatever money they want and probably get it, because they have seriuos clout and leverage. They are striking for YOU, Josh, and yet you mercilessly skewer them. Shit, if anyone has the right to speak here, it’s those people. The people losing literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for rights that do nothing for them and everything for you.”

Now this one…. this one takes the cake.

So tell me - if I were to become, perchance, so successful in this business that I didn’t have any financial worries, had an astronomical rate, and paid enormous dues, my opinion would carry more weight here?

Cool. Then listen to this, genius:

The notion that it’s us rich cats - and I humbly suggest you imdb a motherfucker before you make idiotic assertions about their financial status in this business, you abject tool - have somehow got a bigger right to the podium than anyone else in this strike is not just absurd, it’s obscene.

Brian,

“I don’t understand how in one paragraph you can call for unity and seek to divide at the same time.”

I’m not seeking to divide anyone. When Craig comes here and goes out of his way to find ways to criticize the Guild and the strike (the infamous cartoon post), or posts rumors that paint us in a bad light AND are false, he’s working against us. Considering the efforts Craig’s made to acquire a position as a voice for writers in the media, it’s essential that other writers speak out. He does not speak for us, and he posts misinformation. It would be derelict to let that stand unanswered.

Even though Craig’s striking for poor, little me.

Two final things,

First - Brian, get my e mail from Craig and send me the info. Let’s see if it’s right, or what’s going on.

Second - Stooge, hate to break it to you -Kay just wrote an episode of a network TV show that aired last week. You can buy it on iTunes if you missed it, genius.

I’ll leave it to her whether or not she wishes to get specific with you. That’s the second time in an hour you’ve made a completely moronic assumption about someone you’re trying to denigrate.

Brian,

Great question…made me stay.

Waiting and seeing what exactly you are fighting for allows you to clearly understand the issue and be able to have true solidarity. If everyone knows what they are fighting for, it’s much easier to sacrifice. You can also see if your overall residual package declines over the next year or so. If it does, then the internet is taking food out of your mouth. If it doesn’t, then the AMPTP was right (as of 2006 record residuals were paid). Further, you have a much better chance of getting the other guilds to strike with you. If the DGA makes a deal here, then that undermines you…for many reasons. But if the DGA would come out truly in support of you (not just the B.S. we are with you), then you would have a strong negotiating position. Just the WGA v AMPTP is not a fair fight. ABC is part of the Disney family. Unless all the writers have that kind of a family behind them giving them financial support…it’s a loser. You must have right on your side and you must be able to articulate that. Understanding what’s going on over the next few years will help you do that.

Josh,

I’m all for putting aside our personal bullshit. I implore you however, to focus more on this strike than on Craig. That being said, obviously I have no idea how focused you are on this strike (specifically that is) so for all I know you could be the most focused on the strike.

But again, Craig is not the enemy. Or at the very least, he’s not the enemy right now. Right now we have two really big enemies:

Apathy and The AMPTP.

I just left LA so I don’t know if we’ve been striking specific sets. Someone mentioned that action might send productions out of town but obviously and logistically, you can’t just pick up and move out of town to complete a shoot. More than likely it would destroy their days.

Is this happening yet or at all?

Joshy - Whoa momma. Sorry I said Craig made more than you. You are a big shot too…or neither of ya…whatever. Look, when the DGA makes a deal, which you are a member of, then you and Craig will be friends, I guess.

I said Kay had some episodic writing gigs. Yes, one is MOONLIGHT. That aint no staff job and she already got paid. Two episodics in the last 2 years? That aint working and giving that up aint no sacrifice. Not like, how’s this example for ya, JJ Abrams (see, I took your advice and IMDBd).

I really gotta go. Maybe I’ll be back up in a few.

Love, Stooge

Craig:

It was me that got the info. I don’t have emails for either of you guys though. Get it to me and I will happily send what I got along.

Josh:

I think by giving power to the little things you find irritating you are perpetuating the problem. I, too, thought the cartoons were moronic. I, too, would like to see a better effort at PR.

And I think it has gotten better since then. The videos are much higher in quality (especially the one with the CEOs talking about the internet). Now, was that a result of someone pointing out a deficiency (and I’m not just singling out Craig), I don’t know. Could it have been? Yup.

It’s important to question. That’s how we learn. No one is always right [with the exception of me :)]. I’ve not seen anything here that wasn’t up for healthy debate, on both sides. But sometimes the critics are nitpicking and I see no point in that. I don’t see how the “magic cake” analogy undermines anything. I thought your rant on it bordered on ridiculous. That some people spoofed you and no one could tell SHOULD be telling to you.

Stooge:

How the fuck is giving up potential paychecks not a HUGE FUCKING sacrifice? Especially, as you’ve noted, she’s not JJ Abrams?

Or are you bashing her credits? Which, you know, is always in good taste.

Stooge,

IMDB isn’t really all that accurate. For instance, it does not include pilots sold, and I’ve noticed that its updates are sketchy. It’s nice of you to be concerned about Kay’s work history, but rest assured that there’s a lot of stuff on her resume that’s not on IMDB.

Just FYI.

So…why is everyone even bothering to address The Stooge?

Stooge,

” Two episodics in the last 2 years? That aint working and giving that up aint no sacrifice.”

Let’s be clear - that you think people only make a living if their work is produced makes it crystal clear you don’t know anything about this business.

So later for you, stooge.

Kevin,

That’s a really good question. I for one will cease forthwith.

Brian

“I don’t see how the “magic cake” analogy undermines anything. I thought your rant on it bordered on ridiculous. That some people spoofed you and no one could tell SHOULD be telling to you.”

What’s telling to me is how many people got what I was saying, and didn’t need me to point out what was so obvious. Sorry it isn’t clear to you, but it was pretty goddam clear to literally scores of other writers, both here and on the line. I don’t expect to reach or sway everyone who reads my posts here, but that one got through to a hell of a lot of people. So I’ll find a way to live with your disappointment.

As for the rest, I’ve made that pretty clear, too. We’re two weeks into a strike. We have to win. Taking cheap shots at the union and at the strike don’t help.

Dumping on those cartoons, writing an entire post dedicated to the principle that residuals are difficult to explain, posting rumors that the strikers are too fucking dumb to know Warners has multiple gates, or the rumor that the only view that got a standing O at the meeting was that of the moderate?

It’s horseshit, Brian. I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again. You come home from a day on the line, surrounded people who are busting their asses to make this work, working towards real unity and success, and you find this guy taking shots at you… it doesn’t sit well. ESPECIALLY from a guy who’s doing it from the trailer of his movie.

Kevin,

“I implore you however, to focus more on this strike than on Craig. That being said, obviously I have no idea how focused you are on this strike (specifically that is) so for all I know you could be the most focused on the strike.”

There’s this weird thing people say on message boards - they seem to think that if you post more than once a day, you’re devoting all your time to it. I’m the fastest typist you ever met, Kevin, and my brain works at a pretty rapid clip, too. This gets about fifteen minutes of my day. If you’ve been out here on the line, as your posts seem to indicate, you have a sense of how much time the strike gets from me. Every day. Starting at 6 AM. And I’m constantly trying to come up with something I can do that can help more.

So don’t worry that somehow Craig Mazin takes up more of my time than the strike. He doesn’t even take up more time than my socks.

Josh

Thanks for the link. (earlier in the day) Kay Reindl’s post elegantly covers what editors and composers also go through. Especially the lack of collaboration. This business has changed drastically in the 30 years I’ve been at it. And I can’t say for the better. There are still incredibly talented ‘creators’, whether they be writers, directors, editors, musicians and crew. And that’s why one stays at it.

As a kid I remember going to MGM softball games where producers, writers, and crews played ball once a week. By the time I began an apprenticeship, those days were long gone. Schedules, digital, corporate take overs and youthful insecurity have replaced any sense of family.

So you go with the flow. Or you dream of inventions that will make you wealthy so you can live elsewhere.

But for those of us who love our jobs we learn to deal. In my case I get a really ‘good’ film once every ten years or so, The kind of film that re-ignites my love of film making. For you writers you have the chance to write that film. I’ve always been in awe.

I’m starting to wonder if some good will come from this strike. But as a certified pessimist I doubt that good comes from any corporate entity, unless they’re trying to improve their image.

Lastly - and this is my same question to Craig that I have asked.

I’m beginning to imagine this place, speaking of analogies, as the asylum run by Nurse Ratched. I’m thinking Olsen is McMurphy. And if I fall anywhere inside of that cast it would be Cheswick. Good ole Charley Cheswick. All he wanted was his smokes…. And for Craig to respond to one of his questions. (The one about forming a council of writers before he posts, knowing that his post may get picked up by the media.)

PS - signing onto movable type/or retrieving a password was impossible.

Josh,

I understand the reasons why you are upset with Craig. I guess what I don’t understand is if you NEVER agree with anything the man has to say and feel zero solidarity with him, why do you even read his blog, let alone comment on it? Is it that you enjoy picking apart every thing he says or that you feel you need to keep other people from buying into his hype? It reminds me of those people that say they hate Howard Stern, but still tune in every day so they can find new reasons to hate him.

Please don’t go postal on me. I’m not trying to pick a fight. I am just curious what your motive is because it seems that Craig can’t say “Boo!” without you tearing him to shreds. And, I agree for the record, with a few of the posters above that welcome difference of opinions. “Just cause Bush says it, doesn’t make it so” kind of thinking, you know?

Josh,

You mean putting your socks on?

Josh:

First, when Craig gets in touch with me with a contact email, I’ll send along with note to forward to you.

Second, it tells me that they can’t tell the differences from a real rant and a fake one. I’m glad you’re getting support on the line. I support you. I’m going to have to fire someone I just hired on Friday. And hearing things like this strike is about respect scares me. Because there is no amount of money in the world that will give respect. I understand what’s at stake and would just wish it stayed focused on that. The minor digs on both sides are not helpful. And since you can live with it, you have my disappointment.

Stooge:

Your comment about waiting to see what will happen with the internet betrays a complete lack of understanding in how to negotiate. To maximize demands, without giving too much away for them, it’s better to fight when they don’t know what they have. I would argue that they do know what they have, or they wouldn’t be fighting over it. The situation gets worse as time progresses. As the market matures, they AMPTP will be less likely to part with the income they are seeing.

The DGA hasn’t decided to start negotiating yet. I’d be surprised if they didn’t start in December (as that is their pattern of behavior). We’ll see what becomes of that. If a deal is struck and becomes the template, the so be it. But knowing what I know of the negotiations, it would not be in their best interest to undercut.

Test

Brian,

“Second, it tells me that they can’t tell the differences from a real rant and a fake one. I’m glad you’re getting support on the line. I support you. I’m going to have to fire someone I just hired on Friday. And hearing things like this strike is about respect scares me. Because there is no amount of money in the world that will give respect. I understand what’s at stake and would just wish it stayed focused on that. The minor digs on both sides are not helpful. And since you can live with it, you have my disappointment.”

That sucks that you have to fire someone, and as someone who’s been out on the picket line every day, thank you for your support. But I think you’re still misreading my post. It’s not about Les Moonves kneeling to kiss my ring. That will never happen. These guys aren’t the old Hollywood movie guys who want to make money but also give a shit about the product. These guys only care passionately about making a profit. Writers asking or even demanding actual respect from them is impossible. But they will hella respect you if they have to pay you. So to me, a fair contract is the ONLY type of respect we’re going to get. Ergo, that’s all we should require. You’re right that if we demand actual respect this strike will never be over. But that wasn’t at all the point. It’s ALL about fairness.

Natalie,

“I understand the reasons why you are upset with Craig. I guess what I don’t understand is if you NEVER agree with anything the man has to say and feel zero solidarity with him, why do you even read his blog, let alone comment on it? Is it that you enjoy picking apart every thing he says or that you feel you need to keep other people from buying into his hype? It reminds me of those people that say they hate Howard Stern, but still tune in every day so they can find new reasons to hate him.

Please don’t go postal on me. I’m not trying to pick a fight. I am just curious what your motive is because it seems that Craig can’t say “Boo!” without you tearing him to shreds. And, I agree for the record, with a few of the posters above that welcome difference of opinions. “Just cause Bush says it, doesn’t make it so” kind of thinking, you know? “

Absolutely. And if we weren’t on strike, I would totally agree with you. But the last thing we want is some crazy asshat like Nick Counter pointing to someone high profile like Craig and going, “See? Even the cream of the crop doesn’t agree with the WGA leadership.” As Josh said, this is the time for solidarity. I don’t believe Craig is doing the best he can to achieve that. If this was a private board with very little traffic, it wouldn’t be a big deal. However, the press reads this site. And they’re already not on our side. As Josh pointed out, Craig HAS provided erroneous information. So the last thing we want is the press taking Craig’s attitude as the attitude of the membership.

Regarding IMDB — I think it’s simply adorable that people “in the know” consider it to be the last word in credits. Utterly charming!

Brian,

You really are basing your whole argument on the fact that the WGA is behaving rationally. I would posit they are not. I know they are fighting for nothing, but I can’t convince anyone of that. Nor will the WGA allow the networks to “prove it” because they wont take a portion of “profits”, just gross receipts and they certainly don’t take anyone for their word. I also would like to point out, like IATSE did, that the lead negotiator doesn’t have a clue how this business works.

Also, how is it ever better to make a decision with LESS information? Consider this: The WGA would be fine with the 1.5% proposed forever? Absolutely not. If in fact there ever is as big of a money making model via internet streaming as exists with “over the air”, then trading the current residual scheme for a mere 1.5% seems like a real bad deal. So the WGA would then renegotiate and say you got a bad deal. One can’t argue “the future is here and we must deal with this now or we get nothing forever” and then claim that 1.5% protects against that and is an even trade off. You get me here?

Again, you wait until you have knowledge. You do a cost benefit analysis and see if it’s worth sacrificing current income and causing collateral damage. You use this knowledge to get people to coalesce around your cause. The more people behind you the stronger you are. It’s obvious that the WGA alone doesn’t have the power to bring the AMPTP to its knees. I know I am right because less than 20 years ago this very same thing happened. I don’t see the WGA’s position having improved in the least bit. So you need back up. Information allows you to make a much more convincing argument and actually win hearts and minds.

Btw, Josh is a flaming ahole. I can’t wait until his other union undercuts the WGA. Fabulous.

Stooge

Kay - If you tell me you sold a pilot (as you know, if/comes dont count) to a major studio, then I will grovel on my knees with apologies (after confirming).

I like how you think Nick Counter is checking this site out and once he quotes Craig Mazin (who Josh says is a nobody) then the WGA will shatter to pieces and you will all be his slaves…forever. That is darn near the most adorable idea I’ve ever heard. Get out of your bubble and into the real world. None of this rhetoric matters. Nothing you say matters, Kay. Nothing I say matters, because we aren’t the real swinging dicks here…and Craig isn’t either.

Last, oh the days of yesteryear! Oh PLEASE! Besides the fact that there are probably 10 times the amount of writing gigs now and you get more money now (yes, inflation adjusted), those guys were balls to the walls, hard core business men. Lew Wasserman was mafia connected. He brokered deals because he was scary. These guys treated talent like it was cattle. You really are delusional. They should have it so good. This idea of “fair” is childish. You have a fair deal. You just want more money…no different then the moguls or any other living, breathing human being on this planet (outside of vows of poverty, of course). Time to grow up, Kay, and put your big girl shoes on.

Scrooge

scrooge…stooge…same difference. either way, i love taking candy from babies.

Hey Craig (and Sekimori),

Thanks for all the work you’re doing to get this place back up and running. I really like the names at the top instead of the bottom, any chance it’ll stay that way?

test

Maestro:

Mmmm, probably not in the short term. We’ll be going back to the same format we had.

However, I’m hoping to get that major redesign I talked about going soon.

Perhaps a new look in January.

Hi all, I used to comment under the name ‘Mike S’ but that was taken on TypeKey.

A couple questions:

1) Is anyone else getting c—kblocked on the picket line by people with better credits when they try to talk to SAG actresses? Really uncool, Jim Brooks!

2) In his letter today (posted at http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2572), David Young writes “We currently earn two cents per dollar on ad-supported TV programming.” What does he mean here? Currently, TV residuals are paid per airing as a percentage of script fee, not as a percentage of revenue. Is he saying that it all averages out to two cents per dollar? Or am I missing something?

1. Allowing the AMPTP to slowly destroy your guild will make your guild stronger.

2. It is irrational to assume that the AMPTP will behave in the future as it has in the past. Also, it is rational to trust the AMPTP without hesitation. Thus “waiting and seeing” is the only correct option at the present time. It will also be the correct option at all times in the future.

3. If I make up a claim out of nothing because I find it useful, that claim automatically becomes fact, and remains so even after it is disproved.

4. My small penis is really getting to me today, so I’m glad there’s a female writer here whom I can denigrate.

Stooge Translator

Yes. I hate women as well. I hate babies. And unicorns.

How in God’s name did you know I had a small penis? Mom? Is that you?

David Young is a moron. You are correct.

Stooge

Last time I respond to you, asshat.

“Kay - If you tell me you sold a pilot (as you know, if/comes dont count) to a major studio, then I will grovel on my knees with apologies (after confirming).”

Yeah, like I trust any confirmation you would get. You can check with our agent:

Heroes, to Spelling Prods. Sport of Kings, to Spelling Prods. Storyteller, to Lifetime Utopia, to Paramount Chameleon, to Touchstone

In addition, a TV movie to SciFi and a feature pitch to Fox.

Satisfied?

Now bite me.

Stooge Translator,

You do know how to boil it down. Nicely played, Sir!

I think, at one point in the distant past, this blog was a place for information and dialogue.

Oh well.

Natalie said: I have been thinking about this quote from David Young that I read in the LA Times: Am I alone here? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The beauty of David Young is, one of the Unite Campaigns that everyone talks about, led to the shop firing all the workers and moving to Mexico.

I understand wanting to show a unified front, but, the WGA is not unified.

The leadership has made extremely questionable choices over the last three years. They have created a “contract negotiation strategy” based on having the leverage to strike by increased union coverage in Reality programing and Animation, both of which have failed. Instead of creating a new strategy, they pushed forward, ‘tossing things up in the air to see what floats.’ All well and good, except for the collateral damage, which continues to mount. And yes, it does bear a striking resemblance to a certain rush to war strategy. The AMPTP knows this, even without Craig’s blog, as does pretty much everyone else in the industry.

As I’ve said, many times, if David Young spent half as much time or money as was spent on the reality campaign (Top model rang in around $250,000- which covered in part, strike pay -at up to 70% of the strikers regular pay) on trying to reach an accord w/ the IATSE, perhaps taking one of those meetings that were set up for him and the IATSE, all this would be over by now.

Fair point, Mr. Too-long-of-an-ID.

I will simmer down.

Ahh. Nice to see things are back to normal. At least in the comments section.

Brian.

“Second, it tells me that they can’t tell the differences from a real rant and a fake one. “

This is the second time you’ve referenced the “fake” rant, and I don’t know what you’re talking about. Someone posted a fairly incomprehensible paragraph under my name, and it got roundly ignored. How that makes a point about the validity of my criticism continues to escape me.

My point was - and is - that undermining the strike right now serves no purpose save to undermine the strike. As someone who cares deeply about writers getting what they deserve (not to mention, as someone who’s on the line every damn day) Craig’s constant sniping from the sidelines pisses a hell of a lot of people off. I’ve said that several times now, as have several other people. You seem unwilling to acknowledge those points have even been made, let alone that they have veracity. Whatever.

Stooge,

Commence grovelling.

Or fuck off.

Spelling Productions? Seriously? Does Tori have a production company? I can check the others.

But, really, I need to rise above, Josh.

Go back to squelching dissent.

Stooge

Worth the read…

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mim1316/isn10v20/ai6809840/pg_1

The making of the Hollywood working class; how the writers’ strike drove the Jaguar owners to the barricades

John Eisendrath How the writers’ strike drove the Jaguar owners to the barricades

Whew! For a while there it looked like America would have to endure an entire fall television season without new episodes of “Sonny Spoon.” Now after a five-month strike the writers are back at work, the new season has begun, and the couch potatoes can rejoice.

In Hollywood, though, there is relief but no joy. The writers (and the producers for whom they work) resolved the narrow question of royalty payments, which was at the core of the strike. But the future looks uncertain for the dozens of studios that sell shows to the major television networks. In 1981, the major networks controlled 90 percent of prime-time viewership; now with competition from upstarts like Fox and CNN, that share has shrunk to 70 percent. Videocassette recorders are now in 60 percent of American homes, contributing to eroding network ratings and revenues. As of August 1, the advertising agency, J. Walter Thompson, had spent $500 million less on television advertising this year than last; up-front, prime-time network sales are expected to drop 6 percent this year to $2.9 billion. Less money for the networks means less money for the Hollywood studios. This, together with some dogs at the TV box office, has crippled certain studios. Lorimar Telepictures (producers of “Dallas”) lost $86 million in 1987. New World Entertainment (“The Wonder Years”) is nearly bankrupt, and the DeLaurentis Entertainment Group is under Chapter xi.

You’re probably assuming a dispute between Hollywood writers and producers on the set of “ME Belvedere” would be different from gritty labormanagement showdowns in Youngstown: that it would be a family affair, pitting liberal against liberal, the affluent against the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is as much animosity between, and shortsightedness among, labor and management in Hollywood as in any mill town in America, and there is the threat of competition, too. Do any of these scenarios-all present in the writers’ strike-sound familiar? Management demanding rollbacks from labor while receiving multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. Workers caring more about their own bottom lines-wages and profitsthan in fighting for a more democratic workplace where risk and reward are shared.

What producers and writers do share is a sense of self-pity that knows no bounds. With memories of the early guild baffles and anticommunist witchhunts, the writers see themselves as oppressed artists chained to the assembly lines of the Hollywood entertainment factory. At a minimum a writer makes $68,880 for a 40-week season. And they very frequently make several times that. The producers feel put upon: they take big risks, underwriting dozens of unsuccessful pilots and movies in search of a hit, yet they are among the highest paid executives in any industry.

There is no reason to believe Hollywood will be able to write itself a happy ending. Neither side has shown the willingness to temper its whining and meet the common enemy of outside competition. Like the steelworkers and factory bosses who squabbled between themselves while plants were moved overseas, the denizens of Rodeo Drive seem equally oblivious.

Ten years ago at least portions of 80 percent of all films were shot in Hollywood. According to Lionel Chetwynd, a former WGA board member, in 1987 only 20 percent were filmed there. During the strike, British writers easily geared up to write “Dallas” and “Knots Landing”; 20-year-old episodes of “Mission Impossible” were reproduced in Australia. It’s hard to imagine the Decline of the Hollywood Empire, but of course in 1960 no one in Detroit had ever heard of Honda.

Divide and conquer

Television is called a medium, the comedian Fred Allen once remarked, because it is rare that it is well done. It is always expensive. To understand the writers’ strike, it’s important to understand where the costs and the profits are. While the networks are starting to produce more of their own shows, the vast majority are produced by independent studios, which sell them to the networks.

To make money, the studios sell to local stations and to cable networks the rights to rerun their shows. Last year 66 episodes of “The Cosby Show” were syndicated for a record per-show price of $5 million, catapulting its producers from an estimated $16 million deficit to more than $300 million in profit. It’s not surprising, then, that so much of the fighting in the writers’ strike centered on these residuals.

Why are the shows so expensive to produce in the first place? One major cost is labor. It is not unusual for members from as many as 22 unions to work on a movie set in a single day. If a scene calls for a fire in a fireplace, a member of the American Federation of Guards must be present to tend it. One stagehand (a “grip”) moves furniture. Another stagehand (a “gaffer”) moves lights. Teamsters musn’t handle the equipment they deliver. Hair stylists aren’t allowed to touch makeup. When a location is overseas, all members of the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees (IATSE), which includes electricians and engineers,

must fly first class. By the time all the unions’ work rules and minimum staffing requirements are met, the cost of a blown-up sports car is the least of a producer’s problems.

Labor hasn’t cornered the market on excess. Along with the producers, many studio executives are among the highest paid in America. Michael Eisner, the chief executive officer of the Walt Disney Company, received $6 million in salary last year. He also took advantage of stock options of more than $31 million.

More damaging than these eight-figure earnings is the way management bargains with Labor. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) negotiates contracts for more than 200 studios and production companies. The AMPTP is designed to divide and conquer It practice”pattern bargaining”-negotiating with one union at a time, pining unions against each other. In negotiating with the Writers Guild, for instance, the AMPTP’s opening gambit was to say that, since the Directors Guild of America (DGA) accepted diminished residuals in 1987, the writers had to follow suit in 1988.

Pattern bargaining, which is practiced elsewhere by such friends of the working man as the chairman of Texas Air, Frank Lorenzo, antagonizes labor, encouraging it to be selfish. Dictating to one union on the basis of agreements made with another is certain to alienate the rank and file. And isolating negotiations makes each union wary that it alone will have to make concessions. Perhaps that is why, in the five years since the producers formed the AMPTP, Hollywood unions have gone on strike six times. The writers’ union hates this practice, not least of all because it’s a reminder of its past.

The black and the gray

“I think we’ve lost our romance with the word,” said Steven Spielberg in 1986 on receiving the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Irving G. Thalberg Memorial. Fifty years prior to Spielberg’s lament, Thalberg, head of production at MGM during the 1920s and 1930s, paved the way for the current enmity between writers and producers by scheming to break up the newly formed Screen Writers Guild.

Today’s writers feel so besieged because they’re still swept by the romance of the barricades. After all, the Screen Writers Guild was born in April 1933, in the throes of the Depression, when management across the country was negotiating with Pinkertons and billy clubs. The following January Paramount and RKO declared their theater chains bankrupt; by March the studios were unable to meet their payroll. They imposed an eight-week, across-the-board wage cut of between 25 percent and 50 percent. At the time the only union in Hollywood was the IATSE. After it successfully fought the pay cut, the writers decided to organize-spurred by the old saw about the secretary who got promoted to writer and on payday instead of $60 a week, she got $40.

The studio chiefs would have none of it. They fired union writers the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and rehired them Friday in order to save a day’s pay.

When the SWG persisted in its fight for higher wages and recognition in 1936, the executives, led by Thalberg, created a company union. Writers who remained active in the SWG and refused to join the company union saw their names on a “gray list” and found it more difficult to get work. Dudley Nicholas refused his Oscar for best screenplay in 1936 because of the way the studio executives were treating SWG members. In 1938 the National Labor Relations Board ordered Hollywood writers to align themselves with a single organization. An election was held and the SWG defeated the company union. In 1941, nine bitter years after its formation, the SWG signed its first contract with the producers.

After the war there was no solace, just McCarthyism and the demonizing of writers. In 1947 Jack Warner of Warner Bros. told Congress that “Communists injected 95 percent of their propaganda into films through the medium of writers.” Ten Hollywood writers were cited for contempt of Congress-and later blacklisted-for refusing to name names. And while most people remember the question, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?” few recall that it was precede”Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Writers Guild?” Given this rocky history one can see why the writers went into last summer’s strike with clenched fists.

Solidarity and ‘Dynasty’

The producers fired the first shot, presenting the Writers Guild with a take it or leave it offer. Under the contract that expired March 31, writers received a fixed royalty of $16,920 for six nationally aired reruns of one-hour shows. The AMPTP wanted a flexible formula based on the individual show’s resale value. This would establish the important principle of linking pay to performance: if viewers tuned in, the writers would profit; if they didn’t, the writers would lose. In the current market that meant rollback.

When the writers turned the AMPTP down and went on strike, the producers refused to negotiate. For 12 weeks, with the exception of one 20-minute session, the producers stayed away from the bargaining table. They refused to submit the dispute to binding arbitration, insisting their offer wasn’t negotiable.

It’s not that the writers wouldn’t accept flexible payments. They simply asked for a quid pro quo: flexibility on domestically syndicated shows in exchange for a flexible schedule on shows sold abroad. A 13-country study by Young & Rubicam found that on privately owned European commercial networks, 47 percent of the shows are American. If England love “Who’s the Boss?” why shouldn’t the writer in Encino profit?

Under the previous contract writers received a one-time-only residual on those foreign sales (for an hour-long show like “Little House on the Prairie”-the hottest show in China-they got $4,400). The guild’s counterproposal was that writers receive an additional payment each time a show is sold to broadcasters and cable operators around the world. For an hour-long show, $637. For a half-hour, $330. For a show like “Moonlighting” which costs more than $1 million per episode to produce, $637 would add an annual cost of sixhundredths of 1 percent.

The producers said they couldn’t afford it-even though in 1987 the seven major Hollywood studios had combined revenues of more than $11 billion.

(While some studios are hurting, others are faring well, in part because of diversified holdings outside of Hollywood.) Between 1986 and 1987 profits rose at MCA/Universal (89 percent), Warner Communications (76 percent), Disney (80 percent), and Paramount (130 percent). Even if the swdios were broke, the guild proposal would not have been onerous: foreign residual payments would not be made until the studios had recouped all production costs. “Their [the producers] approach was simple,” says Christopher Knopf, a writer and producer for Orion Television. “They didn’t give foreign residuals to thedirectors and they were not going to give them to the writers.” Of course, giving the writers a stake in the foreign profits could have lent the producers a kind of moral authority. “Okay,” they could have said, “you want profit, you can have it. But you have to share the risk if a show flops.”

After 16 weeks the AMPTP edged towards this sensible position, offering writers an option: continue receiving the $4,400 fixed payment or change to a sliding scale based on 1.2 percent of a show’s gross foreign receipts, with a cap of $5,700. The Writers Guild had achieved a major victor breaking the AMPTP’s pattern bargaining, forcing the alliance to offer the writers what it had the Directors Guild of America. Nevertheless, the guild leadership recommended the membership vote the offer down. It did.

The guild made it sound as if they were the United Farm Workers, being handed the most meager of scraps. But the difference between what the writers wanted and what the producers were offering was a difference, literally, of six-tenths of I percent. (Instead of 1.2 percent of gross foreign receipts, the guild leadership wanted 1.8 percent.) “Brian Walton [the writers’ leader] said if he had received this offer three weeks into the strike instead of 16 weeks into it he would have taken it,” says Lionel Chetwynd.

The striker’s Jaguar

A few writers recognized that perhaps this was not an epic struggle worthy of Joe Our leadership has abdicated its responsibility”’ said David Milch, former executive producer of “Hill Street Blues,” when asked during the strike’s fourth month about such hairsplitting. “They are more concerned at this point with justifying their own conduct than with responsibly bringing this strike to a close.”

But far more preferred to talk in glowing terms of Labor solidarity and the need of workingmen to stick together in the Reagan era. “You had [National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians] losing to NBC, PATCO losing to Reagan, and Frank Lorenzo union-busting at Eastern,” says Jim Sadwith, an Emmy-nominated television writer, “a string of very public union conflicts won by management. We wanted to put a stop to that.”

But the final package shows that they really were grandstanding. Instead of the previous fixed royalty of $16,920, the domestic one-hour residual formula was indexed to producers’ revenue from reruns, with a minimum of $8,460 and maximum of $25,380 for six showings nationwide. The foreign residual package was unchanged-writers have the option on one-hour residuals of accepting a fixed $4,400 payment or 1.2 percent of the producer’s revenues, capped at $5,700. And for all the hardship this issue caused, it is unlikely that writers will see any additional money from foreign residuals. The writers get bonuses only when foreign sales hit $366,000 per episode, a summit that only “Dynasty” and a handful of other big sellers have reached.

“The strike cost me six figures in cold cash,” says Christian Williams, a writer and former editor at The Washington Post. ‘And for what? For what principle did I write a check for six figures?” Williams, who in his 20 years as a journalist endured two newspaper strikes, can think of none. “The Labor movement of the 1930s was about living conditions, a fair shake, and what is America. This strike was not about [that]; it was about money’”

Other writers portray their fight as a Depressionera struggle. “To cast the strike in terms of dollars and cents was a heresy,” says John Romano, a colleague of Williams’s at Mary Tyler Moore productions. “You had to couch it in terms of how horrible management is to the workers.”

This the writers had no trouble doing. At a union solidarity meeting in July, for instance, actor Robert Culp retraced the last ten years of Labor-management relations in America. “Time and again the men in the suits went to the workers and asked for relief,” said Culp, who starred on television in “I Spy” and is a WGA member. One lumpen to another, he added “The suits have a master plan to destroy us.”

Culp received a rousing ovation. When the meeting broke, 12 of his besieged brethren drove off in Mercedes Benzes (nine sedans, three coupes); seven in BMWs; four in Jaguars; and two in Porsches. Stephen J. Cannell, a writer and executive producer of “Hunter,” “Wiseguy”’ an”21 Jump Street,” was not at the meeting, but he knows the power of Culp’s message. At the end of each show he produces, Cannell, whose company employs 2,000 staff members and churns out $150 million worth of programming each year, is shown madly pecking at a typewriter. “I do [that] ,” he told the Los Angeles Times, “because I’ve never wanted to be perceived as a suit.”

Hollywood writers angrily fight their portrayal as millionaires with pickets. And with some reason; of the more than 9,000 members, at any one time just over half are employed. While 28 guild members sped away from the July solidarity meeting in style, more than 700 drove off in mere middle-class comfort.

Still, the strident tone of Culp and other WGA members belies the writers’ overall affluence and their ability to rise into the ranks of management. Practically every prime-time television show is produced and, in part, owned by former writers, For these executive producers, television can be extraordinarily lucrative. When “Family Ties” was sold into syndication, Gary David Goldberg, a former writer who created the show, reportedly made $20 million.

Amid Hollywood’s Labor-management battles there seems little hope that progress can be made against the culture of excess that permeates the industry. The minimum fee for a one-hour script is $18,000. A feature-length movie commonly nets writers $300,000. Directors typically make twice as much as writers, and for actors the sky is the limit, In 1980 actors and actresses made $10,000 for appearances on hour-long dramas. Today fees run as high as $50,000.

As for the industry, increase the WGA-AMPTP enmity twenty fold and you can begin to see how intractable Labor-management relations are in Hollywood. Contract renewals do not always result in strikes, but between the alliance and entertainment industry unions there is no such thing as an easy negotiation. “You just know the DGA [Directors Guild of America] is upset it gave in on foreign residuals,” says “The next time around it will want what the writers got.”

Sharing the risk

If Hollywood is going to adjust to the declining prominence of the TV networks and the rise of VCRs, it will have to abandon the adversarial labormanagement tradition that has proved so destructive to American capitalism. How much better it would have been to scale those “caps” back so that writers could count on making a fortune if their shows did well and would take their share of the burden if they flopped.

Among producers the notion of sharing profits remains more than a little foreign. During a particularly heated bargaining session a producer reportedly said that paying a writer a royalty when a show he wrote is rerun is “like paying the plumber something extra every time I flush the toilet.”

But the producers have little choice but to work out a sensible system of shared risk with the writers. As the big three continue to lose market share to cable and independent stations, their willingness to pay more than a million dollars an hour for programs will diminish. “Unless producers can pass some of those cuts along to the WGA [and other guilds] they will get out of the one hour business,” predicts John Romano.

In the end what the writers’ strike may be remembered for most is clobbering more than 200,000 members of the real working class-dry cleaners, technicians, restaurant workers and more: innocents who learned first hand the perils of working in an industry in which Labor and management are both shortsighted and selfish.

COPYRIGHT 1988 Washington Monthly Company COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

Um…perhaps just the link to the article could suffice??

“As the big three continue to lose market share to cable and independent stations, their willingness to pay more than a million dollars an hour for programs will diminish.”

A million dollars for an hour of TV? How quaint we were back then. The willingness doesn’t seem to have diminished too much, with shows costing over two million and certain shows on networks which begin with the letter N costing upwards of four million. When you factor in above-the-line non-writing producers who are not always helpful to the production, it’s no wonder costs are so high. Too bad more of it doesn’t go to the actual production, and the formation of a writing staff of more than a handful of writers.

But when Bruckheimer needs to buy an island, where else is he going to get the money?

Levity?

Two hunters came upon a set of tracks in the woods. “What luck,” the first hunter said. “We’re on the trail of a big buck.”

“Not so fast,” said the other hunter. “Those aren’t deer tracks, they’re bear tracks.”

The two set to arguing. “Deer tracks!” “Bear tracks!”

The argument might still be going on to this very day, if they hadn’t both been run over by the train.

Craig,

You must submit entirely to the WGA.

Dissension is forbidden.

Give yourself to the cause.

Dissension is forbidden.

Ignorance is strength.

Dissension is forbidden.

The WGA is never wrong.

Dissension is forbidden.

It is not enough to obey the cause. You must love the cause.

Dissension is forbidden.

You live to safeguard the continuation of the cause.

Dissension is forbidden.

Dissension???

Dissent, Tim W.

Dissent!

You say potato…

I just heard that Monday was going to be assistants and below the line picketing day. Anyone know any more about that? If it’s true, I’ll do my best to get some rowdy IATSE friends out there on the line. What studios need picketers the most?

Well, Natalie, this was posted on Variety’s Scribe Vibe blog - an e-mail they received:

“ASSISTANTS PICKET” – MONDAY, 11/19 @ 12PM-2PM at the Main Gate (Pico & Motor) at THE FOX LOT. For assistants and other “below-the-line” employees (particularly those who have been laid-off by the media conglomerates) who support the WGA and would like to picket in unity with the writers. For assistants and “below-the-line” employees, this is a chance for us to show the writers we support them, and to show the media conglomerates that they need to take responsibility for their own decisions and not blame the writers for their lay-offs. For writers, this is a chance for us to celebrate the assistants and “below-the-line” employees, and to recognize them for the sacrifices they’re being forced to make as we fight for a fair deal.

UnitedHollywood says there will a LGBT event tomorrow as well:

Tomorrow at Raleigh Studios, home of ABC’s “Ugly Betty,” C. Jay Cox, Chad Darnell and Michael Medico are inviting WGA, SAG and all friends of the L.G.B.T. community to join them at the 10am-2pm picket. Silvio Horta, creator of “Ugly Betty,” will be in attendance as well as cast members from the show. Raleigh is across the street from Paramount at 5300 Melrose Ave, and for more information you can click through to C. Jay’s blog post.

To whom it may concern,

Don’t forget we’re fighting for all new media (including all forms of downloads). The sectioning off of new media is what the AMPTP wants. It has already made an offer based on its own compromised definition (streaming gets its own formula, download gets the home video formula).

But this is BS. The WGA wants 2.5 of all new media (including all forms of download).

This fight is about money not respect.

The studios don’t respect you by how much they pay you, they pay you because they respect how much you’re going to earn for them. You are not a person; you’re a commodity.

We have to step back and call this what it is… a fight for money (Josh don’t beat me up).

Money is not a bad thing. Money = survival. That’s worth fighting for… but respect? I’ll fight for my own respect thank you very much.

If we want respect as writers, we earn it on the page and then we stand by and for it because, no matter how much I like you (Mr. or Mrs. WGA), I’d rather lose my career earning my own respect than earning somebody else’s. In fact, I could give two shits whether anyone respects anyone just as long as they respect me. And even then they can suck it. Yo, yo.

But you know what I would sacrifice my career for: EQUAL (monetary) RIGHTS (for all). Not equal respect; Not equal love; equal RIGHTS.

And money… that’s the greatest capitalistic right of them all.

With hindsight, I could easily pick apart some decisions and strategy employed by the Guild Leadership but now that we’re out here “in the shit” I’ll direct my criticism toward the AMPTP’s negotiating philosophy and peculiar reliance on J. Nicholas Counter III.

The Companies knew frustration was building about the DVD issue over the last three negotiations and that interent could be the straw that empowered the most militant members. Yet they seem to have done little in terms of preparing to deal with upset creatives other than to send the old, mangy, English bulldog out with a fresh dose of rabies.

If they really felt frightened about tightening margins and future earnings why not at least try and make a coherent case to support that position? And if they knew that the WGA, and SAG were worried enough about their own future prospects to make things dicey this time around, why not tie old, snarly Nick out behind the barn and use the skills they built their careers on: Engaging creatives in ways that, regardless of differences, somehow got the show or movie produced?

What has Nick Counter ever built or made?

Sure Verrone and Young have made their mistakes but the abject failure of the AMPTP to anticipate and adequately prepare for the negotiating circumstances they must have known they’d face seems to me an even more extreme failure of imagination and possibly, if stock prices are hurt by a long work stoppage, fiduciary duties.

coalandswitches said:

I’d like to revisit the nature of the SRCC and the idea of a black list. How is that process going to work?

A couple of the Guild’s strike rules are unreasonable, but that “blacklist” characterization is so much of an overreach, it’s ridiculous. Regardless of anything else, there’s actual real-live human being-type writers on the SRCC who understand and take seriously their responsibilities to their fellow writers. They aren’t going to suddenly turn into Witchfinder Generals or Sweaty-Faced Senators from Wisconsin or name your metaphor.

Ex: Spec script by non-wga writer is finished and submitted to producers in October. Draft is accepted but writer retains rights, no option signed. No more writing is required though. Producers decide to seek indie financing through non-stamped sources and start sending the script out now.

Not quite sure what you mean by “non-stamped sources,” but if by “producers,” you mean, you know, producers, and not a MBA-Signatory Production Company, and if its truly indie financing — meaning, independent of any of the AMPTP Companies — then there’s not an issue. You might consider contacting the Guild Contracts Department, though, and talking to them about the Independent Film Contract (which would not be affected by the strike, so don’t worry about that).

• Ted

I posted on the Writers Strike East site more specifically about Counter’s blacklist comment for anyone who cares. It’s a good blog run by a WGAE strike captain.

http://strikenotes.blogspot.com/2007/11/counter-point.html

I wonder if Josh gets so pissed at his socks too? Also, Josh said he was the fastest typist Kevin had ever see(makes me wonder what THOSE two have been up too!…probably writing), well I have to tell you the keyboards around the office have been saying that’s your problem, Josh. They call you a premature key stroker. Don’t just “jab” your fingers in there and “pop” be done. Have some finesse. Those keys made you who you are…give em some foreplay sometime.

On a real note, Josh, you must have a infinite amount of vim and verve! The energy of a lion, you put in those replies. Makes me tired just readin’ em.

CliffordOdebt said:

In his letter today … David Young writes “We currently earn two cents per dollar on ad-supported TV programming.” What does he mean here? Currently, TV residuals are paid per airing as a percentage of script fee, not as a percentage of revenue. Is he saying that it all averages out to two cents per dollar? Or am I missing something?

I think he’s referring to the residual formula for basic cable (as opposed to pay-type cable, ie, premium channels like HBO or pay-per-view/on demand). The residual rate for tv shows is 2% of 100% of the licensing fees paid to the distributor.

Its not impossible that at some point, traditional basic cable networks will be phased out, replaced by internet web portals that serve similar purpose (for instance: instead of subscribing to a cable service and watching the Disney channel, you subscribe to the Disney web portal, which gives you access to Disney-Kids, Disney-Movies, Disney-ESPN, Disney-ABC, etc.). If that happens, then whereas residuals would have been paid to tv writers at the 2% basic cable rate, they might end up instead being paid at the 1.2% internet rate.

Which is why I think we should have addressed that issue in a separate demand, one that sought simply to preserve the 2% formula for tv shows where internet delivery serves as a replacement technology for cable delivery. The argument for this is identical to the AMPTP’s argument that permanent downloads should be subject to the same “of 20% of 100%” residual rate for DVDs, just from the other side of the table.

• Ted

Test

Steven Palmer Peterson

Thanks for the link to the letter from the head of the fellow union.

That’s some seriously bad stuff for the WGA leadership.

“As the…industry looks at…the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, your executive director, David Young is quoted in the L.A. Times as being delighted he’s being treated ‘like a rock star’ at rallies, and says ‘I just lay back and look at the havoc I’ve wreaked…I’m not going to apologize for that.’ This is hardly the point of view of a responsible labor leader…”

Also confirms much of Patric’s bad faith.

“…you were intending that there be a strike no matter what you were offered”

Shows what happens when the immorality of picketing shoots and ruining the legitimately paid for and delivered work of fellow writers causes other workers to boil over.

as a successful screenwriter I know put it: “The WGA location shutdowns: because nothing says ‘fuck you’ to the studios like saying ‘fuck you’ to your colleagues.”.

From Variety:

“In what could be a positive development, AMPTP chief Nick Counter has dropped the condition that the guild has to stop the strike for a few days for negotiations to resume.”

Is this the first official word?

Interesting…

Whatta a lotta shpilkes

Hey, this TrueKey thin really works.

I’m sure I’m late to comment on this, but a lot of things about Kay’s long blog post rubbed me the wrong way. However this excerpt really encapsulates the issue for me…

“But more often than not, who you are — what you itched to create — is crushed under the boot heels of the corporation before you’ve put pen to paper. There are the myriad outlines, the studio and network notes, the drafts that have to go through several hands, the budgets, the director, the actors, the editor, and then back to the executives again.”

So the studio and network are crushing you under their boot heels? OK, I can buy that. Then the budget is also crushing you? I guess I can sort of see that. It would certainly be more creatively freeing to have an unlimited budget. But then the director, actors, and editor are crushing you too? That just seems a little misguided. They are also trying to do good creative work themselves. I suspect most directors, actors, and editors you’ve worked with wouldn’t be happy to be included in the chain of things-that-crush-who-Kay-Reindl-is.

Shaun,

” Don’t just “jab” your fingers in there and “pop” be done. Have some finesse. Those keys made you who you are…give em some foreplay sometime.”

You know how Mazin is never,ever funny here, even though he’s a comedy writer?

Same principle. You want finesse, pay me.

Keith,

I suspect you’re this week’s Matt/Stooge/whoever. Could be wrong about that, but you’re almost certainly not a screenwriter.

Tim W.

Cute.

For your next assignment, can you now explain the difference between dissent and spreading denigrating rumors?

Sorry, guys, but you aren’t news outside of California and New York. People in the real world who’ve always had to deal with layoffs, asshole bosses, downsizing, unfair wages, shitty working conditions and cutthroats colleagues don’t give two hoots in hell about this strike. We may miss our fave shows for a few weeks but we’ll find something else to entertain us for the few hours between when we get home from our jobs and when we have to get up to go to those same jobs (maybe we’ll even get some sleep). We also don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who complain about the profession they’ve chosen. If you don’t like the work, find something else that gets you off. That’s what the rest of us do.

Josh,

I’m not this week’s Matt/Stooge/whoever. I have participated in the comments sections of this website for about as long as you have, although I’m not generally mean to people or overly controversial which would explain why you wouldn’t remember me. I have worked as a writer in the past, and been paid for my work, but I am not a WGA screenwriter. I am a film producer, which I’m sure is enough for you to dismiss my opinions.

But personal attacks and false-assumptions about me aside, what exactly was wrong with how I read Kay’s blog post? Are you saying that directors, actors, and editors are in fact crushing who Kay Reindl is under their bootheels? Are you saying that she didn’t say that? Because I think the wording is pretty clear.

Natalie,

There are several answers to your question, but I’ll give you an example of something that happened here recently that clarified for me why it’s essential that people provide a counterpoint to Craig’s constant barrage of attacks on the Guild and our strike:

Last Monday, I came back from Warners, having spent half the day marching with a bunch of smart, decent and well-organized writers, my feet killing me, worried that this could be a long strike, but heartened at the level of commitment and seriousness I saw out there. I come here, and see Craig writing that the idiots at Warners didn’t know there was more than one gate.

Speaking as an idiot who was THERE, every gate was covered from the get-go.

But that’s okay. Except for one thing: Craig had been told we’d be picketing at more than one gate. He knew it two days before he posted that rumor.

Craig posted his comment on November 5. On November 3, however, Craig got an e mail from his strike captain discussing the Warners picket line that made it clear we’d be hitting multiple gates. He got two more dated November 4, indicated the same, just as clearly.

I know this because Craig’s strike captain is mine, as well. We get the same e mails.

The day Craig posted that rumor, he’d received three e-mails he was duty bound to have read that indicated clearly that we’d be hitting multiple gates. And yet, he posted that sourceless rumor. He’d either forgotten the two e mails, or he just didn’t give a shit.

So you tell me, Denise - does posting a rumor that damages the credibility of the men and women on the line during a strike qualify as dissent? Or is it something else?

And if you knew there was someone who gets quoted in the media out there actively working to undermine your strike, either intentionally or through blinkered self-interest and stupidity…. would you just ignore them?

For the record, I agree with Josh that it was irresponsible for Craig to post an easily verifiable and denied “rumor” on the website about the picketing at Warner Brothers. I also think it was petty and unwarranted to mock someone’s (bad) comics about the strike.

I think Craig has a right to post whatever he wants on his blog, but some of the posts in the last couple weeks seem contrary to the history and spirit of this website. I don’t assume there is some sort of malicious goal behind this. I just suspect that combining the tough schedule of shooting a film with the pressure of an ongoing WGA strike that he wants to discuss, Craig has subconsciously lowered the standard of what sort of content will hit the front page of Artful Writer. I hope this will change (and I suspect it will change once the film wraps).

Correction. The line should read:

“He’d either forgotten the THREE e mails, or he just didn’t give a shit.”

Josh,

Oooh! An assignment! Just to make sure, you aren’t a WGA signatory, are you?

Ya, dissent would probably have been a better word, but you’ll have to forgive me. I was typing REALLY, REALLY fast. Fast like Dash, even! You know how that is, don’t you?

Josh,

I absolutely understand your frustration- even anger - at Craig over his false reporting. I have read quotes from this site in news stories, so I recognize that at least some media outlets turn to this blog for information. Of course they also turn to Nikki Finke, and she too has posted erroneous information. As has Variety, Hollywood Reporter and the LA and NY Times. The difference is that all those other sources of information are not affiliated to the WGA, whereas you can’t say the same for Craig. So yes, I do understand that there are some people who may believe that Craig speaks for the guild.

Perhaps, some would respond better to your posts if they weren’t so angry. I think you have some good points. But because you seem so full of rage, is is easy to lose your message in what appears to be a personal dislike for Craig instead of Craig’s actions. And it could be both, I don’t know.

We are all full of emotions. I’m sure you didn’t miss the cat fight that Kay and I had several posts back. I apologized for letting things get out of hand. Because I know that name calling never gets your point across, which is why Ann Coulter is such a pathetic joke.

I suspect that Craig will feel a bit differently about this strike once his movie wraps up and he is out on the lines. He will see the solidarity with his own eyes. But, he may still have a problem with the leadership of his union. And that is okay. It is absolutely possible to support the troops and not the leader.

Kay Reindl said:

That sucks that you have to fire someone, and as someone who’s been out on the picket line every day, thank you for your support.

Sucks even worse for the poor schmuck Brian has to fire. There are thousands of folks like them who aren’t on strike but are now unemployed because of the strike — that is an unavoidable consequence of a strike, of course, but it would be swell if folks striking for fairness towards themselves would spare a thought and some rachmanes, some sympathy, for those thousands of folks who are showing enforced solidarity with the strike.

I only mention this because every so often one of those folks posts a message of sheer terror on forums like this one, and more often than not gets shouted down and branded a management stooge. In my opinion, the proper response to such people is sympathy, empathy and gratitude for the sacrifice they’re being forced to make.

Am I wrong about that?

Clifford:

The cock blocking story is truly hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Kay:

I understand what you’re saying. but as a survivor of ‘88, I recognize that one of the downfalls was the message that it was all about respect. Since it’s week two, I would suggest a moritorium on the word as it has negative connotations as well as positive.

Josh:

Basically Natalie said what I wanted to say. You’re like a fire and brimstone preacher. Some people respond to that. I don’t. I don’t believe I’m alone. If your stated purpose is provide a dissenting voice to Craig’s dissent, then turn down the vitriol and pick better battles (magic cake/cartoons). It’s day 9 and this is the first I’m hearing about the Warner Brothers story from your point of view. If you really want to be effective here, keep us up to date on stories like that.

To everyone complaining about sore feet:

I just got these amazing custom insoles for my shoes. You put them in the oven and then they mold to your feet. Makes four hours of walking completely painless. Seriously worth the $40 even in these troubled times:

http://www2.yoursole.com/home?id=FVMKYdMr

I definitely got the Warner Brothers thing wrong, but not because I don’t read emails.

I just got bad info on the day itself…and from someone I trusted.

I screwed up. Wasn’t the first time, won’t be the last.

I did publish a full retraction and an apology (as a blog entry, not a comment) as soon as I confirmed that I messed up.

Craig,

You really shouldn’t be calling yourself a journalist and your site a news site if you are going to be getting things wrong like that without checking your sources. Shame! No Pulitzer Prize for you!

I’m going to have to grouse about the WGA media strategy again. It would sure be nice if there was a response by now on wga.org to the misleading full-page ad that AMPTP took out in the New York Times today.

Thank you Josh for saying I was as bad a comedy writer as Craig.
Please don’t go all “Uwe Boll” and challenge Craig to a boxing match.
When I came to this site, just like Nat, got caught into a stupid pissing match about BTL and ATL. I realized all the posts have to be taken with a grain of salt, and I’m still sticking with my battle plan which is to retain my soul and find the lighter side of all this because I can’t stop the loss of my job. And although it’s just a tiny BTL job, it was what was allowing me to survive out here while I pursued bigger dreams. Now I wish I could be like you Josh and be born with all that talent, but some of us have to work at it for a long time to get to where you are…losing the job is puttin’ a hitch in my giddyup but I can’t let it get me down. So, as much as you scare me because you remind me of some bullies from my high school at times, I am just Joshin’ with you. Please don’t beat me up.

stuiec,

I really do believe that most WGA members feel terrible about the collateral damage. I have seen some heartfelt letters from both writers and actors on shows that have been shut down. There is a real confict of emotion that occurs in standing up for what you believe in even if it hurts the people you love and respect. It is a situation that everyone finds themselves in some point if thier lives.

IATSE’s fight will come soon enough. These big companies fantasize about a day on the future where unions cease to exist. We will have to fight for our pensions and health care - I don’t doubt that. We must stand with WGA now and pray that they stand with us later. And we must continue to apply pressure to get the negotiations started again so damages will be minor.

Clifford,

Is there an online link to the ad? Is it the same one that was in the LA Times?

Josh and Kay don’t give an inch. They are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take anymore of it.

I especially like how Kay is “creatively crushed” in this cold, hard corporate world. I bet she had some awesome ideas about her MOONLIGHT episode that Joel Silver simply would have none of! Look, if you chose to work in TV (and it’s a choice), then don’t start complaining about a stiffling creative environment. It’s T…V. They have laugh tracks. You had to know what you were getting into. More to the point, however, it’s bogus. Showrunners make so much money and have so much power that more often than not they are given a wide breadth. JJ Abrams is NOT being dictated to by any “suit”.

I think Kay and many of the writers have written the script already about the current strike. the characters are as one dimensional and stilted as they are on TV. It’s tired.

I also want to point out, from that great 88 article posted above (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mim1316/isn10v20/ai6809840), that this is history repeating itself. Instead of VCR its DVR. Instead of cable its the internet. If you don’t believe that what the AMPTP predicted has not arrived, then you have your head in the sand. Carsey-Werner, Lorimar, Spelling…all DEAD. There was a time in this place where independant television producers existed. They don’t anymore. Why? Well, because all of these labor agreements and competition from new entertainment platforms have caused production costs to sky rocket to the point where studios have to incur at least a million dollar defecit on each series episode…a decific that only keep expanding. Carsey-Werner used to be able to produce shows with NO defecit. They do not have the financial backing or the ability to absorb multiple losses like the big corporations (which is why each studio is now backed by a huge corporation…it wouldn’t work any other way). The point is for you to start crying for the poor studios, etc. It’s to wake up and realize there are difficulties for these companies. Real problems. They aren’t just trying to “screw you”. They are trying to run a business. A business that is in jeopardy.

Natalie, I didn’t see the LA Times, but probably, yeah. The text of the ad is up at amptp.org

Clifford, I think that is a new one. The one I saw in the LA Times was much shorter. That is a freakin novel.

Natalie,

do you have a clue about how well funded your PHW is? you have the best pensing and healthcare in the world. i am not trying to insult you, but it is so clear to me that a lot of the writers on here simply are either uninformed or misinformed. you all have plenty of time on your hands. you owe to yourself to get a complete and total grasp on all aspects of what is going on here. you owe it to the people caught in the middle at least.

Stooge

AMPTP Stooge:

Want to know another irony about that article about the ‘88 strike? The guy who wrote it, Jon Eisendrath, is now a big-time showrunner.

“Look, if you chose to work in TV (and it’s a choice), then don’t start complaining about a stiffling creative environment. It’s T…V.”

One word for you, asswipe: “Deadwood.”

Stooge:

You earlier claimed that the WGA isn’t being rational. Your last post is a defense of what I feel is irrational behavior on the AMPTP.

The business plan they have been using is flawed. They think they can pay an exorbitant price to one talent, stick it in any old project and make x dollars. That has proven unsound. They have fallen back on DVD to absorb the costs of bad decisions. And that is now a crutch.

Instead of negotiating a good internet download rate, keeping DVD rate where it is and figuring out how to work around the eventual losses that are down the line, they are going to war with the unions. They are placing the burden of their bad decisions on the guilds.

The AMPTP is hurting itself financially now because they would rather do this then figure out how to change their business plan.

“He’d either forgotten the two e mails, or he just didn’t give a shit.”

Maybe that was the day he spent in the kitchen, perfecting his magically delicious cake recipe?

Stooge,

You are damn right. I do have the best pension and health care in the world. I just recently had surgery and guess how much I had to pay? $0. That’s right. My insurance picked up about $15,000 and I didn’t pay a dime. I would like it to stay that way. But saying as part of my health care is provided by residuals, I am supporting a fight to keep residuals a reality.

Do you think that I savor my husband being unemployed? Do you think that I enjoyed backing out of escrow on our first very own home? This is not fun and games for me, so don’t fool yourself. And yeah, I’m one of those people “caught in the middle”.

I can promise you that I have read every shred of information on this subject that I can get my hands on - from both sides. Thanks for your concern, but I am a big girl and quite capable of grasping the whole picture. What is your stake in all this? What is your motive? Do you just get your rocks off ruffling people’s feathers?

Cliff - I happen to think it fairly skewers both sides. It’s a pretty amazing thing to read now. I can see why he’s a succesful writer. I also would love to see what he thinks about THIS strike.

Brian - Those are all fair critiques, but they gamble. There isn’t a formula, so sometimes they make bad decisions. Plus, the execs are under pressure a lot of us can’t appreciate. They have a limited amount of time to “succeed” and no road map for success. No one ever knows what TV show will “hit”. Sorry to say that I don’t agree that the defecits or bleak financial situation is caused simply by the producer’s bad decisions. Partly that. Partly just this is a hard business.

I don’t think they are behaving completely irrationally (no doubt that they have in some instances). They are reacting to a strike. Seems pretty much accepted that on Sunday, there was some form of what you proposed on the table. You always have to keep in mind that the AMPTP has to think of about what, 5 or more other major players and this deal has a ripple effect. The WGA has to think of only itself. So the AMPTP is working in a much more complex framework.

I really do want to stress though that I don’t think the AMPTP is RIGHT. I don’t think anyone is “right”. I just think the AMPTP knows this and the WGA doesn’t and that’s a major stumbling block to getting a deal done. Very much like your hatred for the word “respect”.

Good point, Brian.

Stooge

Natalie - I work for an AMPTP company. If this strike goes on past January, I am very likely out of a job. I am scared.

No one is trying to eliminate residuals. Just trying not to raise them too much. That’s all. There is no residual armegeddon plan on the table. Residuals have trended upwards every year. 2006 was a record breaking residual year for the writers.

I honestly hope it gets wrapped up before you suffer anymore. I think it sucks that you are truly suffering for nothing. I can only stress that the AMPTP did not lock you out. They did not FORCE a strike. Everyone would love to spin it that way, but the WGA is the agressor. Whatever that even means.

Stooge

Stooge,

I don’t know how old you are or if you happen to ever mingle with “youngsters”, but a decent percentage of them get their music, movies and tv from the internet. And, with laptops in every classroom programs, this trend will continue to grow. There will come a time when most shows are watched online. If residuals are not built into streaming videos, my health care and pension fund will be affected. Why should we wait? How is it better to put off striking for this cause? So the studios have even longer to figure out how to cook the books? And like everyone has said until they are blue in the face - they are asking for a percentage. 0% of 0 is 0. So what’s the problem?

Ted- Thanks, I appreciate the information.

Re: the blacklist. ‘Rat’ is no better than ‘Scab’

The Public does NOT give two shits about us or our strike. There is enough going on in the world to care about beyond a bunch of creative people demanding more money for…typing. (Which as a writer I’m thrilled I get to do.)

Finally, this needs to be settled. It’s not a goddamn block party. Young should NOT feel like a rock star. He SHOULD feel like Jimmy Hoffa (and start looking over his shoulder).

The producers and multi-nationals have lawyers with MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in RETAINER FEES in the BANK. They are simply slavering to be let loose. What does the WGA have? What about a fund to provide economic relief to members who are not Craig or JJ?

I’m not a scab. I’m not a plant. I’m a writer who wants to get back to work.

coalandswitches:

WGA does have a strike fund to help those writers struggling to make ends meet. It works like a loan and has to be repaid, I believe. Let’s hope no one has to use it and this is all settled quickly.

Natalie,

You are confused. You are asking for a percentage of GROSS REVENUE. Yes, if you asked for a percentage of profits…1% of 0% is definitely nothing and worth giving up. When you ask for a percentage of gross revenue, you are adding a COST…it gets paid as long as you have income…but if your costs are more than the income, you lose money. Then don’t forget to multiple your share by at least 5 for the other guilds.

When you talk about “cooking the books” that is true, but that is why the WGA gets paid off of GROSS REVENUE. This is never an issue for the WGA. And I think it’s smart. I wouldn’t trust AMPTP’s accounting either.

I am probably younger than you. 30 years old. I still don’t know that TV will be watched over the internet in the way you think. I really have no idea what’s going to happen. I don’t know that cable providers will just dissolve. I don’t know what will happen to the concept of “networks” and “affiliate” who solely exist because of an exclusive license granted by the government to use a certain frequency to transmit their signal. Where do they fit in if the signal has NO value anymore? This is so damn complex, but I think this is certain: if any of your wildest imaginiations come true, all writers should run for cover. Not because the networks will screw them out of their residuals, but because the market will. The networks may not even exist anymore. The AMPTP may be useless. There may not even be the same kind of money available because interests will be so diverse that ad dollars will spread so thin. Am I right? I have no clue. But I certainly can say with confidence that the networks FEAR the internet, they do not want this to happen. That’s a fact. You seem to think they are pushing this to happen as some plot to screw you out of residuals. I think that’s some kind of creative thinking.

Stooge

Btw, if you write strictly features, how much don’t you care about any of this? This notion of “unification” simply can’t hold. You don’t have the same interests.

Though you wouldn’t know it from Josh. Man…that guy just was dying to pick a fight. Reckless jerk.

Stooge

Stooge:

You are wrong. Whether concious or not, this is an attempt to eliminate residuals.

On that Sunday, there was a streaming offer, download offer from AMPTP. But they refused to pay any residuals for new product made solely for internet. When the internet becomes the delivery system to your television, any pilot or new television series would qualify for the latter.

As for the pressures on producers…well, as so many have said about writers, it’s a chosen profession. Can’t handle it, get out.

I would agree there is no roadmap, but AMPTP doesn’t seem to understand that. It’s a risk/reward business. Nobody made a fortune out of hedging bets. The industry has evolved from studio system to now. It needs to change again and right now they are refusing to do so.

The AMPTP walked out Sunday night. They were not sent packing. They CHOSE to walk out. They could be talking right now and are not.

Stooge,

We are actually the same age. I have a brother who is ten years younger than me. He watches his shows on his cell phone and computer. He buys his music from the Apple Store. His friends all do the same.

You are right about one thing: once all media goes to the internet, it will be extremely difficult to control. There will have to be tougher regulations and new ways of securing income. It is a very gray matter right now - which is why everyone is freaking out. People are always afraid of the unknown.

But the studios are making money off the internet currently and they will continue to make money off the internet. They’ve said so themselves. In addition, when Viacom sued YouTube earlier in the year they left a lovely quote: “This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity”. So if rightly belonged to the writers then, why not now?

Stooge,

You said: “Showrunners make so much money and have so much power that more often than not they are given a wide breadth. JJ Abrams is NOT being dictated to by any “suit”.”

JJ Abrams isn’t a showrunner.

I’m not entirely sure why you keep holding up JJ Abrams in comparison with Kay. Kay’s a different person and a different [but no less talented] writer with a different career path. RIGHT NOW. It’s not like JJ Abrams just woke up one day and was an uber successful writer (though he did wake up the son of a successful producer, which, you know, probably helped — pretty sure Kay didn’t wake up that way, especially the “son” part).

However, if you still need to pit Kay’s career against JJ Abrams, consider this her 4 year period between FOREVER YOUNG* (which I’m sure we all agree was a brillant film) and GONE FISHIN’* (a movie I’d not heard of).

I just refreshed and saw that you might be out of a job, come the New Year. That sucks ass. And I truly, truly hope that it doesn’t happen.

I know you’re stuck in the middle. But, please, rise above attacking Kay’s credits. That she’s been able to sustain a career for 9 years is a great feat and should be lauded (as someone who’s not broken in, yet, I’d kill to have her career) — despite your thoughts on the shows she’s worked on. Please remember: Though it sucks that you might be out of a job in a few months, there are a hell of a lot of people who are out of work now — including Kay and Josh.

*Facts found on imdb.com.

My new favorite video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRHlpEmr0w

For a well-articulated iteration of the ‘both sides are wrong’ point of view, I recommend:

http://roblong.com/?p=6

Clifford,

The WGA has issued a statement in regards to the AMPTP ad. I saw it on the LA TImes Strike Blog.

Priya,

I also liked that video. I have to say that I prefer Jon Stewart as the delivery of the show’s brillant writing, but I was excited to see my friend Kevin make a cameo appearance none the less. I miss the Daily Show!

Asshat? Asswipe? Abject tool?

I’ve probably read every post on this site in the past 6 months, and never has it sounded more whiny, more shrill, more juvenile than today.

Somehow, posters like Kevin Arbouet, Brian McCabe and Karen Baird-Eaton manage to get points across while still sounding like grown-ups. Shocking.

Josh bums me out. Not because I don’t think he’s right (I agree with him more often than not), and not because I didn’t think A History of Violence was a damn good movie (it was), or that he’s not fully honorable when it comes to this strike (he lets his feet do the talking), but because he only has one gear and so many of YOU rise (stoop) to the bait. Most who engage with him are no less intemperate than he is. At least his posts are well-written. I’ve seen more bastardized English on this page than most AMPTP members are likely to spit out when they try to do our writing themselves. How does THAT help the cause?

And yes. I’m Anonymous. Go ahead and shoot me for that. You wonder why people don’t want their names associated with some of these pages.

Kay is just rude and condescending, so I don’t feel all that bad for being a jerk. If she took a more reasoned attack, I would definitely lay off. I am sure I am wrong. And really my last comment was just to say that this crying for artistic freedom when you work in the medium of television is just silly. Further, it’s untrue. The level of deference given to talent is unprecedented today. Anyone who works in this business knows this.

Stooge

Here’s the money quote from roblong.com:

The truth is, the web – that thing that brings us email and MySpace and cats playing the piano on YouTube – has a kind of Wal*Mart effect on the entertainment choices offered to the audience: there’s a lot more to choose from, most of it’s pretty awful, and all of it is going to be a lot cheaper. When you combine the digitization of content with unlimited bandwidth, what you get is a cheaper, more efficient system. And Brentwood was not built on cheap, or efficient. This town – and all of us who work here – all of us, writers, agents, actors, lawyers, studio executives, all of us here in the second grade classroom called Hollywood – have a stake in preserving this great big slushy inefficient mess of a system, that makes pilots that never get aired, buys scripts that never get produced, makes movies that no one sees, produces series that get cancelled.

I feel like we’re all hanging out in the hardware store on Main Street, bickering, while they’re building the SuperWalMart out where the interstate meets the state highway. To the writers – to my colleague – I say, the web is going to force us to radically alter our expectations about residuals. We will probably end up getting less. That’s what market efficiencies do. Let’s figure out how to adjust to that.

To the studios, I say make a deal. Swallow it, and make a deal. You may think you can kill the WGA, and you probably can, but it’ll be the first part of a murder-suicide pact, and if you don’t believe me, call up somebody in the record business. If you can find one. The web’s been visiting with them, too. Those kids on YouTube and FaceBook aren’t going to make you rich; your box office is dwindling; your ratings are dropping; Guitar Hero is not fattening Sumner Redstone’s wallet.

My show has come in for our final day of filming. As of tomorrow, we’re done until January, or whenever this matter is settled. I can at least say that I have not crossed any picket lines to come to work. One one occasion on location, I parked on the street and did not enter our base camp/crew parking. Today, I spoke to the picketers at our front gate, told them I would not cross their line but would have to come in through another entrance. They thanked me and were very friendly. On the other hand, if you talk to our DP, his opinion is that EVERYONE reporting to work at EVERY lot is effectively crossing a picket line since they are still working while the studio is being struck. (This is shades of the “A GOOD UNION PERSON…” material posted over a week ago) If that’s the case, then you can make what you will of my morality. I know that I have not disrespected any picketers or crossed through their lines at any time, and at this point I’ll be unemployed for the duration of the strike.

Brian is correct that the AMPTP proposals were designed to effectively eliminate residuals. They were also designed to reduce the salaries paid to most writers, by redefining what officially constitutes a “low budget”. (And by the way, many features today are initially put together as “low budget” for when the deals are made with the BTL crew to get the lowest possible rate, usually showing a budget to everyone that is very low. And there’s usually ANOTHER budget that is the real one, which shows the extra money that will be plugged in to pay for this or that star to be in the movie.

I am curious that Counter is saying to Variety that he is willing to negotiate now (some 10 weeks ahead of when he agreed to this in the 1988 strike), but no movement has been made as far as announcing a new negotiation time. If Counter is in fact serious, couldn’t the WGA give him a call and set up a new meeting? If he isn’t, couldn’t the WGA publicly announce that he is saying one thing and doing another?

Thanks for including me in the good category. Although I fear I’ve let my punctuation lapse at times.

AMPTP Stooge-

While I agree that the future is murky for The Companies and there could very well be concern among many execs about future models, the policy of starving the golden goose just does not strike me as the wisest approach to the dilemma. The thing I would be most concerned about, were I studio chief, is how to keep myself between the talent and the audience, a position that could very well be downsized out of existence in the not too near future.

And the other thing that comes to mind with all the sky-is-falling talk about changing revenue sources and consumer habits is that the same reasons were used at the dawn of the VCR age to dramatically diminish the creatives’ compensation for re-use. According to the NY Times on June 12, 1988 News Corp. was valued at 4.2 billion dollars. In October, 2007 The Hollywood Reporter pegged News Corp.’s market cap at 67.9 billion.

People like Rupert Murdoch seem to have a Rumpelstilsken-like ability to make massive amounts of money in spite of all these disastrous developments and if that’s the case they should at least be able to manufacture a small fraction more for the people who provide the product.

DLW:

The thing about all the comparisons people are making between management’s response to VCRs in the eighties and the internet now, is that while they may have been wrong to be scared then, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong to be scared now. While VCRs posed a perceived threat of piracy, they didn’t radically widen peoples’ entertainment choices or threaten to completely Balkanize the advertising market the way the internet does now.

Which is why I’m getting a little weary of the ‘Remember ‘88’ cries from my fellow Guild members.

Clifford - AMEN. What I have been saying (way less articulately) on here all along.

DLW - I think the AMPTP definitely has its own hardliners to deal with and shame on them. I am just saying that I am not sure these elements have truly been exposed due to the very hasty strike by the WGA. The AMPTP is basically just sitting back with its arms folded while the WGA runs around like crazy. I think the latest announcement by Counter just shows how much the AMPTP want to settle this. It definitely cuts against the idea of punishing for the strike, which is something that benefits the AMPTP now and in the future. Coming back to the table this soon is a very big step.

One thing though, let’s stop using the mother corps numbers to justify this. News corp has very diverse interests. The profit margins it derrives from its entertainment interests, which are mainly propped up because of AMERICAN IDOL, are definitely continuing to decline. There is no question News Corp is thriving. The divisions of 20th Century and FBC are in real jeopardy. Also, over 20 years…that number makes sense.

Stooge

I don’t know that they were wrong. Like I said, see what happened to Carsey-Werner or Lorimar or Spelling. Cable (and soaring production costs…caused partly by the need to step up the quality of production due to competition from cable and partly because of increased labor costs) pretty much killed the independants. It changed the model so you had to incur huge defecits to produce a TV series. I think it was just slower and they were clearly wrong about VCR’s. Not wrong about DVR’s though…and the internet is just cable on roids.

Stooge

CliffordOdebt-

They probably weren’t wrong to be scared then or now. But it shouldn’t be hard to understand the WGA’s frustration when the historical record shows that with each innovation - cable - VCR the Guild got less and the Companies continued to thrive and grow.

Maybe this is the final frontier and it’s all going to come crashing down but The AMPTP has failed to find a way to overcome the Guilds’ well founded suspicion in their negotiating strategy and that shortcoming is as responsible for this strike as anything Patrick Verrone and Co. has said or done.

Perhaps if the dynamics of the whole industry are changing so dramatically then the methods of negotiating labor deals should reflect a similar modernization. Because what we have clearly isn’t working for anybody.

Test

Cliff - Residuals keep RISING. Garaunteed salaries are RISING. The VCR did NOTHING for TV. DVD’s, on the other hand, a whole new world. And you can thank DVD’s for keeping the studios at the level (and price) of production they are at now. You gotta realize that all this does is recapture a lot of what nets are losing in ad rev and then in turn studios in license fees. Some innovation is the death knell for an industry. Ask Blockbuster how they are doing. Ask retailers how they are doing. Ask the record companies how they are doing. If the AMPTP could right now destroy the internet, they would.

Otherwise, your other points are spot on.

Stooge

Sorry…that was for you, DLW, not Cliff.

DLW said:

Perhaps if the dynamics of the whole industry are changing so dramatically then the methods of negotiating labor deals should reflect a similar modernization. Because what we have clearly isn’t working for anybody.

Well, honestly, if the AMPTP companies would open their books and provide full transparency, I think the best thing would be for both parties to submit to binding arbitration by a bunch of McKinsey consultants, or maybe the MIT Economics department, who could figure out a sustainable business model, which would probably not particularly please the hard-liners on either side. Of course, due to the first sentence in this paragraph, this solution is impossible.

Oh, man. We have a test on Thursday?!?

WAIT - this IS Thursday!!! I haven’t even studied!!!

(sorry for posting so much, everyone, I feel like that SML kid…)

Hey AMPTP Stooge: I would really like to know how much DVD sales help in terms of making up the deficit of a failed 1-season show. How much does the studio make from DVD sales of semi-popular but not cult-y show like, say ‘Kevin Hill’?

Stooge-

I think your record company example is exactly why the studios and creatives need to reconceive the entire discussion. However, Nick Counter’s blindside opening salvo about “profit only” residuals did nothing but immediately garner this formerly moderate member’s Strike Authorization Vote.

I would also just add that big media consolidation and vertical integration made things at least as difficult for the Lorimar’s and Carsey Werner’s as labor costs did. And the biggest labor costs are those The Companies drove up in bidding wars against one another (with an assist to the big agencies) for talent far and above what any of the Creative Guilds negotiate for in MBA’s either as minimums or residuals.

It all depends, but not much. Really you have to look at it more of like a mutual fund. The studios spread their money over numerous properties betting that 1 will “hit”. That 1 hit pays for the other failures. Really, though, the DVD revenue is just found money (ie, no significant cost against it and not planned for). So that pot of money (and that’s what it is…every studio has a distribution arm and it’s what that distribution arm brings in as a whole…as a unit) then gets lumped into the TV Groups profits, with the off-network syndication and foreing sales divisions and, voila, you have all your revenue derrived from exploitation (forget the network license fee). Depending how large that pot of money is, that determines the budget for the upcoming season. Since syndication revenue and the network license are declining, the DVD revenue fills that gap. Studios can keep going on like biz as usual.

I’m out for a bit.

Stooge

Stooge,

A formula was proposed for streaming video content and was rejected by the WGA. Not because the formula sucked, but because the formula didn’t include downloads (of any form).

So feature writers do have an equal stake in this fight. We all (TV, Feature, everybody save for the AMPTP) want downloads to be seen, like streaming, as a new digital platform. The fractioned definition of “New Media,” which you’ve been basing your arguments on is one put forth by the AMPTP and does not encompass the WGA view of “New Media.”

Testing, bitches.

SML - but to be clear, you do get paid the DVD rate on downloads.

For what it’s worth, I would have held fast on increasing the DVD rate and dropped the streaming. In 3 years, if the streaming money gets significant, then ask for that. But you know there is a lot of money out there for DVD (including downloads).

Why did you guys drop that so fast?

Stooge

I don’t know about fast. It was dropped Sunday night before strike. And it was dropped under a back door deal by Moonves/Chernin that was shot down by Counter. I believe it is still on the table now.

The deal offered had no residual compensation for downloads or streaming of content made solely for the internet (i.e. “Quarterlife” or “lonelygirl15”).

For what it’s worth, I would have held fast on increasing the DVD rate and dropped the streaming. In 3 years, if the streaming money gets significant, then ask for that. But you know there is a lot of money out there for DVD (including downloads).

I assume the thinking is since streaming is going to be really big, much bigger than downloads according to most studies, if we waited three years, we’ll get a worse deal than we would by pushing for it now. And as for DVDs, by my rough calculations, doubling the residual rate would mean about a 6% drop in DVD revenue for the studios, with pattern bargaining and assuming no give on wholesale prices. Presumably, not having to swallow that is worth something for the AMPTP and could be used by us to bargain for a bigger chunk of future revenues which the member companies haven’t necessarily absorbed into their long-term projectsions, unlike DVD sales.

Stuiec,

“I only mention this because every so often one of those folks posts a message of sheer terror on forums like this one, and more often than not gets shouted down and branded a management stooge. In my opinion, the proper response to such people is sympathy, empathy and gratitude for the sacrifice they’re being forced to make.”

I haven’t seen much of that here, and I’ve seen none of it out there. Out there, when you see a guy walking onto the lot, you KNOW you’re actually dealing with someone who works for a living in this business. Here, several of the few voices that have been heard from that camp have been transparently phony.

And out there, on the line, those folks are supporting the hell out of this strike, because aside from being good folks in general, they understand they have a dog in this hunt as well.

Brian,

“You’re like a fire and brimstone preacher. Some people respond to that. I don’t. I don’t believe I’m alone.”

I don’t believe you are.

At what point will you get that I DON’T CARE. I’m not Craig. I don’t play to the cheap seats. I play to people who care more about actions than tone. You’ve spent WAY more time complaining about my choice of words than you have about Craig’s actions. For instance:

“It’s day 9 and this is the first I’m hearing about the Warner Brothers story from your point of view. If you really want to be effective here, keep us up to date on stories like that.”

Okay. Now you’re up to date. Craig posted a potentially damaging rumor even though he’d read the emails from his strike captain that directly contradicted it two days earlier. Considering the ire you direct at me for writing with a voice you don’t like, I have to assume you’ll REALLY light into Craig over this. No?

Or are you one of those folks who prefers Hollywood ethics to actual, human ones?

Craig,

“I definitely got the Warner Brothers thing wrong, but not because I don’t read emails.

I just got bad info on the day itself…and from someone I trusted.

I screwed up. Wasn’t the first time, won’t be the last.

I did publish a full retraction and an apology (as a blog entry, not a comment) as soon as I confirmed that I messed up.”

So you chose to ignore e mails from your strike captain and post a rumor a friend gave you.

Why? What on earth did you think you’d accomplish? Have you taken some sacred oath to post every stupid, inaccurate and damaging rumor you hear without verifying it? (Cos God forbid those of us with friends who actually ARE trustworthy take that same oath)

You obviously weren’t trying to be helpful - if you were, you’d do what any of us would have done: you’d have e mailed your strike captain back and asked why we weren’t hitting every gate. (Of course, she’d have written back and pointed out that she told you THREE TIMES that we were)

So I’m asking a simple question: What were you trying to achieve?

Stooge,

“I work for an AMPTP company. “

Now THERE’S a newsflash.

First the phony comic book guy, then the Korean teacher who aspires to be a screenwriter, now this moron. It’s time in the tag team match to bring on your next stooge, stooge.

Josh:

You obviously care or you wouldn’t post anything at all. You believe Craig is doing harm. Fine. You believe it is your duty to point this out. Also fine. Who are you pointing it out to if you are not “play(ing) to the cheap seats?”

Also, for the record, I’ve directed no ire to you. And I haven’t lit into you either. I have talked to you like a human being. Never once calling you a name. I certainly never questioned your ethics as you just did mine. Although, being an agent, I appreciate you thinking I might have any at all.

If you must know, when I read Craig’s original post, I was very discouraged. I went to the line myself a couple of days later. I went to Sunset/Gower and delivered some pizzas. I bought five large ones and could not find enough people to take them. I then went to Parmount with the remaining two. There were quite a bit more at Paramount, which pleased me. It was also 1pm so I might have hit a shift change.

Those were my impressions, but thought it too early in the strike to post them as I was unsure of what they indicate. It’s now coming to the end of week two (and you pressed), so I’m sharing. I still don’t know what they are indicative of, if anything.

At some point, I will pick a line and I will walk it, because there is becoming precious little for me to do otherwise.

Not that you care.

Josh:

You work for AMPTP companies too.

You asked…

“What were you trying to achieve?”

Kind of obvious, no? I wanted the Guild to follow an effective picketing strategy of blocking all gates, with the presumption that doing so would halt Teamster traffic in…and possibly lead to a short, reasonably successful strike.

I was all-too-happy to learn that I was wrong, and that all gate were being picketed.

Not so happy about our success rate with the Teamsters, but that’s another issue.

In general, when I criticize the Guild, I do so with the hope that they will change a policy to reflect what I think is a better policy. That’s my essential purpose when I write these essays about Guild stuff. I want them to do things differently.

Some times they ignore me, but sometimes they don’t. I routinely speak with members of the NegCom and Board (some of whom are politically closer to my positions, some of whom are diametrically opposed). My essays are definitely read. In one notable instance, something I wrote was circulated among the NegCom as instructive, and that’s great.

My point is to influence the internal debate in the union by holding leadership accountable.

Pretty simple.

When it works, I feel a sense of satisfaction.

When it doesn’t, I shrug and think about the next thing to write.

Stooge,

The studios apply the home video formula to downloads because that helps them apply an archaic, but beneficial formula to New Media. This definition, as far as I know, was assumed and applied by the studios, by their own doing, to New Media, but not necessarily agreed to on paper by the WGA (individual cases being the exception).

Also, doubling DVD was dropped because the WGA and the AMPTP already signed off/fought over this definition/formula 20 some odd years ago. It became a redundant argument.

But extending the home video formula (a redundant argument) to digital aids the AMPTP in two ways:

1. It allows the AMPTP to say, “Hey look, you already agreed to the home video formula 20 years ago and downloads are an extension of home video” aka you put your balls in our hands and we like it that way.

2. They get to pay us a fucked rate that has proven to be scraps compared to their own take.

Some questions for you:

1. Why would the WGA agree to this archaic definition/formula?

2. Why do you insist on sectioning off digital into streaming and downloads, when they are the exact same platform (or in the least they’re closer in relation than any other comparitive home video platforms)?

3. Why wait three years to see if digital is profitable, when profit has nothing to do with this strike? You said it yourself, this is about first dollar gross and has nothing to do with profit.

Ted wrote:

“Its not impossible that at some point, traditional basic cable networks will be phased out, replaced by internet web portals that serve similar purpose (for instance: instead of subscribing to a cable service and watching the Disney channel, you subscribe to the Disney web portal, which gives you access to Disney-Kids, Disney-Movies, Disney-ESPN, Disney-ABC, etc.). If that happens, then whereas residuals would have been paid to tv writers at the 2% basic cable rate, they might end up instead being paid at the 1.2% internet rate.”

I wanted to point out that this is not some future scenario, but quite real in present time. For an extra fee, through my Comcast INTERNET connection, I can watch Disney shows from Disney Channel, Toon Disney and Playhouse Disney, etc.

http://www.comcast.net/kids/disney/

I know they started promoting this some time back, so one might reasonably assume that hard data regarding financial returns on an Internet model have already started to trickle in…

Josh Olson said:

I haven’t seen much of that here, and I’ve seen none of it out there. Out there, when you see a guy walking onto the lot, you KNOW you’re actually dealing with someone who works for a living in this business. Here, several of the few voices that have been heard from that camp have been transparently phony.

Fair enough. Remember, if you will, that there are thousands of people you DON’T see, people who have lost their paychecks — or are about to — and who don’t necessarily stand to benefit directly from the strike. People who were laid off from non-union positions who don’t collect residuals, people who used to run businesses supplying productions that are shut down — there are a lot of folks who constitute collateral damage.

One can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, I get that, and one can’t conduct a campaign of conflict if one loses one’s nerve in the face of collateral damage. It requires a certain hardening of the heart. But at the same time, spare a kind thought and perhaps a wince of regret that some people who don’t have a dog in this fight are being hurt.

Anything that might contribute to a more effective strike ought to also serve to make the strike shorter, ceteris paribus, and thus less damaging to the innocent bystanders as well as to the strikers themselves. In my opinion, that is where the WGA and its members should focus their efforts and attention. (That might even include, ahem, heeding one or two of Craig’s pieces of advice. Just sayin’, is all.)

going back to “outside the box” thinking. Would it be effective to try and get people to not buy DVD’s on black friday?

SML said:

Why wait three years to see if digital is profitable, when profit has nothing to do with this strike? You said it yourself, this is about first dollar gross and has nothing to do with profit.

Just an observation: if a business becomes unprofitable, or conditions preclude it from making a profit in the first place, the business ceases to exist. The government isn’t going to require a private business (with the possible exception of a hospital) to operate at a loss indefinitely solely for the benefit of its employees and suppliers, nor will it preclude the business from moving its operations to lower-cost venues.

So, yes, profit is always a concern in a labor negotiation. It’s a Pyrrhic victory to win concessions that drive the employer out of business.

That said, I don’t think it likely that residual costs will be the determining factor that makes new media ventures unworkable.

Why would the WGA agree to this archaic definition/formula? DONT SEE WHY IT’S ARCHAIC. IT MAY BE TOO LITTLE. A PERMANENT DOWNLOAD IS LIKE BUYING A DVD. SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO APPLY IT TO ME. HOWEVER, FEEL FREE TO NEGOTIATE AWAY. I JUST FEEL LIKE THE DOWNLOADS ARE WHERE THE MONEY IS IN THE NEXT 3 YEARS AT LEAST AND PROBABLY LONGER.

Why do you insist on sectioning off digital into streaming and downloads, when they are the exact same platform (or in the least they’re closer in relation than any other comparitive home video platforms)? STREAMING IS SO UNLIKE ANYTHING ELSE. NOT A 1 TIME BROADCAST THAT YOU HAVE 1 CHANCE TO WATCH, BUT NOT PERMANENT. ALSO, NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT. I DONT SEE HOW THESE 2 THINGS ARE AT ALL ALIKE. ALSO IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT STUDIOS MAKE MONEY OFF THE DOWNLOADS, WHILE THE NETWORKS (IN THEORY) MAKE MONEY OFF THE STREAMING. STUDIOS HAVE NO SHARE IN STREAMING, YET THEY STILL ALLOW ALL THE NETS TO DO IT POSSIBLY HURTING THEIR SYNIDCATION…I WONDER WHY THEY ALLOW IT.

Why wait three years to see if digital is profitable, when profit has nothing to do with this strike? You said it yourself, this is about first dollar gross and has nothing to do with profit. WELL THE AMPTP WILL NEVER PAY YOU IF THEY AREN’T MAKING MONEY. IF THEY HAVE TO PAY YOU GROSS ON SOMETHING WHERE THEY ARE ALREADY LOSING MONEY, THEN IT’S A NON-STARTER.

Rob Long put this best. The future is death. Planning for a piece of barren, torched land is just silly. Take what is getting serious revenue now.

As for the jurisdictional issue of covering made for internet productions, boy…talk about no money. You want current minimums for that? You will effectively shut down studio production of these things and leave it strictly to the amateurs.

What if you accept a bad deal now for the internet? You seem to think that you are stuck with the DVD rate because it was already negotiated, so why get stuck with a measley 1.2%? If residuals as you know it end, the 1.2% will be nothing compared to what you lost. This argument never makes sense to me. Put a pin in it…revisit in 3.

Stooge

I wanted to point out that this is not some future scenario, but quite real in present time. For an extra fee, through my Comcast INTERNET connection, I can watch Disney shows from Disney Channel, Toon Disney and Playhouse Disney, etc.

This still falls under the definition of “CATV/pay television” in the MBA, though, so the existing residual formulas still apply (and they are the same as residual rate for “temporary”-type downloads (including streaming video) anyway).

I’m talking about a scenario where you don’t even subscribe to a basic cable service anymore, and you don’t have a cable box anymore. Instead, you subscribe to an internet service, and you only have a high speed modem. What you get on your television screen is essentially a browser window; instead of selecting programs by tuning to channel frequencies, you select them by going to I.P. addresses.

In this case, the “temporary” internet residual formula of 1.2% of 100% would apply, replacing the basic cable residual formula of 2% of 100%.

• Ted

Brian,

“Also, for the record, I’ve directed no ire to you. And I haven’t lit into you either. I have talked to you like a human being. Never once calling you a name. I certainly never questioned your ethics as you just did mine. Although, being an agent, I appreciate you thinking I might have any at all.”

I have no doubt you do. My last agent was one of the best people I’ve ever known, and it killed me when he retired. My current one is notoriously honorable. You guys exist, and if I was unduly harsh on you, I apologize. Sometimes all the names here blur together.

However, you have made a point of criticizing me sharply over my tone, and I reiterate my point - what am I supposed to do with the fact that my tone seems to concern you more than Craig’s actions? They’ve certainly generated more posts from you. Do you have a response to his absurd contention that he was trying to bring his concerns to their attention, when a simple e mail would have been vastly more effective and less potentially damaging?

“At some point, I will pick a line and I will walk it, because there is becoming precious little for me to do otherwise.

Not that you care.” Why wouldn’t I? Pick one I’m on. Come up and say hi. I mean that.

PS: Bring pizza. Or donuts. We love them donuts.

Craig, “You work for AMPTP companies too.”

Not this month, baby.

As usual, a touch of whimsy sails over your head. I’ll explain, cos I know anything that contains humor or wit evades you.

AMPTP Stooge is honest about one thing.

His screenname.

Get it, now?

“Kind of obvious, no? I wanted the Guild to follow an effective picketing strategy of blocking all gates, with the presumption that doing so would halt Teamster traffic in…and possibly lead to a short, reasonably successful strike.”

Well, that’s obviously horseshit. Either that, or you’ve become so lost in your own ego-trip that you actually believe people are more likely to check your blog than their own e-mail.

I’m not going to insult your intelligence by explaining how a quick e mail to your captain would have sorted the situation out without any potential for false and damaging rumors to go public. When you pretend not to understand, I will.

StuieC,

I should have said net profit. It doesn’t matter if the studios have a positive net profit (it would be fantastic, especially if we have a fair residual rate, but it also has nothing to do with this strike).

Josh,

I have no dog in this fight. I see a lot of dog shit though. So when I lose my job, I will remember that Josh Olson gave a fuck. I will remember that Josh Olson is not the greedy one, though. He is barely making ends meet. Meanwhile, I am f’d if I lose my job. I also love my job, so that sucks too. I know you don’t mind striking, because you HATE your job. Everyday you work under this deal must have been pure hell.

Josh, I know you are a really good writer, but leave the imagination to fiction. This us against them stuff is simpleton talk and you know it. It’s how Bush bullies everyone around. Well, we wont be bullied. Some are reasonable people here and this debate needs some reason. As soon as you stop imagining this as a fight for right or a fight that is when progress will get made.

Stooge

Who cares about the stupid WB gates! Wow! You really think this whole strike would be over if Craig hadn’t have written a post about the manless gates. I drive thru the 2 or 3 people out there every day and it doesn’t move me.

You sound like a nut job obsessing about Craig and the gates. Hysterical.

Stooge

I call what Ted is referring to as “television armagedon.” If that ever happens, run for your lives.

Stooge

SML, sure it matters for this strike, and for the WGA in general, if the studios have a positive net profit on new media. If they don’t have a positive net profit— in fact if their profit-to-revenue growth doesn’t hit some sort of reasonable earmark— they won’t invest in new media distribution.

But whether or not Hollywood continues to get into the new media game, broadcast TV audiences and revenue will continue to stagnate / shrink, because there’s plenty of other entertainment options for people online already. And unless the growth— not just revenue, but a decent growth rate in profits— for which studios once relied upon broadcast networks is replaced by internet revenue for scripted shows, there will be very very few TV jobs in this town in the not-too-far future.

“Well, that’s obviously horseshit. Either that, or you’ve become so lost in your own ego-trip that you actually believe people are more likely to check your blog than their own e-mail.”

Way to argue it both ways. So is Craig’s blog getting enough traffic to massively undermine the WGA’s strategy and prolong the strike (by himself) or not?

Stooge

Net Profit is a contractually defined concept. Profit is a catch all word for “making money”.

Net profits do not exist ever in this business. Maybe with STAR WARS. If anyone offers you a portion of NET, they are offering you nada.

Stooge

Cliff said it right.

Btw, my net profits rant wasn’t meant for you, Cliff. I think in your case you just mean revenues exceeding real costs. Sorry if I came of like a know it all. You are spot on.

Stooge

Stooge,

Your logic baffles me.

A semantic argument is meaningless, but I’m going to have one anyway…

Downloads and streams are more like each other because:

When you play a “download” you are using your computer to play it.

When you play a “stream” you are using the source companies’ computer to play it.

To watch a “download,” you pay a source company for the privilege.

To watch a “stream,” an advertiser pays a source company for you.

And this is truly important: both exist solely in a digital realm.

Can you physically hold a download or a stream?

Stooge,

“I have no dog in this fight. I see a lot of dog shit though. So when I lose my job, I will remember that Josh Olson gave a fuck.”

Not about you, bubba. I care very much about real people. Fictional constructs designed to sow dissent…. not so much.

As for your family, let ‘em eat cake.

You know… the magic kind.

Stooge, no worries, I knew what you meant and your intended tone. Hey, where do you work? Because I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things, and maybe when this is over we should set up a general.

I’m sorry, Josh, if you feel I’ve unfairly targeted you. I didn’t think I did. You post a lot and I felt I owed you the due to reply (especially when directed to me).

I’ve commented on/against AMPTP Stooge a number of times too. And I’m about to again:

I don’t think “television armageddon” is helpful. I think new media is extremely complicated (so much so that leaving it to the last minute by both sides was incredibly naive). I don’t think you can one rate it either. I know the formula proposed by AMPTP for streaming and I still don’t know how that would works.

There’s a deal there. We all know it. It will involve pain on both sides. It will take a lot of thinking outside the box to get there. And there will be mistakes made in the making of that deal. I don’t know who said it originally, but a fair deal is one where both sides feel slighted.

Right now, we are in the posturing phase. Who will have the upper hand in negotiations? It’s old school thinking. It will not matter in the end. And it will wreck a lot of lives along the way.

To both the AMPTP and WGA:

Get back to the tables. Figure this out. Make it a Christmas present for the town. It’s going to get done. It might as well be now.

Would love to, Cliff. I will say when this is over. I really don’t think my company wants me out here yappin away (especially saying they are greedy as well).

Josh thinks that I am a plant just to stir you up. There is his active imagination again. Good for writing…not so good for reasoned debate. I am trying to place a different perspective in this conversation. Josh, you are like the Republicans who watch Fox News because they give em what they want to hear. Open your ears, buddy.

I am a real person. I have loans, I have a wife but no children (thankfully given the uncertainty). I am anonymous because I have to be. I don’t want to be. And I guess I should take a moment to throw you credit for using your name. That is a good thing.

Stooge

Stooge, thanks, but, um, this isn’t my real name. You think I want Josh Olson slashing my tires?

Cliff

I smell pickles!

SML,

Why is VOD treated differntly than repeats? You watch both on your TV through your cable box. I don’t think either of our logic is tortured any more than the logic of some these CBA’s are. Supplemental Markets have always been seperated out.

I think the WGA is actually pushing the notion of couching these things seperately. They don’t want the fact that the WGA’s total residual package is on the RISE every year to muck up the notion that they should be paid on every single source of revenue derrived from the exploitation of episodes (regardless of profits). Much harder to ask for more when you are getting paid more and more every year.

Stooge

Stooge,

“Josh thinks that I am a plant just to stir you up. There is his active imagination again. Good for writing…not so good for reasoned debate.”

You proved on day one that you weren’t interested in reasoned debate. You came in hurling shit at a seasoned working writer, then proceeded to prove you know nothing about this business. You also proved to have zero integrity.

Personally, I’m boggled by the fact that Kay laid out her bonafides for you. But she did, and you acted like a weasel.

You do not actually work in this business.

You are not here to discuss these issues honestly.

You devote all your time to attacking people who support the strike.

Silly fucking me for leaping to the obvious conclusion.

Anyone who responds to you seriously is a goober.

Brian,

I think you misunderstand me. I don’t mean that as a threat in any way. I mean that everyone involved in the TV business should run for their lives. I call it that because it will end the salaries as we know it for writers. It will end the networks (who cares about their exclusive over-the-air signal anymore). The studios will exist in some fashion, but it will take a lot of time to rebuild TV production to the levels its at now, so a lot of people will get fired. Directv will DISSOLVE (who cares about their stupid sattelite signal). The only happy people will be the guys with all the optic fiber lines. I guess I should call it Wal-Martization.

This is a scary ass thing for all of us. I mean to hammer home the point that the media companies are not looking to shift to the internet at some point and, provided they can just hold out on paying an internet residual, never pay the writers a dime again.

Stooge

Downloads and streams are more like each other because: When you play a “download” you are using your computer to play it. When you play a “stream” you are using the source companies’ computer to play it.

Actually, all internet delivery works the same way: a digital file resides on a server, digital information is transmitted so as to deposit a copy of the digital file on another computer. In the case of what’s called “streaming video,” its only ever a partial file — that’s why if you “catch up” to end of the copy that’s been deposited on your computer, you get the “buffering” notice.

To watch a “download,” you pay a source company for the privilege. To watch a “stream,” an advertiser pays a source company for you.

Unless you pay for the streaming video directly, of course, on a per-view basis, or as part of a subscription fee.

What’s at issue in this negotiation in regards to streaming video isn’t whether or not we’ll get residuals for streaming video. The AMPTP has already agreed to that, where the Company receives a licensing fee for the use.

It’s whether or not we’ll get residuals where the Company receives no licensing fee.

• Ted

Clifford,

Does the WGA want New Media to be profitable? Yes.

Is it in the interest of the WGA for New Media to be profitable? Yes.

Does the WGA need a profitable New Media to claim its 2.5% residuals? No, but it would be nice.

If the studio sells no digital content, we still want 2.5% even if that’s nothing. Percent has no hard value until money is exchanged (first dollar gross). The WGA is on strike for a percent (which could potentially be nothing).

Meaning profit has nothing to do with this strike as Stooge has pointed out. Net Profit will never exist and first dollar gross is TBD (not by us, but by the consumer).

Question for you:

How does New Media’s success or failure have anything to do with 2.5%?

Ah…you noticed it was a test for Kay. What kind of an ego do you have to have to respond to an anonymous persons with your Bona Fides? She should never have responded to that. How insecure do you have to be? That was all the answer I needed. You should be bummed.

And excuse me but Kay has been running around here torching people for days now. The way she belittled this woman was unforgivable. She got put in her place. That’s all. I absolutely hate bullies. Especially misinformed ones.

Btw, if I know nothing, how come I can correct Kay when she claims to not be paid on internet downloads? I sure as hell knew more than her. I also know that Spelling Productions isn’t what it’s called and hasn’t produced a series since 7th Heaven. That’s a joke.

Whatever you say. Sure sounds like I am having plenty of reasoned debates here and that you are the asshole. Just saying.

Ok…I’m out for a bit. Josh, keep up the good work of not caring what I say.

Love, Stooge

Brian McCabe said:

To both the AMPTP and WGA:

Get back to the tables. Figure this out. Make it a Christmas present for the town. It’s going to get done. It might as well be now.

Brian, do you think that anything that’s happened in the last two weeks has changed the minds, attitudes or hearts of anybody on either negotiating committee? I ask because unless and until one or both sides starts seeing things differently than they did on Nov. 4, the outcome of bargaining sessions will always be the same: no deal.

By definition, a deal can only happen when the maximum that one side is willing to offer overlaps with the minimum the other side is willing to accept. It’s certain that this condition will obtain at some point in the future — the real question is, which side (or will it be both?) will shift from its current position and find that what was untenable on Nov. 4 is somehow now liveable? Let’s hope that the strike has the effect of making the AMPTP shift its position sooner and farther than the WGA does.

SML - when a percentage is based on revenue, then it’s not going to be nothing.

Having an interest in making money and doing it are a long shot. TV biz, like I said, is trying to figure out where its future lies.

Stooge

Ted,

“It’s whether or not we’ll get residuals where the Company receives no licensing fee.”

In other words, when the company uses material to generate revenue through alternative streams (i.e. advertising).

Stooge:

No, I got what you meant. I said it wasn’t helpful because it just posed the potential problem without thinking up the solutions that go with it.

The industry is due a shift like when the studio system went down. The internet shifts everything. A new paradigm is needed.

I come down on the side of the WGA because at least they are struggling to figure out the new paradigm. The AMPTP is just trying to protect what is.

stuiec:

Nothing I’ve seen has demonstrated a shift in opinion. Both sides have to stop thinking of maintaining. Now is a time of innovation (and boy, i’m tired of having to throw out other agency names in this conversation. Oh, well). As Stooge pointed out, maintaining will be impossible.

Now, how do you convince people that claim to be cutting edge thinkers that they are not is beyond me. But I propose this:

If this were a blank slate, how would you structure the deal?

I open this up to any and all comers. Isn’t it better to spend time trying to work this out rather than sniping at each other? We have some bright people from all walks of the industry posting here.

p.s. Harlan, I’m a sci-fi guy from way back and I love your work, but what on earth does “I smell pickles!” mean?

Stooge,

Is the percent based on revenue or potential revenue? If it’s potential that means it doesn’t exist yet. Right? Meaning it’s equivalent of nothing. Right? So we’re asking for 2.5% of potentially something that could also, potentially, be nothing. Yeah? Yeah.

And are we making retroactive claims on past, proven New Media revenue? Hells no.

Meaning, this strike has nothing to with something and everything to do with nothing (aka we want a percent of potentially something, but that is right now nothing or potential revenue doesn’t equal actual revenue). Got it? Good.

“TV biz, like I said, is trying to figure out where its future lies.”

I think TV and Feature have figured out where their future lies: New Media. If you disagree, then give us our 2.5% and laugh at us when that 2.5% turns to dust.

As StuieC says (altered for my purposes), “ [It’s not] likely residual costs will be the determining factor that makes new media ventures [profitable].”

Stooge,

Where did Kay get put in her place? Could you point that out to me?

I’m also not sure what your beef with Spelling Television is? I mean, come on… they totally had one of the best pilots last season! I was utterly bummed when it wasn’t picked up. But, TV’s fickle — as you know…

Josh is right. I’m a goober.

Goddamn it, I’m thinking in the box again. I wanted to but never did pick up John Nash’s book on game theory. I would think that game theory would ably to this problem right now..any of you guys into that stuff? It would be intersting to find out if any college profs are using our “best and brightest” to ponder the idea of a new paradigm.

“It’s whether or not we’ll get residuals where the Company receives no licensing fee.” In other words, when the company uses material to generate revenue through alternative streams (i.e. advertising).

Which gives us both grounds and reason to argue that either such use should be licensed, or that such non-licensed use should be limited so as to preserve the viability of other licensed uses (like network reruns, basic cable, pay-per-view downloads, etc.)

And, by the way, that argument would put us in alignment with the studio divisions that actually require our services, and pay us out of their operating budgets. Operating budgets that are dependent upon those divisions showing sufficient profitability … which is dependent upon the product of those divisions generating as much revenue from licensing fees as possible. Including licensing fees paid by media & network divisions, out of the revenue those division generate through ad sales.

• Ted

SML wrote:

Question for you: How does New Media’s success or failure have anything to do with 2.5%?

Yes, in a literal sense, you are correct. But it’s in neither management’s nor labor’s interest to destroy, or even contract, the industry. And while the new media residual rates probably aren’t going to be the deciding factors in whether or not scripted television is doomed, 2.5% is not exactly chicken feed either. Remember that 2.5% of gross actually means 12.5% of gross once pattern bargaining for other guilds is figured in (and that’s not including the IATSE health care contribution, the mechanisms of which I frankly don’t understand).

None of the entertainment divisions of the conglomerates we’re negotiating with grow overall at a 12.5% rate year after year. It’s more like an average of 9% or 11%, unless they have a giant mega hit in a particular quarter. Sometimes they take huge losses— for instance, check out the financials released the other day by Lionsgate.

So the WGA bargaining position is that a higher percentage of new media gross be given to talent than the percentage of gross that constitutes these companies’ growth rate. (And if the Companies are lying about their growth rates, they’re probably inflating them, not deflating them, since the higher the growth rate, the better for the stock price.)

I’m not criticizing the WGA for taking 2.5% as a bargaining position— I’m sure the NegCom knows it’s just that, a position— but it’s not that much less absurd than .3%, frankly.

And I really wish that people were talking about the kinds of more complex, policy-wonkish solutions that would involve formulae I’ve mentioned (in my previous incarnation as Mike S) on this board a few times— discounted residual payments for first season shows which eat up crazy deficits, crediting episodic and new media residuals against each other to give networks some protection against falling broadcast ad revenues, etc. Because getting those kinds of proposals on the table might help negotiations along, and ultimately, I think they will create more WGA jobs, which I think is worth some jobs producing lower residuals than they currently do. I’d rather have an overall rate of, say, 1.5% with these kinds of discounts, than, say, 1% without.

For that matter, I’m disappointed that per today’s WGA statement, the six-week residual-free online promotional window proposed by the studios is considered absurd by the NegComm. It makes sense to me— after all, in the current world, nobody’s making residuals in the first six weeks after a TV episode airs for the first time (unless it repeats extremely quickly for some odd reason). So, though one could fuss with the numbers, this seems like a reasonable model to me, in that it essentially replicates the time structure of broadcast residual payments in the Future World Without Broadcasts.

I should clarify what I just posted re: Lionsgate- they aren’t exactly ‘taking huge losses’, but if you spend a few minutes looking at their recent financials, you’ll get a sense of how complicated all this stuff about stock price, costs and revenue is.

CliffordOdebt said:

“in the current world, nobody’s making residuals in the first six weeks after a TV episode airs for the first time”

I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten residuals on episodes being rerun in the first or second week when they were trying to launch the show.

Also, the NegCom already stated in print that 2.5% was simply a discussion opener.

I do share your desire for more imaginative solutions but it has to go both ways and trust must be cultivated. And since there are enough people criticizing Verrone’s approach I’ll reiterate that Nick Counter’s opening proposal of a hard punch in the balls didn’t win mine.

I think we are using a 19th century approach to negotiating 21st century issues.

I just can’t stop thinking that the AMPTP is very good at getting everyone to eat his or her young. Because that is what all the talent, below and above the line in this town, are busy doing on these blogs – beating themselves to death while the executive class gets to kick back and wait for us to die at our own hand. Based on the way things are shaping up, I think we might as well get our suicide over and done and spare us all the wasted time and effort, take the bad deal we will end up with, and get back to the daily grind.

OR… and this is why I am writing this, we could all just stop ripping on each other and put some pressure on the greedy bastards who take home millions – billions – while crying poverty whenever they have to share a slice of the pie (no matter how small).

This business, run by folks who think nothing of paying themselves and their cronies’ insane amounts of money, don’t care if we all drop dead. They believe that they can always replace us – writers, actors, crews and directors – just as easily as they change their minds about who is talented today, and who is talent less, tomorrow.

Sure there are a select list of A-List talents in all categories that have crazy power and get crazy money, but for the most part the honchos running the studios and networks believe, in their dark secret spots, that anyone can act, write, and direct.

They are survivors. We are expendable.

This is the mindset of our enemy. Unfortunately, the members of the A-List referenced above, those few creative power brokers in the town who might actually be able to bring this strike to an equitable conclusion, are mostly silent. They have spent so many years hanging with their close and personal billionaire buds that they don’t have a clue about our reality anymore. They have no interest in saving our asses and won’t unless it impacts on them.

Now, you might be thinking that you are one of those A-List talents, or are soon to be, so you don’t need to give a crap about this fight. And maybe you are right. But more than likely you are not the king you think you are – you are not the next Spielberg (come on, it’s not like he or his pals really want you to be anyway). And even if you are in the “I get paid a ton of cash for my talent club,” it ain’t gonna last forever and one of these days you will be out of work, off the damn lists, and need some extra cash to live on. Cause face it, you did not put enough money away to retire on when you were living fat and now that we are living to a hundred years old or some such thing, you are flat broke.

So wake the f’ up! Cause everything we worked on in Tomorrowland is available online, or ready to be downloaded and implanted into our heads someway, and you are not making squat off your creations. Sure, the suits are still are drunk on power and the buzz of being cool, still getting theirs off the backs of our efforts, so don’t worry about them.

Worry about us, the rank and file talent in this town, above and below the line. Worry that if we do not stop pissing on each other, if we don’t stop dancing to the AMPTP’s tune and get together, united in our cause, that we are gonna lose this thing. The enemy is counting on us to do what we always to, to blame each other, turn on our own, kick the hell out of ourselves, and, in the end, come crawling back to the bargaining table.

The way things are shaping up this is the script currently being written about us, by us.

Think about what you say or write about another member of the working class – and we are all working class to the executives – before you slander your brothers and sisters.

And no, this isn’t about censorship. It’s about knowing who the enemy is and whom you are fighting. And it isn’t the writers now on the picket lines. It isn’t the directors and producers who are still working. It isn’t the crews and other unions caught in this mess.

It is the AMPTP.

And like any schoolyard bully, they will not give us ANYTHING until we, WE, make them say “uncle.” Sure it is a cliché, but it’s true – untied we stand and divided we…

… no, not this time.

Do you know, they’re remaking “The Dam Busters”? Wonderful 1950s British movie about the eccentric engineering boffin who came up with a way to deliver a depth charge to the wall of a concrete dam, and the incredibly brave aircrews that flew deep into the German Ruhr to deliver the depth charges to the enemy’s sources of hydroelectric power. The original had an exciting climactic scene (using miniatures, of course) that showed the dams cracking, then buckling and pouring out their floodwaters onto the Ruhr Valley. Though it depicted the floodwaters washing away houses in the middle of the night, it didn’t clearly show the families, working men, women and children, being drowned in their beds or crushed by their collapsing houses.

All that is by way of explaining how I misunderstood this:

Josh Olson said:

I haven’t seen much of that here, and I’ve seen none of it out there. Out there, when you see a guy walking onto the lot, you KNOW you’re actually dealing with someone who works for a living in this business. Here, several of the few voices that have been heard from that camp have been transparently phony.

But this clarifies its meaning:

Josh Olson said:

Not about you, bubba. I care very much about real people. Fictional constructs designed to sow dissent…. not so much.

As for your family, let ‘em eat cake.

You know… the magic kind.

I guess it’s a protective mechanism. Sort of like in strategic warfare, when one side is forced to use weapons of mass destruction on the other and rationalizes the destruction of civilian targets and civilian lives.

I mean, if AMPTP Stooge was a real mid-level studio employee, with a real wife and a real life, one might actually stop and think that he’s facing unemployment as a result of the strike — not because he’s an evil corporate suit, not because he thinks all writers are rich bastards, not because he’s conspiring to keep bread out of writers’ mouths, but because he simply happens to work in the industry. (I use the term “mid-level” because he’s not in a position to shape management’s offer.)

And it’s so much easier simply to deny that he exists — that he’s only a sock-puppet persona being operated by agents of the AMPTP disinformation campaign. It helps one sleep better at night to believe that one is acting out of pure and right motives and that therefore one’s actions cannot possibly be causing harm to innocent bystanders. With this magical mindset, one can even claim to “care about real people” — because one can pretend that no real people were harmed in the making of this strike.

Arizona Kid said:

Worry about us, the rank and file talent in this town, above and below the line. Worry that if we do not stop pissing on each other, if we don’t stop dancing to the AMPTP’s tune and get together, united in our cause, that we are gonna lose this thing. The enemy is counting on us to do what we always to, to blame each other, turn on our own, kick the hell out of ourselves, and, in the end, come crawling back to the bargaining table.

The way things are shaping up this is the script currently being written about us, by us.

Think about what you say or write about another member of the working class – and we are all working class to the executives – before you slander your brothers and sisters.

Well said, Kid.

DLW wrote:

I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten residuals on episodes being rerun in the first or second week when they were trying to launch the show.

Probably you have, but honestly, I think scripted programming is in such a fragile state that I’d be inclined to give the Companies a discount on that sort of thing since if it actually does help launch the show, that means a bunch of WGA members hold onto their staff jobs, etc.

I just want to go on record here that I have been playing to the cheapseats, and I have no problem with that. Sarcasm is fun and I love that it can make a point at the same time.

I also think it’s extremely funny that Josh thinks he’s doing a service by bitching about, and to, Craig, yet doesn’t seem to realize that he’s actually doing as much harm as he claims Craig is doing. By the way, Josh. Did you read John August’s post today. Interesting.

Kid,

“Because that is what all the talent, below and above the line in this town, are busy doing on these blogs – beating themselves to death while the executive class gets to kick back and wait for us to die at our own hand. “

Don’t believe it for a minute. What happens here isn’t even remotely representative of what’s going on out there. The online screenwriting community is a tiny fraction of the screenwriter community.

“OR… and this is why I am writing this, we could all just stop ripping on each other and put some pressure on the greedy bastards who take home millions – billions – while crying poverty whenever they have to share a slice of the pie (no matter how small)”

Most of us are out there every day, doing just that. And what goes on out there is 180 degrees from what goes on here.

“Worry about us, the rank and file talent in this town, above and below the line. Worry that if we do not stop pissing on each other, if we don’t stop dancing to the AMPTP’s tune and get together, united in our cause, that we are gonna lose this thing. “

All I see out there is below the line support for what we’re doing. The exceptions are so rare, everyone ends up hearing about them.

CliffordOdebt-

Inclined to agree to an extent. There are reasonable solutions to be found for the looking.

stuiec-

My bleeding heart can’t help but feel for everyone hurt by this situation, even Stooge, if he is, in fact, the guy he portrays. But I can’t help but add that I face unemployment at the end of every deal.

And after a stumble, most of those execs, warm, friendly guys who invited me to dinners and parties, vanished behind the gates to collect their weekly salaries and romance the next indy new kid in town while I sweated the mailman for those crucial green envelopes.

Just sayin’

Stuiec,

“it’s so much easier simply to deny that he exists — that he’s only a sock-puppet persona being operated by agents of the AMPTP disinformation campaign.”

Hate to break it to you, but there are, actually, people in the employ of the AMPTP whose job is to spread disinformation and spread dissent. Sometimes they’re obvious, sometimes they’re not. It would be lovely to live in a world where such things didn’t happen, but we don’t. It’s incredibly easy to deny that Stooge is anything but an honest to god stooge, because that’s what he is.

Keep living in your world, because it’s sweet and nice. But some of us have seen behind the curtain and know how things actually work.

With the provisions that are obviously failing in limiting the piracy of movies/music over the internet, what solace is to be found knowing your show is streaming over unlicensed streams (for however many weeks)?

This isn’t some vhs copy of the ‘88 World Series used without the expressed written consent of Major League Baseball.

Once its out on a hard drive - any hard drive - it can very easily be disseminated in perpetuity without much chance of being traced (with very little creative programming common among those who are so inclined).

If you haven’t received your 2.5% on the first go round - you certainly aren’t going trace the real value of the material’s actual exposure after six weeks. It will be a very small fraction of the actual viewers by then.

And I’m not confusing legality for reality.

It will be many more contract negotiations away before law enforcement even comes close to catching up with this.

I can’t figure out whether or not I’m an AMPTP stooge. I think I’m just a smart-ish, independent minded WGA member who sometimes finds the opinions of his fellow writers a little under-informed, self-righteous, and group-thinky. But every once in a while I have… memories. Flashes, really. Disturbing flashes. Barren laboratories, gray men in white coats, syringes. And the other day, I realized the Krispy Kreme I ate on the picket line was shaped exactly like Nick Counter’s nose. But, then, I thought, how do I even know what Nick Counter’s nose is shaped like… unless I’m a stooge?

Josh Olson said:

It’s incredibly easy to deny that Stooge is anything but an honest to god stooge, because that’s what he is.

Keep living in your world, because it’s sweet and nice. But some of us have seen behind the curtain and know how things actually work.

It is sweet and nice in my world, where I pretend to be a screenwriter and dream of someday joining the WGA. I work a day job, I draw a regular paycheck.

Down in Southern California, I understand that it’s not so sweet and nice for everyone. You’re on the picket lines all day long. Other people are looking for interim work because the strike has shut down their regular jobs. Good union brothers and sisters are being laid off. Even people who work inside the dark Satanic studios are affected, I hear — and not just the higher echelons of evil entities, but the relatively innocent minor demons.

Setting aside the particular case of AMPTP Stooge, you do recognize that the strike is causing pain among many more people than just AMPTP executives, directors and shareholders, right? That in fact, that’s part of the strategic value of a strike — to cause widespread pain that puts more pressure on management than merely the denial of the strikers’ labor?

It would seem to me that the best response to a complaint about this collateral damage, regardless of the source, would be empathy, sympathy, and an effort to explain why the collateral damage is a necessary, though regrettable, part of the strike strategy. Better to try to lay the blame for the collateral damage at the AMPTP’s intransigence rather than simply dismiss claims of collateral damage as (a) fabricated, (b) anti-strike and anti-labor, and/or (c) irrelevant, irritating whining from cry-babies who are insufficiently supportive of the WGA’s cause.

Because at the end of the process, you have to go back to work with all of those people and/or soulless life-draining fiends, on whom your livelihood depends.

CliffordOdebt said:

I can’t figure out whether or not I’m an AMPTP stooge.

I always thought that the haircut was the dead giveaway. If you look in the mirror and see either (a) a salad-bowl mop, (b) something resembling Dilbert’s Pointy-Haired Boss, or (c) a buzzcut close to baldness, you might be a Stooge.

DLW said:

My bleeding heart can’t help but feel for everyone hurt by this situation, even Stooge, if he is, in fact, the guy he portrays. But I can’t help but add that I face unemployment at the end of every deal.

And after a stumble, most of those execs, warm, friendly guys who invited me to dinners and parties, vanished behind the gates to collect their weekly salaries and romance the next indy new kid in town while I sweated the mailman for those crucial green envelopes.

Just sayin’.

And that’s why the strike needs to be prosecuted to its natural conclusion — to make sure those crucial green envelopes keep coming regardless of how technology changes the format and method of delivery of entertainment. I think it makes sense to treat those hurt by the strike with sensitivity because you have to work with them after the strike is over; that doesn’t mean that you should shrink from making this strike yield up as much of what you’re demanding as possible.

On the subject of streams vs (permanent) downloads, I was wondering if the case could be made that, since downloads create another physical copy that is under the control of the viewer, they are analogous to DVDs; while streams, being a copy that remains under the control of the studio that is viewable by multiple people at the same time, are analogous to theatrical prints.

And if such a case could be made, would that be good or bad for the WGA’s bargaining position?

Josh,

Your rhetoric is leaning heavily towards jingoism. You realize that don’t you? You are quite often referencing the masses and how the masses are fighting the good fight and how we must support the masses and why do we hurt the masses with our dissent.

What’s this fight about again, Josh? Respect? Nope. Workers of the world unite? Nope. It’s about money (and, horribly, about our leaderships’ egos and tertiary political goals).

Case in point: David Young’s self-proclaimed rockstardom and the havoc (being we: the marching masses) he’s wreaked.

You say Craig hurts the WGA with his quotable, un-WGA associated blog. You come here bashing Craig’s skull because he walks a moderate line (and it is a moderate line especially compared to say the AMPTP).

And yet you support a man (David Young) who not only claims ownership of the masses, but also confirms fears that this strike was going to happen no matter what the AMPTP did or said. He not only confirms these fears, but has the audacity to revel in them. Who does he think he is? Stalin?

And who do you think hurts the WGA more, Craig the dissenter or David the elected leader?

And like David Young, it seems like you’re getting caught up in the fervor of war. You’re lashing out with emotion, when a sound mind is called for. You are a voice I listen to and respect, but I would never follow because of your blind loyalty to a guild leadership whose recent history and current actions do not fully deserve such respect.

Questions, be they from moderates or stooges, need to be asked and answered accordingly. For confidence to be instilled in moderate sympathizers (and they do exists, even amongst those who walk the pavement with you), we need solid consistent answers from our leaders (and yes, like Craig, you are a de facto leader in this fight)?

If you can’t provide such answers, if you can only espouse hate, well your voice has become useless or, dare I say it, damaging to the plainly non-emotional, solely financial goals of the WGA.

Maestro said:

On the subject of streams vs (permanent) downloads, I was wondering if the case could be made that, since downloads create another physical copy that is under the control of the viewer, they are analogous to DVDs; while streams, being a copy that remains under the control of the studio that is viewable by multiple people at the same time, are analogous to theatrical prints.

And if such a case could be made, would that be good or bad for the WGA’s bargaining position?

Interesting way of looking at it. Maybe streams are more like a theatrical print than they are like over-the-air or over-cable broadcasts — broadcasts can be recorded, and streams, not so much.

Does it help answer the question of who is paying what revenues to whom? I think that latter question is the one perplexing everyone, specifically: where does the revenue come from, who receives it, how can it be measured reliably, and how can a portion of it be contractually allotted to WGA writers?

Ted,

“Which gives us both grounds and reason to argue that either such use should be licensed, or that such non-licensed use should be limited so as to preserve the viability of other licensed uses (like network reruns, basic cable, pay-per-view downloads, etc.)”

So, is that what we, the WGA, is arguing? And if it is what we, the WGA, is arguing and it’s beneficial to AMPTP companies, why are we on strike?

CORRECTION: So, is that what we, the WGA, ARE arguing? And if it is what we, the WGA, ARE arguing and it’s beneficial to AMPTP companies, why are we on strike?

I’s dumb.

Seriously, do the AMPTP really have a guerrilla warfare strategy? You think that this person would be as petty as I’ve been at times (much to my regrets after seeing stu, brian, cliff…but I am legitimately afraid of losing my job)? I’ve worked at both a major net and a studio. I think I bring a unique perspective. I don’t know everything. I know a little. I am certainly learning more than I know here. I am actually amazed at the quality of comments on this blog (other than some genuinely mean spirited people).

To answer Brian about being more productive…I don’t have any answers. Cliff had some great ones that I would have never thought of. I am trying to get the point across that the AMPTP isn’t crazy or evil. That the WGA should stop arguing “fairness”.

AZKid - wow. I actually forwarded that article around. I thought it really captured things perfectly…good and bad for both sides.

Ted and Cliff - Sorry if this sinks you (my support), but you learn me good.

Before I go to sleep on my bed made of the bone and sinew of writers, I love how Josh just takes Stooge and runs with it. That’s what he is because that’s what he calls himself! Not even getting the point at all.

Josh, Dick Cheney regularly charges that for an American to question his actions or the President’s actions or the “War on Terror” is to provide aide and comfort to the enemy. It is to be unpatriotic. I bet you hate it when he says that. I bet you rail on how it is untrue and unfair. How dissent and debate is the lifeblood of this great country. At some point, you will look in the mirror and go, “oh lord…what hideous creature have I become?”

But, hey, I am just on the AMPTP payroll. Why listen to me? Back to the bubble.

Stooge

Clifford,

“It makes sense to me— after all, in the current world, nobody’s making residuals in the first six weeks after a TV episode airs for the first time (unless it repeats extremely quickly for some odd reason). So, though one could fuss with the numbers, this seems like a reasonable model to me, in that it essentially replicates the time structure of broadcast residual payments in the Future World Without Broadcasts.”

One word: Streaming. This would be the “some odd-reason” you reference above. Streaming allows for multiple, potentially endless repeats extremely quickly, especially compared to traditional televised broadcasts. This infinite potential makes a six-week waiting period a poor and potentially harmful fiscal decision. But a one-week waiting period…? I think this waiting period is as justifiable negotiable as anything else on the table.

But I agree with the rest of your statement. And when I say 2.5% I’m not actually arguing for that literal percentage, I’m arguing for what it represents (the writers’ just share of potential revenue).

One point I thought of that I want to make.

The networks are packaging the internet streaming advertising with the network broadcast advertising to buoy the price of the network broadcast. By “tossing” in the ad space on streamed episodes, they can keep the ratings at their current levels or at least stem the tide. They do not have separate Ad-Sales departments for internet. So you can imagine that it would be difficult to figure out what exactly the revenue is for the internet streaming, since it doesn’t comparatively exist in any shape or form (ad-based streaming) outside of say ESPN or like CNN (news, which isn’t comparable and they may just be bundling their ad space as well…I don’t know).

Noodle on that one for a while.

One more thing…if I am a Stooge, then don’t I at least exist “in the business” and don’t you think they would send out someone that is informed? Or you think all my posts are psychologically engineered to create the most divisiveness, which I learned from my time at the AMPTP Psych-OPs Training Facility (every one of us is required to take this before being set loose on you writers).

I gotta go. Until tomorrow. Phase 3, world domination is almost here.

Stooge

Not true. The nets still reair at least 6 eps every year in the first year (more sometimes, but the studios place limits on them). They do both stream and reair. Repeats are not going down. They also repurpose them on their cable networks, but I don’t know what those residuals are like or if they are credited or what. Ted, do you know?

And maybe, just maybe, you should cut them some slack because they help get you picked up. That’s the idea of promotion. Trying to get eyeballs to the network broadcast where the big bucks come in for the network and gets the studio closer to syndication. Think of it this way, if the studios are OK with allowing the network to do this…you should be too, because they have a hell of lot more to lose than you (should all these runs — the repeats, the repurposing, the internet streaming — go away). Studios do this to keep the license fees from going down and keep their deficits from (continued) skyrocketing.

Now that I’ve said that. Get a percentage, but realize what I just said when you decide on what amount you are happy with and how the structure of it works.

Stooge

I’m tired.

“(should all these runs — the repeats, the repurposing, the internet streaming — go away)”

I meant “should all the runs, etc. cause the syndication value to diminish”.

Stooge

Stooge,

Dude, your power dynamic is fucked.

First, in these negotiations the networks and studios are holding hands.

Second, and this is where both sides lose perspective, the studio and the content (being the writer, director, actor, collaborator or what have you) are equal. Ying and yang. You can’t have one without the other (although life would be better for all if this weren’t the case).

So, in your scenario, the studios/networks wouldn’t have a show to “help get picked up” with out a show to promote in the first. It’s the circle of life… right-o?

I did not mean that talent wasn’t equally important. Totally agree with the circle of life. I am saying lets circle of life it up.

Stooge…out for good.

Okay, here’s my attempt at some outside-the-box thinking. I don’t claim to have thought this out in any great depth, so I’d welcome it if anyone could point out the flaws in my ideas.

Where streaming is concerned, the networks seem to react quite vehemently to the idea of anyone getting a first-dollar-basis share of a program’s advertising revenue. I don’t know exactly what their issue is there, but this seems to be a huge hot-button for them. (That was something I hadn’t realized until just the last couple of days — although maybe I’m just really slow on the uptake — and finding it out helped explain, at least to me, some of the AMPTP’s intransigence regarding the WGA’s proposals in this area.)

In addition, people have pointed out correctly that ad “revenues” could be very hard to track in some cases, since the companies involved might have made deals involving exchanges of services, or complicated co-marketing agreements, or one-time payments for product placements, or god knows what other sort of arrangement that wouldn’t translate readily into a clean, comprehensible dollar-value-per-ad-view system of payments.

So I would propose that we take advertising — and in fact revenues, period — entirely out of the equation.

One of the unique features of streaming compared with traditional broadcasting is the ability to know exactly how much of a program has actually been viewed by a given viewer, on a very fine-grained basis. So why not just come up with a small, flat fee that would be paid to the writers (and directors and actors and whomever else) for each minute of a program viewed? Or for each thirty seconds, or fifteen seconds, or nanosecond, or whatever level of detail the technology permitted and the parties involved could agree on?

For one thing, this would take the whole bullshit “promotional” debate entirely out of the picture — if the network wanted to stream a program with no ads in order to drum up interest in a series, for instance, then fine, they could do that. They’d still have to pay the talent, so it would cost them a little money, but “free” promotions always do.

Conversely, if they were able to sell ads at exorbitant rates and make a killing at it, then they’d be free to do that, too. The writers wouldn’t share in the extra money in that case, but why should we, really? It’s the network that’s done the work to set up that abnormally profitable deal, not us. But as a recompense for not sharing in those windfalls, this arrangement would also keep us out of any spurious debates over whether we should be paid less (or nothing) if the network accepted a bad deal on advertising and wasn’t able to cover its costs. Either way, that has nothing to do with us. We’d simply get paid a fixed amount for every use of our work — period. And the networks would get paid in proportion to their ability to exploit our work successfully — given those known, fixed costs of paying us for the right to do so.

The actual per-minute payment would probably be some small fraction of a cent, but they’d add up: A show with 20 million viewers (assuming they were all getting the show streamed to them online at some point in the future) would generate a hell of a lot of fractions of cents for the writers of that show. To pull a random number out of my ass and plug it in here just for illustration purposes, if the payment to the writer worked out to half a cent per hour per viewer, then an episode with 20 million viewers would earn the writer $100,000. For 4 million viewers, $20,000. And so on. (Whether the actual amount would, or should, be much higher or much lower than that, I honestly couldn’t even guess. But that point could certainly be negotiated…)

The benefit of this system to the networks, compared with traditional residuals, would be that they’d only have to pay out large sums of money on shows that people were actually watching in large numbers. Also, they’d pay less in cases where, say, a viewer started watching an episode but then got bored ten minutes in and turned it off, versus what they’d pay when someone watched the whole hour. These pay-for-performance aspects might be attractive to them, since they frequently complain that the existing formulas are too rigid, and require them to make large payouts even for marginally-performing programs.

The benefit to the writers would be pretty simple: Writing something that became very popular would mean that you’d get paid significantly more money, with no real upper limit on what you could earn. (There is a corresponding risk, too, of course; writing something that no one in the world liked would mean that you wouldn’t get paid very much at all. But in that case, why should you?)

To sum up the whole idea briefly: For every minute of something I wrote that someone watches via streaming, I’m owed X fraction of a cent — and that’s the beginning and end of my interest in the whole transaction. The network can load the thing up with a million ads, no ads, whatever makes sense to them on a given day, and they’re free make whatever level of profit they’re able to wring out of it. That’s entirely their prerogative. All I’m doing is “renting” them the right to use the content I wrote.

So…is there some obvious or subtle reason why this a) couldn’t work, or b) would never be accepted by one side or the other even if it could work?

Oh, and just in case I didn’t make myself clear above: I’m proposing the payments for streaming be in addition to the original fee the writer got paid for writing the script, not in lieu of it. Since some scripts never get produced, let alone streamed, we couldn’t rely on that as our only source of payment.

(And in exchange, it would seem reasonable to define some initial window of time during which the network wouldn’t have to make those extra payments for streaming — although in my utopia, that window would be a lot shorter than what the AMPTP has proposed. Like maybe a day or two. A week, tops. Beyond that kind of time frame, streaming looks much more like “reuse” rather than mere “use” to me, and it ought to be paid for as such.)

Testing testing testing…

Testing. Testing. Is this thing on?

Um, where’s the forum?

Well, I can only say,

Can’t we all just get along?

Just kidding.

I just want to know why Done Deal is still showing deals being closed. I was real close to work and I don’t know anyone’s email or number now.

On a different topic, sorta…

The LA Weekly story Finke ran about Eddie Murphy’s shoot being stopped, etc. It says Ed Solomon was asked to help but he refused, saying he sides with his guild BUT he wasn’t too happy about production being disrupted.

My question is, what was he doing on set to begin with? It sure doesn’t seem like he was there with the picketers so, uh, yeah.

Suz

Pseudonymouse wrote:

One of the unique features of streaming compared with traditional broadcasting is the ability to know exactly how much of a program has actually been viewed by a given viewer, on a very fine-grained basis.

I can’t claim expert knowledge of this— so someone please flame me if they’re sure I’m wrong— but my friends in the dot-com world tell me that this is, in fact, not true— that there isn’t really a precise way of measuring streaming traffic. Even YouTube’s numbers are off by some sort of decent-sized margin, I’m told. (Which is one of the reasons sites like FunnyOrDie aren’t really making money- advertisers don’t wholly trust their stats.)

Otherwise, I think it’s a good idea. But if there isn’t any non-contestable measurement metric, just imagine the lawsuits and the eventual strike in 2019.

I found three pennies in a jar under Ruby! Wheeeeee!

Stuiec,

“Setting aside the particular case of AMPTP Stooge, you do recognize that the strike is causing pain among many more people than just AMPTP executives, directors and shareholders, right? That in fact, that’s part of the strategic value of a strike — to cause widespread pain that puts more pressure on management than merely the denial of the strikers’ labor?”

It’s not sinking in, is it? Every time you post something like that, the assumption you’re making is that none of us out there give a shit about that. I don’t think it’s intentional - I just think you’re naive, and have a bone you can’t stop gnawing. But it’s a ridiculously offensive assumption. If you’re out on the line, odds are you live in LA. And if you live in LA, it’s pretty goddam hard not to know a hell of a lot of people who are being hurt by this strike.

That has been acknowledged endlessly. It’s also been acknowledged that that’s the nature of a strike, and if the AMPTP had negotiated in good faith, this wouldn’t have had to happen.

I am not sorry if somehow I come across cruel and callous to you - but you’re not even here, and you’re demanding some kind of daily penance from us for having the audacity to have been fucked by management.

Here’s one of the many differences between us - when I insult people as outrageously as you’ve done here, I’m doing it on purpose. You have NO idea how insulting your comments are.

In fact, I got five bucks here says you come back and remind me - AGAIN - that there are people being hurt by this strike.

AMPTP Stooge wrote:

To answer Brian about being more productive…I don’t have any answers. Cliff had some great ones that I would have never thought of.

Glad you liked them. In all seriousness, is there any way you could forward them to your AMPTP overlords? I’ve talked to some WGA officials about these sorts of targeted residual discounts, and my sense is that our NegCom would consider them if the other side put them on the table, but that we wouldn’t put them on the table ourselves.

SML,

“And like David Young, it seems like you’re getting caught up in the fervor of war. You’re lashing out with emotion, when a sound mind is called for. You are a voice I listen to and respect, but I would never follow because of your blind loyalty to a guild leadership whose recent history and current actions do not fully deserve such respect.”

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. The day will come when you’ve been around long enough to have some small understanding of the world, and you’ll find yourself confronted by a kid who sounds just like you did a long, long time ago, and your head will spin when you recognize how vast your ignorance was.

Your assumptions are specious. You assume this forum matters beyond a way for Craig to enhance his own standing. These “debates” here are meaningless, aside from a way to blow off some steam. My concern here is keeping this site from gaining any more credibility in the media, or with impressionable young writers.

You don’t understand the nature or the meaning of a strike. That’s pretty clear. Time will change that, I suspect. I can’t, though. It’s something you’ll have to figure out for yourself.

There’s a lot more at stake here than just getting residuals for your episode of Chuck.

“There’s a lot more at stake here than just getting residuals for your episode of Chuck.”

What’s at stake beyond residuals? I thought residuals were the only thing left on the table prior to the strike. Someone please clarify.

“You assume this forum matters beyond a way for Craig to enhance his own standing”

Talk about yapping out of both sides of your mouth. Which is it, Josh? Is Craig’s site undermining your effort because of it’s already built in enormous exposure to journos and writers and AMPTP hacks? Or is it just a little ego trip that doesn’t get noticed or have much effect outside maybe the unsuspecting lamb of a baby writer.

How has “management” fucked you? Cut the 1920’s rhetoric would ya? Let’s take Kay’s example of her 5 or so pilots out there. I will assume they don’t go forward, since a very small percentage ever do. She probably got paid an avg of at least $50k for those (I am being VERY conservative…I think it’s more). $250k for 5 things that will never make money. But she got paid. Just an example of how management screws the man every day. You are pathetic. At least tell everyone what YOU make when you tell them how screwed you are, Josh. And don’t act like 1.2% of internet streaming revenue is all the sudden going to mean management stopped screwing you.

Stooge

Stuiec,

“ you do recognize that the strike is causing pain among many more people than just AMPTP executives, directors and shareholders, right?”

What would have had the writers do, Stuiec? Lay down, and allow themselves to get ass-fucked for yet another 25 years by the AMPTP? For what? To save Christmas ‘07 for all the below-the-lines?

The writers didn’t create the situation which has led to the loss of jobs. They reacted in the only reasonable way they could to the brazen grotesquery of greed-sucking by the AMPTP.

Josh Olson:

That has been acknowledged endlessly. It’s also been acknowledged that that’s the nature of a strike, and if the AMPTP had negotiated in good faith, this wouldn’t have had to happen.

I am not sorry if somehow I come across cruel and callous to you - but you’re not even here, and you’re demanding some kind of daily penance from us for having the audacity to have been fucked by management.

Here’s one of the many differences between us - when I insult people as outrageously as you’ve done here, I’m doing it on purpose. You have NO idea how insulting your comments are.

In fact, I got five bucks here says you come back and remind me - AGAIN - that there are people being hurt by this strike.

Keep your five bucks, Josh — I don’t need to remind you of a fact you’re well aware of.

Here’s what I WILL remind you of.

There are some folks — including the President of the IATSE international — who think that the blame for the strike cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the AMPTP. It will be a lot easier to win the strike if you focus on getting people like that onto your side.

I accept that you insult people ON purpose, but I frankly I don’t see TO WHAT purpose you insult them. It’s not the most effective way to win allies to your cause. The ONLY people you need to insult in public, or in a semi-public forum such as this, are the executives, directors and (to some extent) shareholders of the AMPTP — and I would suggest that even insulting them is not an effective way for you to get them to consider making concessions from their current negotiating positions. Unless, of course, your position is that those ruthless writer-rapers are so despicable that you’re pledging never to do business with them again.

Josh, I am sorry that you feel insulted by my comments. I should think that someone as given to the frank exchange of opinions as you would have a thicker skin.

(And, just to be clear, my TypeKey handle is derived from my name, Stuart Creque — lest anyone think I am cloaking my opinions with anonymity.)

Keith,

“What’s at stake beyond residuals? I thought residuals were the only thing left on the table prior to the strike. Someone please clarify.”

I’m guessing that Josh believes as many of us do. The AMPTP is going to try and break the union in this strike. And if the WGA falls, so will the others.

They want to turn Hollywood into a non-union town.

StuieC wrote:

There are some folks — including the President of the IATSE international — who think that the blame for the strike cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the AMPTP. It will be a lot easier to win the strike if you focus on getting people like that onto your side.

Christ, you’re naive, Stuart. Don’t you get it? The President of IATSE is an AMPTP STOOGE. Someday, when you have the life experienced that I have accrued, you will understand this.

Stooge-

If we should dispense with the “management only fucks me” mantra could we also possibly lose the patronizing, charity undertones in the paid-for-five-pilots-that-got-us-nothing statements?

I certainly won’t apologize or give back the money for the unproduced pilots I’ve written.

Anonymouse said:

What would have had the writers do, Stuiec? Lay down, and allow themselves to get ass-fucked for yet another 25 years by the AMPTP? For what? To save Christmas ‘07 for all the below-the-lines?

The writers didn’t create the situation which has led to the loss of jobs. They reacted in the only reasonable way they could to the brazen grotesquery of greed-sucking by the AMPTP.

I have consistently said in this forum that I support you — the writers of the WGA — staying on strike until you reach an agreement you can live with. I have consistently said that I believe you should prosecute the strike as vigorously as possible to cause as much pain to the AMPTP as possible, because that is the best way both to get what you are striking for and to shorten the strike as much as is practical (that is, without sacrificing the goals of the strike).

What led up to the strike is a great subject for debate — AFTER the strike is over. I am sure there will be much analysis over the strategy and tactics of both sides. Right now, all that matters is that you are on strike, and therefore you are committed to winning the strike, obtaining sufficient concessions from the AMPTP to reach a deal you can live with.

My concern for the people hurt by the strike isn’t that they shouldn’t be hurt. A strike hurts bystanders. It’s not like a retired gunslinger (Shane, for example, or Tom Stall) being forced into picking up a gun again and targeting only the evil boss and his henchmen — it’s more like strategic bombing, where one side attempts to force the leadership of the other side to capitulate by targeting their factories and infrastructure. It’s the only strategy you have available at present to get the AMPTP to move from its Nov. 4th positions to positions you can agree to.

Once you’ve reached agreement with the AMPTP, you will go back to doing business with the same “ass-fuck[ers]” who engaged in a “brazen grotesquery of greed-sucking.” You might give a thought to whether thinking of them in less hideous terms might make future coexistence easier — using different terms to describe the same observed behaviors on their part.

CliffordOdebt said:

“Christ, you’re naive, Stuart. Don’t you get it? The President of IATSE is an AMPTP STOOGE. Someday, when you have the life experienced that I have accrued, you will understand this.”

While this was clearly intended as a facetious swipe, there’s a somewhat vocal segment of I.A. who make this exact statement, irony-free.

CliffordOdebt said:

Christ, you’re naive, Stuart. Don’t you get it? The President of IATSE is an AMPTP STOOGE. Someday, when you have the life experienced that I have accrued, you will understand this.

I don’t know if you meant to post this with a /sarcasm tag or whether it’s serious. Either way, I’d only say that (a) I HAVE heard one or two WGA members denounce the IATSE as a tool of management that exists only to bust the WGA, which I find an odd accusation to level at an AFL-CIO union — maybe I AM naive — and (b) the WGA hasn’t shown a great deal of fraternal concern and care for the IATSE in the past few years, and in fact seems to have cultivated friction with their brother union.

I am open to being educated about how I am wrong about this….

SML:

“Which gives us both grounds and reason to argue that either such use should be licensed, or that such non-licensed use should be limited so as to preserve the viability of other licensed uses (like network reruns, basic cable, pay-per-view downloads, etc.)”

So, is that what we, the WGA, is arguing? And if it is what we, the WGA, is arguing and it’s beneficial to AMPTP companies, why are we on strike?

Based on Patric’s recent confirmation that the AMPTP had put a “limited window of six weeks” proposal on the table at the Nov. 4 “Black Sunday” session, I’d have to say no, that is not something the Guild is arguing even in principle, never mind willing to agree to.

Remember, the entire point of the Sunday session was to avert a strike. Since the MBA is a nationwide contract covering a nationwide bargaining unit, we could have easily made the decision that the midnight deadline meant 12 am Pacific time, rather than 12 am Eastern time. If the concept of a “limited window” was acceptable, it was within our power to spend an additional three hours trying to narrow the window from the proposed six weeks to something more reasonable. Since we didn’t, I think its safe to assume that any kind of “network run includes limited window of streaming delivery for promotional purposes” solution is unacceptable to the Guild.

And this is borne out by the fact that the Guild has made clear that even though a backchannel promise had been made that if took the DVD demand off the table, the AMPTP would make concessions in regards to internet residuals … in the Guild’s opinion, the AMPTP broke that promise. That’s been kind of a talking point throughout this strike.

• Ted

P.S. I think the singular “is” is correct in reference to the WGA — meaning, East & West operating in their capacity as the exclusive joint representative of the nationwide AMPTP bargaining unit.

stuiec-

No question WGA could and should do a better job of cross union politcking - I’ve stated often that all entertainment unions must or perish- but Tom Short is a prickly pear with his own agenda.

‘You might give a thought to whether thinking of them in less hideous terms might make future coexistence easier — using different terms to describe the same observed behaviors on their part.”

The only terms I can think of are even more hideous. Sorry. Collectively, the AMPTP represents corporate greed. They aren’t human beings in the same sense that you and I are, or even the WGA, which is a collective of individuals. They are a collective of corporations that exists solely for the pursuit of profit. They are an entity. Co-existence with them in a collective sense has always been, and will always be, uneasy and adversarial. It’s the nature of unions and corporations.

And if you think for a minute that their stockholders wouldn’t jump up and down and plant flowers up each other’s asses if they thought the AMPTP could break this union for them, then you are incredibly naive.

Union membership is down from around 30% when Ronald Reagan first took office to 12% today. That’s nationwide. In the private sector, it’s even worse. Down to 7.4%. That’s the lowest number since they started keeping statistics — in the early 1900’s. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics if you don’t believe me.

It’s getting ugly out there.

Anonymouse said:

Union membership is down from around 30% when Ronald Reagan first took office to 12% today. That’s nationwide. In the private sector, it’s even worse. Down to 7.4%. That’s the lowest number since they started keeping statistics — in the early 1900’s. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics if you don’t believe me.

I believe you, even without checking with BLS. I grew up in a union household: my dad was president of his teachers’ union local (Oakland Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO) and my mom was a shop steward in the SEIU. I’ve belonged (briefly) to the Tool and Die Craftsmen and to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. I know that the union isn’t the problem here.

And I know, precisely because of the numbers you cite, that the union doesn’t have the kind of clout that will let it win by brute force. It will need all the allies it can get — and the difficulty of getting allies is only compounded by the fact that the other unions have no-strike and must-work provisions in their contracts.

‘You might give a thought to whether thinking of them in less hideous terms might make future coexistence easier — using different terms to describe the same observed behaviors on their part.”

I’m sorry, I just have to comment on this thought again because it reminds me of what happened to my aunt when she sought counseling some years ago from her Southern Baptist preacher on whether or not to seek a divorce from her husband, an abusive alcoholic who had put her through countless indignities throughout their 20 some odd year marriage. “He’s a monster,” my aunt said. And since the Baptists counsel against divorce, the preacher replied in much the same way you did here, telling her to start thinking of less “confrontational” ways to describe her husband’s “problematic” behavior patterns.

When someone tries to fuck you in the ass, you don’t call it an “invasive colorectal cancer screening.”

You call it an ass-fucking.

Couple of questions.
1. Josh, Where are you picketing Monday and what shift? I thought I heard you do both? I don’t know if you lumped me in with those you say aren’t in the industry on here, but I want to meet you and show you I’m real.

1. Is there concern at DGA or SAG that the AMPTP is truly trying to break the WGA? If it is completely clear that that is the goal here why aren’t those unions, knowing they would be next, not shutting everything down?

Clifford Odebt (great name) wrote:

None of the entertainment divisions of the conglomerates we’re negotiating with grow overall at a 12.5% rate year after year. It’s more like an average of 9% or 11%, unless they have a giant mega hit in a particular quarter. Sometimes they take huge losses— for instance, check out the financials released the other day by Lionsgate.

So the WGA bargaining position is that a higher percentage of new media gross be given to talent than the percentage of gross that constitutes these companies’ growth rate.

I’m trying to understand this better. The historic growth rate of the Companies is not (and I don’t think this is what you were saying) an appropriate benchmark against which to consider the 12.5%; it’s 12.5% of that discrete portion of business that may or may not come in from new media. Is the Companies’ fear that new media could be so fantastically successful that it will entirely supplant traditional sources of revenue, in which case the Companies will have agreed to pay 12.5% of what then will be their entire business? (I, for one, will be glad we didn’t wait for that day to try to claim our piece…) Does someone here have a sense as to what in the world their growth rate would even be in such an age? Can we even take a guess? [I’m sure this plays into their argument that “it’s all too new,” but it also plays into ours that they talk out of both sides of their mouths.]

I’m not tongue-in-cheek here; I’m a good writer, but a shit-ass financial analyst. From the sidelines of studio-finances ignorance, however (perhaps AMPTP Stooge can enlighten?), 12.5% payable IN TOTAL to the talent without whom there would be no content… well, it still sounds like a steal to me.

Brian -

You’re welcome. Punctuation and typos aren’t really the issue. Besides, you’re not a writer, so you’d get a pass anyway. (-:

Rhetoric has greatly improved here. Seems to me the result is a substantive exchange that has suddenly become a hell of a lot more interesting.

And I take back my one-gear comment about Josh. I now realize there was something comforting in his predictability. That whole “come by and say hi” thing… ? Jesus. Maybe the earth is flat, but I found that almost endearing.

P.S. Cliff - Your identity-questioning/brainwash post was hilarious. Kudos.

DLW - fine, just enough with management is screwing us garbage. It’s such BS. Steven Speilberg is a member of the WGA. How screwed is he? And how much, if there is screwing going on, is he on the giving end these days?

Let me also ask, in the spirit of screwing, if any of the writers on this site immediately quit in protest when their productions get moved outside of IATSE territory so that the production can hire non IATSE crew? What’s that? None? Selfish, selfish, selfish.

I also hate hearing about how the evil AMPTP pits each union against one another. No…they simply have different interests and are in many ways naturally adverse. The AMPTP isn’t the only group that benefits from naturally adversity. All of the talent does as well. What do you think is happening when your agent pits one studio against the other in what we call a “bidding process?” Gasp, they are playing one studio off the other. Why do you think budgets are so top-heavy? Why are there $200k blind script deals (and there are what…some 500, at least, development projects around town each year of which like maybe 40-50 get made…not all for $200k, but it adds up quite a bit). I don’t call writers evil for pitting studios against each other. I don’t think they are evil for knowingly circumventing another guild. Just a lil greedy. And aren’t we all.

Stooge

Annonymouse - allow me to explain to you how much in common you have with the Coal Miner’s Union…ZERO! To them, you are a rich, hollywood asshole (whether you are or not). Seriously. To you, they are just a story you may make into a movie of the week some day. Unions are not all the same. Some of them exist to really prevent “management” from being screwed. Ugh…management. Like many of the writers here don’t find themselves in “management” positions. RIDICULOUS.

Stooge.

Quill -

I guess the best thing to say is that you would probably add a layer of cost that would make it financially unsound for the AMPTP to grow a new business on the internet. A position I am pretty sure they can’t be in. At some point, when it is thriving (if that’s possibe) then 12.5% of gross probably isn’t that bad for either side (though I believe that still excludes some like IATSE in his example). The question is: how much money does the AMPTP have to lose to get to thriving? What if they never get there? But I think more importantly, you don’t even need to think about your residual package if the shift happens, in my opinion. I think you will see garaunteed salaries plummet. I think you will see much less development (MUCH). In short, the ad dollars will go somewhere else while the networks, studios, whatever try and figure out how to fit into this new model. Those ad dollars may never come back at close to the same levels. I mean, they are already fleeing in droves for the last 30 years. So if all the ad revenue gets sucked out, how are TV shows even made? Much less at 2 milliion per episode?

Another question: why would you even consider exchanging what you have now for 1.2%? Ted has already pointed out that for some residuals that is very clearly taking a cut.

Stooge

Quill Me Now wrote:

I’m trying to understand this better. The historic growth rate of the Companies is not (and I don’t think this is what you were saying) an appropriate benchmark against which to consider the 12.5%; it’s 12.5% of that discrete portion of business that may or may not come in from new media.

Understood— and I’m just pointing out the overall growth rate to give some real-world counterpoint to the numbers that get thrown around. Because I think if you asked the average WGA member what her or she thought the overall growth rate of these companies are, you’d get an answer like “eighty percent” or “it’s impossible to tell because they lie about everything” or “who cares, since Les Moonves makes twenty million a year?” All of which are incorrect and/or miss the point.

The issue as I see it with new media, in regards to television, is that in the current climate, the internet can’t really be seen as a traditional ‘secondary market,’ since, as both sides of this dispute agree, it is currently cannibalizing the primary market (broadcast) in fairly alarming ways. If it weren’t, and new media income could be seen as the lucrative icing on an already profitable cake, then maybe the 12.5% could be an appropriate ballpark figure.

But the studios and networks have to figure out some way by which rising production costs and stagnating / shrinking ad revenues on the broadcast side can be compensated for. So whatever business model emerged for internet television is going to need to absorb an increasing share of the actual production and development costs of programming, which are huge. AND it’s going to have to meet reasonable corporate growth expectations of ten-ish percent. I think that would be completely impossible with a 12.5% overall residual pool.

As for what kind of growth rate studios can reasonably expect from their new media divisions, I don’t know. And I bet they don’t know either. But:

Ultimately, I do think there is going to be less money, not more, swimming around the television industry in the new age. (cf: the Rob Long argument that we’re seeing a ‘Walmartization’ of our business.) This has two big implications for writers:

1) Writers need to realize that, yes, their residual income is probably going to be lower than it used to me. That’s NOT an argument for accepting the current AMPTP offer. But I think we do need to prepare intellectually for those checks to be smaller. (And I know some of them are small already, but some of them aren’t- for a first network rerun of a drama, the writer gets a little over 20K, and that’s non-commissioned. )

2) (Really, this is the big meta-issue, not just for TV writers, but for the whole television community). We need to figure out how to make scripted network television cheaper. Networks, and writers, have to find ways to tell compelling stories with wide appeal on smaller budgets. Cable is already figuring this out— witness ‘Burn Notice’, ‘Mad Men’ (which uses its small budget alarmingly well in terms of production values), etc. Everyone who works in a creative capacity in TV should be asking themselves how to make cable-budgeted shows with network-sized audience appeal. Because, honestly, I think the days of the ‘Bionic Woman’s and even the ‘Lost’s are numbered. The kind of ad revenue that even successful shows will pull in online won’t justify those kinds of budgets.

Anonymouse said:

I’m sorry, I just have to comment on this thought again because it reminds me of what happened to my aunt when she sought counseling some years ago from her Southern Baptist preacher on whether or not to seek a divorce from her husband, an abusive alcoholic who had put her through countless indignities throughout their 20 some odd year marriage. “He’s a monster,” my aunt said. And since the Baptists counsel against divorce, the preacher replied in much the same way you did here, telling her to start thinking of less “confrontational” ways to describe her husband’s “problematic” behavior patterns.

Did your aunt divorce her husband? It’s hard to live with a monster. If he was truly a monster, she’d be foolish to take her church’s advice and stay with him.

Do you plan to divorce from the AMPTP? It’s hard to do business with ass-rapers. If that’s what you truly believe them to be, why would you want to continue to expose your backside to them?

Hey guys. Fuck over your writer enemies using this convenient RAT REPORT.

http://www.wga.org/forms/reportsuspected.aspx

Remember, it’s the accusation that matters! Not the facts!

Stooge,

“The AMPTP isn’t the only group that benefits from naturally adversity.”

LOL!

How much are you getting from the AMPTP? Or is Craig just paying you in cake?

Maestro:

On the subject of streams vs (permanent) downloads, I was wondering if the case could be made that, since downloads create another physical copy that is under the control of the viewer, they are analogous to DVDs; while streams, being a copy that remains under the control of the studio that is viewable by multiple people at the same time, are analogous to theatrical prints.

I think that’s close to the distinction that the AMPTP is drawing in terms of resisual formulas.

Where a supplementary market use allows viewers non-permanent access to content, they have been willing to agree to residual rates that are a percentage of 100% of the gross receipts from licensing the content for that use.

When a supplementary market use allows viewers permanent access to the content, the residual rates they have been willing to agree to are a percentage of 20% of 100% of the gross receipts from licensing the content for that use.

The thing about non-permanent uses is, once the paid-for window of access closes, its possible for the Company to generate revenue again from the same use and from other uses.

Whereas in the case of a permanet use, the Company’s ability to generate revenue from the same use is substantially decreased releative to non-permanent uses, and it also decreases the ability to generate revenue from other uses, as well.

I think the AMPTP sees that 80% take-away for permanent-use supplementay markets as an offset for the reduced value of the content’s use in all other supplementary markets. And it would explain why they are adamant in their refusal to even discuss (from their piont view) decreasing the “of 20% of 100%” formual to “of 40% of 100%.”

What I wonder about, though, is that first number — the 1.5/1.8% part of the formula. As far as I know, none of the Guilds have ever tried to inch that number up. I know that our Guild, at least, has obsessed over the arbitrary 80% takeaway for the last 20 years or so.

But, really: if we are looking for a 200% increase in amount of residual income generated by DVDs, isn’t “3.0/3.6% of 20% of 100%” the same as “1.5/18% of 40% of 100%”?

I’m not saying that the AMPTP would be any more willing to discuss increase on that number then they’ve been in regards to the “of 20%” number. But I do think that if there’s any room to improve on the DVD formula, its on the percentage of gross receipts that the Companies allot to the producers of the content — ie, the studio divisions — rather than the percentage that goes to divisions other than the studio division.

• Ted

Stuiec,

“Do you plan to divorce from the AMPTP? It’s hard to do business with ass-rapers.”

That’s why the situation was analogous, because my aunt, a devout SB, was in a position that she felt couldn’t get out of, much like the WGA and the AMPTP. It’s an adversarial, but inescapable relationship. Divorce is not an option. Therefore, we must find a way to communicate honestly and effectively, if not with the other side, then at least within the WGA.

I don’t think anyone in the WGA could, in good conscience, call what the AMPTP pulled at the negotitations with the 11th hour DVD switcheroo anything but an ass-fucking. Just like the ass-fucking they gave the WGA 20 some-odd years ago.

And yes, it is difficult to do business with ass-rapers. Very difficult. Hence, unions. The stronger, the better.

:-)

Anonymouse said:

And yes, it is difficult to do business with ass-rapers. Very difficult. Hence, unions. The stronger, the better.

:-)

Well, at least when you do business with known ass-rapers, you know where you stand: straight up, with your back firmly to the wall…

;-)

Mouse - how is striking in the middle of negotiations helpful and “good faith?” Both side play hardball. Getting a strike authorization is forcing the AMPTP to negotiate under duress (like holding a gun to your head). No one should ever negotiate that way. They still went ahead. Then the WGA pulled the f’ing trigger and you want the blood-spattered corpse of the AMPTP to keep negotiating? Just be fair. Both sides caused this. None more than the other. No one has to strike. Striking so that the “man”, while ass-raping you, only gives you 5 pumps instead of 8 is kinda silly, no? You still get tore up.

Stooge

By the way, Mouse. The AMPTP does pay me. Just like it pays every other writer yapping on this message board. Only difference between the 2 of us is, I work in a coporate structure and only get so many days off a year (opposed to your flexible schedule of writing at home…maybe on a staff for a few months…not saying it’s not hard work…just more flexible) and I don’t get as much money as you…and I somehow actually love my job.

Stooge

AMPTP Stooge:

Another question: why would you even consider exchanging what you have now for 1.2%? Ted has already pointed out that for some residuals that is very clearly taking a cut.

Potentially a cut, in the event that internet delivery serves as a wholesale replacement technology for cable delivery (something that could be accomplished using the existing cable delivery infrastructure), and in two areas:

1. Content produced for the primary market of network or basic cable television that is used in the supplementary market of basic cable. The existing residual formula is 2.0% of 100%.

2. Content produced for the primary market of pay television (like HBO) that is used in the supplementary market of pay television. The existing residual formula is 2.0% of 100%.

Those are residuals that need to be preserved in the face of new technology. A technological rollback is still a rollback.

Other than those, the 1.2% of 100% formula agreed to for non-permanent internet use represents either the status quo (in the event of internet/cable replacement) or new residual income.

And the position we held on permanent internet use up ‘til this negotiation — that the rate for that should also be 1.2% of 100% — represents either a substantial increase (in the event of internet/DVD replacement) or a new residual income.

Obviously, then, our demand for a residual rate of 2.5% of 100% for all supplementary internet uses, both permanent and non-permanent, represents an even more substantial increase (in the event internet/DVD of internet/cable replacement) or new residual income.

• Ted

Ted:

My understanding is that on “Black Sunday” the WGA did try to increase the percentage against the 20% (which the AMPTP has decreed inviolable). It was not agreed to, but it was attempted.

I like fee for minute viewing of streaming. I know someone said that the accounting of time is not accurate. Is that really true? Or is that like the ad agencies trying to convince the guilds they don’t know exactly when/where their ads play? And is the current proposal for residuals on streaming/download based on ad revenue? I thought they were always separate. Could I have some clarification here, please?

And, thanks for the pass on punctuation and typos, Quill. But remember, as Orwell told us, that way lies the land of double plus ungood.

Ted,

I am saying…if everything shifts. Network TV included. No such thing as syndication. That to me is a terrible exchange for 1.2%. And if no one believes this will really happen in the near future, then this strike is really people just saying “I want more of a raise than what is offered” and not “must prevent the destruction of residuals.” Plus, if it’s just about more money, then why on earth drop the idea of increasing the DVD rate, which actually has significant revenue flowing. What is the dire need to get a piece of internet streaming? And why at the expense of real money from somewhere else?

Though, I think you would probably already agree with me and say “so what, here we are.” I just think some other people need to come to this conclusion before a reasonable deal can be made. And, again, the WGA can ask for as much as it wants. Please get as much as you possibly can. I have no interest in you getting less money. Believe it or not, I have many friends who are writers and I would love for them to get as much as they can. Just don’t DEMAND it and stop feeling entitled to it.

Stooge

Serious question: where does a guy like Speilberg fit into all of this? A guy that would seem to be not so easily fit into the WGA v AMPTP mold, since he’s kind of on both sides. You would think he could be persuasive or is he just not interested in the politics?

Stooge

I’d guess Spielberg - my current employer, incidentally - is not interested in the politics.

Though, like general politics, it is likely those with no compelling interest who may be most qualified.

Because someone like Speilberg knows that he’s in an untenable situation and that he will be bound to piss someone off…better to shut your mouth and hope it all goes away then take a public stance.

The question you asked can, and should, be extended to all the whole feature side of the business which has been conspicously absent in media coverage…

Pardon my terrible spelling and diction…yikes.

George Clooney acts like a mensch:

Clooney donates to Actors Fund Fund helps those hit hard by strike By MICHAEL FLEMING

Excerpt:

George Clooney has donated $25,000 to the Actors Fund, money that is earmarked to provide emergency assistance to workers in the entertainment industry who fall on hard times because of the strike.

Clooney said he plans to make this the first of periodic donations to the fund, and said he is prevailing upon his peers to do the same. The goal is to provide some cushion for workers who find themselves in dire financial straits after being laid off. Clooney said he chose the Actors Fund because applicants do not have to belong to a union to be eligible for relief, and because the fund issues grants and not loans.

“To people like myself, the strike is a forced vacation, but with the rhetoric high, and two other strikes looming, there is the fear that a prolonged strike can destroy people who make a living in this industry,” Clooney told Daily Variety. “My hope is that people who can afford it will take responsibility for this and help out. This felt like the right place, because the Actors Fund is the most inclusive. It helps writers, and everyone from craft services workers to agency assistants who have been laid off.”

Well said, Clooney.

Back to Speilberg, who is as much more like what Mouse and Josh would call “management” than a writer. Not just because he is in features, and look we are on a site hosted by a feature writer and Josh would seem to be mainly into features and surely he is yappin it up, but because he seems to avoide the ire of the writers. Is the concept that for this idea of pho-solidarity you must brush aside the fact that he is management? How does he get a free pass? He’s not alone, but just a very prominent example…not to mention he has a studio (aleit recently sold).

Stooge

Wall Street Journal article on showrunners and the strike here.

Excerpt:

These writers, called “showrunners” because they’re also producers responsible for running their TV shows, have taken to picket lines and generally refused to participate in shooting or editing episodes of their series. But TV studios are sending showrunners breach-of-contract letters, and many showrunners are anxious about the fates of their series. So some are returning to perform some of their producing — but not writing — duties.

Good move George.

I just donated a hundred bucks to the Actor’s Fund. Which, sadly, is a larger portion of my current net worth than Clooney’s 25k.

My understanding is that on “Black Sunday” the WGA did try to increase the percentage against the 20% (which the AMPTP has decreed inviolable). It was not agreed to, but it was attempted.

Really?

So, rather than walking into that session and saying “The DVD residual demand is off the table, let’s get down to it on internet residuals, ‘cause we’ve only got ‘til 9 pm Pacific time,” we said “Okay, here’s our new demand on DVD residuals?”

Man, I wish I thought you were wrong on this. But, unfortunately, that seems perfectly in keeping with the way we’ve conducted our side of these negotiations.

I like fee for minute viewing of streaming. I know someone said that the accounting of time is not accurate. Is that really true? Or is that like the ad agencies trying to convince the guilds they don’t know exactly when/where their ads play? And is the current proposal for residuals on streaming/download based on ad revenue? I thought they were always separate. Could I have some clarification here, please?

“Streaming video” is actually just a form of “temporary downloads.” Where a viewer pays to watch the content, residuals are paid at the rate of 1.2% of 100% of licesing fees.

But the issue with ad-embedded streaming video isn’t that its offered free to viewers — that’s a pretty simple oversight in the orignial agreement to address — its that there’s no licensing fees being paid. Obviously, we can’t receive a percentage of something that doesn’t exist.

My understanding is, yes, our current demand is that in absence of a licensing fee, we receive a percentage of ad revenue where …

… well, I was going to say “where ad revenue is generated by the use as streaming video,” but that presumes the media & network divisions are charging advertisers discrete fees of embedding ads in streaming video (or any fees, for that matter).

So, I guess its actually, our current demand is that in absence of licensing fees, we receive a percentage of the ad revenue paid to Company by the advertisers whose ads are embeddded in the video.

• Ted

Ted:

It’s what I heard. I thought DVD didn’t come off the table til the backdoor deal that fell apart.

That the NEGCOM listened to the AMPTP that 20% was untouchable is interesting. That they tried to attack it from another direction also interesting.

It’s also my understanding that there was a disagreement on what constitued 100% of licensing fee.

I still like the fee/minute idea better then percentage of ad revenue. Does anybody that knows computers really well know if this is feasible?

Wow. So the issue is even narrower than I was even letting on. It’s just ad supported streaming. Not all streaming.

Is the WGA making a serious effort to educate its members? I don’t mean the propaganda that both sides push out there. I mean the real stuff you are saying. If I were a writer and I wanted to really understand this stuff, what would be my best course of action (other than reading this blog for one). It seems to me that the WGA leadership is more interested in whiping its members up into a freenzy and couching this in 1920 management v. labor terms, than educating its members on what they are actually fighting for.

Stooge

Josh,

This is the way I see it and I’ll use pop culture references from your era so you can understand:

I’m Spock. You’re Bones. Craig is Scotty. David Young is Kirk. And Ted is Ohura. The red shirted crew (nice, check that double meaning) is the WGA strikers. Take that casting JJ Abrams.

You’re like: “Dammit Spock. Scotty’s flying us into the sun. Can’t you see that? You’re not even human.”

I’m like: “Doctor, the Captain has ordered this vessel into the sun. Blame falls solely on his shoulders.”

You’re like: “ Dammit Spock, Jim’s our Captain. He knows what’s best for us. You’re not even human.”

I’m like: “My humanity is not at issue. Logic dictates that flying into the sun will kill our crew. I need you to check the Captain for a terrestrial parasite known as megalomaniasis.”

You’re like: “Dammit Spock, I need to stop Scotty from flying us into the sun. Can’t you see how important it is, how it is my duty to stop Scotty? No, you can’t. Because you’re not even human!”

Then Ohura walks by us and you fist her in the nose.

And now, I think, we need a moritorium on analogies.

AMPTP Stooge:

I am saying…if everything shifts. Network TV included. No such thing as syndication.

The way the MBA (and all other union contracts) is set up, there are primary markets (the market for which the motion picture is produced, be it network television, theatrical, straight-to-video, etc ) and supplementary markets (all markets in which the motion picture may be used other than the primary market). Additional payments (ie, residuals) are made for use in supplementary markets.

I think we have to presume the continued existence of the primary markets of, at least, network television and theatrical distribution. If we don’t, then we’re talking about pretty much tossing the entirety of the MBA and starting over, something that seems beyond the purview of this negotiation.

Allowing for that, and positing a future wherein the internet represents the only supplementary market … then the 1.2% of 100% rate for temporary downloads represents a cut in residual rates for the two “temporary use” supplementary markets I mentioned, the status quo for all other “temporary use” supplementary markets, and an increase in one supplementary market (the residual rate for use of theatrical motion pictures on broadcast television is 1.2% of 60% of 100% of licensing fees).

And, of course, the permanent download rate would represent the status quo for the “permanent use” supplementary market of VHS/DVD.

And if no one believes this will really happen in the near future, then this strike is really people just saying “I want more of a raise than what is offered” and not “must prevent the destruction of residuals.”

Well, the AMPTP made that an issue with that stupid “rollback-a-palooza” proposal. While I get that they responded to our pattern of demands with an unreasonable proposal of their own, the fact is, the majority of Guild members do not understand why anyone would consider our pattern of demands unreasonable … so all that proposal did was make what was already going to be a tough negotiation even harder.

• Ted

Ted Elliott said:

The way the MBA (and all other union contracts) is set up, there are primary markets (the market for which the motion picture is produced, be it network television, theatrical, straight-to-video, etc ) and supplementary markets (all markets in which the motion picture may be used other than the primary market). Additional payments (ie, residuals) are made for use in supplementary markets.

I think we have to presume the continued existence of the primary markets of, at least, network television and theatrical distribution. If we don’t, then we’re talking about pretty much tossing the entirety of the MBA and starting over, something that seems beyond the purview of this negotiation.

Isn’t there the addition of the new primary market of Internet presentation — made-for-Web content, as opposed to made-for-TV or made-for-theatrical content that happens to be distributed over the Web?

Futher, what DOES happen on that future day when the distinction of ‘primary’ market vs. ‘supplementary’ markets becomes meaningless?

Ted,

Learned once again. Thank you.

I also agree that the “rollback-a-palooza” was a silly tit-for-tit by the AMPTP (way to go…you respond to a reach with a reach of your own). You wish one side would at least behave like grown ups. Unfortunately, both seemed to behave like babies in the lead up.

I want to point out that even just the concept of all supplementary markets moving to the internet is far fetched. If networks remain the primary market, then affiliates should also remain the main destination for syndication (which I presume is still where most residuals are generated). In other words, I think the primary market and the syndication part of the supplemental markets are tied together.

Any chance I can get an explanation as to how repurposing is handled? Is it treated like the first rerun?

Stooge

Made for internet content is something the WGA is asking for jurisdiction over. That is part of this. Just I think everyone realizes that the production funding for those efforts are minimal, so it’s not going to matter much. I think just getting some kind of jurisdiction is what the WGA’s end game is on that effort. I hope it isn’t to get paid the same kind of money as they do for other primary markets (especially network, but even cable).

If that every happens, NO ONE KNOWS. It’s guess work. Like Ted said, throw out the current MBA, because it has no applciation whatsoever.

Stooge

I like the fee/minute streaming idea as well — good thinking Anonymouse!

Using Youtube for comparison doesn’t work because Youtube is Flash-based, which means each video is a complete program - whereas streaming (which I understand less well) only delivers a portion of data at a time and cleans up earlier portions as it goes.

A minute is too small an increment at this time, technically speaking, as any stream worth watching must deliver a large enough data-bubble around the currently viewed portion to minimize loading-freeze.

To implement a model TODAY, one could easily introduce minimal viewer interaction. To expand on this, one could segment streaming videos into segments that are between 6-8 minutes long without alienating most viewers, who only need click on a mouse (or even some voice-activated technology) to begin the next stream. Perhaps, one could lead each episode with a 3-minute segment that could be free (i.e. no residuals) but then each following segment would trigger a residual. THIS model is currently implementable, and actually Youtube has already primed the new media generation for this kind of breakdown with their 10-minute limit on (most) videos submitted.

I DO know that many of the best and brightest in the technical/programming world are focusing their innovation on online-video. In my opinion, one should take ANY arguments based on the limitations of current technology with a grain of salt.

Anonymouse:

I don’t think anyone in the WGA could, in good conscience, call what the AMPTP pulled at the negotitations with the 11th hour DVD switcheroo anything but an ass-fucking.

In good conscience, I can’t help but point out that, according to recent e-mails from David Young and Patric and contrary to the Guild’s orignal reports, there was no 11th hour DVD switcheroo. We took the DVD demand off the table, the AMPTP imrpoved its position on internet residuals. They did not capitulate to our demands, true, but is “anything short of capitulation to our demands” really the same thing as “ass-fucking”?

• Ted

this is a test. but i knew it would work, so the test is pretty pointless.

Freebird!

This just in, from LAT —

Hollywood’s film and TV writers and major studios have agreed to go back to the negotiating table on Nov. 26 in hopes of ending a bruising strike that began two weeks ago, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Writers, however, haven’t agreed to put down their picket signs. They will continue to strike as planned next week.

Although the talks are a positive sign, the two sides have huge hurdles to overcome to reach a new contract to replace one that expired Oct. 31.

The sides have clashed mainly over how writers should be paid when their work is distributed via the Internet, cellphones and other new-media devices.

stuiec

Isn’t there the addition of the new primary market of Internet presentation — made-for-Web content, as opposed to made-for-TV or made-for-theatrical content that happens to be distributed over the Web?

Yeah. The AMPTP is offering the Guild jurisdiction over made-for-internet, but in name only. All terms of employment, including p&h and credits, would be negotiated between the Company and the individual writer. The Guild would get to collect dues on the income, but that’s it.

Futher, what DOES happen on that future day when the distinction of ‘primary’ market vs. ‘supplementary’ markets becomes meaningless?

They’re contractual definitions, and unrelated to any kind of external factors like date of release. So the distinction can only ever be ereased through collective bargaining.

• Ted

They’re going back to the table NOVEMBER 26th? Dammit, my new spec won’t be done by then. Anything we can do to stall for a month or two?

The WGA West website confirms resumption of talks on Nov. 26. If the AMPTP has agreed to resume talks while the strike continues, that’s a sign of weakening on their part — minor, but a perceptible sign.

And none too soon to head off “a pox on both your houses” attitudes from hardening.

Ted Elliott said:

They’re contractual definitions, and unrelated to any kind of external factors like date of release. So the distinction can only ever be ereased through collective bargaining.

They can only ever be removed from the contract by collective bargaining, but they can be erased in reality by changes in technology. For example, Beowulf is in theaters in IMAX 3-D tonight. If I had an immersive 3-D headset that could replicate that experience in my home — not a technical impossibility — then I might be very tempted by the opportunity to enjoy the movie at home rather than schlep to the theater and wait in line. Others might decidedly prefer to take in the spectacle in a theater for the social interaction.

So what happens when the ‘primary’ theatrical release coincides with the ‘secondary’ streaming download, and the box office numbers include both the in-theater viewers and the at-home viewers?

Aren’t we nearing the same situation as in the classic example of the passenger railroads, who clung to the idea that they were in the railroad business and not the transportation business? Should the technological mode of delivery still be the determining factor in how the artists are compensated? And if not, what should that determining factor be?

This could be the news we have been hoping for. Then again, it could just be another round of the AMPTP jerking us around and playing to the press they have in their pocket(book). Whatever this is, and please try and hear my position without getting your hackles up, this is not the time for flippant remarks. This is serious business. They are serious. We are serious. The livelihood of many of our brothers and sisters are at stake so we owe it to them and ourselves to be respectful and vigilant in how we react to any serious negotiations.

It was a joint press release. So they’re already working together. That’s a good thing. My fingers are crossed.

I’m taking full credit. Obviously, both sides read my posts here and decided on the right course of action. :)

It was my test that did it. NO ONE likes a test.

Good job, Thursday! (don’t you love those “the world revolves around me” moments :)

SML said:

It was a joint press release. So they’re already working together. That’s a good thing. My fingers are crossed.

While “working together” might overstate the case a bit, it’s a hopeful sign that both sides feel pressure for a return to the table. Let’s hope that they also feel pressure to negotiate in good faith and to engage in give and take to reach a mutually acceptable bargain. (The alternative reading is that they are not prepared to relent from their respective Nov. 4 positions — but that they agreed to negotiations only so that they could both escape being labelled ‘intransigent.’)

Keep those fingers crossed.

thursday said:

It was my test that did it. NO ONE likes a test.

Well, they have ten days to cram for their next test.

One hopes that this is a genuine first step to a resolution. And not just a cynical ploy by the producers to get the showrunners to resume their duties (as I understand they have said they would if the AMPTP went back to the table).

But if the WGA and AMPTP arrive at a mutually acceptable deal how will people on this site know who to hate?

This isn’t fair.

Chris Bosley said:

One hopes that this is a genuine first step to a resolution. And not just a cynical ploy by the producers to get the showrunners to resume their duties (as I understand they have said they would if the AMPTP went back to the table).

The Variety strike blog has copies of e-mails from United Showrunners (the ad hoc showrunner strike committee) and from WGA president Patric Verrone. Picketing continues in parallel with the talks, and the showrunners are staying out for now.

DLW said:

But if the WGA and AMPTP arrive at a mutually acceptable deal how will people on this site know who to hate?

This isn’t fair.

We’ll always have George Bush to fall back on.

See? He really IS a uniter, not a divider!

Wow. I am so happy.

I have to believe at this point after these 2 weeks that neither side feels like this is at all helpful to either of their interests.

People will be high on Turkey (then well rested) and maybe the spirit of the Holidays will help us all out (wow I sound lame). I think the timing is great. It will be very difficult for either side to continue this venomous rhetoric during the holidays, I believe. Kinda hard to scream poverty on either side when you are supposed to be thankful for what you have. I am so damn happy!

Too much at stake. The moderates need to keep applying pressure. Brian, DWL, Cliff, Quill, Stu and the amazing Ted (and anyone else I’m forgetting), I believe the tact you take and the information you bring absolutely seeps beyond the borders of this blog. No doubt about it. Keep the fringes at bay for just a little longer.

Stooge

Showrunners really should go back. Good faith and all. This isn’t a ploy to buy 3 more episodes. Stop with the nefarious plots. They have plenty of incentive to get to the table outside of the showrunners coming back. Plus, really I believe it allows the AMPTP to “save face” and say they were “lured” back to the table with an offer that helps them (even if it is very fleeting or at least can be).

Everyone needs to do what’s right. Be honest. AMPTP included. Let’s call this a clean slate.

Stooge

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-young17nov17,0,5901745.story?coll=la-opinion-center

I wish Young would quit while he (we) were ahead — geez, is there any new info/insight in this opinion piece. I hope this doesn’t hurt our efforts…

Wondering if Carlton Cuse going back to work today has anything to do with the new negotiations… Sounds more like a hostage negotiation to me — “Give us Cuse and we’ll talk.” Hmm…

This was posted by one of the Sarah Connor Chronicles writers at www.exisle.net:

To My Fellow Members:

This evening the WGA and the AMPTP announced that we will resume negotiations on Monday, November 26.

This announcement is a direct result of your efforts. It is the direct result of the hours you have spent on the picket lines, the days you’ve spent educating friends and colleagues, the boundless energy you’ve put into engaging with not only the Hollywood talent community, but people all over the country and the world. It is a direct result of your dedication to this union and to each other.

Over the past two weeks we have shown incredible resolve and resourcefulness. Every fifteen minutes someone sends me an e-mail with a new suggestion or a copy of a supportive news article or an entertaining and informative pro-writer YouTube video. Actors, local legislators, fans, and fellow members of the Hollywood workforce joined us in droves on our picketing lines this week. SAG’s Alan Rosenberg and I were warmly welcomed in Washington D.C. and offered support from every member of Congress with whom we met. These developments all undoubtedly contributed to the decision to return to the table.

For 12 days I have repeated that a powerful strike means a short strike. In that time we have proven that bad news won’t slow us down. Now it is equally important that we now prove that good news won’t slow us down, either. We must remember that returning to the bargaining table is only a start. Our work is not done until we achieve a good contract and that is by no means assured. Accordingly, what we achieve in negotiations will be a direct result of how successfully we can keep up our determination and resolve.

We have an abridged picketing schedule next week. Next Monday, November 19, we will return to the lines but on Tuesday we have a Labor Solidarity Rally scheduled and Wednesday through Sunday we will not be picketing due to the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. The picketing schedule for the following Monday, November 26 (when we return to the table) will be determined in consultation with the Strike Captains and will be designed to continue to have maximum effect on our employers and include both studio and location picketing. We will keep you posted through your Strike Captains.

Once again, I thank you all for your efforts and ask you to continue to dedicate yourself to this cause with the same level of energy and enthusiasm that has gotten us to where we are today. We are all in this together.

Best,

Patric M. Verrone President, WGAW

Stooge-

If you don’t mind, I prefer “progressive centrist with anarchist tendencies.”

Thanks.

I saw this in David Young’s piece linked above: Every new technology or genre was presented as some unfathomable obstacle, requiring a cheap deal from writers.

Every new genre?!? What the hell is he talking about?

BTW, it’s fantastic that both sides are returning to the table. Maybe now we’ll all be able to digest our Thanksgiving meals.

stuiec:

They can only ever be removed from the contract by collective bargaining, but they can be erased in reality by changes in technology. So what happens when the ‘primary’ theatrical release coincides with the ‘secondary’ streaming download, and the box office numbers include both the in-theater viewers and the at-home viewers?

Like I said: external factors don’t affect the contractual definitions. What you’re talking about is a day-and-date release to in both the primary theatrical market and the supplementary internet market. Uprfront fees cover use in the primary market, and residuals would be paid from the licensing fees in the supplementary market.

Aren’t we nearing the same situation as in the classic example of the passenger railroads, who clung to the idea that they were in the railroad business and not the transportation business? Should the technological mode of delivery still be the determining factor in how the artists are compensated? And if not, what should that determining factor be?

This touches on something that Craig and I have been talking about for quite some time:

We don’t actually write screenplays and television scripts for the theatrical and television motion picture industry anymore.

What we actually do now is, create intellectual property for the copyright exploitation industry.

Although residuals are defined by specific technological platforms, they also represent an exercise of one of two rights in the intellectual property: the right to exhibit the work (which includes broadcast and transmission), and the right to publish the work (which includes DVD and “permanent”-type downloads) (although “non-permanent”-type downloads technically fall under the publication rights, they do not meet the standard of the doctrine of first sale, and so are really another form of exhibition).

Where the rights in a piece of intellectual property are exploited, the true creators of the property should receive economic benefit from that exploitation.

Or, given the specific type of intellectual property we’re talking about:

Where the rights in a corporate work of authorship are exploited, the true authors of the work should receive economic benefit from that exploitation.

• Ted

David Young is such a liability. WGA does not share in ad revenue. Ever. Either he doesn’t get it or he’s disingenuous. What poor timing.

Stooge

Ted - I actually think I just got this notion with DVD’s. The second percentage in the “% of a %” formula is basically just a contractually imputed license fee/revenue from the studio’s home video distribution arm to the studio itself, right? The only reason this hit me is because you continually refer to license fees and not receipts.

So really, there has never been a payout structure based on the notion of “writers get paid on all revenue” (repeat residuals are even a fixed payment based on the script fee). The pay out structure has always been based on a license fee or the very strict receipts that the studio receives or a fixed payment as discussed above.

Too simple?

Stooge

I was surprised to see the mutual announcement about talks restarting on the 26th. And I was encouraged that neither side will be issuing public press releases about it other than to say that it is happening. The identical language indicates, I think, that they are aware that the back-and-forth in the media has been really unhelpful. As for David Young’s op-ed, that was composed and submitted before the agreement to go back to the table, so I take it as the last salvo from last week.

We should keep in mind that a return to the table does not guarantee an immediate end to the strike. It is a really good sign that they are agreeing to be back at the table 3 weeks in - back in 1988 it took 12 weeks to talk again. But it also then took another 11 weeks before the strike was ended. I will be hopeful if they actually stay in the room and work this out. If they can do that, we could be filming again by early January.

Touche on the Newspeak, Brian.

Clifford and Stooge -

I’m sorry I couldn’t come back sooner to thank you for your helpful responses, but I was undergoing in-patient therapy for my debilitating addiction to this site. It didn’t work. My last resort is for David Young to shutter his masturbatory self-delight long enough that a deal can be reached and we can get back to work. At that time, I fully expect this place to go back to the usual 6 people snarking at each other and throwing crayons over whatever odd topic of the day, as I spy from an occasional corner. Maybe then I can get my life back.

Ted Elliott wrote:

We don’t actually write screenplays and television scripts for the theatrical and television motion picture industry anymore.

What we actually do now is, create intellectual property for the copyright exploitation industry.

I would modify the statement slightly:

The recent changes in technology have made it clear that you never actually wrote screenplays and television scripts for the theatrical and television motion picture industy, but were always in the business of creating intellectual property for the copyright exploitation industry.

(I say ‘you’ rather than ‘we’ because I haven’t yet earned the right to be included as a WGA member.)

Where the rights in a corporate work of authorship are exploited, the true authors of the work should receive economic benefit from that exploitation.

I would also clarify the use of the word “should.” Legally, the owner of the copyright of a work-for-hire is the employer and not the writer. So “should” implies a desire to claim back a fascimile of a legal right that writers customarily give up.

The extent to which you have been successful in the past and will be successful in the future in clawing back this right will depend on your bargaining strength and the strategy with which you use that strength.

AMPTP Stooge: funny you call me “moderate,” because at least one other poster called me “militant.” Militant, because I believe that the strikers should strike as aggressively as possible (I still don’t understand the strategy behind the first week’s strike shift hours), should stay out and unified until the AMPTP shows a shift in its position, and should seek as much solidarity from other unions and guilds as possible. Thus, I disagree that the showrunners should go back in right away, because their being out has been an effective tool of leverage.

Moderate, because I think the WGA should focus only on the economic goals of the writers, that the strikers and their supporters should eschew language that denigrates or dehumanizes the other side, that the strikers and their supporters should show empathy with people whose lives are disrupted by the strike — especially other union and guild members, but including non-union workers, vendors and other “collateral damage,” and that I believe the only reason to be militant is to make the strike as short as practical by making it effective enough to win the writers’ goals as quickly as possible.

And moderate because I keep stating two objective facts that aren’t always obvious to parties to a labor dispute: (1) the only way the dispute can end is if BOTH parties agree to a contract that BOTH parties can live with, and (2) the only way to reach a mutually acceptable agreement is for one or both of the parties to adjust its postions so that the maximum it will allow overlaps with the minimum the other side will accept. The sole objective of a strike has to be to force the other side to re-evaluate its positions and move them closer to the strikers’ side. Forcing them to re-evaluate their attitudes or their emotional affect toward the striking side is a distraction and a dangerous dilution of the strike’s power.

It’s hilarious that Nikki Finke is basically taking credit for re-starting negotiations on her site by musing that agents might be able to help out. And it’s great that the Guild has been pretty unified in terms of work stoppage and picketing. But honestly, and I don’t mean to sound cynical, but I’d bet a residual check or two that the re-starting of talks has more to do with the DGA than anything else.

Meanwhile, who thought Counter was actually more articulate than David Young in their dueling op-ed pieces in today’s LAT?

CliffordOdebt said: It’s hilarious that Nikki Finke is basically taking credit for re-starting negotiations on her site by musing that agents might be able to help out.

I just came from Nikki’s page about that and it seems - to me - that she gives full credit to Bryan Lourd and the other agents. Any pointing to herself is clearly for observing

Different perspectives, I guess.

I’m sure a lot of factors played into this.

I’m just glad for the announcement.

A question for the moderate clique:

So it seems to me that the WGA needs to make a deal in the next month or so that’s better than the deal which will, after that point, more or less be forced on us by the DGA. But this deal has to be seen by the AMPTP as worth accepting, instead of stalling until they sit down with the directors.

Am I wrong about this?

If not, what does that deal look like?

I just wanted to say hello.

CliffordOdebt said:

So it seems to me that the WGA needs to make a deal in the next month or so that’s better than the deal which will, after that point, more or less be forced on us by the DGA. But this deal has to be seen by the AMPTP as worth accepting, instead of stalling until they sit down with the directors.

It should also seem to you, then, that the deal the WGA can cut is very dependent on the deal the DGA will be willing to cut. What is the current thinking about the DGA’s position and demands? Is there an intensive effort underway to coordinate their demands with the WGA’s, so that the AMPTP doesn’t see any upside to pitting the DGA against the WGA in the negotiations?

Sorry to respond to your question with more questions….

This is some thread, and I’m almost sorry I missed it, but with the strike stuff and the new baby, things be happening and time just slips away …

But I have to ask, Craig, how come you haven’t pimp-slapped AMPTP Stooge for the boatload of crap the bitch be shovelin’?

If it’s just becuz Stooge not worth the effort or time, I understand … but really, don’t you think a stooge blowing AMPTP smoke / bullshit propaganda out of his / her ass that shits on our union during a strike on your site is a thing that needs looking at?

Just asking, but I know y’all are busy with the picture …

All these nasty Josh’s.

It’s funny. I definitely started off, and have slipped a few times, by being antagonistic. I was angry that the WGA was acting irrationally in light of the fact that I might lose my job (one thing to be forced to suffer for a fair and just cause…another for a petty squabble). I lashed out. In time, I was somewhat swayed to become more civil (somewhat because, much to my own dismay, I am by far less than perfect) because of the level of discourse on this site. I am pretty sure that’s the whole idea of this website and blogs and debate (not to mention that all my colleagues pretty much agree with me, so what’s the point in talking to them…I don’t like living in a bubble that just reinforces my own narrow-minded views). Plus, I feel much better being able to hear from actual writers some logical, well-reasoned, balance opinions. It gives me hope that reason will win the day and not the people who want to couch the strike in 1920’s labor v. management/respect terms.

Stooge

AMPTP Stooge:

The second percentage in the “% of a %” formula is basically just a contractually imputed license fee/revenue from the studio’s home video distribution arm to the studio itself, right? The only reason this hit me is because you continually refer to license fees and not receipts.

That’s my fault, because we keep flipping between DVDs and permanent downloads.

The formula for DVDs where either the Company is the Distributor, or the Distributor is owned by or affiliated with the Company, is 1.5/1.8% of 20% of 100% of worldwide wholesale receipts. It the Distributor is entirely separate from the Company (as was often the case at the beginning of the video sell-through industry), then the formula is 1.5/1.8% of 100% of licensing fees paid by the Distributor to the Company. So 20% of worldwide receipts is a kind of ersatz licensing fee paid by the Company (distributor) to the Company (production division), but its not actually called that.

On the permanent download side, consumers typically pay for a license for digital content. So the gross receipts would be licensing fees.

• Ted

Finke is so obviously pandering. Whatever. She thinks this will be her Anderson Cooper “Katrina Moment.”

Cliff is right though. She really did give herself credit. She referenced (and check out just how many times in any post she makes that she goes “as I reported”) a prior post where she suggested that the best way to end this strike was to get the agents involved (as if they were just sitting around at the time wondering what they should be doing). So, since she suggested it (and no one else would have thought of that, of course), she was the one who basically has ended this strike by getting em back to the table.

Either way, whatever. She’s a really horrible person. Before this strike, mind you.

Stooge

stuiec:

I would also clarify the use of the word “should.” Legally, the owner of the copyright of a work-for-hire is the employer and not the writer. So “should” implies a desire to claim back a fascimile of a legal right that writers customarily give up

The work-made-for-hire specifically stacks the deck against screen and television writers, even those who are not employees, to such an extent that in the above, “a legal right that writers customarily give up” would be more accurate if it read “a legal right that writers customarily have no choice but to give up.”

“Should” is the appropriate word.

• Ted

Thanks, Ted.

That makes sense. I gotta say that the formula doesn’t seem that wildly out of the “fairness” realm (though it sure is wacky). It illustrates further how difficult it is to create a model for residuals based on ad-supported internet streaming, since the WGA has never really gotten a portion of ALL receipts and definitely not of ad revenue. So the nets argue its really just part of their primary market exploitation or an extension of it (though they use the stronger legal argument of “promotional” which isn’t necessarily that tortured, but in truth that’s not really the reason). The WGA argues it’s a supplemental use. The middle ground will be that they create some quasi-supplemental classification because neither the DVD model or the repeat formula will work, but it’s clearly not purely a primary market, so something has to be arranged. Well, maybe the repeat formula in some fashion. Let’s say you get some form of a residual free window (4 wks or 6 wks) which has been suggested. After that, it’s a small percentage (REAL SMALL) of the script fee that declines every week (month?). The studios really would have no problem because I think they would reason that this effectively puts a cap on how long the episodes would stay up (look, if the nets aren’t making enough money, they simply will not run it outside of the free window period and if they do you get paid) without them having to negotiate it in their license agreements as a quid pro quo. To me that’s better than locking into a contorted imputed amount of ad revenue as “defined receipts.”

Stooge

Ted Elliott said:

The work-made-for-hire specifically stacks the deck against screen and television writers, even those who are not employees, to such an extent that in the above, “a legal right that writers customarily give up” would be more accurate if it read “a legal right that writers customarily have no choice but to give up.”

“Should” is the appropriate word.

My point is only that you get what you fight for, not what you deserve. The difference between what the writer should get in a perfect world and what the writer does get in the real world depends on whether and how the writer can unite with his or her fellow writers and other creative contributors to negotiate with those who own the work-for-hire copyright. At this juncture, that means keeping united, seeking fraternal solidarity, and striking so as to achieve maximum leverage in the negotiations.

That’s why, as much as I empathize with non-WGA members feeling pain from the strike, I don’t think the WGA should modify its strike tactics one whit to minimize that pain if it means taking pressure — even a little — off the AMPTP. I agree with what Patric Verrone said in his e-mail announcing the resumption of talks: “A strong strike is a short strike.” (Which, I guess, makes me a militant.)

I see only two possibilities:

(1) The AMPTP has no intention of making real progress on Nov. 26 because both force majeure clauses and impending DGA negotiations are disincentives to dealing with the WGA this soon, but they have taken a PR hit and want to curry (undeserved) goodwill;

or

(2) The AMPTP has in fact felt more impact from the strike than they anticipated (largely due to showrunner solidarity?).

Would love to hear thoughts, particularly if I’m missing a scenario. My bet is they’re planning a several-week negotiation process (at least), during which time they’ll get the benefit of both f.m. and meaningful discussion with the DGA, and then they’ll see where they are. Could be quite a Christmas.

But my HOPE is that it’s Door #2.

Quill,

If I were the AMPTP I would see option (1) in two ways. One, as a strongish negotiating base (AMPTP can say, “You better deal with us or hello DGA and hello Force Majeure.”) And two, as a valid, but not necessarily ideal fall back plan (“They’re not going to deal with us… hello DGA and hello Force Majeure.”)

It’s in the AMPTP’s interest to settle this ASAP because even though the DGA is a friend, it’s a friend who’s not guaranteed to bend over (especially since the WGA strike strengthens the DGA’s negotiating position).

But that doesn’t mean option (2) is out of the question. I’m sure the tide shift in the PR war (that the WGA now seems to be winning, save for some poor word choice on Young’s part) dinged the AMPTP’s collective ego. But going back to the table is hardly a PR win for them. A giant PR win will be when they acquiesce to a major WGA demand that our NegCom, subsequently, walks out on… (re: the complete opposite of “black Sunday”).

Also, the potential of David Young showing up on the 26th looking like David Bowie from Labyrinth, waving his fingers at Nick Counter and the like, singing, “Dance, baby, dance” is something the AMPTP is banking on and would probably be considered a giant PR win in the World’s eyes. Unless of course David Young has telekinetic-rockstar powers and he does indeed make the AMPTP dance… baby… dance. Or what I like to call option (3).

Shaun posted a question above about game theory. With regard to CliffordOdebt’s question about the DGA as a factor…

… it is worth looking up the Prisoner’s Dilemma (the classic example of game theory) and viewing the WGA and DGA as playing the roles of the two prisoners with the AMPTP in the role of interrogator. The key to success in the Prisoner’s Dilemma is to violate the rule of the game that says the prisoners are not allowed to talk to each other. In the game, the only way for either prisoner to come out clean is for BOTH prisoners to maintain solidarity.

Quill, unfortunately the AMPTP has not likely felt any impact from the strike, so your #2 is probably not the case. I could be wrong, but the only ones feeling the impact right now are the people walking the picket lines, and those of us (now including me) who have lost our jobs due to the strike. The AMPTP will probably not feel an impact until at least February.

As for the #1 idea, it’s possible that they intend to drag out the talks, but I hope they don’t. I hope that both parties see the advantage in coming to a mutually beneficial solution before January.

Force Majeure is already in effect at several studios and networks, including Fox and CBS, so they’re not waiting for anything on that. The DGA is a different matter. I believe the only thing that headed off the DGA from moving in this Monday was the surprise announcement about the restart of talks on the 26th.

As for PR, I think it’s becoming clearer to everyone that the strike is hurting a lot of people not directly involved, including not just the actors, directors and crew who are now unemployed for the holidays, but also the many ancillary businesses in the Los Angeles area that depend on the movie/TV business for their survival as well. That both parties are acknowledging this is a good step for them, and if they accomplish something, it will be a good one for us as well.

Working AD said:

As for PR, I think it’s becoming clearer to everyone that the strike is hurting a lot of people not directly involved, including not just the actors, directors and crew who are now unemployed for the holidays, but also the many ancillary businesses in the Los Angeles area that depend on the movie/TV business for their survival as well. That both parties are acknowledging this is a good step for them, and if they accomplish something, it will be a good one for us as well.

Sorry about your job, man. Let’s hope that the situation is extremely temporary.

Glad it was you and not me who said that bit above — I understand five bucks was at stake.

The PR is even being noted on the other side of the Big Ditch, as evidenced in this article in London’s Daily Telegraph: Writers’ strike hits coffee shops

Excerpt:

For 35 years, Richard Anderson’s Hollywood coffee delivery service has kept the casts and crews of an endless array of television and film productions alert - until two weeks ago when the Writers’ Guild of America went on strike and Hollywood abruptly lost its thirst for coffee.

“It dropped off immediately, on the first day,” said Mr Anderson, who estimates business has fallen 40 per cent since the strike began.

Mr Anderson’s Joe to Go store is one of several businesses suffering because of the writers’ walk-out. Still scarred by the last such strike - a 22-week stoppage in 1988 that cost the entertainment industry an estimated $500 million and left him saddled with debt - he has already reduced his employees’ hours and is bracing himself for staff cuts.

This time the strike could take an even deeper bite out of the local economy, such is the dominance of the industry. Caterers and suppliers of on-set shrubbery, pyrotechnics and dog training are just a few examples of those vulnerable.

Quil et al:

Every single television studio has invoked force majeure. I know for TV and Features it’s a bit different, so I can’t speak to the advantages/disadvantages to “stalling.” I know everyone likes to think that both sides is “up to something.” But in truth there are so many incentives to get this done for both sides, that I think we can accept the fact that both sides are genuine in wanting to get this resolved.

I hardly think the strike has had an effect other than as a little bit of a wake up call that this is real and the WGA wasn’t bullshitting and so the AMPTP companies had to start planning (look, I don’t want to argue levels of “effect”…let’s just say it has mattered and be done with it). When studio/network heads and agencies saw that they would have to axe massive amounts of staff at some point down the road, they probably got a bit more motivated and applied more pressure. I don’t doubt that the agents were indeed effective, btw. Basically, the reality of the strike slapped everyone in the face and got the wheels of moderation turning faster. So, yes it has been effective, but not in some kind of a financial way this early into it. The constant reminding that there are innocent people caught in the middle, I think and despite the nonsense Josh Olson spews, is absolutely helpful in keeping hardliners at bay.

So 3) Faced with potential cuts made very real by the strike, agents and studio/network heads ratcheted up their efforts which has pushed the parties back to the table (also have to believe the showrunners offer is helpful).

Stu - I don’t think backing a strike is a militant act, but I do think it should be a weapon of last resort. Regardless of what classification you fall under, you are at least a reasonable person.

Stooge

Stu, I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your post. What did I say that you’re glad I said? And what do you mean about five bucks?

Stooge, I agree that both sides would like to have this matter ended, but in all honesty, both sides do have their own objectives, and both have played the PR game to either talk up the effect of the strike, or talk up how it is having no effect or a positive effect.

The studios and networks and the AMPTP in general have not been affected in any way by the strike. They have continued with business as usual. They have taken advantage of the situation to fire or lay off as many people as they could to bolster their 4th quarter profit figures. And they have already invoked their force majeure clauses to get rid of the “deadwood” deals they didn’t want anymore.

The reality of the strike has primarily scared those people in the business who were not involved until after the 1988 strike. Most of the WGA members involved have been pretty hardened by the rhetoric coming from their leadership and by the extreme response coming from the other side. (And in all honesty, many WGA members who were in the guild since the early 80’s, like Mark Evanier, have been advocating for a long and bitter strike for some time now, as a way of correcting wrongs going back more than 20 years. (And Evanier admits that he makes a living from other writing work, so he is not ultimately injured by this action)

I agree that the agents were likely motivated by the loss of income to try to broker something here. But in the end, this will be up to Mr. Counter and Mr. Verrone to work out. If they can act like adults, then we’ll have something that the WGA and everyone else can live with. And then we can get back to work.

Ted,

“We don’t actually write screenplays and television scripts for the theatrical and television motion picture industry anymore.

What we actually do now is, create intellectual property for the copyright exploitation industry.”

If I may quote one of my favorite writers:

“Sanitation expert and a maintenance engineer Garbage man, a janitor and you my dear A real union flight attendant, my oh my You ain’t nothin’ but a waitress in the sky”

Testing, testing, 1,2,3, testing.

Looks like the new sign in works for me.

Craig, I still stop by here for a read on the situation. The calm voice here, and on United Hollywood.com I think does help.

Craig:

you said to go to

www.typepad.com to get a free signin

i think you meant www.typekey.com

you might want to change that.

Sorry about that WorkerBee9.

Fixing it. Thanks for flagging that.

Josh —

Interesting commentary. I think its telling that, as far as you’re concerned, the fact that screen and television writers create works of authorship which copyright is exploited worldwide is worthy of the same contempt Paul Westerberg feels for flight attendants who think of themselves as anything more than waitresses in the sky.

• Ted

I write movies, bubba. Some here hold that particular gig in contempt. I’m not one of them.

Which only serves to demonstrate how little you understand the value of your own work to the AMPTP Companies, or the fundamental basis of MBA terms for things like residuals, separated rights, even fees.

Next time you see Harlan, you might want to take that chaw of tabaccky out of your mouth long enough to ask him why Paramount can’t exploit the intellectual property he created in The City on the Edge of Forever in the currently-in-production Star Trek movie without paying him.

That you consider it contemtptuous to talk about writing movies in terms of authorship and authorial rights is just pathetic.

• Ted

Ted,

“Which only serves to demonstrate how little you understand the value of your own work to the AMPTP Companies, or the fundamental basis of MBA terms for things like residuals, separated rights, even fees.”

I’m sorry - because I find your turn of phrase to be plodding, lifeless, and silly I don’t give a damn about writers’ rights?

What a curious notion. I had no idea you were God of All Writers. I always thought if I came face to face with GOAW he’d have a somewhat more poetic nature.

“Next time you see Harlan, you might want to take that chaw of tabaccky out of your mouth long enough to ask him why Paramount can’t exploit the intellectual property he created in The City on the Edge of Forever in the currently-in-production Star Trek movie without paying him.”

I get it, thanks. Harlan’s one of the few writers who actually fights those fights, and I admire the hell out of him for that. We share a sense of humor, too, cos he thought that line was as hilarious as I did.

“That you consider it contemtptuous to talk about writing movies in terms of authorship and authorial rights is just pathetic.”

I don’t consider it contemptuous. I just think it’s kinda weird when a writer can’t describe what he does with a tad more zip than “I create intellectual property for the copyright exploitation industry.”

Like I said, I write movies. Your mileage may vary.

Really, Josh?

You’re reduced to criticizing the way I write posts for message boards?

Sad.

• Ted

No, I’m criticizing your increasingly obvious conviction that you have a direct line to the truth, in spite of the fact that your legal interpretations are often ridiculous, and your comments on the nature of writers involve sucking all the life and art out of what we do.

Doesn’t matter to you - clearly - but to most of us, this is an art form, and when you reduce it to definitions in a contract, you reduce all of us.

Difference between us, Ted, is I recognize that mine is just an opinion. An informed one. A qualified one. A very well educated one. But an opinion nonetheless.

No, I’m criticizing your increasingly obvious conviction that you have a direct line to the truth

So true, Josh. If only Ted could argue with the same sense of restraint and humility you tirelessly practice.

Craig,

“So true, Josh. If only Ted could argue with the same sense of restraint and humility you tirelessly practice.”

True, true. But not everyone is willing to put in the years training with my Zen master.

By the way, did you ever come up with another story as to why you posted that rumor about the Warner gates? Or are you just hoping it’ll fade into the background?

Just keeping tabs on your dirty deeds, babe. Some day you’ll thank me.

Josh:

Weird. Our strike captain tells me you want to meet me. And get to know me.

So which is it?

Love me?

Hate me?

Craig-curious?

Why don’t you guys stage a debate in the WGA theater, sell tickets for ten bucks, and donate the proceeds to the strike assistance fund? Seriously.

Because it would be really boring and narcissistic?

Maybe the latter, but I don’t think the former.

Funny. This is not the first time you’ve responded to being cornered by posting offline shit that isn’t true.

You probably haven’t noticed this, Craig, but I don’t post stories or rumors about you - or anyone I’m arguing with. I take on the words that appear on my screen and nothing more. It’s an ethical decision that’s obviously beyond you.

Perhaps you labor under the illusion that I live a million miles from here, or that I don’t know tons of people, or that you are universally loved and respected. None of these are true. If I wanted to sink to your level, I could do it easily, and unlike the shit you’ve posted about me before, the shit I know is true. Unlike you, my friends aren’t low-life weasels with shit reputations.

But I still won’t do it, even though this is the second time you’ve posted a story about me that isn’t true with an eye towards somehow damaging my credibility or reputation.

No, Craig, I have no interest whatsoever in meeting you, and frankly, I know you already. You’re an egomaniac who’s got a hard-on for the Guild leadership, who’s desperate to appear involved and inside, who runs rumors that are potentially damaging to all of us not out of loyalty to the studios, but out of an egomaniacal need to let your readers in Des Moines know you’rea “real” screenwriter with connections.

For all your talk of being impervious to criticism, this is the second time you’ve tried to trash me personally by posting stories about me.

Our strike captain is well-meaning, I have no doubt. She labors under the delusion that what you and I have is a simple failure to communicate. We don’t. I read you loud and clear (as do countless others, happily. You have NO idea how deep the enmity towards you on the line is.) If she actually said that to you, she said it in the hopes that somehow it would bring about some kind of rapprochement, and you gotta love her kooky optimism.

But I’m still not sinking to your level and posting stories I’ve been told, and for that, you owe me.

But damn, you do make it tempting.

Boy, you can really smell the crazy coming off that one.

…. and the desperation coming off of THAT one.

See you on the lines, gag-boy.

Zing?

Dear Craig,

It’s obvious Josh gets passionate about what he writes here, and is a vigorous supporter of the strike. But we need that right now, a lot more than we need someone who never misses an opportunity to attack or criticize the strike.

You have the right to post whatever you want, but those of us who are out here fighting for our futures also have the right to point out when you’re hurting the cause.

This latest weird attack of yours is minor compared to your previous attempts to smear Josh, but taken in context, I understand his reaction. You DON’T fight fair, and that’s certainly why many people here prefer to remain anonymous. You smear a man, then call him crazy when he kicks back. What a piece of work.

I don’t know if you have an agenda beyond just pumping your ego here, but there’s no question your blog works to hinder, rather than help the strike. That’s not an uncommon view out on the picket lines.

And Ted, I don’t think anyone’s said this yet, but you’re obviously floating out there where the satellites don’t go. Don’t let your press get to your head. You’ve written some hits. You haven’t acheived anything that hundreds of other writers haven’t. You’ve just let it go to your head more than most. I know Craig’s been busy directing his DVD, but are you even out on the lines? If not, why not?

Wait, Ted’s “floating out there where the satellites don’t go” because unlike any other writer I’ve ever met, he’s actually read and thought rigorously about the MBA?

For counterpoint, when this blog has come up on the picket lines I’ve been on, I’ve heard positive things, even from people who dislike Craig’s (and Josh’s) personality.

Josh, long ago, said he wouldn’t put all he could in his posts because he gets paid to write and he isn’t getting paid for this.

So Ted has to infuse the very technical interpretation of a 500 page, small type document and its attendant legal concepts with witty repartee for free (even if it were possible)?

Joshy, I know this legal mumbo jumbo really makes your eyes gloss over, but you’d be shocked to know that it matters.

Anyone that thinks uninformed zealots like Josh are doing writers a favor is wildly mistaken. It may be more entertaining to cast this fight as one between “right” and “might” or “labor” versus “management”, but I sure prefer Craig and Ted’s more complex, nuanced approach. For a political analogy, Josh is effectively the Dick Cheney of the WGA. I would argue Ted and Craig are more like Chuck Hagel.

And, really, the WB Gates thing again?!?! You sound like Joan Crawford railing on about wire hangers. Swear…you sound like a jack ass.

Stooge

Dan Z - you are out there, man. Ted and I have disagreed on many things and, much to my dismay, he is usually right. I am a lawyer and he runs circles around me with his knowledge.

Unless you have actually read the WGA CBA, I wouldn’t necessarily say you should “shut up”, but you definitely can’t attack people.

This is so what’s wrong with this country. Uninformed people taking entrenched positions strictly based on emotions and feeling brazen enough to actually try and attack other people for relying on logic and reason.

Don’t be such a damn sheeep.

Stooge

Stooge: Josh, you see this, all this shit? [Holds up the WGA CBA, and drops it on his desk] Stooge: It’s not your fault. Ted: [Softly, still staring off] I know… Stooge: No you don’t. It’s not your fault. Ted: [Serious] I know. Stooge: No. Listen to me son. It’s not your fault. Ted: I know that. Stooge: It’s not your fault. [Ted is silent, eyes closed] Stooge: It’s not your fault. Ted: [Ted’s eyes open, misty already] Don’t fuck with me Stooge. Not you. Stooge: It’s not your fault. [Ted shoves Stooge back, and then, hands trembling, buries his face in his hands. Ted begins sobbing. Stooge puts his hands on Ted’s shoulders, and Ted grabs him and holds him close, crying] Ted: Oh my God! I’m so sorry! I’m so sorry Stooge! [Ted continues sobbing in Stooge’s arms]

Stooge

Dan Z,

Thanks for the good words. I get ‘em all the time out there. Nice to get ‘em here from time to time.

Clifford,

“For counterpoint, when this blog has come up on the picket lines I’ve been on, I’ve heard positive things, even from people who dislike Craig’s (and Josh’s) personality.”

Not surprisingly, our experience is wildly different. Unlike Craig, I understand the nature of these things. I get that most of the people who dislike me aren’t going to come up and say anything, so I don’t take my experience as some kind of universal truth. However, I’ve been bowled over by how many people have come up to me and expressed nothing but gratitude and agreement to me. Ironically, I spend a decent amount of time DEFENDING Craig. I’ve never believed he’s an active studio stooge, and have argued with folks who disagree.

Point being, all our mileage will vary, but the number of people out there who see through Craig and this site as clearly as I do is significantly larger than I expected.

Which is kinda humbling. I definitely underestimated folks, and I’m happy to be wrong.

Welp, guess that does it. Josh is right because of this wonderful, conlusive bit of empirical evidence:

“Point being, all our mileage will vary, but the number of people out there who see through Craig and this site as clearly as I do is significantly larger than I expected.”

Typically that’s how a bubble works, Josh. Echo, echo, echo. Even Bush has a 100% approval rating…with the 30% of people that believe in him. So, yes, you are are fully backed by the other minority of radicals.

One thing is for certain: your backing is pretty slim here, Josh.

Stooge

Oh. My. God. I have children that act more mature than some of you. And my oldest is 5.

Josh, you are REALLY starting to appear obsessive and bitter. You rant about Craig on other sites, as well as here. You seem to have made it your mission in life to bring Craig (and Ted) down. You think he is damaging to the strike by posting his opinions. We get that. Everyone gets that. Craig gets it. His readers in Des Moines get that.

I don’t know you, but I do respect what you have done (although I wasn’t a fan of History of Violence). But Josh, you’re making me hate unions even more. You come across with so much bile and hate that it reaffirms my belief that however much good unions can do, they also bring out the worst in people. I can’t believe you’re anything like what you appear here and elsewhere. You can’t be, or else people simply wouldn’t work with you, no matter how talented you are.

As a somewhat impartial observer, I have not seen that Craig is anything but supportive of the strikers and the strike in general. He’s an easy target because he’s not in a position to join the picketers, but only a moron would expect him to quit his directing job and join the strike. Would it be a huge show of support? Sure. Would it do anything other than possibly screw any hope Craig would have of ever directing another movie and hurt his career? No, not really. Has he been critical of certain things and voiced his opinion? Obviously. I really don’t see how that has hurt your cause, though. Not in the least. It just reminds me far too much of when anyone spoke out against George Bush after 9/11, then they were labeled a traitor. I realize I’ve said it before, but I think it’s an apt comparison.

Now I’ve never seen any of Craig’s films, nor am I really a fan of that sort of genre, but you continually tout yourself of a man of higher principles. So much so that you come off just as arrogant as you accuse Craig of being. As far as I can tell, both of you are writing the movies you love. Sounds good to me.

I realize that you have your backers, and a lot of people seem to be personally offended by just about every post Craig writes. The magic cake thing wasn’t the best analogy, but people came off as if he was almost intentionally derailing the cause by writing it. News flash: He was trying to explain something in a different way, for those that didn’t understand. If someone like John August did it, no one would have said boo. Craig does it and he’s crucified for it.

I’m not a WGA member, and I don’t even live in the same country as the WGA, so I have not walked the picket line. If I did belong, and lived close to L.A. or New York, I would gladly do my part to support what I feel is a good cause. Getting into pissing matches with people on my own side whose opinions I don’t agree with is pointless though. And harmful.

Stooge,

“Typically that’s how a bubble works, Josh. Echo, echo, echo. Even Bush has a 100% approval rating…with the 30% of people that believe in him. So, yes, you are are fully backed by the other minority of radicals.

One thing is for certain: your backing is pretty slim here, Josh.”

Like everyone else here, my experience is anecdotal, but I’ve been picketing for two weeks now, and this site is one of the subjects that comes up from time to time. I’ve heard one or two people say positive things about Craig, but they’re usually along the lines of “I’ve met him, and he’s not a bad guy.”

I haven’t met anyone who has anything good to say about this site, or the propaganda that Craig posts.

I’ve heard quite a few people express admiration for Josh’s posts here, and, yes, a few who think he goes too far sometimes. But there seems to be a consensus that most dissent here gets shouted down or chased away, and that Craig isn’t looking out for other writers at a time when we need to be unified.

You’re not a writer and you’re not on the lines, so how would you be able to comment on this with any knowledge?

The good news is there’s been an enormous growth in our internet presence, so between his hostile views, and his lack of actual involvement in the strike, this site has become marginalized. At this point, I’d argue with Josh that his presence here only draws more attention to Artful Writer, which makes it counterproductive.

“If someone like John August did it, no one would have said boo.” —Tim W.

Someone like John August did do it (though he didn’t mention Magic Cake — if that was your point, apologies).

Same topic. Same day. Two hours difference.

http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/why-writers-get-residuals

Tim,

The Bush analogy is specious. Several people - myself included - have shot it down already, and none of its adherents has ever offered a counter. So whatever.

As for the rest, well… sorry. Craig’s posted rumors that have painted the strike in a bad light, then turned out to be not only untrue but verifiably so before he posted them. When called on it, he lies. Don’t confuse the crowd here with the people who read the site, or who are out on the line. It’s been noticed.

As for my feelings about Craig, hey, tell you what - why don’t I post outright lies about your offline behavior here, then let’s see how you feel about me. Craig’s a classic Hollywood slime merchant.

That said, Dan Z has a good point. Several, actually. Craig’s value as a critic of the strike is virtually non-existent these days. So long as that stays the same, there’s not much point in posting here.

Josh,

I never saw the responses to the Bush analogy. I don’t have time to read half the comments, so I skip over a lot. I still think it’s a fair comparison, although it’s not surprising you don’t. It’s kind of like being called a racist. No one thinks they’re racist, they just don’t like [insert race here]. No, I’m not calling you racist.

I haven’t read any rumours from Craig that have painted the strike in a bad light. At least from my perspective. Perhaps you’re a little more sensitive to the situation than I am.

As for the lies Craig has apparently posted, I haven’t read ANYTHING he has said about you that wasn’t a direct response to something you’ve said. Again, maybe I’ve missed that. It sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black, anyway. From my perspective, you started this little thing between you guys, and you’ve done a hell of a lot of mud slinging yourself, so you’re not exactly on high moral ground here.

And if Craig’s value as a critic is virtually non-existent, then why do you comment so much here and on other sites so much about him?

So long as that stays the same, there’s not much point in posting here.

Bye!

Tim,

So let me see if I have this straight - you haven’t read many of the comments, don’t know about the events I referenced… but still feel informed enough to post judgement.

Got it.

As for these “other sites” you refer to, what would those be, exactly? Very curious to hear this.

Josh,

My point is that I’m trying NOT to pass judgment, but simply trying to tell you what I am seeing. And I do read many of the comments, especially one’s by you and Craig, but when a thread just degenerates into pointless name calling, I often skip it.

I’m not saying that Craig is blameless in all this. He is far too quick to insult when being criticized in a lot of the threads (sorry Craig), but in the end, you’re coming to his site and insulting him. He can’t simply go away. And it’s kind of hard to ignore you since you’re doing it on his virtual doorstep.

As for the other sites, I know you read and comment on Kay’s site, and there was another Josh Olsen who sounded a lot like you on another site, but I can’t recall which one.

Tim,

And what you’re seeing is, by your own admission, extremely incomplete. So when you say I shouldn’t attack Craig for things you haven’t seen him do, your position is, admittedly, ignorant of the facts. Perhaps I SHOULDN’T attack Craig for the things he’s done, but you’re not well informed enough to know one way or the other. For all you know, Craig’s passing military secrets to Al Quaida in the comments section.

Yeah, I’ve commented on Kay’ site a few times. But you just kinda gave up your shit.

I’ve never seen anyone not care as much as Josh.

Sorry, bub, Bush analogy is PERFECT. Your entire motto is “with us or against us.” There is only black and white. Only patriots and terrorists. Can’t possibly be any middle ground. This is the Josh Olson Doctrine.

Stooge

Josh,

No, my information is not extremely incomplete. I said I read most of the comments made by you and Craig (as well as a few others). A lot of the other comments I skim by if they don’t seem of interest to me. I’ve certainly read a high enough percentage to be able to comment about them. I think I see one problem here, though. You’re automatically looking for weaknesses in my argument to attack, instead of looking at what I actually wrote. I’m not trying to have a debate with you, because we’re not really debating anything. At least I’m not.

Tim,

“No, my information is not extremely incomplete. I said I read most of the comments made by you and Craig (as well as a few others). A lot of the other comments I skim by if they don’t seem of interest to me. “

Indeed. And yet, you’re ignorant of several specific acts perpetrated here that form the core of my issues with Craig.

Therefor, you’re not qualified to comment knowledgeably.

Oh, and here’s the other thing - the other site you saw me comment about Mazin on? It’s called Writer Action. And you have to be a Guild member to read it.

Sayonara.

Josh,

Apparently I am ignorant of the specific acts, since I have seen none myself worthy of the outrage which you have shown. I do apologize if that is true.

As for being qualified, I didn’t realize that there were qualifications I needed to get. I was just saying what I saw.

And I never saw any posts of yours on Writer Action. I’ve never heard of the website. I’m not a guild member, as I’ve said before. I’ve never been anonymous here, and am not pretending to be somebody other than myself. I’m pretty easy to check out if you follow a couple of links. I don’t know if you are insinuating that I am not who I say I am, but if you want more information about me, I would be glad to give it.

I’m pretty sure I saw a couple of posts of yours on someone else’s blog, but I read several of them, and couldn’t think of which one. That’s not really the issue, though.

Tim,

“Apparently I am ignorant of the specific acts, since I have seen none myself worthy of the outrage which you have shown. I do apologize if that is true.”

Accepted.