That's A Wrap!
We wrapped principal photography on Tuesday.
For those directors out there who shoot these gargantuan, 100 day and more schedules, all I can say is…I’m in awe. Because after 48 days, I was ready to collapse.
The last moments were a bit of a blur, but I know a lot of our crew reads the blog, so I wanted to use this post to say THANK YOU.
Thank you Dave and Tom and Kim and Alan and Dave and Linda and Mychael and Doug and Rupert and Jessie and Mike and Michael and Scott and Jimmy and Leo and Charlie and Billy and Mikey and Carol and Ellen and Joyce and Steve and Michelle and Janeen and Lori and Mark and Keith and Lloyd and Chodo and Chris and Joe and Bob and Jim and Jill and Wilma and Jacq and Adam and Mary and Andrew and Audrey and Ozzie and Lilly and Randy and Tommy and Rob and Alan…
Those are just the names off the top of my head (one of the challenges of directing is that you have to learn a lot of names, and quickly). I thank everyone who worked on the film. Everyone.
Now, a little about the possessory credit.
Before I shot this movie, I hated the “film by” credit. I haaaaaated it. Some director friends told me that actually doing the job would make me change my mind.
They were right.
I now hate that credit even more.
I also want to acknowledge my wonderful cast, who all went above and beyond for me, and showed me great patience while they did it. Drake, Sara, Christopher, Leslie, Marion, Ryan, Kevin, Brent, Jeffrey, Kurt, Dan, John, Rod, Steve and everyone else, from background to star…you were all wonderful to me, and I’m in your debt.
Now the editing begins. Life returns somewhat to normal.
I say “somewhat,” because I spent my first post-shoot day picketing in front of Warner Brothers, but it’s more normal than shooting, at least.
Thanks for bearing with me during my distracted months. I simply didn’t have the ability to monitor the comment discussions the way I like, and things got progressively uglier in there, particularly after the strike. I don’t intend to let that continue. Let’s debate without being personal or cruel (and for my part in the tit-for-tat wars, I genuinely apologize).
It’s a new day.
And new software is coming, I swear.
With a new template!
Reminds me…gotta go bug my web genius…
Dear Craig,
Congratulations!
—Robert King
Congratulations, Craig, on wrapping principal photography!
(I know, I know, spelling flames are lame… but someone must stand athwart history yelling, “Stop… and spell-check!”)
StuieC:
Right you are.
Thanks.
Fixed.
(and of course I have a typo in my last post on the previous thread….)
Did the experience whet your appetite for directing? Or was it one of those “Glad I did it, but I’ll leave it to others from now on” ordeals?
I gotta ask all y’all…
… why is the WGA Negotiating Committee taking four whole days to ponder the AMPTP’s new proposal?
Isn’t there something of a sense of urgency surrounding these negotiations? Can’t they get their economists and other analysts to spend all day Friday combing through the proposal’s provisions and then get back to the table Saturday with a counter-offer?
A guy takes the day off from this site to get some real work done and look what’s happened!
First, thanks to stuiec and Pseudymouse (sp?) from the last thread. I stand by the words, but that site’s supposed to be down for remodeling dang it. Sometimes I despise Google.
I was really starting to enjoy that a certain someone saw conspiracies everywhere, but oh well.
I don’t mind that they take their time studying the proposal. It’s a complicated issue. Measure twice, cut once and all that.
And finally, a funny video about the strike:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/56c2d6a703
Stooge,
TOLDJA! :(
Press release,
http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2615
p.s. Congrats on the wrap, Craig, but don’t think I didn’t notice none of my clients were in it!
Craig,
Before I get really sidetracked… again…
Congrats on the wrap too!!!
SML:
And Doc Holliday just winked at Billy Clanton.
You are so right, Brian. Man, bring the blackout back. I hope the AMPTP just moves on. I hope that Verrone was just trying to keep his troops motivated, but I think it’s a terrible press release by the WGA.
I asked on the other thread…which is more inflamatory? The WGA’s or the AMPTP’s. So reckless.
Stooge
Now getting sidetracked…
I’m pissed with the WGA. They fell for it. Guess what’s gonna happen now?
Spin, baby, spin: The AMPTP just became “reasonable.” And the WGA just became “hardlining a—holes.”
Damnitty, damn, damn…
The AMPTP just got a foot hold in the PR game. Smart F———!
(I censored myself, just in case).
As for the WGA’s release…here is where I have a problem. Brian, correct me if I am wrong here:
The growth rate of maybe some of the ENTIRE corporations is 10%. But not the studio divisions. That is disingenuous. Ugggh.
As is this:
“Thursday morning, the first new proposal was finally presented to us. It dealt only with streaming and made-for-Internet jurisdiction, and it amounts to a massive rollback.
For streaming television episodes, the companies proposed a residual structure of a single fixed payment of less than $250 for a year’s reuse of an hour-long program (compared to over $20,000 payable for a network rerun). For theatrical product they are offering no residuals whatsoever for streaming.”
Rollback? Nothing has ever been paid for ad-based internet streaming…we call this PROGRESS. So unfair. Plus, who the hell thinks it’s fair to pay even close to the same rate for an interent broadcast as a network television broadcast, as if they were earning the same revenue. Clearly the WGA realizes that the same revenue (and therefore residuals) are not earned on each stream of distribution because the made for cable residuals are less than the made for network residuals. I gotta tell you…this is just BS.
And before I look bias…I agree with SML that the AMPTP numbers are vague and useless. But I don’t think deceptive is the word.
Stooge
You nailed it SML. What in the hell! This is what I mean about trying to keep the crazies at bay. This is red meat for them. UGHHHHHHH!
Stooge
Well, the one thing that got confirmed is that SOMETHING happened. Sounds like WGA team didn’t like the offer that much. I fervently hope that the break is designed to give them time to come up with a counter. If the counter is to say, “look at our original proposal”, I don’t understand why it takes 4 days to come up with it. If WGA comes back with a new proposal on Tuesday, then this will make a lot of sense.
It sounds like the AMPTP gave a LITTLE in the internet area, but not much. And I don’t trust estimated numbers, as everyone always spins those. So that 130 million sounds very fishy.
We’ll have to see what happens on Tuesday. Until then, let’s hope that there are no further public statements.
Stooge,
At first glance, and I’m a bit emotional here, the WGA just f——- themselves hard. They were playing a clean, simple, effective PR game (4 cents everybody. Just 4 cents!). Now they’ve mucked it up with this two page, seemingly stubborn essay filled with a shit load of, currently, meaningless numbers.
Who cares if the numbers are right or wrong? They just laid out at least another month of PR explanation and debate.
They should’ve just said, “The AMPTP made its first real proposal today. Although we do not find it as ground breaking as the AMPTP believes, it is a step in the right direction. We’ve chosen to review it over the weekend and look forward to meeting with the AMPTP again on Dec 4th.”
Even if it’s not true, keep the tone pleasant. Pretty f——— simple.
Why are they taking 4 days to review if they already have their answers now?
This is so f——-.
(Again, I’m emotional and hold the right to change my opinion in the coming days)
By the way, if you look back at the 1988 negotiations during the strike, the WGA statements were similar at that time. I believe the point of the release is to make clear they are standing firm on their position.
I’m really not sure what to think. I’d love to see the math by which AMPTP thinks its proposals are worth $130 million. Part of me thinks the WGA counter-proposal should be, “okay, drop $130 million in the lobby at 3rd and Fairfax, and we’ll decide how to distribute it.” And maybe the WGA is leaving something out about the AMPTP proposing a $250 flat rate for a year’s worth of streaming an hour-long episode, but if not, that’s just nuts. Though I also agree with Stooge that the WGA using the 10% growth rate figure is ridiculous. (Unless they also want to mention that the pattern bargaining implications of the WGA proposal comes out to about 22% of new media gross.)
Anyway, it’s clear that by the time this is over, my ‘Blossom’ spec is going to be even more out of date, dammit.
Maybe what with all these special interest pickets, Gays, Assistants, etc., someone should arrange a Moderates Pissed Off At Everyone picket.
Right, AD. I just think they could have said the same thing in a more effective way (like what SML suggested).
Let’s just hope that no one bites. And, please, writers of the world…realize that this was progress. All guns should be holstered. Please let reasonableness rule the day.
SML, reservation of rights noted. I genuinely thank you for your honest thoughts knowing full well they may be unpopular. Kudos.
Stooge
SML, are you publicly criticizing your union’s leadership? During a strike? What are you, a traitor, shill or stooge?
And maybe — just MAYBE — the Strike A Deal people have a point… ya think?
Clifford,
Seriously dude…you have dropped some serious nuggets on this blog. Good stuff.
And the wait may not be so bad…the BLOSSOM remake is just around the corner.
Stooge
Stu…baby…SML is being real. And his points about SAD were totally fair (maybe some were wrong…maybe not…but he wasn’t calling them evil). I say let the SAD thing go.
Stooge
CliffordOdebt said:
Maybe what with all these special interest pickets, Gays, Assistants, etc., someone should arrange a Moderates Pissed Off At Everyone picket.
First off, I think that picket is called Strike A Deal, and it’s already scheduled.
Second off, other than the tone of the WGA letter, this doesn’t represent an impasse. The AMPTP has made a proposal. The WGA has said that on first blush, it rejects the proposal, and it intends to spend four days analyzing the proposal in detail and (one hopes) coming back with a counter-offer.
If the WGA doesn’t come back with a counter-offer — that is, if it merely rejects the AMPTP proposal and demands exactly what it demanded as of Nov. 4 (or worse, Nov. 3), then that’s an impasse, and it’s likely the AMPTP will not want to continue negotiations until the WGA is prepared to formulate a new counter-offer. But the only people who know whether that will happen are the WGA Negotiating Committee. It’s my hope that their call for a four-day hiatus in the talks was motivated by a desire to put together a comprehensive counter-offer, as opposed to simply letting the AMPTP sweat.
AMPTP Stooge, I am not sure if he’s being real. My limited observations of his posts on this blog indicate that he has the constancy and steadfastness of a weathervane.
Stu,
I get where you were going. I just think that a guy makes progress…puts up a fair post that clearly will make him a target from other guild members that he should get some slack. Not that I am TRYING to sow dissent, but this is legit and needs to be heard. I see it as a good step and I don’t want to hinder that.
I agree with you. I think this clearly shows why SAD was and will always be a good idea.
Stooge
Craig.
Now you get to spend 12-15 weeks getting an editor’s tan, your cut, the studio notes (), the temp previews, more notes and finally… a film.
Either way, congratulations.
I’d suggest taking a week off if it were possible. Or, take the wife to Melisse. http://www.melisse.com/ It just took two, very impressive, Michelin stars. (kinda assuming you’re married, don’t know why)
BTW - today was a very exhausting day on your blog. Lot of energy. I certainly got way too caught up in it. I’m wiped!
AMPTP Stooge, it’s obviously enormously frustrating for everyone to see that four days of talks have yielded so little progress. However, as you pointed out, they did yield some progress.
So long as new talks are scheduled, the best outlook is cautious optimism. The best course for WGA members at this time is to do exactly what Patric Verrone recommended: stay calm, stay strong, and show up on the picket lines. The AMPTP needs to know that the WGA’s Negotiating Committee has the backing of the rank and file.
At the same time, the WGA Negotiating Committee needs to know that it’s expected to negotiate a deal — to consider the AMPTP’s proposals seriously, to seek compromise where it is possible and to hold the line on items it deems vital to the writers’ interest (trading away other less vital items if necessary to secure the ‘non-negotiable’ deal points). What we know for certain from the two press releases is that the AMPTP moved somewhat off its Nov. 4 positions, but we don’t know whether the WGA also moved off its own Nov. 4 positions.
AMPTP Stooge: rightbackatcha
StuieC: I guess you’re right, and I should just relax. Until Tuesday.
Look dudes,
I’m not saying the AMPTP is fucking golden either. They’re snakes trying to shake mud off their backs.
The WGA statement helps these snakes do just that.
But don’t get me wrong, the WGA statement is a genuinely emotional response to the frustrating games the AMPTP is playing. But it should’ve never been emotional. It should’ve been just as calculated. With purpose.
And look at me, right now, I’ve become the exact example of what I’m criticizing the WGA of doing wrong.
I lost my cool and now, guess what, AMPTP sympathizers (and I’m sorry Stooge your interests tend to sympathize with the AMPTP) are going to use me as a soap box for their cause.
And, yes, I go where the wind takes me, because, guess what, I’m a moderate and I listen. I allow myself to be swayed. I allow myself to see all sides. I’m fairly consistent in fact and I’ve been taking heat for it a lot longer than you two. And I’ve been getting anonymous phone calls for it as well. How about you guys? Getting calls? Heavy breathing bullshit from Cupertino, California?
Stubbornness gets people in trouble because they forget what they’re fighting for and only remember that they’re fighting.
StuieC wrote: “What we know for certain from the two press releases is that the AMPTP moved somewhat off its Nov. 4 positions, but we don’t know whether the WGA also moved off its own Nov. 4 positions.”
The thing is, the $250 flat rate on streaming episodic residuals is worse than what AMPTP was offering on November 4th, according the the press reports. That’s why I’ll be taking Ambien tonight.
SML: Dude, I’m sorry about the anonymous heavy breathing, but Cupertino is up North, very far away from LA / Hollywood / etc. So I’d be a little surprised if it was about stuff you were posting here.
Brian, I don’t think that they’ve reached the Doc Holliday wink or Rufus T. Firefly “upstart” moment quite yet. But, keeping with the former metaphor, it seems that hands are near the holsters, and the next move will be critical.
Do you see it differently?
All fair. It’s why I respect Craig, Ted, you, etc more than the guys that pull the Borg stuff. It takes balls. Serious balls.
I’m not a sympathizer with the AMPTP anymore than the WGA. Yes, I do sympathize with my company’s worry about what the internet will do to our business. What kind of domino effect adding more costs (again…pattern bargaining) has on this already taxed industry (you saw the ratings decline chart that I put on here…no one is making this up)? I think their concerns are legitimate. I also think the WGA’s concerns are legitimate. I don’t blame anyone for mistrusting the studios, although I believe times have changed in general in terms of the studio-talent dynamic.
I personally feel that questionable tactics have been used on both sides. Who has done more? I don’t have a clue. I don’t think it really matters.
I sympathize mostly with people who want less gamesmanship and more compromise. I likes me some compromise. One of my favorite things…along with Soylent Green.
Stooge
SML wrote:
Stubbornness gets people in trouble because they forget what they’re fighting for and only remember that they’re fighting.
Richie Cusack is a character in a screenplay adapted from a graphic novel (it must have been a good adaptation, because it earned the writer an Oscar nomination). He has an obsession with tracking down his brother, who’s escaped the family business and assumed a new identity in another state.
The moment the brother’s mask slips, Richie’s henchmen appear and make it abundantly clear that Richie will never give up his pursuit. Despite the objective evidence that his business and his life would be far better off if he buried the hatchet with his brother rather than IN him, Richie maintains his vendetta to the point that his brother has no choice but to kill him.
Richie is an example of a stubborn man who puts the idea of victory on his terms above his true self-interest.
The objective — what the WGA is fighting for — is a deal that puts the writers back to work under a contract they can live with. That does not necessarily mean a contract that conforms to all of the WGA’s demands on Nov. 4, because by definition whatever contract is finally agreed has to be one the AMPTP can live with too. Let’s hope that the WGA Negotiating Committee understands that completely and is prepared to navigate the difficult bargaining process to reach agreement with the AMPTP.
To be honest, Stooge, if you’re not a sympathizer, why use a monicker such as AMPTP Stooge?
As an interesting aside, let’s assume YOU could negotiate for the AMPTP with us, the WGA - forget all the other folks who’ve been harping and carping and throwing stuff around …
If you, yourself, could make an offer to the WGA, what would it be?
I’m truly interested … for myself, I’ve got feet in theatre, fiction and film stuff, so I find all the numbers fascinating …
I do think it’s a mistake to let the downloads go for free or next to nothing - as Craig sez, this is one issue where the WGA stance should be to the death - in some years everything will be distributed or available thru the internets, and to let it go for next to nothing, like they did in 88, would be a mistake …
AMPTP Stooge wrote:
One of my favorite things…along with Soylent Green.
Mmmm… Soylent Green. I just wish they wouldn’t keep putting clowns in it. They taste funny.
Clifford,
On the internet, freaks live in all places. In the real world, they live in Cupertino, California.
Does 1+1 = stalker? No probably not. But when you’re being googled and having your life recapped and commented on by anonymous folks in the Artfulwriter forums, well, it gets really freaky when, suddenly, out of nowhere, you get a couple of phone calls from Cupertino, California with no voice on the other end.
I don’t get a lot of phone calls. My manager calls me. Or my agent (rarely). Or my girlfriend five minutes before she gets home from work. Oh and my mom. Sometimes my sister. Sometimes the Diabetes clothes drive. And the bank. And blockbuster.
I’m a low key guy with heavy neurosis. I’m a 250 lbs. version of Woody Allen without the verbal wit. I also write the darkest, most fucked up screenplays this side of Sam Peckinpah. So my neurosis coupled with my violent imagination coupled with a sudden influx of personal attention has left my pants wet and my mind paranoid
Josh J.,
I am not privy to all of the studios’ financial numbers. I work for A studio. I also don’t do THAT for a living. So, I don’t have specific numbers. I have no clue what $130m really means, for instance. I do understand the concepts and I can discuss framework. I have suggested things in past threads, as have Brian and Clifford…all of which were great (theirs, not mine). I definitely would create a quasi-secondary market for ad-based internet streaming. You’d get a gross % of an imputed license fee after a 4 week window. I mean, honestly, if I said 10% what would that even mean. I’d create new minimums for made-for-internet original productions, but it has to be a fraction of the prime time rates. I would personally insist that all writers be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear must, of course, be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all writers under 36 years old are now… 36 years old!
Sorry…I was starting to bore myself.
Stooge
Stooge,
Compromise is good, but I’m not so sure the AMPTP has compromised, in good faith, to the same extent the WGA has (i.e. our removal of DVD).
My current criticisms of the WGA are purely image related. I believe, and I could most definitely be wrong, that the WGA’s negative spin coupled with the AMPTP’s positive spin has damaged the WGA’s negotiating position.
Stuiec,
But you’re right. It’s too soon to tell.
(Note: I’m punching out. See you guys tomorrow. I’ll bring the digital donuts).
Oh…as for the name. I thought about this a bit.
AMPTP Stooge was kind of a joke, because I knew with what I was saying and based on he-who-shall-not-be-named’s posts that that was exactly what I was going to be called. So I decided to own it. Make it my own. Standard technique, really. Hard to call a guy something he calls himself.
Then again…it’s a bit inflammatory, so that works against the notion. But I think on balance it works.
Stooge
SML
Steve Jobs. He’s up there. The breathing. Is it heavy as in “he ain’t heavy he’s my brother” or heavy like Chevy Chase’s humor? Zing, did I say that? Chis Rock once told this wildly unbelievable story about his cell phone. But then I checked the internet and found he wasn’t kidding. http://www.laurasnyctales.com/current/chris-rock.html
I was going to say I was just Joshing with you, but I realized; not good. But I am pulling your leg.
We have to wear underwear?
That’s a deal breaker for me.
Seriously, that sounds reasonable, the broad strokes of what you proposed, to me at least, as a low level screenwriter who makes the bare minimum to qualify (which is a lot less than you pull in, I should add).
now the problem, as it lies, is that the AMPTP have made what I would believe to be unreasonable demands (I’m not including the newest one today, since it’s still being digested) they’ve wanted to rollback what we’ve been paid on dvd’s - take back that four cents, and not pay anything for any work played on the internet …
That was my understanding, in the broadest strokes possible … well, they also said the internet was too new a technology to determine if they can make money off of it, only to have their own words spoken to investors, words in which they predicted the large amount of income they expect to make on the internet, come back to haunt them -
So knowing that, can you understand why so many writers are a bit, shall we say, worked up?
I can understand your sympathies lie with the company you work for, and the fact that you may be laid off … many of us are also uneasy that we may not be able to keep working at this as well - but it seems that it’s somewhat unfair to lay this on the writers, which is what your position has read to me (that’s my impression, for better or worse) … the AMPTP has not negotiated in good faith on this matter -
In fact, if I recall they let it be known that if the WGA yanked their dvd increase off the table, they would negotiate and the whole thing could have been resolved - instead they walked …
Look, I’m not looking to fight with you - I got too much going on to get into that kind of flame war- I merely want to make the point that it’s a little unfair to paint the WGA as the bad guys here, as Patrick pointed out in an earlier thread, this is important stuff and writers are unified for a reason.
And touchy about it - for reason, as you are touchy about possibly losing your job.
But this thing needs to be resolved for the greater good of all of us (I have actor friends who work regularly but wouldn’t be able to support their family if not for residuals (Law and Order has supported many a fine actor) and if everything goes to the internet twenty years from now and they lose that, and we lose those actors being able to support themselves (and the writers and the directors and everyone) we all lose - you too, I sincerely believe.
So this strike is important and needs to happen. No one gives up rights or money voluntarily, especially large corporations - they must be forced to give people what is owed to them.
Unions have faced this kinda thing since they began, and have achieved good things as a result.
Things like this have to happen in order for the greater good - if I recall, Oscar Robinson and Jerry West threatened to sit out of an All-Star game unless the NBA recognized a players union - right up until minutes before tip off - which takes care of players, not just the rich ones but the ones who came before the rich ones.
Anyway, that’s my rant, I’ll get off my soapbox now and get back to my novel …
Joshua James wrote:
No one gives up rights or money voluntarily, especially large corporations - they must be forced to give people what is owed to them.
Unions have faced this kinda thing since they began, and have achieved good things as a result.
Pretty close to right on. People and corporations will exchange money voluntarily for valuable goods and services — but usually no more that the minimum they can get away with. To get more from them, they need to be persuaded of the value they get for the extra money they give up. Sometimes the persuasion requires a velvet glove, sometimes an iron fist.
Oh one more thing and then I have to watch THE TUDORS before sleep, sleep…
The AMPTP says 130 mil increase over 3 years.
The WGA says 151 mil increase over 3 years.
Seems close, right?
I’m assuming, based solely on t hose poor press releases, the math on this is weird and the AMPTP is citing a fixed rate (meaning 130 over three for every three for the next twenty years), where the WGA is citing a varied rate (151 is the projected hard revenue over the next three based on the percentage we want and that hard number will vary over the following three and the three after that just as New Media’s revenue vary over the next twenty years), or… I’m super confused… what the hell happened today?
I don’t object to the 10% growth statistic. If the corporations are going to run studios soley based on how they impact their bottom line (and stock price) then their overall financial outlook is fair game. They can’t have it both ways.
SML wrote:
The AMPTP says 130 mil increase over 3 years.
The WGA says 151 mil increase over 3 years.
Well, the WGA explicitly states: “Our entire package would cost this industry $151 million over three years.” I.e., $50 million a year (presumably over current writer compensation levels).
The AMPTP says: “The entire value of the New Economic Partnership will deliver more than $130 million in additional compensation above and beyond the more than $1.3 billion writers already receive each year.” Note that they attach a time frame to the $1.3 billion figure (current writer compensation per year), but they don’t explicitly attach a time frame to the $130 million figure. Is it per year? Over a 3-year contract? Or the net present value of the total additional compensation from now to eternity?
So first the time frames have to be normalized.
Then the two sides have to agree on the same math by which to evaluate each proposal. Again, from the press releases, we are told that from Monday to Wednesday, each side laid out what it thought its Nov. 4 proposals were worth in dollar terms. Presumably the WGA suspects that the AMPTP’s calculations exaggerate the compensation the writers will get under the AMPTP’s proposed formulas, and the AMPTP suspects the WGA’s proposed formulas lowball what the writers will receive if they’re adopted.
Presumably over the next four days, the WGA will have economists and other analysts run the AMPTP’s proposed formulas through various scenarios and prepare numbers that show what the WGA thinks those formulas will yield to the writers. One hopes that the WGA will combine that analysis with an analysis of its own proposed formulas to form a new proposal that it feels will yield a liveable gain to the writers.
And then the AMPTP will run its analysis of the WGA’s new proposed formulas and come back with its numbers to show that the WGA has underestimated the yield.
At some point, the two sides will come to an agreement on how to evaluate each proposed deal point, and will then be able to agree on what deal points will constitute the tentative contract (and how many dollars that package will represent). If the AMPTP negotiators believe that their employers can afford the cost of that package and if the WGA negotiators believe that the rank and file can accept the gains in that package, they’ll announce the tentative contract and present it for ratification.
I can’t say if the AMPTP has compromised or acted in gooder faith than the WGA. Yes, the AMPTP’s initial proposal asked for the writer’s to scrap the whole residual scheme and take some kind of concept of recoupment into play. We can safely call this a “rollback.” However, the WGA’s initial proposal was to ask for jurisdiction over reality, an entirely new and additional source of revenue and doubling of the DVD rate. We can safely call this a “reach.” And asking for more, mind you, in this context:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Primetimenetworkviewers0828.jpg)
This is tough stuff. Both sides are playing hardball right now. This idea of it being like a who-started-it-and-who-is-more-bad off a la Israeli v Palestinians just seems a little too much. Everyone has done well together. The WGA is as powerful as ever for one simple reason…you are a pretty talented, smart and wealthy group of people.
Oh…and, yes, I do well. I am extremely fortunate. I thank my bosses for allowing me to do what I love for that kind of money. And I’m a lawyer, guys.
Stooge
I should say, though, don’t think I couldn’t double my money if I went to a firm. I made a choice.
Stooge
Stooge,
I have definitely not appreciated the people who’ve attacked you out of hand for representing a viewpoint alien to their own. (In my case, I like to think I’ve argued with you, which is a key distinction.) I’m happy that you post here as often as you do, because a) I like hearing voices from outside the writers’ bubble I’d be living in otherwise, and b) I’m keenly interested in knowing how the people we’re negotiating with view the world, and I figure you’re at least anecdotally representative of at least some of that thinking.
I’ve always believed, as I think you may have said yourself in some other threads, that approaching conflicts with a mindset of “How can we both win?” is a hell of a lot more productive and likely to succeed than coming at it from the mindset of “How can I force you to let me win?” And in order to accomplish the former, it really helps to know what the other side would consider a win, what items it would view (individually or collectively) as a totally unacceptable loss, and which others it’s more or less indifferent about. So, glad you’re here. (With occasional lapses that you seem to sincerely regret afterward, you do come off to my eyes as a basically reasonable person who happens to see the world a lot differently than the average writer does.)
So, to argue with you a bit more now that I’ve said that:
I would say that the WGA’s description of a $250/year payment for internet streaming as a “rollback” — rather than as the generous new form of additional payments for writers that you suggest it is — stems from the belief, which a lot of current evidence supports, that streaming is going to replace the traditional primetime rerun of years past, not supplement it. “Lost” and “24” being a couple of the current poster children for this concept: highly successful series that never get rerun, period.
I don’t know whether the viewership, hence ad revenues (roughly speaking) for online streaming would ever be as high as they were for a network rerun or not. On the one hand, it takes more effort on the part of a potential viewer to find a particular episode online, as opposed to just flipping through channels and seeing that it’s “on.” On the other hand, the online episode is available all the time, rather than just for a single hour on a particular day, so in theory the pool of potential viewers becomes a lot larger than it would be for any single broadcast. I honestly have no idea how that would shake out in the end.
However, I believe the WGA’s request for a cut of the ad revenue from streaming does address a large portion of that problem: If nobody’s viewing the thing, then the ad moneys will be very low, and the writers won’t get paid much. So far, so fair.
Of course, the networks have reacted to this whole concept as if we had asked them for permission to suck blood from the necks of their firstborn children, and while I don’t claim to understand why they view it that way, they do seem very serious about it. (To me, at least — and in contrast to many other issues where they seem to be just posturing for tactical purposes.) But if their counterproposal is simply to pay us a flat fee for a year’s use of our content online, then yes, the fee would have to be a lot higher than $250 before the writers would ever go for it. A lot higher.
(Then throw in the fact that they also want to reserve the right to declare certain streams as “promotional,” purely at their own discretion, thus relieving them of the burden of even coughing up that $250, and we have a serious problem. If they can do that, why wouldn’t they?)
My own idea that I posted a couple weeks ago — which might or might not be a net improvement on the approaches discussed above, but would at least address some of the objections that one side or the other has made to them — would be to pay a (small) fixed residual per individual viewing of an online stream. More views = more money for the writer…much as it does for the network, but without pegging those payouts specifically to ad revenues, which they’ve made clear is an idea they hate. The writers would bear more risk than they would with a flat, guaranteed payout, but it’s an eminently fair risk: payment commensurate with success.
Then there’s the “window” problem. I think your suggestion of a four-week residual-free window is about four times longer than it should be, but if a deal including such a window came back that I agreed with in every other respect, I’d almost certainly hold my nose on that point and vote to ratify it. (I’ve seen people say here and elsewhere that they won’t vote to accept any deal containing any free window of any length, and I think they’re nuts. The writer does get paid upfront, too, and presumably that payment is intended to cover something….) But in any case, if we were down to just haggling over that number, it’d be wonderful news indeed.
You’re right (in the broad, blurry sense) to say that we need to work out a new payment structure for online-original content, but I strongly disagree with your assumption that it must be intrinsically much lower than for TV or theatrical. Again, many if not most of us believe (sincerely, not as a negotiating ploy) that much of the content produced in the future — which would be classified either as “TV” or “movies” if it were being produced today — will go directly to the internet as its primary/only market. (And as a footnote, we also believe that if the payment structure for online content ends up being massively lower than for traditional content, the studios and networks will do everything in their power to make this happen as soon as possible, in order to permanently reduce the amounts they’re paying us. They’d be silly not to, if we left that door open for them.)
I’m not terribly hopeful that we’ll get to this point, but to me, what we really ought to be discussing in this area is budget and length, period. We already do that, on a coarser-grained level: Hour-long shows pay more than half-hour shows; high-budget shows pay more than low-budget shows; etc. It would certainly seem that those principles could be applied in more and finer increments, although it would probably take a lot of bargaining to nail down the specific numbers, and they’d surely come up for discussion again in every future negotiation. But still….
The problem I have with what you’ve said several times on this topic, Stooge, is that your theory doesn’t distinguish between a three-minute video shot by one guy aiming a webcam at his own face, and something like The Office webisodes, which were essentially network-quality episodes running at one-tenth the time scale. If the latter end up paying no more than the former, then the payment structure governing them is seriously flawed, to say the least. You seem to assume that direct-to-internet production = crappy, cheap and unpopular production…which is largely true at the moment, but won’t be true forever. (And I’m not just arguing with you here; I don’t know that the Guild has offered any specific suggestions on this front either.)
Sorry for another giant word dump addressed to you; I always seem to get here late in the day and end up trying to respond to a whole day’s worth of conversation by others. Anyway, do keep posting, please….
Pseudonymouse wrote:
My own idea that I posted a couple weeks ago — which might or might not be a net improvement on the approaches discussed above, but would at least address some of the objections that one side or the other has made to them — would be to pay a (small) fixed residual per individual viewing of an online stream. More views = more money for the writer…much as it does for the network, but without pegging those payouts specifically to ad revenues, which they’ve made clear is an idea they hate. The writers would bear more risk than they would with a flat, guaranteed payout, but it’s an eminently fair risk: payment commensurate with success.
I think you’re onto a key element that will need to be addressed sooner or later: the “ratings equivalence” of new media and “old” media.
The AMPTP proposes a flat $250 for the re-run of an hour-long show on new media. The WGA points out that an hour-long re-run on old media currently gets the writer at least $20,000. So is the AMPTP proposal a swell new revenue stream (as they claim) or a massive rollback (as the WGA claims)?
As you point out, it depends on whether and how quickly viewing shifts from old media to new. A Nielsen ratings point in old media is about 1.5 million viewers. Looking at the recent top 10 charts for Nielsen, a hit first-run scripted show (Samantha Who? or House, for example) gets a 10 rating or about 15 million viewers.
Any proposal to compensate writers for “re-runs” on new media ought to normalize for similar audience sizes. As you’ve also pointed out, new media is much more measurable that old, and it’s possible to get a pretty accurate count of actual new-media viewers (or at least, actual numbers of times the digital content has been served).
Congratulations, Craig. If this is as funny as 2001: A Space Travesty, you’ll be in the clover, buddy!
Is there any chance this will be in DVD stores before Christmas?
Hmmm… did He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named leave behind a horcrux?
Craig,
Just want to say Congrats and wish you well on the next phases of finishing the movie.
Hello writers:
Something is not kosher with your responses. You claim this offer is a “rollback” in your negotiations. Yet, it turns out that in the past year EVERY proposal offered for you writers has been considered a “rollback”. Honestly, what more do you want?
An FCC ruling in your favor of opening accounts? Sorry, friends; this will not happen. You are dealing with governments that do not give a worth of your cause: in effect, you annoy them.
Class action lawsuits regarding back pay? Not happening either, and with good cause. Let us say you win a lawsuit; you still do not get your money for a long time. Even when you do, that value of money (which you seem to forget about during this dispute) decreases to such an extant that you may as well use it for the facilities. As of today, the value of one dollar in the surface of gold standards is worth the real equivalent of (get this…) four cents. And, with the coming wars and depressions heading our way, your money, if left unchecked, becomes no different than worthless Confederate Paper.
Respect? Friends, respect is earned, not arbitraily enforced. Suppose I say to my loved ones “I demand respect because…” I will be laughed out of the room, at least: at worst, I will be severly reprimanded. You seem to forget that nugget of wisdom, instead enforcing you childish endeavors and crying home to some one that you think backs you in full. By the way, besides writing, what other forms of contributions have you made to the world and to humanity? Oh I see, little to nothing else, excepting a good deal of politically active scribes. The listings of contributions to humanity is entirely vast and resourceful, that to list them here would be redundant.
Do you know what occurs when parents hear their children demand things because of their say so? The children do not get anything from them. How do you feel now about getting an offer of no money whatsoever: with emphasis that all monies given to you must be immediately payed back with interest? Because, that is where you will end up in your puny dispute. Nothing will be given.
But I suppose you are going to say I am an unreasonable man, siding with the moguls this time. Well, let me ask you this: am I wrong in siding with the reasonable people involved in this dispute? Am I wrong in calling all of you on your crap? Am I wrong in having taken these measures to post these essays to effectively end your naive ways? Am I wrong in that I, a 24 year old political theorist with Asperger’s Syndrome can effectively put things in the right compass than a person twice my age? Frankly, have I been wrong in my posts, the early scenario withstanding? And with the Broadway dispute ended, am I wrong in noticing that the side of this dispute that has been continually thuggish, reticent, unreasonable, redundant, and childish has been the side of you, the writers?
Well, guess what happens next? Television is over: the completion of the latest batch of scripted series will be series finales. No plans will be made for programming for at least two years, if not longer. Everyone from the executive producer on down for a series will be fired and will be forced to pay back all monies with interest (similar to any Olympic athlete.) Film will go on, because it is rather easy to circumvent the process of production line work. If any of you think that the DGA, for example, will walk out, you are sadly mistaken. I am willing to assume that Steven Spielberg, among others, will not let the film industry tank onto your demands. Seriously, you do not want to piss off Spielberg, which is exactly what you are doing now.
And you know what then? The public, those you claim have your support, will clearly state that they never supported you to begin with (which is somewhat true.) They will clearly go on to the Internet and devote their times and energies to engage in nothing short of world peace. Heck, notice, if you will, the Rep. Ron Paul juggernaut in national politics already. Do you honestly think they give a worth about these entertainment ventures? No, they do not; it is seen as merely propoganda on the part of interests against theirs.
In truth, this letter regarding this proposal as being a “rollback” only goes to prove how childish and immature you have let your leaders to be. This is in additon to the short-sightedness and rather rejection of new means of media approach you have been involved with for some time. Were I a parent annoyed at this structure, I would give you nothing in return except, well, you do know how parents can be. If you must, now is the time to re-evaluate your life’s worth, lest you take your loved ones down in the same abyss you are headed into.
With deep concern for all,
Lax24
I am beginning to understand where the writers of Law & Order: Criminal Intent get their source material.
Hey, here’s a fun fact on word origins.
juggernaut
n.
Something, such as a belief or institution, that elicits blind and destructive devotion or to which people are ruthlessly sacrificed.
An overwhelming, advancing force that crushes or seems to crush everything in its path: “It doesn’t assume that people need necessarily remain passive when confronted by what appears to be the juggernaut of history” (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt).
Juggernaut Used as a title for the Hindu deity Krishna.
[Hindi jagannāth, title of Krishna, from Sanskrit jagannāthaḥ, lord of the world : jagat, moving, the world (from earlier present participle of jigāti, he goes) + nāthaḥ, lord (from nāthate, he helps, protects). Senses 1 and 2, from the fact that worshipers have thrown themselves under the wheels of a huge car or wagon on which the idol of Krishna was drawn in an annual procession at Puri in east-central India.]
lax24,
Your material is brilliant. Your post is a pitch perfect imitation of the out-of-touch-with-reality crank letter writer.
I thougt Seinfeld’s Letters from a Nut was funny, but you are in a whole other league.
Stooge,
“I can’t say if the AMPTP has compromised or acted in gooder faith than the WGA”
You’ve been on this thread long enough to know the answer to that. Hell, Craig himself has outlined where the AMPTP has gone off the boards, and for someone like Craig to be ready to “strike to the DEATH” over some issues, that should give you a clue as to who’s acting in good faith and who has not.
There is more than enough information for you to figure out, on your own, who walked away from the negotiation table first and who stayed away (the AMPTP) and who’s been less than honest about much income the internet will generate with the WGA (remember what they tell their shareholders?) … so for you to stay that you don’t know who’s acted in “gooder” faith is more than a dodge, here.
That’s simply just willful blind ignorance.
There may be valid criticisms of how the WGA has handled its negotiation strategy, but that has nothing to do with how the AMPTP has conducted itself, how it willfully and purposely walked away and how it has blatantly lied about income from new media … you bet, it’s hardball, sure, from both sides … but you aren’t here criticizing both sides, you’re here taking their side and criticizing ours, and you do so with a monicker of AMPTP Stooge, a name which isn’t nearly as clever as I think you think it is.
So you’re here to bait people, basically, and you managed to get (deleted) banned becuz you constantly brought his name up, constantly used him as your opposition, and while doing so maintained that you’re “reasonable” - certainly you may be a nice guy in real life, but if your position is that nothing the AMPTP has done is any worse than the WGA or that the WGA is equally to blame, than you have willfully not listened to anyone (I’d note Patrick from Culver City pretty much took apart your other arguments piece by piece and you appeared to not have listened to him, either) …
So with all do respect, I call Sheningans on you, sir … really, you’re either not listening or never intended to listen, and now I’m sorry I engaged you in this.
I’m not greedy, I make a lot less money than you and I was poised to break out right before the strike, all of which got put on hold and who knows if I’ll ever have the same opportunities ever again … but I know that my future depends on the union getting a FAIR deal from a multi-billion dollar entity that doesn’t wish to share anything with anyone -
I know that they’re lying about income from new media, because I saw them say so themselves.
I know they believe they can break the union because they did it before.
I remember the SAG / AFTRA strike and how it hurt my friends.
So listen, dude - why are you here if you so believe we writers truly, truly are equally to blame for this?
I’m telling you, as a guy with much less in the bank than you, and with far less opportunities (I can’t leave and go to another firm and make twice as much, like you can) that you’re off base with your allegations and I find your sympathies suspect.
It’s been truly disturbing to read a lot of the responses that have popped up since the talks ended yesterday.
A solid majority of the WGA member responses I have seen are angry and pessimistic, which is understandable, particularly after the official response. One thing that Mark Evanier correctly predicted is that there are always big ups and downs in the middle of a strike. And I remember in 1988 how each time the sides got close everyone’s optimism surged, only to become further discouraged when it would fall apart again.
But what is most disturbing is the “See ya in June” type posts I’ve been seeing, some of which go on to contemplate lawsuits or legislative action, as though those means will somehow provide pressure on the immediate conflict. (Both of those usually are very long processes and have delayed effects that don’t get seen for years)
However, it’s the idea that the negotiations would somehow be continuing until June that doesn’t track. If these talks indeed founder in the way that Evanier predicted (AMPTP makes offer, WGA rejects it and counters, AMPTP rejects the counter and then both sides blame each other for being unreasonable and stomp away for another month), the next step isn’t going to be the AMPTP crawling back to the table. It’ll be the DGA stepping in and starting its own negotiations, which will be a drawn out matter, as the AMPTP has a bunch of conditions it wants, and the DGA has made clear it won’t roll over. Once that process starts, I’m not sure when the WGA negotiations will continue. But if no WGA deal is done, really by the end of January, there won’t be any negotiations with the WGA until June. Because at that point, there will be no incentive for the AMPTP and particularly the TV networks to talk.
Working AD,
That sounds about right to me. Well said… again.
Working AD,
let’s say we get to Jan. without a deal. The studios continue to make absurdly low offers. The writers walk. Can you see the studios forgoing upfronts? Won’t that change the structure of the industry as we know it?
Working AD wrote:
(AMPTP makes offer, WGA rejects it and counters, AMPTP rejects the counter and then both sides blame each other for being unreasonable and stomp away for another month)
Steps 1 and 2 (AMPTP offer and WGA rejection) complete.
The WGA counter-offer will be crucial. If the WGA counter-offer is really only a restatement of why the WGA really, REALLY deserves what it demanded on Nov. 4, complete with charts and graphs, then steps 4 & 5 (AMPTP rejection and breakdown) will likely occur.
If the WGA counter-offer instead acknowledges concessions by the AMPTP and offers a few counter-concessions, then the AMPTP’s rejection of the counter-offer will be followed by a new counter-proposal by the AMPTP… and (one hopes) so on and so forth, right to the tentative contract agreement.
So, the order of the day is still cautious optimism.
STUIEC
Juggernaut got me playing around with the OED random word button.
Anxiety
c1525 MORE De Quat. Noviss. Wks. 1557, 91 There dyed he without grudge, without anxietie. a1631 DONNE Select. (1840) 25 Temporal prosperity comes always accompanied with much anxiety. 1714 Spect.
[Angina pectoris] is an acute constrictive pain..attended with anxiety, difficulty of breathing, and a sense of suffocation.
I feel equally attached to all 5 definitions.
But for you (mostly) :) le mot juste
Oh, and note to LAX24 - please post around 10 pm. Thnxs.
geez the definitions got cut off. don’t know why. that makes me super anxious. bet it’s some embedded code….
odocoileus (by the way, very interesting name), the math here regarding time is pretty simple. Once the strike is settled, on most TV shows it will take a minimum of 6-7 weeks to begin airing new episodes. This is because it will take 2 weeks to prep the first one (assuming we start with an outline or something to prep), 8-10 working days to shoot the ep, and then about 2 weeks to post the ep. Plus, we will need to make sure we can air at least 3-4 new eps in a row - don’t want to just air a single ep and that’s it for a month, right?
By that math, if the strike ends by January 1, we could air new eps by the middle of February, so they wouldn’t completely lose out on sweeps. Also, pilot season would just be accelerated and pilot scripts would have about a month or so to polish before filming.
If the strike goes all the way into February, you’re now looking at late March or early April before we can air new episodes, and the pilot season is in a situation where they would need to simply film what they can and go with that.
Once the strike passes Valentine’s Day, the 07-08 season is effectively nullified. We wouldn’t be able to get the episodes done in time to air before the season would be finished, and there’s no real point to suddenly trying to air new eps in May. If this actually gets to that point, the AMPTP will walk away from the table until the next TV season, meaning June.
As for the upfronts, the networks would have three choices - one, they can go with the pilot scripts they already have. (And Fox has already been doing this) Two, they can present a radically new schedule at upfronts, heavy on reality and game shows, with the regular shows expected to return to production for the fall. Or three, they can postpone the upfronts until the strike is concluded. I don’t remember which exact course was taken during the 1988 strike, but they wouldn’t necessarily take the same step this time. A side issue of this is that the networks will need to answer to the advertisers once they run out of new episodes in the various timeslots. The advertisers pledged a lot of money at the upfronts this year, because they were supposed to be presented with brand new episodes of hit shows. If what they’re getting instead are reality shows, game shows, and second runs, they have already announced they will not be paying the top rates. Of course, if they have a reality show that’s a hit, like American Idol, then the network still gets the top rate.
The advertiser effect is the hidden cost of the strike for the networks, in all honesty. No matter what Chernin says about saving money by not shooting pilots or laying people off, in the end the networks will lose a lot of money in this situation. This doesn’t mean they go under. It just means that NewsCorp bails out Fox, GE bails out NBC, etc. They can take this loss, and they’re prepared to do it, because in the end for them, it’s just numbers on a balance sheet.
For the rest of us, and I include the WGA with the rest of the crew in this, it will become a matter of how long people can hang on. In 1988, many people left the business and did not return. If this happens again now, the same thing will happen on a much larger scale. Keep in mind that the number of people trying to work in the business has increased geometrically since 1988. Back in the 70s and even the early 80s, you really had a small pool of professional writers, directors, and crew that were kept working pretty steadily. Over the last 20 years, those numbers have more than tripled, even though the number of jobs has not. And none of that new group has ever weathered a long strike like 1973, 1980 or 1988. Add to that the number of industry people who bought houses and condos in the last market and are now in trouble with them, and you have a very interesting situation if this thing continues into February.
I personally hope that both sides find common ground. I hope that what we’re seeing is just standard negotiation practice. But I must believe that both sides are quite serious. And I respect that the WGA needs a fair contract. I just don’t want to see the talks break down again. If they do, that’s when you’ll see a whole lot of people become really angry at the situation.
I really wish everyone would cut the “I know they are making absurdly low offers” nonsense.
Can anyone here say they’ve read the offer? Can anyone say with a straight face that the WGA’s press releases aren’t more about propaganda than informing? And I’d say the same about the AMPTP’s. It’s gamesmanship…posturing. Those numbers mean nothing.
You really don’t know. I don’t know. (And I’ll say, after thinking about $250 number…that has to be missing an asterisk. That’s just silly…you are better off offering nothing).
Josh J. - I am here to try and convince you and anyone else like you to ratchet down the hyperbole. You haven’t seen the new offer (shoot…the WGA didn’t even have the entire proposal yet). I doubt you truly understand the deal you were working under 4 weeks and 1 day ago, so you couldn’t even compare the two. I can say for sure that I don’t (though probably much better than anyone here this side of Ted).
You say the AMPTP just walked out in the middle of negotiations…you leave out that the WGA struck right before they walked out and in the face of a request to please hold off on the strike. I probably could lay the blame for that solely at the feet of the WGA, but that’s probably not accurate. I prefer to chose to assume (I certainly wasn’t in the room) that both parties acted inappropriately. Not only is it probably true, but it’s just much more conducive to MOVING FORWARD.
It’s a back and forth…I don’t doubt the AMPTP’s current proposal is less than where they will end up and the WGA’s counter will be more than they end up taking. It’s a negotiation. To get all worked up about each little self-serving statement from either side is, I think, a waste of time and energy.
One thing we can say for certain, though, was the AMPTP’s response was much more measured and respectful than the WGA’s, which was somewhat inflammatory. Go back and read them. It’s startling. Is it genuine? Got me.
Look, no one has to publicly chastise their union. Fine. I get that’s gonna be tough. But please oh please take the time to question your leaders INTERNALLY. Ask tough questions. Demand to know what’s going on.
I think what ticks me off the most is…some here refuse to give an inch and accept the fact that the studios are facing some serious issues. That the system that we know, understand and grew up with is in jeopardy. That taking a hard line is simply going to push it further towards that precipice. The studios are dealing with this…the networks are petrified of the internet. And some of you guys are sitting there with your arms crossed going “I’m not moved…give me more!”
No one will answer this question:
If you get what you want in terms of residuals, but that back-end money (i.e., you get it later down the road) causes there to be less up-front money (maybe more writers are hired at the minimum…maybe each show loses a writer’s slot), then have you gained?
In my scenario, all you’ve done is shift the money to the residuals…where people usually are only getting paid in success. For the some 80% of the WGA that is on a yearly basis unemployed AS WRITERS (I am pretty sure that statistic is right though it includes people who really have moved on though are still members), which would you rather have…more money up front/more opportunities or more money should you be successful.
There is no doubt that studios and networks are already making cuts internally. This was BEFORE the strike. In recognition of THIS (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Primetimenetworkviewers0828.jpg). I don’t have box office figures. So you think that if you ADD costs into the mix of declining revenues for studios and nets that it wont cost people jobs? It wont mean reduction in up-front money? And never ever forget the concept of pattern bargaining.
Please someone tell me I’m wrong that this shouldn’t be a major consideration for the WGA members in what kind of a deal they get. I’m not saying you have to believe me…I’m saying that you HAVE to consider this.
Stooge
Stooge wrote:
I’ve been thinking the same thing— I sure hope it’s missing an asterisk. Maybe it’s what they’re offering if they stream something with no ads. Because their November 4th offer, reported in Variety, was supposedly something like 1.2% after a six-week window. I have no idea what that would come to on a typical show, but I would think at least a couple thousand bucks.
We voted to authorize a strike, Stooge, but we didn’t actually strike beforehand …
And yeah, I can say the AMPTP has negotiated in bad faith, if you recall Craig’s breakdown of the earlier offer, and that they’ve been duplicitious about income from new media.
So I can and will say it, nor have I been on here the past few days spouting crap, unsubstantiated crap, like you have (in addition to your above statement, you made several incorrect assertions that Patrick corrected you on, if you recall) - so again, your position and views are suspect, and my impression is that you’re here primarily to foment dissension -
What ticks me off is your inability to see our side of it, nay, rather you’re projecting … telling US we’re greedy, telling US we’re hard-lining it (and we did NOT walk away from negotiations earlier, check your sources) and telling US we’re the ones saying WE’RE NOT MOVING - when in FACT we MADE the first move by taking the dvd increase OFF THE TABLE in order to settle the deal and then the studios WALKED AWAY.
You’re constantly forgetting that, pretending to be reasonable but continously accusing us and I find that insulting … and when you get called on it, you play the victim card (these writers, they’re sooo mean and bitchy, etc) and frankly, this is that concern troll game someone tagged earlier, and I’m done with it.
I’m done with you - you’re either deliberately mis-stating the case or just plain dishonest about it - so there’s no point in us continuing to talk - sooner or later I’ll call you on your crap in vehement words writers use well and you’ll cry about how intractable writers are and how it’s our fault you MIGHT lose your six figure salary job.
Talk to Craig, since you believe he’s the reasonable one here. Wait, he ain’t really dialoguing with you, now is he?
That was really well said, AD.
This isn’t fun and games. I think there is some amount of juice one gets out of being a part of an organization that is “doing something.” That’s exciting. Especially if you are a minority group like the WGA. But don’t get caught up in the movement just because it’s exhilarating. The strike is a means to an ends. Understand what YOU truly would work for. Like, when you first became a writer, did you go “thank god for the residual system…if they ever stopped paying residuals because of internet streaming…I would have chosen something else?” I’m not trying to start shit. I’m serious.
Stooge
Josh J - you really turned on me quickly. Fine by me. Sorry you feel that way. I believe I merely point out that neither side wears the white hat. If THAT is offensive to you, then so be it. I can only say that I am sincere.
Stooge
Stooge,
This is exactly what writers want - less up front, continued involvement, and the potential of more on the back end. (Craig, Ted, John August have essentially made this deal with Fox).
As for the common writer, well, we have a few factors standing in our way. Namely: agents and studios (and sometimes other writers).
Agents have one purpose - get as much hard cash as humanly possible for their clients (there by bolstering their company’s bottom-line). If that means the sacrifice of long-term stability for their individual client, so be it.
Studios have one purpose - get as much money as they possibly can (to bolster their bottom line). If that means paying 7 figures up front to save paying out 8 later on, so be it.
Personally, I would give my scripts away if they were guaranteed to be made and I was going to see first dollar gross. Don’t tell my agent.
SML: Honestly, as a TV writer, I don’t want less up front, and more on the back end, since 90% of shows lose crazy amounts of money. (I realize this is not the case with movies.) Want I want is a robust business atmosphere, in which studios and networks feel that making the heavy investment in scripted programming (heavy compared to reality / game shows / etc.) is actually a decent risk. And, I want an environment in which there isn’t the kind of upfront cost-cutting that already makes it very difficult for lower level staff writers to get jobs.
So, as usual, AMPTP Stooge makes a really good point.
I can’t help myself.
I’m not turning, I’m not on a team, here. I attempted to engage you and you quite frankly said false things and continue to do so.
I have no problem accepting that neither side is perfect and wears white hats. I only note that you are ONLY criticizing the WGA and consistently mis-stating the actions of our unions.
You’re not sincere when you say WGA did something that they did not do, and AMPTP did this when in reality it did that.
That’s not sincere. That’s dishonest. So why are you surprised that I would be upset with that? Any reasonable person would be.
Okay, I won’t look at this thread for awhile - if Patrick couldn’t talk sense into you, probably it’s hopeless.
Clifford,
My apologies. I was debating from my very narrow POV.
These links are why statements like “To the death” make me (aka working stiff) anxious. How do you guys (WGA) battle these giants? I’m thinking PR. and while the Speechless movement is a start I think you guys need some serious commercial advertising / public service announcements.
I may have missed some.
http://www.ge.com/company/businesses/index.html
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/businesses/index.html
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/Subsidiaries/outside.html http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/Subsidiaries/index.html
http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/index.html
http://www.newscorp.com/investor/investments.html
http://www.viacom.com/OUR%20BRANDS/BRAND%20INDEX/default.aspx
As both a producer and a writer (4 Feature films), I want to say something:
The writer will always get shafted. Anyone who’d been in Hollywood over 10 years knows this.
The WRITER’S STRIKE is good.
It helps defeat GREED in the end.
By NOT settling, it will finally prove the ultimate point: Writers are the driving force behind everything Hollywood makes.
As both a producer and a writer (4 Feature films), I want to say something:
The writer will always get shafted. Anyone who’s been in Hollywood over 10 years knows this.
The WRITER’S STRIKE is good.
It helps defeat GREED in the end.
By NOT settling, it will finally prove the ultimate point: Writers are the driving force behind everything Hollywood makes.
Craig,<