WGA set to strike - TV Season could be truncated/delayed (1 Viewer)

[Greg_S_H]

This discussion seems to be drifting away from the matter at hand and towards the pros and cons of unionization, which seems counter to the rules.

 

[Scott-S]

I agree Greg, sorry. I'll try and drift back to the subject.

Like I said, I am biased due to my experiences.

But I think the bigger problem for me is that I can't wrap my head around the whole residual idea. To me, I am used to getting paid for something I did/do. Once I am paid, the thing I built is not mine. I wish I could get money every time a person makes a cell phone call. (I built amps used in cell sites).

In my small mind, once a writer hands over a script, they are "selling" it and thus no longer own it. I know that is really not the case now, but that is how my brain works. (I am logic minded, not artistic minded). I think the same about all artistic work.

 

[TravisR]

I follow your line of thought but the studio is going to be making money off of some of these writers' work for decades to come. While the writers gets paid, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue that some shows will generate for a studio. Look at the guys who wrote Star Trek or The Twilight Zone, they get squat and CBS/Paramount has continued to make millions off of their work for decades.

Without a writer, the studio has nothing.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

So novelists shouldn't receive royalties? That would be news to Stephen King, John Grisham and J. K. Rowling.

Getting paid a one-time fee for work for hire is no more (or less) "logical" than getting paid a fee plus reisduals. In fact, logic doesn't even enter into it, at least as you have stated the "problem." (Logic is an analytical tool, no more and no less. Star Trek may have grossly misused the word, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.)

You're simply assuming that the way things work in your particular industry is the natural order of things and how all such transactions "should" be conducted. "I am a contractor. I don't get residuals. Screenwriters are contractors. Therefore they should not get residuals." It isn't even a good syllogism. A valid syllogism would read: "No contractors deserve residuals. Screenwriters are contractors. Therefore screenwriters don't deserve residuals." Impeccable logic. The conclusion flows obviously from both premises.

The problem is that no proof has been offered that the major premise is true. Is it the case that "no contractors deserve residuals"? How would you prove that? "I don't get them" is not proof. Logic has nothing whatever to do with reality or truth or fact. "All HTF members breathe methane. I am an HTF member. Therefore, I breathe methane." Again, the logic works. The problem is the premise is wrong.

If you start from the wrong premise, perfect logic will get you a perfectly wrong answer every time.

No one questions that the writer of a stage play is entitled to peformance fees for future versions of his show, even though the theater is a collaborative medium and the play is not brought to life in its intended form until actors - usually in costume and make-up, working in sets and with their movement and even performances shaped by a director - put it "on its feet." If a movie is to be made from a play, the entirely separate film rights must be purchased from the playwright - the producers of the original stage production don't have a share in those rights. (Ditto the hardcover publisher and movie rights in the case of a novel.) And the folks who buy the film rights might not own the TV rights.

In the case of screenplays the writer, through previous collective bargaining agreements, is entitled to residuals - just as he is on broadcasts of his movies or shows. (And as actors and directors are.) So that fact has already been established. What the writers are trying to do is extend that residual right to new media that basically didn't exist when the earlier agreements were reached, and to make the home video formulas more fair. The writers agreed to a very low residual formula (it averages about four cents per disc sold) in order to "help the fledgling industry get started." (A dodge that has also led to lower overall fees for basic and premium cable and for work done for "netlets" like The CW, and before that for UPN, The WB and Fox, in the early days. Fox only got bumped up to fee parity with the Big Three networks a contract or two ago.) The writers argue that home video is well past the fledgling stage and that it is reasonable to up their take to eight cents a disc. (Hardly highway robbery or something that would vastly inflate the cost of a DVD movie or TV boxed set.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[RickER]

I hate to say this guys, cause i am into electronics, and movies. But i can live without TV, and dont watch network at all, and have not for years. I do like Galactica, maybe thats why the season was pushed back til April, 13 months after LAST season.
If all TV and movies stopped today in a week you wouldnt miss it. If DVDs are to expensive, or if it ends up costing $20 for one movie ticket...thats fine, i can find other things to do. Or maybe i should pay for each time i read a book i already bought?

 

[TravisR]

But movie tickets aren't going to jump up to $20 and you don't have to pay each time you read a book.

 

[RickER]

Not yet!

 

[TravisR]

Touche.

 

[DaveF]

Listening to an interview last night, it was stated that writers for national network shows make about $7500 per episode; so maybe $165k for a season. While that's a good salary, I'm surprised, if true, by the incredible disparity between the writers and actors. The actors can make that much per episode! And I dare say, having an excellent writer is just as important as having the perfect actor for a role.

It seems that there's money a-plenty in Hollywood; I can see why writers might want to get a bigger piece of the revenue.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Except that paying the writer(s) an extra four cents per DVD isn't going to drive movie ticket prices to "$20 for one ... ticket" or make DVDs "too expensive", so this statement has nothing to do with reality at all. And no, you shouldn't pay each time you read a book. Nor should you (or do you) pay each time you watch a DVD. You pay something when you buy it, and lots of the people who created the book (or the DVD and the underlying content) get money from that sale. The writer's are asking that their share be increased slightly. This has nothing whatsoever to do with you. (Because it isn't like the studios can't come up with the difference without raising prices. They just don't want to.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[Chris]

This is where I think this gets really messy. Look at how many shows are on the air in which the head writer =is= the lead actor in the show. Example: 30 Rock. Tina Fey is the head writer of that show, as well as the lead. And, more then that, two other cast members are also writers. While large ensemble shows have main writers (think CSI, ER, L&O) there are several smaller shows in which the show -is- the writer, especially true in cable TV series.. (while cancelled deservingly, Lucky Louie would be a perfect example of that).

I think for those writers, who find that a strike eats up not just their writing fees but also their acting salary and producers credit will be really sweating the strike, more then we are.

 

[RickER]

Course i had tongue planted in cheek with my comment, mostly. To me its a question of where does it all end. I know as long as people will watch and pay nothing will change. If everyone got what they thought they were worth, none of us could afford to live. I know i could use a nice raise!
It also reminds me of a story a friend told me. He had bought some books from a collector, who had called him a few years later to say he needed more money because the books he had sold my friend were worth more now. He thought he should be paid again for the difference.

 

[Marty M]

A system of residuals has long been established. I don't blame the writers for wanting to get their fair share. Do directors get residuals, as well?

 

[Scott-S]

I think I was not very clear when I said "logical" minded. I didn't mean that the residual idea was not logical. I meant that most people use either the left or right side of their brain and I happen to be more of the side that is logic (I don't remember what side that is). What I meant was I have no artistic ability whatsoever so I can't fully understand that world.

 

[Brian D H]

Residuals are a completely logical part of any artistic endeavor. Maybe it would be clearer if you think of, well.. art.

I am an artist (though not currently) and have sold paintings. If someone buys my painting they might pay $150.00 (Since I'm nobody AND still alive) and I expect them to hang it on a wall or sell it to someone else. I do NOT expect them to print up a million posters and T-Shirts of the image because I did not sell them the copyright. If they want the copyright they either have to pay me thousands of dollars to own it, or (more likely) residuals, since that is much more affordable to them.

It's the same with a script, except the network HAS to own the copyright to function - it's not like they'd just stick the script on a wall. So, they have a choice: buy the copyright outright or pay residuals. Residuals are cheaper, they could never afford to pay for the script upfront when that script that may, or may not, pay off down the road. So, that's how the industry operates.

It's real simple, when the product you make has no intrinsic value in the here and now (it's 40 sheets of paper, worth about 57 cents), but a HUGE potential value once it's produced down the road, the only affordable way to pay for it is with a share of the profits. That way you avoid paying a lot of money for a piece of crap.

Logical, huh?

 

[Walter C]

I don't remember the 1988 strike. I wonder how networks dealt with it back then, when reality shows were not part of prime time.

It sounds like this one could be longer and even worse than the last one.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Not only did seasons start late, but there was some dumpster-diving going on: ABC ordered a new version of Mission: Impossible using old scripts, and Star Trek: The Next Generation recycled a couple of Star Trek: Phase II scripts. CBS put The Price is Right on in prime time and revived The Smothers Brothers.

 

[EricW]

too bad you just don't have a choice about joining a union.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

In this particular case, you do. You only have to join the WGA if you do a certain amount of work for signatory producers and wish to continue working (exclusively) with signatories.

There are lots of writers out there who work with independent studios/ producers that aren't part of the WGA CBA.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Think of it this way -- having a good writer is probably more important than having a good actor in order to make a good movie. However, having Brad Pitt as the star is probably more important than having Paul Haggis as the writer when it comes to selling tickets.

(Of course, if Paul Haggis is the writer, it'll probably be much easier to convince Brad Pitt to star in the movie!)