The WGA, led by Patric M. Verrone, consists of 12,000 writers nationally (8,000 on the west coast, 4,000 on the east). The union is demanding a bigger cut of revenue made from DVD sales and shows sold over the internet. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMTPT) has refused to meet this request. As a result, an overwhelming 90.3% of the Guild agreed to strike.To me, the issue boils down to respect. Hollywood big-wigs don’t respect the writers, and this pisses the writers off. Producers and executives are money-men and yes-men. They aren’t artists. They aren’t creators. And they haven’t the first clue when it comes to the aesthetic of film or the significance of story. They think that if you throw in a big name actor (insert Colin Ferrell), sign on a major director (how about Oliver Stone?) and give him a huge special effects budget ($150 million should do it) then you’ve made a good movie (ugh…Alexander).
The truth is, if you don’t start with good writing then the final product will be shitty. No amount of rewrites or smoke and mirrors will save the movie. I’ll take a good example from my time as an intern at Radar Pictures. We got a script in called “The Heartbreak Kid” (it was actually a remake). It
had one or two funny gags, but overall it was clichéd gross-out humor. Our money-man (the heir to the Marshall-Fields fortune) decided this was going to be his blockbuster. The guy had no clue about film or story, but he had the money so no one was in a position to disagree. He hired a few different writers to do rewrites, the script went through a couple of revisions, and finally he got the kings of gross out humor: the Farrelly brothers. They did the final rewrite (which pretty much consisted of making the gross jokes even grosser), Ben Stiller agreed to star, and just like that Mr. Fields was sure he had a smash. But the film came out and it bombed. It was panned by critics. It doesn’t even have a shot at making its budget back.What happened? Everyone forgot that it was a bad script to begin with.
Hollywood producers consistently fail to recognize the fact that without writers they have nothing. It’s interesting how the process works. Once writers finish their work they’re cut out. They have no say in the final product. They have no input on revisions of the script. Of all the above the line talent (Hollywood term for the artistic talents - actors, directors, producers, and writers) they get the smallest cut of the profits. It’s disgusting.
And this is why they’re on strike. They rightfully believe that if a show they have written is so successful that it makes a killing in DVD sales (a la Friends, Seinfeld, Sex and the City, etc), they should see a significant cut of the revenue. It’s their creation. It’s their success. Show them the money.
Ultimately, the writers will win. As I’ve said, without writers Hollywood has nothing. There are no shows, no movies. Production comes to a screeching halt. It’s just a matter of how long it will take for the AMTPT to realize it. The last time the WGA went on strike was 1988. It lasted 22 weeks and cost the industry an estimated $500 million. Ouch.
The sad part of the story is that the WGA is not your typical union. In most unions, the members are all on a comparable pay scale. In the WGA, you have powerhouses who get $2.5 million every time they lift up a pen picketing next to the new guy in the writer’s room of a crappy sitcom who can barely afford to make rent. It makes for two very different strikes. For one, it’s a nice vacation and a chance to fight for the little guy. For the other, it means the very real possibility of starvation and homelessness.
So what does this mean to the rest of us (your average television and movie enthusiast)? Most producers, foreseeing the strike (possibly because they’re bastards and caused the strike in the first place) have stockpiled shows and scripts and should be good until January. If the strike
goes longer than that you’ll start seeing fewer dramas and sitcoms and much more reality. Talk shows, news programs and game shows will increasingly migrate to primetime. The immediate change you’ll see is that late night topical shows (Letterman, The Daily Show, etc.) will go to reruns. These shows are written daily and there are no new episodes in reserve. Concerning film, projects already in production will speed up as producers will want to finish movies before the strike moves into full swing. If it’s a lengthy holdout, expect a slower summer on the entertainment front.Thanks for reading.
PS. There won’t be a post tomorrow as I’ll be out of the office for most of the day. Don’t worry though, Zizzle-Zotians, I’m not going on strike (Zizzle-Zot, etc. isn’t registered with the WGA). And I didn’t get laid off (at least not yet)
PPS. I’d like to be involved in a little group book reading as well. Maybe we could do a book that I haven’t read yet either. I can look into some possibilities. I appreciate your concern about taking over the blog, Late Night, but I wouldn’t worry too much about it. It’s good to hear from everybody. We could dedicate one (or two?) days a week on Zizzle-Zot, etc. to the book discussion, which could also help keep everyone at roughly the same spot in the book. An email chain would work as well. Thoughts?
19 comments:
Well I have to say I agree with you and I can really see your passion in the post (especially since you are a writer yourself). As I was reading this I was trying to analyze the whole situation myself to see if I truly agree with you, because you make it very obvious where you stand on this issue.
After thinking about it for a while I do agree that the writers should get some of the cut from these sales. I have heard someone on the tv say, "Friends was not one of the most successful and funny sit-coms because of the actors, they had outstanding writers." That statement I believe is true, sure they actors had great chemistry, but non of it could have been possible without the ideas of the writers.
It takes producers, directors, writers, and actors to make shows and movies successful. Writers should definitely see some of the money, if not, I at least know who should deserve some of the recognition.
P.S. Gruber do you have a secret screenplay hidden in the bottom drawer of your office desk starring Agent Gruber Scarn who finds his love interest Catherine Zeta-Jones? If you don't you need to start working on one.
I totally agree. It is sad how they are treated. Mike Evans on KQ had the statistic that the writers in that guild only get on average $30,000 a year across the board. That is so sad. While all the big shots and "stars" get hundreds of thousands and even millions. Friends could have been friends with some different actors but not with different writers. Yet the actors were the ones getting a million an episode. It is really too bad.
I'm definately not a huge fan of unions and the like because I think money can easily be wasted and people can get lazy. However, with the multi billion dollar industry that is hollywood, there is definately money to spread around.
PS. Where is our November reader of the month???
The November Reader of the Month will be announced on Friday...the anticipation is unbearable.
FYI I'll be posting comments and the like as Zizzle-Zot from here on out. Everyone else had a cool alias, and there I was using my real name like a chump.
Grubs,
I agree with you guys on the Strike. It really is rediculous the money that is made on DVD sales and Internet sales and yet the writers see as much of that revenue as i do. The writers really do make the movies/tv shows what they are and yet here i sit and i probably couldn't ramble off a single writer of any box office hits.
I hope that WGA gets what they want out of this, becuase i know that it is the only thing holding you back from submitting your scripts, and i am ready to see some of your movies and then take me out on your million dollar lot!
So hurry up with the strike you WGA poor bastards and get Grubs the money that he has coming his way!!!
PS. I like the Zizzle-Zot alias, i was getting sick of reading comments from a chump
I agree that to have a successful show or movie, you NEED to have good material to work with. If you start with a shitty script, the show/movie is going to be shitty as well.
Here comes the unpopular viewpoint: writers DO currently get paid what they’re worth.
Writers who come up with hits such as “Friends” and “Seinfeld”, ARE making great money. They ARE being rewarded for their good work. People who Gruber pointed out that some of these writers are “making $2,500,000 every time they pick up a pen.” If they want more, they should negotiate it when they write their script. Fuck unions. Be an entrepreneur. Be an American.
As for actors/actresses/producers…this is the same story. They get paid for doing a great job. If Jennifer Aniston or Brad Pitt were horrible actors, they wouldn’t be making the money they do. Right?
Again, writers currently get paid what they’re worth. If you’re a writer making $30,000 a year, go out and produce the movie yourself, direct it and get your friends to do the acting.
Another point to note is that writers have ABSOLUTELY NO RISK when bringing a show or movie to mainstream media. If the show/movie is a total flop, the writers may suffer a knock on their reputation, but they don't lose millions upon millions of dollars like the producers do.
To me, it is a matter that a person’s reward should be based upon the risk they take. Risk and return…elementary economics. If a producer is going to risk millions upon millions of dollars on a gamble that a project/show/movie is going to be a hit, they should be the ones who “make-it or break-it” financially.
Risk and return. Absolutely fair! If you want the return, take the risk.
-Can you tell my background is in business and finance?
Kevin, I don't think your viewpoint is necesarily unpopular. I agree with a lot of the things you said. Like I said before I'm not a big fan of unions either, especially how they are used today. There was a time and place for them in the 1920's but I don't know about today.
I'm also with you for risk/reward. All I'm saying is that with all the money in hollywood, writers could probably do better. Also, if I were to write for say Saturday night live, I would sure as hell want some money for the skits I wrote that made it to DVD and sold millions. That is as American as you can get... getting paid fairly for the work you do. 'sall I'm sayin'
Yeah I also agree with some of the things you (kevin) said, but i think that the biggest thing that disturbs me the most is not the money that they are making up front, but rather the money on the back end like the DVD Sales and Internet Sales.
Yeah it's true that the writers don't have to put the money into the movie, but that dosn't mean there isn't a lot of Oppurtunity Cost involved with writing scripts. The time and effort it takes to write movies and you say the risk isn't as big, but do you think if someone were to bring a producer two shitty scripts, that that producer would even give a third script the time of the day. I think there is a lot of risk involved.
Risk isn't just defined by money, as you made it seem, i mean wouldn't you say that it's a risk to give up 6 months of your life to write a movie just to get it turned away, when a person could go find a job and make a few thousand dollars in those 6 months.
Besides, i feel like the argument isn't that the writers should make what the producers, directors and stars make, but rather they should just make a cut off of all the revenue that the movies/shows make and a decent cut at that.
Wow...
Kev, lighten up.
Just kidding. I do see exactly where K han is coming from. On the other hand, there should be a middle ground. The writer's should get incentives if more copies are sold and the like. If that is not happening that is a shame. But, Kev seemed to be right on with the rest.
Writer's may be taken advantage of...Yes. However, that is the risk. Gruber, you know that. And if ________ is a great writer he/she is doing just fine, and probably being chauffered around Hollywood hills as we speak.
This is my first real opinionated stance on the blog that goes against the views of most, so I'm sorry if I come off as sounding aggressive. I'm just explaining my view, and don't mean to attack anyone's feelings regarding the issue.
Anyway,
I am guessing that Saturday Night Live writers make more than $30,000 a year, and they know EXACTLY what they are getting themselves into when they sign their employment offer from NBC.
When they sign that letter, they are agreeing that they will provide a service in exchange for "X" dollars.
If they feel that their work is worth more than that, they shouldn't agree to the offer until it is something they are happy with. If NBC doesn't offer the do-re-mi that they want, change careers.
I think that being a ski patrol would be a great job. At the same time, I realize that being a ski patrol isn’t going to afford me the lifestyle I desire, so I found another career path that I’m interested in. I didn’t become a ski patrol, form a big group of buddies that I work with, and tell the Nation’s ski resorts that none of us are going to work anymore until we get $500,000 a year….forcing them to shut down the mountains because they’re no longer safe and forcing millions of Americans to cancel Spring Break plans.
sorry guys, i wrote my last entry before I read Joe or swajac's posts.
I do think they should make a little more, but switch jobs and negotiate a better deal.
A strike isn't the way to do it...that's all
There is no sorry in this blog K Dawg, unless you get personal or something like that. This is a place to express your opinions and if they are different from others that is awesome, that is how great conversation is formed. Keep on expressing your opinions and making your arguments!
Kevin,
I'm just trying to dig into the risk/reward theory a little more. I guess i just see it a little differently.
I kind of see it as more of a risk for the writer than the producer as i said below:
I'm a producer with millions and millions of dollars. Here comes a script that looks apealing and i'm going to go to my investors and see if they want to join me in throwing a few million into the pot to make a movie. They agree to throw down some dough, the movie is made and flops. Darn here i now sit with a few million less than i had before, but of course i still have a few million in the bank, and now i'm going to take a vacation to the Carribean and think about the loss i just took, until the next movie comes around and i make a measly 50 million on it.
or
I am a writer and i just spent the last 6 months sitting in my pisshole apartment writing a movie script, eating my Ramen noodles and not knowing how i'm going to make next months rent. I finish my script, it gets turned down and now i have nothing to live off of. I just wasted 6 months of my life, i now have to get a job with Toll Booth Willy and my reputation is tarnished.
So what really is the bigger risk?
I think it depends a lot upon how you look at it. No doubt, the writer you described is in worse shape going forward than the producer you described. There is no way to argue against that.
Another way of looking at it though, just to get the other side of the story:
I’m a 75 year-old producer who has a net worth of, say, $500 million. I invest $250 million in a movie that I end up losing $100 million on. Now I have lost one-fifth of my net worth on the movie…a net worth that I have been building up over the course of my lifetime. In essence, I have lost 1/5 of my entire career, or 10 years of working.
At the same time, the writer you described has wasted 6 months and $5,000 in rent. He can has 2 options. (1) Realize that maybe he wasn’t cut out for writing movies and learn a new skill (college/trade/whatever), or (2) take a job with Toll Booth Willy during the day and work on a script at night (really, he could probably write and man the toll booth at the same time).
Basically, analysis of return/risk depends upon how you look at it. The producer risked money and lost money and part of his retirement nest-egg. The writer risked time, and lost time and needs to start over from where he was a year ago.
It's late. I don't have the minutes to read every response. I do want to respond to the idea that the writers are getting paid what they are worth.
I completely disagree.
These guys aren't asking for a salary increase. They are asking to be included in newly realized profits. It's simply extending the status quo. Considering the fact that it's the same product being distributed, this seems like an obvious and reasonable request.
Yet, the studios hand out the paychecks, so they call the shots in the end. On this particular issue, the major studios seem to be working as a cohesive unit. Because of this, the writers are being backed into a corner. "Take it how we give you, or find another profession."
Kevin, why do you see a strike as an unreasonable response? Unions and strikes have done wonders for the American work force. Are we to assume that this tool is off limits now that people have retirement benefits?
It's about what's fair and I think this scenario completely fits within that realm.
You ask them to get new jobs, but that ignores the one thing that the strike so perfectly highlights: the studios need them as much they need the studio. So, yes...if the writers are going to make other people rich, they have a few stipulations of their own.
If it's that easy to replace them, the studios should put out a want ad.
I have an idea for a book. I don't know if we are thinking to go fiction or non-fiction, but here is one that could spark some debate especially about the upcoming election...
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=0670018368
Just throwin' an idea out there don't be afraid to reject it.
Good discussion everyone.
Kevan, I'm sorry you're wrong all the time. It can't be easy.
I'll also disagree with the argument that writers are fairly compensated. The writer is the single largest creative force behind a project, yet you will never see a writer make the $20 million a movie that dummies like Paul Walker do. But alas, this is the state of affairs and the life that they (and I) have chosen. It doesn't do a whole lot of good to bitch and moan about it, as it's a fact controlled by market forces, not some evil conglomerate of Hollywoods deities. Writers are seen as dispensible because they have allowed themselves to be seen as dispensible.
My solution: To make myself one of the few indispensible writers, and then demand $50 million every time I lift a pen. Damn the man.
The writers aren't asking for a salary hike. They're asking for a cut of the profits that they earned. When the WGA agreed to its last contract, 10+ years ago, DVD and internet sales hadn't yet taken off. It was a non-issue. But over the weekend that contract expired, and in the new contract they want a cut of profits that until recently didn't exist. This is a completely fair demand, yet the producers wouldn't agree. I'd say a strike is their only option.
The WGA is an example of a union doing exactly what it was designed to. It's protecting its members from being bullied by the powers that be because they have all the money.
For the record, his name is not "Kevin", or "Kevan"...It's actually "K-Han", similar to "K-Fed" (Kevin Federline)...Get it right!
Also just for the record...I want to kiss Joe Ritchie directly on the mouth!
PS With tongue!
I know this topic is a few days old now, but I just wanted to let everyone know that I have changed my mind regarding the strike. It isn’t because of anything posted here, but rather an interview I heard on the radio as I drove home last night.
I learned that writers of TV shows and such have historically been paid royalties every time their episode of “Friends” plays. In fact, that is how they make a majority of their money…it hasn’t been a “one and done” deal.
From what I gathered, their biggest objection isn’t a chunk of DVD sales or the price of a movie script, it is that they see TV going the route music has gone, with viewers able to download the latest episode of “Entourage” rather than watch it on TV…and thus, less reruns and less money to the writers.
I now see that this strike isn’t about “getting more” for what they’re doing, but rather to “protect” their compensation. The way I was viewing it earlier was just them striking just because they can, and because they wanted a bigger monthly salary.
Strike on!
Post a Comment