Those who support writer's strike

Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I heard from various "industry people", either they will cut a deal before Christmas or else you're looking at next summer at the earliest... and if the latter happens, then the studios are going to try and bust the union.
 
i'm still fairly calm right now, but once february rolls around and Lost isn't back on the air...then it's crazy guy shooting rampage time...
 
Sad Max said:
My money is on the producers caving, to the degree that whatever deal they work out, is a 'cave' (of course each side will insist that any eventual deal, favors *them*...)

The majority of working writers have day jobs of one kind or another, and will have some sort of income to keep them going.
Click to expand...
I'd worry about external pressure (viewing public, out of work industry peeps, etc.,) forcing someone's had than internal pressure forcing the writers or producers respective camps.


-A
 
The viewing public might exert some pressure, via advertisers cutting back on purchases of air-time due to smaller viewership figures...but that pressure will fall on the producers, not the writers.

Neither the producers' nor the writers' guilds, as organizations, give a tin sh*t about the other guilds or craft unions, per se. I doubt there is much pressure any of us could productively apply.
 
Without a nightly televison show, Stephen Colbert lacks a huge platform on which he can base his campaign for the Presidency...which could have national as well as international ramifications...

...so in the end, we all lose a bit from this strike.

It's in everyone's best interests to get a fair deal done.
 
Here's a producer's point of view...

"Writers argue that television and movie are like books and songs, and that like authors and songwriters, they have a moral right to earn a fee every time a consumer enjoys their intellectual property, which they have licensed to the studios.

Bullshit.

Legally, they don't have a leg to stand on, as from day one of this industry no writer has owned the copyright to a produced screenplay or teleplay. The first order of business in producing a movie or TV show is for us to acquire the copyright in that medium and any other media now and in the future. And if the writer doesn't want to sign over the copyright (in exchange for a generous fee, let me add) then **** 'em. We'll find another property to develop, and they're free too, as so many eager beavers around suggest, go off and make it themselves. Have fun and good luck.

As for the moral argument that they are OWED a residual, goddamit, because, well, they just ARE....

Look kids, if you really want a guaranteed royalty or residual, then I suggest you try your hand at a less capital-intensive medium. Write a book or, if the prospect of crapping out 80,000 words is too daunting, find a buddy who can draw and make a "graphic" novel. Because I'm here to tell you, movies are very, very expensive propositions.

Y'see, we don't liken movies and TV series to books or songs. Those are cheap as peanuts. Economically, movies and TV are closer to pharmaceuticals than books and pop music. Like our brothers in big pharma, we spend billions on dud products before we find the handful that work, paying for themselves, all of the duds, with enough left over to keep Wall Street happy. Now, do you think the boys over at Merck or J&J pay their chemists and engineers a residual for every pill they sell? **** no! Those geeks in lab coats are EMPLOYEES -- well paid employees, given the opportunity to do what the love most -- and if they don't like their pay? Great. Let 'em teach high school. It's a free country.

Damn, I wish there was a metaphor for the movies = pills notion. Let me get one of my writers on the phone....

Yeah, that's it. The clowns on the WGA picket line aren't in the business of self expression, they're part of the team that helps us bake "Magic Cake."

And they'll be back in the kitchen. On our terms. Bank on it. "
 
Actually, the producers are the weakest link in this chain. The strongest link are... distributors and marketers... for now.

There will always be money to finance entertainment (film, music etc.). Producers are dispensable. The only other function they have is as packagers - they pull the production together - getting talent to agree, getting the entire enterprise off the ground. But guess what, it all starts with a script. That's why producers need to acquire the property (script), otherwise they have ZERO bargaining power. Guess what. Times, they are achangeing. More and more writers become their own producers, sometimes also their own directors - that's really the way to go. As a writer, (unless you simply have no interest in anything else but writing) why do you need a producer? Money? Bwahahaha! You have no idea. There's more and more money flooding into the system - money that only cares about track record. If you are a writer that has had a hit movie - or indeed a produced movie - you're good to go. Tons of such folks are getting financed these days. Remember - money is just pieces of paper - and there are always those who want to take a gamble on hollywood. So money will not be a problem for the produced and/or hit writer. And if the writer wants to direct, believe me, talent (actors) will follow. Actors are much more tuned in to directors/writers - PROPERTY (the script!) - than they are to a "producer". The producer has not much bargaining power left... except for the unproduced, novice, starving writer with no connections.

You heard it here first - producers will be the big losers going forward. The industry is changing. Writers will come out on top. The decisive forces right now are distributors and marketers. If you can't get your film shown or marketed - you are out of luck. As any of the thousands of freelance indie filmmakers know so well. That's what studios have - relationships with distributors. And even more crucially - they have marketing. But that's not forever. The internet is changing a lot. Production costs are coming down. New distribution methods will develop. New marketing paradigms. Even so, especially in marketing, it'll be quite a while before studios lose their power. But producers? Ha, ha, ha, ha. They're gone... walking dead right now. And **** 'em.
 
brianluce said:
Here's a producer's point of view...

"Writers argue that television and movie are like books and songs, and that like authors and songwriters, they have a moral right to earn a fee every time a consumer enjoys their intellectual property, which they have licensed to the studios.

Bullshi*.

Legally, they don't have a leg to stand on, as from day one of this industry no writer has owned the copyright to a produced screenplay or teleplay. The first order of business in producing a movie or TV show is for us to acquire the copyright in that medium and any other media now and in the future. And if the writer doesn't want to sign over the copyright (in exchange for a generous fee, let me add) then poo poo 'em. We'll find another property to develop, and they're free too, as so many eager beavers around suggest, go off and make it themselves. Have fun and good luck.

As for the moral argument that they are OWED a residual, goddamit, because, well, they just ARE....

Look kids, if you really want a guaranteed royalty or residual, then I suggest you try your hand at a less capital-intensive medium. Write a book or, if the prospect of crapping out 80,000 words is too daunting, find a buddy who can draw and make a "graphic" novel. Because I'm here to tell you, movies are very, very expensive propositions.

Y'see, we don't liken movies and TV series to books or songs. Those are cheap as peanuts. Economically, movies and TV are closer to pharmaceuticals than books and pop music. Like our brothers in big pharma, we spend billions on dud products before we find the handful that work, paying for themselves, all of the duds, with enough left over to keep Wall Street happy. Now, do you think the boys over at Merck or J&J pay their chemists and engineers a residual for every pill they sell? poo poo no! Those geeks in lab coats are EMPLOYEES -- well paid employees, given the opportunity to do what the love most -- and if they don't like their pay? Great. Let 'em teach high school. It's a free country.

Damn, I wish there was a metaphor for the movies = pills notion. Let me get one of my writers on the phone....

Yeah, that's it. The clowns on the WGA picket line aren't in the business of self expression, they're part of the team that helps us bake "Magic Cake."

And they'll be back in the kitchen. On our terms. Bank on it. "
Click to expand...

You know... there is valid point within that statement.

Films are huge monetary investment. The problem is unlike a song.. or a book.. the completion of a film is *usually* never dependent on a single author.. it is dependent on many many people.

Where this statement begins to fall apart is it's comparison to the pharmaceutical companies.

Film and TV are one of the few industry that are able to re-sell the exact same product on different mediums. They have several sources of revenue to re-coup their costs.

Theatrical distribution, DVD Sales, and now internet sales. Seeing as writers are usually treated as second class citizens in the film world (more highly regarded in TV) I think they should have compensation for their work.

After, if Keanu Reeves can sign a deal for a cut of The matrix films box office take... why can't the writers? (yes I am aware the Wachowski brothers also wrote it.. it is an example...).

As someone that writes their own work I'd want to get paid for people purchasing and enjoying my work.
 
Loki said:
You know... there is valid point within that statement.

Films are huge monetary investment. The problem is unlike a song.. or a book.. the completion of a film is *usually* never dependent on a single author.. it is dependent on many many people.

Where this statement begins to fall apart is it's comparison to the pharmaceutical companies.

Film and TV are one of the few industry that are able to re-sell the exact same product on different mediums. They have several sources of revenue to re-coup their costs.

Theatrical distribution, DVD Sales, and now internet sales. Seeing as writers are usually treated as second class citizens in the film world (more highly regarded in TV) I think they should have compensation for their work.

After, if Keanu Reeves can sign a deal for a cut of The matrix films box office take... why can't the writers? (yes I am aware the Wachowski brothers also wrote it.. it is an example...).

As someone that writes their own work I'd want to get paid for people purchasing and enjoying my work.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem I have with the producer's argument is that he ignores the fact that writers already get residuals--there is already existing precedent.
 
Notice how this guy started off his argument talking about copyright. If writer's didn't give away their copyrights this would be a non-issue. Of course, this guy mentioned that if you didn't sign over your copyrights, producers would find somebody who would, and he has a point there. Michael Crichton once said if he ever has an idea, he always writes it as a book first, that way he gets paid 3 times instead of just once. Once for the book, once for the movie rights to the book, and one more time to write the screenplay. Of course, not everyone is Michael Crichton, but anyone who is solely a writer would be wise to follow his model, for the very reason that even if you sold the movie rights to the studios you'd still own and control the original propety.
 
brianluce said:
The biggest problem I have with the producer's argument is that he ignores the fact that writers already get residuals--there is already existing precedent.
Click to expand...

Whoever wrote that, is really an ass.

The tradition upon which writers' (and actors', and directors') rights-and-residuals are based is not rooted in copyright, it's rooted in the pre-film/television standards of theater. As motion pictures grew out of the theater business, they adopted the existing standards assigning right to the book to the writer, and rights to the performance to the actor. The principle being that the producer owned the specific show he was staging, while the writer could continue to benefit from his contribution, the script, and the performer from his contribution, the performance.

Well, people in this business have never been big on history, at least, any history that doesn't underwrite their own grossly distended egos and sense of entitlement, to everyone else's detriment.

And I would sure like to see a source for that, too.
 
Last edited:
I think BL's post was a parody of what your typical producer/villain thinks...

I don't think he agrees with the view, he is just exploring the mentality.

Producers do shell out huge bucks, or raise them, so they might want to hedge their bets...which is what residuals boil down to. "I'll pay you this amount up front, but if this thing makes money, you'll get a taste."

If you can make some money with a writers work, throw him a bone...if not, then you don't have to shell out anything other than your initial investment, which would have been higher had the writer asked for more up front in lieu of residuals.
 
DeSica said:
I think BL's post was a parody of what your typical producer/villain thinks...

.
Click to expand...

I considered that, that it might be a parody, and it may be, but considering where it came, I doubt it.

For me, it looks like, feels like, and smells like the real thing.
 
There are two competing stories here, but basically the idea is that the original Matrix was a ripoff of "The Third Eye" written by Sophia Stewart in the 80's (she submitted the script to the Wachowski Brothers who had put out an ad looking for sci-fi scripts to be adapter into a comic book). She sued but the lawsuit was dismissed when her lawyers didn't show up for the hearing.

The second is Grant Morrisson's brilliant comic series, "The Invisibles" and although he was originally pissed, eventually said this in an interview: "It's not some baffling 'coincidence' that so much of The Matrix is plot by plot, detail by detail, image by image, lifted from Invisibles so there shouldn't be much controversy. The Wachowskis nicked The Invisibles and everyone in the know is well aware of this fact but of course they're unlikely to come out and say it.

It was just too bad they deviated so far from the Invisibles philosophical template in the second and third movies because they blundered helplessly into boring Catholic theology, proving that they hadn't HAD the 'contact' experience that drove The Invisibles, and they wrecked both 'Reloaded' and 'Revolutions' on the rocks of absolute incomprehension. They should have kept on stealing from me and maybe they would have wound up with something to really be proud of - a movie that could change minds and hearts and worlds."

From what I've heard (not sure where I heard it), the Brothers kept copies of The Invisibles on set and used specific panels to set up shots and scenes.

Then of course there's Ghost in the Shell, and there's websites floating around that actually have photos from the matrix and ghost in the shell and they are exactly the same shot, exactly the same angle. Unfortunately they're all down for now... I'll keep looking.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top