Writer's Guild Going on Strike

A great movie or TV show can be made with zero VFX. The same cannot be said of script writing, photography, editing, or directing. That is why VFX is at the bottom of the pecking order. In fact, I would say that the amount of VFX in a production is inversely proportional to how much I am likely to enjoy that production.
As for unions, screw 'em all. Just my opinion of course.
 
Run&Gun said:
I disagree with the sentiment. I'm not a carpenter, but I know s****y construction when I see it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
The less skilled I am at anything (writing, painting, plumbing, carpentry, medicine, etc.) the more I have a appreciation for those who can do those things. But that doesn't mean I can't judge their work, whether done well or poorly.
 
Judging work that is in fact poor is one thing. Just hating it for political reasons does not make the work poor. There are many out there that will call writing crap just because they do not agree with the inclusion of minority or gay characters or subjects.

Of course one can be a good judge of bad wiring and not have expertise in it. At the same time however we are a world full of armchair quarterbacks who always have delusions of grandeur and think they can do better.

There is good professional criticism and critique and then there is just howling at the moon because they can.
 
Thomas Smet said:
At the same time however we are a world full of armchair quarterbacks who always have delusions of grandeur and think they can do better.
Click to expand...

Everyone judges the things we come into contact with every day (movies, TV shows, music, food, art, people, cars, cameras, software, clothing, etc), and then we come to our own conclusions. But that is not the same thing as saying that we think we could do better. Just because I can't do better doesn't mean that whatever it is I'm judging doesn't also suck. Your logic is flawed. Only a moron like Jimmy Fallon loves everything.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Everyone judges the things we come into contact with every day (movies, TV shows, music, food, art, people, cars, cameras, software, clothing, etc), and then we come to our own conclusions. But that is not the same thing as saying that we think we could do better. Just because I can't do better doesn't mean that whatever it is I'm judging doesn't also suck. Your logic is flawed. Only a moron like Jimmy Fallon loves everything.
Click to expand...
I agree. If this was the case almost no one could have an opinion. There are many movies and shows that I don't care for. One common theme is that when a movie, show, song is popular then the particular industry tries to copy or replicate that success. I was watching a criticism of modern music and it said back in the 90's both compression and distortion became popular and is overused abused. It's not because the audio engineers don't know how to do their job and can't hear that it sounds bad, they are given directives that this sound sells so do it that way until it doesn't sell. I think this is true to writing, they too are directed by the higher ups to write in the accepted way. There will always a few productions that will do it the way they see fit but by in large most don't want to risk failure.
 
Thomas Smet said:
In the end we are the ones that will suffer because of this. Well maybe using the word suffer is a bit of a first world problem since its just entertainment.

Its unfortunate it had to come to a strike vs figuring out a deal ahead of time.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about these negotiations but I wonder if the current environment of cost-cutting might set the stage for a more protracted dispute. Streamers were already canceling shows left and right as well as yanking content they had already released. The writers come along and tell them they can't produce any new scripted content for a while. As long as your competitors are in the same position, that may not sound like such a bad thing to them. (Of course, TV shows also compete with sports and video games and tiktok, so they can't afford to sit on their hands forever.)

. I don't pretend to know what the average salary is for writers in Hollywood but is it really that bad? I'm asking because I don't really know. If they are struggling I fully support this. If they are well off and just want a bigger slice of the pie then that doesn't always sit well with me.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if being well off is the same as having an appropriate share of a profitable enterprise. Anyway, the sticking point seems to be that streamers pay less than broadcast but the writers want to achieve parity.
 
Thomas Smet said:
.

As one that will always have a soft place in my heart for the VFX industry I am a little upset the writers guild is striking again and not a darn thing ever happens to help out the VFX industry who practically work like slaves.

Where is the writers guild in supporting the VFX industry? Every group is equally important in making content a reality. The writers are vastly important but so are the VFX artists. A well written script is just words sitting in a closet if you don't have the other parts of the equation. Why does the writers guild get to shut down Hollywood?
Click to expand...

I think they need to unionize first? And they damn well should. I've read about how Marvel movies get made.

And that's just the thing: without a union, they're trapped in a race to the bottom. Pay negotiations are all about power and force.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Judging work that is in fact poor is one thing. Just hating it for political reasons does not make the work poor. There are many out there that will call writing crap just because they do not agree with the inclusion of minority or gay characters or subjects.
.
Click to expand...

I think this political subtext underlies a lot of the criticism leveled by, say, DLD. Writers are "entitled one percenters" so he's going to watch sports instead... yeah, ok.

Canadian soccer team just finished a strike in February: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/02/12/f...ntl/index.html

NBA just renegotiated with the players union and narrowly avoided a lockout: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanto...h=3ef5c0cb1f89

Minimum rookie contract in NBA is $953k/year- https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spo...mits-this-year
 
In the US media production environment the unions are powerful because they are tied to health care and pensions, and to a lessor degree, better overall pay.

That is why they are powerful. This is why in countries with universal health, pensions and workplace safety regulation you do not see unions as powerful in media as they are in the US where they can shut down the industry.

Ironic that “socialized” countries tend to have less unionised media because the state provides minimums for the entire workforce that means the union is typically less relevant to individual workers who don’t see a benefit in joining.Â

I believe a writer in tv typically gets paid per episode and the rate is 40-60k per episode.Â

Junior writers that don’t get episodes of their own are employed as staff writers and paid a weekly rate that’s typically fairly low. (Like a PA rate)

A lot of writers get made into producers too and I believe this is to get around the need to pay them for further rewrites.  So they get an episode rate and then a producer flat fee that covers their re-writes which would cost a lot more if they were only writers.  This is why you see so many producer credits now on a show. Most of them are just writers that the show doesn’t want to pay for each rewrite.

I saw this and it seems to sum up what writers are asking for

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cr4Aju8AZNu/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
 
Last edited:
I’m not normally one to copy and paste, but this was from a Facebook post by screenwriter Todd Alcott and it’s good to hear from those directly involved about the mechanics of how this works.



What does the screenwriter want?

The screenwriter wants to get into the room with The Person Who Can Say Yes.

That is the only thing that matters. Everything before that is preliminary, and, often, a complete waste of time for everyone involved.

Here is a typical scenario:

A producer has optioned a piece of IP. It could be a book, an older movie, a foreign movie, a cartoon, a graphic novel, a Twitter account, a board game, a toy, a sticker, a photograph, anything. The producer, also, wants only to get into the room with The Person Who Can Say Yes.

The Person Who Can Say Yes is someone high up in the studio food chain, someone who has been authorized to spend money to hire writers. There are very few in Hollywood, and they wield enormous power.

The Person Who Can Say Yes wants only one thing: to keep their job. Because they wield such enormous power, every other executive around them, at their studio and other studios, is constantly trying to get them fired so that they might take their job and wield that power. But that's a subject for another time.

Between the screenwriter and The Person Who Can Say Yes are lots and lots of other people. Producers, lower-ranking studio executives, development executives, story executives, and unpaid interns, all of whom wield more power than the screenwriter. To say nothing of the screenwriter's representatives, who have their own agenda unrelated to the writer getting into the room with the Person Who Can Say Yes.

So the producer has a piece of IP. The producer also knows some screenwriters. That, essentially, is what a producer does: they know people. They own a phone, and a car, and they know people. Those are the only requirements for being a producer.

The producer calls the screenwriter's representatives and says "I have this piece of IP and I think your client would be a good match for adapting it for the big screen." The screenwriter's representatives then call up the screenwriter and breathlessly exclaim, "Big Important Producer has obtained the rights to Hugely Popular IP and he wants YOU to adapt it!"

The screenwriter can then say "Eh, that doesn't really sound like a good idea," or they can say "Wow, Big Important Producer wants ME to adapt Hugely Popular IP? I can't wait to meet them!"

Maybe the producer DOES want the screenwriter to adapt it, and maybe the producer has called a dozen different screenwriters' representatives and told them all the same thing. It would certainly make sense to do so, since some might say no and some might say yes and then fail to come up with any ideas.

So the screenwriter meets the producer and they talk about the idea. The producer may have specific goals in mind for the IP, or they may have specific ideas about casting or directors or whatnot, and they'll ask the screenwriter to incorporate those ideas into their pitch. Then they'll set a meeting for the pitch.

So the screenwriter has to come up with a pitch. The screenwriter hasn't been paid anything to come up with a pitch. The screenwriter doesn't have the power to say "No, I'm not going to write a pitch for you, put me in the room with The Person Who Can Say Yes." If the screenwriter did say that, that would be the end of his relationship with the producer, who controls the IP. The producer, like the screenwriter, wants only to get into the room with The Person Who Can Say Yes, but they're not going to go into that room without knowing what they're pitching, because they only get once chance to pitch to each Person Who Can Say Yes, and there are very, very few People Who Can Say Yes in Hollywood.

So the producer tells the screenwriter to develop a pitch and get back to them.

What does the pitch entail? Basically, it's the story of the movie. Beginning, middle and end. The three acts. What does the protagonist want, what do they do to pursue their goal, what stands in their way, how do they prevail, etc. By the end of Act I, the protagonist must be headed toward their goal. By the middle of Act II, they must have a "false victory" that makes it look like they've got it made. By the end of Act II they must suffer a fate that makes it look as though they will never achieve their goal, and by the end of Act III they must achieve their goal or else they must fail in a way that makes the audience feel good.

So the screenwriter sketches all that out. It doesn't sound like a lot, does it? And yet, that's the whole movie.

So the screenwriter pitches the story to the producer, who inevitably says "I need to know more." They need to hear the "trailer moments," the scenes that will hook an audience into the story. They need to know the twists that will come out of nowhere and yet seem inevitable, they need to know the last-minute reveal that will shift the paradigm of the narrative. They need to present to the Person Who Can Say Yes the entire narrative of the movie.

Now the screenwriter has another choice. They can say "No, you're asking me to write the whole movie for free and that's abusive," but that would end their relationship with the producer, who will never work with the screenwriter again because the screenwriter is "difficult." The screenwriter has spent maybe a week of their life at this point working on breaking the story, but the producer likes what they've heard so far, why not fill in some details?

So the screenwriter spends another week writing a treatment, and then there's another meeting with the producer, where the screenwriter pitches the entire movie to the producer: all the major scenes, all the twists, all the aspects of the narrative that will hook an audience.

The producer loves what the screenwriter has done, but "has some notes." The producer confers with his assistants and unpaid interns and they put together a list of notes that they want the screenwriter to address. And, also, as long as the screenwriter has a whole treatment written, can they see that treatment so they can understand the story better?

All of this is against the rules of the WGA. And it happens ten thousand times a day in Hollywood.

So the screenwriter does another draft of a treatment for the producer. And another. And another. What choice do they have? Nothing else will get them into the room with The Person Who Can Say Yes.

Now, maybe six months have passed. The screenwriter has produced maybe ten drafts of a treatment for the producer. Every scene in the movie has now been outlined.

Now, remember, the screenwriter, statistically, has no money, and has no hope of money without selling a pitch, so, in order to stand a chance of selling something to anyone, they have to have a dozen or so different projects going on at once, in different stages of development, all before they can ever get into the room with any Person Who Can Say Yes. Some of the projects will be dear to the screenwriter, some will be for movies that the screenwriter would never even want to go see, much less write. Some of the projects are with people the screenwriter enjoys working with, some are with abusive assholes who like to bully and mind-**** people. The abusive assholes tend to get more projects made, hence their attractiveness to screenwriters.

Sometimes, for an especially high-profile piece of IP, or for an especially high-powered producer, the screenwriter's representatives will get in on the action, demanding to read the treatments and presenting their own notes, which the screenwriter has to then incorporate into the pitch or else run the risk of alienating their representatives.

The producer then takes the screenwriter to the studio, and meets with someone high up in the production chain, and the screenwriter pitches the entire movie to that development executive.

The development executive then says "I love it, let's take it to the Person Who Can Say Yes" but, yes, before that happens, they have some notes.

So the screenwriter now, again, has a choice. They can say "**** you, it's been six months of me working without getting paid, I'm not working on this project for one more second without a substantial paycheck," but then that would end their relationship with the producer and the studio executive and the studio itself. So the screenwriter says "Yes, I'd love to hear your notes," and the development executive says "Would you mind if we took a look at your treatment? It would really help us focus our notes."

And the screenwriter turns over their treatment, and the development executive and their assistants and unpaid interns get together and put together a list of notes.

This might go on for another six months, as the development executive asks for more and more changes. And then the development executive might want to show the pitch to ANOTHER development executive, so the screenwriter and producer will have to pitch to that development executive too, and so forth.

Maybe a year into the process, maybe longer (my record is two years) the big day arrives, and the screenwriter, the producer, the producer's assistants and unpaid interns, the development executives and assistants and unpaid interns, all meet at the studio with the Person Who Can Say Yes, who has their own platoon of assistants and unpaid interns.

The producer then sets up the pitch, tells the Person Who Can Say Yes why the project is commercially viable, and then turns to the screenwriter and says "And here's the screenwriter, who will now pitch you their ideas." No one else in the room ever, ever, ever steps forward and says "We're really proud and excited about this pitch that we all contributed to," because if the Person Who Can Say Yes says no, they're all in danger of losing their jobs. So everyone in the room who has given notes to the screenwriter and has followed every step of the process behaves as though all this is brand new to them.

The screenwriter then does the pitch. The pitch must be delivered with the creativity, dynamism and force of a $200 million dollar spectacle. It must feel to the Person Who Can Say Yes that they're seeing the whole movie there in their office.

The Person Who Can Say Yes then, usually, says no, for any number of reasons. Maybe they said yes to a similar project the day before, maybe they're mad at the producer for some reason unrelated to the project, maybe their third-quarter projections aren't hitting their mark and they're afraid they'll lose their job if they start a project like the one the producer has brought in, or maybe they don't like the pitch.

And sometimes the Person Who Can Say Yes says "I like it, but I have some notes," and the screenwriter, once again, has a choice to make. They've come this far, they've spent a year and a half on the project, all without pay, but here they are with the Person Who Can Say Yes and the Person Who Can Say Yes has not said "No." The big paycheck is dangling in front of them, what is the screenwriter supposed to say?

The screenwriter might go to their representatives and say "What am I supposed to do, I can't pay rent and I've been working on this project for a year and a half and they're not paying me anything, and the screenwriter's representatives will say "Do the extra work for free," because, here's a secret, the screenwriter's representatives don't represent the screenwriter, they represent the Person Who Can Say Yes. Why? Because the People Who Can Say Yes control the entire Hollywood economy, and if an agent or manager demands something from them, the People Who Can Say Yes won't hire that person's clients anymore.

Anyway, that's just one tiny aspect of what the WGA is up against in this strike, and it was my day-to-day reality for 25 years.
 
Nothing unique here. Every freelancer and small production company owner faces the same basic scenario as they deal with their clients, agencies, middle men, and potential clients. The only thing this long-winded boring story proves is that some people don't have what it takes to make it as a freelancer. They should instead get a staff job someplace with a paycheck they can count on every two weeks and leave the wheeling and dealing to those who are better equipped to do it effectively. Or, alternatively, fire up their word processor and write something completely original. If someone really wants to write, they can buy the tools of the trade (a pencil and paper) for less than a couple of bucks and get down to work even if the Person Who Can Say Yes says no.

First and foremost, a freelancer is a business person. And if they can't run the business side of it, it doesn't really matter how talented they are at the their trade.
 
Last edited:
:violin:Whoa is me. I have to wheel and deal to get a movie made. Nothing new there. There's a reason they call it development hell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...velopment_hell.

I mean what the heck, he's been dealing with it for 25 years and now it's a problem?

If that is supposed to be representative of what the Guild is striking for, well, c'mon, we all got troubles. I hope there are better stories than that to represent the Guilds concerns.
 
Last edited:
Paul F said:
: I hope there are better stories than that to represent the Guilds concerns.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, the story posted above doesn't even represent HIS own experience. I looked him on on IMDB and he hasn't written anything for TV/Film in 9 years (if the info is correct). I've never seen any of the shows he has written, and the only thing he "wrote" that I have ever even heard of is ANTZ. And according to his blog, he claims that was a great experience and was completely unlike the story posted above. Almost 180 degrees opposite -- even though he was fired from the production and the new directors/writers didn't even want him to get any credit at all. But it was a great experience. Read it here: http://www.toddalcott.com/

To copy and paste this guy's ridiculous story does nothing to make the case for the WGA's demands or shed any light on the issues involved.
 
Doug:

I have a lot of friends who are writers and actors. A long time ago I came to realize that the way things work for them is very different than how it works for us. The odds are just stacked more heavily against them landing any particular job, and outside of the very top of the field, their accumulated credits and experience don't carry as much weight as they do for us.

Even within our own field, there is a lot of variation on this. I'm not sure how much low budget or pro-bono work you do but I suspect it's not very much. I've had a different experience in the scripted side vs my earlier experiences in the broadcast/corporate/videography side. Getting "in" with up-and-coming talent has required me to do plenty of scrappy short films/proof-of-concept shoots over the years (and ironically, even though I have more credits now than I ever did, I now have to do more of these because...older). As another point of comparison: for all major jobs that come in, I have to interview. I'm being judged not only on the work I've done in the past, they want to feel me out personality-wise, ask what I'm going to bring to the job, what my approach will be, how can I distinguish myself from the pack. Only after I successfully run that gauntlet and get offered the job does the actual monetary negotiation take place, compared to a small production company scenario where it's largely about the bid.

Lots of different flavors of how the job is awarded and what it takes to get there.
 
Last edited:
Run&Gun said:
I disagree with the sentiment. I'm not a carpenter, but I know s****y construction when I see it.
Click to expand...

I find that a bad analogy for many reasons. First of all yes we generally can tell if a piece of furniture is garbage or not. It's pretty clear and not really open to interpretation. It's either defective and not well made or its put together well. There is not a lot of gray area there.

When it comes to art however we are heavily biased by a lot of factors one lately being politics. There are people are both sides of extreme that judge creative content purely for what they interpret as some sort of agenda of a political nature. It has absolutely zero to do with the quality of the writing. It could be the most amazing script on the plane ever written and yet if its about gay characters there are plenty of people out there that will insist its badly written just because they don't like the subject. I run into dozens of these people on a daily basis so don't say they are not out there or it's a small fringe. Our political landscape has successfully infiltrated entertainment to turn us all against each other.

Some content does have a propaganda like agenda attached to it. I will not get into specifics but it's there on both sides. Other content is just trying to relate to a wider audience and unfairly gets labeled as woke or having some kind of an agenda.

Other biased views towards content take on a fanatical nature like The Rings of Power. There are such diehard rigid fans of Tolkien they absolutely cannot stand any type of alteration to the story even if the direction was actually signed off and agreed to by the Tolkien estate itself. The show is labeled as poorly written when it's not the writing those fans have of the show. Blaming the writing is a simple talking point they can use to bash the show. What they don't like is the direction. Has absolutely zero to do with the quality of the writing itself. You can have a great story and yet not enjoy it. I dislike some Shakespeare. Should we now call it bad wiring because of that?

Avatar is another example where people use the poor writing as an argument. This coming from people that have not even watched the movie and admit to never wanting to see it. How can they say the writing is bad if they have never seen it? They can't. The are recycling comments others have made trying to look informed. I get Avatar may not be everyones cup of tea but Avatar 2 was brilliantly written and has so many different rich plot threads going on. Almost every person bashing the movie used some form of ignorant comment like its Dances with Wolves in Space or Fern Gully. None of them have even bothered to watch it. Why do they hate it? Because they think they have to for political and social reasons. They were told its a big FU to corporate greed and abusing animals and the environment. Without knowing a single fact about the movie they attack it as some liberal hippie agenda. Thats not a valid opinion about the quality of writing. Thats dumb ignorant political bias.

The personal views and opinions of others does not always reflect the quality of the writing itself. Some of us hate certain genres of movies. Doesn't mean they are poorly written just because we can't get into them. Part of being a good critic is being able to get past personal views and bias and judge a creative piece based solely on its aesthetic quality. Unfortunately that is something the vast majority of people are incapable of doing.

I figured I would downright despise the female Ghostbusters movie but I still went and saw it because I could not in good conscience critique something I have not watched and given a fair chance. Yeah it was crap. I don't blame the writing however. It's actually pretty rare to have crappy writing these days. A lot of other crap can go wrong in how that writing is put together into somethign visual but it's really hard to get past the writing stage without something at least really good. What I reserve bad writing for is fan fiction or indie b grade no budget movies where the writing clearly has little experience. What failed on the female Ghostbusters was modeling a beloved universe no fan wanted to see changed. The story itself was ok and the lines were good. It's just the overall concept that did not work. A flawed concept can be turned into good writing but if the concept doesn't resonate with fans it's dead in the water. No magic writing will fix that no matter how much money is spent or who is hired.
 
Charles, I always appreciate your comments. And I would say you're making my point that every freelancer or small production company faces a lot of hoops that have to be jumped through in order to get approvals, get hired, and stay busy. Yes, each trade has a little different set of hoops they have to navigate, but ultimately it comes down to pretty much the same thing. Some people are better cut out for that kind of existence than others. You are one of them. I am one of them. Run&Gun and others on this forum know how to navigate those wasters, too. But those who aren't, it would be better to take a staff job someplace. And I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a staff job, especially if someone just wants to focus more on doing the actual work of that trade. Different paths for different people.
 
Doug Jensen said:
A great movie or TV show can be made with zero VFX. The same cannot be said of script writing, photography, editing, or directing. That is why VFX is at the bottom of the pecking order. In fact, I would say that the amount of VFX in a production is inversely proportional to how much I am likely to enjoy that production.
As for unions, screw 'em all. Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

Certain genres yes. A western or rom-com can be made with zero VFX. Try making Star Wars or Star Trek with zero VFX. I agree its an industry not always needed but for the genres that do need it its just as critical as writing or any other aspect. You are entitled to your opinion of course. Personally I never saw any major disadvantage to unions. There has been a perception of annoying and not needed portrayed the past couple of decades or so but typically they do more good than harm.

Like I said before in a perfect world we wouldn't need them. The US should have better employment rules but it does not. The US should have a better health care system but it does not and likely never will. There is too much money to be made. It's all about money and profit. I get how thats important to some people. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying on the scales there needs to be a health balance. Super capitalism is not capitalism. It's a perversion of capitalism and one centered on a few controlling the entire world. I believe in capitalism but I think sometimes it goes too far. You better believe I feel I should earn more than those that have not put in the same effort as I have. Earning more for hard work makes 100% sense. Earning more by making others suffer does not.

I never said things can't still suck. I said your one personal views do not definitively mean it sucks. You can't call something bad writing just because you do not agree with the subject or theme. Thats not the writing. A flawed concept can have the best writing on the planet but your bias will still hate it. A perfect concept could have the worst writing ever but your bias could still love it. Thats the problem with using our personal bias to judge creative material. That is what is flawed. A good critic can separate they personal views and options from the aesthetic quality. They may not enjoy it but they can still appreciate it. You seem to think the quality is based entirely on your own personal views.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Charles, I always appreciate your comments. And I would say you're making my point that every freelancer or small production company faces a lot of hoops that have to be jumped through in order to get approvals, get hired, and stay busy. Yes, each trade has a little different set of hoops they have to navigate, but ultimately it comes down to pretty much the same thing. Some people are better cut out for that kind of existence than others. You are one of them. I am one of them. Run&Gun and others on this forum know how to navigate those wasters, too. But those who aren't, it would be better to take a staff job someplace. And I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a staff job, especially if someone just wants to focus more on doing the actual work of that trade. Different paths for different people.
Click to expand...

Isn't that making the assumption that those striking are just not skilled enough to cut it? Seems kind of harsh to me.
 
Thomas Smet said:
When it comes to art however we are heavily biased by a lot of factors one lately being politics. .
Click to expand...

With all due respect, YOU are the one who is constantly injecting politics into the discussion and blaming bad reviews on political bias or bigotry. I find that to be insulting to those of us who have certain expectations of quality in the programs we watch regardless of the casting decisions or other choices that YOU think may be disturbing to others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top