Writer's Guild Going on Strike

Doug Bee said:
The Interim agreement is ONLY GRANTED if the terms are favourable to WGA / SAG members.

It also allows work to continue with studios and producers that want to agree to the proposed terms of the WGA and SAG.
Click to expand...

Here is the LA Times reporting that the interim agreements are now dead. If you are part of a production that have contracts with WGA you are prevented from receiving interim agreements with SAG-AFTRA. Going forward the actors are on strike and the AMPTP position has not been undermined by interim agreements.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/ne...e&cvid=23004a6f66b641ac937c137499495305&ei=10

Doug Bee said:
I'm not sure the studios are showing profitability. The tech companies / streamers are OK sure as a piece of a whole. But Disney isn't doing well. And neither are the old guard studios. (FOX, WB, SONY)
Click to expand...

Here is Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav saying that the Hollywood writers and actors’ ongoing work stoppage had brought the company savings in the “low $100 million range” during its Q2 earnings results call Thursday, and that should the strike run through the end of the year "there could be several $100 million upside to our free cash flow guidance and some incremental downside for adjusted EBITDA."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...e&cvid=89bf23c8d8d14437acccd7232f84cf57&ei=68

Disney's stock price today is within pennies of what it was to start the year, before there was talk of strikes which began in May for WGA.

The SAG-Aftra Emergency fund has raised $15 million, with million dollar donations from Clooney, Reynolds, Winfrey, DiCaprio, Roberts, Lopez, Johnson and Streep but with 160,000 members and 30 times its usual number of applications for emergency aid, if you get anything at all, it scarcely buys a brown bag lunch. Meanwhile, the members sweat it out on the picket line while Anne Hathaway, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, Dakota Fanning, Matthew McConaughey, Jenna Ortega, Guy Richie, Paul Rudd, Michaela Coel, David Lowery, Rebel Wilson continue to work and be paid.

Some striking actors and writers have expressed concerns about the interim agreements, questioning why so many high-profile members are continuing to work while they are walking picket lines.

Interim agreements have been a divisive issue for outspoken members including comedian Sarah Silverman, Viola Davis who announced she would no longer press ahead with her movie, G20 which had received one of the interim agreements. Silverman called it “a real stink of loophole-iness” that undercuts the work stoppage that began nearly three weeks ago, joining Writers Guild of America members who’ve been picketing since May 2.

“People are making real-deal sacrifices.... Writers, actors, crew people ... they’re sacrificing their livelihood for this cause,” said Silverman.

What about actors promoting completed projects?

SAG-AFTRA allows applications for independent movies at upcoming fall film festivals like Venice, Telluride and Toronto, which are going forward with many high-profile world premieres, regardless of actor availability.

Luc Besson's "DogMan," debuting at Venice, was recently granted an interim agreement allowing its stars, such as Caleb Landry Jones, to help promote the film through red carpet appearances and interviews. Other independent films headed to Venice include Sofia Coppola's "Priscilla" (with Cailee Spaeny and Jacob Elordi), Michael Mann's "Ferrari" (with Adam Driver and Penelope Cruz), Ava DuVernay's "Origin," Michel Franco's "Memory" (with Jessica Chastain) and Richard Linklater's "Hit Man" (with Glen Powell), all of which could, theoretically be granted waivers too.
 
Tom I think you misunderstand.

WGA are still granting interim agreements.

All that has changed is that SAG are not granting SAG interim agreements if the production is in WGA jurisdiction.

In other words, a production can not get a waiver from SAG to keep shooting something that already has a final script that would be a WGA shoot.

Flight Risk is probably the show that lead to this. They were granted a SAG waiver and are about to start shooting because they have a script already.

Flight Risk is with Mel Gibson and Mark Wahlberg, Gibson directing, with Lionsgate distributing.

Many actors were angry that it was granted a waiver. The new SAG rules prevent this kind of scenario.

It does not stop waivers being granted.
 
And Tom maybe dig a bit deeper on the financials. All the big studios are struggling.

Warner Brothers - The same company you posted about....yes the strike is saving them some money but they are still behind....

"Warner Bros Discovery Inc (WBD.O) reported a surprise quarterly loss on Friday on costs tied to its 2022 merger, taking the shine off the first profit for its streaming business and sending the company's shares down 5%."
https://www.reuters.com/business/med...it-2023-05-05/

Sony (Colombia)
"Sony Pictures Entertainment posted $115 million in operating income for the three months ending June 30, down 71% on a dollar basis from last years comparable first quarter despite a stronger theatrical slate."
https://deadline.com/2023/08/sony-pi...23-1235458191/

NBCU (Universal)
"Peacock booked a loss of more than $700 million in the first quarter of this year, as the NBCUniversal streaming service struggles to grow its subscriber base, the company announced Thursday."
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...er-1235403057/


We have to treat Amazon, Netflix and Apple a bit differently. Two are tech companies that leverage their huge market reach with their own built in eco system. Netflix are also unique in that they are a streaming only model.
 
Yes, exactly. Making statements that they are 'saving money' by not producing shows, well, that's just buffoonery. Movie house: "We are pleased to tell our investors we are saving piles of money during the strikes". Investor - "Why is that?". Movie house "Oh, ahh, well, ...... we're not doing anything".

They have nothing to stand on, so they make silly statements like that to show some positive spin.
 
You're missing the point. The strike is improving the cash flow of the studios, that while temporary are flush with cash. This is in contrast to the striking laborers with mortgages and families to think about. The point is about solvency. Studio revenues are eventually impacted but this is down the road. The wages not paid out are an immediate reduction of current expenses and a plus to cash flow. People in financials understand this.
 
Yes, that is clear. But I don't see that having cash is anything to brag about when it is not producing anything. "Hey investors, we have a pile of cash building up because our expenses are down". Investor - "Gee, that's good news". Movie place - "Oh, I forgot to mention that we also are not making any new product and are revenue is going to suck in about 6 months."

It's meaningless buffoonery anyway I look at it.

Maybe investors get their jollies that a company is sitting on cash and has better cash flow. But I just don't see it. It seems like a very myopic way of looking at things. Maybe a day trader might like to play with that kind of news.
 
Bragging rights is not the lens a responsible person will view a loss of household income, but cash is a window through which you can predict which side will be able to prevail if the strike is prolonged.
 
Reuters said:
Hollywood studios have made a new offer to striking screenwriters that includes concessions on issues such as the use of artificial intelligence and access to viewer data, Bloomberg News reported on Monday citing people familiar with the discussions.

The Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers has agreed to ensure humans are credited as writers of screenplays, instead of replacing them with AI, the report said, adding that the companies would also share data on the number of hours viewed on streaming services.

Other parts of the offer include a better-than-20% increase in residual payments to writers when their shows appear on networks other than the one they were made for, Bloomberg said.
Click to expand...
 
Doug Bee said:
Tom I think you misunderstand.

WGA are still granting interim agreements.

All that has changed is that SAG are not granting SAG interim agreements if the production is in WGA jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

According to Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA’s national executive director and lead negotiator, WGA has not handed out any interim agreements. He shared as part of a Tuesday press conference clarifying changes. More than 200 movies and shows have signed the interim agreements (with SAG-AFTRA), and that roughly 30-40 of them got in just in time. They will not have their interim agreements rescinded, but the shakeup will affect pending agreements that included movies and shows with WGA contracts.
 
Tom Roper said:
. But the studios continue to show profitability. Revenue losses could be ahead but for now, they are accumulating cost savings from not having to pay wages while the strikers are not earning income.
Click to expand...

Losses now vs losses later. Soon, actors will be earning income while studios pay salaries during a revenue crash for lack of new material. Kind of hilarious that serious people are touting this as a savings period. (Also, fhe actors are still earning residuals. If only those were worth something. "Suits" just exploded to #1 on Netflix and the writers got next to nothing.)
 
What's ugly about it, is the terms offered to the WGA were better than what they had before they went on strike, a time that when they had accepted the previous settlement, things were agreeable. Was is so bad then? That seems strangely inconsistent but revealing that it's not about the actualness of it, but an ongoing need to move the needle. Okay, let's accept that rationale and look at some things both sides could try. The union, instead of trying to demonize and tear down the evil empire could be more polite. "Progress was made toward a potential solution to the strike, with an increase in wages offered, however we feel that at this time that offer does not meet the criteria set forth, so the strike will continue as we ask our members to remain steadfast." Meanwhile, the studios could come up with an ownership participation, to reward the writers by giving them a stake in the future of the industry through stock options awarded on a formula based on residuals. If the studios do well, so do the writers but if they succeed in destroying the industry their ownership becomes worthless like everyone else's. Stock options give you the right to purchase stock at a discount. You can exercise them, trade them or sell them, but they incentivize you to see a company do well, and that's what needs to happen for both sides or nobody wins and everbody loses.
 
This is a fundamental issue with an adversarial relationship. Unions must present management as oppressors and the evil empire. Now, management may actually be oppressors and the evil empire. But even when they are not, they have to be presented as such, otherwise, what do the union members need the union leaders for? "We are fighting for you!".

Likewise, management is bound by a contract. So when a contract negotiation comes along they have to take the role of being hard-headed or they will get rolled over. If they give the union everything they ask for at first go, the union will say "That's not enough".

It's an odd marriage that one has to live with if you want to be part of any industry with unions.

Rodney King's "Can we all get along" doesn't work in the management/union environment.
 
Paul F said:
what do the union members need the union leaders for?
Click to expand...

Mostly to keep non-union members off the playing field. That's what the unions are really about -- excluding qualified people who, for whatever reason, aren't in the club. It's just another form of bigotry. Collective bargaining is just the part that sounds good.
 
Tom Roper said:
Disney's stock price today is within pennies of what it was to start the year, before there was talk of strikes which began in May for WGA.
Click to expand...

Is this an intentionally misleading statement? Disney is at $85 off a year high of $113. It dropped 10% literally the week after the WGA strike began and never recovered.

In the first round of corporate earnings since the double strike began, the financial hits are starting to come into view.

While hoping and planning for a resolution in September, Hollywood studios, streamers and affiliated businesses have begun forecasting lower revenue, content spend and, in some cases, a lower outlook for the year. Because while some may be able to stem the tide of a production shutdown in the short term, the financial danger increases as the strike goes on further into the fall and the release schedule suffers.
Click to expand...
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...e-earnings-hollywood-sagaftra-wga-1235567738/
 
Tom Roper said:
You're missing the point. The strike is improving the cash flow of the studios, that while temporary are flush with cash. This is in contrast to the striking laborers with mortgages and families to think about. The point is about solvency. Studio revenues are eventually impacted but this is down the road. The wages not paid out are an immediate reduction of current expenses and a plus to cash flow. People in financials understand this.
Click to expand...

lol right that's why Disney is looking for a buyer. because they're in such great shape. having cash is worthless if they have no way to put it to work. but these companies were never at risk of going under from a production hiatus. yes, individuals are usually in a more precarious position from work stoppage than corporations. but that's why they need a union in the first place. and there's no news here - Iger or Zaslav said at the outset that they would wait to negotiate until strikers were losing their homes. they delayed to build pressure because they don't give a damn for the well-being of writers or actors. yet Paul says that it's the unions who cultivate an adversarial relationship...
 
Tom Roper said:
What's ugly about it, is the terms offered to the WGA were better than what they had before they went on strike, a time that when they had accepted the previous settlement, things were agreeable. Was is so bad then? .
Click to expand...

Yes, it was an unsustainable agreement. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, the unions gave streamers a sweetheart deal last time to help them get on their feet, and now that streamers are top dog it's time to pony up. My understanding is that there are still clear shortcomings in their offer and they leaked it to the public to try to divide membership.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Mostly to keep non-union members off the playing field. That's what the unions are really about -- excluding qualified people who, for whatever reason, aren't in the club. It's just another form of bigotry. Collective bargaining is just the part that sounds good.
Click to expand...

Haha bigotry that's funny. But yes, unions have a cartel-like quality. That's the only way they would work. But they were pioneered in America and we would not be the great country we are without them.

It's also not that different from how shareholders get to negotiate as a one. Like, individual shareholders of Disney aren't allowed to cut fractional deals with labor. And there are rules and limitations on how they can transfer their ownership, etc.

An important part you're leaving out is that union negotiating is just as much about controlling your fellow union members. Like how SAG doesn't want to do body scanning of background actors. You know for a fact that a lot of hungry nobodies would sell their body scans for a few beans and undermine the entire profession. Maybe that should be their choice. But it ain't good for actors on the whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top