posted
I guess there isn't any chance they would just lay them all off and hire some good writers? I think there are plenty of people that can do much better.
posted
Just those who are part of the writer's union. To be perfectly honest, I don't know why they are all upset over the dvd and download sales. The music industry has gotten away with not paying the musicians that make the music for the cd sales for quite a long time...what makes these guys so special? Posts: 807 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They want a bigger cut on DVD and internet sales of movies and TV shows. What do I think about this? Sure, they deserve a cut, but like baseball strikes, I don't really feel that bad. First, the industry makes enough money, and while I don't begrudge anyone making money (I'd like to make more myself), my real concern is the current quality of writing. When most of the flicks at the theater are sequels or idiotic comedy, I feel like maybe we should find new writers.
Some writers complain about job security, saying the market is volatile and they never know if they'll have work. Well, they chose the profession. I get tired about people complaining about job security. They make it sound like the job is theirs, like its their property. A job belongs to the person who creates it. If a studio needs a script, they hire a writer. They keep that writer until the job is done or until the writing starts to suck.
Its the same for any profession. I have a job. It's not my job, it belongs to the hospital I work for. If my quality drops, or if the hospital decides to cut the possession, then I don't have the job anymore. Or, since its their job, they can cut me for any reason or no reason (unless its discriminatory). The real definition of job security is for me to do my job so well that my employers will recognize my value and want to keep me.
If the Hollywood writers want jobs, then they need to write well and make entertaining television and movies. They shouldn't keep their jobs and make more money simply because they can shut down production whenever they choose.
posted
All they're asking for is fair recompense for extra sales of old work, like the writer of a novel expecting a royalty on sales. They're not asking to be paid for new work regardless of whether or not it's any good, which is what you appear to be saying. I think they've got a good case.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since it's clear to me that production companies and the big huge media conglomerates are making a healthy living and delivering shareholder value to their stockholers, I don't see any problem with the writers asking for a cut. Frankly, even if the writing is less than ideal, I'd rather see the writers get rich than the studio heads. See, if the writers get rich, then maybe there's some chance for the rest of us.
But really, should we feel bad for the big media conglomerates? The argument against paying residuals for online content is laughable to me. The video shows a "what if in the future the internet and tv merge" bit near the end. This is very likely what will happen.
posted
Ok, lets look at this from a slightly different perspective. Right now most of us see this as a writing issue..it isn't. I write software for a living. Yep, and they pay me to write software for someone else who owns the code and the end product. Now even if I had a cut of the sales in my contract (which I don't), would it be fair to me after the fact to decide that they have found a new way to sell the product and are making a bit more...but those sales aren't in my contract. Does that make it right for me to go back and demand they pay me more because they found a new way to con someone into paying for it again?
I would be shocked if any of the writers own any of the rights to the words they write for the studios. They might have some small share of it, but I would expect most studios to own the rights to everything and only obligated to pay based on contracts that pertain to the show/movie. This isn't the same idea as us writing a novel and selling some of the publication rights to a publisher...we would still retain the copy write to the novel. That isn't the same for shows. I might be wrong, but I'd have high respect for the writer who could pull one over on the hollywood lawyers.
Oh, I happen to agree with RMatthewWare, do a good job and you'll have security. If they want job security without the requirement of doing a good job, they should find a govt position.
posted
I did think a lot of guys I saw down on the picket lines weren't actual working TV / movie writers, but maybe just some young skinny guys and girls hired for the day...
I think I can live without most of what they produce...most of the stuff I watch is usually old when I watch it. In a year or two, if the product dries up, I might miss some of it. But some of the stuff I most like to watch (say, new cartoons) might not be covered by this strike.
(The late SF writer Leigh Brackett, also a WGA member, took the time off from Hollywood during a strike in the seventies to write several SF novels. Maybe we'll get lucky this time...)
posted
Folks, you have to understand that first of all, the writers have very little control over what happens to the script after it's turned it. What you see is usually very different from what was originally intended. Don't believe me? Read Harlan Ellison's rant titled "City on the Edge of Forever," about his experience with the Star Trek episode of the same name.
Second, this has nothing to do with prose. Read the strike rules.
posted
Spaceman's comment implies that the writers are of little importance...but they must be of some importance to the industry, 'cause production of new product is shutting down 'cause they're on strike.
I'm suspicious of some of their activities. For one thing, the Writer's Guild is a closed shop union---by their rules you are required to join in order to work in the industry. This has been contested in court by various parties (in particular I recall a prominent suit by William F. Buckley in the seventies), but I do not know how things worked out or were decided. I look with disdain on being forced to do anything---I joined the American Postal Worker's Union partly because it was voluntary (there were other reasons, for sure), but if it were mandatory that I join I would be out there fighting it over that issue.
posted
Oh sure, writers are important. There is little TV and no movies without them. I just hate the whining. And the first article I read about this interviewed the writer from Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalo complaining about money from movies. Deuce Bigalow? I think its a crime that he got any money from that.
Posts: 657 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm constantly surprised at the bad movies and TV shows these writers will admit to having a hand in. There are those "Alan Smithee" credits, for sure, or, say, the work of "Cordwainer Bird," but this use seems more a statement of contempt than an actual disowning of the work...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, here is something else to think about.
This is from the Publisher's Lunch Deluxe (a daily publication sent out by Publisher's Marketplace).
Writers Guild Strike: But What About Us?
The impact of the Writers Guild strike is already being felt in the expected ways: Optioning of film rights to books may dry up except for the biggest properties, and agents are already receiving force majeure letters from studios invoking their right to extend existing options. And out of work screenwriters are expected to start dusting off their book proposals.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 08, 2007).]
posted
Bah, producers don't mutilate they just get people of various talents together so they are in a sphere where they can cooperate.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And in Publisher's Weekly there was this today:
quote:The Hollywood writer's strike has reverberated in the halls of New York publishing, in particular with the suspension of production of the late night talk shows that have become integral to launching a book to a national audience.
This week Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had interviews scheduled with Karen Greenberg, author of The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge Univ. Press), Robert Reich, author of Supercapitalism (Knopf), CNN talking head Lou Dobbs, author of Independents Day (Viking), and former UN Ambassador John Bolton, author of Surrender Is Not an Option (Threshold). No interviews have made it on air. And The Colbert Report planned to interview David Levy, author of Love And Sex With Robots, AJ Jacobs author of The Year Of Living Biblically...
Well, I wasn't expecting a Hollywood deal or a TV interview this week.
But I suppose it does affect "real" writers to some extent.
posted
I'm sorry, but how often do spec fic writers go on Leno or Letterman (or any other national show) to promote their book? Unless is political, and you have a name in politics, or you're an actor writing about your dog, you ain't going on Leno.
When OSC has a chance to go on Leno, but can't because of a strike, then I'll worry. Until then, forget it. I'm not a union man, I can keep writing and probably have a similar chance of being published, whether there's a strike or not. In the end, aren't all fiction writers freelance?
quote:When OSC has a chance to go on Leno, but can't because of a strike, then I'll worry. Until then, forget it. I'm not a union man, I can keep writing and probably have a similar chance of being published, whether there's a strike or not. In the end, aren't all fiction writers freelance?
Did I SAY you should worry? Puh-leese. And I rather doubt that Love And Sex With Robots is written either by a politician or an actor. I was pointing out what I find as rather interesting side affects of the strike.
And I couldn't care less if Mr. Card goes on Leno or not. Of all the things in the world I don't care about and will never care about, that would be high on my list.
I don't care whether you're a "union man" or not. When I wrote for a newspaper years ago, I was a "union woman." Now I'm not. That's irrelevant.
I still find the affect on talk shows rather interesting. Leno is such a twit he can't interview someone about a book without a writer feeding him lines.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 10, 2007).]
posted
But by making such a list of things you don't care about aren't you exerting the kind of energy one usually reserves for things they care about?
I think they have full rights to royalties from internet sales. And DVD's are where the money is these days. Now I don't like unions, I am descended from quite a few people who have been murdered by unions. I doubt I will ever live in a closed state. (one where you have to by law belong to a union to work.) But I'm with these guys. Writers get screwed in Hollywood they are just asking to be screwed a little less. They sit right on top of the line, and in the minds of some of the higher-ups I get the feeling that they see no difference between the writer and the cameraman.
posted
Nope. Saying I don't care doesn't make me care.
A lot of people got murdered by anti-unionists by the way.
Personally, I can see pros and cons. The working people of this country had it a lot rougher before there were unions and had to fight (including being beaten, jailed and killed) for the right to unionize. On the other hand, since then more than a few unions have taken unfair advantage of both workers and their power base.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 10, 2007).]
posted
In my husband's business -- home building, the real money is made by the real estate agents who sell it. Again, and again, and again.
Lord D mentions software, which is the same. Being a former programmer myself, I'd argue that both good homebuilding and good software code is a creative art as well as a product. Not just anyone can do it well.
So it gets me that the bottom feeders who sell and resell someone else's hard work are the ones in our economy who get rich. I'm all for the writers taking a stand against one instance of that.
posted
I think the biggest problem is that people agree to things today, and then in the future would like to change them. They did not get the appropriate terms in a contract for what they should get years down the road, and write or wrong, it is their own fault.
Let's say the code I write today ends up making the company I work for 20 billion dollars. Am I entitled to a cut? No, not unless I have made an agreement for a cut before the point it happens. To come back after the fact and demand more because things went well doesn't mean I am entitled to it. I would hope the company would give some of that profit to the one who helped make it...but since I don't have any real legal claim, it isn't mine to demand.
I have no sympathy for them. I find most unions to be vile entities that have no concept that if you keep asking for more and more and more...eventually there is nothing left for the business and everyone is looking for a new job. Not likely to happen to the tv writers, but I've seen it happen in other industries.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
