Looks like no Golden Globes or Oscars this year

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

The public can get as mad as they want, and grumble all they want, but none of that matters to the writers and it won't affect them at all. All the grumbling public wants is to be entertained (your Oscar party, for instance), and if they're not entertained, they can drift off and go do other things, such as, indeed, read books, or go to movies in theaters or watch DVDs. Either way, public ire or public apathy, it doesn't affect the writers. It would, I assume and hope, affect the production companies. That's why the writers should hold firm to get what they want.

What an incredibly blinkered point of view. One of the worst possible eventualities from the writers' POV is -- or should be -- exactly what you theorize: That the public drifts off and finds other things to do and discovers that, "Hey, I don't need to watch so much TV anyway." Or "Hey, it ends up all these reality shows are just as entertaining [or un-] as scripted TV." Fewer viewers = less advertising revenue = fewer shows = fewer jobs. The chief pressure point for the writers is that the public is going to get aggravated at the lack of new entertainment and effectively pressure management to start cranking it out again, which of course would require settling with the writers. And the writers should be concerned that thus far, the majority of the public doesn't give a damn about the strike. Just as with baseball, the worst possible outcome for both sides is that the public stops buying their product. I frankly find it amazing that you think that the end-consumer is irrelevant to the outcome of this or any strike occuring in any consumer-based field.

If your consumers can get by just fine without your product, who becomes irrelevant: Them, or you and the product you're selling?

[Ají de Gallina]

i'm surpised that writers can so simply disregard the final consumer of their products. Even if, technically, it's the studios who buy them, we watch them.

People may sympathise with writers because we all want fair treatment and everything, but if you start to be too annoying, then, when/if the studios get replacements (from Canada o Nigeria) of gets some writers to cross picket line, we won't fell they are traitors or anything.

If you take my (insert show here) for too long...then I'll find something else to do. Te writers need the public to pressure the studios.
The last thing the WAG need is MORE people finding alternatives.

.....and thank you for biting the hand that feeds you, it's our money you get paid with (even if the studios take 99.9999999%, that 3 cents you get, is our money.

[MovieMogul]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

A lesser show, the Broadcast Film Critics Association (BFCA, more commonly known as the "Critics Choice Awards") is also in trouble.

From The Carpetbagger (I don't have a link):

Perhaps not.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Jodi

What an incredibly blinkered point of view. One of the worst possible eventualities from the writers' POV is -- or should be -- exactly what you theorize: That the public drifts off and finds other things to do and discovers that, "Hey, I don't need to watch so much TV anyway." Or "Hey, it ends up all these reality shows are just as entertaining [or un-] as scripted TV." Fewer viewers = less advertising revenue = fewer shows = fewer jobs. The chief pressure point for the writers is that the public is going to get aggravated at the lack of new entertainment and effectively pressure management to start cranking it out again, which of course would require settling with the writers. And the writers should be concerned that thus far, the majority of the public doesn't give a damn about the strike. Just as with baseball, the worst possible outcome for both sides is that the public stops buying their product. I frankly find it amazing that you think that the end-consumer is irrelevant to the outcome of this or any strike occuring in any consumer-based field.

If your consumers can get by just fine without your product, who becomes irrelevant: Them, or you and the product you're selling?

In a previous post, you said I think I'll continue to support books as I always have, that being my chief definition of "written" entertainment. Let me know when my access to books is under threat. I am perfectly happy to watch re-runs and old movies, as little television and movies as I actually watch.

So--you aren't a very big consumer of filmed & broadcast writing, after all. Perhaps you should start a book club, for the sake of your social life. Or throw parties devoted to watching your favorite Reality TV! (Hmmm....Jane Austen or Survivor?)

Quite a few "consumers" have looked into the issue & do support the writers. I'm one of them.

[Hamadryad]

Originally Posted by Jodi

One of the worst possible eventualities from the writers' POV is -- or should be -- exactly what you theorize: That the public drifts off and finds other things to do and discovers that, "Hey, I don't need to watch so much TV anyway." Or "Hey, it ends up all these reality shows are just as entertaining [or un-] as scripted TV." Fewer viewers = less advertising revenue = fewer shows = fewer jobs.

Well, most actors support the writers' strike. Their contracts are up for renegotiation soon too. If they go on strike, should they also assume that the public will drift away and not want to see them any more? Considering how much people still care about Lindsey Lohan, that would be a tough argument to make.

Megan Mullally was on Conan a couple of nights ago talking about being on Broadway in the musical adaptation of "Young Frankenstein," and she said that she knew she would never have been there without the wonderful writers who created her character on "Will and Grace."

Actors are also a dime a dozen, right? The studios should just shitcan actors who cause them problems because there are plenty to take their places, right? That's why Robert Downey, Jr. doesn't get work any more, and why Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson have fallen by the wayside - because there are so many talented people ready to take their places, right? RIGHT?

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Hamadryad

Actors are also a dime a dozen, right? The studios should just shitcan actors who cause them problems because there are plenty to take their places, right? That's why Robert Downey, Jr. doesn't get work any more, and why Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson have fallen by the wayside - because there are so many talented people ready to take their places, right? RIGHT?

Every time Robert Downey Jr. has a relapse he disappears from anything major for a year or more at a time.

Tom Cruise has not been the same since the Oprah meltdown and Mission Impossible 3 performed way below expectations and Lions For Lambs is a complete bomb.

Mel Gibson is effectively retired from acting and has not announced any plans for future directing gigs.

Just saying is all.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

So--you aren't a very big consumer of filmed & broadcast writing, after all. Perhaps you should start a book club, for the sake of your social life.

My social life is fine, thanks, perhaps as a result of watching so little TV. And I already have a book club.

Quite a few "consumers" have looked into the issue & do support the writers. I'm one of them.

I haven't said whether I support the writers or not. But arrogant "who cares about the public?" comments like those in this thread don't nudge me in the writers' direction. In fact, the only thing that doesn't make me jump in the other direction is the realization that the arrogance and santimony are not coming from any writers but from those raising a counter-productive "defense" that boils down to "to hell with the fans." That and the fact that I happen to think some (although not all) of the writers' demands are meritorious.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Hamadryad

Well, most actors support the writers' strike. Their contracts are up for renegotiation soon too. If they go on strike, should they also assume that the public will drift away and not want to see them any more? Considering how much people still care about Lindsey Lohan, that would be a tough argument to make.

Which argument are you ascribing to me, exactly? That the public is relevant, or that they are irrelevant? What I was responding to was "The public can get as mad as they want, and grumble all they want, but none of that matters to the writers and it won't affect them at all." That's BS, IMO, as it should be to anyone thinking about where entertainment dollars come from. And it ("the inconvenienced public can go fuck themselves") certainly is NOT a stance the WGA has adopted, because they're not that stupid.

Actors are also a dime a dozen, right? The studios should just shitcan actors who cause them problems because there are plenty to take their places, right?

I never said this, or anything like this, about actors OR writers, and I don't bother defending things I never said.

That's why Robert Downey, Jr. doesn't get work any more, and why Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson have fallen by the wayside - because there are so many talented people ready to take their places, right? RIGHT?

Interesting that you would pick as exemplars three people who have been fairly successful in shooting themselves in the career by making themselves unpopular with measurable segments of the public. They may not be "by the wayside" but they're not out in the swim at the moment either. And yet other actors have stepped up and filled the void, right? RIGHT? RIGHT?!?

[Hamadryad]

Yeah, I chose pretty poor examples. Downey always comes to mind because he started frying his brain back in the late '80s, and just kept on having roles waiting for him as soon as he got out of his latest stint of rehab/prison time. Cruise and Gibson.... well, Cruise is really more of a celebrity than an entertainer these days. I can tell you who's ahead in the polls in New Hampshire, but I totally don't follow movies closely lately. I think Gibson had his fall and "redemption," and now is probably laying low to spend more time infecting his family with crazy.

Like I said - yup, I admit, damned poor examples.

I think the attitude I'm seeing a lot, though, is that the writers should be grateful that the actors and producers and directors and studios are WILLING to LET them work for them. Writing's not that easy. I can kick the hell out of an essay, but I doubt I could write an episode of Dora the freaking Explorer, let alone a minimum of five good one-liners a week IN plot, IN character, INoffensive enough that they didn't piss off advertisers in your average crappy-but-popular sitcom.

The reason people are in the Guild is that they have already proven themselves to have saleable talent (SAG requires screen time, so I assume WGA does too). If those 20,000 people who are madly, brilliantly talented are waiting in the wings, there are, from what I can tell, loads of non-union jobs they can take to get paid and accredited. For some strange reason, people in broadcast writing don't seem eager to stay in those positions once they have the opportunity to get a WGA benefit-protected job.

Also, if there is so much out there screaming to be produced, why HAVEN'T the studios hired all-new, non-union writers? There are surely more than enough to fill the slots of the striking writers, right?

When the SAG goes on strike, why don't the big studios just hire non-union actors for their TV shows and movies? I know there are loads of incredibly talented people out there who would love those jobs, too...

[Menocchio]

There are two things the general public could do to hurt the writers:

1. Hurt their feelings. If the public is against you, that's demoralizing, and the WGA would probably break down/back down earlier than they would without the additional pressure.

2. Boycott companies like Worldwide Pants and United Artists for making separate deals with the WGA.

The WGA is insulted against 1 by, well, being insulated. Their friends and family and colleagues all support them, so they can brush off the public for a good long time unless they get really nasty.

2 just seems unlikely. Does anyone really care enough to turn down good entertainment that they'd otherwise watch? In favor of the reality shows? I doubt it.

Souring people to TV and movies in general, well, it ain't gonna happen. And it hurts the guys they're striking against too, so it's not really pertinent to this conflict.

I agree that individual actors can tarnish their public image enough to lose work. But writers don't have public images. As individuals, they're anonymous. As a group, their work is too ubiquitous for American culture to do without.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Hamadryad

I think the attitude I'm seeing a lot, though, is that the writers should be grateful that the actors and producers and directors and studios are WILLING to LET them work for them. Writing's not that easy. I can kick the hell out of an essay, but I doubt I could write an episode of Dora the freaking Explorer, let alone a minimum of five good one-liners a week IN plot, IN character, INoffensive enough that they didn't piss off advertisers in your average crappy-but-popular sitcom.

Well the attitude I'm seeing is the sort of "you're either with us or against us," "there's no middle ground" stridency that IME all too often is the default attitude of people supporting union actions. It's not like I'm against the writers; I'm a writer myself both professionally and as a (published) recreational creative writer. But I am philosophically opposed to the idea of closed union shops (compulsory union membership) and I'm bothered by the damage the action is doing to all the other people thrown out of work while the writers fight for their rights. And the arrogance of the "who cares what the public thinks?" attitude is off-putting, to say the least. It would be nice to be able to recognize the complexity of the issues and some ambivalence about the action without being condescended to, but maybe that's too much to ask.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Jodi

What an incredibly blinkered point of view. One of the worst possible eventualities from the writers' POV is -- or should be -- exactly what you theorize: That the public drifts off and finds other things to do and discovers that, "Hey, I don't need to watch so much TV anyway."

They'll come right back when the new shows start.

And shouldn't the STUDIOS be just as worried? This is a business dispute; why are you blaming one side more than the other?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

All the networks have to do is deliver an audience to watch the commercials. There are plenty of ways to do that without scripted shows. Bum fighting or softcore porn (no dialogue necessary) will draw the same amount of eyeballs to the Doritos commercials as a Two and a Half Men epsiode. The networks will be fine. They can survive indefinitely without scripted programming.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Jodi

It would be nice to be able to recognize the complexity of the issues and some ambivalence about the action without being condescended to, but maybe that's too much to ask.

Judging from the reactions people who are "against" the writers get, I think it might be.

As Jodi said, the "you owe us" attitude of some of the writers is tiring. I'm not anti-writers (I am, however, anti-union), I just don't think they realize how arrogant they come across to some people.

[Menocchio]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

All the networks have to do is deliver an audience to watch the commercials. There are plenty of ways to do that without scripted shows. Bum fighting or softcore porn (no dialogue necessary) will draw the same amount of eyeballs to the Doritos commercials as a Two and a Half Men epsiode. The networks will be fine. They can survive indefinitely without scripted programming.

And the film industry? They're striking the movies too.

You're wrong, btw. TV needs scripted programming to give deliver to the sponsors anything near what they're accustomed to getting. Or else the studios would have already caught on and given us even more reality programming than we have. For every American Idol, there's a CSI: Miami, and you can't get the latter without writers.

And no, not anyone can write for CSI: Miami, it takes a certain amount of skill even to turn out that mediocre product.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

All the networks have to do is deliver an audience to watch the commercials. There are plenty of ways to do that without scripted shows. Bum fighting or softcore porn (no dialogue necessary) will draw the same amount of eyeballs to the Doritos commercials as a Two and a Half Men epsiode. The networks will be fine. They can survive indefinitely without scripted programming.

Again, I have to ask; did a screenwriter kill your Dad? Run over your dog? You've proven writing screenplays isn't easy; why do you continue to pretend it's of no value?

If the networks didn't need scripted programming they would never have used it.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by RickJay

And shouldn't the STUDIOS be just as worried? This is a business dispute; why are you blaming one side more than the other?

(a) Sure. (b) Because one side stopped work and the other didn't. One side is preventing others from working, and the other isn't.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by RickJay

They'll come right back when the new shows start.

And shouldn't the STUDIOS be just as worried? This is a business dispute; why are you blaming one side more than the other?

Because the WGA is one of them Evil Unions. Some people prefer the Bosses.

[Equipoise]

Looks like the Golden Globe winners will be announced via a press conference.

Golden Globes Ceremony, Parties Canceled

Attempts to save the Golden Globes ceremonies devolved quickly Monday evening as the famed broadcast was reduced from a three-hour gala to a one-hour press conference -- most likely with no stars, no parties and WGA pickets....[more]

Regarding the three-hour gala mentioned, they were going to have a pre-press conference special on the Golden Globes, then an hour-long press conference announcing the winners, then post-press conference parties with stars, switching back and forth between several parties, to get reactions. That smelled too much like the Golden Globes themselves, which after all is an excuse for one big party, then lots of other parties afterwards. I would imagine that the WGA and SAG said "Oh yeah, wanna bet?" with SAG actors not showing up at any parties where network cameras were positioned, and so now we just have an hour-long press conference announcing the winners. I don't know what they're going to do for a whole hour though. They can't show clips from nominated films because the WGA has to sign off on them. So, what, an announcement of a winner, then talking heads talking about it, then another announcement, then more talking heads and so on? The Globes do have a lot of nominees, movie and TV (here's a list of the nominees) so maybe, with commercials, it will take an hour even without the talking heads.

It'll be interesting. I do feel bad for the HFPA and the nominees though. The HFPA are stuck in the middle, and first-time nominees won't get their chance to enjoy it all. It's a damn shame. The Globes are usually much more fun than the Oscars because people have been drinking in a laid-back atmosphere, so it can be a hoot. (Emma Thompson's creative and funny speech as Jane Austin for winning the screenwriting award for Sense and Sensibility is a classic. She won the Oscar too, but gave a normal Thank You speech.)

[MovieMogul]

Originally Posted by Elenfair

... and then, people ask me: "Do you sometimes base characters on people you come across in real life? Do people like this really exist?" It's usually because their minds are totally boggled by some dude we've created -- more often than not, it's a variation on the theme of the "Intellectual masturbator with an over-inflated sense of self-importance who, no matter what you say or how you say it, will come back and try to show you how he, in his great wisdom, is simply the superior being."

And on these words, this little Sea Cucumber (a bottom feeder, of course),writer of drivel that has consistently done really well in ratings this year until the strike, needs to go to bed. Tomorrow, there's a meeting with Fans4Writers. You know, those who will drop us like a ton of bricks after the big National campaign they plan to launch in a few weeks. Then there are actions to plan, meetings to organize, things to do, people to corrupt, animation writers to set on fire... You know. The usual nasty union things.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek,

Pond Scum and Friends.

Elenfair, I've appreciated your contribution to this topic and, as someone employed in the film industry in a non-union capacity, I'm behind the WGA 100%.

But I was wondering what you thought of this that appeared in the L.A. Times yesterday....

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by ArchiveGuy

Elenfair, I've appreciated your contribution to this topic and, as someone employed in the film industry in a non-union capacity, I'm behind the WGA 100%.

But I was wondering what you thought of this that appeared in the L.A. Times yesterday....

Registration required. Could you give us a summary.

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by Jodi

Because one side stopped work and the other didn't. One side is preventing others from working, and the other isn't.

What leverage do the writers have other than refusing to work? Suppose your boss knew you'd never quit your job no matter what. What incentive would he have to give you a raise? Heck, what incentive would he have to pay you at all?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Layoffs coming.

The Hollywood writers' strike, now in its third month, appears likely to lead to the imminent lay-offs of hundreds of workers in the television and movie business, US media reported Wednesday.

Innocent victims, no matter how you look at it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Pochacco

What leverage do the writers have other than refusing to work? Suppose your boss knew you'd never quit your job no matter what. What incentive would he have to give you a raise? Heck, what incentive would he have to pay you at all?

This assumes that the writers deserve a raise. I'm not convinced that they do.

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This assumes that the writers deserve a raise. I'm not convinced that they do.

Yes, yes, we know. Because TV sucks so bad.

Lower pay usually means that the best workers go elsewhere. Paying the writers peanuts pretty much guarantees all you'll get is crap.

[MovieMogul]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Registration required. Could you give us a summary.

Weird. It comes up straightaway on my end.

The author is WGA member John Ridley (here's his IMDB listing). Here are a couple key paragraphs:

I don't blame the union for the direction the strike has taken. It was the Assn. of Motion Picture and Television Producers that walked away from the bargaining table. And when you get into a fight with a passive aggressor, you can't help but look like a bully.

Still, I've had concerns about the guild's approach to this work action: the lack of an individual with experience in Hollywood deal-making to lead negotiations; bargaining chips moved on and off the table in the haphazard manner of a first-time gambler at a roulette wheel; interim agreements arbitrarily granted, without the necessary vote by membership. But apparently, to speak publicly of such concerns is to be on the same level as the jerk who gives away the ending of an M. Night Shyamalan movie. I lived with the vitriol stirred by my questioning. Never mind that I've walked the picket lines. Never mind I've donated to the strike fund....

That would be fine for an organization whose membership joins voluntarily. But when membership is compulsory, free expression must be accommodated. The obligation of the union is to protect, not crush, the minority view....

After 15 years of being told shut up, sit down and be part of the groupthink, I decided I did not belong in the guild. The guild has a way to option out. I took the option. The predictable response has been largely hateful and personal, including accusations of cowardice. But the membership of the union can't have it both ways: an allergy to internal dissent and an aversion to migration. If you don't want me around, don't get angry when I leave. And while the consensus among writers may be that I'm a scab, or out for my own self-interest, fortunately, I don't live my life by consensus.

I also think it's ironic for anyone involved in the strike to speak of self-service when every aspect of this work stoppage is about putting or extracting money into or from somebody's wallet — the writers, the studios, the whole economy of Los Angeles. If I cared just about money, I'd continue on the guild's current path: working to secure extra revenue from the studios without regard to the financial impact of the work stoppage on the populace. If I understand their logic, that effort is not at all self-serving, even though we put money in our wallets while others suffer.

Essentially, Ridley has gone "financial core".

Financial core means you remain in the union but go back to work, forsaking your right to vote on, or participate in, union leadership, but still paying dues for nonpolitical activities and still receiving the benefits of your guild's collective bargaining agreement.

And apparently, by going FC, he's grist for the industry rumor mill right now, so he decided to write the OpEd in question. He closes his piece with:

I've no desire to start a movement, to be the first name on an open petition, or to be the poster child for disgruntled writers. I don't want to do a money grab and jump on a rewrite of Pinkville. Though, I'll be perfectly honest with you: If I'm going to be trashed anyway, I'm not about to be trashed on the cuff. I am, simply, done.

So, then, this is my interim agreement. You all can have your strike. I'll take what can't be bargained for: self-determination.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by ArchiveGuy

Weird. It comes up straightaway on my end.

The author is WGA member John Ridley (here's his IMDB listing). Here are a couple key paragraphs:Essentially, Ridley has gone "financial core".And apparently, by going FC, he's grist for the industry rumor mill right now, so he decided to write the OpEd in question. He closes his piece with:

Whoa, cool. Kudos to Ridley. The more I hear about the WGA, the more thuggish they sound. I wonder if they feel any compassion at all for the people they're putting out of work who have nothing to do with this fight.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Whoa, cool. Kudos to Ridley. The more I hear about the WGA, the more thuggish they sound. I wonder if they feel any compassion at all for the people they're putting out of work who have nothing to do with this fight.

Probably not. In fact, I expect they chortle maniacally about it whenever the thought crosses their minds. I hear that the current official WGA handshake is to offer a 50-dollar bill to a laid-off TV worker, then yank it back out of reach while screaming "Psyche!"

Fortunately, those laid-off TV workers still have the warm and nurturing Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers on their side, who will no doubt take care of their families' every need after they are laid off by the heartless Writers' Guild. Rumor has it that producers are setting up cots in their spare rooms even as we speak.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Pochacco

What leverage do the writers have other than refusing to work? Suppose your boss knew you'd never quit your job no matter what. What incentive would he have to give you a raise? Heck, what incentive would he have to pay you at all?

Why on earth would I never quit my job no matter what? Why would they?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Jodi

(a) Sure. (b) Because one side stopped work and the other didn't. One side is preventing others from working, and the other isn't.

Which side? A contract is an agreement between two parties, not one. There is no contract; the two sides do not agree on how their business should be arranged. Why is it automatically the fault of Side A, and not Side B? The studios are equally responsible by not giving the writers what they want just as the writers are responsible by asking for something the studios do not want to give.

If this was a disagreement between two big corporations - say, Microsoft and RIM were going to create a new portable computing device that would create jobs, but couldn't agree on the details of the contract - which side would you "blame"? Probably neither; you'd accept that sometimes people disagree on negotiations. How is this affair any different?

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Which side? A contract is an agreement between two parties, not one. There is no contract; the two sides do not agree on how their business should be arranged. Why is it automatically the fault of Side A, and not Side B? The studios are equally responsible by not giving the writers what they want just as the writers are responsible by asking for something the studios do not want to give.

Then the writers go write for someone else and the studios hire writers willing to work for the terms they are offering. If Side A and Side B don't agree then both walk away and conduct their business with people willing to meet their terms.

If this was a disagreement between two big corporations - say, Microsoft and RIM were going to create a new portable computing device that would create jobs, but couldn't agree on the details of the contract - which side would you "blame"?

I would blame whichever of the two sides insisted that the other side could only work with it; the side preventing others who might offer the same service from doing so; the side insisting that everyone offering the service must work for it (in the case of a corporation) or belong to it (in the case of a union).

Probably neither; you'd accept that sometimes people disagree on negotiations. How is this affair any different?

Generally speaking, when people disagree on negotiations, the remedy is to break off negotiations and take your business elsewhere, not to try to hold the other party hostage until it meets your demands. This affair is very different because you're not dealing with a simple contract negotiation driven by market forces -- you give me what I want and I give you what you want, and if we can't agree, I sell my product elsewhere and you buy your product elsewhere. You're dealing with a walkout coupled with serious pressure forbidding anyone else from offering the product in question. It's not a negotiation; it's a hold-up. (Literally: Production is being held up.) Whether it's justified or not is another question, but it's hardly the same thing as negotiating a straight-forward business contract in a free market.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by Pochacco

What leverage do the writers have other than refusing to work?

Isn't that the exact same incentive all ununionized people have?

[treis]

I don't mind if people strike, but it bugs me when people strike while talking about how much talent and ability it takes to do their job. If you have to strike to get a fair wage, then I got news for you, your job doesn't take much skill.

[atomicbadgerrace]

I don't have a dog in this fight aside from being a loyal television viewer. But for what it's worth, I'll throw my two cents in. Take it as you will.

Elenfair, I have nothing but respect for the job you and countless others do. For all the hours of quality programming that I have enjoyed for little to no cost, thank you. It's sad that many quality writers make $5k per year. On the other hand, many others make much, much more than that, and it's hard to balance what's "fair income" for a writer. The difficult part, for me, in determining fair compensation to writers and actors is that while their work may be quality, they essentially are doing what they enjoy. Sure, sometimes that means 18 hour days, but in the end, all writers and actors have a choice of what to do with their lives. No one forces an actor or writer to take the job; there are plenty of other high paying careers out there that require less work. Doing what you love doing is important, but if I were doing the same, I'd be happy making just enough to make ends meet.

I understand the point is to set a wage for most writers to be able to make ends meet. That's great, and I'll say right now that I agree in principle with the goals of the guild. Internet writing deserves to be paid just as much as screen writing does, and residuals are due. That said, there's no sympathy from me for the writer who makes $5k a year. I agree with treis to a point... for true skill and ability, many writers do make enough to make writing their full time job. For those that don't and end up with $5k per year, they have full time jobs. They take the job and know the risks of ending up making pennies. Again, no one forces them to, and if they stay in the industry, that's up to them. Should they have actual talent, the road to success is earned through hard work and dedication. If that's the chosen career path, accept the crappy start.

Though I agree with the goals of the guild, I do not agree with the strike, for several reasons. I disagree with striking in principle. I can't say I can offer a better solution to the members of the guild, but I just can't agree with a strike. I disagree with this strike, in particular, because of the residual effect it has on other, innocent victims.

As posted here, layoffs are coming. Should this strike continue much longer, layoffs will inevitably increase. The strike may be about the "middle class writer," but many "middle class industry workers" are going to be affected. Whether your work can be done by anyone else is not a fight I want to pick, but the fact is, a LOT of work in showbiz IS done by folks who are a dime a dozen. Cameramen, boom operators, grips, makeup artists, gaffers, production assistants -- you name it, a lot of folks are affected by this strike and will soon be out of work. When the strike is over, some may get their jobs back, some may not. The WGA is looking out for number one, and though it's good to stand up to being treated unfairly, the effect will have consequences for many other folks who -- like me -- have no dog in this fight.

On a more superficial level, I'm pissed at the lack of new programming. I miss new episodes of my favorite shows. I won't point the blame directly at the WGA, and though there's an attitude of "why should they care what the public thinks?" here, that only emphasizes the WGA's mission to protect their own interests. Their paychecks come from networks and studios. Who get money from advertisers. Who buy based on ratings. Which are decided by people like me. So, yeah, the WGA should take an interest in the general public.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject. Again, I agree with the WGA in principle only -- your cause is just, but your means are not. I don't know of an appropriate alternative, so it's safe to say that, at this point, I'm a little pissed at both sides.

[Aioua]

Wait wait wait...

If people are getting pissed because their shows have gone missing, how is that bad for the WGA? Isn't that good for them? Viewers are pissed because there are no new shows. (Or they don't like the unscripted crap being put up in their place.) So ratings go down, so advertisers are going to pull out, and the networks feel the burn... back to the table they go?
So... yeah! I'm not seeing where the whole "ooo WGA, watch out or the public's gonna turn their back on you!" vibe is coming from.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Originally Posted by Aioua

Wait wait wait...

If people are getting pissed because their shows have gone missing, how is that bad for the WGA? Isn't that good for them? Viewers are pissed because there are no new shows. (Or they don't like the unscripted crap being put up in their place.) So ratings go down, so advertisers are going to pull out, and the networks feel the burn... back to the table they go?
So... yeah! I'm not seeing where the whole "ooo WGA, watch out or the public's gonna turn their back on you!" vibe is coming from.

Anecdotal experience only from casual conversation and the occasional talk radio show is that most people are looking at this as:

1) My shows are in reruns
2) Because the writers are on strike
3) Because they want more money
and, optionally, 4) That they don't deserve

I won't say that people's opinion of the WGA as a group will affect the writers directly. All I'm saying is that this "why should we care what they think?" attitude should be re-thought, since "they" are essentially funding paychecks.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Aioua

Wait wait wait...

If people are getting pissed because their shows have gone missing, how is that bad for the WGA? Isn't that good for them? Viewers are pissed because there are no new shows. (Or they don't like the unscripted crap being put up in their place.) So ratings go down, so advertisers are going to pull out, and the networks feel the burn... back to the table they go?
So... yeah! I'm not seeing where the whole "ooo WGA, watch out or the public's gonna turn their back on you!" vibe is coming from.

The advertisers aren't going to pull out. They have nowhere else to go.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The advertisers aren't going to pull out. They have nowhere else to go.

So advertisers will continue to funnel money into a medium that no one is watching?

I agree that most advertisers won't completely pull out. But the price they negotiate for their 30 second spot will drop tremendously with any ratings decrease.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by atomicbadgerrace

On a more superficial level, I'm pissed at the lack of new programming. I miss new episodes of my favorite shows. I won't point the blame directly at the WGA, and though there's an attitude of "why should they care what the public thinks?" here, that only emphasizes the WGA's mission to protect their own interests.

Are you for real?? You're ascribing to the WGA as a whole an attitude based on the posts of one person in this thread, a person that not only is NOT a part of the WGA, but doesn't even know anyone involved in the entertainment industry and has NO dogs in this fight?

I don't speak for the WGA. I was just musing about why they shouldn't care. IMHO and all that. I don't know what they think about the public.

Geez! Get a grip.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by treis

I don't mind if people strike, but it bugs me when people strike while talking about how much talent and ability it takes to do their job. If you have to strike to get a fair wage, then I got news for you, your job doesn't take much skill.

If scriptwriting doesn't take much skill, where are the scabs to take the writers' jobs?

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

If scriptwriting doesn't take much skill, where are the scabs to take the writers' jobs?

Having skill and be willing to work as a scab are two different things.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

Are you for real?? You're ascribing to the WGA as a whole an attitude based on the posts of one person in this thread, a person that not only is NOT a part of the WGA, but doesn't even know anyone involved in the entertainment industry and has NO dogs in this fight?

I don't speak for the WGA. I was just musing about why they shouldn't care. IMHO and all that. I don't know what they think about the public.

Geez! Get a grip.

Apologies for coming off that way. I suppose I lumped my reply directed towards you in with my feelings towards the strike in a way that, upon reflection, was a poor choice of words and should have been omitted entirely, as how the WGA feels about viewers doesn't affect my opinion of their strike in the slightest.

SORRY MUCH.

[Inner Stickler]

Every single person who would be willing to take a job as a scriptwriter just so happens to be on the WGA's side? That seems pretty unlikely to me.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by atomicbadgerrace

Apologies for coming off that way. I suppose I lumped my reply directed towards you in with my feelings towards the strike in a way that, upon reflection, was a poor choice of words and should have been omitted entirely, as how the WGA feels about viewers doesn't affect my opinion of their strike in the slightest.

SORRY MUCH.

Ok. Sorry to be so bitchy. I was just shocked that someone would take my posts and use them to tar and feather the WGA, when for all I know every single member of the WGA is desperately worried about public opinion. I have no idea what they think. The only WGA member I even "know" is Elenfair (only from her posts), and for all I know she probably wishes I'd shut the fuck up.

[Hamadryad]

I am interested in knowing how anti-union people think the writers are going to get paid for their work on Internet material. The production companies are against paying them a thin dime for Internet work because it's an "unproven medium." Just not write for the internet? And then get shitcanned for not being willing to write for free?

I swear, y'all are yelling at the people who make them new-fangled motor cars because they're putting all the poor buggy whip manufacturers out of business.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Hamadryad

I am interested in knowing how anti-union people think the writers are going to get paid for their work on Internet material. The production companies are against paying them a thin dime for Internet work because it's an "unproven medium." Just not write for the internet? And then get shitcanned for not being willing to write for free?

I swear, y'all are yelling at the people who make them new-fangled motor cars because they're putting all the poor buggy whip manufacturers out of business.

Anti-Union folks don't care about anybody getting paid. They're quite happy to watch Reality TV & hope another union is broken....

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Hamadryad

I am interested in knowing how anti-union people think the writers are going to get paid for their work on Internet material. The production companies are against paying them a thin dime for Internet work because it's an "unproven medium." Just not write for the internet? And then get shitcanned for not being willing to write for free?

I swear, y'all are yelling at the people who make them new-fangled motor cars because they're putting all the poor buggy whip manufacturers out of business.

What "internet work" do they do? My understanding is that they somehow think they deserve to get paid for clips or promotional material that gets pllayed on the interenet. I basically don't care if they don't get paid for that. Not my problem and it's highly questionable whether they deserve it anyway.

And, yeah, they have the choice of just not writing for the internet. If they get fired, that's fine with me. It sounds like Elenfair is admitting this is just a hobby for most of them anyway, not something they can really make a living at. They should be happy just to get their stuff on the air. I certainly can't support their position that extorting a few extra dollars for their hobby is more important than hundreds of other people's livelihoods. It's not like we're talking about factory workers trying to feed their families. It doesn't bother me if some crap writer for ER has to get a real job. I find myself really put off by the WGA's self-righteous assumptions that everyone should just agree that they're victims and that they deserve whatever they want or that the studios weren't offering them their "fair share."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

Anti-Union folks don't care about anybody getting paid. They're quite happy to watch Reality TV & hope another union is broken....

I'd like to see THIS union get broken. I can't see any reason for it to exist.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Every single person who would be willing to take a job as a scriptwriter just so happens to be on the WGA's side? That seems pretty unlikely to me.

THe AMPTP doesn't want to hire scabs....at least not at this point. Of course we all remember how great the quality of the NFL was when they went to scabs.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

THe AMPTP doesn't want to hire scabs....at least not at this point. Of course we all remember how great the quality of the NFL was when they went to scabs.

But playing in the NFL actually does require a special, elite level of talent. Writing crap for television does not.