Why the Writer's Strike pisses me off

Cafe Society
1

With the realization that we may not get any more Heroes episodes after December, a severely shortened 24 season or any Lost episodes period, I have come to the realization that I despise everyone involved in the writer’s strike and I put most of the blame on the writers.

And I think I’ve figured out why.

1. The writer’s constant whine of “It’s not fair” is annoying. Writers are not entitled to residuals and it pisses me off that they think everyone deserves them.

2. The ability to make residuals a second income. One writer wrote an essay describing how insulted he felt when an airline sent him a $0.19 check for residuals after they showed some TV episodes he wrote on the plane. Most of these episodes were written 10-20 years ago and this guy’s problem is that he’s only getting $0.19 now? Get over yourself.

The writers seem to want to be “unemployed” but still make money off of their past work. Jobs shouldn’t work that way.

3. Writers are a dime a dozen and could be easily replaced. Sure, the quality of some high concept shows won’t be as high with a changed staff, but can anyone honestly claim that a show like Heroes (one built on comic book mythology that is dozens of years old) would suffer?

4. The very real possibility of no new shows for a while. This is more a general rant as it pisses me off when performers of any kind go on strike. These performers (like writers or athletes) have a duty to their fans. “The show must go on!” as they say. Especially for the salaries many of these writers make.

And don’t give me the “unemployed writer” schtick. If they need money they can change careers, the rest of us can do it, why can’t writers?

5. Give the writers better DVD money. See, I don’t completely blame the writers, the producers should cough up a little more DVD money to end this thing.

That’s it, I’m done, jump all over me.

2

So you feel that you’re entitled to entertainment, but the people who provide that entertainment aren’t entitled to appropriate compensation? Just checking.

3

Someone is making money off something you produced. After a point, should it just be distributed for free?

Too worried about missing your precious TV shows? Guess what, writers of BOOKS aren’t on strike.

4

Were they not paid a salary? Just checking.

The writers “produced” nothing. They were a singular piece in creating a product. Is everyone who worked on a TV show or movie entitled to residuals?

And I work in a library, so I’ve got plenty of books at home, thanks.

5

i think its more of a view of what constitutes appropriate compensation.

6

Er, isn’t “creating a product” the exact definition of “to produce”?

filmyak had a good explanation of why some jobs garner residuals and some don’t in this post from GQ yesterday.

7

Why aren’t they entitled? Is this an immutable law of nature? Why should the director and stars get residuals, but not the writer who is actually responsible for the script?

I suspect how you feel about this depends on the way you look at writers. If they’re just the “hired help” and asre interchangeable, then I could see why you’d feel they were trying to play outside their league. I don’t look at it that way. Often a good writer may be the only reason I’ll watch a show. There’s no question that several genre shows were made or not by the quality of the writing. That makes writing something very different from, say, the Key Grip or the Lighting Foreman. Hell, yes, they ought to get the same sort of residuals the director and actors get.

8

Generally, no. Movie scripts are a rights-based business and writers make money from optioning their work and the subsequent royalties. I don’t know if regular writers on TV shows have a different deal.

9

There’s more than one writer involved. Just sayin’.

You have just explained very succinctly why everyone thinks they can be a writer. “Hey, I can vomit words onto paper. I deserve to be published!” Thus, the proliferation of vanity presses. Writing well takes skill and practice. There’s a hell of a lot more to it than just knowing subject/verb agreement, and just because a person can form a coherent sentence does not mean they can write to a publishable standard.

And yes, changing staff for a show like *Heroes *would affect it. Just because someone read comic books all their life does not mean they’d be able to effectively keep all the plot twists and cliffhangers in their head and weave them effectively.

10

From what I understand, the “upfront” payment for writers is quite small, compared to what a producer, actor, director, etc… get paid, because they get residuals. So if we were top get rid of residuals, then they would argue for a bigger initial payment, since that would be all they got. Personally, I agree with the writers, they are getting seriously screwed with DVD sales, since they go by the same rate VHS sales did, which were a pittance since the sales were small, and they get NOTHING for downloaded and streaming content.

You might think that they only deserve a single payment for their work, but the thing is, every time that show is shown on TV, be it a brand new episode, a re-run, or in syndication, someone else is making money off of it in advertising. The TV producers are getting profit from the writers’ original ideas, so why shouldn’t they get a share of it, since without them, that money wouldn’t be there in the first place?

11

Really? Are you volunteering?

Good writers are rare. And, as a rare resource, they should be treated with respect. If people are enjoying their work, why shouldn’t they continue to get paid for it? It wouldn’t exist without them, after all.

So? there are other things to life than TV.

So if the producers decided unilaterally to pay writers less, you’d be OK with that? What if they refused to pay anything at all? Do you advocate the writers and performers continue to work for nothing so the producers could make bigger profits?

It’s amazing how many people have so much sympathy for the rich screwing their employees.

12

Then again, I have no sympathy for them as they knew the deal when they signed up. Complaining years later that the original deal they agreed to is now “not fair” is just flat out whining.

13

That deal is a contract. The contract is expired. They want a better contract. Contracts are not forever. Adults know this. So even if a writer joined the union and didn’t like the contract at the time, they also knew the contract would expire.

And contrary to your opinion, writers are not easily replaced.

14

Striking Scribe here, to answer questions.

1. The writer’s constant whine of “It’s not fair” is annoying. Writers are not entitled to residuals and it pisses me off that they think everyone deserves them.

That’s the way some writers earn their living. Not all writers make residuals. Only those who have written 50% of a script make it onto the credits and get residuals. This is the way the industry works. Live with it. We’re entitled to residuals. You use our stuff, you pay for it when you use it. That’s just the way it goes. Whether or not you feel it’s fair, well, that’s your problem. It works much like a rental agreement. You want to use my tools? Fine. Pay the fee and you can. That’s the way the contract is written.
**2. The ability to make residuals a second income. The writers seem to want to be “unemployed” but still make money off of their past work. Jobs shouldn’t work that way. **

Again, that’s the way a contract works. You use my tools, you pay me the rental fee. What is it that is so hard to understand? I produce a good, you use my product, you give it back to me when you’re done. You pay the fee to use it. Doesn’t matter how long ago the good was produced. You still used it. Voila.

3. Writers are a dime a dozen and could be easily replaced. Sure, the quality of some high concept shows won’t be as high with a changed staff, but can anyone honestly claim that a show like Heroes (one built on comic book mythology that is dozens of years old) would suffer?

Everyone can write, all writers are interchangeable, everyone can do this job… “I’ve always wanted to write a novel…” Yeah. I know. We are just lucky bastards who stumbled into the business. We all suck, we’re all hacks and anyone with an IQ of 70 and a typewriter could do our jobs. I gotcha. ::: thumbs up :::

If I had a dollar for every time I had heard that argument, I wouldn’t NEED residuals.

4. The very real possibility of no new shows for a while. This is more a general rant as it pisses me off when performers of any kind go on strike. These performers (like writers or athletes) have a duty to their fans. “The show must go on!” as they say. Especially for the salaries many of these writers make.

Oh cry me a river. Duty to the fans? How about duty to our families! Shit, we’d like to be able to pay our mortgages, too. Most of us don’t make the 200K that everyone seems to think we make. But we’d certainly like to have a minimum basic agreement that covers our asses for the next few years. We’d like protection for the grunts who have to work reality shows. We’d like to see some revenue from streaming media and online media. We’d like to see that the people who work in newsrooms get better coverage. We’d like to see that subcontractors and guild members get a fair shake for minimums. We’d like to make sure that there’s a fair increase to follow DVD sales.

Right now, SGA/AFTRA is watching what’s going on CLOSELY… they’re preparing for THEIR strike action, in June. The directors are close on our heels, too.

And don’t give me the “unemployed writer” schtick. If they need money they can change careers, the rest of us can do it, why can’t writers?

Dude, what do you have against writers?
**5. Give the writers better DVD money. **

Have you seen the residual tables for DVD profits? Seriously, have a look. It’s more than ridiculous.

On these words, I need more sleep.

15

Now, THIS is not fair. DVD sales weren’t anywhere near what they are now when they signed the old contracts. Official, legal online streaming of program content wasn’t even on the horizon. Are the writers supposed to be punished for not being psychic?

You’re basically allowing your pique at not having new shows override any sympathy for the people who are primarily responsible for those new shows. Pushing Daisies without writers might as well be a visually gorgeous Shields & Yarnell, because at least half the magic of that show is the writing. Heroes isn’t just a bunch of pretty people doing unnatural things…the writing is central. And the writers have a LOT of the people who are “supposed to” be on the producers’ side (including showrunners and stars) on their own side because of the simple justice of what they’re asking for.

16

Constant whine? Really? I think you’re more likely to hear actors complaining about how hard it is to do their job, even if they’re making 5 mill a picture. Writers are rarely given a voice, except on the page. And to say they’re a dime a dozen… I dunno. Maybe if you can’t tell the difference between Scrubs and According to Jim.

17

On the topic of salary: *No. There is no salary. * Most of us get paid on delivery (well, some time after). Then, if you’re a credited writer, there are residuals. For the rest of us, it’s the next delivery. Right now, that means we’re out in the cold. And you know what? We don’t mind, because these changes NEED TO HAPPEN. Badly. If residuals go, even the jobs of the peons will be threatened, and our livelihoods are going to go the way of the dodo…

18

The deal wasn’t great at the time, but the deal truly isn’t fair now. The market has changed radically since the VHS residuals deal was struck in the 1980s. Back then, VHS tapes cost a lot to produce, and were sold to video stores for about $100 apiece. They were priced to rent, and it wasn’t expected that people would actually buy them in large numbers. DVDs are much cheaper to produce, and almost anyone can own dozens or even hundreds of them.

Writers don’t get paid AT ALL for movies or TV episodes that are distributed via the internet. If you go to NBC.com and watch an episode of The Office (which is supported by advertising on the website, so revenue is being generated), the writers/actors/director do not get any compensation for that. Same if you download it from iTunes and pay $1.99 for that (hey! more revenue!). The corporate entities claim that they can’t offer compensation of any kind to any of the talent involved in creating these works because they don’t make any money, and they can’t predict if they will make any money in the future. However, if you download an episode of The Office from Bittorrent, that same corporate entity will say you are a pirate who is stealing money from them.

The bottom line is that money is being made off digital media right now, and the people who create those programs are being cheated out of the money for it. Television and the internet rapidly are becoming the same entity, and if the writers let themselves get screwed now, again, it’s going to be a really big problem for them down the line. And not just for them, but for actors, directors, and other artists. SAG and the DGA have contracts that expire June 30th, 2008, so if these issues don’t get resolved for the writers, don’t be surprised if the actors and directors are joining them in their strike July 1st.

More information from the people actually involved in this can be found at www.unitedhollywood.com. (Or from Elenfair, I see now that I’ve posted.)

19

Why not? TV shows and movies can make money for years and years. That means more money for the other people who made it. Why aren’t the writers entitled to a portion of that money? Their work was completed at the same time as the work of the actors and directors and so on.

20

Since the whole “duh–anyone can write” canard has been adequately addressed, let’s take on this little canard.

“Better DVD money” would not “end this thing”. This isn’t about DVDs anymore, really (except indirectly). This is about new avenues of distribution: On Demand, Internet streaming, and who knows what else may be on the technological horizon. When the last revenue-sharing agreement was set in place, the writers agreed to something that (looking back in hindsight) gave them the fuzzy end of the lollipop. Here’s the chant being yelled outside of Paramount studios right now: “Why are we picketing by the gate? Because we got screwed in '88!”

So what’s done is done, but just because they got the shaft once doesn’t mean they should set passively by and continue to get the shaft. And I suspect many of the arguments the studios used back then (about cable, PPV, video/laserdisc etc.) are probably hauntingly familiar now. Hollywood bookkeeping is already notorious for raking in 100s of millions and never seeing “the black”, so the writers are perfectly justified in not trusting the producers when they claim that X new technology doesn’t actually bring in a profit and Y new distribution strategy is about “marketing” and not actually making money.

If the OP had a contract with an employer that was unfair, when that contract ran out, would JB just roll over and play nice, or would he “whine” until he got what he was entitled to? Especially if his boss was making piles of money off his work product? Does anyone believe he wouldn’t try to renegotiate instead of just automatically renewing, knowing that he’d be screwed for another decade just like he was for the previous decade?

I didn’t think so.