Why the Writer's Strike pisses me off

I feel much better now. That’s about 2,000 to 2,500 words per day, which only slightly over my average. Hearing that “50-60 pages in 4 days” stat made me feel like an underachiever.

And all of your work doesn’t instantly become publishable as soon as one thing of yours is published, either. My 20th book is coming out next month, and I still have over half of my book proposals rejected. I have over 200 articles published, and I’m rejected about 2 out of 3 times (except by certain editors I work with a lot).

It is about the same, all in all, word-count wise.

The only thing that makes it a little odd, at times, can be the constraints under which we’re supposed to turn these puppies around. It can get draining, creatively, when you go from one story to the next – but that’s why we work in teams, too.

There are times when we are called upon to write a scene over lunch to shoot at 1pm. Or, like I’ve had happen about a week before the strike, some major changes to a scene at 2am, so it could be quickly reviewed and handed right back to the actors and shot right away. AND I was working remotely. I had to trust my Intern of Genius (Now THAT is a story for MPSIMS, sometime…) to get the printed document from a trailer to the script supervisor on the set and not get lost in the few feet in between. This, for him, is a challenge.

The pressure is intense, but I love what I do.

We keep saying, being a working television writer is not just about creating scripts. But don’t take our word for it. Check this out.

The reality under which TV writers, even the most powerful and successful, currently work

Is that clearer?

Subscription required.

Could a mod nuke my previous post? Realizing now that the boards here probably don’t like links to bug me not, even though the info for the LA Times seem to be generic shell accounts of the “we hate having to register” variety.

Thanks.

All that article tells me is that writers are now basically employees of the network, and as such have to do what the network says do, or they’re out.

The rest of the free world operates like that, now you have to? Waaaah! Say it ain’t so!

Sure, it’s hard work, and though I’m a fair writer, I’m not sure, but I could probably come up with a script on my own. Yeah it may well suck, but I think I could. No, I’m not interested in trying, I don’t have the time, and plus, I don’t care that much.

The facts, I suspect, are these;

  1. The reason the writing stinks is not because of the networks, the reason the writing stinks is because of the advertisers, the main source of profit of the networks need shows to be as tame, blameless, beige and family friendly as possible to retain the larger market share.

  2. Writers don’t have the freedom they once had and they’re pissy about it. They make a product someone else sells, and have no further right to the profit after the product is sold, and that’s not how it USED to be.

Again. Waaah.

It’s like building cars for GM and expecting a little extra in your check when the person who originally bought the car, sells it to buy another one. Not gonna happen. You don’t like it, go work for a living.

Have you even read the rest of the thread explaining how residuals work?

In a nutshell: TV shows are high-risk propositions. Some are wildly successful, some are total bombs. The thing is, there’s no way to know in advance whether you have a hit or not. So the sensible thing to do is pay the creators a smaller amount upfront and let them get the rest downstream after the show has proved itself.

The writers are striking because their 20-year-old contract doesn’t mention things like DVDs and internet distribution. The business model for the backend has changed and the writers want their new contract to reflect that reality.

Right, except the writers don’t own the shows, the networks do, and I agree that the networks should pay up front and take the hit on the gamble (versus the writers) however, I still maintain that because you write something, then sell it, or agree to write something for someone else, and that someone pays you what you agreed to take, that your transaction is done. This residual thing just seems like an odd form of high-dollar socialism. You take a job, you get paid for that job, that’s it.

It isn’t like the writers write a book, market and sell a book under their own pen, and THEN someone took it away. I mean, they’re exercising their right to strike, and dandy for them, but they get no sympathy from me.

Well, if the networks want to do business that way, they’re certainly free to make that offer in the negotiations. However, that’s not what they’re doing. They want to continue to pay the writers as though they were going to make it up on the backend, and then never follow through.

So you’re opposed to royalties for novelists as well, I suppose? And stock options for computer programmers?

The writers entered into a contract where they agreed to defer part of their compensation. You seem to be arguing that no one should ever be allowed to do that. Cash up front or nothing.

I don’t see how its socialism. It’s a contract between two private entities with no government intervention whatsoever.

If I invest some cash in the production of a television show with the understanding that I will receive part of the profits if it’s successful, is that socialism? If not, why does it become socialism when I invest my LABOR?

Since you obviously have a better handle on the industry than the companies that have been producing entertainment for a century, I invite you to go to Los Angeles, set up shop, and take them all to the cleaners. Should be a piece of cake.

Actually, when writers sell a book, they sell the rights to a form of publication to the company that buys it. If the writer is smart, he or she will negotiate for the rights to revert after a certain amount of time and will negotiate for other forms of publication to remain open so that the right to do something like a screenplay adaptation isn’t also held by the publisher instead of the author. The publishing company in effect owns the book and only owes the author what their contract specifies.

It’s entirely possible for a company to just sit on the publishing rights and never actually print a book. Some authors have had to file a legal appeal to get the right to publish their own work when a publisher has bought the rights, but never published. The rights for producing a book have also been locked up in limbo for years when publishing companies have merged. That means that the author gets nothing during that time, since nothing is being sold, and even worse, can’t shop it to another publisher.

Screenwriting and book publishing are not really very different things. They both use similar contracts and payment schedules. The actual creator of a work doesn’t have a whole lot of freedom with his or her own creation after the rights have been sold. The up-front costs of making something out of the story are high enough that the risk of failure has to be spread out. Publishing companies or studios have to take the risk that people won’t like the novel or show enough to recoup the costs of producing it. An advance in book publishing is pretty much like the initial payment that studios make to a script writer. The size of the advance payment usually reflects the relative risk of failure. Authors have to take the risk that if it doesn’t make money for the company, it doesn’t make any more money for them (hell, depending on the contract, sometimes they have to pay back part of the advance if the book doesn’t sell enough to cover that). But if it does make boatloads of cash, they deserve a share of that for taking that relatively low payment up-front and for the delay in receiving monies. That’s exactly why residuals exist.

Screenwriters are not employees of the studios any more than book authors are. They are contracted creative talent. They have less freedom than book authors because the studios have, over the years, been able to do things like secure the right to use characters and settings. In part, that’s due to the collaborative nature of screenwriting. The only thing that’s close to that in books is a shared universe like the Star Treck, Star Wars, or Thieves’ World series. That’s why a book author can walk away from a publisher in favor of another unless he’s contractually obligated to write something for them, but a TV show is dead forever if the studio doesn’t give the rights back or agree to sell them to a competitor.

For example, Fox owns the rights for Firefly, which is why Whedon can’t just get another studio to do a series based on the ideas, characters, and world that he created. The same thing isn’t true of books. If he had been writing novels, the only thing that would have stopped him from going to a different publisher would be if he were already under contract for more novels, and that would only delay his leaving until he was done with those.

(Disclaimer, I’m not a published author, but I’ve been interested enough in writing to find out the basic mechanics behind getting stuff published. I’ve probably gotten some details wrong, though I’m pretty sure I’m right in the basic ideas.)

I don’t think that’s one of their demands, but I’ll let them know it’s off the table.

You’re forgetting the part where most of the free world gives you the right to bargain collectively and to refuse to work when you haven’t come to terms on a contract.

So if tomorrow your boss tells you he’s cutting all your medical benefits or your client tells you he’s unilaterally cutting your fees in half, you just shrug and say “well, them’s the breaks; I have to accept it or I’m a whining baby.”

Striking in order to pressure management to reach a bargain is capitalism. If they thought they could get a better deal from non-union writers and if they thought that they could find enough of them to agree to their conditions, they’d tell the WGA to pound sand. It happens all the time in the United States.

Why is it “waaah” to try to pressure the other side to accept your terms? Management certainly does it. Are you calling them whiners?

If anybody’s “waaah-ing” around here, it’s the OP. The writers and the producers are merely exercising their legal rights and trying to get as much as they can for their labour. That’s capitalism.

Whining is sitting on your ass not doing anything about your problems. I don’t see how going on strike is remotely like whining. You don’t get paid when you’re on strike, remember.

Buttonjockey, I suspect you’re one of those people who deliberately avoids the facts because they would undermine your preconceived notions. Pretty much everything you’ve written has already been refuted in this thread alone. You don’t even have to do any research; just read the other posts in this thread.

But we’re here to fight ignorance so I’m going to take one more shot. Everybody agrees the writers are entitled to royalties - even the studios agree to that. Everybody likes this system because it works better for both the studios and the writers - the writers get paid more for producing good work and the studios don’t have to pay as much upfront expenses and don’t have to pay as much if the writers produce bad work.

So the only issue is how much royalties the writers are going to get paid. The studios name one figure; the writers name another figure. And both sides negotiate towards the final figure. Nobody’s whining and nobody’s cheating and nobody’s trying to establish a People’s Republic. One side’s buying and one side’s selling and they’re working on a mutually agreeable price. This is capitalism at work.

One frequently misunderstood element of this strike is the perception that the writers are asking for more money. On the new media (Internet etc) question, they’re not. Ultimately, they’re asking for the same.

Look at it this way: When the distribution channels change, DVD purchases are likely to drop off. Why would you pay a bunch of money to have the physical discs for The Office if you can download the episodes and stick ‘em on a hard drive? As this evolution happens, if there isn’t a comparable earnings model from one distribution method to the next, the writers’ compensation will fall relative to the studios’ revenue. All the writers are asking for is an equitable arrangement to maintain parity. They’re not being greedy here: the studios are. Period.

However, there’s actually an even more nefarious subtext to the debate. “New media” covers digital distribution, which is generally understood as TV and movies watched by individual consumers on their home computers. But consider: soon, in the next decade or so, movie studios will no longer distribute motion pictures by sending thousands of physical reels of film to the cinemas, as is done today; instead, they will send the content electronically, via satellite. (The screening of “Battlestar Galactica: Razor” I watched on a movie theater screen this past Monday? Transmitted via satellite; nothing was brought to the cinema.) There is absolutely a legal argument to be made by the studios that this distribution model qualifies as “new media,” aka “content delivered over the Internet.” And according to the current contracts, actors and writers get squat from this. If that doesn’t change, the studios will systematically cut their creative people out of the revenue picture. And that’s just one example, out of many, of the ways the entertainment industry is likely to evolve.

In short: We’re not talking about the single-digit percentage of the revenue stream that comes from Joe Homeviewer buying an episode of “Lost” on iTunes. We’re talking about a massive upheaval of the entire entertainment infrastructure, and an effort by the studios to grab every last penny they can by the sleaziest of legal shenanigans.

I am utterly mystified that anybody should take their side in this.

Because large media corporations, like the ones most people rely on to get all their news, tend to be biased towards the viewpoints of large media corporations.

You don’t understand…

When employees get together to gain power in order to negotiate more effectively with management…that’s communism…socialism…etc. It’s bad for society. It’s bad for the country. It’s Unamerican.

When Management is able to replace workers cheaper, that’s good. That’s capitalism. The workers need to refine their skills to find a way in the world. This is good.

When chicken growers in the South get together to create an organization to band together to negotiate with the big company chicken buyers… that’s communism…socialism…etc. It’s bad for society. It’s bad for the country. It’s Unamerican.

When the large companies that buy chickens put the smaller chicken growers in competition with each other…forcing them to compete to sell them the chickens…that’s capitalism. It’s efficiency! This is good.

When pipe makers…

oh nm.

carry on.

Did you hear about their picket line in which they were holding up blank placards?