AVS Forum banner

WGA (writers') Strike - where shows stand

29K views 247 replies 67 participants last post by  NetworkTV 
#1 ·
As it looks very much like we're about to go nuclear, a very interesting article by the LA Times on how long we have before we go into reruns. This is more of a HOTP-type post, but given it does have detailed show information thought it deserved its own thread.


Hopefully this becomes irrelevant quickly for the right reasons.


Portions copyright Los Angeles Times, November 3, 2007

The TV Grid

The writers' strike would take an immediate toll on television viewers' favorite programs, dealing a setback to shows that are written day-to-day -- such as Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" -- as well as scripted programming already underway or about to go into production.


Soap operas would theoretically start disappearing from the airwaves soon, since most have episodes to last them only until the end of the year. But during the 1988 strike, producers wrote in place of striking writers, and soaps stayed on the air.


Prime-time scripted series have episodes through mid-January or early February, depending on how many reruns they space out in the next few months. Unscripted shows -- such as "Survivor," "The Amazing Race," and, when it returns in January, "American Idol" -- would continue uninterrupted.


Here's a look at where many shows stand:

Late Night

"Colbert Report", "The Daily Show", "SNL" Will go into repeats immediately.

"The Tonight Show" and"The Conan O'Brien Show" Will go into repeats immediately.

Letterman, Craig Ferguson - going into repeats immediately [from Nikke Finke's Hollywood Daily blog]

"Jimmy Kimmel Live" Staffed with WGA writers, so it would probably go to repeats. But Kimmel could also decide to wing it and do the show himself.

"Nightline" Will remain live and in originals.

ABC

"Desperate Housewives" Has nine episodes written, which should last through the first week of December. [Report: production shut down 11/7]

"Grey's Anatomy" 13 episodes of 23 episodes written, 11 of which have been shot and six have aired. This means there are five more episodes in the can. [Report: production shutting down this week]

"Ugly Betty" 13 of 24 episodes completed.

"Boston Legal" Will have 14 or 15 of 22 episodes completed.

"Big Shots" Will have 13 of 13 episodes written. Shooting its ninth episode Nov. 7.

"Lost" Expected to have eight out of 16 episodes ready. Midseason, none have aired yet

"Cavemen" Expected to have 12 out of 13 episodes completed; has not received an order for a full season.

"Men in Trees" Has five episodes left over from last season, 10 new episodes shot, four more scripts to shoot; adds up to 19 out of 27 for the season.

"Cashmere Mafia" Will have seven episodes out of an order of 13; premiere delayed.

"The View" Will continue uninterrupted, according to a spokesman.

"Dirty Sexy Money" Expected have between 11 and 13 episodes completed.

"Brothers & Sisters" Expected to have either 11 or 12 episodes completed.

"Eli Stone" Will have 13 of 13 ordered. Midseason premiere date is undetermined.

"The View" Will continue uninterrupted, according to a spokesman

"Pushing Daisies" [Report production will stop shortly.]

CBS

"CSI Miami" Will have 13 out of 24 episodes completed.

"Moonlight" Expected to have 11 out of 12 episodes completed; has not received an order for a full season.

"Criminal Minds" Will have 12 of 22 episodes completed.

"Cane" Expected to complete all 13 episodes; has not yet received an order for a full season.

"Jericho" Will have seven of seven episodes.

"New Adventures of Old Christine" [Report: production halted.]

"Two and a Half Men" [Report: production halted.]

"Big Bang Theory" [Report: production halted.]

"Rules of Engagement" [Report: production halted.]

NBC

"My Name is Earl" 13 of 13 episodes completed.

"Law and Order: SVU" 14 of 22 episodes completed. [Report production will stop shortly.]

"Medium" Will have 9 of 22 episodes completed.

"30 Rock" Has nine out of 22 episodes completed, with several days of shooting for the 10th episode scheduled for this week.

"Friday Night Lights" Expected to complete 15 of 22 episodes.

"Scrubs" Expected to complete 12 of 18 episodes.

"Journeyman" Expected to complete 13 of 13 episodes; has not yet received an order for a full season. [Nikke Finke reports an agent says they shut down production 11/5 - or maybe not.]

"The Office" [Production shut down 11/7 - see youtube video. ]

CW

"Everybody Hates Chris" Expected to complete 22 of 22 episodes.

"Gossip Girl" Expected to complete 13 of 22 episodes.

"Supernatural" Has 10-12 episodes completed;

Those shows also have roughly five scripts that are ready to shoot.

"America's Next Top Model," "Beauty and the Geek" and new shows such as "Crowned" (the mother-daughter beauty contest) Three of a number of reality shows that have already been ordered up, meaning they are covered for the rest of the season

Fox

"24" Will have eight or nine out of 24 episodes completed. Midseason, none have aired yet. [11/7 - On hold, Fox will not air 24 until all 24 episodes completed]

"Back to You" Will have nine episodes completed out of 24 total episodes ordered. [Report - production halted.]

"K-Ville" Will have 10 of 13 episodes completed.

"Til Death" [Report: production halted.]

USA

"In Plain Sight" New show, episodes are nearly wrapped

"Psych" and "Monk" Enough scripts in hand to guarantee a full second half of each season

"Law and Order: Criminal Intent" Enough for first half of the season (10); the second half (12) will be affected (meaning not enough scripts to guarantee production start as scheduled.)

"Burn Notice" Scheduled to start production of Season 2 in January

"Starter Wife" Scheduled to start production in March

Sci-Fi

"Stargate Atlantis" Expected to go on as scheduled.

"Battlestar Galactica" Has 10 hours of episodes, plus a two hour movie to air this Fall.

"Eureka" Will be affected.

FX

"Thirty Days" Completed, not expected to be affected.

"Nip/Tuck" 5th season, the 22 episodes were planned for two cycles: 14 to run from now to February and eight next year. All 14 in the first cycle have been written. So, only the second cycle could be affected.

"The Shield" The final season is written, no date set for airing.

"Dirt" Production is underway and could be affected.

"The Riches" 7 of 13 episodes, reportedly good through Dec 10

"Rescue Me" 5th season, just announced, would be affected since production is expected to start in early '08.

"Damages" No word yet on whether it would be picked up

HBO

"Entourage" and"Big Love" Are currently in the writing stages and were scheduled to air in the summer of 2008.

"True Blood" and "12 Miles of Bad Road" Have begun production.

"The Wire" Completed and will air as scheduled.

"In Treatment" New series will air as scheduled.

Showtime

"Dexter," "Weeds," "Californication" and "Brotherhood" Have ended or will be ending their season runs.

"The Tudors" Second season returns in late March, completed production Nov. 1 on 12 episodes.

A new Tracey Ullman series Five-episode series is shot.

Lifetime

"Army Wives" Production on hold.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-s...6966.htmlstory


Updated: How many shows are actually left? Check here. (Thanks Marcus Carr)
 
See less See more
#102 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by herdfan /forum/post/12118877


From what I have read it stems from a disagreement about how to allocate the revenue from "other" media such as DVD sales and online viewing.


Example: Currently, they get $.036 from a $15 DVD of a show and they want $.072 per $15 DVD.

Not quite right...it's .04 on a $20 DVD...they took a pay cut on video nearly 2 decades ago with the understanding that it would increase once the studios got their 'business model' in order. Of course they never did and have made billions in the interim. Now the producers want to apply that same pay cut to internet media.


The writers want that pay cut rectifiied by doubling it and applying that same % to new media as well. I think that's fair.
 
#103 ·
Actually it is my belief that the writers are the most underpaid in Hollywood. The success of a show is more dependent on its writers and less on its actors. The actors are just more visable.


There is a side benefit of paying the writers more and the actors less. When Hollywood throws around money on causes. The people doing the throwing would have ideas and not be airheads.


Rick R
 
#104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_R /forum/post/12217129


There is a side benefit of paying the writers more and the actors less. When Hollywood throws around money on causes. The people doing the throwing would have ideas and not be airheads.

I believe that most actors who adopt worthy "causes" do so because they've researched the matter and feel strongly that lending their celebrity to the cause will give it needed publicity. They're no smarter or more stupid than anyone else (Paris Hilton and her ilk excepted) and it's ridiculous to label them that way. They undoubtedly feel they're doing the right thing, same as anyone else who champions a worthy cause. At least they're doing something to try to make the world a better place, unlike those who do nothing but hurl insults at them. To lump them all together and call them "airheads" is really a pretty airheaded comment.
 
#105 ·
Maybe I'm missing something here but here's how I see this. I don't think the writers should get residuals at all. We don't pay software developers residuals for the software they write. Now I don't know if the writers are underpaid or not, but I feel they should negotiate either an hourly rate or flat fee like all the other people in this country. The other thing I see with unions in general is they promote mediocrity. You need some competition to push you to be the best you can be.
 
#106 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12217350


Maybe I'm missing something here but here's how I see this. I don't think the writers should get residuals at all. We don't pay software developers residuals for the software they write.

I don't think this is a good comparison. Shows and songs are completed and the writer's job is done. Software is often in endless development and that leads to complicated issues. For example should a software engineer who we fired last year still get residuals from our product after I've ripped out a huge chunk of his horrific code out of our product?


Oh, uh, that was a completely hypothetical example of course.
 
#107 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12217350


Maybe I'm missing something here but here's how I see this. I don't think the writers should get residuals at all. We don't pay software developers residuals for the software they write. Now I don't know if the writers are underpaid or not, but I feel they should negotiate either an hourly rate or flat fee like all the other people in this country. The other thing I see with unions in general is they promote mediocrity. You need some competition to push you to be the best you can be.

The model is different from the others you're familiar with. Writers wouldn't make it without residuals, since their jobs are intermittent, often with long periods between paying gigs. You have to make at least $30k a year to qualify for health care and fully half of the guild members never even make it to that level. You should do a little more research into their situation before you make comparisons with other fields that aren't valid.
 
#108 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12217350


Maybe I'm missing something here but here's how I see this. I don't think the writers should get residuals at all. We don't pay software developers residuals for the software they write. Now I don't know if the writers are underpaid or not, but I feel they should negotiate either an hourly rate or flat fee like all the other people in this country. The other thing I see with unions in general is they promote mediocrity. You need some competition to push you to be the best you can be.

There's a difference between works of fiction and software...that's not an apples to oranges comparison. Most corporate software is developed by a HUGE team of programmers, each of whom tackle a specific task. They are paid to do that task only.


That might be the case on a very few programs/movies, but for the most part it is one or two people who envision EVERYTHING from start to finish. Very had to film a blank page. Most studio execs couldn't write their way out of a wet bag. Their 'talent' is recognizing talent in others and backing projects financially.


I think that studios should get the bulk of the profits...they provide the $$ and take the risk. The writers are currently getting a percentage of percentage that works out to LESS than pennies on the dollar.


Novelists are paid residuals, musicians are paid residuals...what's the difference?


For a better explanation of what the writers are striking for, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk
 
#109 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy /forum/post/12217762


The model is different from the others you're familiar with. Writers wouldn't make it without residuals, since their jobs are intermittent, often with long periods between paying gigs. You have to make at least $30k a year to qualify for health care and fully half of the guild members never even make it to that level. You should do a little more research into their situation before you make comparisons with other fields that aren't valid.

Well if they are out of work for long periods of time or aren't making enough money maybe they should find another line of work. It's supply and demand. I just don't think you should get paid for your entire life for something you did once unless you own it. The writers don't own the TV show or movie the studios do. They should pay the writers a fee to write the show. Now that fee could (and probably should) be a lot more then what they make now. That should be on a case by case basis.
 
#110 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12217350


Maybe I'm missing something here but here's how I see this. I don't think the writers should get residuals at all. We don't pay software developers residuals for the software they write. Now I don't know if the writers are underpaid or not, but I feel they should negotiate either an hourly rate or flat fee like all the other people in this country. The other thing I see with unions in general is they promote mediocrity. You need some competition to push you to be the best you can be.

I think this is a great analogy and a very strong argument against the writers' perspective.
 
#111 ·
As a software developer I think it is a very good agument for me to get residuals on my more creative work. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.



- Tom
 
#112 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12218061


Well if they are out of work for long periods of time or aren't making enough money maybe they should find another line of work. It's supply and demand. I just don't think you should get paid for your entire life for something you did once unless you own it. The writers don't own the TV show or movie the studios do. They should pay the writers a fee to write the show. Now that fee could (and probably should) be a lot more then what they make now. That should be on a case by case basis.

I agree.
The writers should be paid more-- a lot more.


However, even though I tend to agree with you, it's difficult to defend the point that the owner of the product has the right to continue to profit with no strings attached.


The reason this is difficult to defend is due to how the economics are currently structured. You cannot continue to give residuals to some, sayactors- and then, not offer a fair annuity to the writer.


There also can be cases made for paying residuals to other artisans (involved with production) who possess creative talents and are integral to the final product- Directors, Cinematographers, Editors-- to name three professions. Where does it stop?


This is a tough topic. The bottom line is the writers deserve more money but it should come out of the current kitty. Unfortunately, I know there will be more fingers grabbing through my pockets.
 
#113 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12218061


Well if they are out of work for long periods of time or aren't making enough money maybe they should find another line of work. It's supply and demand. I just don't think you should get paid for your entire life for something you did once unless you own it. The writers don't own the TV show or movie the studios do. They should pay the writers a fee to write the show. Now that fee could (and probably should) be a lot more then what they make now. That should be on a case by case basis.

Do you apply this same reasoning to authors and song writers? After all, they also tend to depend on a stream of ongoing payments from published works, and I suspect that is where the model for payment for script writers came from.


For that matter, how do you feel about the corporations continuing to profit from old works that are under copyright for year after year? After all, if it is wrong for writers to profit from work that they did once for year after year, why is it somehow appropriate for Disney to continue profiting from work that was done 70 or 80 years ago?


It just seems like this is a substantially more complex issue than you seem to acknowledge in your posts...
 
#114 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond /forum/post/12219933


..is it somehow appropriate for Disney to continue profiting from work that was done 70 or 80 years ago?

Well the simple answer to that is yes-- Disney owns it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond /forum/post/12219933


It just seems like this is a substantially more complex issue than you seem to acknowledge in your posts...
Yes it is.
 
#115 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iteki /forum/post/12217866



Novelists are paid residuals, musicians are paid residuals...what's the difference?


For a better explanation of what the writers are striking for, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk

I don't think any of them should get residuals unless they forked over some cash to get the project off the ground.


I watched the video. Too me it sounds like there are too many writers if 48% of them are unemployed. Why should they get paid for something they did 20 years ago. I'm a civil engineer. If a flood happens and wipes out a building and they decide to rebuild it using the same plans as before I don't get paid again.
 
#116 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond /forum/post/12219933


...how do you feel about the corporations continuing to profit from old works that are under copyright for year after year? After all, if it is wrong for writers to profit from work that they did once for year after year, why is it somehow appropriate for Disney to continue profiting from work that was done 70 or 80 years ago?

They are spending stockholders moneynew money not 70 or 80 years old cash-- promoting and marketing a product bought and paid for.
 
#117 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond /forum/post/12219933


Do you apply this same reasoning to authors and song writers? After all, they also tend to depend on a stream of ongoing payments from published works, and I suspect that is where the model for payment for script writers came from.


For that matter, how do you feel about the corporations continuing to profit from old works that are under copyright for year after year? After all, if it is wrong for writers to profit from work that they did once for year after year, why is it somehow appropriate for Disney to continue profiting from work that was done 70 or 80 years ago?


It just seems like this is a substantially more complex issue than you seem to acknowledge in your posts...

Yes the same applies to authors and song writers, and actors, and performers too. Unless you have a financial interest in what you are creating I don't think you should get residuals. If you do have a financial interest I think it's OK. I don't really like the current copyright law. I think stuff stays copyrighted way too long. A lot of the time you can't even find who the copyright holder is until your handed a lawsuit.


It is a complex issue. I know Hollywood doesn't give a rats ass about what I think so I just hope they get this resolved soon and don't pass the increases to me. I feel I pay enough for content already.
 
#118 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12220175


Yes the same applies to authors and song writers, and actors, and performers too. Unless you have a financial interest in what you are creating I don't think you should get residuals.

If they get residuals/royalies then by definition they have a financial interest in what they're creating.
 
#119 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12220001


I don't think any of them should get residuals unless they forked over some cash to get the project off the ground.


I watched the video. Too me it sounds like there are too many writers if 48% of them are unemployed. Why should they get paid for something they did 20 years ago. I'm a civil engineer. If a flood happens and wipes out a building and they decide to rebuild it using the same plans as before I don't get paid again.

LOL this conversation is starting to sound like the "I don't believe in tipping" conversation from Reservoir Dogs. :)
 
#122 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12223140


By financial interest I mean they put up some of the money to create the show.

Not to be harsh but you don't understand how TV shows are developed. For one thing, most shows are developed on spec and then sold to networks/production companies. That, in effect, is the writer putting up their own time (and money) to develop the show. Secondly, in regards to writers actually putting money into the production, no production company would want that as they are not going to dilute their own stake in the show. The pilot of something like Lost can cost $6-8 million dollars. Do you think Disney needs or wants a few dollars from a writer contributed to that total? What you're saying shows no sense of how the business works.
 
#123 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12223140


By financial interest I mean they put up some of the money to create the show.

Then "financial interest" is simply the wrong term to use. Writers do have a financial interest in the success of a show. Have you never been laid off?


In any case what we believe is irrelevant. How writers or musicians or any employees are compensated is between them and their employer. I don't think it's anyone's business but mine (and Uncle Sam's) about how my employer pays me or how much royalties I'm getting from some song I wrote a few years ago.
 
#124 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckytwn /forum/post/12224526


Not to be harsh but you don't understand how TV shows are developed. For one thing, most shows are developed on spec and then sold to networks/production companies. That, in effect, is the writer putting up their own time (and money) to develop the show. Secondly, in regards to writers actually putting money into the production, no production company would want that as they are not going to dilute their own stake in the show. The pilot of something like Lost can cost $6-8 million dollars. Do you think Disney needs or wants a few dollars from a writer contributed to that total? What you're saying shows no sense of how the business works.

Well maybe that way has to change. Isn't that the point of the strike. The writers feel they are getting the shaft. And look at how many other professions are going to be effected. Just look at how many people are going to be laid off because the writers are striking and the actors won't cross the line. People are being forced to either side with the writers or side with the rest of the staff. How do you think Jay Leno's makeup artist or videographer is going to feel towards him because he sided with the writers and they got laid off.
 
#125 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl /forum/post/12224818


Then "financial interest" is simply the wrong term to use. Writers do have a financial interest in the success of a show. Have you never been laid off?


In any case what we believe is irrelevant. How writers or musicians or any employees are compensated is between them and their employer. I don't think it's anyone's business but mine (and Uncle Sam's) about how my employer pays me or how much royalties I'm getting from some song I wrote a few years ago.

No I have never been laid off. I joined the company I work for when I was 18. I'm 29 now and I still work for the same company. They have been good to me.
 
#126 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder /forum/post/12224919


Just look at how many people are going to be laid off because the writers are striking and the actors won't cross the line. People are being forced to either side with the writers or side with the rest of the staff. How do you think Jay Leno's makeup artist or videographer is going to feel towards him because he sided with the writers and they got laid off.

The same strike happened back in 1988 with no lasting repercussions. These people are adults (most of them anyway). Everyone knows it's about business and nothing personal.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top