WGA (writers') Strike - where shows stand - Page 5

Or accept a stake in the show as full or partial payment for their investment of time working as a writer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Try explaining this to the kids who want stuff for Christmas. Sorry Johnny we're tight on money because mom got fired because Jay Leno sided with the writers.

Very interesting conversation going on here!

For those of you who are in support of the WGA, there's a great site that's trying to organize fans in doing whatever they can to help out. If you're interested, here's the link:

http://www.fans4writers.com/

They also have a forum where fans of all kinds of different shows are trying to get organized.

It's no different than any other industry that has unions or employee walkouts, there's nothing new or evil going on here, it's business as usual in the USA.

This is the choice you make working in a union system. Some parts of the economy are very productive without unions (i.e., Information Technology).

Unfortunately, working in a union system is seldom a choice if you want to work in film or TV. Unless you work for some of the very fewer non-union shops, you can't get a job without being in the union.

Personally, this is an example of just how unproductive unions have made things in this industry. Just look at ESPN (non-union) vs. ABC (union): who's more productive?

First of all this isn't just a writers strike. That is because whatever the writers get will then be demanded by the actors etc.

Why they get residuals at is is the nature of the entertainment business model. Two thirds of movies do not make money. As a result the participants are paid less with the understanding that if it is successful they will be paid residuals.

Just my $.02.

Rick R

Yeah but how creative are the movie getting to say the movie didn't make money so they can get out of paying the residuals.

Wait a second. Are you saying if I want to work for ABC I would be forced to join a union or they would not hire me? That is such BS! I should be free to work wherever I want without being forced into a union.

What is the news with Las Vegas? How many episodes did they complete?

I don't know that that is a fair comparison, off the top, one is a pay channel the other free OTA, and they have different programming. I would think it would be too hard to make a point by point comparison of the two and how unions have affected one over the other.

There's bad unions and good unions, unreasonable demands and reasonable demands. As agregjones notes, if you choose to work in a particular environment, oh well...

Correct, the writers just happen to be the first at the plate regarding these issues, the others will follow.

The point of the strike is to try and get the writers a little bigger piece of the pie. Nobody is suggesting that there is going to be a major change in how TV shows are developed and more importantly, paid for. Again, I understand that you're not in the industry but the suggestion that writers are going be personally involved in financing network TV shows is just not feasible or realistic.

That is incorrect. Whether or not a film makes money has nothing to do with residuals (though the studios would like it to be the case that no residuals are paid until the film breaks even).

Residuals start being paid as soon as the first dollar is made on the project.

You are mistaking the residuals with back-end payment based on net profits (what most people sign for unless they are a major star and command gross point). A back-end payment based on net profits is determined by how successful the film is. Writers/directors/actors do not automatically get back-end clauses in their deals, that is negotiated on a contract by contract basis and has nothing to do with the collective bargaining agreements.

This is a good point, but there is a flaw in the system. The creator of a show, say a Shonda Rhimes, David Kelly, Brian Fuller, Mathew Weiner, or Joss Whedon, develops their ideas on spec. They spend months or years working on a story premise and characters that would be engaging in an ongoing series. And for that effort, creating a franchise that makes a lot of money for a studio, they absolutely deserve some kind of residuals to share in the success. Without their initial efforts, the show wouldn't exist.

Where the system breaks down, I think, is that once a show is established, you have a room full of writers, all getting paid a very nice weekly salary (the minimum is more than $3,000/week), bouncing ideas off of each other. But the residual scale is the same for the episodes they write as for the creator of the show. At that point, I'm not sure the 8th writer in the room is really contributing more to the show than, say, the camera operator, production designer, wardrobe supervisor, gaffer, key grip, and construction foreman, none of whom make residuals, and get paid a lot less each week.

The same goes for features. Absolutely, the original creator of the Transformers should be cashing in on residuals for the success of that franchise over 20 years. But, should the guy who wrote the most recent version of that movie get the same residuals scale as the creator? That's a tough call. The characters and their motivations already existed. Plus, nobody went to see that movie for the script. The story was universally panned. What people went to see and made the movie a huge hit was giant transforming robots in a live action movie, and none of the animators and effects artists who brought those characters to life gets a dime after their weekly salary.

The whole residual issue, I think, needs a rethink. It's hard to imagine that the 2nd AD should get residuals, but not the heads of most departments. Likewise, it is tough to believe the director of a pilot episode should collect residuals on every episode filmed thereafter, whether he was involved after the pilot or not. I think there is room for discussion about who, and when, people are elligible and for how much as the industry evolves. It's just not the same business it was 50, or even 20 years ago. So why assume the same business model is automatically valid?

I generally support the writers, and I wish them well. But I think there are merits to both arguments, and the issue is too complex to just automatically assume that the writers are 100% right on every issue because they are on strike against big corporations. These guys need to talk to each other about where the business is going in the 21st century, and come up with a new model that works for everyone.

I generally agree with your weel thought-out points, vfxp -- and something should be done about the actors, agents and others who get credit (and major payment) as executive producers, associate producers, etc.

They contribute little if anything but get paid every time the show airs.

I'm an indie producer so I can certainly agree that some aspects of the residual system need to be rethought. I was responding to the earlier comment, which as I pointed out, was just incredibly way off base in regards to a suggestion that writers would be involved in financing TV shows. My remarks should not otherwise be construed to support or not support one side or the other.

These writers sitting in their home do work at their own pleasure and still make way over $200,000/year while average Joe straggle some times 12 hours a day work hardly to make ends need.

Everywhere I've read indicates the average yearly income of a WGA member is between $30,000-$50,000. And they live in L.A. and NY where the cost of living is very high. Sure, there are some writers who have other duties, such as producing, and they are doing very well, but most of them are not rich. At all.

Irrelevant.

Pretty much. This is the response I got several years back when I applied for a position at the "Late Show with David Letterman". This was for a staff studio camera operator position:

"Thank you for your letter regarding a position at LATE SHOW.

As you may know, the position about which you inquired must be filled by a union member. These are posts hired by CBS through the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Late Show is prohibited from using freelance technicians.

Your interest in LATE SHOW is appreciated. Good luck with your future endeavors"

I ended up working on a non-IBEW, non-IATSE, non-WGA and non-SAG show. It was probably for the best since I'm still working despite the strike.

So would you also say that someone shouldn't do something to make mining safer with all the recent accidents that have occurred? I'm mean, if those folks choose to work in a particular environment, oh well...

I know that's an extreme comparison, but (while I'm not placed in any danger by them), if my career and livelihood can potentially be hurt by a union that I'm not a part of going on strike, that's bogus. TV jobs are tough to get. You can't just go to the next studio down the block and look for a sign in the window that says "help wanted".

However, I will agree with your first sentence. Some inion reps and even whole unions are better than others. Personally, felt dirty and used after once being a member of IATSE.

Which is why the certification of the unions themselves should bear far greater scrutiny, to ensure that the government isn't providing a free pass to engage in collusion that is being abused beyond the original intention of the laws created to grant de facto licenses for collective bargaining.

How sad. And how different than: Sorry Sally, we're tight on money because the CEO of the company mommy worked for outsourced her job to India and fired her because she didn't have a union to collectively bargain on her behalf. But don't worry about him; he got a 13 million dollar bonus for eliminating Mommy and 10,000 other Mommy's jobs. Oh, and the company's stock tanked anyway; someday you'll know what that means. Here, have a piece of coal; Mommy's working in the mines now.


Right. That's essentially what a risidual is.