The Hot Blog

Good heavens, david, we're all fighting down below and you're number crunching again! This stuff is too sober - join in the fray!

A guy named BROOKS. Obviously has no idea that "WE'S GOTS TO GET PAID", is a more apt statement in terms of this possible strike. However, a strike could be a bad move because of ONE WORD... RESENTMENT.

If people perceived to have MONEY, decide to go on strike, then RESENTMENT will creep into the news cycles for a couple of days. People will complain about over-paid actours and all of this other non-sense that has nothing to do with studios refusing -- or unwilling -- to make people outside of THEMSELVES... partners.

Resentment in the end could make a a NECESSARY and NEEDED Strike. Look like some sort of cash grab, and BROOKS plays into that notion. Thus the crux of the problem. Ah the finances of Hollywood. They are a soap opera all their own.

Let's not play that tired game about what outsiders are going to think about this, especially for us writers.

We are getting hosed and it's time it stopped. Rank and file in every union is getting squeezed to fucking death while an ocean of DVD money has flowed past the middle class members (very apt term here). It is in the entire industry's best interest to stop this exodus of veteran talent.

This double whammy would-be strike could very well turn into a blood bath that makes '88 look like a student walk-out, but is that really a bad thing? As the man says with Sam & Warren's words: "What this town needs is an enema!"

FYI - by "exodus of veteran talent" I'm speaking to both writers and actors. And while the craft people don't have a dog in this fight, they too are suffering the same loss of experienced people tired of struggling.

"Movie script writers get an upfront payment, now at least $1 million for a major film, according to studio executives."

THAT'S what the studio execs are quietly telling the press? Hilarious.

i'll be honest here. as a writer who has just gotten his feet wet, i get a little tired of the 'why not me?' i hear from other writers. i realize you have to know what you're worth and not be afraid to ask for it. at the same time, i hear people who made 300,000 off a script complaining that they are 'getting hosed'. if that's getting hosed, sign me up.

but i grew up poor and don't live in l.a. for a reason. i'm happy just to get the work and have it made.

i don't know how you l.a. guys do it. i'm lucky to have people working for me who find me consistent work and i have to go out a few weeks a year, but i get to spend the rest of my time away from the rat race. i think if i lived in l.a., i'd hate this business with a burning passion. as is, i still get to enjoy being part of the business without having to swim in it every day.

Good stuff, Dave. The NYTimes should be embarrassed. Brooks could not be more uninformed.

Craig Mazin destroys this article on his blog --

http://www.theartfulwriter.com/

anghus - you are the studios' wet dream of a writer: the guy who is just happy to be making a little money and not painting houses in the Southern heat (something I am very familiar with) and doesn't understand the big picture.

I didn't exactly grow up with swimming pools and summer homes. That sentiment will probably be the most naive thing I read all week from someone apparently in the industry.

It has nothing to do with where you actually live, but how much you value your work in the marketplace.

i do find it funny that someone who writes for a newspaper would describe another industry as 'crumbling'

so let me ask this. why do so many journalists keep claiming the industry is circling the drain?

call it what you will sir.

i'm not claiming all other writers grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth. i'm just saying that i have a hard time looking at 300 grand as being miserable about it.

and that, to me, is what it's all about. im not saying writers don't deserve more. i'm just saying that when i hear people bitching about money, it makes me enjoy the industry a lot less, and i have a hard time hanging out with other aspiring writers because sweet lord do these guys have entitlement issues.

again, im not saying writers don't deserve better. but it gets to a point where the whole thing becomes uninteresting to me because i write for the enjoyment of it. when it becomes about bitching and screaming and shit like 'i got hosed', it's not fun anymore. i'd rather have fun with it and get paid then bitch about it all the time while holding out my hands for more.

i guess for me, i'll take a smaller check for peace of mind. if you want to call that naive, then fine. but personally, i like what i do, i'm happy with what i'm getting. more would be great, but im not going to get an ulcer over it.

i value my work just fine, thanks.

just to sum up, i don't think anyone is wrong here, i just know that i'm happy to be a working writer, and all the bitching and moaning takes away from my enjoyment of it. i'd rather write for nothing than have the experience made miserable by people slamming fists on the table and telling me i'm stupid or naive for taking a six figure check with a smile.

i remember people used to say 'find something you love and do it for the rest of your life', and they apply that mantra to careers. but what i've learned is tying what you love into a paycheck is just a bad, bad idea. it takes away from the enjoyment of it.

anghus, i get what you're saying. i'm not a writer by profession. i am in the industry. i love what i do and the enjoyment doesn't go away by making a buck off it.

i too would not sneeze at 300 grand. but you see some guys that have less to do with the work than the writer or actor (a producer in name only, say) make over a million for that work. it would stick in your craw too.

back to the article:

"take the money and run?!" what money exactly would he be referring to?

the whole thing is insulting and ridiculous. and, sadly, very typical of new york times reporting. i mean, he cites economists, for christ sake! these guys have any connection to the film industry? don't know. article doesn't bother to say.

and, of course, he conveniently forgets that book authors get residuals too.

Where are the words "Collective Bargaining" in this piece rather than "Death From Above"?

Come back and tell us how much $300K (minus taxes and agents fees) is when its the only thing you see for 8 - 10 years.

actually, roy (and i'm on your side here) 8 years that translates to $37500/year. a lot of families live on that as is outside the industry.

If you're only able to sell one piece for a 300K fee over 8-10 years, clearly you're in the wrong profession and need to find a new job.

There is no question that the writers have not been getting their fair share of DVD revenues, but it's also clear that the writers have rolled over in every collective bargaining negotiation in recent memory.

They have a bad deal because they signed a bad deal. Do they even have the leverage to make a good deal now? Or the intenstinal fortitude?

It seems of utmost importance for the WGA to work with SAG if they are going to strike, because SAG is much more powerful and if SAG strikes, it will cripple the industry. If the WGA strikes, lots of movies wills till get made by non-WGA singatories and life will go on....they will just make a lot more reality shows than they already are, and WGA writers will just cost themselves jobs...

one script every 8-10 years? good god. yeah, im with carpetmuncher. if youre selling one script every 8-10 years, then you're obviously in need of better representation.

i can't even fathom that. i don't know what it's like for other writers. i'm usually having one shopped while i'm working on two more.

i guess if i sat around waiting for unions to get the rate so high that i'd only need to sell one script every 8-10 years to get by, then i'd be all set. as is, i'll stick to what i'm doing.

hogan

i get what you're saying. i'm by no means saying that you can't like what you do and make a buck. im just saying that if you really love something, in my case writing, that trying to make all your money from it can take something away from the enjoyment of it all. it's not always the case.

and i can tell you that producers have always made more on projects than i have as a writer. but again, i could sit around and fume about how the idea was mine, and therefore i should make more, or i can just enjoy the ride and hope the film turns out well.

like i said, sense of entitlement. if you're going to sit there and fume (not you per se, just generalizing) over what you don't have, rather than what you do, you're probably not going to be that happy working in the entertainment industry.

Just curious, Anghus. Are you a member of the WGA?

By the way, it turns out old Brooksie is a failed screenwriter. Gee, I wonder if he has an axe to grind with working writers?

I know for a fact that this is NOT the position I'm meant to have, but I agree with pretty much everything anghus has said. I am, in fact, a member of the WGA and fucking love my job. Writing movies and TV-movies is part of it, but being a screenwriter has also led to work in videogames and comic books, which I couldn't enjoy more.

Yes, it does weird me out when a screenwriter starts talking about how a mini-major won't pay their quote. I did a lot of factory work in Houston putting my ass through undergrad and convenience store graveyard-shifted through grad school and while I understand logically the difference between $500,000 and $425,000, I still find it flabbergasting when someone walks away from a negotiation on a really fucking cool project that would be AMAZING to work on over money.

I mean, I GET IT - this is a business, you're supposed to take it as a business, but when a million-dollar-a-job screenwriter tells me that he wouldn't even consider writing in videogames as the money is so low, it's hard to not say, "BUT DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH FRIGGIN' FUN THEY ARE TO WRITE?!?"

But it's a business.

So go ahead, say all you will about being a "studio's favorite" for taking what might be considered "low money" and "just being happy to be here." Maybe after a few more years, a few more projects I love dropping dead or a few more crappy films and I'll think differently. But right now, here in the beginning of my career, I'm still in that honeymoon phase of: HOLY SHIT - MY JOB IS WRITING MOVIES!!!

And I've been making a living off of it for four years, so I'm not real sure when it wears off, but every day - at this point - is still a new high.

But this is probably why I should just stay out of the whole WGA/strike debate in the first place.

I know for a fact that this is NOT the position I'm meant to have, but I agree with pretty much everything anghus has said. I am, in fact, a member of the WGA and fucking love my job. Writing movies and TV-movies is part of it, but being a screenwriter has also led to work in videogames and comic books, which I couldn't enjoy more.

Yes, it does weird me out when a screenwriter starts talking about how a mini-major won't pay their quote. I did a lot of factory work in Houston putting my ass through undergrad and convenience store graveyard-shifted through grad school and while I understand logically the difference between $500,000 and $425,000, I still find it flabbergasting when someone walks away from a negotiation on a really fucking cool project that would be AMAZING to work on over money.

I mean, I GET IT - this is a business, you're supposed to take it as a business, but when a million-dollar-a-job screenwriter tells me that he wouldn't even consider writing in videogames as the money is so low, it's hard to not say, "BUT DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH FRIGGIN' FUN THEY ARE TO WRITE?!?"

But it's a business.

So go ahead, say all you will about being a "studio's favorite" for taking what might be considered "low money" and "just being happy to be here." Maybe after a few more years, a few more projects I love dropping dead or a few more crappy films and I'll think differently. But right now, here in the beginning of my career, I'm still in that honeymoon phase of: HOLY SHIT - MY JOB IS WRITING MOVIES!!!

And I've been making a living off of it for four years, so I'm not real sure when it wears off, but every day - at this point - is still a new high.

But this is probably why I should just stay out of the whole WGA/strike debate in the first place.

Damn double-post

The debate -- or what the guild may strike over -- isn't about upfront money, SJRubenstein.

You write video games, which is very cool. It would be even cooler if you got paid residuals if a game you created sold ten million copies and was then turned into a TV show or feature film. As things are right now, you wouldn't get paid a cent other than what you negotiated up front.

That's the thing - videogames are a different animal than films as, frankly, the title of "producer" is often given to in-house guys who, on a movie, would get "director," "producer" and "story by." Oftentimes, they're the ones you would consider the game's "creator," not the writer brought in to stitch it together.

Though I've never worked in animation, I've heard it compared to that process where the actual credited writer is often quite secondary in the creative process to those who originated the idea (unless, of course, said writer originated said idea).

And I really don't mean to agitate. I understand the issues the guild is talking about striking over and can't imagine the residual system going away, but do - in fact - feel that sometimes the rhetoric sounds like those major leaguers who cry over their millions (damn you, Scott Boras!) while getting to play a game millions love.

I agree with Anghus and SJR - As long as I was assured of being able to pay off my student loans over a period of, say, 30 years, I would be happy to never make a dime of additional profit and have a career as a screenwriter.

Okay, substitute "show you created for the net" for video game, which really isn't the best example. Before you know it, everybody is going to be watching TV via the net. Right now, there is no residual formula. That is a definite concern and it's something the WGA thinks needs to be addressed. If you wrote a show for say, forty grand, and ten million people a week were watching it via the net, it was the next Friends or something, wouldn't you want to see something more than that forty grand?

"If you wrote a show for say, forty grand, and ten million people a week were watching it via the net, it was the next Friends or something, wouldn't you want to see something more than that forty grand?"

You certainly would. But then you'd have to come up with the source of that extra money since your internet site probably doesn't have the sponsors that an on-air television series would have. Other than a DVD set of your series (or direct, for-pay downloads), where would the money come from? Viewers don't deliver a bounty of riches in this niche of the business - sponsors do.

I was talking about a studio produced and owned show distributed via the net. Sorry for the confusion.

A couple of points -

I always have this argument with people about major league players. If they weren't being paid so much, that profit would all be going to the owners. Is that "more" fair?

Thing is, major league sports have smartly created minimums and caps that are fair to both sides. As a result, the rest of the negotiations are much easier.

The "major league players" in this scenario are the major movie stars, producers, agents and some directors. They all negotiate pay in a uniquely advantaged position. The idea that the top 1% of writers define this whole thing is silly.

Yes, $200,000 a project is a nice living. And any writer who earns that is doing well. But for one thing, they would be lucky to take half of that home. For another, the opportunity to earn generally means that every one of those jobs means a commitment of at least six months. With that kind of money, it means the director, the producer, and the star will make multiples of that money and have back-end, often gross points, to boot.

Oh yes... and the writer will often have part of that money in a payment upon production and/or getting credit.

But the biggest issue in all of this is not wga residuals (actors, who will be the center of the strike are a different story) but the various ways studios use the product after theatrical, which is evolving. Writers, like everyone else, are paid in context. The unions need to address that context in a real way before they go years into a CBA not getting paid for whatever delivery system there is, internet, HiDef or whatever. And the value of product to the corporation is not all in cash. So even if accurate accounting could happen, it would not show the corporate value of, say, a deal with NetFlix or Wal-Mart or the added value of a deal with whomever to support streaming repeats or the use of a movie as a giveaway to promote and sell a newer movie... etc, etc, etc...

It is a game of the people with the most money to claim those with less are somehow gumming up the works with minor things like residuals... especially as the problem pre-profit. The problem there is the gross point players... but those are negotiated deals that "they" can't blame on the unions, so they aren't mentioned. Without Tom Cruise eating $70 million himself, Mission Impossible III would have been profitable. If he ate half of that, it would have been profitable. And the, what, $500,000 in lifetime residuals on the film... thats the problem?

All that said, the actors are in a much worse position. If the WGA just raised the minimum for studio work to $100,000 - won't happen - they would go a long way to changing the landscape in a workable way.

SAG really has a dying middle class who really do live on residuals. If an actor makes triple scale to do a spot on Grey's Anatomy for three weeks and those episodes end up being worth $30 million in revenue to the studio, the producer, the lead actors, the agents who made the packaging deal years earlier, etc, what reasonable person is going to argue that some relatively tiny residual payment is not reasonable? Who would argue that only the ownership class should get paid? Who wouldn't argue that the actor who is not a big star is the most vulnerable player of them all?

OT : Rosario Dawson says no to kevin Smith and his "Zack and Miri Make A Porno"... I just wonder if this comment from Smith below about HOSTEL had anything to do with it.

"I keep trying to, like, [temper] everyone's expectations, because it's not horror like 'Hostel.' It's not gore porn," he insisted. "The best comparison I think of is 'The Shining.' It's going for that kind of mood. It's a very unsettling film."

Eli Roth and Dawson are an item. Roth hates that term. Think she got some pillow advice?

Mason,

i just went from indie boy to represented writer this year and and in the process of being guilded from a project in development.

"But this is probably why I should just stay out of the whole WGA/strike debate in the first place."

dave was not kidding when he said 'be careful what you post, you never know who might be reading'

i've gotten 4 emails/messages regarding my comments in this post, all from people who work in the industry.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: