The Hot Blog

Heat stated; "But this whole 4 cents versus $19 thing just pisses me off!" Oh it can piss you off all the live long day Heat, but 4 cents is a horrible rate. You can go on about what it takes to make these DVDs. You can go on about the cost. It simply does not change the fact that writers only receive 4 cents of a 20 buck product. That's a statement -- even without the real facts behind it -- that sticks with people like cds only costing 3 cents to make.

Eh. If it was set at eight cents way back when, we'd still be sitting back saying what a shitty deal it is and how we never should've agreed to it.

At the Edwards cinema in Valencia I walked up to the box office to buy a ticket to a matinee showing of AMERICAN GANGSTER and I noticed that not only had the cost of a matinee ticket gone up to 9.50, but that matinee pricing was cut off at 4:00 p.m. I asked the clerk as I was buying my ticket when the price change had occured and why, and he said to me with a face as straight as a ruler, "It's because of the writer's strike."

Momentarily putting aside my anger over the fact that a matinee showing costs 9.50 and doesn't exist after 4:00 p.m., I think it's crazy how pervasive the strike is among non-industry folks here. Everybody is either talking about it or reading about it. Craig Mazin is apparently a star of the internet now, as is Nikki Finke, because I swear to you I hear their names from total strangers every day now. People, generally, know the issues even if their understand isn't the greatest.

"But 10,000 people or 50,000 people or 100,000 people watching a TV show online is not the same as 10 million watching it in broadcast."

Which is why this is all done with PERCENTAGES, David. Not fixed rates, which as you say, the Studios are apparently all in love with.

2.5% of 10,000 people or 2.5% of 10 million people downloading is still 2.5% that can be factored in ahead of time, unlike some random fixed rate.

We've been over this. It reminds me of Jon Stewart mockingly saying "The internet? It's too new!"

Slightly off but still on topic...

As a professional writer, what bothers me most about the strike at this point are two things...

1. All of the actors coming out in favour of the writers only because they have some vaguely socialist notion that union = right, producer = wrong.

If they really cared about the writers, they would remember that the next time the went on late night chat shows and blamed a poor film on a the script when the writer can't defend him/herself.

They would remember that the next time they want to re-write or change a writer's dialogue and then give an interview saying how poor the script was.

2. Diablo Cody. I have not seen Juno. I have never seen Cody speak or talk. If Juno is 4-star Oscar calibre classic then I will recant.

But based on everything I have read about her and her background it seems like the only reason she is there is because of her colourful background as a stripper and the fact that she bares her ass in her photos. If I was on that line, I would tell her that it is because of an industry that values flash over craft that she is there. That many decent writers do not get a shot and she has no business showing faux 'solidarity' for the cause.

Again, if Juno is genius, I will recant. But up till now, all I see in Cody is a gimmick and a hook.

I'm just sayin'...

When was the last time you saw an actor go on a talk show and blame the failure of their movie on the screenplay?
This is Hollywood, where nobody ever speaks badly of anyone.

So 1% of $19 is 19 cents. And you say the writers get less than 1%, so lets say this is no more than 18 cents. So doing this your way, the writers should say that they're only getting 18 cents per DVD. How is what they're saying really so much worse?

This will probably seem offensive, so I apologize in advance.

And I'll start by saying that if you accept the fact that there should be residuals, 4 cents is unreasonably low.

BUT I have trouble understanding why there should be residuals. For me, it all goes back to the contract. If residuals should be paid, they should be bargained for. A writer signs a contract when he gets hired and gets paid according to that contract.

And just because the producers have the upper hand when negotiating contracts isn't a good enough argument for me. The reason they have the upper hand (if they do) is because there is a surplus of supply and not enough demand. Too many writers, not enough jobs. Well - that's a cost of being a writer. Of wanting a job in a business where there's a surplus of supply.

I don't understand why this business should be any different than any other business. If I have a toy company and I enter into a contract with a company in China to make the toys for me - I don't have to pay them any more if the toys they made turn out to be a hit. Or if I decide to start sell ing them in Canada in addition to the United States.

The manufacturer can decide to stop working for me unless I pay them more, but then I either sue them, or renegotiate the contract. Shouldn't be any different in the entertainment biz.

It just doesn't make sense to me. And the fact that residuals aren't dependant on the profitability of a film/television series makes it even worse.

And the argument that the studios are making sooooo much money doesn't work with me either. So what? They paid for the product and took the risk.

Obviously, I'm not a union person. And I'm not a socialist. But I want to understand.

Please. Explain.

Because Paul, you're also providing a service.

As in "Entertainment". And if that service is reused to the profit of others, but not to you, who provided the service, than compensation for that service is not fair.

As a writer and an actor you can find similarities between the crafts; but I'm going to use the analogy of the actor for this purpose because it's easier to understand why these strikes matter in terms of compensation.

When providing Entertainment as a service and content in these times; the arguable "service" part of it can take up inordinate amounts of personal energy and time that only monetary compensation can satiate.

In other words; if you become successful in this Entertainment game, you get famous. And the harsh reality is, once you become famous you can never go back. You NEVER get your privacy back. Even the fade aways get bothered every day. This is the curse for those that get into the game TO BE FAMOUS, rather than those of us who may actually do this because we love the craft.

So, if that success is obtained and once the prison of fame sets in. You want to get paid. You want that money to make sure your personal time, energy and freedom are compensated. And yes, if you can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen and choose to sell insurance instead. That is part of the life you choose. But you still have no idea how intrusive it can be. And if you're broke it sucks. Don't understand what I'm saying? Ask Gary Coleman. He'd be happy to explain it to you. Or, Tom Green, or Emilio Estevez.

It goes the same for writers, in some capacity.

The measure publicity that is required among artists, and the amount of creative energy needed to generate that publicity falls into the line of service and deserves residual compensation.

I thought the YouTube video of the writing staff of The Office summed it up pretty nicely.

Can we stop calling them "producers"? They're corporations. Plain and simple.

An answer to Pauls post above would be that the entertainment business is different from manufacturing (I am far removed from the film industry and am only an avid observer so others will probalby be able to answer this better but I thought I would give it a shot). The chinese manufacturer in your example would be comparible to the company that presses the DVDs, as one is providing tangible goods while the writers are providing intellectual property. You would pay the people who print the Trivial Pursuit game boards differently than you would pay the inventor of the game (who would also want to be compensated when you decide to create a dvd or online version of the game). If you sell a toy to a child you are only selling it once at a retail level in a way that creates revenue. But the studios are selling the intellectual property and creating revenue each time a program or film airs and those that have contributed in the creation of the copyrighted material are legally eligible to receive compensation from each individual sale.

I would say that both sides of the residual issue have a real point.

The idea that is irresistible about a residual system is that resale of the shows/films is a part of the idea of success. And there is little reason to feel that the writer and other talent involved deserve to be paid for success beyond the standard expectation that everyone signed on for.

On the other hand, film and television is assumed to be monetized in a dramatically different way in the era of video/DVD and now electronic transmission.

I would argue that a big hang-up here is that WGA is holding on to the system as it has existed for decades now much as the studios are hanging on to their traditions.

Both sides would be better off, in my opinion, if they were willing to indulge a system that increased initial payments to match or surpass, on average, what is currently paid in residuals on a predictable basis and then a residual for amounts earned above a degree of expectation – studios are calling it “profit” while WGA knows that studios can bury profit far too easily – that should include bigger numbers for DVD after a certain number of units sold and television and internet residuals based on sales.

Of course, there should probably also be a residual system that is based on pay scale. But that’s another conversation.

The big issue for studios is not that they so hate paying writers, but that opening up the fledgling internet business to payouts will spread like wildfire. And at this point, giving the unions position from which to sue the studios for not monetizing it in a way that pays negotiated residuals is a problem. Conversely, until there is a much bigger audience for internet deliver, it is completely possible for the networks and studios to hide almost all the ad revenue they are creating in the network buys… making the percentages worthless.

Of course, agents for showrunners and star actors will not allow the studios and nets to get away with percentage games. The internet is more easily quantifiable than any other medium and you can be 100% sure that agents will demand in the next round of contracts that their people – writers, producers, actors, whatever – will get paid a flat rate for every single showing once that door is open.

I’m not saying that writers shouldn’t get paid. But they have to build reasonable landmarks into any deal they do. And they have to realize that they are opening a door for the entire industry of people who get paid for the reuse of work. What is currently killing the studios is that gross players are being paid based on DVD growth from three years ago that is no longer growing. The squeeze that those studios are putting on both writers and middle-class actors is collateral damage, ugly as that phrase is.

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: