33 Responses to “Why You Should Not Support the WGA Strike”

1. Will says:

   11/18/2007 at 11:37 am

   It made a good point but one thing I wanted to know was how much an average movie writer make. If they were severely underpaid, say only $100,000 while the actors get like 5 million then I think there is a real issue there. To me, I think they are striking because they are underpaid while the company is getting enormous amounts of money.
2. Adam says:

   11/18/2007 at 11:55 am

   What a load of contemptible rubbish. The argument does not stand, when an author of a book has completed his or her manuscript, the publisher pays them for the work, however the author will receive further payments as the book sells, these are the residuals for an author. The same goes for musicians, such as radio plays or advertisement usage.

   Seeing the traffic that this has generated for themovieblog.com, I suspect that this has more to do with going against the grain, drawing in visitors to up the advertising hits, then making a valid argument.
3. Jimbo says:

   11/18/2007 at 12:00 pm

   The point that the video misses is that the WGA and the studios are free to structure their fee arrangement any way that they please, and that the invocation of how things work in “the real world” is misplaced. The residual world IS the real world for the entertainment industry. The easiest way to think about this is that no one wants to take the risk that a particular film/tv show/record etc. will be worth $X, and then find out that it was worth more. That is to say, if we agree that a good script is, say, 5% of the “value” of a good movie, what value do we ascribe to the movie when we don’t whether the public will like it? If the studio pays a writer $500 (w/o residuals) and the movie makes $10,000, then the “bet” worked out, as an economic matter, as the writer provided 5% of the value and got 5% of the return. If the movie makes $20,000, the writer got less than the 5% his script was “worth” i.e., 5%–the writer got screwed, and the studio got a great deal. If the movie made only $5,000, the writer got 10%–MORE than the script was “worth”, and the studio got screwed.

   Essentially, the studio and the writer (and the actors and the director, and a bunch of other people) are going into business–if the movie makes a lot of money, everyone wins, and if it doesn’t everyone loses. As such, one takes a lower payment up front with the promise of sharing in the profits of the business. The dispute is akin to one partner in a partnership thinking that their contributions are not being adequately compensated, AND that the business is not sharing all of the profits of a shared enterprise–as if the business were a real estate partnership where one partner realizes that rent received from the 10th floor is not being shared.

   The analogy of the chair and the restaurant is specious. First, the carpenter and the restaurant could structure their deal any way they wanted. If the residual model was appropriate–i.e., if people may or may not want to come to the restaurant to sit in the amazing chairs etc. and the value of having those chairs was uncertain. This seems unlikely, which brings me to the second point–a chair is a commodity. Residual pricing is not appropriate because people DON’T come to a restaurant just for the chairs, and a chair has a pretty readily ascertainable value. There is no risk of loss on either party if the price is wrong.

   For the record, I am a lawyer by trade, but my father is in the Directors’ Guild (which is not on strike, but would have similar interests). I am writing in more out of frustration with the complete lack of understanding with respect to the basic economics of the Hollywood model than out of allegiance to the DGA, though.
4. Gideon says:

   11/18/2007 at 12:22 pm

   As others have pointed out… It’s NOT the same thing.

   The Chair does not keep generating income. Everyone else in the stream does make residuals – actors, producers, etc… when the work moves to syndication or other media. The writers do get screwed, not only because of how little they make up front, but because on your average DVD the people who make the plastic get more than the writers (way more).

   The Boston Globe had a great article about it..
   http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/15/from_punch_lines_to_picket_lines/?page=1
5. Gnawbert says:

   11/18/2007 at 12:23 pm

   Wow, what a ham handed attempt to repaint the concept of residuals. I would’ve expected to see this on Fox News, albeit with better logic than a freshman business class powerpoint presentation, than on a blog that’s usually against corporate greed.

   The whole ‘chair’ analogy is rubbish. If that chair the carpenter made for the restaurant owner continued to make that owner money, long after the restaurant was closed and the chair was resold and mass produced for pennies on the tens-of-dollars, you’d find a lot of carpenters out their with agents.

   Writing is closer to inventing than hammering some nails and boards together. And if that carpenter invented a chair that made people buy it by the millions, I’d support him getting paid for it every time it sold.
6. dov says:

   11/18/2007 at 12:35 pm

   pointless.. both sides :)
7. Nathaniel says:

   11/18/2007 at 12:38 pm

   Though I get where he’s coming from I too can’t help but think of books.

   I found this put out by some Daily Show writers the best case presented on the side of the WGA.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRHlpEmr0w
8. Erik says:

   11/18/2007 at 12:39 pm

   I suppose themovieblog only accepts a flat rate for its advertising and doesn’t generate more income with more traffic?
9. Hanna says:

   11/18/2007 at 12:39 pm

   It should be noted that in (long ago) negotiations, writers gave up copyright to their works to the studios, as well as (and this is the important part) taking a lower initial salary — because nobody knows if a script is going to make money or not — and this is why they receive residuals. It was a trade-off for lower initial wages in a risky environment.

   Now, if writers continued to hold copyright to their scripts and were paid higher wages for initial scripts, I’d agree with this movie, but they don’t. And there is no way in hell that movie studios, producers, etc are going to allow writers to own copyright on their scripts.

   If you think it’s a good idea for writers to keep the copyright to their scripts (in which case, they’d make heaping bushels of money beyond their wildest dreams in some cases, and none at all in most others), while studios make next to nothing on their single-run of the scripted show, and then having to negotiate directly with the writer for further runs, then we’re talking a strike that’s likely to go on till the sun goes supernova.

   The Movie Blog is misinformed and mistaken on several levels here. Unfortunately, because so many other people are misinformed, it seems to make sense.

   The writers strike could be an opportunity to have a wider conversation on copyright law and how large companies have been using it to enrichen themselves at the cost of society, now that might be a more interesting discussion. But it’s not what’s at stake in this particular strike. That battle was lost long before most of us were born.

   I hope you’ll think about your agreeing with them so quickly when you’ve looked into the situation a little more carefully.

   Love,

   Hanna
10. Alex says:

    11/18/2007 at 12:49 pm

    Why writers should get residuals when, say, gaffers, chair-makers, etc. do not: http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/why-writers-get-residuals

    The WGA’s been willing to negotiate in good faith. The studios are playing hardball because they don’t want to look weak when the Screen Actors Guild’s contract comes up for renegotiation in a few months. Also, they are playing hardball because they are dicks.

    But don’t let that get in the way of not understanding how writers get paid, and why they’re paid that way when Noble Chairmakers Of America are not.
11. Erik says:

    11/18/2007 at 12:58 pm

    I found this video quite condescending (”THIS is how the real world works”). This isn’t like making chairs. To compare screenwriting to making a chair for a restaurant is insulting to good screenwriting. Without a screenplay the whole movie/tv show doesn’t even happen. Locations can’t be chosen, actors have nothing to say, directors have nothing to shoot.

    The advertising money is being made, so you’re either for the huge corporation getting a lot of money, or you’re for the the huge corporation getting a lot of money minus a tiny percentage for the the author to help keep him afloat while creating more works.

    There is absolutely no stability in writing. We don’t get a regular pay check, 401Ks, paid vacations, sick leave– all the things you might get at your 9 to 5 job even when times are slow. The one thing that helps us through these slow times & helps pay for our health insurance is residuals, a tiny amount tied to the success of our work. I think that’s reasonable.

    Here are some interesting counter arguments to explain residuals:

    http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/why-writers-get-residuals

    http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2007/11/why-we-fight-or.html
12. nathan miller says:

    11/18/2007 at 1:26 pm

    Intellectual Property is different then Physical Property and should be handled as such. So the ‘Joe the Carpenter’ story doesn’t entirely apply. But the WGA still isn’t fully in the clear here.
13. Tom says:

    11/18/2007 at 1:37 pm

    PLease do correct me if I’m wrong, but what are we defining as when times are slow for a writer? are we saying the sold one script per year? A script every couple of years? I ask for this clarification because last I was aware, the WGA minimum for a feature lets say is $90,000.00. Thats a hell of a lot more than the chair maker will make for himself and his family in 2-3 years at least. Please don’t say it’s condescending to compare a screenwriter to a carpenter. Thats elitist and unfair to the carpenter, whos artistry you sit on every day when you eat breakfast lunch and dinner, etc.
14. Evan says:

    11/18/2007 at 1:48 pm

    See, I agree with both sides, honestly. It’s the kind of thing where, it’s whatever system they agree to. If they agree to get residuals then work out the system to make it fair. If they agree that they work as a one-off thing, they so be it. Both arguments are very much valid.
15. Adam Nelson says:

    11/18/2007 at 2:06 pm

    While I’m not a huge fan of unionization, I do believe it has its uses in certain areas, and I do support this strike. Regardless of if someone believes in residuals as a “real world” way to make income, the fact of the matter is that many industries work on a residual system, and will continue to do so for a long time in the future.

    The film/TV industry denying residuals for “new world” media (like digital downloads), saying they have little value, while spending billions of dollars to try to make a stake and control digital downloads shows that the writers should be making money off of this.
16. Steve says:

    11/18/2007 at 2:47 pm

    There’s no reason to question the concept of residuals. The NETWORKS aren’t even saying residuals should be done away with, to actors or to writers. This strike is just about the PERCENTAGE that writers should make as residuals and on what media, not whether they should get residuals at all.

    So to make your entire reason for not supporting the strike that you don’t agree with the residual system in general, and then to make this absurd theoretical comparison of a writer, whose work is creative, and a carpenter, whose work product is a physical object that can be sold, is nonsense.

    One could make a similarly absurd argument like this: A carpenter sells a chair and he gets paid one time for it… but a full-time employee of that carpenter’s furniture company gets paid on salary, and makes a set amount per year, no matter HOW many chairs he produces or helps produce! You just can’t compare the way one profession is paid vs. another in all cases, it’s apples and oranges.

    Sounds to me like The Movie Blog’s opinion has been purchased by the networks.

    For reasons to support the strike, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRHlpEmr0w
17. Billy Halsey says:

    11/18/2007 at 6:15 pm

    When has Hollywood ever been part of the real world, seriously? They survive because they take the rest of us away from the real world. Hollywood and DC are their own universes. However…

    Yes screenwriters are vastly underpaid. They deserve a five- to tenfold increase in their pulldown for scripts. When you consider that scripts go for no more than a few hundred thousand for a major blockbuster and a fraction of that for spec scripts and options, there’s a huge disparity.

    Yes screenwriters are entitled to residuals. As others have pointed out, there’s a difference between a film and a chair: One continues to make money based on the merits of the screenwriter’s work (and those of the cast, director, et al.), and the other is a commodity: Any chair could do the work of the chair in the restaurant.

    Equality is the most important thing. If the actors appearing a film receive residuals, then the screenwriters must have them as well. If one does not, then neither should the other.

    As I said above, movies are not commodities. You don’t go to Blockbuster and grab the first DVD on the shelf. You look for something interesting. What makes it interesting? The writing. Ultimately, films are not equal — because of the hard work of the screenwriters: They are the genesis of the movie, the creative spark from which the rest of the film flows.
18. Thomas J. Brown says:

    11/18/2007 at 6:31 pm

    And in case you weren’t paying attention, I’ll repost what two other people have:
    http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/why-writers-get-residuals
19. David says:

    11/18/2007 at 6:47 pm

    To ADAM: An author of books does NOT get paid upon delivery, and later receives sales residuals. An author receives an advance on sales, which is deducted from the figure made from sales. If the book sells more than the advance, then the author will get his percentage, so these are NOT residuals, but a mere percentage of the sales.

    A script writer can negotiate this same type of deal. However, most get paid for their job upon delivery, the way the chair maker gets paid for his chair, or the plumber gets paid for his work. So yeah, it is not so strange that writers do not get residuals on further sales of the movies based upon their scripts. Now, the only way to compensate for such ‘loss’, would be to get a reasonable amount of money for COMPLETING the job, which is not always the case. They should be fighting for that, instead of residuals.

    Ergo; residuals, NO, but a good award for the job, YES.
20. breakaway says:

    11/18/2007 at 9:16 pm

    Needing residuals in hard times? If you make $100,000/yr writing scripts, and you are having hard financial times, you need to learn to budget and live within your means.
21. Don Wilson says:

    11/18/2007 at 9:57 pm

    Flawless video.
22. EKI says:

    11/18/2007 at 10:31 pm

    Comparing a script (which is the very basis for a movie/show) to a chair of a restaurant (which is not one of the main points on going out for dinner) is absurd. You could compare the chair with, maybe, the camera, or the mikes used to film the movie, but NEVER to the script. The script should maybe be compared with that chef’s special secret recipee that keeps having people coming to your restaurant. Don’t pay enouugh to your chef, he’ll go on strike and so will his recipee do.
23. Jeremy Ricketts says:

    11/19/2007 at 12:32 am

    Long live Adam Smith.

    If there is one gas station in 100miles of desert highway, they can and should charge whatever they want. Hopefully, someone else will come along and say “Hey… if I open a gas station across the street and sell for $0.20 less per gallon…. I could make a fortune!” Then what happens? A third gas station opens next to that one and everyone’s prices go down.

    Free markets and self serving interests are better for consumers, better for businesses, better for economies. Free markets win- every time.

    If we can agree to that principle, then it follows that people should push the envelope whenever it is in their interest to do so. So, should the chair maker demand residuals from the restaurant owner? Well he could sure as hell try. I doubt he’d sell many chairs if that was hist strategy though. And chair makers don’t command enough of the furniture market place to band together and push such an agenda. If seems the WGA can band together and demand residuals. Good for them. They should go on strike if they can, and try to get the best deal they can. The studios should do the same. In the end- they WILL find a compromise.

    And if they can’t either one of two things will happen:
    1) Many writers find other jobs and the profession of screen writing will be known as a crappy, low-paying job. Networks will start to dish out shitty reality TV shows because of the lack of solid script writing. Their viewership will decrease even more rapidly than it already is. Other media will rise to the occasion to fill the gap.
    2) The writers get a good deal and set a precedents for other unions to do the same (directors, actors, etc.)

    So, for someone to say that the WGA is not living in the “real world”… they clearly do not understand what a free market economy is. The real world is this: GET WHAT YOU CAN AND NEGOTIATE YOUR ASS OFF. My advice to studios? Crush the WGA and hold out- keep the deck stacked in your favor. My advice to the WGA? Screw those bastards- you deserve a better deal, fight for it!

    I support neither of you, I support Adam Smith.
24. Jeremy Ricketts says:

    11/19/2007 at 12:49 am

    In a completely unrelated rant:

    Dear NBC… get… a… clue. I, like many others, discovered the show “The Office” on iTunes. I was all set to buy a season pass for The Office this season and then what happened? You got super greedy. You want me to go to your crappy website and watch low resolution, commercial filled versions because you’re betting that ad revenue is greater than iTunes revenue. Why not give me, the consumer, the option? I won’t go to your crappy, US-only Hulu website. I want to download it in good quality and play it even though I have a slow internet connection. I want to play it on the different media devices I own (my iPod… my computer).

    And here I am… with credit card in hand, shouting “I value your content!!! I want to BUY it!!” I thought you were less clueless than your record industry constituents.

    I guess I was wrong. You’ll adapt some day, I guess, after you finally understand that convenient delivery and giving your patrons choice over their methods of consumption should be top priority. Until then, other people will do this for you and you’ll loose a lot of rightfully earned money in the process.

    Oh no, wait- maybe you can make all that revenue back by suing us one by one.
25. Richard says:

    11/19/2007 at 4:28 am

    @ Jeremy Ricketts
    Thanks for the insight Jeremy. You are severely nearsighted in your opinion. Not everybody wants to pay for the privilege of watching TV episodes again and again on a 2.5″ display when they can watch and enjoy a TV show once, on a full sized monitor, and move on.

    Why is it so greedy for a network to post video free online? NBC.com does not run ads in its episodes (get your facts right) and the flexibility of the internet serves the beck and whim of the consumer. Why would i want to pay to watch TV when i can watch it without waving a credit card around?

    I enjoy TV, but do not want to be constricted by the demands of network scheduling. The advent of internet programing has removed this obstacle to the much welcomed benefit and appreciation of this consumer. How is being able to watch an episode whenever one wants not fulfilling your requirement of “convenient programming.” I suppose the methods of “consumption” are sparse, unless you consider broadcast, web programming, and DVD release.

    I can’t wait for my Hulu invite. From the site: “You can customize the experience to fit your viewing preferences – watch videos in full screen, or pop out the video player and place it anywhere on your computer screen and re-size it if you’re multi-tasking. You can even dim the lights and mute the rest of the browser window so nothing distracts you from the video you’re watching.” So much worse than a smudgy iPod screen I can watch under a magnifying lens.

    Offering dozens of shows for free. Oh my God, those greedy sumbitches, won’t they stop at anything for a buck?
26. Jerry says:

    11/19/2007 at 7:24 am

    I think they ALL make too much. I’d kill for $100k to write a script. Actors that make millions are highly overpaid, and might as well throw in pro athletes too.

    I liked the point about the 48% unemployment & finding another job. I agree 100%.
27. Steve says:

    11/19/2007 at 9:37 am

    @ Jerry –

    Ok… so if they offer them for free with no ads, and they make no revenue… what’s the problem with giving the writers a percentage of that $0? Why are the networks fighting so hard to not pay a percentage if they are truly making nothing from the streaming videos online?

    And if you use hulu.com to watch your tv instead of iTunes or actual TV, then you’re admitting that online video is not for “promotional use” but for primary viewing, which further reinforces the writers’ points.
28. Jeremy Ricketts says:

    11/19/2007 at 11:48 am

    @Richard
    “–I suppose the methods of “consumption” are sparse, unless you consider broadcast, web programming, and DVD release.–”

    Broadcast is dying- look at the statistics. Viewership is down across all networks and shows that are “hits” are penetrating the market less and less (read The Long Tail for those numbers.

    “–So much worse than a smudgy iPod screen I can watch under a magnifying lens.–”

    The iPod isn’t the only device. Mainly, I want to watch the episodes on my computer- the center of my entertainment and digital world. I don’t think that’s weird.

    The last thing I’ll mention is regarding Hulu- Indeed they do not show commercials. I was thinking about The Office webisodes and other promotions. The comment about Hulu being available only to US consumers still stands. This is shortsighted in my own unprofessional view.

    “–Why would i want to pay to watch TV when i can watch it without waving a credit card around?–”

    So you can download it at high quality, not have to watch it on a fast internet connection, put it on your mobile device, take it on a plane, not have to wait for a DVD release, etc. Note that I’m not saying that this should be the ONLY distribution method. Not everyone wants to pay for high quality, immediately available downloads…. I would. And I think I’m not alone in that. Why not give us a choice? Heck- it doesn’t even have to come through iTunes.
29. Addi says:

    11/19/2007 at 12:40 pm

    A better comparison would have been to a chair designer.
30. Ian Adams says:

    11/19/2007 at 2:16 pm

    I 100% support the WGA strike. The reasons offered in that video completely miss the point, as do you, Evan. I would suggest learning how the industry actually works before criticising it. Creative fields are very much unlike retail or office jockeying or any other type of job out there, and to compare them as though they were similar is just intellectual laziness.
31. Richard says:

    11/19/2007 at 8:44 pm

    @ Jeremy Ricketts
    Broadcast is dying because the networks are offering the consumer alternative, more convenient, and more satisfying methods of viewing. This is not the loss of broadcast network television, but the exciting progression of paring the power of the internet with a traditionally accepted, albeit largely inconvenient, medium of media.

    Mainly, I connect to the internet via my computer. Which is what i use to watch tv. I don’t need to buy episodes of tv shows to watch them on my computer (nor do you, nor anybody with a steady connection).
    I agree that this can often be impractical for those outside the bounds of internet access. But these bounds are changing.

    Wireless internet is becoming more and more widespread. Whole cities are being blanketed (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec06/wifi_8-14.html). Airlines are starting to realize the needs of the consumer and offer wireless internet aboard flights. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6717750/)
32. Richard says:

    11/19/2007 at 8:51 pm

    @ Jeremy Ricketts
    Broadcast is dying because the networks are offering the consumer alternative, more convenient, and more satisfying methods of viewing. This is not the loss of broadcast network television, but the exciting progression of paring the power of the internet with a traditionally accepted, albeit largely inconvenient, medium of media.

    Mainly, I connect to the internet via my computer. Which is what i use to watch tv. I don’t need to buy episodes of tv shows to watch them on my computer (nor do you, nor anybody with a steady connection).

    However, I agree that this can often be impractical for those outside the bounds of hi-speed internet access. But these bounds are changing. Wireless internet is becoming more and more widespread. Whole cities are being blanketed (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec06/wifi_8-14.html). Airlines are starting to realize the needs of the consumer and offer wireless internet aboard flights. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6717750/).

    It is ridiculous that Hulu is not being offered outside of the United States. I have no defense for this, and sincerely hope the involved corporations will remedy this to the benefit of the global consumer. Perhaps as the website moves from beta form (it has been publicly tested for a little over three weeks now) to widespread release it will progress, as with the evolution of the television we all love.
33. Jeremy Ricketts says:

    11/20/2007 at 3:13 pm

    @Richard
    Excellent points.

    One thing I’ll say briefly is that my main point about being able to pay for a download is that consumers should have the option to choose. For my life, I am on the go a lot. I don’t have a solid internet connection for my laptop all the time. Some of the networks I’m on wouldn’t allow me to go to a site such as Hulu. Why not give me the option of getting this content delivered? Any digital delivery method that doesn’t allow me access to the content on a plain or without an internet connection just seems shortsighted to me. I’d rather purchase it.

    I don’t have time to post a more decent response today, but I just wanted to say that I am enjoying the dialogue. :-)

Additional comments powered by BackType