Say goodbye to new TV...
It hasn't been reported on a whole lot, because everyone kept hoping beyond hope that it wouldn't come to this... but the Writers Guild of America has been in contract renegotiations for over three months now, and have been threatening a strike. Last night was the deadline. Last-minute support from the Teamsters looked like it might avert the crisis, but then this comment was left on
this industry messageboard:
We were just sent out instructions to pack up our belongings at work on Thursday.
Strike on.
The main issue is over whether downloadable internet content should be considered the same thing as DVD sales, and whether the old calculation of writer royalties on DVD sales is fair anymore to begin with. The positions of both sides can be read at length at the above link. A strike would affect new television content for both network and cable. Get ready for reruns...
Yeah! I heard about this yesterday, read it in the Daily Illini.
So.....there's no more Desperate Housewives? Or America's Next Top Model (c'mon that's riggggged)?
Wait....that means there's no....more....Scrubs?
:eek:
No more Tonight Show monologue/jokes.
Here’s a look at what Ryan says will be the primary effects of a strike:
• Late-night TV gets hit first. Writers would walk out on all late-night programs, such as The Daily Show, The Tonight Show, Late Night With Conan O’Brien and Late Show with David Letterman. Some would go into repeats; others would air with mostly interviews, little other chat (and few, if any, sketches) in between (I suppose we’ll see how much fun in the funny each of these hosts actually contribute).
• Most daytime soaps will run out of scripts within a month. News and sports could take their place.
• Primetime has a couple of months. Most scripted shows have episodes (or at least scripts) in the can already; most reality shows are not covered by the guild’s agreements, so they’re golden. Plus, December is mostly repeats and annual holiday shows anyhow.
• “Midseason” is the big question. If the strike were still on, networks might save their remaining scripts for February sweeps. (Amy note: Jericho not only has all seven of its episodes written, they’re already produced, so a strike could actually be a boon to the show!)
linkythe only new show that has really caught my attention is Life with Damian Lewis. it is the only thing i tivo besides my premiership games.
can they still recycle old plot lines and make remakes of remakes?
The talk show hosts could write their own jokes and monologues? Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
i think if push comes to shove letterman, leno, o'brian, and stewart will be just fine. i know they each have writers, but each of their shows are geared around their own ideas of humor and style. i'm pretty sure they could wing it for awhile.
J. Michael Straczynski, of Babylon 5, has been
discussing it on usenet.
i think if push comes to shove letterman, leno, o'brian, and stewart will be just fine. i know they each have writers, but each of their shows are geared around their own ideas of humor and style. i'm pretty sure they could wing it for awhile.
I agree, some better than others. I'd be least worried about Craig Ferguson because I think he does his own stuff anyway. Leno, scares me, but I just don't think he's a natural at the job.
i think if push comes to shove letterman, leno, o'brian, and stewart will be just fine. i know they each have writers, but each of their shows are geared around their own ideas of humor and style. i'm pretty sure they could wing it for awhile.
I have to wonder about that. Do they have to abide by the rules themselves? Many of them write some of their own material. If they write their own stuff, are they members of the Guild too? Do they have to abide by the same rules?
Good question. Hadn't thought of that. Anyone know?
i don't know but i would think there comes a point when the classification switches from poor oppressed "worker bee", to heavy handed oppressive "the man". like when it is there name in the show, or something.
I found an article that said most late night shows would go on hiatus. The "stars" are also members of the WGA, and most feel they need to show support to their writers. Though they might not be legally bound to the strike, it would be akin to crossing the picket line at GM.
If they write their own stuff, are they members of the Guild too? Do they have to abide by the same rules?
It's an unclear area. On the one hand, yes, all of the late-night stars are considered "writers" for their shows, and do belong to the WGA. But there are exceptions to the strike rules: they would also likely be considered "showrunners," who are personally not allowed to strike. It would be up to their own consciences (and how lucky they feel about getting sued by and/or kicked out of the Union) how much "content creation" they could do while striking as a writer but not striking as a showrunner. The typical semi-improvised interviews almost certainly don't count, even though the questions are developed beforehand, but pretty much all other "headline" style bits would, and definitely any sketches.
An anonymous insider from NBC
confirmed that Jay Leno and their other late-night shows would likely go into reruns. No word from CBS on Letterman. Stewart and Colbert do more of their own material than most, but Comedy Central has said they would likely go into reruns anyway, hinting that since the two of them are more recent stars with significant writing backgrounds, they would feel especially guilty about attempting to continue their shows.
Well, I guess Nick@Nite's not worried, all they've done is re-runs from night one.
I don't watch hardly anything live... if it ends up looking good I usually go back & watch it. So it won't affect me much directly.
But I shudder at the thought of ANYTHING that would encourage more reality TV. Please!!! Have mercy!!!
The shows I'm most wondering about are:
[LIST]
[*]Chuck
[*]Heroes
[*]Journeyman
[*]Eureka
[*]Bionic Woman
[*]Wizards Of Waverly Place
[*]Cory In The House
[*]The Suite Life Of Zack & Cody
[*]Hannah Montana
[*]Flash Gordon
[*]Battlestar Galactica's final season
[*]Stargate Atlantis
[*]
Metalocalypse
[*]
Family Guy
[/LIST]
And I was hoping for some more
Bullshit.
The "
Heroes Origins" hiatus miniseries has been put on hold.
Too bad. I thought it was a cool experiment in eliminating rerun hell.
~snip
But I shudder at the thought of ANYTHING that would encourage more reality TV. Please!!! Have mercy!!!
AMEN!
During the 2004-5 NHL hockey lockout, ESPN looked for other things to broadcast. They decided to show the World Series of Poker. Thus began a whole new form of entertainment and a whole new industry.
People found other things to be interested in. Hockey is still trying to recover. ESPN gave up its hockey contract and the NHL is now broadast on Versus. What? I don't even know if i GET Versus.
What will replace written TV? If this lasts any length of time, the people will find alternatives. The last time the writers went on strike there was no public Internet. Hmmm.
Well, Clod gave me the impression that the strike started 8 days ago, but according to Conan, it will start Monday unless (as Conan hopes) its resolved over the weekend.
Well, Clod gave me the impression that the strike started 8 days ago,
*shrug* I don't know how. I said the writers' deadline for negotiations was Oct. 31st, and it was.
Cuz you started this thread on the 1st, and since you gave no indication that the strike didn't start that day, I just figured that it started right after the deadline you mentioned.
Cuz you started this thread on the 1st
Which was... two days ago. :eyebrow:
<SIGH> Yer right. I just reviewed the date. I've just had so much going on lately, I got FUBAR, and somehow my brain went back in time. :drunk: :banghead:
Leno, scares me, but I just don't think he's a natural at the job.
Shawnee, you wouldn't say that if you heard him doing his own material. Jay Leno used to do stand-up and was very good at it. The Tonight Show gig was a miracle that catapulted him to fame.
I've seen him do his own jokes and he's funnier than me!
Brian
Leno still lives on the money he makes doing standup, around the country, much of the year. I think his cars get most of the TV money.
Good thing I have a lot of DVDs I haven't broken the plastic on yet ...
I remember surviving the last writers' and actors' strike. And that was before "reality TV" AND the internet.
I don't watch any of the nighttime talk guys anyway. Actually, because of my bizarre schedule, I don't watch much broadcast TV at all. I once would have been devastated by something like this, but that was a whole other lifetime ago.
An explanation of the exact dispute, from the Writers' Guild point of view:
[youtube]oJ55Ir2jCxk[/youtube]
Now if the asshats who do the commercials would just join.
The shows I'm most wondering about are:
[LIST]
[*]Chuck
[*]Heroes
[*]Journeyman
[*]Eureka
[*]Bionic Woman
[*]Wizards Of Waverly Place
[*]Cory In The House
[*]The Suite Life Of Zack & Cody
[*]Hannah Montana
[*]Flash Gordon
[*]Battlestar Galactica's final season
[*]Stargate Atlantis
[*]Metalocalypse
[*]Family Guy
[/LIST]
And I was hoping for some more Bullshit.
For me it's...
[LIST][*]Heroes
[*]House
[*]Family Guy
[*]Biggest Loser
[*]Bionic Woman
[*]Are you smarter than a 5th grader
[*]Deal or No Deal[/LIST]
I believe the dispute is over digital media over the internet. The writers were screwed by the studios on DVD sales. They want residuals for internet viewings of material they wrote for, and in my opinion they are way out of line.
I don't like the idea of residuals to begin with. If I hire you to do something for me and I pay you, why should I pay you every time I use it to make money? It's like a shovel maker wanting a dollar every time someone digs a hole with their shovel.
If I risk my money to hire people to write a program for me. Should I be forced to pay them money for each copy that sells? I already paid them to come in everyday and write the program for a year or two. I shelled out that money with no guarantee that I would get any money back.
The same is true of tv shows. These people risk millions of dollars on a product that is unlikely to make any money for them. Most shows tank. If their investment pays off, why should they be forced to pay someone for work they did years ago that they were already paid for when the show wasn't making any money?
Should I have to send money to Toyota ever ytime I drive my car, even though I've already paid for the car?
Biggest Loser
Deal or No Deal
These are reality/game shows. They don't have writers. It's also very likely that whoever comes up with the questions for "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" is considered more of a researcher and is not part of the Writers' Guild.
But I am bitter about you people with your, "Oh, I'm afraid that sometime in the Spring episodes of my favorite shows might be delayed..." I have already gone
three nights without
The Colbert Report. And the topical nature of the show guarantees that--unlike dramas that have a preset plot line over a season--I will never get those episodes back. :mecry:
I don't like the idea of residuals to begin with. If I hire you to do something for me and I pay you, why should I pay you every time I use it to make money? It's like a shovel maker wanting a dollar every time someone digs a hole with their shovel.
No, it's like a shovel inventor wanting money every time someone sells their shovel. Or an author wanting money for each copy of their book that is sold.
The same is true of tv shows. These people risk millions of dollars on a product that is unlikely to make any money for them. Most shows tank. If their investment pays off, why should they be forced to pay someone for work they did years ago that they were already paid for when the show wasn't making any money?
That makes no sense. In fact I'd wager that producers would prefer to
increase residuals payments and eliminate the initial wage they pay. Then they would only be paying the writers if the shows were a hit. It would eliminate some of the risk for the producers. "I'll only pay you if the show is a hit, but I will pay you handsomely."
Seems to me this hybrid system gives the writers a little stability up front and a lot of incentive to produce a good show for a big payoff down the line. If they were to eliminate the residuals, then the initial writer's wage would likely go up, and so would the risk to the producers.
If they were to eliminate the residuals, then the initial writer's wage would likely go up, and so would the risk to the producers.
Absolutely. Every time a show fails, all the writers lose their jobs. 43% of writers are out of work at any given time. During those times they are living off the residuals of their previous successes. If there were no residuals, you would have to pay writers a lot more to ensure they made it through the down times and didn't decide to take a guaranteed salary in a cubicle somewhere instead.
Most of TV is so very unoriginal, how much is a nice long stretch of reruns really matter?
Most of TV is so very unoriginal, how much is a nice long stretch of reruns really matter?
I agree with that. A monkey could write better than most sitcom writers.
If the writers are paid for writing a script, that should be the end of the money they get. If I own a business and pay you to write a computer program for me, I don't owe you money every time I use it. I also don't owe you money if I choose to sell that program and make billions of dollars. I already paid for it. Your work was done. Nothing entitles you to be paid over and over for the work you did one time.
I agree with that. A monkey could write better than most sitcom writers.
If the writers are paid for writing a script, that should be the end of the money they get. If I own a business and pay you to write a computer program for me, I don't owe you money every time I use it. I also don't owe you money if I choose to sell that program and make billions of dollars. I already paid for it. Your work was done. Nothing entitles you to be paid over and over for the work you did one time.
Baloney. It depends ENTIRELY upon the deal you strike at the outset. Owning a business is irrelevant.
It *could* wind up the way you describe, it *could*, just as easily, wind up differently. Are you entirely ignorant of the concept of licensing, or are you ignoring it to make your absolutist statements appear less absurd?
If the writers are paid for writing a script, that should be the end of the money they get.
And sometimes it does work out that way. But those types of writers make a lot more for their one-time work than a typical writing contract that includes residuals. Residuals in fact ensure that a producer
doesn't have to pay the writer as much if the show flops.
Some book authors sell their works outright to the publishing company as well. But most publishers prefer a residuals scheme in case the book turns out to be a failure. It's the same situation, because most shows have to have several episodes created before any producer or network picks them up. Producers are not hiring laborers, they are purchasing a product from the writers, and they know exactly what they are buying beforehand.
If you support the writers (which you should, in case you haven't been paying attention,) there's an organized effort to make your voice heard for a swift return to the negotiation tables at
www.fans4writers.com. They cover everything from donating food to the people on the picket lines to printable postcard templates to mail to the AMPTP and/or major advertisers.
I should support the writers? I must have missed that part of this thread. Why would I support people who are trying to basically commit strong arm robbery on the studios by demanding that they get something they aren't owed and haven't earned? Why should I support a bunch of cry babies who want to get paid a thousand times for a job they did once and were already paid for. Why would I want to support any union when it unions drive up prices, close down businesses, and chase jobs out of America?
I hope every one of those writers is replaced with non-union writers who appreciate having a decent job with decent pay and don't want to bully others around.
When you bother to address the points in posts 36-38 and 41-42, maybe someone will care what you think.
No, it's like a shovel inventor wanting money every time someone sells their shovel. Or an author wanting money for each copy of their book that is sold.
No, it's like a business hiring a contractor to create a shovel and paying him regardless of whether or not they will be successful in selling that shovel. After the business has paid him every penny of what he has earned while working for them, he leaves he wants money for every shovel sold and now he is fighting to get more money for every hole dug using one of those shovels.
That makes no sense. In fact I'd wager that producers would prefer to increase residuals payments and eliminate the initial wage they pay. Then they would only be paying the writers if the shows were a hit. It would eliminate some of the risk for the producers. "I'll only pay you if the show is a hit, but I will pay you handsomely."
Seems to me this hybrid system gives the writers a little stability up front and a lot of incentive to produce a good show for a big payoff down the line. If they were to eliminate the residuals, then the initial writer's wage would likely go up, and so would the risk to the producers.
The writers are paid handsomely initially for their script. They are paid far more than most other writers, especially considering the lack of talent in Hollywood. They are paid handsomely regardless of whether or not the show succeeds. It's not a hybrid system. They are paid fairly for the script they were hired to write. Now they want more money above and beyond what they have actually earned.
Absolutely. Every time a show fails, all the writers lose their jobs. 43% of writers are out of work at any given time. During those times they are living off the residuals of their previous successes. If there were no residuals, you would have to pay writers a lot more to ensure they made it through the down times and didn't decide to take a guaranteed salary in a cubicle somewhere instead.
Should every computer consultant be paid double what they are worth because they might be unemployed later? Should they get a check in the mail time someone logs onto a computer network they built even though they were already paid very well to build it? As a business owner, that makes no sense. If they were better writers, they might have less failed shows and find themselves unemployed less.
Baloney. It depends ENTIRELY upon the deal you strike at the outset. Owning a business is irrelevant.
It *could* wind up the way you describe, it *could*, just as easily, wind up differently. Are you entirely ignorant of the concept of licensing, or are you ignoring it to make your absolutist statements appear less absurd?
Writers aren't licensing their scripts to the studios. They are SELLING their scripts. In fact staff writers are paid regardless of whether the scripts they are writing are very good. When the studio buys the script, they own it.
If I buy a painting, should I send a check to the artist every time I look at it? Of course not. Could I make a deal like that? I could, but I'd be an idiot to do that and I shouldn't be forced or coerced into doing it by a bunch of painters picketing outside my house.
And sometimes it does work out that way. But those types of writers make a lot more for their one-time work than a typical writing contract that includes residuals. Residuals in fact ensure that a producer doesn't have to pay the writer as much if the show flops.
Some book authors sell their works outright to the publishing company as well. But most publishers prefer a residuals scheme in case the book turns out to be a failure. It's the same situation, because most shows have to have several episodes created before any producer or network picks them up. Producers are not hiring laborers, they are purchasing a product from the writers, and they know exactly what they are buying beforehand.
Any number of contracts can be written up, but does it make sense for someone to make a stupid deal like that? Obviously not. Writers are paid VERY WELL for their work before a single copy of their work is sold either to television studios to advertise over, or to book publishing companies. In many cases they are paid up front before they write a single word.
The studios are gambling on the talent of the writers and paying them handsomely up front. They aren't making residual deals in case the show is a flop. Every single producer in Hollywood would jump at the chance to pay the writer once up front and never give them a cut of residual income.
When you bother to address the points in posts 36-38 and 41-42, maybe someone will care what you think.
Most of those weren't valid points other than the fact that people can write any contract they want. I responded to them though.
Happy?
Happy?
While slightly more useful than your initial post, I can't say your responses were particularly enjoyable, no. I understand how you routinely debate with people, however, so I know that discussing it with you is completely pointless. I will address a few points, and then I'm done talking about it with you.
Writers are paid VERY WELL for their work before a single copy of their work is sold either to television studios to advertise over, or to book publishing companies... The writers are paid handsomely initially for their script... The studios are gambling on the talent of the writers and paying them handsomely up front.
Feel free to cite your salary sources at any time.
Writers are not paid well. From
here: "
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual salary of a scriptwriter is $44,350." (Keep in mind that these are Los Angeles and New York salaries.)
In many cases they are paid up front before they write a single word.
This is also completely false. A pilot is created
before the show is bought, that is how it's done. Often several more episodes are required before the producer is willing to commit. Only in extremely rare cases with famous, well-established writers are contracts drawn up based on pitch ideas alone.
Should every computer consultant be paid double what they are worth because they might be unemployed later? ... If I buy a painting, should I send a check to the artist every time I look at it?
You're bringing in lots of irrelevant industries, and avoiding the most pertinent one: should the author of a novel be expected to sell their book outright to the publishers? Hint--novel authors do not actually receive
any outright purchase price for their books; the money they receive up front is called an "advance," and is taken out of the first chunk of royalty revenue they are owed from the first batch of sales. If by some gross error on the estimating skills of the publisher, the book does not sell even enough copies to cover the advance, the book author has to give back the difference.
But to answer your questions: If a company expects there to be full-time computer consultants available for hire when they need them, then they must expect to pay them what their time is worth, including the downtime during which they are unable to do other jobs because they are remaining available to be computer consultants. An industry can demand the salaries it requires to stay functioning as an industry, just as an individual business demands the prices it requires to be able to pay the rent and continue selling items at all.
Meanwhile, the painting analogy is completely off-base unless you are
charging other people to view your copy of the painting. In which case, the painter will undoubtedly charge you much more money for it up front, because the painting is by definition worth more as a revenue stream.
Any number of contracts can be written up, but does it make sense for someone to make a stupid deal like that? Obviously not... Every single producer in Hollywood would jump at the chance to pay the writer once up front and never give them a cut of residual income.
There are in fact plenty of writers available who do not belong to the union. The producers are not in any way coerced into writing residual contracts with them, and yet they do. You may continue to insist on 'what obviously makes sense' and 'what producers really want' (and I'm certain you will,) but their actions speak louder than your words.
...especially considering the lack of talent in Hollywood.
This is ironic, considering you were eager to jump in with a whole list of shows you are worried about missing new episodes of. The fact that several on your list will not even be affected by the strike just serves to highlight again the fact that you are completely uninformed about the situation. Like every other argument you get into here, your unwavering opinions are based entirely on your political ideals, and have nothing to do with the reality at hand.
The writers are paid handsomely initially for their script. They are paid far more than most other writers, especially considering the lack of talent in Hollywood. They are paid handsomely regardless of whether or not the show succeeds. It's not a hybrid system. They are paid fairly for the script they were hired to write. Now they want more money above and beyond what they have actually earned.
"Lack Of Talent In Hollywood"... interesting as I'd think that Hollywood was the biggest magnet for writing talent in The World.
The biggest pool of writing talent can't come up with anything more original than remakes of crappy 70s tv shows?
The best writers don't write for television at all. They write novels.
As far as missing the shows I like goes, for every show that is good, there are 100 that suck hairy balls
The best writers don't write for television at all. They write novels.
Bollocks.
Log in as Terminator and tell us "how Terminator feels" about this.
During the 2004-5 NHL hockey lockout, ESPN looked for other things to broadcast. They decided to show the World Series of Poker. Thus began a whole new form of entertainment and a whole new industry.
People found other things to be interested in. Hockey is still trying to recover. ESPN gave up its hockey contract and the NHL is now broadast on Versus. What? I don't even know if i GET Versus.
What will replace written TV? If this lasts any length of time, the people will find alternatives. The last time the writers went on strike there was no public Internet. Hmmm.
I believe that ESPN covered WSOP since 1978. Not as a weekly program, for sure.
No, it's like a business hiring a contractor to create a shovel and paying him regardless of whether or not they will be successful in selling that shovel. After the business has paid him every penny of what he has earned while working for them, he leaves he wants money for every shovel sold and now he is fighting to get more money for every hole dug using one of those shovels.
What is the shovel and what is the hole in your analogy? It looks to me like they have a contract to get paid a pittance for every shovel sold, with a promise to get back pay for all the past shovels that they were underpaid on when the shovel market matures, and now the company is saying that not only will they not get the back pay, but any future shovels won't even count as shovels, and the authors will get nothing.
And your argument is that, contracts be damned, they shouldn't have even gotten that pittance.
The shovel is the product someone was paid to design. They don't own the shovel factory. They don't own the design for the shovel. They were paid to design a shovel. Even assuming they do own the design for the shovel and license it to the company, they would be paid once for each shovel sold. Digging a hole is the use of the shovel.
It's unreasonable for the shovel designer to expect to be paid while designing the shovel, then paid again for each shovel sold, and again for each use of the shovel.
The writers are paid WELL to write the script, and they are paid residuals for each time it is aired on television, now they want to be paid each time someone looks at it on the internet. It's unreasonable.
The writers are paid WELL to write the script, and they are paid residuals for each time it is aired on television, now they want to be paid each time someone looks at it on the internet. It's unreasonable.
Someone gets paid each time it's downloaded (from a legit site, at least). Why not the authors?
And why are television airings and DVDs shovels, while a download is a hole?
Downloads are a hole because most of the content is never paid for. It doesn't count. Also, the authors were already compensated, and so were the performers. The producer is the one who risked his own money and he deserves to have at least 1 source of income that they aren't privy to.
The ones that aren't paid for directly are paid for in the same way that television broadcasts are paid for- ad revenue.
"Already compensated" is a term that only has meaning in terms of their contract. As the contract is under negotiations, it has no meaning at the moment.
It seems pretty likely that the time isn't far off that downloads will be the primary method of distribution, so your "at least 1 source of income" complaint falls pretty flat.
The writers are paid WELL to write the script, and they are paid residuals for each time it is aired on television, now they want to be paid each time someone looks at it on the internet. It's unreasonable.
I have to disagree there. Every time we watch a move or TV show on the 'net, it's the same as watching it on TV, so why shouldn't the writers get paid for that too? Doesn't sound unreasonable too me.
The writers are paid WELL to write the script
Feel free to cite your salary sources at any time.
Writers are not paid well. From here: "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual salary of a scriptwriter is $44,350." (Keep in mind that these are Los Angeles and New York salaries.)
Putting it in capital letters still doesn't make it true.
Those numbers are bullshit. They are not numbers for the writers who write for a television show that is on every week. That is the amount of money averaged for all of the members of the writer's guild. This includes those working and not working. When a writer writes a script for a movie and he gets 250k for it, and he says he spent 5 years writing it (which means he's a useless slug) they say, "He only made 50k per year".
Putting it in capital letters still doesn't make it true.
No, it just stresses something that is already true.
No, it just stresses something that is already true.
No. Clod's right. Also, in netiquette terms, it's considered shouting.
Those numbers are bullshit. They are not numbers for the writers who write for a television show that is on every week. That is the amount of money averaged for all of the members of the writer's guild. This includes those working and not working. When a writer writes a script for a movie and he gets 250k for it, and he says he spent 5 years writing it (which means he's a useless slug) they say, "He only made 50k per year".
My God you are ignorant. The strike is not about movie screenplay writers, it has nothing to do with them. So putting aside yet another useless analogy of yours--yes, let's talk about "numbers for the writers who write for a television show that is on every week."
In
2006, the average weekly pay for a writing job in television broadcasting in New York was $2,450. Weekly--what an odd way to calculate it, right? Why not yearly? It's because they really are paid by the week. A standard show season is usually 13 weeks, 26 weeks at most. So that translates to $31,850-$63,700 per year. You might get lucky enough to be employed on more than one show, but their seasons must be completely independent and not overlap for even a week, which is difficult with cable and impossible with networks.
My God you are ignorant. The strike is not about movie screenplay writers, it has nothing to do with them. So putting aside yet another useless analogy of yours--yes, let's talk about "numbers for the writers who write for a television show that is on every week."
In 2006, the average weekly pay for a writing job in television broadcasting in New York was $2,450. Weekly--what an odd way to calculate it, right? Why not yearly? It's because they really are paid by the week. A standard show season is usually 13 weeks, 26 weeks at most. So that translates to $31,850-$63,700 per year. You might get lucky enough to be employed on more than one show, but their seasons must be completely independent and not overlap for even a week, which is difficult with cable and impossible with networks.
63,700 for half a year's work is extremely good. In fact 44k is good for half a year's worth of work too. This reminds me of the idiots who say teacher's aren't paid enough when they get 40-60k per year with a 3 month vacation. I wouldn't make that much money if I didn't work for 3 months each year.
God forbid writers should find another job during the other 6 months and have to work all year like everyone else. There's a lot of people who work much harder and who have a far greater education than most writers who don't make that much money working all year.
A video from a Daily Show writer, with a special guest star:
[youtube]PzRHlpEmr0w[/youtube]
There's a lot of people who work much harder and who have a far greater education than most writers who don't make that much money working all year.
You of all people should know that how hard a person works or how much education they have purchased has exactly zero bearing on how much that person is worth.
The unique product the writers create is demonstrably worth more than they are being paid for it. Neither side wants the industry to switch to a completely free-market model, but if it did, you may be certain they'd be earning a lot more than they are now.
What's up with your favorite shows?
Bionic Woman -- 9 of 13 episodes completed filming.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, production has shut down on NBC's struggling freshman drama "Bionic Woman" on November 9, because they ran out of available scripts.
That could be why it wasn't on Wednesday...(edit) or maybe not. I just checked TVG Online. It says a new ep. airs next Wednesday.
Also shut down is Sci-Fi's "Battlestar Galactica", due to the same reason.
"Bionic Woman" had shootings scheduled up until December 12, and "BSG" was supposed to stay in production until mid-March.
...So when's BSG going to air?!
what about the mini-series?!
The BSG movie is tomorrow.
So, I guess the mob writers who script football are not unionized? That is counter-intuitive.
The BSG movie is tomorrow.
Yep, and it
may be the last we see of BSG if the final season isn't being produced.
A video from a Daily Show writer, with a special guest star:
[youtube]PzRHlpEmr0w[/youtube]
:lol:
Question: Does this strike affect only shows on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and The CW?
No, it affects shows on Bravo, TNT, TBS, Cartoon netwook, etc.
Well,, the only original I care anything about is [b]Metalocalypse[/i], and as for TNT, TBS, and Bravo...no watchie.
Ok, I'll get right to it. What about Stargate: Atlantis?
As far as I know (I may be horribly wrong) the BBC authorises its own downloads and writers get paid according to their contracts - which include repeat broadcast fees. Not sure the independents, but it's unlikely they would attract talent if their set-up was vastly different. Will have to ask HM.
Although the BBC has a really odd clause in its contracts that stipulates they are binding within the known universe and any future discoveries or something like that. Will see if I can dig out the email from another friend in the business.
The BSG movie is tomorrow.
When's it on again? I missed it last night...both times.
You of all people should know that how hard a person works or how much education they have purchased has exactly zero bearing on how much that person is worth.
The unique product the writers create is demonstrably worth more than they are being paid for it. Neither side wants the industry to switch to a completely free-market model, but if it did, you may be certain they'd be earning a lot more than they are now.
Why should I of all people agree with that? I'm very well educated and find that I'm worth a lot more than those who aren't. Although I must admit that there are many who are less educated than I am, making a lot more money than me. In fact I've seen some really wealthy people who seem dumb as a bag of hammers, but they've got good financial people around them. They got a lucky break at some point, took the right risk, and it paid off. Then they were smart enough to know that they were too dumb to make that money grow so they hired someone else to do it.
When's it on again? I missed it last night...both times.
Looks like you may have to go for the DVD. Or BitTorrent.
Why should I of all people agree with that?
Because it's a fundamental principal of libertarianism: you are worth what you can earn in a free market, and not a dollar more. If your education is well-applied and helps you, great for you. But just because an idiot gets a degree or tries really, really hard doesn't mean that idiot deserves a certain amount of money from anyone. And likewise, someone with an inherent talent (say, writing) can also demand the market value for their work, even if they never graduated from high school.
Look at it this way. Right now individual writers are being
prevented from charging a fair price from their work because of the presence of union-wide contracts. If your position is that you want to abolish the entire system of unions altogether, fine, but that's unrealistic. Given that the union structure is already in place and pre-determining the writers' contracts for them, it is only reasonable for them to use the options available to them (i.e., striking) to guarantee a contract that is fair for them.
A fair price is not determined by collectivism. It is negotiated between the two parties involved (employer & employee) and nobody else, including unions or the government. A fair price is determined by the marketplace. Clearly the producers do not think this is a fair price, and the writers are trying to disrupt their business in an effort to coerce them into submission.
The producers should just hire more writers. Hollywood writers are a dime a dozen anyway. There are thousands of people waiting for the chance to take their place.
WORKING Hollywood writers make an average of $200,000 PER YEAR. There are plenty of very fantastic writers who would take this money and accept it with a smile and not demand more money.
Hollywood writers are a dime a dozen anyway. There are thousands of people waiting for the chance to take their place.
Yes, clearly. Those shows haven't missed an episode yet.
WORKING Hollywood writers make an average of $200,000 PER YEAR.
I'm sorry, I rolled my mouse over your post again and again, but I just can't find the link to your citations on this subject.
A fair price is not determined by collectivism. It is negotiated between the two parties involved (employer & employee)
A Hollywood studio is just as collective as a union. Studios pool together money, and unions pool together talent.
I'm sorry, I rolled my mouse over your post again and again, but I just can't find the link to your citations on this subject.
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com
Feel free to search for "writers"+"$200,000". The number is obtained by averaging the amount earned by the highest and lowest paid writers who are actually working and does not include those who are not working like those who mention 65k/year.
Sixth item when googling "writers"+"$200,000":
"The $200,000 average is a misleading indicator of most writers. There are 12,000 Writers Guild members (and I'm not one of them), The MEAN income of a guild member is $4,000 a year. Yes, that means there is a very large distribution. There are the A-list writers who make a lot of money, there are writers making the minimum, and there are writers who aren't getting paid at all because they sold nothing in that calendar year."
If somone could update me on that Daily Show video that was posted by Happy Monkey? Who's the special guest? I'm not supposed to stream at work...heavy fines...
Sixth item when googling "writers"+"$200,000":
"The $200,000 average is a misleading indicator of most writers. There are 12,000 Writers Guild members (and I'm not one of them), The MEAN income of a guild member is $4,000 a year. Yes, that means there is a very large distribution. There are the A-list writers who make a lot of money, there are writers making the minimum, and there are writers who aren't getting paid at all because they sold nothing in that calendar year."
I don't find that misleading at all. Of all the writers who actually have jobs, the average among them is 200k per year. Some make a million, and some make 4k. They are paid what they are worth. The average between them is 200k. The guy who makes 4k per year probably worked less than a week in a year.
Mentioning how many writers guild members are in the union is irrelevant. Most of them don't actually work. It's the same in SAG or AFTRA. Something like 3%-5% of the members of that union are actually working actors. It's stupid to factor in those who aren't working. To figure out how much union writers are being paid, you only include those who are actually working.
Working writers guild members earned $264 million which equates to the average working writer making $205,000 in 2006.
If somone could update me on that Daily Show video that was posted by Happy Monkey? Who's the special guest? I'm not supposed to stream at work...heavy fines...
It was a daily show writer doing a "non daily show daily show" where he points out the hypocrisy of Viacomm suing youtube because it says internet distribution is worth a billion dollars a year, and then telling the writers it's worthless.
And the special guest was John Oliver.
The strike
might be over soon.
Click here.Are you all really missing your tv shows that much? Honestly, I haven't noticed much of a change - guess you can tell I don't watch 'em too much.
Oh, You think I'm the only TV watching Dweller?`
Are you all really missing your tv shows that much? Honestly, I haven't noticed much of a change - guess you can tell I don't watch 'em too much.
Most of the change hasn't happened yet, to be noticed. The late-night shows are in reruns, because they need daily writing. The Office hit reruns in the last two weeks, because of the crossover in their writing/acting/producing staff. Most shows have more lead time than this, and haven't gone into reruns yet. The big changes haven't hapened yet. When the rest of the shows run out of already-written episodes, there will be an extended lack of scripted television, even if the strike ends soon.
I miss my shows, and a couple of friends are missing out on jobs. There...I said it. I want my Colbert back.
Drax - Who singled YOU out? Guilty conscience much?
Fuck you very much too by the way
Drax - Who singled YOU out? Guilty conscience much?
How do you expect me to respond? Your post was right after mine.
Fuck you very much too by the way
Don't take it personal like. Hazing the n00bs is S.O.P. around here. Hey, Jim did it to me...
relentlessly.
Read my post - I said ="are you ALL...
plural
Actually we only haze annoying noobs...
ALL
My bad. I overlooked that part. :o
:headshake Drax...when will you ever learn?
:headshake Drax...when will you ever learn?
Slowly, but surely.;)
I feel I need to warn you that if you go any slower you'll be going backwards. ;)
And less time wasted watching TV will afford you more time to be here on the cellar learning all sorts of things!
Slowly, but surely.;)
Ok, but stop calling me Shirley.
Ok, gotta bit a news here from the
strike watch blog @ TVGuide.com:
This just in from NBC:
"After two months of repeats, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Late Night with Conan O'Brien will resume broadcasting all-new episodes beginning Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2008. The late-night shows suspended production due to the strike by the Writers Guild of America on Nov. 5 and have aired repeats since.
See above link for more.
If'n you want news...
Comedy Central is forcing The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to return as well, on January 7th (with no writers.) The official press quote from the two of them is: “We would like to return to work with our writers. If we cannot, we would like to express our ambivalence, but without our writers we are unable to express something as nuanced as ambivalence.” — Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert
Meanwhile, David Letterman has made a bold move by attempting to sign an individual deal with the WGA to bring the writers back to his show on the terms they want. He can do this because his production company, Worldwide Pants Inc., completely owns the rights to his show, and the network can't stop him. There haven't been any agreements made yet, but it's an interesting slap in the face to the AMPTP.
Also, here's an excellent
Huffington Post writeup of why the AMPTP should in fact be prosecuted as a grossly illegal monopoly.
Well that just makes my day!! BTW that shot is for whom ever needs it. Or who.
why don't these cheat sheets ever include Life? it is the only new show i actually bother to DVR so i can watch each week.
Radar, you're mistaken about the transitive property of rights here. Yes, wages should be determined solely by the two parties making an agreement - employer and employee. Yet, either party has the right to empower someone else to negotiate those terms for them. My authority to negotiate terms is transitive, so I can loan it to someone else who will then act on my behalf, like an athlete would with an agent.
For guild writers, they have decided to collectively cede their right to negotiate to a single agent (the WGA), in order to strengthen their position. There is nothing in this transaction that violates the principle of free enterprise.
Furthermore, the right of any two person to enter an agreement for work has no meaning, unless coupled with a right NOT to work if one of the two parties does not agree with the terms. This has to be a core libertarian principle.
Now, I'd agree with you if you find fault with the restrictions placed on corporations when negotiating with the WGA - they ought to be free to fire and replace whomever they wish, including striking workers. They have to have a free hand in the negotiations, just as the unions do.
But everything up until that point? Collective bargaining, work stoppage, asking for residuals, being free to set conditions under which one is willing to work, that's all free enterprise. That's libertarian bliss, baby.
January 7th is almost here! While I know that a return of shows, even without writers, is not the best thing for resolving the strike, for purely selfish purposes I still must do a little celebration dance.
[youtube]hTeZPHPKdps[/youtube]
I heard on the news that "after the holiday break, members of the WGA will resume their strike."
What? They were on break from being on break? What do you do when you're on break from a strike, work for a couple days?
I know I'm going to hear all about the mechanisms of striking, but it struck me as funny.
Yeah, what they really meant was they will resume picketing the studios. Kind of pointless protesting outside an empty building. :)
Oh yea...he was on last night...I thought he did great without the writers!! ("a daily show" - not so much)
Happy Dancing with Clod!!
Yeah, it was mostly filled with awkward pauses and desperate jokes.
It will get old fast.
What will replace written TV? If this lasts any length of time, the people will find alternatives. The last time the writers went on strike there was no public Internet. Hmmm.
TV Week: May Sweeps Sees Record Low Ratings - Strike Seems to Have Altered Viewing Habits
On average, the networks are off the mark by 10% from last year in total viewers and off 17% in the 18- to 49-year-old demographic.
Some might recognize the demographic that understands the Internet and can readily mine it for entertainment.
I can tell you that I spend virtually no time watching tv anymore -
I switched to Netflix when the strike happened. I don't have cable, but I'm all caught up on the Wire and Entourage on DVD and am making my way through Battlestar Galactica.
Not counting Saturday morning PBS DIY shows, I think I watch 2 hours of network tv a week, down from 5 last year.
I've been concerned about the switch to digital tv and the money involved in that, but maybe it will be the thing that kills my tv habit for good.
Don't forget that a lot of the strong shows that would normally have been on during sweeps had to be pushed back half a season. When the Heroes season finale is eventually on, people will be watching, bet on it. It takes more than a couple months of show changes to permanently wean people.
I switched to Netflix when the strike happened. I don't have cable, but I'm all caught up on the Wire and Entourage on DVD and am making my way through Battlestar Galactica.
Not counting Saturday morning PBS DIY shows, I think I watch 2 hours of network tv a week, down from 5 last year.
I've been concerned about the switch to digital tv and the money involved in that, but maybe it will be the thing that kills my tv habit for good.
I can't think of much that I watch that requires writers. I watch mostly pbs, discovery, National Geographic, travel, and the news. But that is when I am at work. At home I don't watch it much. I am more of an NPR junkie.
I am more of an NPR junkie.
Ok. Now, I wouldn't have guessed that. It just shows to go you.
Think of the saying about eating a frog first thing in the morning...
What I don't understand is that, why despite the strike being over, and Hannah Montana on hiatus, why doesn't Nickelodeon show new episodes of Avatar in the United States?? And the networks and cable wonder why TV viewing is down.
...You say that like Avatar is an import.
It isn't.What's with all the killing people off at the end of the season? And was anyone watching Bones? Whoa!
I happened to see the list of the top 20 TV shows according to viewership, I guess it was for the week, or month, or something like that.
Anyway, I hadn't seen any of them in several months, and only three of them, ever.
This week:
(i've bolded the ones I watch when nothing else is on, and underlined the ones I actually go outta my way to watch)
1. American Idol" (Wednesday) FOX
2. American Idol" (Tuesday) FOX
3. Dancing with the Stars" (Monday) ABC
4. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation CBS
5. Dancing with the Stars" (Tuesday) ABC
6. Desperate Housewives ABC
7. Grey's Anatomy ABC
8. House FOX
9. NCIS CBS
10. Without a Trace CBS
11. CSI: Miami CBS
12. Two and a Half Men CBS
13. Criminal Minds CBS
14. CSI: NY CBS
15. Academy of Country Music Awards CBS
16. Law & Order: SVU NBC
17. Hell's Kitchen FOX
18. Extreme Makeover: Home Edition ABC
19. Lost ABC
20. 60 Minutes CBS
I rarely watch anything other than the Military channel, Wings and the Weather.
I used to be addicted but ever since the decline of good Saturday morning cartoons and the demise of Looney Tunes, there just isn't a lot I like on anymore. OK, BSG is the best show running (subject to discussion) but it's ending, as all good things must. Too soon, IMO, but still.
Now I'm into DVDs and reading.
This week:
(i've bolded the ones I watch when nothing else is on, and underlined the ones I actually go outta my way to watch)
1. American Idol" (Wednesday) FOX
2. American Idol" (Tuesday) FOX
3. Dancing with the Stars" (Monday) ABC
4. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation CBS
5. Dancing with the Stars" (Tuesday) ABC
6. Desperate Housewives ABC
7. Grey's Anatomy ABC
8. House FOX
9. NCIS CBS
10. Without a Trace CBS
11. CSI: Miami CBS
12. Two and a Half Men CBS
13. Criminal Minds CBS
14. CSI: NY CBS
15. Academy of Country Music Awards CBS
16. Law & Order: SVU NBC
17. Hell's Kitchen FOX
18. Extreme Makeover: Home Edition ABC
19. Lost ABC
20. 60 Minutes CBS
Last night I watched Grey's Anatomy, and regretted it the whole time. I didn't have the energy to get up off the damn couch to go to bed. It was the first time I'd watched it since the Fall. Stupid show.
Sometimes, I'll notice that Two and a Half Men is on, and I'll stop on that.
That's it from this list of 20 shows, and I could easily do without both of them.
But I did watch another episode of Battlestar Galactica on DVD last night, and enjoyed it.