Official WGA Writers Strike thread.

[Sickboy]

good article--why the writers are right
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20159387,00.html

Oddly, the same executives who speak with absolute authority about the horrifying injustice of paying residuals seem to turn into bewildered children, lost in a fogbound forest and helpless to see even two feet ahead, when they confront the other big issue: income from streaming video, new media, and the Internet. Writers, like everybody else with a brain and a computer, have figured out that this is where a large chunk of the future of movie and TV revenue resides, and they want a piece of it. To which the producers have essentially responded: What's this newfangled Interweb you're talking about? We don't know how it works! Are you sure there's a way we can make money from it? What a silly thing to even talk about! What next, flying cars?

Never mind that these same executives have, for years, vigorously pursued deals to put their content on the Internet, acquire websites, and sell advertising for both original and repurposed programming. (Why? To make money, in case anyone is unclear.) Suddenly, when the people who write that material ask for a share, they go all fuzzyheaded. One of AMPTP's demands has been a three-year period to study the economic viability of new media. You read that right: three years. If any studio honcho can keep a straight face while uttering the phrase ''three-year study,'' I'll fork over...at least two-thirds of a penny. What's the breakdown — one year to figure out the cash flow, one year to count the money, and one year to decide which lie to tell the writers?

The problem with this position is that writers deserve a share of revenue for material they help to create. Not a share only if the revenue is really, really a lot. A share, period. If it turns out that streaming video is a goldmine, then both sides will get a lot of money. If it turns out not to be, they'll get less. Corporations are fond of reminding their employees that they're all a ''family'' during tough times. But when families sit down to dinner, Dad doesn't get to say, ''I'm gonna eat until I decide I'm full, and then we'll see if there's anything left for the rest of you.'' The right of a writer to earn money from work that continues to generate revenue cannot be dependent on how comfy studio and network heads are with the fullness of their own coffers.

[Sickboy]

and from John August

* Writers get royalties: for books, for songs, for literary works.
* For legal reasons, studios want to be considered the “author” of a movie. So screenwriters transfer “authorship” to the studios, in exchange for a bunch of rights, and residuals.
* The studios and the WGA disagree about what rate is fair for work distributed over the internet.
* Since internet distribution will eventually replace DVDs, a bad rate would result in a pay cut for writers.
* That’s why there’s a strike.

[danspartan]

Is Dennis Miller's new show on Versus affected?

[RunDownHouse]

CDS,

When people say things like, "rofl, anyone can write an episode of 'According to Jim,'" what do you think?

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
CDS,

When people say things like, "rofl, anyone can write an episode of 'According to Jim,'" what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think: 'According to Jim' isn't where most networks are making their money. I also think: Not many people are going to go watch 'According to Jim' episodes on the internet. I watch The Office online more often then I watch it on TV. There are commercials and everything. How can networks honestly say there's a difference.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
CDS,

When people say things like, "rofl, anyone can write an episode of 'According to Jim,'" what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're either idiots, snobs, or incredibly naive.

Even cheesy sitcoms aren't easy to write. There is a reason staff writers make 150-300K a year.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CDS,

When people say things like, "rofl, anyone can write an episode of 'According to Jim,'" what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're either idiots, snobs, or incredibly naive.

Even cheesy sitcoms aren't easy to write. There is a reason staff writers make 150-300K a year.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree with your conclusion I am wondering if you have some type of background in this area that would lend yourself to being a credible expert. Or is this all based upon your own logical conclusions?

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CDS,

When people say things like, "rofl, anyone can write an episode of 'According to Jim,'" what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're either idiots, snobs, or incredibly naive.

Even cheesy sitcoms aren't easy to write. There is a reason staff writers make 150-300K a year.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree with your conclusion I am wondering if you have some type of background in this area that would lend yourself to being a credible expert. Or is this all based upon your own logical conclusions?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my day job I'm a dev assistant/story editor for a movie producer/head of production company.

And no there is not a huge untapped secret stash off screenwriters/screenplays that are over looked by Hollywood.
The majority either suck or are they aren't commercial.


For TV I'm sure there are plenty of people who write novels, plays,etc that could learn to write for TV and make a good living. But there is also a lot more to getting a job as a TV scribe than simply being a good writer.

but your average joe blo or supposed aspiring screenwriter sending out query letters has no clue and would stand little chance of ever hacking it.

[golfnutt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CDS,

When people say things like, "rofl, anyone can write an episode of 'According to Jim,'" what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're either idiots, snobs, or incredibly naive.

Even cheesy sitcoms aren't easy to write. There is a reason staff writers make 150-300K a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a response may be that they are over paid and part of closed circuit of people that can be chosen and need to be in Los Angeles.

There are absolutely brilliant writers in Los Angeles. And they are definitely briliant writers in the rest of the world who will never break in because they don't want to move to Los Angeles, get an agent, and go through the process.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]


There are absolutely brilliant writers in Los Angeles. And they are definitely briliant writers in the rest of the world who will never break in because they don't want to move to Los Angeles, get an agent, and go through the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this is a valid indictment of the system...I think another term for these potentially brilliant sitcom writers who "don't want to move to Los Angeles..." might be "lazy" or "deluded."