Official WGA Writers Strike thread.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For all we know, networks might lose money on streaming TV shows because of the bandwidth, with the ads only partially making up for the loss or making it break-even.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

Seriously, this 'they (say they) aren't making money on the webcasts' argument makes no sense, how do people not see that??

If TV broadcasts of LOST were losing ABC money, are they justified in not paying their writers? No of course not, they are perfectly entitled to cancel the show, but if they keep playing it, even if they are losing money in the process, they have to pay the writers.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this matters, including what I said. The writers are entitled to whatever their contract says they're entitled to it, and it doesn't matter what you and I decide we think is fair. If they can negotiate it up, fine.

I don't like how it's a given that the writers are "entitled" to royalties when a show is re-run or released on DVD. If the studios decide "f this - we're going to pay a flat $10,000 for each completed script of According to Jim with no royalties ever", and if they're able to get the scripts they need with that agreement, then more power to them.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you can get a job on a tv show your probably a good writer and better than a large majority of America.


[/ QUOTE ]

A friend of mine from college wrote for the Reba show, Til Death, some other stuff. I could be wrong, but I kind of got the impression that to be a writer on a show it helps if your sense of humor is inline with your general fan base. As I would say hers was for the most part with Reba fans. Otherwise you're just writing cynical and it shows.

IE - try to plug in the head-writer for Family Guy or The Office into According to Jim - and it would be a disaster. And I mean even before that person became a big shot at those other shows.

Do you know what I'm trying to say, and does it make sense? I'm sure my friend is a good writer, and has a good sense of humor. But to some extent I think another important qualification to writing for a show, is that you're kind of at the level of that show. Or maybe that's just a qualification for not hating your job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah thats pretty close. You spend hours and hours and hours in a room with 5 or 6 other high strung people so how you co-exist with them is huge. Also you have to be able to write on deadline.

Film its like...holy crap this script Jurrasic Park is amazing. The screenwriter is goth and dresses up in women clothes...ah [censored] it who cares we'll buy it n then get rid of him.

Tv its like holy crap this is the most brilliant tv spec i have ever read. Showrunner has a meeting with writer. Oh my god that guy is [censored] [censored]. hmmm do i want to spend the next year dealing with him 24/7 or should i hire that other guy who will fit in perfectly with my staff but who's spec wasn't as amazing.

You have able to tap into the given voice of a show and gel with the show runner and his staff other wise even if your CSI script is really good writing...its still going to get massively re-written if your not in tune with the characters, how they speak, how they interact with each other, or how the showrunner expected you to write that given episode etc.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
If your a good screenwriter or television writer..guess what your a good writer.

If your a good short story writer..guess what...your a good writer.

Insert journalist, novelist, etc.

you don't have to be good at every single form of writing in the universe to be considered a good writer.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing the point.

Being good at a writing job doesn't make one a good writer.

It may seem counterintuitive but it couldn't be more plain and true.

Being a good writer is about writing well and ultimately storytelling in an intelligent/original/novel/clever/funny/... way.

However there are writing jobs which don't reward these things, in fact they reward the opposite, because they don't want something smart/challenging/different, they want facile/familiar/accessible. Being good at these jobs, even though they are the jobs of a writer, does not make you a good writer.

Now, you are correct in saying a writer may be brought down by his job. There may be fantastic writers doing good work spewing out sitcom scripts involving a woman giving birth in an elevator; given the opportunity they may thrive and really tell great stories.

But this bring us back to the noveless novelist; and so we must conclude that a writer must be judged but what he writes, if only because it's all we have to go on, rather than what he would be capable of writing under different circumstances.

Therefore, judging them based on what they write, because the vast majority of tv is vapid, soulless trite, we have no choice to say that the vast majority of tv writers are bad writers (notwithstanding that they have a difficult job that requires a specific skillset, and some may be capable of genius if afforded the opportunity).

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For all we know, networks might lose money on streaming TV shows because of the bandwidth, with the ads only partially making up for the loss or making it break-even.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

Seriously, this 'they (say they) aren't making money on the webcasts' argument makes no sense, how do people not see that??

If TV broadcasts of LOST were losing ABC money, are they justified in not paying their writers? No of course not, they are perfectly entitled to cancel the show, but if they keep playing it, even if they are losing money in the process, they have to pay the writers.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this matters, including what I said. The writers are entitled to whatever their contract says they're entitled to it, and it doesn't matter what you and I decide we think is fair. If they can negotiate it up, fine.

I don't like how it's a given that the writers are "entitled" to royalties when a show is re-run or released on DVD. If the studios decide "f this - we're going to pay a flat $10,000 for each completed script of According to Jim with no royalties ever", and if they're able to get the scripts they need with that agreement, then more power to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

From JA's blog

And in the process of converting written words to filmed entertainment, a bit of legal sleight-of-hand takes place. I’m going to oversimplify it to make it comprehensible, but the longer, more accurate version matches the shape of what I’m about to explain.

Whether you write a song, a book or a screenplay, you’re protected by copyright. More than that, you’re acknowledged as the Author of the work, which has important (but eye-glazingly complicated) implications under international law, including certain inalienable creative rights. When movie studios read your screenplay and decide they’d like to make it into a film, they hit a few snags. Two examples:

1. As the Author and copyright-holder, you the writer control the ability to make derivative works, such as a movie. Or a sequel. Or a videogame.
2. Some of your inalienable2 creative rights as Author (e.g. “no one can mutilate or distort the work in such as way as to be prejudicial to the honor or reputation of the author”) are potential nightmares for a company about to spend $100 million on a movie distributed worldwide.

So a compromise was made.

Screenwriters would sell the “authorship” of their screenplays to the studios,3 and allow themselves to be classified as employees. Original works would thus become works-made-for-hire.

In exchange, screenwriters would get a host of benefits and protections covered by the Writers Guild of America (the WGA), which as a labor union can only represent employees.

The WGA would also collect royalties on behalf of screenwriters. Royalties were renamed “residuals,” since only “authors” collect royalties. 4

[Xibalba]

[ QUOTE ]
and so we must conclude that a writer must be judged but what he writes, if only because it's all we have to go on

[/ QUOTE ]

Here lies the problem with your argument.
No, we shouldn't.
Mostly because for historical reasons, we regard the "writer" as the "genius innovator", but that definition sort of crumbles when presented to today's climate.
By your definition, nearly all the Noir writers of the first half of the past century weren't "good", since they pretty much lacked, with a couple of innovations, the qualities you mention.
Thing is, the way the TV industry works, to judge the actual writer's job because of its lack of originality is akin to criticizing an artesan for lack of innovation in his product, while his product is actually defined by its semi-mass production.
While I do agree that 90% of all sitcoms are beyond trite/horrible, that has nothing to do with the quality of the writers in their staff, by the way the industry works. And not even only because their scripts are usually rewritten.
But, do you think all the cameramen/directors/etcfolk involved in making a sitcom are "bad"? Most of them are pretty much doing what they are supposed to do for their job, making sausages.

The problem is that the word "writer" often brings lots of connotations/expectations.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your a good screenwriter or television writer..guess what your a good writer.

If your a good short story writer..guess what...your a good writer.

Insert journalist, novelist, etc.

you don't have to be good at every single form of writing in the universe to be considered a good writer.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing the point.

Being good at a writing job doesn't make one a good writer.

It may seem counterintuitive but it couldn't be more plain and true.

Being a good writer is about writing well and ultimately storytelling in an intelligent/original/novel/clever/funny/... way.

However there are writing jobs which don't reward these things, in fact they reward the opposite, because they don't want something smart/challenging/different, they want facile/familiar/accessible. Being good at these jobs, even though they are the jobs of a writer, does not make you a good writer.

Now, you are correct in saying a writer may be brought down by his job. There may be fantastic writers doing good work spewing out sitcom scripts involving a woman giving birth in an elevator; given the opportunity they may thrive and really tell great stories.

But this bring us back to the noveless novelist; and so we must conclude that a writer must be judged but what he writes, if only because it's all we have to go on, rather than what he would be capable of writing under different circumstances.

Therefore, judging them based on what they write, because the vast majority of tv is vapid, soulless trite, we have no choice to say that the vast majority of tv writers are bad writers (notwithstanding that they have a difficult job that requires a specific skillset, and some may be capable of genius if afforded the opportunity).

[/ QUOTE ]


"Being a good writer is about writing well and ultimately storytelling in an intelligent/original/novel/clever/funny/... way."

The majority of TV writers do this every week.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

CDS,

If someone wants to get a job writing for television and they live in Idaho, what should they do after they move to LA?

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

Re: Television writers. I think the reason why 99% of the shows on television suck are because they are dumbed down for the general audiences and are severely limited in the content they are allowed to depict. Just because a show sucks doesn't mean the guys who write it suck.

I think The Wire is better than The Godfather and its ratings are terrible.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

"Being a good writer is about writing well and ultimately storytelling in an intelligent/original/novel/clever/funny/... way."

The majority of TV writers do this every week.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They don't. Very few shows are well written. Not that I could necessarily do better.

[hanimal]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: Television writers. I think the reason why 99% of the shows on television suck are because they are dumbed down for the general audiences and are severely limited in the content they are allowed to depict. Just because a show sucks doesn't mean the guys who write it suck.

I think The Wire is better than The Godfather and its ratings are terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.
You think most writers WANT to write these dumb, formulaic shows? Blame the studios for a lot of the crappy content you guys complain about.