The Guild membership authorized a general strike at 7PM yesterday evening, which will most likely go into effect today or tomorrow.

This is terrible news, not just for writers, studios, and audiences, but most particularly for the thousands of hard working, below-the-line crafts people (FX artists and model builders alike) who make their livings in the film and television industries.

As a WGA-W member, former working writer, and veteran of the `88 strike, I can attest first hand to how long, bloody, and insanely costly this type of thing can be (my former career never fully recovered).

My heart goes out to all my friends and their families who's lives will be disrupted by this walk out. Here's hoping against hope for a quick resolution.

I hope for all concerend that this strike wraps up quickly. For what it's worth, I on the writer's side on this as I don't think that the true artists never got their due from DVD sales. (especially from product produced before the invention of DVDs or recorded material in general)

completely OT, but as a former writer, and presumed still union member, can you talk about how the unions feel about the practice of squeezing credits on TV and sometimes running them into the next program. Or running them so fast that no mortal could ever read them.?

Well, I guess I'll have to do without my Daily Show and Colbert Report fix... guess I picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue....

According to Nikki Finke of the L.A. Weekly, the studios and producers are in no hurry to settle. The fall TV season has been a bit of a stillbirth, and the producers are looking to "reboot" the season, as it were.

GREAT!

Maybe the studios can dump these retread writers and produce
something NEW for a change.
We see the same stories told again, and again, again.
Look at all the re-imagining going on.
Come up with something new!

How about some Science Fiction stories that are stories and not
thinly veiled social commentary?

Unions suck.

I wish I could walk out on a job and say "I'm not working until you pay
me more", and still have a job!
They signed a contract live with it. If they fail to work, the contract
is dissolved. They should all be fired.

The studios need to look at the thousands in Hollywood that are desperate
for a chance to work as a writer, and hire them!

GREAT!

Maybe the studios can dump these retread writers and produce
something NEW for a change.
We see the same stories told again, and again, again.
Look at all the re-imagining going on.
Come up with something new!

How about some Science Fiction stories that are stories and not
thinly veiled social commentary?

Unions suck.

I wish I could walk out on a job and say "I'm not working until you pay
me more", and still have a job!
They signed a contract live with it. If they fail to work, the contract
is dissolved. They should all be fired.

The studios need to look at the thousands in Hollywood that are desperate
for a chance to work as a writer, and hire them!
That's right. It's the writers who keep wanting to do remakes and sequels. The studios are begging for original films and no one is writing them.

And I can give you first hand experience what it is like for a non-union writer. In the '90s I sold a screenplay I had a written to someone who wanted to get into the movie business. We agreed to a small upfront payment plus a percentage of the gross. When my agent received the contract, they had changed it to a percentage of the net. Anyone who knows anything about movies knows there is no such thing as net. We insisted that they stick to the original agreement. The producer then wanted me to send my signed copy of the contract by registered express mail at my own expense. I did so. A month later, she said she needed another copy. I checked with the Post Office and found they had recieved and signed for it (after three attempts) and apparently lost it. She did not pay me in the time stipulated by contract. They said the screenplay didn't need re-writing, then had the director re-write it, even though she apparently didn't understand the story (or even basic dramatic principles).

I asked to visit the set, and the producer suggested I could come down and work as Production Assistant.

I eventually visited the set for a few days, paying for the trip myself. Even though I told the representative of the production exactly when I'd be coming down, she apparently was surprised when I showed up and expected me to arrange for my own transporation.

On the set, I was shown the screenplay which had misspelled my name. I discovered that it had been substantially re-written and the director and actors were reworking the scenes on the set. Apparently, they were trying to make the scenes more cliched and pointless.

And I never did meet the producer. She apparently wasn't even aware I was there.

After it was finished, my agent received a rough cut of the movie. That is the last I have heard from the producer. The movie was apparently never released (with good reason). If it was released, I would rather they use a pseudonym for my credit, but the contract doesn't allow for that. In fact, other than pay me if they ever make any money, they have no obligation to let me know anything and I haven't heard from them in years.

This is how the studios would treat writers if it wasn't for the union.


And for your comment about science fiction being thinly veiled social commentary. Please name one acknowledged classic of science fiction (books or movie) that isn't "thinly veiled social commentary."

Good luck on a coherent response.

Hear, hear, BEBruns.

With all due respect Cap'n, you have no idea what you're talking about. I'd try and clue you in, but I get tired of spitting into the wind (after a while it gets messy). BEBruns clearly has more stamina in this department than I do. :thumbsup:

For all the good it will do him.

And I never did meet the producer. She apparently wasn't even aware I was there.


She may not have. I have read interviews with some directors, who do not want the producers on stage, or even be aware of what is currently going on. They even go so far as to stop production until the producer leaves.

David.

originally posted by BEBruns:And I can give you first hand experience what it is like for a non-union writer. In the '90s I sold a screenplay I had a written to someone who wanted to get into the movie business. We agreed to a small upfront payment plus a percentage of the gross. When my agent received the contract, they had changed it to a percentage of the net. Anyone who knows anything about movies knows there is no such thing as net. We insisted that they stick to the original agreement. The producer then wanted me to send my signed copy of the contract by registered express mail at my own expense. I did so. A month later, she said she needed another copy. I checked with the Post Office and found they had recieved and signed for it (after three attempts) and apparently lost it. She did not pay me in the time stipulated by contract. They said the screenplay didn't need re-writing, then had the director re-write it, even though she apparently didn't understand the story (or even basic dramatic principles).

I asked to visit the set, and the producer suggested I could come down and work as Production Assistant.

I eventually visited the set for a few days, paying for the trip myself. Even though I told the representative of the production exactly when I'd be coming down, she apparently was surprised when I showed up and expected me to arrange for my own transporation.

On the set, I was shown the screenplay which had misspelled my name. I discovered that it had been substantially re-written and the director and actors were reworking the scenes on the set. Apparently, they were trying to make the scenes more cliched and pointless.

And I never did meet the producer. She apparently wasn't even aware I was there.

After it was finished, my agent received a rough cut of the movie. That is the last I have heard from the producer. The movie was apparently never released (with good reason). If it was released, I would rather they use a pseudonym for my credit, but the contract doesn't allow for that. In fact, other than pay me if they ever make any money, they have no obligation to let me know anything and I haven't heard from them in years.

Boo-Hoo.

So you didn't get the star treatment, carte blanche and
everything paid for by someone else.

Get yourself a contract lawyer, or an agent who will arrange
the contract the way you want it before you hand over the goods.

Those that are in the union already make a good living, yet
they throw a fit and demand more money or everything grinds
to a halt.

It's greed.

originally posted by BEBruns:

Boo-Hoo.

So you didn't get the star treatment, carte blanche and
everything paid for by someone else.

Get yourself a contract lawyer, or an agent who will arrange
the contract the way you want it before you hand over the goods.

Those that are in the union already make a good living, yet
they throw a fit and demand more money or everything grinds
to a halt.

It's greed.

It's greed alright - on the part of the production companies. Why shouldn't everyone involved receive fair compensation for their work?

It depends on what everyone considers "fair".

The contract the strikers are breaking at the moment was agreed upon
and signed by the writers. It seemed fair at the time. That's why they
signed it, and worked under it. Why is it unsatisfactory now?


And for your comment about science fiction being thinly veiled social commentary. Please name one acknowledged classic of science fiction (books or movie) that isn't "thinly veiled social commentary."
Allow me to define "social commentary" and discover if I'm using it
correctly. An example to explain.

Hypothetically:
A writer feels the forced relocation of the American Indians was a crime.
He wants to tell people how he feels.
He writes a space movie where aliens are forced off their planet.
The main character fights the action, and says things to indicate
it is wrong.
"STAR TREK Insurrection"

It was so obvious what they were trying to say.

That is what I think of as social commentary. When the story comments
on all, or a part of society that seems wrong and wants to educate
the public in hopes of changing the wrong.

Classics that are not social commentary?

"The Time Machine" by H.G. Wells.
Was that really social commentary? Or was he just telling a story?
Did people analyze the story and read into it messages about society?

"STAR WARS" by George Lucas
I don't know if qualifies as a classic (The original definition of "classic"
was a story that could be set in any time period, any place, and still
be valid.)

Everything I have read, all the commentaries I saw and heard have
Lucas saying the story is about redemption. One of his working titles
was "The Tragedy of Darth Vader". It is a story of how one man fell
from grace and is redeemed by his son.
Was Lucas really commenting on society at large?

"The Foundation" books by whats-his-name.
I read them as a child. It seemed like just a story about trying
to save mankind from a dark ages by preserving science and knowledge.

"Sphere" by Michael Crichton the book
I think there is a bad movie version, I didn't see it.
Maybe not a classic, but it is a story about a group of contemporary scientists that discover a space craft from the future, carrying an alien craft.

"Jurrasic Park" the movie by Steven Spielberg
It is commentary because it warns against the dangers of, what? Cloning?
Science gone bad? But it is a fun movie, and a good story.

"STAR TREK The Trouble with Tribbles"
"STAR TREK" has always been saluted for its' societal commentary,
but what about this episode? Was writer David Gerrold, and director
Joseph Pevney trying to warn us about the coming pet overpopulation?
Or was it just a fun story?

The thinly veiled crap is what I'm sick of. Constant preaching.
"You're wrong. They're wrong. It's wrong." whatever.
The "New Caprica" season of "Battlestar Galactica" is a great example.
It was almost excruciating sitting through it.
Why did I keep watching? I was waiting for the story to continue,
and I wanted to see what would happen.

This is terrible news, not just for writers, studios, and audiences, but most particularly for the thousands of hard working, below-the-line crafts people (FX artists and model builders alike) who make their livings in the film and television industries.
Yes, it is terrible news, but for the writers. They asked for this.
They decided they didn't want to work anymore and earn a paycheck.
So be it.

The rest who will not work because the writers stopped are the ones who
suffer. That's the terrible part.

I can live without TV. If there is no season, so what? I have books
to read, models to build. If TV and movies went away it would not
be such a bad loss. There is nothing decent to watch anyway.

This is why I never liked unions. Or the management of the companies who used them - especially in non-critical situations like entertainment.

The balancing act is this: When new opportunities of revenue open up and are being used at the discretion of the companies without fair recompense, it is not the same conditions the original contract was signed under. An appropriate example is the original TV system that everyone worked under was good until syndication arrived. Look at how many people did not or still do not recieve any percentage of money from those contracts. DVD and online are the "Syndication" and online (Fueled by paid for 'podcasts') is the boom of the future. Negotiating a new contract is not the same a trying for a retroactive contract.

The contract the strikers are breaking at the moment was agreed upon and signed by the writers.

The writers aren't breaking anything. The contract you refer to expired at midnight on 10/31.

Why is it unsatisfactory now?

When the former contract was negotiated, back in `88, neither side could have foreseen how many billions of dollars the studios would garner from DVD sales. The writers got shafted in that deal, and they're not going to let it happen again with new media. It's a fight they probably can't win (good luck making a dent in the pockets of conglomerates like G.E. or Viacom), but I support them nonetheless.

They asked for this. They decided they didn't want to work anymore and earn a paycheck.So be it.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion (one of many) that the WGA membership is comprised of rich, lazy, jet-setting, champagne-swilling, coke-snorting leftist fat cats. Back in the 80's this might have been true in about 1.1 percent of cases, but these days the vast majority of the Guild membership is comprised of hard working, middle class family men and women who are out of work most of the time, and subsist largely on royalties. Granted, no one put a gun to their collective heads and told them what career path to follow, but that doesn't mean they should just bend over and let the wealthiest and greediest people on the planet (e.g. Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone) ream them.

Oh, and another thing; having once spent two years as a studio script reader I can assure you your theory about there being some vast untapped talent pool of screen writing geniuses laboring in obscurity outside the studio system is yet another delusional fantasy. I've read the stuff these "talented" folks submit, and if anything it constitutes a vast, untapped pool of torture.

I can't help but think if you had a clearer grasp of the issues you'd find it hard to side with the studios on this one. Then again, all those guys on the Death Star had to come from somewhere.

It depends on what everyone considers "fair".

The contract the strikers are breaking at the moment was agreed upon
and signed by the writers. It seemed fair at the time. That's why they
signed it, and worked under it. Why is it unsatisfactory now?



Where do you get they are breaking any contract?
Their contract expired on 10/31/07.
They worked through the contract.
The guild and the studios could not come to an agreement on a new contract.
So the writers basically are saying they will not work without a new contract.
How is that wrong?
Would you work without a contract? Would you work without knowing if or how much you would be paid for that work?

That is what I think of as social commentary. When the story comments
on all, or a part of society that seems wrong and wants to educate
the public in hopes of changing the wrong.

Classics that are not social commentary?

"The Time Machine" by H.G. Wells.
Was that really social commentary? Or was he just telling a story?
Did people analyze the story and read into it messages about society?

"STAR WARS" by George Lucas
I don't know if qualifies as a classic (The original definition of "classic"
was a story that could be set in any time period, any place, and still
be valid.)

Everything I have read, all the commentaries I saw and heard have
Lucas saying the story is about redemption. One of his working titles
was "The Tragedy of Darth Vader". It is a story of how one man fell
from grace and is redeemed by his son.
Was Lucas really commenting on society at large?

"The Foundation" books by whats-his-name.
I read them as a child. It seemed like just a story about trying
to save mankind from a dark ages by preserving science and knowledge.

"Sphere" by Michael Crichton the book
I think there is a bad movie version, I didn't see it.
Maybe not a classic, but it is a story about a group of contemporary scientists that discover a space craft from the future, carrying an alien craft.

"Jurrasic Park" the movie by Steven Spielberg
It is commentary because it warns against the dangers of, what? Cloning?
Science gone bad? But it is a fun movie, and a good story.

"STAR TREK The Trouble with Tribbles"
"STAR TREK" has always been saluted for its' societal commentary,
but what about this episode? Was writer David Gerrold, and director
Joseph Pevney trying to warn us about the coming pet overpopulation?
Or was it just a fun story?

Every single example you listed has some commentary on society or the human condition. If it makes you happy to be blind to that...well...enjoy.

Classics that are not social commentary?

"The Time Machine" by H.G. Wells.
Was that really social commentary? Or was he just telling a story?
Did people analyze the story and read into it messages about society?
"The Time Machine" is a criticism of the English class system by showing what would happen if it influenced the forces of evolution. The workers became mindless, cannabilistic beasts. The upper classes became childlike beings living a hedonistic life whose only worth is a food for the Morlocks.


"STAR WARS" by George Lucas
I don't know if qualifies as a classic (The original definition of "classic"
was a story that could be set in any time period, any place, and still
be valid.)

Everything I have read, all the commentaries I saw and heard have
Lucas saying the story is about redemption. One of his working titles
was "The Tragedy of Darth Vader". It is a story of how one man fell
from grace and is redeemed by his son.
Was Lucas really commenting on society at large?
STAR WARS is about a small, determined group fighting against an overwhelming military power. I doubt there isn't a period in history where someone can't read a metaphor into this. And remember, Lucas was originally going to direct APOCALYPSE NOW.


"The Foundation" books by whats-his-name.
I read them as a child. It seemed like just a story about trying
to save mankind from a dark ages by preserving science and knowledge.
It may not fit your definition of "social commentary" but an elite intellectual organization preserving society against the barbaric tendenies of society seems to qualify for me.


"Sphere" by Michael Crichton the book
I think there is a bad movie version, I didn't see it.
Maybe not a classic, but it is a story about a group of contemporary scientists that discover a space craft from the future, carrying an alien craft.
Haven't read the book or seen the movie so I can't comment. And I don't think anyone would consider this a "classic."


"Jurrasic Park" the movie by Steven Spielberg
It is commentary because it warns against the dangers of, what? Cloning?
Science gone bad? But it is a fun movie, and a good story.
Apparently, you missed the lunch scene, where the scientists complained about about the big industrialist abusing science for monetary gain.


"STAR TREK The Trouble with Tribbles"
"STAR TREK" has always been saluted for its' societal commentary,
but what about this episode? Was writer David Gerrold, and director
Joseph Pevney trying to warn us about the coming pet overpopulation?
Or was it just a fun story?

In his book on the making of the episode, David Gerrold has stated he thought he was telling the story of rabbits in Australia.

And frankly, it never occured to me that ST: INSURRECTION was about the plight of American Indians.

On the one hand, I can see writers wanting more of a cut from the money that their work brings in. But, as an engineer, I am in the similar boots to the hollywood writers and stuck in them whether I go on strike or not. As an engineer that works for someone else's company besidews my own, if I invent somthing while working for my employer, I don't own the patent or get royalties. All I get is my paycheck and a pat on the back. When I get laid off, quit, or get fired, I don't benefit from my previous intellectual work whatsoever because it still belongs to my former employer. Why would writers be treated any differently? It's not right, but, that's the way it is. The owners get infinitely rich and the employees get their limited finite paychecks.

I think the question should be "Why aren't engineers thought better of and allowed to participate in the fruits of their labors?". Just because you accept that deal doesn't mean someone else should.

Also, entertainment by and large is very limited employment (and many times, a one shot deal) whereas you are constantly employed and derive benefits such as health and dental, retirement, taxes and Social Security being taken out of your check and matched by the employer and a whole host of things that the self employed do not get to enjoy.

Well, one reason that engineers don't benefit much is that there aren't any strong unions for engineers and most engineers don't think they should have a union. Another reason is that patents are more expensive to get than copyrights. Only the corporation have the money to get multiple patents nowadays. Patents don't protect inventors as much as they protect the corporations. The only way that an engineer can share in the fruits is by going independent on his or her own nickel.

Engineers do get benefits like you mentioned, but, they are not as good as they used to be. Constant employment is not a guarantee either, with jobs being outsourced to India and other countries. I was unemployed several years ago and without insurance and worked as newspaper delivery person and limo driver to make ends meet between jobs. Alot of engineers are heading towards self-employment as well. Companies are hiring more and more contract workers so they don't have to pay them benefits.

The only way that an engineer can share in the fruits is by going independent on his or her own nickel.


That is what is happening to writers and other creative persons. So, they are bargaining for the same rights as other people are. Again, this is why other people band together as a union. They only want what is the proper proportion of the pie.

Hypothetical situation:
A man makes a baseball.
He sells it to Major League Baseball.
He has been paid for his work.
The baseball now belongs to the MLB.
The ball is used in a game where a player hits a record setting home run.
The fan who catches the ball in the stands sells it for $1,000,000.
The man who made the ball then demands a cut of the resale of the ball
just because he originally made the ball.
Is that fair?

Writers produce a product.
They sell it to a customer (the studios).
The story now belongs to someone else.
If it is sold to another customer, why does the original maker get
to demand a piece of the sale?


If the writers' contract expired on 10/31, they have then fulfilled
their obligation, and so has the studios.
How can this situation be called a "strike"?


All you professional writers out there please answer this:
Of all the stories you have written, whether you sold them or not,
are they all social commentary? Was the impetus for each one
a desire to illustrate some plight or injustice? Did you never once
want to tell a story for its' own sake, or just to entertain?

One more example to shoot down:
"ALIENS" by James Cameron
I know it doesn't qualify as a classic in the strictest sense,
but it is good science fiction.
There are those that will analyze a thing to death. They force it
to mean something when that was not the case.
This movie is about a rescue team being attacked by monsters.
If one draws parallels to social problems, was that because Cameron
wanted them in the movie? Or was he merely thinking about making
a great movie?

I can't believe every storyteller is only trying to draw attention
to some problem. Don't they ever want to simply entertain their audience?


Well, guys, this discussion/debate has been most illuminating.
You introduced me to some facts and concepts I was unaware of.
I hope you all are not too mad at me for voicing my opinions and
notions.

One more example to shoot down:
"ALIENS" by James Cameron
I know it doesn't qualify as a classic in the strictest sense,
but it is good science fiction.
There are those that will analyze a thing to death. They force it
to mean something when that was not the case.
This movie is about a rescue team being attacked by monsters.
If one draws parallels to social problems, was that because Cameron
wanted them in the movie? Or was he merely thinking about making
a great movie?

I can't believe every storyteller is only trying to draw attention
to some problem. Don't they ever want to simply entertain their audience?


Aliens is a great movie. Its a great war movie framed as a science fiction story. But its not particularly "original". Which is one of the things you were complaining about in your first post.

You were also complaining that too many science fiction stories are "thinly veiled social commentary" but then you imply that others "read too much" into those same stories.

Finally, yeah, there are plenty of storytellers out there who want to "simply entertain their audience". The problem is, most of them write variations of the same old stories - again, and again, and again. Very few of them write something "new".

Which is one of the things you were complaining about in your first post.

originally posted by Carson Dyle:
the WGA membership is comprised of rich, lazy, jet-setting, champagne-swilling, coke-snorting leftist fat cats.
Wow. I didn't know you felt that way.

Hypothetical situation:
A man makes a baseball.
He sells it to Major League Baseball.
He has been paid for his work.
The baseball now belongs to the MLB.
The ball is used in a game where a player hits a record setting home run.
The fan who catches the ball in the stands sells it for $1,000,000.
The man who made the ball then demands a cut of the resale of the ball
just because he originally made the ball.
Is that fair?

Writers produce a product.
They sell it to a customer (the studios).
The story now belongs to someone else.
If it is sold to another customer, why does the original maker get
to demand a piece of the sale?


Apples and oranges:

Creation of something unique and manufacture of something is completely different. Your ball maker did not invent the ball nor its design. The strike is about creative rights and not manufacture. Manufacturers routinely change their prices based on demand.

And, it is a strike even if they stop working without guarantees. It is still a work stoppage.

originally posted by BEBruns:
STAR WARS is about a small, determined group fighting against an overwhelming military power.
The setting is the rebellion against the Empire.
The main story follows the Skywalkers, (Anakin and Luke),
showing Anakin's fall from grace, then his redemption by Luke.
Lucas himself said that on a DVD commentary.

Likewise, "Gone with the Wind" is not about the Civil War, but is
the backdrop for the story of Scarlet and how she dealt with it.

"STAR WARS" is the same. Big war, but the story is about the
tragedy of Darth Vader.

Hypothetical situation:
A man makes a baseball.
He sells it to Major League Baseball.
He has been paid for his work.
The baseball now belongs to the MLB.
The ball is used in a game where a player hits a record setting home run.
The fan who catches the ball in the stands sells it for $1,000,000.
The man who made the ball then demands a cut of the resale of the ball
just because he originally made the ball.
Is that fair?

Writers produce a product.
They sell it to a customer (the studios).
The story now belongs to someone else.
If it is sold to another customer, why does the original maker get
to demand a piece of the sale?

Invalid analogy. The design of a baseball is standardized. How it is made has no effect on it's eventual value.

If someone comes up with a unique design, then he should be rewarded based on how popular it is.

The problem is, if you have a single individual with a unique product negotiating with a large corporation, it is not an equal relationship, especially when the value of the product is unproven. If a writer starts making demands, the company will simply say, "We'll go with someone else."

I'm sorry, but I don't think a person's financial reward should be some gift bestowed on them by someone who already has power and money. It is only when the writers (or actors, directors, gaffers, etc.) band together do they have anything approaching the clout to get a fair deal.

All you professional writers out there please answer this:
Of all the stories you have written, whether you sold them or not,
are they all social commentary? Was the impetus for each one
a desire to illustrate some plight or injustice? Did you never once
want to tell a story for its' own sake, or just to entertain?

Of course a story should be "entertaining." I'm not sure how you define that, but to me that means it elicits an emotional reaction from the audience. But if it is to have any value, it should also give the audience a unique view on the world. If it doesn't present some truth (hopefully a non-obvious one), it is just a waste of time.

I look at it this way. Food should taste good. It should also be nutritious. If it is the first but not the second it is junk food. It is the second but not the first, it is inedible.

originally posted by BEBruns:

The setting is the rebellion against the Empire.
The main story follows the Skywalkers, (Anakin and Luke),
showing Anakin's fall from grace, then his redemption by Luke.
Lucas himself said that on a DVD commentary.

Likewise, "Gone with the Wind" is not about the Civil War, but is
the backdrop for the story of Scarlet and how she dealt with it.

"STAR WARS" is the same. Big war, but the story is about the
tragedy of Darth Vader.
I thought you were talking about STAR WARS, not the STAR WARS saga.

the WGA membership is comprised of rich, lazy, jet-setting, champagne-swilling, coke-snorting leftist fat cats.

Wow. I didn't know you felt that way.

This is how Al Gore got into trouble. Which reminds me, I hear they’re looking for people over at Fox news (the fiction writers who usually write their stories are on strike).

originally posted by Erik K:
Apples and oranges:

Creation of something unique and manufacture of something is completely different. Your ball maker did not invent the ball nor its design. The strike is about creative rights and not manufacture. Manufacturers routinely change their prices based on demand.

And, it is a strike even if they stop working without guarantees. It is still a work stoppage.
O.K.
I did not know that. I thought a strike only occurred while a group
was under contract.

I see a script, novel, story, etc. as a product. Manufactured by a writer.
Sold to a customer. Compensation determined by both parties.
Once sold, it's the customers' (Studios) to do with as they please.

What is the deal with the constant bashing of Fox news?
They have the same stories on as the other news channels.
The few times I've seen it, it is the same as the others.

Sorry. I've never bashed FOX on this site before, and I wanted to see what it was like. On the C.S.A.I. (cheap shot amusement index) I give it a 5.

originally posted by BEBruns:
I thought you were talking about STAR WARS, not the STAR WARS saga.
Oops.
Should have clarified.

I see a script, novel, story, etc. as a product. Manufactured by a writer.
Sold to a customer. Compensation determined by both parties.
Once sold, it's the customers' (Studios) to do with as they please.

That is what they are determining. What will be the future compensation from emerging media. So, this is part of the process you are describing. However, the process is not "manufacturing". IT is creative at that part of the production. Manufacturing is when it goes to 'press' so to speak; DVD production etc. Notice there is never a DVD strike or something along those lines?

originally posted by BEBruns: I thought you were talking about STAR WARS, not the STAR WARS saga.

Oops.
Should have clarified.


SW Saga message: The pursuit of power for its own sake is dangerous. You need to balance it with temperament and humility, otherwise it'll destroy everything you've worked for (including you). Once you've gone over the edge, only those who love you will care enough to try to save you.

Pretty interesting social commentary, don't you think?

Erik K posted:Notice there is never a DVD strike or something along those lines?
It would be kind of cute to see those little discs walking a
picket line carrying signs. :p

I see a script, novel, story, etc. as a product. Manufactured by a writer.
Sold to a customer. Compensation determined by both parties.
Once sold, it's the customers' (Studios) to do with as they please.

That's the issue. The WGA wants better residual deals as part of their compensation, and they're negotiating with the production companies to determine that compensation. Residuals aren't at all uncommon as part of compensation for creative works (novels, screenplays, patented products, etc.). On the purchaser's side they usually result in a lower initial payout, which is important when investing in something risky. On the seller's side, if the product is successful they'll receive more money down the road.

As an example, it's not at all unusual for an inventor who licenses or sells a patent to receive a payout of X amount, plus a percentage of the profit from each item produced and sold.

When it comes to discussing union negotiations, I like to use this example: it's common for smaller producers (such as farmers) or smaller businesses to use co-op type arrangements to handle buying and selling in order to give them greater market power. A properly functioning union does the same thing - the workers have a product to sell to their employer - labor. By banding together, they have greater market power which lets them negotiate a better deal for their product.

It would be kind of cute to see those little discs walking a picket line carrying signs. :p
:jest:

originally posted by Erik K:

O.K.
I did not know that. I thought a strike only occurred while a group
was under contract.

I see a script, novel, story, etc. as a product. Manufactured by a writer.
Sold to a customer. Compensation determined by both parties.
Once sold, it's the customers' (Studios) to do with as they please.

So, once Stephan King sells a story to a publisher, that is all the money he should get?
He doesn't deserve a percentage of the book sales?
He doesn't deserve any money if a studio wants to use that story for a movie or TV show?
It's basically the same thing. Book writers and screne writers work the same way.

They only get money if someone likes their work.
IT would be different in my mind if they got hired and worked a 40 hour work week 52 weeks a year. Then they would be doing work for hire. The trade off for continuing employment and benefits is that you don't share the risk, so you don't share the rewards.
But that isn't the way it works. They only get paid if someone likes their script and wants to use it for their show / episode / movie. When the shooting is over, they are out of work again. And can go months until a new job comes up. The way they make ends meet is through residuals.
It's sort of like a copyright holdre getting paid whenever someone uses their idea. Any time someone buys the product that uses their script, they get a little monetary compensation.
Unfortunately the way things work now, they get very little from DVD sales.
And nothing from online sales or ad revenue made during online viewing.

It would be kind of cute to see those little discs walking a
picket line carrying signs. :p

Why am I reminded of the anthropomorphic towel from "South Park?" :lol:

Or....Mr. Hanky?

So if individual writers were signed up INDIVIDUALLY, the good ones get the big bucks, the crappy ones get part time jobs. No strikes. Business as usual. Writers who are jerks go work elsewhere. NO STRIKES.

Tell me how Unions "Help" again...Other than jacking up the price of every script when worthless writers get paid the same as the truly creative ones.

I don't have the time to watch much television, so I won't miss new David Letterman shows and soap operas. But, I do feal sorry for everyone else. The studios and the writers will lose money. Add to this that the high cost of housing in New York City and Los Angelos. I hope they find a solution that everyone involved will be happy with.

What is the deal with the constant bashing of Fox news?
They have the same stories on as the other news channels.
The few times I've seen it, it is the same as the others.

Well, leaving anything political out of my reply, it might have to do with their well-documented inaccuracy,frequently, seemingly, on purpose.

As for the strike,it just amazes me that the same talking heads that will proclaim a writer wanting to get something like 1/12 of a 1 percent of future DVD or internet sales is just a greedy whiner, will also defend the retiring head of Exxon getting a $400 million dollar retirement bonus on top of his $56 million dollar annual salary as good ol' capitalism at it's finest.

The entertainment industry is a luxury item at best. NOT A REQUIRED ITEM.

Like the model kit industry?

Exactly!

ummmm, what does being a required item have to do with the subject being discussed?