NationStates Jolt Archive

It is still going and almost all shows are about to go dark....People outside the writers are losing their jobs and TV is more boring now than ever, lets not forget more realilty shows and CBS picking up UFC, NBC may air more WWE wrestling which would be fine by me if if McMoron knew how to run it anymore.

Let's not forget Ellene being harrassed for crossing the lines and more talk show hosts paying their staff outta pocket. How much longer will this last and how do you support in this?

Reality shows still need writers. Wrestling even more so.

Sorry, where's this?

TV seems to be ticking over just fine.

Sorry, where's this?

TV seems to be ticking over just fine.



USA only, I assume you are not in america?

Reality shows still need writers. Wrestling even more so.



WWE and TNA are non-union so they are not affected...But canning their writers would help as their stories suck.

I hope the Writers strike doesn't force the Producers of Scrubs to create a crappy half assed series finale. I hate it when they create half assed series finales that leave many of the questions unanswered.

WWE and TNA are non-union so they are not affected...But canning their writers would help as their stories suck.

Yea, I can't watch wrestling anymore, I mean back in the 80s and early 90s it was about the wrestling, we'd have like 15 to 30 minutes of wrestling and maybe 5 minutes of talk. Now it's the other way around.

USA only, I assume you are not in america?

Like around half this Australian owned, British hosted, board...no. I'm not in America.

I hope the Writers strike doesn't force the Producers of Scrubs to create a crappy half assed series finale. I hate it when they create half assed series finales that leave many of the questions unanswered.


It will, heroes is cutting down it's season finale. Lucky for me I just got into Justice League Unlimited and The Batman, with WWE wrestling I should be good for a while.

Like around half this Australian owned, British hosted, board...no. I'm not in America.


You wouldn't notice then so just pick I am not an american option.

It will, heroes is cutting down it's season finale. Lucky for me I just got into Justice League Unlimited and The Batman, with WWE wrestling I should be good for a while.

Dammit! I don't want that to happen. I mean last Thursday we just learn that Dr. Kelso is going to step down as Chief of Medicine at Scared Heart, and there need to be a story about who's going to replace him. Of course it may be Dr. Cox, or JD, but at least let's have a little story before announcing the new Chief of Medicine. Also, I don't want JD and Elliot to just magically end up together, once again, there needs to be a story of how they end up together. Don't even get me started on the Turks!

You wouldn't notice then so just pick I am not an american option.

And in future you could try to make more clear what country you are referring to?

Excellent, I'll vote for not an American...

And in future you could try to make more clear what country you are referring to?

Excellent, I'll vote for not an American...


Maybe, but americans will know what I mean.

It's not in the USA only,it's any show that is made in America.

I live in Canada but its not like I still get new Colbert Report,Daily Show or Late Night with Conan O'Brien episodes when nobody else does...just because I'm Canadian.

It's not in the USA only,it's any show that is made in America.

I live in Canada but its not like I still get new Colbert Report,Daily Show or Late Night with Conan O'Brien episodes when nobody else does...just because I'm Canadian.



You know what I mean.

Not being in the US doesn't mean that we won't notice, it just means that we'll notice much later on when all of the American shows that are affected start to trickle down slowly into our TVs in seven years time. :mad:

Mah Heroes... GIMMIE MORE HEROES!

Why are they on strike anyway?

Also, I did notice, because they stopped showing Prison Break. Sky One advertises it as Prison Break taking a break. Idiots, as if we don't know about the writer's strike. At least RTE 2 admitted what's going on when they finished showing it.

Half the staff here watches US series thanks to the technological miracles of XXI century and all of them are rooting for the writers. If the writers win my colleagues will surely stop downloading their work for free... I suppose.
No, not really :rolleyes:

I'm pretty apathetic about it all as there is precious little that comes from them that I find stimulating. Besides, even though some shows that I do happen to enjoy will be affected, (hopefully) equally affected would be the shows that I detest passionately. There's far more of the latter than the former. Maybe it's an opportunity for more home-grown acts, though they receive a laughable amount of funding by any measure.

Seriously, why are they striking?

Better pay, as far as I remember from some weeks ago

I don't care because I don't even have cable television! I have internet cable though. Far better. I get served NSG faster! :)

I watched pretty much no television when we did have it here. I probably watched 30 minutes a day (Jeopardy, Mon-Fri), maybe an hour on Monday (Rick Mercer Monday Report) and an hour on Friday (Royal Canadian Air Farce), with my longest stint on Sunday when the Simpsons and other cartoons were on.

A household with no television is one of peace. No commercials! I have not seen one Christmas commercial this year! Bliss, pure bliss!!

I don't care because I don't even have cable television! I have internet cable though. Far better. I get served NSG faster! :)

I watched pretty much no television when we did have it here. I probably watched 30 minutes a day (Jeopardy, Mon-Fri), maybe an hour on Monday (Rick Mercer Monday Report) and an hour on Friday (Royal Canadian Air Farce), with my longest stint on Sunday when the Simpsons and other cartoons were on.

A household with no television is one of peace. No commercials! I have not seen one Christmas commercial this year! Bliss, pure bliss!!

But if you don't have commercials, then how do you know what people are selling?

But if you don't have commercials, then how do you know what people are selling?

It's called junk mail. coming to a letterbox near you. :rolleyes: I swear at least 80% of what's in the recycle bin is junk mail.

But if you don't have commercials, then how do you know what people are selling?

Hmmm... I don't know... go into the stores myself? Or read about it online through reviews and consumer reports?! :p

It's called junk mail. coming to a letterbox near you. :rolleyes: I swear at least 80% of what's in the recycle bin is junk mail.

I beg to differ. 100% of the stuff in the recycling box in my building's entrance is ALL junk mail. :)

Seriously, why are they striking?
Here's a short-version break down:

Who is striking? The Writers Guild of America, hereafter labeled WGA. (Technically, the East and West Writer's Guilds.) The guild (technically guilds) is a labor union that represents film, television and radio writers working in the United States.

Who are they striking against? The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). This organization represents the interests of American film and television producers.

What's the poop? Every several years, the WGA and the AMPTP hash out a contract that defines the basics of how writers are employed. This time around, negotiations stalled out. Hence the strike.

No, seriously, what's the real poop? The core of the argument is over residuals. Residuals are the profits made from subsequent airings or purchases of a program. According to the WGA, residuals are really key income for writers. Residuals are what pay the writer's bills between jobs. It is very common for writers to go through long periods of unemployment between writing gigs, so you can see why residuals would be important to them.

There's a couple of problems, as I understand it, surrounding residuals. First, the WGA wants to see writers getting a bigger residual rate from DVD sales. WGA wants writers to get 8 cents of every dollar from these sales (they currently get 4 cents). The AMPTP says no.

Second, and perhaps most important, is the issue of residuals for "new media." New media includes internet downloads, streaming, straight-to-internet content, and various "on demand" distribution (including both online and cable/satellite TV avenues). Right now, there's no arrangement concerning how these "new media" are handled.

The WGA proposed that writers receive 2.5% of distributor's gross for new-media sales and distribution. AMPTP has proposed that internet sales follow the same formula that DVD sales follow (the formula that the WGA already has a problem with). Furthermore, the companies have proposed that writers should get no residuals whatsoever for streaming content, even if an entire program is streamed for profit.

What should I think of all this? You should support the writers. They are making perfectly reasonable requests. Indeed, pretty much this same crap went down over VHS residuals back in the 80s.

But don't take my word for it. Read what Joss Whedon (one of life's winners) had to say:

http://whedonesque.com/comments/14650

Here's a short-version break down:

Who is striking? The Writers Guild of America, hereafter labeled WGA. (Technically, the East and West Writer's Guilds.) The guild (technically guilds) is a labor union that represents film, television and radio writers working in the United States.

Who are they striking against? The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). This organization represents the interests of American film and television producers.

What's the poop? Every several years, the WGA and the AMPTP hash out a contract that defines the basics of how writers are employed. This time around, negotiations stalled out. Hence the strike.

No, seriously, what's the real poop? The core of the argument is over residuals. Residuals are the profits made from subsequent airings or purchases of a program. According to the WGA, residuals are really key income for writers. Residuals are what pay the writer's bills between jobs. It is very common for writers to go through long periods of unemployment between writing gigs, so you can see why residuals would be important to them.

There's a couple of problems, as I understand it, surrounding residuals. First, the WGA wants to see writers getting a bigger residual rate from DVD sales. WGA wants writers to get 8 cents of every dollar from these sales (they currently get 4 cents). The AMPTP says no.

Second, and perhaps most important, is the issue of residuals for "new media." New media includes internet downloads, streaming, straight-to-internet content, and various "on demand" distribution (including both online and cable/satellite TV avenues). Right now, there's no arrangement concerning how these "new media" are handled.

The WGA proposed that writers receive 2.5% of distributor's gross for new-media sales and distribution. AMPTP has proposed that internet sales follow the same formula that DVD sales follow (the formula that the WGA already has a problem with). Furthermore, the companies have proposed that writers should get no residuals whatsoever for streaming content, even if an entire program is streamed for profit.

What should I think of all this? You should support the writers. They are making perfectly reasonable requests. Indeed, pretty much this same crap went down over VHS residuals back in the 80s.

But don't take my word for it. Read what Joss Whedon (one of life's winners) had to say:

http://whedonesque.com/comments/14650

Ah Bottle, so useful to have around :fluffle:

*supports writers*
*mails anthrax to the AMPTP*

What? Too much?

There's a couple of problems, as I understand it, surrounding residuals. First, the WGA wants to see writers getting a bigger residual rate from DVD sales. WGA wants writers to get 8 cents of every dollar from these sales (they currently get 4 cents). The AMPTP says no.

Second, and perhaps most important, is the issue of residuals for "new media." New media includes internet downloads, streaming, straight-to-internet content, and various "on demand" distribution (including both online and cable/satellite TV avenues). Right now, there's no arrangement concerning how these "new media" are handled.

The WGA proposed that writers receive 2.5% of distributor's gross for new-media sales and distribution. AMPTP has proposed that internet sales follow the same formula that DVD sales follow (the formula that the WGA already has a problem with). Furthermore, the companies have proposed that writers should get no residuals whatsoever for streaming content, even if an entire program is streamed for profit.


A couple of things:

1The DVD increase will come off the table as soon as producers seriously talk about new media. Not because the WGA is asking for too much (they're asking for too little) but because that battle was lost in the 80s over VHS and every time it comes to negotiate they ask for an increase and end up making an agreement that doesn't include one.

2 The WGA want a better-than-DVD rate. 2.5% isn't going to happen and they'll settle for less.

3 The AMPTP are cold robbing bastards.

A couple of things:

1The DVD increase will come off the table as soon as producers seriously talk about new media. Not because the WGA is asking for too much (they're asking for too little) but because that battle was lost in the 80s over VHS and every time it comes to negotiate they ask for an increase and end up making an agreement that doesn't include one.

2 The WGA want a better-than-DVD rate. 2.5% isn't going to happen and they'll settle for less.

3 The AMPTP are cold robbing bastards.
All good points. And vast agreement on #3.

Here's a short-version break down:

Who is striking? The Writers Guild of America, hereafter labeled WGA. (Technically, the East and West Writer's Guilds.) The guild (technically guilds) is a labor union that represents film, television and radio writers working in the United States.

Who are they striking against? The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). This organization represents the interests of American film and television producers.

What's the poop? Every several years, the WGA and the AMPTP hash out a contract that defines the basics of how writers are employed. This time around, negotiations stalled out. Hence the strike.

No, seriously, what's the real poop? The core of the argument is over residuals. Residuals are the profits made from subsequent airings or purchases of a program. According to the WGA, residuals are really key income for writers. Residuals are what pay the writer's bills between jobs. It is very common for writers to go through long periods of unemployment between writing gigs, so you can see why residuals would be important to them.

There's a couple of problems, as I understand it, surrounding residuals. First, the WGA wants to see writers getting a bigger residual rate from DVD sales. WGA wants writers to get 8 cents of every dollar from these sales (they currently get 4 cents). The AMPTP says no.

Second, and perhaps most important, is the issue of residuals for "new media." New media includes internet downloads, streaming, straight-to-internet content, and various "on demand" distribution (including both online and cable/satellite TV avenues). Right now, there's no arrangement concerning how these "new media" are handled.

The WGA proposed that writers receive 2.5% of distributor's gross for new-media sales and distribution. AMPTP has proposed that internet sales follow the same formula that DVD sales follow (the formula that the WGA already has a problem with). Furthermore, the companies have proposed that writers should get no residuals whatsoever for streaming content, even if an entire program is streamed for profit.

What should I think of all this? You should support the writers. They are making perfectly reasonable requests. Indeed, pretty much this same crap went down over VHS residuals back in the 80s.

But don't take my word for it. Read what Joss Whedon (one of life's winners) had to say:

http://whedonesque.com/comments/14650

See, the writers don't get the concept, there is no profit in DVD's, it takes the producers/distributors 12 cents per DVD for manufacture, and then they sell the DVD's for 20-30 dollars... WHERE'S THE PROFIT?! Giving into the writer's demands would boost the cost per disk to 16 CENTS! And then the studio execs would be forced to give up buying their disposable 24ct gold toilet scrubbers! And we can't have them making unreasonable sacrifices like that!

Dont care as i'm not american. Sure do miss jay leno, though. Meh, then i'll just watch rick mercer

See, the writers don't get the concept, there is no profit in DVD's, it takes the producers/distributors 12 cents per DVD for manufacture, and then they sell the DVD's for 20-30 dollars

Sounds like an immensely profitable industry! I take it, then, that you have sunk every spare penny you have into stocks in entertainment networks, because with a cost/profit structure like that, if you believe this, anything else would be absolutely insane.

And with costs so low, not one of the writers has figured out that the networks aren't necessary? They could easily start churning out quality entertainment and selling disks at a dollar each, right? And still make a huge profit? Wow, I wouldn't have thought all the writers so stupid they would miss that. Not ONE has thought to go independent, with that kind of money to be made? Think about it: people pay 60 bucks a month for cable, they will pay a dollar for an evening's worth of well written entertainment. And if 16 cents is all you need to produce it...

Especially since the technology needed to do this is widely available... especially if you have a Mac.

Tell you what, though, if I ran across a business that was 99.6% profit, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

Sounds like an immensely profitable industry! I take it, then, that you have sunk every spare penny you have into stocks in entertainment networks, because with a cost/profit structure like that, if you believe this, anything else would be absolutely insane.

And with costs so low, not one of the writers has figured out that the networks aren't necessary? They could easily start churning out quality entertainment and selling disks at a dollar each, right? And still make a huge profit? Wow, I wouldn't have thought all the writers so stupid they would miss that. Not ONE has thought to go independent, with that kind of money to be made? Think about it: people pay 60 bucks a month for cable, they will pay a dollar for an evening's worth of well written entertainment. And if 16 cents is all you need to produce it...

Especially since the technology needed to do this is widely available... especially if you have a Mac.

Tell you what, though, if I ran across a business that was 99.6% profit, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

Whilst I know that it was sarcasm and everything and I do agree with your point, the part in bold is actually starting to happen with writers going outside the hollywood system and bringing in outside money.

See, the writers don't get the concept, there is no profit in DVD's, it takes the producers/distributors 12 cents per DVD for manufacture, and then they sell the DVD's for 20-30 dollars... WHERE'S THE PROFIT?! Giving into the writer's demands would boost the cost per disk to 16 CENTS! And then the studio execs would be forced to give up buying their disposable 24ct gold toilet scrubbers! And we can't have them making unreasonable sacrifices like that!

lol

*wipes tears from eyes*

im glad that at last SOMEONE is thinking about the sacrifices of the producers!

See, the writers don't get the concept, there is no profit in DVD's, it takes the producers/distributors 12 cents per DVD for manufacture, and then they sell the DVD's for 20-30 dollars... WHERE'S THE PROFIT?! Giving into the writer's demands would boost the cost per disk to 16 CENTS! And then the studio execs would be forced to give up buying their disposable 24ct gold toilet scrubbers! And we can't have them making unreasonable sacrifices like that!Not to mention when sequels of movies come out and the poor execs have to spend all that money churning out new sets of DVDs along with boxed sets...

Pancakes!

Reality shows still need writers. Wrestling even more so.

They're called 'Associate Producers' (but they are the ones who write the shows) for reality shows and aren't part of the WGA. They are also the only ones on the set who actually believe in the concept.

They're called 'Associate Producers' (but they are the ones who write the shows) for reality shows and aren't part of the WGA. They are also the only ones on the set who actually believe in the concept.

Are you in editing? Apologies if you've mentioned it before.

Anyway, what you said. Although the WGA did try and get them covered in the ANTM fiasco.

Sounds like an immensely profitable industry! I take it, then, that you have sunk every spare penny you have into stocks in entertainment networks, because with a cost/profit structure like that, if you believe this, anything else would be absolutely insane.

And with costs so low, not one of the writers has figured out that the networks aren't necessary? They could easily start churning out quality entertainment and selling disks at a dollar each, right? And still make a huge profit? Wow, I wouldn't have thought all the writers so stupid they would miss that. Not ONE has thought to go independent, with that kind of money to be made? Think about it: people pay 60 bucks a month for cable, they will pay a dollar for an evening's worth of well written entertainment. And if 16 cents is all you need to produce it...

Especially since the technology needed to do this is widely available... especially if you have a Mac.

Tell you what, though, if I ran across a business that was 99.6% profit, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.


Mm, yep, me too.

12 cents to manufacture eh? I wonder if that's the total cost. Ya know, labor, materials, indirect materials and labor, selling and administrative expenses...

Somehow, I doubt it.

I need the Daily Show and Colbert!

Are you in editing? Apologies if you've mentioned it before.

Anyway, what you said. Although the WGA did try and get them covered in the ANTM fiasco.

No. I think there is an editor who is on here, but I don't remember their name. There's also a guy who works at Technicolor, but I forgot his name, too. There is a small clutch of us 'film and television industry' types around here. I probably make the biggest deal about it because I transfered from film school to working while on NSG so it had that 'finally' aspect to it.

Below the line set crew worker. So the strike is a sad boon for me* (seriously, I'm in the middle of 21 days of straight work with all but five days of it being reality work-and a commercial).

Also an independent writer (not enough points), but there is always playwrighting that can not make me money...I'm too focused on basic survival right now to worry about that, though I might actually come out of this thing with some surplus and be able to focus again.

*Sorry realized that didn't make sense-I don't live in LA so most work comes from traveling reality shows and commercials. So an increase in reality shows means an increase in work. And there is always documentaries...

Are you the San Fran guy? I think I talked to you for a bit when I was on a previous account, I thought you were two different people though.

I love San Francisco. I'm massively envious that you can be 'in the industry' and live somewhere nice.

Sounds like an immensely profitable industry! I take it, then, that you have sunk every spare penny you have into stocks in entertainment networks, because with a cost/profit structure like that, if you believe this, anything else would be absolutely insane.

And with costs so low, not one of the writers has figured out that the networks aren't necessary? They could easily start churning out quality entertainment and selling disks at a dollar each, right? And still make a huge profit? Wow, I wouldn't have thought all the writers so stupid they would miss that. Not ONE has thought to go independent, with that kind of money to be made? Think about it: people pay 60 bucks a month for cable, they will pay a dollar for an evening's worth of well written entertainment. And if 16 cents is all you need to produce it...

Especially since the technology needed to do this is widely available... especially if you have a Mac.

Tell you what, though, if I ran across a business that was 99.6% profit, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.
It sounds like someone doesn't understand the principles of mass production/distribution.

Are you the San Fran guy? I think I talked to you for a bit when I was on a previous account, I thought you were two different people though.

I love San Francisco. I'm massively envious that you can be 'in the industry' and live somewhere nice.

Dude, you're a writer. You can live anywhere with internet and mail service. Our theater community is better, too...[/unfounded regional pride...]

Dude, you're a writer. You can live anywhere with internet and mail service. Our theater community is better, too...[/unfounded regional pride...]

I wish it were that simple. I got meetings, meetings and meetings.

Anyways, I'm in London atm with the strike and all. World's best theatre. HUZZAH.

Anyways, I'm in London atm with the strike and all. World's best theatre. HUZZAH.

*kicks you in the nuts*

It sounds like someone doesn't understand the principles of mass production/distribution.

Well, it's not far from the truth... The average production cost on a dual-layer DVD is ~$2,000.00 for initial development and about $0.70 for material per disk.... At a retail price of ~$20.00/DVD sale after about 150 disk sales, the production companies are starting to make proffit from their end of distribution... An increase of $0.04 per $1.00 sale is not all that much to ask for, given the profit margins they make on the medium. It's even worse when you factor in the comparibly low cost of online streaming of the material for distribution.

I didn't think American television used writers since the last strike. I might support the writers, if they could prove they actually did something. I could eat alphabet soup and vomit better scripts than are currently used. I think the most respected writers in the industry are those on Jerry Springer, since most plotlines and phrasing seems cribbed from his show.

Well, it's not far from the truth... The average production cost on a dual-layer DVD is ~$2,000.00 for initial development and about $0.70 for material per disk.... At a retail price of ~$20.00/DVD sale after about 150 disk sales, the production companies are starting to make proffit from their end of distribution... An increase of $0.04 per $1.00 sale is not all that much to ask for, given the profit margins they make on the medium. It's even worse when you factor in the comparibly low cost of online streaming of the material for distribution.

Why does everyone forget the cost of the content that is actually on the DVD? You know, the reason you're buying it in the first place?

It's funny that the one thing we have learned from this is reality shows need writers.

I didn't think American television used writers since the last strike.

They don't. Studio 60 was shot in much the same way as an episode of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?". Bradley Whitford and Amanda Peet would stand in the middle of the set, Aaron Sorkin would pick ideas from out of a big hat and they'd improv the scene.

Why does everyone forget the cost of the content that is actually on the DVD? You know, the reason you're buying it in the first place?

I'm not bothering factoring that in, seeing as how it's usually already been paid for when the material was originally aired or distributed to theaters for original run.

I'm not bothering factoring that in, seeing as how it's usually already been paid for when the material was originally aired or distributed to theaters for original run.

That's actually hardly the case. Most films lose money in distribution and studios rely on 'tentpole' films like blockbusters to make up those loses. For television shows networks buy them usually for 90% or less of the initial production cost. In the past those shows have relied on reaching a watershed number of episodes (last time I checked it was 100) to make it eligible for syndication to make up those costs. DVD sales have provided an opportunity for them to actually make their money back.

In fact, independent distribution is increasingly leaning toward DVD sales, sometimes even releasing the DVD at the same time as the theater release. They discovered that people made the decision over whether they would watch the material in the theater or on DVD immediately. The only reason they bother with the rather expensive theatrical release is to 'legitimize' the film and to get major reviews.

I didn't think American television used writers since the last strike. I might support the writers, if they could prove they actually did something. I could eat alphabet soup and vomit better scripts than are currently used. I think the most respected writers in the industry are those on Jerry Springer, since most plotlines and phrasing seems cribbed from his show.
I hate people who use that argument. Just because you PERSONALLY dislike specific American television shows, you don't think the people whom write (aka: create) these shows deserve to be payed for it? They deserve a fair piece of the profit considering that their work essentially helped create the material that is being used to generate profit. If a show sucks, there would presumably be less profit for everyone involved because IT SUCKS. The writers would still deserve a better share from that profit.

And since you're such a talented writer, I suggest you pursue a career in the field. When you "vomit" up a wonderful story, I'm sure it will feel just great to get a minuscule profit for it compared to what the networks generate.

Writers create the stories. There is no story without them. No profit. Why do they get so very little? They are not the only ones that the success of a TV show is dependent upon, but they're the first step.

That's actually hardly the case. Most films lose money in distribution and studios rely on 'tentpole' films like blockbusters to make up those loses. For television shows networks buy them usually for 90% or less of the initial production cost. In the past those shows have relied on reaching a watershed number of episodes (last time I checked it was 100) to make it eligible for syndication to make up those costs. DVD sales have provided an opportunity for them to actually make their money back.

In fact, independent distribution is increasingly leaning toward DVD sales, sometimes even releasing the DVD at the same time as the theater release. They discovered that people made the decision over whether they would watch the material in the theater or on DVD immediately. The only reason they bother with the rather expensive theatrical release is to 'legitimize' the film and to get major reviews.
Very true, every last bit.

For me, the issue is about who gets what percentage of the sales from a given show/movie.

Personally, I think the writers, direct production staff (costumes, lights, sound, editing, etc) and performers should get the most generous chunk of it, because they're why people want to watch in the first place. They are why the channel/company was able to sell advert time or make sponsor deals. Without the talent that actually MADE THE SHOW, nobody makes any money at all.

The suits who contributed by deciding whether or not to put the show on Thursdays or Wednesdays should receive a teeny, tiny, minuscule pay check, as befitting the teeny, tiny contribution they made to the show.

Very true, every last bit.

For me, the issue is about who gets what percentage of the sales from a given show/movie.

Personally, I think the writers, direct production staff (costumes, lights, sound, editing, etc) and performers should get the most generous chunk of it, because they're why people want to watch in the first place. They are why the channel/company was able to sell advert time or make sponsor deals. Without the talent that actually MADE THE SHOW, nobody makes any money at all.

The suits who contributed by deciding whether or not to put the show on Thursdays or Wednesdays should receive a teeny, tiny, minuscule pay check, as befitting the teeny, tiny contribution they made to the show.

Welcome to capitalism.

There is an imbalance though and I think there's every chance that - in films at least - independent money will lead to that being addressed to a degree.

I didn't think American television used writers since the last strike. I might support the writers, if they could prove they actually did something. I could eat alphabet soup and vomit better scripts than are currently used. I think the most respected writers in the industry are those on Jerry Springer, since most plotlines and phrasing seems cribbed from his show.
Somebody's had their screenplay rejected, huh. ;)

Seriously, though, there's been a lot of excellent stuff out there, you just have to bother to find it. I've already linked to Joss Whedon on this thread, but I will repeat my undying love for him because he churns out some fantastic writing for both TV and feature films.

Yeah, there's lots of crappy TV. Just like there's lots of lame romance novels and trash thriller books. Most non-morons learn how to select good programming, the way we select good books, because we actually value our time and choose to spend it on things we consider worthwhile.

But hey, if none of the TV writing is good enough for your lofty standards, then please...show us all how it's done! I enjoy reading amateur scripts and screenplays (I have lots of artsy-fartsy friends) and I would be happy to read and critique any piece you'd like to submit.

Somebody's had their screenplay rejected, huh. ;)

Seriously, though, there's been a lot of excellent stuff out there, you just have to bother to find it. I've already linked to Joss Whedon on this thread, but I will repeat my undying love for him because he churns out some fantastic writing for both TV and feature films.


Joss is a fantastic writer. Also a very nice (albeit...odd) guy. Had the opportunity to have lunch with him once.


Yeah, there's lots of crappy TV. Just like there's lots of lame romance novels and trash thriller books. Most non-morons learn how to select good programming, the way we select good books, because we actually value our time and choose to spend it on things we consider worthwhile.

But hey, if none of the TV writing is good enough for your lofty standards, then please...show us all how it's done! I enjoy reading amateur scripts and screenplays (I have lots of artsy-fartsy friends) and I would be happy to read and critique any piece you'd like to submit

I am constantly amazed at everyone who thinks they "can do better"

I hope the Writers strike doesn't force the Producers of Scrubs to create a crappy half assed series finale. I hate it when they create half assed series finales that leave many of the questions unanswered.

I know. I like Scrubs.

Whatever did people do before TV? With well written TV dramas disappearing faster than we can mourn them where will we turn for entertainment?

Personally I think the writer's strike should last a little longer to get people off their ever-fattening asses, even if it's just long enough to get a book from the shelf. I enjoy good TV as much as anybody, but I can't help but see this as an opportunity for people who're used to watching TV to fill all their unscheduled time to explore the alternatives.

Joss is a fantastic writer. Also a very nice (albeit...odd) guy. Had the opportunity to have lunch with him once.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so full of atomic jealousy right now.

There's more at issue than this. If the writer's strike fails, the producers are going after the actor's guild next, and then all the other guilds.

There's more at issue than this. If the writer's strike fails, the producers are going after the actor's guild next, and then all the other guilds.

Not really. The SAG (actors) care about residuals too (their contract isn't up, so no strike yet) but the others don't. It's a little misleading to say that producers are "going after" people btw.

Not really. The SAG (actors) care about residuals too (their contract isn't up, so no strike yet) but the others don't. It's a little misleading to say that producers are "going after" people btw.

It's not up yet, but it'll be up soon...

Whatever did people do before TV?

died young

It's not up yet, but it'll be up soon...

The advantage actors have is that they can stop production immediately (writers can only halt a handful of shows) but if the WGA strike goes on until the SAG contract runs out it's less of an advantage. So, the obvious question: why couldn't the WGA have worked without a deal until the SAG contract was up? It's something to do with the DGA (whose contract is up sooner and who don't care about residuals too much) and something that might be called pattern bargaining which I don't really understand but according to people smarter than me it basically means the WGA will agree to a deal that reflects the deal the DGA agree. I don't know why this is.

Why does everyone forget the cost of the content that is actually on the DVD? You know, the reason you're buying it in the first place?



THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! Bout DAMN time somebody pointed that! I kept feeling like some of these posters were lying and leaving that out just to get people to support who they wanted them to. BRAVO for you being the first to mention this!!!!

Some stuff even gets the majority of its revenue from DVD sales.

That's actually hardly the case. Most films lose money in distribution and studios rely on 'tentpole' films like blockbusters to make up those loses. For television shows networks buy them usually for 90% or less of the initial production cost. In the past those shows have relied on reaching a watershed number of episodes (last time I checked it was 100) to make it eligible for syndication to make up those costs. DVD sales have provided an opportunity for them to actually make their money back.

In fact, independent distribution is increasingly leaning toward DVD sales, sometimes even releasing the DVD at the same time as the theater release. They discovered that people made the decision over whether they would watch the material in the theater or on DVD immediately. The only reason they bother with the rather expensive theatrical release is to 'legitimize' the film and to get major reviews.



Again, thanks for pointing out what nobody did.

Very true, every last bit.

For me, the issue is about who gets what percentage of the sales from a given show/movie.

Personally, I think the writers, direct production staff (costumes, lights, sound, editing, etc) and performers should get the most generous chunk of it, because they're why people want to watch in the first place. They are why the channel/company was able to sell advert time or make sponsor deals. Without the talent that actually MADE THE SHOW, nobody makes any money at all.

The suits who contributed by deciding whether or not to put the show on Thursdays or Wednesdays should receive a teeny, tiny, minuscule pay check, as befitting the teeny, tiny contribution they made to the show.



So you are saying the people who paid for everything should be broke? Who is going to bankrole these films, advertise them and distribute them?

Reality shows still need writers. Wrestling even more so.

Wrestling doesnt need writers, it needs snipers.

Why does everyone forget the cost of the content that is actually on the DVD? You know, the reason you're buying it in the first place?

There IS no cost if the media on the DVD was produced in another form first. That is, if it is a movie, the studio already owns all the material, it just then gets put onto a DVD. What the writers (and actors and designers etc) are asking for is a fair piece of that money, since what the producers are putting on the DVD is the work of all those other people.

The argument goes that the producers don't actually DO the work, they just collect it and sell it for a profit. Once the movie or tv show has been aired, there is no further cost to the producers (except that 16 cents or so to dupe a DVD, package it, ship it out and advertise it) because they have already paid everyone who was involved in making the movie in the first place, but the fact is that the work being exhibited IS the work of all those other people, who should be paid for the continuing use of their work.

There IS no cost if the media on the DVD was produced in another form first. That is, if it is a movie, the studio already owns all the material, it just then gets put onto a DVD. What the writers (and actors and designers etc) are asking for is a fair piece of that money, since what the producers are putting on the DVD is the work of all those other people.

The argument goes that the producers don't actually DO the work, they just collect it and sell it for a profit. Once the movie or tv show has been aired, there is no further cost to the producers (except that 16 cents or so to dupe a DVD, package it, ship it out and advertise it) because they have already paid everyone who was involved in making the movie in the first place, but the fact is that the work being exhibited IS the work of all those other people, who should be paid for the continuing use of their work.

Films are budgeted with DVD sales very much in mind. Cannot think of a name would be a better guy to ask for TV but I believe that the money men take a hit in the pocket if it doesn't come out on DVD or get syndicated.

Writers should be paid for the re-use of their work but the magic number isn't 50%, it's 1%. Okay, they take a scoop of the profits for being the only ones with the money to make a film, that sucks but that's just the reality of business.

There IS no cost if the media on the DVD was produced in another form first. That is, if it is a movie, the studio already owns all the material, it just then gets put onto a DVD. What the writers (and actors and designers etc) are asking for is a fair piece of that money, since what the producers are putting on the DVD is the work of all those other people.

The argument goes that the producers don't actually DO the work, they just collect it and sell it for a profit. Once the movie or tv show has been aired, there is no further cost to the producers (except that 16 cents or so to dupe a DVD, package it, ship it out and advertise it) because they have already paid everyone who was involved in making the movie in the first place, but the fact is that the work being exhibited IS the work of all those other people, who should be paid for the continuing use of their work.



You need to factor distribution costs.

I support that writers and the producers

All I really remember thinking about the writer's strike is - whether or not the script for a film had been written by a writer before they went on strike, or some schmo after then went on strike. I think the film might have been Beowulf.

If they want to get paid more for their work then perhaps they might try attempting to write something ever-so-slightly original instead of rehashing the same clichéd crap over and over again.

I seem to remember watching a video called music by numbers. It's got me started thinking about creating another parody called scripting by numbers.

All I really remember thinking about the writer's strike is - whether or not the script for a film had been written by a writer before they went on strike, or some schmo after then went on strike. I think the film might have been Beowulf.

If they want to get paid more for their work then perhaps they might try attempting to write something ever-so-slightly original instead of rehashing the same clichéd crap over and over again.

I seem to remember watching a video called music by numbers. It's got me started thinking about creating another parody called scripting by numbers.

You can make a bad film from good writing.

You need to factor distribution costs.

Which are such a small percentage of the final price that they're pretty much insignificant.

So you are saying the people who paid for everything should be broke? Who is going to bankrole these films, advertise them and distribute them?
Frankly, if you're such a shitty producer that you can't afford to pay your writer $0.08 out of each dollar of DVD sales, then you deserve to fail and be run out of the business. Suck less, IMO.

You can make a bad film from good writing.Equally, you can make a bad film from bad writing. The script was atrocious.

I do believe it is normally the quality of the editing that can make or break a film. though.

Equally, you can make a bad film from bad writing. The script was atrocious.


The script that gets made is often different to the script that is handed in. All sorts of people get their ignorant hands all over it before anything gets filmed. Besides, I doubt you went and read the screenplay.

The script that gets made is often different to the script that is handed in. All sorts of people get their ignorant hands all over it before anything gets filmed. Besides, I doubt you went and read the screenplay.Well some of the writer's material has to make it through otherwise they'd not bother paying the person. Like I said, there was nothing good to say about the script at all.

Why would I go read the screen play? I thought the film was fairly dire, and it's not like I get paid to read it.

Films are budgeted with DVD sales very much in mind. Cannot think of a name would be a better guy to ask for TV but I believe that the money men take a hit in the pocket if it doesn't come out on DVD or get syndicated.

Writers should be paid for the re-use of their work but the magic number isn't 50%, it's 1%. Okay, they take a scoop of the profits for being the only ones with the money to make a film, that sucks but that's just the reality of business.

In some cases, yes, the DVD sales are already figured in to a film budget. In which case, the writers (and actors and... a point which, as an actor, I keep hitting :D ) should be already getting a piece of it, but this is still being worked out, and the compromise is not terribly just yet. The new media rights (which seems to be the main bone of contention) are completely up in the air... and consider that the cost to the producer of a downloaded film is considerably less than the 16 cent DVD cost, as there is no physical merchandise to deal with, so the profits are higher, but the artists are getting less of it, if any at all. And TV producers are starting to think more in terms of DVD sales, but I believe that the primary focus on TV is still the original release and syndication.

And, for older films that are just now coming to DVD, and for TV shows which were never planned for any other release and are now being released, the writers et al may have no rights or recompense whatsoever, which is wrong.

There IS no cost if the media on the DVD was produced in another form first. That is, if it is a movie, the studio already owns all the material, it just then gets put onto a DVD. What the writers (and actors and designers etc) are asking for is a fair piece of that money, since what the producers are putting on the DVD is the work of all those other people.

The argument goes that the producers don't actually DO the work, they just collect it and sell it for a profit. Once the movie or tv show has been aired, there is no further cost to the producers (except that 16 cents or so to dupe a DVD, package it, ship it out and advertise it) because they have already paid everyone who was involved in making the movie in the first place, but the fact is that the work being exhibited IS the work of all those other people, who should be paid for the continuing use of their work.
I already addressed this. And clearly, or I guess not clearly, I'm on the side of the writers. The writers should absolutely get paid for their work, I don't think I implied differently. But the film or television show itself costs money to make and most of them do not make that money back in initial distribution. Not to mention that making a DVD is more than just dumping the content onto the medium. Thousands of people who make movies you'll never see do that everyday and learn that lesson.

Well some of the writer's material has to make it through otherwise they'd not bother paying the person. Like I said, there was nothing good to say about the script at all.

Why would I go read the screen play? I thought the film was fairly dire, and it's not like I get paid to read it.

Screenplays make up a good deal of a negative review and are barely mentioned in a positive review. When the actors deliver a line well, that's good acting and when they deliver it badly, that's bad writing. When a writer puts in a scene that has amazing dramatic tension when preceeded by a certain scene that's great directing, when the director cuts that preceeding scene, that's bad writing etc etc

I've never heard anyone walk out of a cinema and go "WOW! What a great screenplay!" so if there's no praise how can complaints be anything other than inane?

All I really remember thinking about the writer's strike is - whether or not the script for a film had been written by a writer before they went on strike, or some schmo after then went on strike. I think the film might have been Beowulf.

If they want to get paid more for their work then perhaps they might try attempting to write something ever-so-slightly original instead of rehashing the same clichéd crap over and over again.

I seem to remember watching a video called music by numbers. It's got me started thinking about creating another parody called scripting by numbers.

There is a commodity problem with how scripts are read that would be laughed out of any other creative endeavor. It's not the writers who perpetrate this but the money men (and since they are mostly men, I leave it like that). Like, ridiculously constrictive. Like, a specific thing must happen by the thirtieth page, and another by the sixtieth.

There are armies of people who read scripts and weed out anything that doesn't fit that specific and restrictive formula. There are movies, successful movies that defy this notion all the time, but those get through in spite of the efforts of the money men.

Seriously, flip through a screenwriting book and try to apply those restrictions to another group, narrative writers, poets-hell, even playwrights. You'd be laughed out of the classroom.

It's very frustrating.

I already addressed this. And clearly, or I guess not clearly, I'm on the side of the writers. The writers should absolutely get paid for their work, I don't think I implied differently. But the film or television show itself costs money to make and most of them do not make that money back in initial distribution. Not to mention that making a DVD is more than just dumping the content onto the medium. Thousands of people who make movies you'll never see do that everyday and learn that lesson.
Maybe it's because I've worked behind the scenes in theater troupes so much, but I honestly just assumed everyone already knew that and was including it in their assessments of the situation. It never occurred to me to include it in my post. I guess that was an oversight.

Screenplays make up a good deal of a negative review and are barely mentioned in a positive review. When the actors deliver a line well, that's good acting and when they deliver it badly, that's bad writing. When a writer puts in a scene that has amazing dramatic tension when preceeded by a certain scene that's great directing, when the director cuts that preceeding scene, that's bad writing etc etc

I've never heard anyone walk out of a cinema and go "WOW! What a great screenplay!" so if there's no praise how can complaints be anything other than inane?

Pff, I do that all the time.

And I do from time to time run into people praising writing. Kaufman benefited from that, and when Mamet writes he gets an obligatory nod.

That wasn't really you're point, but I'm on a roll...

Maybe it's because I've worked behind the scenes in theater troupes so much, but I honestly just assumed everyone already knew that and was including it in their assessments of the situation. It never occurred to me to include it in my post. I guess that was an oversight.

You're assumption is right, they're looking for a cut of the profits, so that's after the thing makes its money back. They sold creative control for money upfront a long time ago to cover stuff that doesn't make money. Something playwrights never gave up.

Screenplays make up a good deal of a negative review and are barely mentioned in a positive review. When the actors deliver a line well, that's good acting and when they deliver it badly, that's bad writing. When a writer puts in a scene that has amazing dramatic tension when preceeded by a certain scene that's great directing, when the director cuts that preceeding scene, that's bad writing etc etc

I've never heard anyone walk out of a cinema and go "WOW! What a great screenplay!" so if there's no praise how can complaints be anything other than inane?I bet you a many more people comment on the screenplay than they do the editing. But that's because good editing is supposed to go unnoticed.

I'd disagree with the bad delivery thing. Good writing can carry a bad actor. It's easier in theatre than it is in film, as I find writer's for film tend rely on the ability of actor's to impart subtle intonations and gestures when delivering their lines. Something that can't really be done in theatre due to distance and the need for projection. Therefore the words in theatre have to do a lot more of the work.

There is a commodity problem with how scripts are read that would be laughed out of any other creative endeavor. It's not the writers who perpetrate this but the money men (and since they are mostly men, I leave it like that). Like, ridiculously constrictive. Like, a specific thing must happen by the thirtieth page, and another by the sixtieth.

There are armies of people who read scripts and weed out anything that doesn't fit that specific and restrictive formula. There are movies, successful movies that defy this notion all the time, but those get through in spite of the efforts of the money men.

Seriously, flip through a screenwriting book and try to apply those restrictions to another group, narrative writers, poets-hell, even playwrights. You'd be laughed out of the classroom.

It's very frustrating.

These apply to a degree at reader level (the classic tale is of the guy who sent Casablanca around town under original title) but the pages/ formula thing mainly goes by the time you're getting notes (although fun to watch out for people quoting something from Save The Cat! totally out of context to show their qualifications to fuck you over). However, once you get to notes you hit a whole new problem because producers are incredibly frustrating. They ask for things that are: impossible, contradictory, baffling, infantile, crap, pointless, superficial. I heard of a producer telling a writer that he needed to add a donkey to his screenplay because "that's why people liked bachelor party".

Pff, I do that all the time.

And I do from time to time run into people praising writing. Kaufman benefited from that, and when Mamet writes he gets an obligatory nod.

That wasn't really you're point, but I'm on a roll...

Mamet because he was a playwright, Kauffman because is all of the following: the main character of a movie, distinctive, not usually fucked over by his director.

Which are such a small percentage of the final price that they're pretty much insignificant.

Do you know what those costs are?

Frankly, if you're such a shitty producer that you can't afford to pay your writer $0.08 out of each dollar of DVD sales, then you deserve to fail and be run out of the business. Suck less, IMO.


You misunderstood, was you who said those people should get the smallest cut of the profits? That was what I was talking about.

I bet you a many more people comment on the screenplay than they do the editing. But that's because good editing is supposed to go unnoticed.


Editing gets mentioned by people who think they know what they're talking about (slot alongside cinematography) but good writing always goes unnoticed except by those who are specifically interested in screenwriting. Do you know what was brilliantly written? Pirates of the Caribbean. That was a fantastic screenplay but I didn't hear a soul mention that it was.

How many reviews say something like "Directors X and Actors Y and Z stuggle bravely with the below par script"?. Quite a few. How many say the reverse? None that I have ever read in my life.

When a high school puts on a lousy Romeo and Juliet how many people blame Shakespeare?

Do you know what those costs are?

Brief calculations put it at pennies per DVD.

In my opinion, there are four major new media issues.

Electronic Sell-Through

The clearest and easiest to understand is electronic sell-through, or Internet download (sales), or more colloquially the itunes model. When most writers first started thinking about new media they probably were thinking about this. Feature writers invariably are always thinking about this—because it is the closest new media issue to the old home video (DVD) model.

Management’s offer on this is still .3 percent: or a third of a cent for every dollar. Actually to be more exact it’s .36, a little more than a third and a half of a cent. This is the old DVD formula, or as the WGA calls it “The Royal Fucking.”

The Writer’s Guild wants management to pay 2.5 cents on every dollar.

There has been no movement from either side on this. The complication here is that there’s no apparent paradigm-shift to get both sides to an accepted number, so a resolution can only be reached through resolve, leverage, and intellectual justification.

Intellectual justification is never completely irrelevant in negotiations, but it’s mostly important only as a way to buttress resolve and leverage.

We writers clearly, in my opinion, have the winning argument here. The old home video formula was sold to the writers as unique from television residuals and necessary because of all the added packaging and manufacturing costs that came with creating VHS tapes and later DVDs. Well, of course, there is no equivalent packaging or manufacturing costs with download sales, so management, for the moment, seems to be left with the argument that they want it because, well, they want it.

Advertising-Supported Streaming

More complicated and interesting is the issue of ad-based streaming. Streaming, by the way, is when media is transmitted to your computer while you watch it.

You can currently find all sorts of TV fare on network-owned websites that allow you to catch up on last night’s LOST or discover a new show like BIONIC WOMAN for free. Management has embedded commercials into the viewing experience, which is where they make their money.

This is probably the most angering issue for TV writers because of the hypocrisy of management’s original contention. Management believed they could call these usages of TV and features “promotional”—even when there was advertising attached—and therefore pay no residuals to writers. This hypocrisy has a financial impact on writers, of course, because the value of an episode is limited; if a network could immediately stream an episode of TV on their web site, they wouldn’t necessarily need to rerun that episode on TV; and therefore the writer could be out the $21,078 a network must pay for a one-hour rerun.

Management has since retooled their “fuck-you-it’s-promotional” offer by making a new proposal which asks for a promotional window of six weeks—during which they could stream the show for free with ads and not pay us. After these six weeks, they would offer a fixed residual for unlimited reuse during the rest of the year.

This fixed residual would be 1.2% of the current network residual rate (just a reminder, that rate is: $21,078 for a one hour drama; $11,596 for a half hour comedy)—so, in the case of a one hour drama, management would pay $252 and 94 cents for unlimited streaming during the first year; and, in the case of a half hour, $139 and 15 cents.

Now, of course, the numbers are abysmally low—especially if you worry that a year of unlimited streaming might take the place of a network rerun (that’s a loss of over $20,826 for a one-hour writer); but I tend to take management at their word: that this is an initial lowball, and they’re giving themselves room to maneuver.

The Writers Guild has returned with a proposal that takes the framework of management’s fixed residual offer, but proposes that the percentage (again, based on the current network minimum) rise with any increase in number of streams. The web sites have to keep track of number of streams for their advertisers, so the Guild proposes that that calculation be used to make the fixed residual rise with more and more viewers.

This seems eminently fair because HEROES will have more streams than, let’s say, JOUREYMAN; and yet HEROES shouldn’t have its value undercut by a residual cut from JOURNEYMAN’s cloth; and JOURNEYMAN shouldn’t be priced out of the streaming market by something fashioned for HEROES.

One other thing: features have tended to be overlooked in this streaming morass. Management is still insisting on free “promotional” streaming use of movies. I intentionally put “promotional” in quotes, because management is again suggesting they can embed commercials and make money from streaming entertainment and still call it promotional. My guess is everyone is working on TV first, finding the magic formula, then we’ll all turn to features.

Subscription-Based Streaming

Subscription-based streaming is exactly what it sounds like: a Netflix-like service in which the consumer would pay a monthly fee for unlimited streaming views of product. This is where things might get easier because the Guild already has a definition on Internet rental. This was an achievement during the 2001 contract battle. But we will see.

Made-For-Internet

And the last sticky issue is made-for-Internet. This has two components. One is derivative works. These are shows that are spun off from current television shows: for example a ten minute webisode based on the show LOST or HEROES.

Then there are original works. One of the fears and expectations of writers is that the more technology converges, the more the Internet will become the new TV, and therefore no contract can really go forward without insisting that minimums, and pension and health, be extended to original Internet programs.

Currently management is only accepting that minimums and Guild coverage be applied to derivative works—that is the spin-offs of current TV shows. The offer is fairly low ball, and not really worth going into at the moment, because it’s management basically just putting their toe in the water.

The bigger worry is if management is insistent on not granting Guild jurisdiction for original Internet content. That could get messy. The Guild can’t really be complicit in its own suicide; and that’s pretty much what giving up Internet jurisdiction would amount to: a gradual suicide.

There are other issues—like jurisdiction in reality TV, animation, separated rights—which I haven’t gone into, mostly because I can’t speak with much proficiency about them. That doesn’t mean they aren’t important; and other negotiating committee members could speak with great conviction.

As for new media, all the issues are difficult and, to use high school term paper talk, multifaceted. But it does seem, to me, that management is taking the spirit of their “New Partnership” talk seriously—even if there is still the negotiations necessity of offering crazily lowball numbers. We’re talking. That’s a good thing.


.

I'm behind the writers. I hope the studios give in soon (I want my Heroes, dammit!), but I'm not that optimistic about a quick resolution. It sounds like there's progress, so we could see a deal by February.

I just want my Daily Show and Colbert back....:(

*Goes to play Xbox*

When is this thing going to end? This is getting old...

When is this thing going to end? This is getting old...

At least on NPR they only report on it when something happens, so the news hasn't been too much. And somehow I managed to get 21 days straight of work (a little early for that to be the result of an increase in reality shows, and 5 days of that are on a commercial which will always happen...) so not having Daily Shows to watch has helped my sleep, so I'm okay with it so far.

Plus if it lasts long enough for the surplus of scripts to run out then there will be a rush of production to catch up, so I'll hang in there with my naked self interest.

I think it's nearing the end, though.

The Studios and the writers are both in the wrong. IMO

The Studios and the writers are both in the wrong. IMOWhat exactly would the correct position be then?

goes unnoticed except by those who are specifically interested in screenwriting. Do you know what was brilliantly written? Pirates of the Caribbean. That was a fantastic screenplay but I didn't hear a soul mention that it was.

I recognise the awesomeness of the Pirates of the Caribbean writing, I also noticed that the writing wasn't so great in the other two.

Also the writing is one of the things I talk about when I'm trying to explain to people why Firefly is awesome.

Mamet because he was a playwright, Kauffman because is all of the following: the main character of a movie, distinctive, not usually fucked over by his director.
The Schreiber Theory (http://www.sf360.org/features/2006/03/author_author_d.html).

The Schreiber Theory (http://www.sf360.org/features/2006/03/author_author_d.html).

Just as wrong as the auteur theory but far more pointless.