Based on reports this is beginning to sound like a hunt for revenge on the part of the WGA as they feel they have been duped in the past into establishing a poor contract in terms of residuals for home entertainment (mainly DVD) sales. This time around it appeared contract negotiations hinged on new media such as digital media, including Internet streaming and sales. Basically the WGA didn't want to get a shitty deal like they did last time. A chant of "Four More Cents" was the issue, but now there seems to be a whole slew of items on the table outside of what they were initially asking for.
I am not a big business supporter in any way. I think no matter what the writers get they are going to ultimately get less than they deserve, there is always a way to make more money for a movie studio, but writers only get that one shot for each property they were involved in. However, it seems the folks negotiating on behalf of the WGA have lost perspective. They no longer seem to care about getting their contract signed; it now seems as if they want to take revenge on the producers that hurt them in the first place by asking the AMPTP to stab themselves in the heart.
Taking the two statements that were issued it is obvious the AMPTP is far more interested in getting this settled than the WGA. The AMPTP's statement comments on specific issues while the WGA bats around a couple of ideas with no specific commentary. The WGA is obviously taking note of the current environment in Hollywood and thinking they can scare producers enough to get them to bow down to whatever deal they may offer. The one thing the WGA hasn't taken into consideration is that people don't care what's on TV as long as the TV is on. People don't care how good a movie is as long as it has a number following the title denoting it as a sequel, or if it has 3-D and is featured on a screen the size of the Empire State Building. Consumers don't demand high quality programming or movies; they demand something to simply be on.
This is where a new piece of the contract negotiations puzzle has entered into my knowledge. As we head into a television season filled with reality programming the WGA is now asking for full control over reality television and animation. Basically they are asking that membership in their union be mandatory to work in the industry. Yeah, that is basically like handing a prisoner in jail a plate of food and saying to them, "Give back the food and we will let you out of jail. However, if you ever get back in jail there will be no food and you will die." Just imagine another one of these strikes and broadcasters had absolutely nothing to air and television studios had nothing to work on. It may sound trivial, and it may sound like our world needs to depend less on television and movies for entertainment, but you have to remember television and film studios are owned by major publicly traded companies, the collapse of the industry would be a big blow on our economy.
To go along with the new reality restrictions they are also asking the AMPTP agree networks also not be allowed to air any reality programs unless they are produced under terms in keeping with the WGA agreement. In keeping with my jail analogy above this would mean that not only are they not going to give you any food if you get back in jail they aren't even going to give you a plate.
And even on top of that, they want the right to strike in sympathy of other striking guilds. This is something called a sympathy strike, so let's say SAG goes on strike, the WGA could then just say, "Hey, we feel yah... we are going to go on strike too!" To once again use the prison analogy, we are back in prison with no food and not even a plate, but now the folks that make our prison uniforms decide we aren't getting those either because we were such bad boys so we aren't even getting clothes. This leaves us cold, naked and hungry on a concrete floor with no help in sight. Yeah, this sounds like something most people would agree to.
Next, the WGA is asking for an A-Rod type of deal in which they get a portion of advertising revenues, something the producers don't even get and an overall completely ridiculous request. They have asked that a third-party determine value of a transaction rather than the marketplace, which is equally absurd.
Of course this information all comes from the AMPTP's statement, but that is only because the WGA's statement sounds like they are the nice guys getting beat up by the big bad bully. I am not sure if placating to the public is going to help them in any way.
Their comments focus primarily on how they feel the deal being offered for new media and home entertainment is still unfair and then glosses over the rest of the issues such as reality and animation. The interesting thing is that they note the release of the statement by the AMPTP and could have very easily addressed each issue raised in the AMPTP's statement yet they remain coy and sheepish in the eyes of the public. This leads me to believe they are fighting with multiple tactics.
The WGA's ridiculous claims for rights over reality, animation, advertising, etc. are most certainly tactics to get what they want in other areas of negotiations, a "Take this off the table and we will give you this," kind of deal. However, playing the underdog in the media as if you are being slapped around while playing games behind closed doors seems a bit scandalous to me, not to mention transparent.
If the WGA thought they were going to get any kind of great deal on new media and home entertainment just before the AMPTP had to go into negotiations with SAG and the DGA they were crazy. I understand they felt the need to strike at a time it would hurt producers the most, but they need to look at this thing from both sides rather than approach it with radical requests. The AMPTP can't agree to anything too big for fear that the SAG and the DGA will expect just as much if not more.
It baffles me that a happy percentage of revenue can't be reached if new media and DVD sales are really the sticking points, but it seems to me the WGA is just as much out to punish as they are to get what they feel they truly deserve. The WGA feels scorned and under appreciated and like a red-headed step child want their revenge.
I support the writers getting paid for their work, but I always will disagree with childish tactics to get what you feel you deserve. The one thing the AMPTP said in their statement that really made sense to me was the sentence saying, "While the WGA's organizers can clearly stage rallies, concerts and mock exorcisms, we have serious concerns about whether they’re capable of reaching reasonable compromises that are in the best interests of our entire industry."
The WGA has been quoted as saying the strike isn't actually all that bad as the rallies have allowed for them to meet people and so forth, but the mock exorcism mentioned above speaks loudly to the childish behavior some folks have resorted to in an effort to get their point across. Said "exorcism" included one remake scripter Scott Kosar and Jace Anderson who wrote such "classics" as Crocodile, Rats and Crocodile 2. I wonder if Paul Haggis, Stuart Beattie, Charlie Kaufman, Guillermo Arriaga and William Monahan looked at that and laughed or looked at that and shrugged. Either way it only brought more public awareness to the proceedings and nothing good came of it.







The public does care about what they watch that's why they are LEAVING. If the AMPTP does not return to the bargaining table, they will give the television audience no choice but to go on-line for their entertainment. The public will not be looking for television shows or movies on-line, but social networks. Perhaps this is what Peter Churnin wants, and is why he is not rushing to settle, but what about the rest of the AMPTP? The AMPTP will actually kill the writers main revenue source and help to destroy the television industry as a whole. If the television industry weakens, ALL television jobs will dry up forever. This is a precarious time. Is the AMPTP willing to gamble the future of television, a medium already struggling to keep its audience?
Consider what's happening to late night television. The audience has dropped 40%. Does the AMPTP really think that once the TV audience gets hooked on the internet that people will return to that archaic medium? Video killed the radio star and the internet will surely destroy television. This strike is actually hastening that reality. I no longer watch television. I get what what I need on-line.
Do these Mogusl need a swift end to the strike? Probably not. Their holiday vacations will not be interrupted. These moguls probably have extravagant Christmas vacations in Deer Valley planned and their wives/mistresses will be gifted with tons of bling. They seem to have very little understanding of what the public wants and its lack of tolerance for reruns. If these moguls had their ears to the ground instead of high up in ivory towers they could have created YouTube. However, they don't think like the common man so they are unlikely to create or even understand the next big trend. The moguls know one trend, rehash!
Someone has to knock some sense into these pompous egotists! Without some kind of responsible mediation the two sides will be forever battling like irrational children. There needs to be some kind of adult supervision. So much for Brian Loud going in to help. He is like a pre-teen babysitter who has lost control of the house to the kids!
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 6:42:50 PM)
Where are they going? Last I checked most people still have a television and watches it regularly.
Social networks? To do what, online chat?
People aren't watching late night because it isn't timely, that's why they aren't watching late night. And you no longer watch television because you are online in social networks? Seriously... that is weird.
This is the scorned/revenge type attitude I am referring to.
Overall I think your reply is a little hasty and not totally thought out.
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 7:00:08 PM)
Have you checked the ratings lately? Viewership is down.
Yup, that and so much more. You might try it some time. It's fun. More fun than watching boring reruns.
People are not watching Leno and other late-night shows because they are currently running reruns. Weird or not, millions are social networking and getting their news and information via the internet.
Overall I think your reply is a little hasty and not totally thought out.
Scorned/revenge? Na. I am just calling as I see it.
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 7:30:07 PM)
As far as ratings and viewership being down, no I don't look at that, but I would need something more than just you saying it to prove it. If ratings are significantly down and people are now chatting online and not watching television I would love to see those numbers. Also, I am talking about overall people watching television, not the ratings on C.S.I. and ER.
However, I will say I remember the article this past week saying that Monday Night Football had the highest ratings ever, which I thought was interesting since it is now on a paid cable channel and not a free broadcast station.
Sorry, I don't think television shows are going away any time soon. Whether they are broadcast over cable or on the Internet they are going to be there, and I don't see online chatting ever taking over.
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 7:50:08 PM)
So then you have changed your mind? People do care what they watch. They don't like reruns. This strike will make people not want to watch television.
Per the LA Times:Overall, viewership is down about 4% compared with last season, even taking into account delayed viewing on DVRs. With the exception of ABC's comedy "Samantha Who?" and CBS' vampire drama "Moonlight," every new show has seen steep declines since its premier.
And this:
Nielsen released information showing that average TV viewing for US households was flat from 2005-6 to 2006-7 at 8:14 per day.
Average Primetime household viewing fell 1 minute from 1:11 to 1:10.
That flattening and decline also take into account Live+7 viewing for 2005-6 and 2006-7, so live viewing of TV shows are showing declines, but we have no specific data.
It was a GREAT game!
I agree I don't think television will go away completely. I think that the numbers/stats show that people are going elsewhere for their entertainment.
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 8:34:10 PM)
People don't have very high standards as far as TV goes however, they are going to be watching shitty American Idol and all the reality TV you can throw in front of them.
I don't know what an "about 4%" decline means as far as viewership goes, but I think the lack of good new shows also hurts that. 2007 has not been a good year for new television programming, which is something networks depend on.
Your blanket statement saying, "This strike will make people not want to watch television," is partially correct since new shows will not be made and regular shows will be forced into reruns. Lucky enough for networks people will watch reality programming for the time being and as soon as their new shows return they will come storming back.
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 9:04:42 PM)
People don't watch reruns period. An original run of Grey's Anatomy can pull an 11 share or more and then get a 3.9 share when it's rerun. Check the ratings and you'll see.
Yes, and sadly those writers who created those shows have no guild or union protection.
Your blanket statement saying, "This strike will make people not want to watch television," is partially correct since new shows will not be made and regular shows will be forced into reruns. Lucky enough for networks people will watch reality programming for the time being and as soon as their new shows return they will come storming back.
We will see if the public will embrace more reality. I am not so sure. I wouldn't bet the farm that the viewers will come storming back once the strike ends. After the last writers strike, 20 years ago, broadcast tv lost a substantial amount of viewers to cable. Broadcast tv never regained what it lost. A lot has changed in 20 years. The audience is very different and I believe they will go elsewhere. Why would they be loyal?
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 9:29:53 PM)
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 9:52:18 PM)
If any of the writers were a Hemmingway, Twain, Plath, or Poe the need to strike for creative due wouldn't be necessary. It would be understood.
A crew could write a script but could a crew of writers cater lunch, make beautiful bruised, turn an empty field into the land of oz, light day for night and night for day, drive, park, and haul an entire productions poop, personal items and props all while wearing Escada that is on loan from the Neimans you have been shooting in for 15 hours a day?
TO WRITE OR NOT TO RIGHT THAT IS THE QUESTION.
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 10:30:31 PM)
This I entirely disagree with. I don't think writers get enough credit for the work they do, without them you don't actually have a product to create or work on, which is what this strike proves.
I am not saying they deserve all the credit since a script is always changing throughout a production, but if they hadn't laid the groundwork there would be nothing to change.
(Dec. 8, 2007 - 10:49:30 PM)