| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
usuallylurk |
|||
|
I heard on the local TV news that four studios, (including CBS Paramount), have cancelled dozens of writer's contracts for this season of shows. There will
also be no new pilots for sitcoms or dramas during January. Next year's season, or the beginning of the season, is in jeapardy too.
|
|||
ProbstFan123 |
|||
|
Yeah, I was just coming to post about that.
Probably no new shows for next Fall. I don't know if that means shows like Journeyman and Chuck will have a better chance of coming back. Although with the ratings those shows were getting the networks might decide to go with new reality shows instead. Journeyman was getting less than 5 million viewers. Pretty much any reality show could beat those ratings. |
|||
TexasBlues |
|||
Deal or No Deal got 15 million viewers last night (most watched show of the night). American Gladiators got nearly 11 million viewersThat makes me want to weep. I stopped watching Journeyman after 3 episodes, but even that's better than those shows. I'm sure that you guys are right and, if there wasn't anything else on, most people will watch whatever dreck the studios put on - but I won't be one of them. I actually will pick up a book rather than watch that garbage. |
|||
Lovejonze |
|||
|
I said this was going to happen back when this thread didn't have pubes yet.
|
|||
usuallylurk |
|||
|
I think most scripted TV is garbage.
|
|||
kempette |
|||
|
Soon it'll be like back in the day when we only had, like, 3 channels & rabbit ears. lol
|
|||
usuallylurk |
|||
|
I watch TV with a rabbit ears antenna. I used to have cable but I cancelled it a couple of years ago.
|
|||
sunflower101 |
|||
Screerider wrote: I think if these shows keep somewhat high in the ratings the writers are going to want to come back sooner rather then later, because they won't want to be out of work and take a chance whatever show the write for gets canceled in place of some of these reality shows. I am not taking about shows like Grey's Anatomy, CSI, etc. I am talking about on the bubble shows, especially new shows this season. |
|||
CasualWatcher9 |
|||
Lovejonze wrote:
I'm not sure this thread has pubes yet. It certainly has its share of dicks and cunts. Oh, and as I was informed in a PM, if you add one of theseSIR! |
|||
TexasBlues |
|||
You could say whatever you wanted to a superior as long as you included SIR! at the end of the statement Right. I'm going to guess that the closest you've been to being in the service is watching The Unit. |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
reality shows shouldn't be dealt with by the wga. All the regulations will drive up expenses and those, lose our precious shows
|
|||
GlamsSlam |
|||
|
Well someone expressed concerns that the Grammy's might not happen.. well how do you feel with regards to say Flavor Flav reading from a list of winners
surrounded by his flavor girls. I am sure they have no reservations about crossing a picket line or well with regards to anything else for that matter. And of
course more side deals continue which make well no sense and are clearly eroding the power of the strike despite what the WGA would say....
---------------------------------- LOS ANGELES -- Producers of the Grammy Awards have requested an interim agreement that would allow striking Hollywood
writers to work on next month's telecast, The Recording Academy said Tuesday. Writers Guild of America spokesman Gregg Mitchell said the request was
referred to the board of the union's West Coast branch for a decision. He said earlier in the day, however, that a deal "is unlikely to be
granted." The situation raised question about the fate of the Feb. 10 Grammys ceremony, set for live broadcast by CBS. The writers guild refused to grant
a waiver for last weekend's Golden Globe Awards and threatened to picket that event. Actors were advised by their union to stay away from the ceremony,
prompting Globes organizers to replace the normally glitzy telecast with a scaled-down news conference lacking stars, glamour and ad revenue. Next month's
Academy Awards could face the same fate. The Recording Academy said it remained hopeful that there would be a quick and positive response to its request
involving the 50th annual Grammy Awards show. "We will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that a program so vital to our industry, artists,
charitable beneficiaries, and the great city of Los Angeles is held as planned," said the statement by Neil Portnow, president and chief executive of The
Recording Academy, which owns all rights to the Grammy telecast but does not produce the show. The academy said it supports efforts by Cossette Productions,
which produces the Grammys, to reach an interim agreement with writers such as the one previously made with Worldwide Pants, which makes David Letterman's
late-night show. Earlier in the day, the guild said it would allow its members to work on the NAACP Image Awards and would not picket the Feb. 14 show at the
Shrine Auditorium. The awards presented by the National association for the Advancement of Colored People honor those who promote diversity in the arts. Awards
in 44 categories, including movies, TV and literature, will be presented in the ceremony broadcast live on Fox. "Because of the historic role the NAACP
has played in struggles like ours, we think this decision is appropriate to jointly achieve our goals," guild leader Patric Verrone said at a news
conference. The writers guild said it had not yet decided whether to picket the upcoming Grammys ceremony. Screen Actors Guild spokeswoman Pamela Greenwalt
said her union's members "have been unwilling to cross a picket line and we anticipate that solidarity will continue." In a joint statement, the
American Federation of Musicians and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists stressed that events surrounding the telecast of the Grammys help fund
educational, charitable and advocacy activities of The Recording Academy. The statement urged members to participate in Grammy events but also "express
support for our ongoing efforts to ensure that musical artists and creative talent receive fair compensation for their work in digital media." Members
were also encouraged to show support for writers. The American Federation of Musicians represents performers at the Grammys as well as many of the recording
artists honored. Other participants are members of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In a separate development, production and
distribution company Spyglass Entertainment reached an interim deal with the writers guild allowing Spyglass to resume production, company co-chairman Gary
Barber said. Barber would not disclose further details. Mitchell, who represents the guild, said he could not confirm the agreement. The writers guild
previously struck deals with Worldwide Pants, United Artists, The Weinstein Co. and independent studio Media Rights Capital. Meanwhile, four major studios said
they had canceled dozens of writers' contracts in a possible concession that the current television season cannot be saved, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The deals were terminated by 20th Century Fox Television, CBS Paramount Network Television, NBC Universal and Warner Bros.
Last Edited By: GlamsSlam
01/16/08 2:05 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
CasualWatcher9 |
|||
|
Glam, I love your posts, but mix in a paragraph or so every now and then.
I can't read that continuous stream of consciousness you spew.
Last Edited By: CasualWatcher9
01/16/08 1:32 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
GlamsSlam |
|||
|
Hey DRUNKEN ASSWIPE.. sadly my mac and yuku are like you and I.. oil and water.. That spew you think I wrote is a cut and paste article (like the ones you hate
that I reprint) from MSN.. I did not write any of that spew as you call it... take your meds and maybe an admin can fix the structure.. I CAN'T.. I wrote
only the part above the dots.. How is that small penis.. god anyone who would think you are my ghostnic needs their heads examined...
|
|||
CasualWatcher9 |
|||
|
Wow. Just Wow, Glam.
What part of "I love your posts" did you not get? What part about a mere comment on the paragraph structure of your post, for readability sake, did you not get? And then you have to go all off on this fantasy of yours about drug addictions and alcoholism, and the size of my penis, and your thoughts about my need for psychiatric help? My need? Indeed. Wow. Just Wow, Glam. |
|||
Screerider |
|||
sunflower101 wrote: Nah. The writers wouldn't have gone on strike if they were afraid of not working. The studios are making less on these shows than scripted ones, so I doubt they'll want to make that permanent. It's they who will flinch first. |
|||
sugarrhill |
The Huffington Post | ||
|
The Stakes Are Far Larger
Than Most Will Admit
by Roger Wolfson The stakes are far higher than either side admits publicly. The surprising reality of the Writers Strike is that the Companies truly believe they had no choice but to force the writers to strike. This is not because the Networks want to write off a bad season in 2007, or because the Companies want to void expensive overall deals. That money is chicken feed compared to what is truly on the table. Here's what's going on, and it's chillingly simple: by forcing Writers and Actors to accept a fraction of their rightful share of DvD sales twenty-odd years ago, the Companies saved over ten billion dollars. If the Companies can do the same with the Internet, they stand to save that amount many times over. The Companies are employing a cold but somewhat logical strategy. In foregoing a certain amount of current revenue - perhaps as high as the value of an entire season of TV - they hope to save tens of billions in the distant future. Before negotiations with the Writers began, the Companies said to their negotiator, Nick Counter: "This is how much of our future profits we are willing to share with the Guilds, and this is how long we can wait before we have to get back to work." And then they concluded, "between now and that certain deadline, get the Guilds as far below our maximum as you possibly can." So Nick did his usual dance - pretend to negotiate with Writers, and then try to cut a deal with Directors that can be used against the Writers. Why does Nick prefer the Directors Guild? Because it is more reasonable or powerful than the other Guilds? It's not necessarily either of those things. No, Nick prefers the Directors simply because they are the least expensive Guild. Half of the DGA's members don't depend on residuals, as do all of WGA and SAG. Nick has given DGA preferred status over the years, granted it early negotiations, and declared it "powerful," simply so he can try to use DGA deals to apply pressure on WGA and SAG. And just as Nick tries to use DGA as a front to pressure the Writers, he tries to use the Writers as a front to try to weaken SAG. SAG is Nick's ultimate quarry, not just because it is large and beloved by the public - but because it's the most expensive Guild. Every residual WGA gets, SAG contractually gets three times more. Nick's cynical strategy of using the Directors to force a bad deal on the Writers, so that the Writers deal will apply to the Actors, has worked more or less perfectly for thirty years. So what's different this time around? The stakes. Just as the Companies are looking at higher stakes than ever before, so are the Writers. This time around, probably to the consternation of the Companies, Nick has gone too far. The deal he laid before the Writers is bad in the short run, but in the long run, disastrous. "New Media" is an inaccurate term. It's no longer new, and in a few years, it will encompass all Media. By trying to cut writers out of New Media, Nick has declared that he wants to cut them out of the business altogether. But as many wars have taught us, imperial powers routinely underestimate what people will do to protect their homeland. While the Companies are only fighting to avoid sharing profits that the writers will earn for them in the future, the Writers are fighting for their professional lives. The clock is quietly ticking toward the secret deadline the Companies gave Nick. That deadline could be February, or, God forbid, September, depending on how much the companies have decided to invest in this strategy. But it will come. And for every indication that Nick's old tactics may be working, there are ten never-before-seen indications the Writers are stronger than ever. Where did the Companies go wrong? In not studying the current WGA. The signs that Nick's thirty-year old strategy might not work this time around were evident three years ago, when Patric Verrone and nine prominent writers announced their "Writers United" slate. For the first time, a slate of WGA candidates campaigned together, organized vote captains, developed a functioning, de-centralized organization that led to the largest voter turnout in Guild history and virtually every member of the slate beating all other candidates by a two to one margin. In case the Companies weren't paying attention three years ago, Verrone and his Writers United slate repeated the feat last year, winning reelection overwhelmingly with an unprecedented turnout strongly indicative of a well-oiled, mature organization. If the Companies weren't paying attention then, it's hard to believe they aren't paying attention now. With solid public support for writers, sustained picket lines, SAG and other union support, the Worldwide Pants deal in TV, the UA deal in film, and the "inevitable" negotiations with DGA already behind schedule, the Companies may soon have little choice but to reconsider their strategy. However "logical" it may be to lose a billion now to avoid sharing tens of billions others have earned for you, it's another thing entirely to lose a billion now and then have to share the rest of the money, anyway. |
|||
sugarrhill |
http://ramproductionsinternational.com/WGAStrike.aspx | ||
|
THE WGA STRIKE -- IN A NUTSHELL
There's been a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding the essence of the Writers
Guild Strike. Some people just don't understand why we've taken up arms nineteen years after our last strike in 1988.
But it's relatively simple.
It's about fairness and greed. Fairness about keeping some semblance of the income we've gained over the years, even as it has dwindled over the
past decade, and greed of the Alliance of Motion Picture Television Producers (AMPTP), who seem determined to take back the royalties we've won by
employing deceitful tactics that seek to take advantage of the new technologies in the entertainment business.
It's about the money
produced when our work is exploited in a manner beyond its original intent, such as reruns in other markets and the rental and sales of our product to
home consumers.
And even worse it's
about our rates for original compensation when the product we write is conveyed to the consumer over a new medium not previously covered in our
contracts.
A short history
lesson.
We've had residuals (rerun money) since the 1950's, which have grown from 3
runs to 6 to 10 and are now paid "in perpetuity" for broadcast runs of our work. It's a not too complicated formula (when you're
in the business you learn to understand it) of decreasing percentages of the original fee (though to complicate it a bit, our residuals are based on
a percentage of the syndicated cost of a show, not the prime-time network fees, which are 50% higher).
So, for example, if you wrote an ER or CSI and you got $30,000 for it for one network run, when it reruns on a local channel (not prime-time -- that's another matter), it will be, let's say for the third run 30% of the syndicated payment rate, which is $20,000 -- so you'd get $6,000. If it reruns during any prime-time period, you get 100% of that syndicated rate, a whopping $20,000. However, the problem is that the Guild, until recently, has become weaker and weaker in its negotiations with management. I know, as I was on the Board of Directors from 1990-1994. Anyway, in 1981, in order to "help" the new cable industry, we agreed to a very small percentage of the sales price to cable networks, on the assumption that in those years they were only going to be airing very old series like The Donna Reed Show or Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Michael Russnow picketing outside CBS Television City
I reminded the Board in 1994 that there was a new
practice in town, not earlier foreseen, whereby most dramatic shows and even some comedy shows were going directly from their broadcast run of
original airing and perhaps one network summer rerun to a cable station like USA or Lifetime (instead of local broadcast channels and syndicated
at 7 p.m. or 11 p.m. -- which pay the fees I describe above.)
So, instead of getting 4-figure residuals at a declining rate, 30% for the third run, 25% for the fourth through sixth run, 15% for the seventh to tenth run, etc. etc., we were now getting 2-figure or low 3-figure residuals for shows that reran on these cable networks, even though over the years they have grown enormously. Back in 1994, "Murder She Wrote" was getting $80,000 for a 30-second spot on USA. Those networks weren't getting chump change anymore. Because we had a bunch of strikes in the 80's, writers were tired of being militant, and so more and more people agreed to settle for less and less -- such as what we get for DVDs, an average of 4 cents per each unit, while the studios make billions. What this strike is about is that writers -- especially newer ones -- have awakened to the reality that the studios are trying to corner us into a situation where we will ultimately get no residuals at all, simply by keeping the same contract we already have for the other transmission media, such as broadcast and cable, but not providing a decent rate when shows are broadcast originally or emanate from the network and are rerun over the Internet. The day will come -- not too many years from now -- when you will watch TV the same way you do today, but the signal will be coming over the Internet, not by cable, satellite dish or your rabbit ears. And because it is a different transmission, if we have not inserted new language to that effect with an appropriate financial arrangement into the new contract, when that day does come we are at the mercy of the studios, who will be able to pay us anything they want. And then, like our experience with cable, where increase attempts have long since been abandoned as unwinnable since it's been so long since we accepted the formula, we will have to accept nothing or miniscule amounts for reruns. Their last offer a few weeks ago was to pay us $250 for unlimited reruns of an episode for an entire year! And even that is paid only after a six-week period of what they stream currently as "promotional" material -- even though they sell advertising when you watch that Ugly Betty episode that you missed the other night. That part of the Internet is already happening, and we get nothing. They also offered NOTHING for original shows that air over the Internet. So, what does that mean? It means that when the scenario I described above happens, when most people are watching TV in the same manner, but it is transmitted over the Internet, all new shows would have new "floors" -- meaning that the current rates, which determine what future rates are (since there's always some sort of cost of living adjustment), will be very, very much lower. It also means that they will be able to go back to the old days and pay us nothing at all or very little at all for the reshowing of our work for which they get billions domestically and in their sales around the world. It would undo all the progress of financial partnership, which the Guild and the DGA (directors) and SAG (actors) have won over the years as new markets and technologies to exploit new markets have been discovered. So, we are fighting to essentially retain the economic benefits we've struggled to achieve over sixty years before we sign any new contract. Benefits that the studios and networks -- just because it's a new medium of transmission -- want to take away from us even though for the purpose of the average viewer or filmgoer, it will be business as usual. Meaning in future years, they will turn on the TV or go to the movies and still be entertained. But those who create the stuff or creatively work on it (like directors and actors) will be left hanging out to dry. There has never been so much solidarity since I've been a Member of the WGA. TV and film writers united hand in hand (they usually have different grievances), and the myriad actors (famous and not famous) who walk the picket lines with us, because they know their contract is up in June. Many will not go to the Golden Globes or appear on struck TV shows such as the Tonight Show or Late Night With Conan O'Brien, which have started airing new shows. Whereas David Letterman and his subsidiary show, The Late Late Show signed an interim agreement, so writers are working on these shows and they will not be boycotted. Indeed, the Golden Globe Awards have essentially been cancelled, and the awards will be delivered via an NBC press conference. We are, I admit, a little concerned that the DGA will start talking with the studios this week. The DGA, which traditionally signs an early contract and is not nearly so aggressive, since most of their membership are not directors -- more than 60% are production managers and assistant directors -- don't have the same stake. Yet, even they have been cautious about accepting too lax a deal. I must say that we have been overwhelmed by the public support when they take the time to understand the issues, that it's not just about a lot of rich writers -- most of whom (believe me) are not working throughout the year, and these residuals are a delayed form of payment when the studios make "afterlife" money as well. Most writers, when they work and most don't at any given time, at best, are making upper middle class wages and only a very few are millionaires. So, simply put, this strike is about a fair future for entertainment professionals. |
|||
sugarrhill |
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-handel16jan16,1,539 | ||
DGA as peacemaker
template_bas
template_bas
If the directors cut the right deal, it could save Hollywood from civil war.
The studios and the Directors Guild started talking Saturday -- the day before the Golden Globes' televised implosion into a hurried news conference --
and some people think an agreement is imminent, if for no other reason than the hope that the Oscars can be saved from a similar fate. But a quick deal for
directors may not signal progress on Hollywood's larger labor issue, the Writer's Guild strike that is dragging down the industry and local economy.
All three guilds -- the writers, actors and directors -- are focused on new-media residuals, which are reuse fees paid when a movie or TV episode is streamed or downloaded from the Internet. The studios have so far offered writers peanuts -- for instance, just $139 for a year of streaming a half-hour TV program, no matter how much ad revenue it generates. The Writers Guild is demanding about eight to 10 times that amount. Will the Directors Guild take a similarly tough stance? Probably not. But it should. The Directors Guild cares about new-media residuals -- it reportedly spent almost $2 million researching the issues -- just not as deeply as writers or actors do. The top echelon of movie directors are paid millions and promised a cut of the gross, so new-media residuals don't amount to much mad money for them. Meanwhile, 40% of DGA members are assistant directors and unit production managers who receive practically no residuals now. As a result, the Directors Guild likely is more willing to trade off new-media residuals against other issues, such as larger base payments up front. Indeed, the studios would prefer to hike those minimums rather than increase residuals. That's because the first residuals deal negotiated often becomes a blueprint for the others -- it's called "pattern bargaining" -- but upfront minimums don't work that way. If the directors' deal were to become the contract template, each dollar of residuals the studios grant multiplies into more than $12 across all the unions' contracts. What about the actors? So far, the Screen Actors Guild has stood firm with the writers. Normally, though, SAG conducts its studio negotiations in tandem with a less-assertive actors union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. But this time around may be different: SAG will vote next month on severing that joint-bargaining relationship. That's an ominous sign; it means SAG wants the freedom to take as hard a line as possible this year. So the stage is set for a disaster. If the directors accept a lowball new-media deal, the Writers Guild and SAG may well reject it as a template, and pattern bargaining would break down. SAG's position would embolden the Writers Guild leadership to maintain the strike, despite pressure from some writers to end the walkout. Come June 30, when the actors deal expires, SAG would go on strike too. At that point, the industry would be in all-out civil war, with battle lines drawn: the writers and SAG on one side, and studios, networks, directors, crew and AFTRA on the other. Feature film production would cease, just as scripted TV production already has, but studios and networks would limp along for a while on a diet of reality TV and movies already in the can. The two strikes could stretch on for months longer. In this scenario, everyone suffers, including the directors. If there are no scripts and no actors, there's nothing to direct. More people would lose their jobs, and bitterness would increase dramatically, making it ever harder to hammer out new contracts. There's an obvious way to avert this scorched-earth scenario: The directors have to insist on a deal that the writers and actors can live with, even to the point of threatening a strike of their own. That's a tough script to follow: It's hard to negotiate on someone else's behalf, and strikes are alien to the directors (they've only walked out once in seven decades, and that was for just five minutes). But if the DGA negotiators pull it off, pieces start to fall into place. A good directors deal gives the writers and studios incentive to restart their own talks, which ended five weeks ago when the studios walked out. They could then close a deal on new media on the same terms as the directors, ending the strike. SAG would presumably do a similar deal, without ever striking. A movie set is a tough place; a cast and crew of hundreds depend on the director to keep the show moving. This time, though, the "cast and crew" number in the tens of thousands, and millions more people are watching. The stakes are high. Let's hope the directors don't yell "Cut!" too quickly. Jonathan Handel, a digital media attorney, was formerly associate counsel at the Writers Guild. He blogs at jhandel.com. |
|||
sugarrhill |
http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/ | ||
Laughing All The Way
By Ed Decter (WGA member, Pet Rock owner)
Long ago, in the era before digital streaming and video on demand, I was one of those kids who saved his allowance and bought a Pet Rock. I remember my father putting on his bifocals to examine the cardboard box with the built-in handle, the little nest of straw and the egg-sized gray stone. My dad sighed then said, "The guy who thought of this is laughing all the way to the bank." If my dad were still alive, he would be following the progress of our strike very closely; not just because his son is a screenwriter, but because he was always skeptical that those in power would abuse that power (I guess being in the first United States Army division to cross the Rhine made an impression on him). My dad read two newspapers cover-to-cover every morning. He would have certainly seen the article about how the WGA strike has resulted in a huge boost in ad rates for American Idol. Fox is now charging about a million dollars for a thirty second spot on Idol. This rate isn't for the FINALS, just a regular weekly episode. After reading the article my dad would have called me and asked, "How many thirty second spots are there in an hour of television?" I would have replied that on average there are about eighteen minutes of commercials per hour. My dad, who was a businessman and very good with numbers, particularly as they related to the "bottom line," would have estimated that each hour of American Idol was grossing 36 million dollars for Fox. The two hour episode that aired last night might have brought in 72 million. I would have then explained to my dad that those ad rate figures were just the tip of the iceberg. The Idol show also serves as an advertisement for CD sales, live touring shows, and tons of Idol-related merchandise (even on the Internet!). I imagine my dad would have asked me who the "guy in charge" at Fox was. I would have told him the guy's name is Peter Chernin. My dad would have said, "He must be laughing all the way to the bank." Peter Chernin must be a lot smarter than the chairmen of the other conglomerates. He must have about a hundred IQ points on each of them. How did he convince Les Moonves to "hold the line" and do without new CSI episodes while handing Fox the biggest ratings win in history? How did Chernin spin Iger on shutting down the Grey's Anatomy juggernaut so that WGA-less Idol could run free of any competition? What did he say to Jeff Zucker? Did he assure Zucker that Howie Mandel is every bit the ratings equal of Simon Cowell? Apparently, according to my Google search, a guy named Gary Dahl invented the Pet Rock. In the world of sales Gary was an amateur. He just dreamed up a product and made a bunch of money. If Gary were truly a captain of industry he would have also convinced the manufacturers of hula hoops, Slinkys and Tonka Trucks to STOP MANUFACTURING THEIR TOYS so that the public could ONLY buy Pet Rocks. That's why Gary Dahl could never be chairman of Fox. He's no Peter Chernin. So, Les, Bob, Jeff, just know that when Peter Chernin is at the bank cashing his billion dollar profit checks, he's not just laughing at the WGA - he's also laughing at the three of you. |
|||