In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« WGA Post-Strike Watch: News About Returning Shows
The Price Is Almost Right for Strikers, But There's Still No End in Sight
Although statements circulated by producers and writers yesterday reveal that only $20 million separates their contract proposals, we still may be no closer to seeing this strike resolved. How can that be? The issue isn't the $20 million — producers drop that over lunch — it's how to assess compensation for ever-changing digital platforms. In any case, talks, such as they are, will resume today. — Ben Katner
|
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 9:20 AM
|
|
Can we just get both sides in front of a mediator so we can resolve this? And maybe set up some kind of review process for when new technology comes along. I do think that writers should get paid for what they produce, but you can't expect producers to pony up the $ for what may not have been invented yet.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 12:53 PM
|
No one's asking for the producers to put a price on as-yet undeveloped avenues of distribution. They've been telling stockholders that the internet is a gold mine. Now, when the writers are asking for a small piece of the pie, all of a sudden they can't say what it's worth.
Even if it were true (that the stuidos were unable to quantify the value of the new media) it doesn't matter, because the writers are asking for a percentage, NOT not a fixed amount. In order for them to get anything at all, the producers have to make money first.
I ask again, where's the downside?
I have no stake in this, except that I want my favorite show back (Bones.) I shudder to think of the next weeks, maybe months, with nothing but "reality" television. Blech!
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 12:59 PM
|
|
Actually, you can. And contracts have lifespans.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 12:59 PM
|
|
Oh, again with the blatant studio bias. The strike has been about compensation for digital content (DVDs, internet, downloads, streaming) from the beginning. Only when the AMPTP makes an offer that isn't laughable or as insulting as the last one will the strike be anywhere close to being resolved. Fair is fair.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 2:04 PM
|
|
The talent and effort required to write a screenplay or teleplay is so much greater than what is required to stand where someone tells you to stand and read some lines that someone else has written. It's a crime how much money the actors get compared to the writers.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 2:58 PM
|
|
The producers need to pay up because without the writers there would be no shows.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 3:05 PM
|
|
The writer's are striking now. Next will be SAG members, or whomever. No matter how well deserved, the bottom line will be that sponsors & viewers will end up paying the extra costs. I do not forsee any future sharing of the profits. As most of us are addicted to our particular entertainment genre(s), we will continue to be billed/pay in the usual manner, and no doubt, a few new inventive ways. My fear is that the inducment of more profit$ will generate/encourage production of even larger & more frequent loads of insipid programming that will be dumped on to the consumer and into our culture.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 3:08 PM
|
|
Don't watch it and it won't be perpetuated.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 3:10 PM
|
Sunny, I get what you're saying, but you don't have to be afraid of that. We're not asking for larger revenues from the internet than we've traditionally received from broadcast reruns. We just don't want them to *drop* (from 20K for a tv rerun to the proposed $250 for an internet rerun, for example). What we're asking for will not generate more cost for viewers. In fact, much programming that would have been put on cable, at a cost to you, will now be available as free downloads, paid for with embedded ads. I think you'll be pleased.
And it will not lead to more "insipid" programming. We take pride in what we create, and have no interest in diluting our work with things no one would want to watch -- that wouldn't do us any good anyway, in a world in which we're paid according to how many people have interest in downloading our shows!
I respect your concerns, but I hope I've put them to rest.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 7:38 PM
|
|
The problem is, to accept that there's only $20 million worth of difference, you have to accept that both sides' numbers are correct. The WGA presented a comprehensive financial analysis to the AMPTP last week. However, the AMPTP hasn't told anyone where their $130 million comes from, or even what the time frame is for it -- they could mean $130 million over the next 20 years, for all anyone other than the person who wrote the press release knows.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 9:17 PM
|
Hey,
This maybe off topic a bit, but I have a question and I'm not sure where to ask it. My question is:
If the strike should continue on for much longer then I'm sure any of us want, fans, writers, or producers alike. I'm talking months, like 8 or 9 months, where it would be obvious that a deal just couldn't/won't be made. Is there a higher power that can step in? Or are we left at the mercies of the negotiating teams? I'm honestly just curious, I seriously (hopefully) doubt that the strike would take that long, as I'm sure that the neither the writers or the producers want things shut down that long.
I'm honestly trying to educate myself in all this, because I think a LOT of my frustration with the whole thing is that I don't understand it. When they start throwing out all those big numbers and talking a lingo I don't understand I get frustrated. And I react with emotion rather than logic. To explain it a bit better, I read that the producers have offered a deal, but the WGA turned it down and they start throwing huge numbers around, and talking about stuff that I never have to deal with, I simply pick out the things I DO understand, which is very little. Basically, Producers make offer, WGA refuses.
Yesterday, I had done a post saying that I couldn't pick a side and that I had given up. That was mostly based on what I read that I could understand. (which was pretty much only the finger pointing and bad mouthing I had referred to in the same post) I don't want to just be reacting emotionally anymore, and I don't want to just give up. And I'm sure that both sides are relying at least a little on the ignorance of the general public, so they can get the "sympathy support". And quite frankly I refuse to be a pawn in anybody's game. But I honestly CAN'T pick a side when I don't understand where either side is coming from
So all of that being said, is there anybody out there that can break all of this down into a language that your everyday average, working class American citizen can understand. AKA, use little words. *grin*
Thanks for your help! 
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 9:26 PM
|
|
koshi700 -- if you go here, you can read a pretty clear analysis of the deals in question. (I hope I did that link right, and that it works for you.)
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 10:07 PM
|
I've seen a several well written explanations of the issues from the WGA (yes, writers write well--ha ha). I'm sure the networks/producers have put together similar explanations of their side. Can anyone give me a pointer? They must have something to say for themselves. Everything that I've read, from independent sources, as well as the writers, makes it sound like the producers offers are laughable.
Personally I don't see how the networks are even going to stay in business in the long run. Once broadcast television becomes an unimportant content delivery media, they'll be unimportant as well.
I suspect they don't want to make a reasonable long-term agreement because they have an underlying fear for their existence, and are thinking they may have to squeeze every stone for blood in order to survive.
|
|
Dec 4, 2007 10:53 PM
|
|
|
