Originally Posted By peeaanuut So they have quit their jobs and move onto another job. They do not prevent others from going in and doing their job. By striking they are preventing others from going in to work. By a few people wanting a strike, the rest of the union or no union members are being prevented from working which causes others to lose their jobs and so on and so forth. So explain to me what good the strike is again? I say again, they now need to go get a real job and become a positive member of society instead of lazy bums camped out on a sidewalk preventing others from earning a living. They are now vagrants and loitering and should be arrested. As you say they are no longer employees because they do not have a contract. They should be removed from the grounds and prevented from ever working in the industry again.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Just to help you understand a little bit more before your next tirade,>> See there you go with the continued belittleing when I never belittled you. You call it a tirade instead of stating my opinion. You go ahead and think what you think and I will know what I know. We can have a difference of opinion on this matter without you being nasty.
Originally Posted By Rontheman Just for a little more detail, the reason the video formula is "hated" is this: Way back at the dawn of home video, when the writers were looking for their share, the studios persuaded them to take a very tiny slice (the 4 cents) because the cost of manufacturing and duplicating video cassettes was relatively high. (The famous example was that the studios blamed the cost of the hinge on the tape door) The studios asked the writers to basically take a crappy deal until they figured out if home video was a viable market, to help them grow that market. The writers took the deal, because at the time, the writers on the TV side never dreamed that there would be a home video market for their wares, so they tipped the negotiations into accepting the deal. Needless to say, once the studios had such a profitable situation on home video, the subject of revising the deal has been off the table in every subsequent negotiation. Now, with the internet distribution, where their fixed costs are minimal, they are making the same claim. "The technology is too new to make a deal," at the same time bragging to Wall Street about how much obscene profit is to be made from the same internet. So the writers, now that it's clear that non-traditional distribution can benefit everybody, we're determined to "not get fooled again." Add to this the studios never ending stalling tactics on the negotiations, missing months in the summer because of their vacations and you have the perfect storm for a strike. The studios knew that the writers as a group had wised up and desired to force a strike . Nobody is quite sure what their strategy is, but it's pretty clear they felt the only way to break the writer's resolve is to put them through hardship and hope they turn on each other like they did during the last strike. But conditions are different now. The writers have the internet to communicate and an energized membership acutely aware that if we cave on this, they will try to take that many more rollbacks next time. Like most of corporate America they'd be thrilled if the writers worked for a flat rate with no health and pension and no residuals. I understand that many contractors work that way in this country now, but for more reasons than I can get into here, this would mark the end of the middle class in writing and force a great deal of the membership to give up . Which may not bother some people here, but the list of writers who endure a cold streak, sustained by residuals, then came back a few years later to create something either artistically or commercially important is a long one. Mark Cherry with Desperate housewives is a famous case. But also, I believe David Chase and the Sopranos was similar circumstances. Alan Ball and American Beauty. Whether you like these shows or not isn't the point, the fact is from a profit point of view for the companies themselves if the writers had no Guild negotiated support structure, none of this would have happened. If you want TV to get completely safe and bland, support the corporations in this labor action.
Originally Posted By Rontheman "lazy bums camped out on a sidewalk preventing others from earning a living. They are now vagrants and loitering and should be arrested." < TIRADE By the way, the "few" people wanting a strike is 91%. Are you one of those people who think that "most" people like George Bush when his approval rating is 29%? How hard is it to understand that when a company refuses to negotiate a strike is one of the few things you can do to get them back to the table?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You're the one who said I didn't have the knowledge. You've been nasty throughout this thread and others, seemingly seeking out arguments. Then you act like a victim when people swing back. Is post 121 a tirade or not? "need to get a real job" "lazy bums" "should be arrested" "prevented from ever working in the industry again" Surely you can see the vindictiveness in that sort of language, as well as the tone of all your posts in this thread. You dismissed what these writers do throughout. We get it. You place no value in their work and think little of writing in general. You don't like unions. That's fine. But like them or not, they exist and will continue to exist in the entertainment industry. Staking out extreme positions like calling for their arrest and so forth has nothing to do with the issues at hand, and is just baiting.
Originally Posted By dsnykid Peanut.. when the cost of your film goes up and you have a photo shoot coming up, do you not adjust the price you are asking for on your next contract? Or do you just take the increase in your own expenses as a loss in order to get your next job? From what I understand, the writer's are doing the same thing as you are doing now in your contracts. They are negotiating for the right to say how their work gets used and that when it does get used in newer ways, such as the internet, that they are financially compensated for this. You would do the same thing would you not, as it seems to be a logical way to ensure you profit form your own work. I understand that you do not agree with unions, but the entertainment industry has one that writers are required to be a part of, so they are using it for it's intended purpose. What is so horrifically wrong with that? You say they need to get a real job, I find it odd that a photographer would say that as I know MANY people who see writing, especially a script that is well thought out and coherent, as much more difficult than taking a picture. After all how many people in North America own cameras compared to how many people write stories? Artistic creativity is a very rare talent, in any medium. I find it somewhat sad that as an artist yourself you can not see that.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<You place no value in their work and think little of writing in general.>> I never said that either. But writing for a TV show is alot lower caliber than writing a novel. On a scale of 1-10 TV would be a 1 and a novel would be a ten. If these people set themselves to write something actually worth it than I wouldnt be complaining. But they make more than someone who actually does a hard days work and than they complain about how much they are getting after they stop working. <<Peanut.. when the cost of your film goes up and you have a photo shoot coming up, do you not adjust the price you are asking for on your next contract? Or do you just take the increase in your own expenses as a loss in order to get your next job?>> The cost of film is the cost of doing business. I would bid the job that includes the cost I know I will have to spend to get the job done. It is the cost of doing business. If my camera fails, it is not the fault of the customer. I simply get a replacement, which I own several of. But if I did not own a replacement I would rent one at whatever cost it takes to get the job done. It has nothing to do with getting my NEXT job, it has to do with getting the job done that I said I would do. <<From what I understand, the writer's are doing the same thing as you are doing now in your contracts. They are negotiating for the right to say how their work gets used and that when it does get used in newer ways, such as the internet, that they are financially compensated for this. You would do the same thing would you not, as it seems to be a logical way to ensure you profit form your own work.>> I do not do it at the cost of others being able to bid for the job at their cost by striking and preventing others from working. I bid my bid and if they say no, I say have a nice day and good luck. <<You say they need to get a real job, I find it odd that a photographer would say that as I know MANY people who see writing, especially a script that is well thought out and coherent, as much more difficult than taking a picture. After all how many people in North America own cameras compared to how many people write stories? Artistic creativity is a very rare talent, in any medium. I find it somewhat sad that as an artist yourself you can not see that.>> I have a real job. I work 100 hours a week at a fair wage that I agreed to. I shoot on the side and make plenty of money doing it. I do not expect millions from shooting a minor league baseball team which is what TV is compared to a novelist. TV scripts are minor league and novelists are major league. And to answer you other question, I bid a job and get paid. If the other end fulfills their end of the bargain than I am happy. I do not say "well, here is the deal, but if you use it in the manner that I say is ok and you make alot of money, I want more later." That simply does not happen. For example. I bid a game once. It was a minor league baseball team. I was paid $200 to shoot the entire game. My photos were to be only used in a promotional manner by the team. It detailed television usage and print usage. Long contract that I dont remember all the details of at the moment. However I got one shot during that game that was absolutely amazing. It was a runner sliding into 3rd base. Somehow his hand got pulled back and he ended up sliding face first on his chin. In the shot I got dirt flying in his mouth and cuts and scrapes. It was a once in a lifetime shot. I did not go into the office and say well, I want more money now. I took my $200 and walked out. They ended up using it in the manner that was under our contract and for nothing more. They kept their end of the bargain and I kept my end of the bargain. Now when I went back to bid for another game I set a higher price. They did not want to pay it so I walked out and left. I didnt picket in front of the stadium and I didnt jump in front of other photographers going in to get hired. I simply walked away. I am certain someone got the job for a wage they felt was fair and took the job. I dont know. I didnt stick around. I moved onto another job and that was that. <<After all how many people in North America own cameras compared to how many people write stories?>> That is not a fair comparison. The comparison would be how many people own cameras and how many people own a pencil and paper? Just because you have a camera doesnt mean you know the first thing about using it. The same with owning a pen and paper. A fair analogy? Point and shoot cameras used by Joe tourist are TV show writers. A Hasselblad in the hands of Ansel Adams is the novel.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan There is so much you don't understand, peeaanuuut. I'm out of this one.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut aparently I am the only one here that doesnt want something for nothing. YOu guys want to keep getting paid after the job is done. And keep getting paid for doing nothing extra. I think I understand plenty.
Originally Posted By cstephens DAR wrote: > Should Paul McCartney not get paid everytime a Beatles song is played? While I see some of the similarities, I don't think there's enough correlation between music and movies/TV shows. It's possible to have all or most of the effort done by one person for a recording. In the case of a movie or TV show, the writer is only one of the many people responsible for bringing the product to life. /cs
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It's possible to have all or most of the effort done by one person for a recording.<< For instance? Anyway, I think they were referring more specifically to Paul's songwriting royalties, which he is still collecting. Not that Paul's the best example, he being a multi-gazillionaire, and the owner of several publishing companies as well. Maybe the songwriting royalties of the guy who wrote "Louie Louie", which, if he's still alive, are probably his only source of income.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's possible to have all or most of the effort done by one person for a recording.<< For instance?<< Paul McCartney, as luck would have it. At least two of his albums (most recently Chaos and Creation) have him performing all of the instruments.
Originally Posted By DAR <<In the case of a movie or TV show, the writer is only one of the many people responsible for bringing the product to life.>> True but most of the time it starts with the writer.
Originally Posted By cstephens Yes, starts with, but not solely dependent on. Someone could write a song, sing it, play all the instruments on it, mix it and even possibly distribute it him/herself. There can be minimal contributions by other people, but it's almost a solo effort. That's almost impossible in the case of a movie or television show. It takes a script to start with, but then it takes actors, directors, costumers, lighting people, editors, production designers, etc. to finish the project. Even if one person does as many of those jobs as possible, unless they play *all* the parts themselves and sets up the camera and the lighting and everything else that needs to be done on a shoot, there are going to be a lot of other people who are vital to the completion of that project. Not to diminish the contributions of the writer, but film and television is much more of a collaborative medium out of necessity than music is. As that's the case, there are going to be a lot more people wanting a piece of a limited pie. /cs
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>I never said that either. But writing for a TV show is alot lower caliber than writing a novel. On a scale of 1-10 TV would be a 1 and a novel would be a ten. If these people set themselves to write something actually worth it than I wouldnt be complaining. But they make more than someone who actually does a hard days work and than they complain about how much they are getting after they stop working.<<< Again, your comments show how little you know about the situation, or about writers in this profession in general. Beyond simply not knowing how much the average writer makes or how long they work, or how they compare with 'hard working' people. Your level of cluelessness here is epic. Additionally, many of the writers employed in television DO write fiction literature - often crossing over into novels or short story writing. Quite a few have been published in books and magazines, transitioning back and forth between those worlds. >>>aparently I am the only one here that doesnt want something for nothing. .<<< No... apparently you're the only one here who doesn't THINK like a rational human being. Who doesn't THINK before they type up their incendiary, misinformed blather. Your indignant attitude, and the fact that you believe you "understand plenty" speaks volumes about your level of maturity and your basic capacity to understand any issue, period. Nobody truly WISE would claim they "understand plenty." I don't know how old you are, but I've had conversations with 15-year-olds who demonstrated more insight and reasoning capacity, than you've displayed in this thread. And as for creating chaos on these boards, the reason you're not doing it CURRENTLY outside of this entertainment forum, is because people had enough of you when you were doing it BEFORE on LP. I suppose you thought you could come in for a last gasp at attention, and try again to foist your flaming, preposterous comments in a corner where perhaps folks would not remember what you'd done before. Again, you thought wrong.
Originally Posted By DAR <<As that's the case, there are going to be a lot more people wanting a piece of a limited pie.>> Which is what they're predicting.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut BOT: I believe you are confusing me with someone else. Go back and check your records.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Additionally, many of the writers employed in television DO write fiction literature - often crossing over into novels or short story writing. Quite a few have been published in books and magazines, transitioning back and forth between those worlds. >> Jeph Loeb and Brian K Vaughn. Both are major comic book writers. Loeb works on Heroes and Vaughn worked on Lost. David Goyer who was one of the writers on Batman Begins I know has also done some comic book work too
