Writers strike is a go

[Mistwell]

Also, Mistwell, you would probably serve the "producer's" case a lot better if you left out all the emotional pleas about the way strikers are blocking streets and somehoe snubbing their noses down at other people in the industry. Those have nothing to do with the debate at hand. If anything, it just makes it look like you have a personal axe to grind in this debate.

Bad behavior of a party is not relevant to the debate? And I am not in any way emotional about this. It's relevant in my opinion to the issue. As long as we hear all the bad behavior of the Producers (which we have, repeatedly, in this thread, with no responses from anyone else to it including yourself), I think it's relevant counter point. I'm just reflecting what I am seeing in this thread. Like I said, I am actually slightly on the writers side in this debate (though apparently nobody believes me when I say that). I am trying to give the other side.

For whatever reason, an awful lot of folks seem to want to critically think hard about the Producer's side of things and try and poke holes in those points (which is fair), but won't do the same for the writer's-side of the debate even for points the writer's make that are on their face fairly unsubstantiated (which is not fair). If you really are not sure where you stand, then why am I the lone voice even bothering to question the writers-side of the debate in this thread?

Heck, you even started your post with "the anti-writers side", which is on it's face a very biased approach. Nobody is anti-writer in this debate. A lot of producers ARE writers or want to be writers, and this is really a family fight that turned dirty.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Personally I find it kind of funny since it sure seems writers are very quick to use Unions as transparent masks for organized crime...

Um... bwah?

Quote? Link? Article? Substantial evidence that backs up your (flagrant and outrageous) claim?

Ladies and Gentlemen... are... are we just making stuff up now?

 

[Storm Raven]

Bad behavior of a party is not relevant to the debate? And I am not in any way emotional about this. It's relevant in my opinion to the issue. As long as we hear all the bad behavior of the Producers (which we have, repeatedly, in this thread, with no responses from anyone else to it including yourself), I think it's relevant counter point.

No, behaviour is not always relevant. The alleged bad behaviour of the producers in this dispute is entirely germane to the core issues of the dispute - i.e. it involves actions taken relating directly to subject matter of the negotiations, and thus is relevant. The alleged bad behaviour of the writers is tangential at best - involving how the writers are behaving on the picket line, and thus really isn't relevant.

 

[Storm Raven]

Here are some more facts from the Producer's perspective (since, again, I think that perspective is pretty under represented in this thread):

You might want to stop arguing. Everything you say just seems to make the producer side in this even more unreasonable than before.

In 2006, the average MPAA film cost over $100 million to produce, market and distribute in the domestic market, and approximately another $40 million if released overseas.

And? The cost of making a motion picutre is something that is entirely in the control of the studios. It is their choice to make monstrously expensive pictures with all the bells and whistles glopped on. Furthermore, this "average" appears to be highly misleading, padded by a handful of extraordinarily expensive pictures among many more reasonably priced pictures. A better measure than the "average" would be the median cost. And that's not even persuasive - because the cost of a picture is still controlled by the studios. If they can't make a profit on a $200 million production, they only have themselves to blame.

Revenues obtained in the initial market of release no longer cover the costs of production, much less distribution and marketing. There is no such thing as supplemental or ancillary or secondary market any longer and hasn’t been for years. All windows and media are needed for the vast majority of productions just to recoup initial costs, much less break even or make a profit.

You are looking at this from the wrong direction. Costs of production, distribution, and marketing have grown because the revenues are available. Not because there is some immutable law that states that these costs must be that high. Studios have decided to take for granted that this gravy train is available and pumped up their costs as a result. This is not a mandatory action on their part, and now that the writers (and soon, actors and unions) have called them on it, they are throwing a hissy fit like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

And since production companies are notorious for engaging in creative and sometimes fraudulent accounting, inflating their costs by attributing unrelated and sometimes imaginary costs to the budget of a production, the level of sympathy they deserve when they cry poor is nonexistent.

On a standard 1 million unit sale of a DVD, a writer garners at least an additional $64,800 beyond initial compensation (on 5 million units at least $324,000; on 10 million units $648,000, etc.). So can we PLEASE stop tossing around this 4 cent number. It's not an accurate number. And yes, it's a STANDARD sale unit of 1 million DVDs, not an exception. Remember, sales includes to rental companies.

Becased on the figures that have been provided, the production company's total net on that 1 million unit sale is about $12 million. That means that the writer's royalty on the DVD sale represents 0.0054$ of the total net revenue gained by the studio on that 1 million units.

So yes, the 4 cent figure is not accurate. The real numbers actually make the production companies look much worse.

 

[frankthedm]

Um... bwah?

Quote? Link? Article? Substantial evidence that backs up your (flagrant and outrageous) claim?

Ladies and Gentlemen... are... are we just making stuff up now?

Entertainment media using the “Union with Mob ties” humor seems fairly common to me. Off the top of my head…

Futurama: 2-13 "Bender Gets Made (a.k.a. Bendfellas)"

Simpsons: 4-17 "Last Exit to Springfield"
[Homer is elected union kingpin]
Homer: So what does this job pay?
Lenny: Nothing.
Homer: D'oh!
Lenny: Unless you're crooked.
Homer: WOOHOO!

Movie: Eraser had a fantastic running gag with this subject with the union mobsters being on the protagonist’s side.
Tony Two Toes: "We heard you was loading a ship without the assistance of bona fide union labor. Say it ain't so."

"Let me explain something to you. Nothing moves off these docks without it getting loaded by the union."

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Interesting article from almost 3 years ago when the SAG was negotiating. Sure, there is revenue generated by DVD sales and internet generation. I understand the writers wanting their piece of the action, but at the same time the writers get a minimum, whether the show or movie is a hit or it sucks.

The movie 300 was a huge hit. It had a budget of about $60 million. Worldwide box office receipts were $456 million. Theaters keep about 50% of the box office receipts, so that comes to about $228 million for the studio. It has sold an estimated 8.33 million DVDs* so far. If the studios get about $12 for a DVD, as stated earlier, $100 million for the studio. The $0.04 per DVD for the writers comes to $333,000 to divide. The actors' $0.15 gets them about $1.25 million. No idea what the director's cut is. So, based upon a huge hit movie, the writers do look like they are getting the shaft.

But...

The movie Evan Almighty was one of the biggest losers of all time in absolute dollars. With a budget of $175 million, its worldwide box office gross was about $172 million. At 50% of the box office, Evan Almighty lost about $89 million dollars. It has so far sold an estimated 1.2 million DVDs*. At $12 per DVD for the studio that comes to about $14.4 million, so it is at a loss of about $75 million dollars. The writers cut of the DVD sales comes to about $48,000 to split and the actors get about $180,000 on a movie that still has not made a profit.

The article I linked above said that the actors backed down on higher DVD revenue rather than change the model so that movies have to make a profit before they start getting a residual. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. In the meantime, I will catch up on recorded shows, rent some DVDs of movies I never got to see and maybe will be able to spend a little more time with the family with the TV turned off because there won't be anything worth watching.

* DVD sales estimates taken from The Numbers.com

 

[Storm Raven]

The article I linked above said that the actors backed down on higher DVD revenue rather than change the model so that movies have to make a profit before they start getting a residual.

Production companies have developed a nasty reputation for cooking the books to make almost every movie fail to make a "profit", even apparently highly successful movies (such as Coming to America or Forrest Gump). Look up the term "monkey points" for a complete explanation.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

And also, it's worth pointing out that this is exactly how the writers got screwed the last time around. Back when movies were first being sold on VHS, the studios said exactly the same thing that they're saying now. "It's too new! We don't know how much money we can make here! We need you to take this crappy deal while we grow the market and find out if there's any money to be made in home video." And then when DVD came along, the studios said "It's home video, same as VHS," and that's how the writers ended up where they are today. I think it's understandable that they don't want the same thing to happen again.

Not to mention it's a pretty indefensible position, IMO, when you consider they're asking for residuals. IE, if the studios cannot and do not make a cent, they obviously won't be paying out- .001% of nothing is still nothing. On the other hand if and when they do make a profit on it, it stands to reason that the creative minds that allowed such content to generate money should benefit as well.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Also, Mistwell, you would probably serve the "producer's" case a lot better if you left out all the emotional pleas about the way strikers are blocking streets and somehoe snubbing their noses down at other people in the industry. Those have nothing to do with the debate at hand. If anything, it just makes it look like you have a personal axe to grind in this debate.

RE: Strike practices- this sort of thing goes on a lot in any kind of strike- people violating the Union rules (on both sides, I might add). They may not care, they may be ringers brought in to fill out picket lines, they may be told to do this by less than scrupulous union leaders, whatever. The actions of a few bad apples in the picket lines, reprehensible as they may be, shouldn't be taken as representative of the union as a whole.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

You are looking at this from the wrong direction. Costs of production, distribution, and marketing have grown because the revenues are available. Not because there is some immutable law that states that these costs must be that high. Studios have decided to take for granted that this gravy train is available and pumped up their costs as a result.

Robert Rodriguez has some funny anecdotes about this in his book "Rebel Without A Crew", about how when he went to Hollywood to work on a big budget movie for the first time, he was doing the editing and post-production work himself, saving a lot of time and money as a result, and was told point blank that he couldn't do it, that's not the way it's done (in fairness, part of it was due to union issues). It's really pretty funny (and sad).