Writers strike is a go

[Mistwell]

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.

How they are behaving on the picket lines is a tactic they are using to attempt to force the Producers back to the negotiation table, and weapon to attempt to gain leverage in those negotiations. It's relevant. It's not like I was discussing personal behavior at home - it's a part of the strike.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

You keep putting this out like it's fact when it's not. The writer's share isn't based on the profit numbers you seem to think they are. They ARE part of those "cooked books". There is no allegation on the table from the WGA that the Producer's are inaccurately reporting numbers TO THEM. The writer's have a quite powerful audit right, the same right as the Producer's have in fact, and both the Producer's Union and the Writer's Union are working from the same sets of numbers for this issue. Again, people keep trying to portray this like the big corporations against the littler writers, when in reality it's the big Writer/Producers against the Producers, both of whom have been making good money all along and both of whom are simply arguing about how to divide their own profits between them.

If you guys are going to continue to through this point out there like it is true, then prove it. And not by citing old cases from before the current system or concerning other parties, but from the WGA. Show me where they are saying they feel the profit numbers reported to them are false and cooked.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Apparently, you have confused the word "gross" with the word "net".

The Producer's GROSS that sum, not NET that sum (the confusion came from using the word net to examine the DVDs separately and not the context that they actually contain a movie or TV show that cost money to make). The article made it clear they then deduct the loss from the release, which is substantial, and then the loss from returns, which is also substantial and growing as places like Walmart take over that part of the industry. The Producer's made it clear, the articles make it clear, and I think the evidence bares it out that the DVDs are not an integral part of the ability to profit from a movie, and not a secondary line of profits. Continuing to mischaracterize it as otherwise isn't helpful to anyone.

 

[Grog]

Make up your mind. Are we done from your perspective, and you're going to ignore what I post, or did you want to discuss it still?

When you come in posting a bunch of stuff as fact, people have the right to ask you to provide support for these "facts." I did it when I was asked, you can do the same.

And yes, I was responding to you...because I never declared discussion done (just the long point by point where you dismiss everything and demand more sources to any response). You seemed to have ended our discussion from your end.

As for what you would like to see, you've already made it clear you have no intention at all of considering the other side, as you already made up your mind. If it's sourced from a Producer-biased source you have said it is all lies, and if it is sourced from a Writer-biased source you have presented it as all truth. So, why would I engage further in that? At this point, I care about those who want to know both sides and make up their minds.

So, in other words, you're saying that you can't or won't back up the things that you're claiming as fact. So why should anybody accept them as such?

 

[frankthedm]

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.

They have stood up to be counted together, They either have to chose to remove the rot themselves or they are condoning such behavior through their silence. If someone in a picket line provokes a fight with someone outside the line, those around him must make the choice to ostracize him form their line. Otherwise is it a common sense observation the others in that line will join in a fight

 

[Grog]

Entertainment media using the “Union with Mob ties” humor seems fairly common to me.

Are you seriously citing Futurama and The Simpsons as evidence that real-life Hollywood unions are corrupt?

 

[frankthedm]

Are you seriously citing Futurama and The Simpsons as evidence that real-life Hollywood unions are corrupt?

Is that seriously how you are reading my posts on this subject?

 

[Grog]

A lot of the Anti-Writers side of the debate seems to be "if we pay you for this, then it won't be profitable/possible". But, that kind of argument is completley nonsensical. If you can only afford to do something if you don't pay the most important people in creative production (writers, directors, actors, etc), then you shouldn't be bothering to do so in the first place. Paying such people should never be considered to be an optional expense.

Indeed. That nonsensical argument gets taken on in this post, which I linked to earlier in the thread:

[The studios] have stated that they need they need the flexibility of not paying residuals in order to experiment with digital models. Why are they "experimenting"? Well, in theory, to find the digital model that is the most efficient and most profitable. Aces. A system that will work flawlessly even though they've developed it without a chunk of its operating costs in place.

...

Now, if your brother said he was going to open a bar and see how it went without paying for any alcohol or hiring bartenders or figuring out the cost of a liquor license, and then if that succeeded he'd add the booze and personnel and get the paperwork nailed down, you'd rightly think he was an idiot. Studios say the same thing annnnnd ...

 

[frankthedm]

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

Organized crime? What are you talking about?

From my perspective it seems like writers use the "orginized crime controling unions" as a fairly common plot element in thier work. I seems like someone thought i said "writers are very quick to call Unions transparent masks for organized crime".

 

[Storm Raven]

Apparently, you have confused the word "gross" with the word "net".

I misspoke (misspelled?). My point still stands. The studio does a 1 million unit delivery, and can expect to get about $12 million dollars gross. The writers get 0.005% of that. This makes the studios look very bad.

The Producer's made it clear, the articles make it clear, and I think the evidence bares it out that the DVDs are not an integral part of the ability to profit from a movie, and not a secondary line of profits.

Which is irrelevant, since the ability to control costs related to movie production lies solely within the purview of the producers. If they want to control costs so that initial theater ticket sales cover the costs of production, they can. Cherry picking additional revenue and saying it is "necessary" to keep it all to themselves to make a movie profitable is putting the cart before the horse.

Continuing to mischaracterize it as otherwise isn't helpful to anyone.

Thus far, you haven't made an argument of any weight whatsoever for the producers. In point of fact, it seems to me that you have made arguments that just make them look much worse than any article supporting the writers has been able to do.