Writers strike is a go

[Grog]

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".

Oh! Sorry, my mistake.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

No, that's not what happened. Your "facts" challenge came after you said we were done. So I am asking if we are done, or if you want to discuss things still.

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?

No, I am not saying that.

Why are you continuing with the aggression? Do you want to discuss, or do you want to fight? If it's fight, let's take it to CircvsMaximvs. If you want to discuss, then please cut out the dismissive passive aggressive stuff and strawman claims for exaggeration effect. You just did it with FrankTheDm as well, so it's becoming a pattern in this thread. And given that FranktheDm and I tend to think fairly differently about many topics, that's probably meaningful.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Only if you then show the studios are getting a huge net from it. But, given I've already given you the stats that they are not, I am not sure how it makes the studios look bad. I mean, if you just state it without mentioning that the studios have been taking it on the chin lately, then sure out of context it looks bad.

Which is irrelevant, since the ability to control costs related to movie production lies solely within the purview of the producers.

Ha! Surely you jest. You think market forces play no impact on the production of film and television? That Producers don't have to compete, can force advertisers to charge nothing, and don't have to pay top dollar for actors and directors and writers to get people to see their movies? Come on. This is a business. There is no such thing as being able to control all costs just because you are the guy raising funds and allocating a budget.

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.

How? How can they do this, given the change in the market? You think the producers just like losing money like they have been lately? That they are doing this for the fun of overspending?

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.

Honestly, I think that is just your opinion, and you came into this already being in favor of the writers. I think the facts I cited are compelling enough to make one at least question the writer's position if you come in as undecided. But if you are already decided, then of course your perspective will be "anything you say will likely reinforce my opinion that I am right", much like any debate.

I'm posting the other side for people who remain undecided and want to see both sides. That's it.

 

[Umbran]

Why are you continuing with the aggression? Do you want to discuss, or do you want to fight? If it's fight, let's take it to CircvsMaximvs.

Folks, above is a case in point. In most cases, it takes two to tango. If you feel someone is being too aggressive, getting aggressive back at them does nothing to alleviate the situation. it is what we moderators call "escalation". We ask all of you to avoid this.

If you have a problem with someone else being aggressive, you can report the post to the moderators - there's a little exclamation point icon you can click at the bottom of each post for the purpose.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

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.

Certainly. Having some knowledge of how these Union strikes play out, I'm going to make an assumption that anyone not acting properly will also be disciplined appropriately.

To hold out one or two instances of behavior that is against rules as an example of how the entire strike is being played out, however, seems to me to be an overgeneralization.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

How? How can they do this, given the change in the market? You think the producers just like losing money like they have been lately? That they are doing this for the fun of overspending?

Of course, part of the problem in general may be ridiculous expectations of exactly what constitutes reasonable profit.

(Not a dig at you- just a dig at overblown salaries among production staff, actors, and others in general. Of course, the same issue exists in pretty much all levels of industry- corporations, sports, etc.)

 

[Mistwell]

Of course, part of the problem in general may be ridiculous expectations of exactly what constitutes reasonable profit.

(Not a dig at you- just a dig at overblown salaries among production staff, actors, and others in general. Of course, the same issue exists in pretty much all levels of industry- corporations, sports, etc.)

But it's not their expectations. They are public companies, and have a responsibility to their stockholders. Right now, some of those studios are actually declaring losses, not profits. And that's not some funny money accounting, since as I said these are public companies regulated by the SEC.

I think "Studios should pay everyone less across the board so their movies can be profitable while in theaters" isn't going to fly with ANY of the unions involved. Remember, the Producer's belong to a union as well. As do actors, and directors, and most of the laborers involved. It's just not a solution that can realistically work.

 

[Grog]

No, that's not what happened. Your "facts" challenge came after you said we were done. So I am asking if we are done, or if you want to discuss things still.

What I want is for you to provide some support for the things you are claiming are facts. And I want you to leave the personal comments out of it this time.

Now, are you willing to do this, or am I wasting my time?

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

My point was that the actual managing of the strike has no relevence to the reasons for the strike. If we are talking about whether the writers are justified in starting a strike or not, the details of the strike itself are irrelevent. The same can be said concerning your mention of the other people who are making less money than the writers. The fact that they are making enough money or not is irrelevent to the writer's own issues. Finally, so far, while there have been many nasty claims about the producers, they only pertain to the reasons for the strike, not the act of the strike itself, so I am not contradicting myself here.

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?

I never said I didn't have a stand, I just said I don't know the details (such as how much people deserve to be paid, and such). I just said the kinds of things that should make people think they should ignore my opinion, not that I don't have an opinion. Right now, I am favoring the writer's side.

However, I dislike your implication that I made a choice on my stand (or that others in this thread have done so) arbitrarily, and are deliberatly ignoring one side in order to further my (our) own views. That is unfair and untrue. I am simply making a choice based on the information and views expressed in this thread. I think that is as impartial as I can be expected to be. It just happens that, in this thread, a pretty good case has been made for the writers to have good reason to strike.

After all, I have no interest in this strike, outside of entertaining myself in this thread. I don't even watch much TV that would be affected. I don't think I am obliged to do a lot of research on something which doesn't concern me. I will leave that kind of thing to someone trying to mediate negotiations and end the strike.

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.

All I meant was the "group of people who don't want to pay the writers any more". If you would care to notice, I am just trying to find a word to describe such people without using the word producers, for the same reason you just mentioned. If you have a better term, go ahead and explain it.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I think "Studios should pay everyone less across the board so their movies can be profitable while in theaters" isn't going to fly with ANY of the unions involved.

Not exactly what I said.

Remember, the Producer's belong to a union as well. As do actors, and directors, and most of the laborers involved. It's just not a solution that can realistically work.

I wasn't presenting it as a solution to the current problem, just making an observation on what I believe is a trend that pervades a lot of areas (and I did mention several of the above groups in pointing it out).