Writers strike is a go

[TwinBahamut]

The writers are striking with a claim that the Producers are taking too much money and not giving enough to the writers, and many people have mentioned in this thread that the writers are underpaid. It's absolutely relevant to state that they are actually doing quite well on average. and some are millionaires, and some of the people they are striking against make LESS money than them. I am sure you can see why that would be relevant to this discussion, given it directly contradicts some claims made in this thread. It's OK that I am responding to points made in the thread, right?

I reject this claim entirely. We live in a capitalistic society, not a communistic society. How much a person deserves to be paid never depends on how much someone else deserves to be paid (with only a few minor excpetions). So what if they get paid more than the next guy? Good writing requires a lot of talent and skill, and should be rewarded more than jobs which don't require that same level of talent and skill. Or are you saying that it would be unjust for a surgeon to ask for more pay, just because he is already better paid than a nurse?

Edit:I decided to just leave my argument concerning an actual point worth talking about. I am getting tired of the rest...

 

[Grog]

Given Walmart sells DVDs for $14.87,

This is incorrect. That's the lowest DVD price Wal-Mart offers, and only they sell some titles for that price. If you look at their top sellers page, for instance, there are only a few titles there selling for $14.87.

But, in any case, whether the studio profit is $12 per DVD or $10.50 doesn't really make a substantial difference for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[Grog]

Here's another article - this one discusses the fact that the writers are striking against the big Hollywood studios, not the individual producers:

Producers say don't blame us

To clarify their point, the informally organized group of producers signed a joint statement asking the print and broadcast media to quit referring to the strike between the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers as between "writers and producers."

"Actually, the Writers Guild is negotiating against an entity that represents studios, networks and multinational conglomerates," said Linda Goldstein Knowlton, whose producing credits include the film "Whale Rider."

Julie Lynn, whose producing credits include "The Jane Austen Book Club," said: "In many of the publications we read and [broadcast] stations we listen to, it almost always is viewed as a dispute between the writers and producers. While the AMPTP has 'producers' in its name, that's not really what it is."

In their statement, the producers say that "it serves the studios' interests to pretend to represent individual producers instead of corporate entities."

They also noted: "Creative producers are not directly involved in this dispute: We do not receive any residuals, nor are we stakeholders in the studio profits (excepting where some powerful producers do have back-end holdings in particular studio shows and films, just as do powerful actors, writers and directors).

 

[Umbran]

Mistwell and Grog:

Both of you are generating complaints at this point. Last warning - tone it down. Consider the possibility that the entire picture is pretty well obscured, and that the other guys may have some valid points. And be nice and polite about it, on your best behavior, or your participation in this discussion will be ended.

If this is somehow unclear, please take it to e-mail. Thank you.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Thanks for that last post Grog. My wife and I were just wondering about this last night. We assumed there must be some entity representing the studios, but were trying to figure out how the individual producers fit into this. We have heard that there are several producers honoring the strike, which didn't make any sense if they were on the opposite side of the table.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

It doesn't matter how much their net is in this case. The studios appear to gross about $12 million on that million unit delivery. The writers currently get paid about 0.005% of that. Note that this is not 5%, or even 0.5%, this is five thousandths of one percent. Whether or not the studios net a ton or not on a DVD sale, the fact that the writers get five thousands of one percent simply makes the studios look bad. Worse even that saying the writer gets 4 cents per DVD.

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.

They don't have to pay an actor $20 million or do a full blown $40 million advertising campaign if they do not want to. Lots of movies are made for well under $100 million, and most of those appear to actually make money. The decision to lay out huge amounts of money on a particular movie is entirely within the perview of the studios. They make the decisions concerning how much money to budget and can figure out a way to stay within that budget. If they are losing money by being profligate, that is their problem alone.

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?

Once again, you seem to be mistaking "opportunism" or "set in stone reality". The costs of these productions have grown, not because of some law mandating that they do so, but rather because studios decided they could get the additional funds from DVD sales and other aftermarkets. Costs have grown to encompass expected revenue. The problem is that the studios have decided that this additional revenue belongs entirely and exclusively to them - and that they don't have to bother to share it with anyone else. That is poor planning on the part of the studios, but not an immutable fact of life.

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.

No. I looked at your stuff intiially thinking "hey, the studios might have a point", but things like 5 thousandths of a percent, and the fact that you seem not to understand why costs have grown, getting the cause and effect exactly backwards has convinced me that the stuidos not only don't have any very good arguments, but if this is the best they can come up with, they have no arguments.

 

[Storm Raven]

Given Walmart sells DVDs for $14.87, it seems the article must be at least somewhat inaccurate. The other article cited said that the Writer's Union felt that the Producer's were keeping $10.55, not $12. I think it's safe to assume the WGA is probably more accurate than some writer who seems to be citing numbers off the top of his head rather than stressing the accuracy of those numbers (he starts by saying "for example" and then says "about" throughout the paragraph, I think to stress that these numbers are not to be taken as gospel).

That changes the figures paid to the writers to 0.006% of the total gross. Which still makes the studios look very bad.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

It is certainly possible to make a movie for less than $100 million. It is certainly possible to make a movie for less than $60 million. Many movies are made for significantly less than those figures. It isn't the various guilds that make movies cost that much - it is all the bells and whistles added to them.

By the way, in 2006, the average movie cost $65.8 million to make according to the MPAA. http://www.cinematical.com/2007/03/08/mpaa-in-2006-an-average-movie-cost-65-8m-to-produce/. That means that lots of movies were made for less, while some were made for more. For every $268 million dollar Spider Man movie, there are five or so movies that only cost $20 million to make up for it. So controlling costs is clearly possible for the studios, they just don't choose to do it with some productions.

So whining poor is simply a red herring on the part of the studios here.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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

Ah ok, my mistake. I didn't seen anything in your post that clued me into the humor, so it just went over my head.

 

[Mistwell]

I reject this claim entirely. We live in a capitalistic society, not a communistic society. How much a person deserves to be paid never depends on how much someone else deserves to be paid (with only a few minor excpetions). So what if they get paid more than the next guy? Good writing requires a lot of talent and skill, and should be rewarded more than jobs which don't require that same level of talent and skill. Or are you saying that it would be unjust for a surgeon to ask for more pay, just because he is already better paid than a nurse?

Edit:I decided to just leave my argument concerning an actual point worth talking about. I am getting tired of the rest...

Again, it was a response to people saying that the Producer's are evil wealthy corporations. If the wealth of the Producer's is not relevant to you, then I can see why the wealth of the Writer's is not relevant to you. But, it seems to be relevant to some people, and those people may find that information useful. If a wealthy writer striking for even more money puts a poor grip or gaffer out on the streets to lose his house because he cannot pay his mortgage, for some that is meaningful. I agree with you that it shouldn't necessarily be important, but for some it is.