Writers strike is a go

[Cthulhudrew]

The second big reality check is that unions have a nasty habit of taking for granted the members they are supposed to represent. It is usually not a big love-in where every little guy gets his say in matters. It's usually a minority of major players making all the decisions for everybody else, and unleashing holy hell on any dissatisfied members that don't step in line with their leaders' will. Point of fact: you may or may not want to join a union, but usually you wind up doing so because you have to, and this is the case with the WGA.

While I will agree that this may often be the case, it doesn't seem to apply this time around. From everything I've read and heard, the WGA members are all pretty well in synch on this one. It's one of the things that is markedly different from the last time they struck, in '88, in fact (where the Union was roundly criticized for caving in too easily on demands, such as screwing up the video residual negotiations.)

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Give me a link at least to anyone who agrees with your position that all theatrical releases should be profitable in and of themselves without any DVDs or other after-market stuff. If you are right, there should be hundreds of articles on the subject.

The studio system was making plenty in the way of profit off of mere theatrical release alone well up until the home-video market exploded in the 70s/80s. Just because ancillary markets have come along to demonstrate there are additional revenue streams doesn't mean that the theatrical release model is not sufficient to work in and of itself- it's the expectations that those secondary markets created that caused the change, and the anticipated additional revenue from them.

 

[Mistwell]

The studio system was making plenty in the way of profit off of mere theatrical release alone well up until the home-video market exploded in the 70s/80s. Just because ancillary markets have come along to demonstrate there are additional revenue streams doesn't mean that the theatrical release model is not sufficient to work in and of itself- it's the expectations that those secondary markets created that caused the change, and the anticipated additional revenue from them.

Uh...it changed then because the home video market changes the theatrical market. Did you think it was just an amazing coincidence that fewer people went to the movies as video rentals increased? Come on now, I have seen you in threads where people would rate new movies with the word "Rental" or "Cable". You know what that means for the theatrical release!

The "ancillary" markets are not always "additional" revenue, they are usually REPLACEMENT revenue. People who would have gone to the movies to see a movie sometimes now instead wait to rent it or even buy it or see it on cable (and was also starting to grow at that time as well - remember when ON TV was the only cable station). It sounds to me like you are living in the 1970s and have not caught up with the impact that cable and rentals and the internet have had on theatrical viewing. It's not the same market it used to be, and studios had to adapt or die.

Really, I think you are a party of one of this aspect of the issue. Pretty much everyone knows that rentals and cable and the internet all had an impact on the theatrical market, and that the markets are considered together and not separate. And I am having trouble seeing how this part of the debate in this thread is productive - the WGA is not arguing to separate the markets again, nor are the Producers, nor are the Actors or Directors or anyone involved. So what is the point of debating it?

 

[Pyrex]

Here's a link to a hilarious video on YouTube by one of the writers of The Daily Show.

Independent of the validity of his talking points, it's funny stuff.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Here's a link to a hilarious video on YouTube by one of the writers of The Daily Show.

Independent of the validity of his talking points, it's funny stuff.

Funny stuff indeed. "Which is it?" also a reasonable question.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Uh...it changed then because the home video market changes the theatrical market. Did you think it was just an amazing coincidence that fewer people went to the movies as video rentals increased? ...The "ancillary" markets are not always "additional" revenue, they are usually REPLACEMENT revenue.

Of course it is additional revenue. If the studios had not opted to go into the home video system as it came about, there would be no market for it- ie, there would only be the box office market.

It sounds to me like you are living in the 1970s and have not caught up with the impact that cable and rentals and the internet have had on theatrical viewing.

Yo, yo, Mr. Kotter! It's like, so weird that you're gettin' personal.

It's not the same market it used to be, and studios had to adapt or die.

It's not as if the home video market is just this beast that spontaneously generated out of nowhere and the studios had to somehow come to terms with it. Home video - video = home?

That market exists only because the studios decided it would be a good source of additional revenue and a way to compete with what they viewed as their biggest competition, television. But to suggest they have no say over where it goes or what happens to it, is pretty unbelievable.

The fact that that market is factored into production costs nowadays only speaks to their lack of desire to make the theatrical market profitable on its own terms, it doesn't make it impossible to make them so.

And I am having trouble seeing how this part of the debate in this thread is productive - the WGA is not arguing to separate the markets again, nor are the Producers, nor are the Actors or Directors or anyone involved. So what is the point of debating it?

You're the one that raised the question addressing how theatrical releases could be profitable on their own; I was pointing out that that's exactly what they were in the beginning of filmmaking. Question, rebuttal.

You want something more productive? How about cutting exorbitant salaries of those involved as a means of reducing above the line costs (producers, directors, actors, yes- and even some writers; including all the attendant "camp followers")? How about figuring out ways to make the theater going experience better, to encourage people to come in? (Whens the last time you saw any innovative changes there? And yes, I realize that has a lot to do with the theater owners- how many of them refuse to make the switchover to digital projectors citing costs?- but the studios, as owners of the products, certainly have influence here). How about figuring out how to make tickets less expensive to the moviegoer (again, that cutting production costs issue)? How about not making arrangements to have the DVD come out so soon after release (going to your point about people just waiting for it to leave the theaters)?

 

[DM_Matt]

Of course it is additional revenue. If the studios had not opted to go into the home video system as it came about, there would be no market for it- ie, there would only be the box office market.



Yo, yo, Mr. Kotter! It's like, so weird that you're gettin' personal.



It's not as if the home video market is just this beast that spontaneously generated out of nowhere and the studios had to somehow come to terms with it. Home video - video = home?

That market exists only because the studios decided it would be a good source of additional revenue and a way to compete with what they viewed as their biggest competition, television. But to suggest they have no say over where it goes or what happens to it, is pretty unbelievable.

The fact that that market is factored into production costs nowadays only speaks to their lack of desire to make the theatrical market profitable on its own terms, it doesn't make it impossible to make them so.



You're the one that raised the question addressing how theatrical releases could be profitable on their own; I was pointing out that that's exactly what they were in the beginning of filmmaking. Question, rebuttal.

You want something more productive? How about cutting exorbitant salaries of those involved as a means of reducing above the line costs (producers, directors, actors, yes- and even some writers; including all the attendant "camp followers")? How about figuring out ways to make the theater going experience better, to encourage people to come in? (Whens the last time you saw any innovative changes there? And yes, I realize that has a lot to do with the theater owners- how many of them refuse to make the switchover to digital projectors citing costs?- but the studios, as owners of the products, certainly have influence here). How about figuring out how to make tickets less expensive to the moviegoer (again, that cutting production costs issue)? How about not making arrangements to have the DVD come out so soon after release (going to your point about people just waiting for it to leave the theaters)?

Its not like leaving the home video (now DVD) market is an option now, and delaying the DVD's significantly could lose them more in lost interest in buying after all that time, lost goodwill, and increased piracy that it gains them in increased box office receipts. The market is as it is now, and that is the environment everyone has to compete in, even if the studios got it that way in the first place.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course it is additional revenue. If the studios had not opted to go into the home video system as it came about, there would be no market for it- ie, there would only be the box office market.



Yo, yo, Mr. Kotter! It's like, so weird that you're gettin' personal.



It's not as if the home video market is just this beast that spontaneously generated out of nowhere and the studios had to somehow come to terms with it. Home video - video = home?

That market exists only because the studios decided it would be a good source of additional revenue and a way to compete with what they viewed as their biggest competition, television. But to suggest they have no say over where it goes or what happens to it, is pretty unbelievable.

The fact that that market is factored into production costs nowadays only speaks to their lack of desire to make the theatrical market profitable on its own terms, it doesn't make it impossible to make them so.

So it sounds like you are saying nobody forced the studios to make VHS and DVDs of their movies, and so it's their fault. In other words, they could just stop issuing DVDs of their movies, and stop selling them to cable and TV as well I presume, and that would solve the problem. Well, sure it would - and end the strike right now since any percentage of zero income is still zero. But, you had to admit that is an incredibly unrealistic and silly solution. As long as you and I both agree that nobody is going to cease making DVDs and putting movies on cable and TV and the internet, then we are stuck debating the reality that those things exist. And as long as they exist, the market is different that it used to be, and theatrical releases are not going to be profitable on their own and should be lumped in with all the other venues to decide if a movie is worth making or not.

You're the one that raised the question addressing how theatrical releases could be profitable on their own; I was pointing out that that's exactly what they were in the beginning of filmmaking. Question, rebuttal.

Yeah but your answer was "if DVDs and Cable and releases of movies to Television and the net all went away, that's how you would make theatrical releases profitable". It was AN answer, but it wasn't a REALISTIC answer.

[quite]You want something more productive? How about cutting exorbitant salaries of those involved as a means of reducing above the line costs (producers, directors, actors, yes- and even some writers; including all the attendant "camp followers")?[/quote]

Also unrealistic, as none of the parties would agree to that. I thought this was a debate about what is actually happening, not hypothetical situations that cannot ever be real.

How about figuring out ways to make the theater going experience better, to encourage people to come in? (Whens the last time you saw any innovative changes there? And yes, I realize that has a lot to do with the theater owners- how many of them refuse to make the switchover to digital projectors citing costs?- but the studios, as owners of the products, certainly have influence here).

Actually theaters themselves have made huge strides towards that in recent years and they are just getting better this very year. There is a thread about that topic on CircvsMaximvs.

How about figuring out how to make tickets less expensive to the moviegoer (again, that cutting production costs issue)?

Ticket prices do not seem to be cutting into profits. Indeed, they seem to be doing the opposite. As prices increase, the number of people who decline to see the movie does not decrease a proportionate amount. Hence my movie theater is now $13.00 a ticket, but is a much better theater than others.

How about not making arrangements to have the DVD come out so soon after release (going to your point about people just waiting for it to leave the theaters)?

Again, it doesn't seem to have cut into profits at the theaters. So much money comes in on the first weekend of a film, and so much seems to taper off to nothing after the fourth week, that I think you will see this trend continue.

I really do not see a realistic way to make theatrical releases profitable in themselves without drastically damaging the other formats so much that it wouldn't be worth it for everyone, including the writers. It all has to be considered together, and like I said even the writers admit that is the case. They might try to fudge it with PR stuff to the public by misrepresenting their share of the DVDs and pretending that the studios don't carry forward a loss to set off against the gains from the DVD sales, but in the negotiating room and every time other than during the strike they all are fully willing to admit it's all gotta be considered together or else everyone is out of business.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah but your answer was "if DVDs and Cable and releases of movies to Television and the net all went away, that's how you would make theatrical releases profitable". It was AN answer, but it wasn't a REALISTIC answer.

You want something more productive? How about cutting exorbitant salaries of those involved as a means of reducing above the line costs (producers, directors, actors, yes- and even some writers; including all the attendant "camp followers")?

Also unrealistic, as none of the parties would agree to that. I thought this was a debate about what is actually happening, not hypothetical situations that cannot ever be real.

The point is, they need to find a compromise. This means nobody gets exactly what he wants, but it will still be something they can accept.

Edit: And I hope they do it soon, in the interest of all TV and Movie geeks

 

[Grog]

Writers and studios agree to resume talks after Thanksgiving

Good news. Let's hope they can come to a fair resolution of this conflict.