Writers Strike & AI

[Fencers]

OK are they negotiating to correct the loss of residuals in packaging ?

In part, the WGA are saying the old way of counting doesn't apply anymore. As I mentioned previously in this thread- the ability to sell product regionally and how/who is paying for licensing has changed. You just are not selling syndication as in the past because that structure has changed. Distribution for both theatrical and regional licensing has changed.

A lot of that old business was created for the regional TV, super stations, and 120D release window.

We are still in the period where streaming, and digital distribution on a global scale (dynamics of DD are different from physical media), and >90D windows outpaced all the old ways of doing stuff.

You could make a great living off residuals depending on what you worked on in the past. That money kept rolling in because there was always a Superstation somewhere that wanted to license a block of content or acquire Broken Arrow to play at 9 pm on a Saturday.

Now there are fewer avenues for that but the distributors are making more than ever off other's work- because they can package anything and just have a digital rights license (there's a term for this that I forgot).

And, no. that does not work like syndication or pay-per-acquisition. As talent, you get jackshit.

[JDL49]

The "residuals" are owed on the continued revenue that the show brings in for the studio, whatever form that revenue takes. It previously took the form of a part of ad revenue, in the past. But that's not what they're after, chasing nonexistent ad revenue (arguable on streaming services with advertisements/commercials anyway); they're after "this show earns you money, and I was a major part in creating it. As long as it is earning you money, I am owed a part of that money."

Owed ? No, not unless you took less money up front for a cut later. This is NOT what residuals came in being to correct. This is purely and simply revenue sharing and that's a different matter. If you were paid fairly for your work initially then that's the end of it.

There is just less money to spread around without ads. You can no longer keep up the high levels of compensation just on the revenues streaming brings in. To do so means you have to siphon money from other, indirect, revenue streams. If somehow you think you are entitled to do that you will start an intra-company war. In short the party's over.

When streaming services pay tens of millions of dollars for the streaming rights to shows like The Office, South Park, and Friends, you cannot in good conscious say "shows have no value after they've been produced. It was only ever the money brought in by ads" Because clearly that is not correct. And the writers that make that happen on future shows should be given just compensation for the value they bring to the streaming service.

I am not saying there is no value after the initial production run. I'm saying that if the studio takes on all risks then all the profits and losses are theirs. If you share in the risks then you share in profits. Or you can always rent a camera and some mics and go shoot your own content.

[Kaleredar]

Owed ? No, not unless you took less money up front for a cut later. This is NOT what residuals came in being to correct. This is purely and simply revenue sharing and that's a different matter. If you were paid fairly for your work initially then that's the end of it.

There is just less money to spread around without ads. You can no longer keep up the high levels of compensation just on the revenues streaming brings in. To do so means you have to siphon money from other, indirect, revenue streams. If somehow you think you are entitled to do that you will start an intra-company war. In short the party's over.


I am not saying there is no value after the initial production run. I'm saying that if the studio takes on all risks then all the profits and losses are theirs. If you share in the risks then you share in profits. Or you can always rent a camera and some mics and go shoot your own content.

The risk is that they don't make money from the residuals. That their time was not adequately compensated for. Just like with writing shows in the past. And clearly the writers don't feel like they are currently being compensated fairly. And I'm inclined to believe them over monolithic media corporations.

The intent of this is to ensure that writers responsible for successful shows are paid in a manner similar to how writers of successful shows were paid previously. The distinction between "one is income from subscriptions, one is income from ads" is not meaningful.

[Rennadrel]

I'll have more sympathy for them when they stop trying to use film and television as a vehicle for pushing their sociopolitical agendas.

[jonnysensible]

I'll have more sympathy for them when they stop trying to use film and television as a vehicle for pushing their sociopolitical agendas.

there are plenty of shows like pingu or morph to watch if you don't like adult themes.

[Endus]

I'll have more sympathy for them when they stop trying to use film and television as a vehicle for pushing their sociopolitical agendas.

All fiction pushes or reinforces sociopolitical agendas.

Maybe explain which "agenda" in particular you find objectionable and why. For instance, I could make complaints about a remake of Disney's Song of the South because of the racist bullshit it pushes. But I wouldn't make a similar complaint about the sociopolitical messaging put out by more-recent films like Turning Red or Frozen.

[Fencers]

I can not think of a time when any writing was irrelevant to the social and political forces of its time. That is what art is all about- as long as people make art, social and political forces will inform the artists.

Many films & series were contextually informed by the social and political climate of their era or culture. On the Waterfront (1954), Grapes of Wrath (1940), Network, My Dinner with Andre (1981), M.A.S.H (1970), They Live (1988), Coffy (1973), Rope (1948), 12 Angry Men (1957), Modern Times (1936), Red Dawn (1984), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Hell or High Water (2016), Jeanne Dielman (1975), Citizen Kane (1941), Come and See (1985), Stalker (1979).

I mean, Macbeth (1606). King fucking Leer (1605).

I can go on for days.

People are trying to say in a coded way: "I don't like these politics and social topics."

This really says a lot more about you than it does the fact workers and laborers ought to be compensated for their work relative to the value they generate. I guarantee not a single person reading this forum is paid according to the actual value they generate- you are being exploited just like everyone else for the most part. Stop licking boots, unless you enjoy the taste of worn leather.

[baskev]

sigh person 511 who fills in blanks that are not there. And make assumptions that i do not even hint at. And take small snips of a whole point. thus changing the whole context of the coversation...sigh.

When we see bad product should we be blaming the writer or the producers?

Simple. if 2 movies with different producors and directors but same writers: then writers
if its different writers: producers.
and if you hear via leaks, or cast themselves they had to explain certain aspects of the original story/character etc to the writers it says enough.

The writing can be bad because the producers couldn’t be bothered to hire someone talented or alternatively a talented person was not given time to come up with something better.

wrong, sometimes its the writers, some producers, sometimes directors or studios. Hell i think even focus groups are to blame.

Residuals are a self-correcting problem. Bad writing will be punished because no one will want to pay good money to see bad product. Sometimes bad writing will get rewarded but that’s fine because money was made. I see no reason why producers should be the only ones making money when bad product gets lucky and makes money in spite of itself.

did i say writers should not make money? I said there is clear cut, bad writers . A group that is growing and getting more and more projects. And yes i think like overpayed producers they need more money.
But i am also saying, less rewarding bad writing. And that there are some clear points they do not deserve more money.

Because people are saying:
the writing is bad because of bad pay.
or
is the pay bad because of bad writing.

chicken and egg.

But in the end. i think they deserve more money. if you see what pointless people like kennedy the hutt brings in. while ruining star wars movies.

[Ivanstone]

Simple. if 2 movies with different producors and directors but same writers: then writers
if its different writers: producers.
and if you hear via leaks, or cast themselves they had to explain certain aspects of the original story/character etc to the writers it says enough.

No. The following explains why this is in error:

wrong, sometimes its the writers, some producers, sometimes directors or studios. Hell i think even focus groups are to blame.

It’s almost like there’s a lot of things that can go wrong in making a movie or television. A simplistic “bad writers duuuurrrr” never really applies. You can find plenty of examples of hacks managing to do at least one right thing. Alternatively I’m sure you can find talented people doing a bad job on one or more properties.

did i say writers should not make money? I said there is clear cut, bad writers . A group that is growing and getting more and more projects. And yes i think like overpayed producers they need more money.
But i am also saying, less rewarding bad writing. And that there are some clear points they do not deserve more money.

Because people are saying:
the writing is bad because of bad pay.
or
is the pay bad because of bad writing.

chicken and egg.

But in the end. i think they deserve more money. if you see what pointless people like kennedy the hutt brings in. while ruining star wars movies.

The writing is bad because it’s just bad sometimes. Most people aren’t tremendously talented and generally the best you can hope for is the people with more limited talents can at least be focused in a better direction.

The only thing worse than bad writing is no writing at all which is the net result of underpaying people. While it sounds like a good idea to only make great movies you should remember that great movies are made within an infrastructure that’s underwritten by a lot of mediocre tripe. Even shit serves a purpose.

I’ll leave one example here that helps illustrate things. I can’t tell if writer/director Bob Clark is talented. He did make one of the best Christmas Movies ever (A Christmas Story) and one of the best teensploitation movies ever (Porky’s). He also made Baby Geniuses which is a reviled piece of trash. The latter still turned a profit probably making some viewers happy and it was also an innovator in computer movie graphics. Shit can be used as fertilizer after all.

[Daedius]

Hard to show sympathy when the majority of shows and film are so shit now...

Quantity over quality, throwing turd at a wall hoping one sticks. More so when there's so much insincere forced diversity (tokenism), retconing everything for the sake of it... bottom barrel low tier effort instead of doing something original. These people ought to be careful, AI might eventually replace them considering formulaic their stuff are...

Hopefully this'll result in the rise of foreign films, screw Hollywood.

[Shadowferal]

Stop licking boots, unless you enjoy the taste of worn leather.

I'm reminded of Shakespeare's "Macbeth."

[s_bushido]

I'll have more sympathy for them when they stop trying to use film and television as a vehicle for pushing their sociopolitical agendas.

Shows/movies without an "agenda" (by which conservatives mean "anything that reminds me how bullshit my views are") are meaningless. Because those "agendas" are just things that are relevant to human existence/experience. Stuff people have been writing about literally forever.

[baskev]

No. The following explains why this is in error:

yes, it does not explain it.
If you hear with proof things happen that question the quality of the writers. Then its easy to put it on their heads. If you are driving and we see that. You can blame the squirrel in your trunk for it. but we all saw it.

It’s almost like there’s a lot of things that can go wrong in making a movie or television. A simplistic “bad writers duuuurrrr” never really applies. You can find plenty of examples of hacks managing to do at least one right thing. Alternatively I’m sure you can find talented people doing a bad job on one or more properties.

did you even read the rest of what i wrote? I said the above my self. Hell i pointed it even out.
But you see enough stuff to say: hmmm writers might also not be the best in some cases ( very public ones)

The writing is bad because it’s just bad sometimes. Most people aren’t tremendously talented and generally the best you can hope for is the people with more limited talents can at least be focused in a better direction.

The only thing worse than bad writing is no writing at all which is the net result of underpaying people. While it sounds like a good idea to only make great movies you should remember that great movies are made within an infrastructure that’s underwritten by a lot of mediocre tripe. Even shit serves a purpose.

I’ll leave one example here that helps illustrate things. I can’t tell if writer/director Bob Clark is talented. He did make one of the best Christmas Movies ever (A Christmas Story) and one of the best teensploitation movies ever (Porky’s). He also made Baby Geniuses which is a reviled piece of trash. The latter still turned a profit probably making some viewers happy and it was also an innovator in computer movie graphics. Shit can be used as fertilizer after all.

Nope again, read what i write for a change please? There has been proof looking at different films who only have the same writers . Or leaks/public statements by people on sets who clearly show the lack of intresset in stuff. You can say it has to do with talent. And yes, there are cases of that.
But when you write on a existing characther like wednesday, who's lore you can look up in books, wiki's. Who has had multiple version in all kinds of media. And you can not even get the basics right. means they have not done there homework.

And again, the next point you make i also made...several times...man you really do not read stuff do you? I am just saying, there are clear proof version of bad writers who bring down the craft.

And bob clarck. First off bad example. market has changed. that was almost 20 years between those 2 movies.
And again...sigh...i did not say movies are bad or good. Or can not make money. but still be badly written.

Avatar, way of spa water was a fun movie, i did not feel i wasted my money. The cgi and world building and music where awsome...
But the story was worse the dances with smurfs .


See you in a couple of days. And lets find out how much you missread, do not read this time.

[Fencers]

Orthodoxy is not "good" writing. That is internet nerd bullshit.

[Ivanstone]

yes, it does not explain it.
If you hear with proof things happen that question the quality of the writers. Then its easy to put it on their heads. If you are driving and we see that. You can blame the squirrel in your trunk for it. but we all saw it.

did you even read the rest of what i wrote? I said the above my self. Hell i pointed it even out.
But you see enough stuff to say: hmmm writers might also not be the best in some cases ( very public ones)

The writer is never the one who's driving. Ever. That's what the director is for. Meanwhile the director(s), editors, actors, producers and, yes, the writers are doing what they think is best. Which may not result in anything watchable.

Nope again, read what i write for a change please? There has been proof looking at different films who only have the same writers . Or leaks/public statements by people on sets who clearly show the lack of intresset in stuff. You can say it has to do with talent. And yes, there are cases of that.
But when you write on a existing characther like wednesday, who's lore you can look up in books, wiki's. Who has had multiple version in all kinds of media. And you can not even get the basics right. means they have not done there homework.

And again, the next point you make i also made...several times...man you really do not read stuff do you? I am just saying, there are clear proof version of bad writers who bring down the craft.

And bob clarck. First off bad example. market has changed. that was almost 20 years between those 2 movies.
And again...sigh...i did not say movies are bad or good. Or can not make money. but still be badly written.

Avatar, way of spa water was a fun movie, i did not feel i wasted my money. The cgi and world building and music where awsome...
But the story was worse the dances with smurfs .


See you in a couple of days. And lets find out how much you missread, do not read this time.

So what you're telling me is that you read some "leaks" who have "proof" and are now convinced that's entirely the writer's fault. Maybe wallow in conspiracies less. You know what a leak tells me? It tells me that someone in another area of production is not getting their way and wants some angry fans on their side.

You're not bringing proof. You're just making loud statements.

Bob Clark is an excellent example. This is a dude who's made some genuinely great movies but who's also made a few very bad duds in his career. Although he doesn't fit in with your narrative of some villainous writers crushing your favourite properties.

[Witchblade77]

you know what this has a vibe of? people blaming the cashier at the supermarket for prices of goods and the script they are given that they HAVE to say to every customer or get fired as - if its the cashier came up with all that bullshit and is personaly out to annoy you. writers for shows are given directions and there is only so much they can do ESPECIALY WHEN THEY ARE NOT EVEN THERE TO TAKE CARE OF THE INEVITABLE REWRITES. which is part of the concerns brought up during this strikes, coincidentally. that writers are rushed through a few weeks of initial cramming and then are not even there for the rest of the filming, but they sure are the ones being blamed for everything.

[JDL49]

The "residuals" are owed on the continued revenue that the show brings in for the studio, whatever form that revenue takes. It previously took the form of a part of ad revenue, in the past. But that's not what they're after, chasing nonexistent ad revenue (arguable on streaming services with advertisements/commercials anyway); they're after "this show earns you money, and I was a major part in creating it. As long as it is earning you money, I am owed a part of that money."

When streaming services pay tens of millions of dollars for the streaming rights to shows like The Office, South Park, and Friends, you cannot in good conscious say "shows have no value after they've been produced. It was only ever the money brought in by ads" Because clearly that is not correct. And the writers that make that happen on future shows should be given just compensation for the value they bring to the streaming service.

As I have suggested elsewhere this is not what residuals where designed for. This is profit sharing and outside of Netflix nobody is profitable as yet. Even when they do it won't cover what the writers and I assume the actors and directors are going to demand. Now if a streamer comes up with a new revenue source for their work that's another matter.

On a related matter can someone say what the actors and directors getting atm vis a vis the writers ?

[Fencers]

As I have suggested elsewhere this is not what residuals where designed for. This is profit sharing and outside of Netflix nobody is profitable as yet. Even when they do it won't cover what the writers and I assume the actors and directors are going to demand. Now if a streamer comes up with a new revenue source for their work that's another matter.

On a related matter can someone say what the actors and directors getting atm vis a vis the writers ?

Disney had a ~27% increase in profit last year. Comcast/Uni had a ~7% increase in 2022.

There were more billion-dollar films in the past 10 years than in the entire history of commercial film. There was more ad and package revenue for the 7 largest production and distribution companies that in the past 5 years than, ever. The biggest dips came from SonyColumbia and that is only 7% off from previous years.

Companies do publish their earnings. This is not secret knowledge.

[JDL49]

Disney had a ~27% increase in profit last year. Comcast/Uni had a ~7% increase in 2022.

There were more billion-dollar films in the past 10 years than in the entire history of commercial film. There was more ad and package revenue for the 7 largest production and distribution companies that in the past 5 years than, ever. The biggest dips came from SonyColumbia and that is only 7% off from previous years.

Companies do publish their earnings. This is not secret knowledge.

The writers are not entitled to profits from Parks, Merch, Cruises, Sports, News etc..

I thought of one point of last nite however that does need to be brought up. Studios are
taking product to their streamers now without any side trips to pay windows. This will in
time kill cable for this kind of content but until it does an adjustment may have to be
made or compensation increased from the start. Something.

[Witchblade77]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-...g-camposfilms-
https://medium.com/yardcouch-com/hol...y-2aa99c6f11fb

for those who don't understand just how much of a racket Hollywood accounting is.