NBC fires all of the production crew from "The Office"

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Because if you're not in New York or LA in the entertainment industry, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Typical answer from a SAG/WGA member. This is why you lose 50% of your paycheck in union dues + management fees + agent fees BEFORE taxes. You guys have zero business acumen.

 

[Jschmuck2]

So, Ohio then?

 

[Jschmuck2]

And 50% ? You really have no clue what the hell you're saying.

Enjoy Applebees.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
So, Ohio then?

Santa Monica. Lived in LA my whole life.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Well then you should know! C'mon, the writers deserve a bigger cut dude - as do the actors. The difficulty of the business alone owes them that.

 

[Regs]

I hate network TV. Maybe once in awhile they'll play a movie and I'm happy. That and maybe watching the rejects in American Idle. Though once they actually get to the people who have talent , I enjoy folding socks more.

Ok I hardly ever fold my socks. You got me.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Well then you should know! C'mon, the writers deserve a bigger cut dude - as do the actors. The difficulty of the business alone owes them that.

Dude, 10% agent fee, 10% manager, 1.5% union dues, 5% lawyer fee = 26.5%!!!!

Those are the guys raping the actors and writers.

But directly addressing this digital revenue residual - I personally think that it's not the best time to be striking. I'm telling you as a finance person that 2.5% top line of unknown revenue is absolutely unacceptable. This is the primary reason why the studios said eff you go ahead and strike. Strategically speaking it's the worst time to be doing this. I would recommend a 1-2 year contract and wait to see where digital rev goes. The strike will have a more profound effect when digital rev is more visible and a residual % value can be better calculated and negotiated. Threatening existing proven revenue is more effective than pretend forecasted maybe revenue.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Phokus
I don't see anything wrong with bargaining for a variable pay scheme for residuals... if the writers produce something the market doesn't want, they don't get paid... if they produce something the market responds to, they get paid. It's not like they're asking for a salary raise like a teachers or police union.

This is exactly what it is - a salary raise. They want residual without giving concessions on current pay. Not only that, they want a set residual percentage of 2.5% of top line of unknown future revenue.

There are 2 reasons why studios are willing to go through the strike:
1) Internet revenue/margins are not yet known - 2.5% is a random number which could end up being really cheap or really expensive. People usually don't like to commit to figures that are unproven - so do corporations.
2) Studios have all the power right now...no one watches TV nowadays anyway and revenues are decreasing, so they probably would rather show reruns and cheap (new) reality shows.

The studios are just conducting double speak. I'm sure when they talk to their investors they say that the internet is going to be a huge profit area for them. Now that the people behind it want a cut they are saying they aren't sure how much money they are going to make.

Also, what does the percentage have to do with how much money they are making? These writers should get a percentage of ANY money made off of their work. The studios a long time ago decided to forgo large, one-time payments and instead decided to do profit sharing. It might be coming back to bite them in the ass, but they can't have it both ways.

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: daveymark
what about the 48% of writers who are unemployed and can use the residuals? would you feel bad for them?

Absolutely not. They should have either negotiated themselves a better contract in the first place or found themselves a more stable line of work.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I wish this would affect reality tv. God, how I loathe reality tv.

:thumbsup: The garbage that is 'reality TV' is the worst thing to happen to television. If the TV shows I watch turn into re-runs and more garbage reality TV I'll cut my cable service back to basic.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: ATLien247

Originally posted by: daveymark
what about the 48% of writers who are unemployed and can use the residuals? would you feel bad for them?

Absolutely not. They should have either negotiated themselves a better contract in the first place or found themselves a more stable line of work.

And that's why you don't and won't ever get it. Who is going to write for film, theatre and television? You? I went back through some of your posts. Here's a hint: you're not.

It's not a question of a "stable line of work." That's just it - in this business there is not a guaranteed, stable line of work. Ever. That's what makes it so glaringly different from your office job and apparently so difficult to understand.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Well then you should know! C'mon, the writers deserve a bigger cut dude - as do the actors. The difficulty of the business alone owes them that.

Dude, 10% agent fee, 10% manager, 1.5% union dues, 5% lawyer fee = 26.5%!!!!

Those are the guys raping the actors and writers.

But directly addressing this digital revenue residual - I personally think that it's not the best time to be striking. I'm telling you as a finance person that 2.5% top line of unknown revenue is absolutely unacceptable. This is the primary reason why the studios said eff you go ahead and strike. Strategically speaking it's the worst time to be doing this. I would recommend a 1-2 year contract and wait to see where digital rev goes. The strike will have a more profound effect when digital rev is more visible and a residual % value can be better calculated and negotiated. Threatening existing proven revenue is more effective than pretend forecasted maybe revenue.

About the most logical statement yet.

I donKt know why people are more concerned with how much they make as compared with how much they keep.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Well then you should know! C'mon, the writers deserve a bigger cut dude - as do the actors. The difficulty of the business alone owes them that.

Dude, 10% agent fee, 10% manager, 1.5% union dues, 5% lawyer fee = 26.5%!!!!

Those are the guys raping the actors and writers.

But directly addressing this digital revenue residual - I personally think that it's not the best time to be striking. I'm telling you as a finance person that 2.5% top line of unknown revenue is absolutely unacceptable. This is the primary reason why the studios said eff you go ahead and strike. Strategically speaking it's the worst time to be doing this. I would recommend a 1-2 year contract and wait to see where digital rev goes. The strike will have a more profound effect when digital rev is more visible and a residual % value can be better calculated and negotiated. Threatening existing proven revenue is more effective than pretend forecasted maybe revenue.

10% cut to your agent and XX% to your manager. If you have a manager. It's typically 15%. Sometimes your agent acts as your manager - against the rules but that's the truth of it. Union dues are a necessity, plain and simple - but really a pittance for benefits (assuming you're making enough money, which most aren't). And as far as a lawyer's fee goes...you lost me there tiger. I really haven't the slightest idea. I've yet to pay a lawyer anything. Do you know a guy?

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: ATLien247

Originally posted by: daveymark
what about the 48% of writers who are unemployed and can use the residuals? would you feel bad for them?

Absolutely not. They should have either negotiated themselves a better contract in the first place or found themselves a more stable line of work.

And that's why you don't and won't ever get it. Who is going to write for film, theatre and television? You? I went back through some of your posts. Here's a hint: you're not.

It's not a question of a "stable line of work." That's just it - in this business there is not a guaranteed, stable line of work. Ever. That's what makes it so glaringly different from your office job and apparently so difficult to understand.

Well, thanks for dashing my hopes of writing the next big screenplay! I'm sure all of the posts on ATOT illustrating my works of fiction are testament to my lack of writing talent.

Oh, wait... I haven't posted anything like that.

Whether I get it or not is beside the point. You asked if we felt bad, and I answered honestly. The world does not owe these people anything.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: ATLien247

Well, thanks for dashing my hopes of writing the next big screenplay! I'm sure all of the posts on ATOT illustrating my works of fiction are testament to my lack of writing talent.

Who do you think you are? ZaneJohnson?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: waggy
err wow.

that kind puts in perspective. the writers make a decent living and the actors? yeah they are fine.

its the grunts that are going to get hit the hardest.

I thought most of the entertainment industry are of the liberal persuasion and for the little guy, or is that only when the camera is rolling?

The people running the movie industry are not liberals. You're thinking of actors. Move your dumb ass back to P&N before you get smacked.

 

[Eeezee]

Fundamentally it comes down to a simple question

Why is compensation for DVD distribution different from compensation for distribution over the air waves? Likewise, why is their compensation different for internet distribution?

In what magical fairytale kingdom should writers be paid less for people watching their content on the internet instead of on a television?

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Fundamentally it comes down to a simple question

Why is compensation for DVD distribution different from compensation for distribution over the air waves? Likewise, why is their compensation different for internet distribution?

In what magical fairytale kingdom should writers be paid less for people watching their content on the internet instead of on a television?

:thumbsup:

 

[mikej007]

What I don't get is when everyone screams about the "greedy" writers and not the real culprit here, the studios. They're the ones hogging all the money. Writers may make a decent salary if they're good and work on a successful show, but it's not proportional to the money the studios/executives are raking in. You have to be really lucky and talented to make a successful TV show that millions of people tune in to watch every week. Those people have earned their money. Talentless hacks associated with "reality" TV are not in the same class and should not even be dragged into this discussion. Reality TV is dogshit.

Regarding the proportional $$ distribution in the entertainment industry, look at it this way... say you're a lawyer, and you make a pretty decent salary. But yet every time you get the big settlement from that negligence/accident case that you worked your ass off for, staying up late researching, reading, etc, you still get your flat salary (which may be pretty good by all accounts) but the partners at your firm take 99% of the settlement commission leaving you with (relatively) little. That's similar to how this situation with the WGA is. Why should the people who are producing (creating) the shows get stiffed and the big studios make the lion share of the profits selling/distributing someone else's work? It only stands to reason that the creator of something should get paid for it each time it is sold to the consumer, regardless of the method of delivery. How would you feel if the product you created with your own imagination/creativity/effort/etc was being distributed in a fairly new-fangled way and you weren't getting paid for it? I'm sure you'd be pissed like the WGA members are.

Funny too how people also are saying "if you get paid so little, why are you a writer?" Well, doesn't someone have to create the shows everyone watches? And why do people get pissed at the writers, acting like they are asking for more money out of the pockets of the consumer? They're after the money in the studio coffers, not the buying public. It won't cost a dime to the average joe, since the studio is the one that should be giving up the loot.

It's odd how people also are saying things like "time to watch the old DVDs" and "I hope the strike lasts forever". What would happen if the 1% of TV shows that you actually liked never came back (unlikely, but okay, say it's a long hiatus)? You'd be pissed because watching the same old crap gets boring after a while. There's only two shows I actually care about (Lost and The Office) so watching old episodes of them gets really tired, really fast. Especially Lost since I've been waiting forever to see that fucking show again...

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Well then you should know! C'mon, the writers deserve a bigger cut dude - as do the actors. The difficulty of the business alone owes them that.

Dude, 10% agent fee, 10% manager, 1.5% union dues, 5% lawyer fee = 26.5%!!!!

Those are the guys raping the actors and writers.

But directly addressing this digital revenue residual - I personally think that it's not the best time to be striking. I'm telling you as a finance person that 2.5% top line of unknown revenue is absolutely unacceptable. This is the primary reason why the studios said eff you go ahead and strike. Strategically speaking it's the worst time to be doing this. I would recommend a 1-2 year contract and wait to see where digital rev goes. The strike will have a more profound effect when digital rev is more visible and a residual % value can be better calculated and negotiated. Threatening existing proven revenue is more effective than pretend forecasted maybe revenue.

10% cut to your agent and XX% to your manager. If you have a manager. It's typically 15%. Sometimes your agent acts as your manager - against the rules but that's the truth of it. Union dues are a necessity, plain and simple - but really a pittance for benefits (assuming you're making enough money, which most aren't). And as far as a lawyer's fee goes...you lost me there tiger. I really haven't the slightest idea. I've yet to pay a lawyer anything. Do you know a guy?

Usually your agent or manager can refer you to a lawyer, and trust me you WILL need one if you ever get a big enough contract/deal to sign.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: mikej007
What I don't get is when everyone screams about the "greedy" writers and not the real culprit here, the studios. They're the ones hogging all the money. Writers may make a decent salary if they're good and work on a successful show, but it's not proportional to the money the studios/executives are raking in. You have to be really lucky and talented to make a successful TV show that millions of people tune in to watch every week. Those people have earned their money. Talentless hacks associated with "reality" TV are not in the same class and should not even be dragged into this discussion. Reality TV is dogshit.

Regarding the proportional $$ distribution in the entertainment industry, look at it this way... say you're a lawyer, and you make a pretty decent salary. But yet every time you get the big settlement from that negligence/accident case that you worked your ass off for, staying up late researching, reading, etc, you still get your flat salary (which may be pretty good by all accounts) but the partners at your firm take 99% of the settlement commission leaving you with (relatively) little. That's similar to how this situation with the WGA is. Why should the people who are producing (creating) the shows get stiffed and the big studios make the lion share of the profits selling/distributing someone else's work? It only stands to reason that the creator of something should get paid for it each time it is sold to the consumer, regardless of the method of delivery. How would you feel if the product you created with your own imagination/creativity/effort/etc was being distributed in a fairly new-fangled way and you weren't getting paid for it? I'm sure you'd be pissed like the WGA members are.

Funny too how people also are saying "if you get paid so little, why are you a writer?" Well, doesn't someone have to create the shows everyone watches? And why do people get pissed at the writers, acting like they are asking for more money out of the pockets of the consumer? They're after the money in the studio coffers, not the buying public. It won't cost a dime to the average joe, since the studio is the one that should be giving up the loot.

It's odd how people also are saying things like "time to watch the old DVDs" and "I hope the strike lasts forever". What would happen if the 1% of TV shows that you actually liked never came back (unlikely, but okay, say it's a long hiatus)? You'd be pissed because watching the same old crap gets boring after a while. There's only two shows I actually care about (Lost and The Office) so watching old episodes of them gets really tired, really fast. Especially Lost since I've been waiting forever to see that fucking show again...

That is why talented writers get promoted to producer gigs. Why give an automatic promotion/raise to all writers? If a writer is talented he will get a producer credit and residuals put into the contract. But why make it mandatory for all writers to receive such benefit?

 

[brxndxn]

I hope they strike forever. I'm way too fed up with the 'holier than though' Hollywood types that make way more money than their profession should enable.

EDIT: In other words, I hate both sides - and I don't care about the debate. They are both wrong.

 

[Pantoot]

The studios should get a lion's share of the profit because they shoulder all of the risks. If a writer writes crap they still got their pay and the studio cannot come after them for the money they lose from the production. The studio pays the writers to produce a product. The writers do their job and they get a paycheck.

It only stands to reason that the creator of something should get paid for it each time it is sold to the consumer, regardless of the method of delivery

Why should the creator get paid each time something is sold? Besides entertainment, what other industry works that way? Does a lawyer get paid based on the precedent they establish? Does an engineer collect residuals from a patent they own?

How would you feel if the product you created with your own imagination/creativity/effort/etc was being distributed in a fairly new-fangled way and you weren't getting paid for it? I'm sure you'd be pissed like the WGA members are.

As an engineer it happens every day. I am paid a salary to do a job, just like the writers.

 

[jmelnek]

Unions are the biggest joke... Hollywood is following Detroit footsteps, unions were started for good but have gotten so out of hand that it is pathetic. All I hear about is B**ching and Whining. If you get fired just go down to your local union and cry abit and before you know it your job is there for you. Greed is the root of our once wonderful country turning to Sh*t. Hollywood writers can cry all they want. We don't need movies or television to be entertained, go outside and enjoy nature. jmo

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Pantoot
Why should the creator get paid each time something is sold? Besides entertainment, what other industry works that way? Does a lawyer get paid based on the precedent they establish? Does an engineer collect residuals from a patent they own?

change some terminology around and yes, that's what happens.