Writers' Strike OVER!!!

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: KK
Damn, I was hoping this strike would last for years.

The strike is actually a bad thing for the economy of California. It affected not just the writers and the studios but all the other workers in the TV and movie industry (think of all the thousands of grips, model makers, sfx guys, stunt guys, etc).

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Beau
Why? IMHO the writer's strike KILLED the heroes story. What's going to happen now that they've bypassed 14 episodes?

Heroes was already intended to be 2 mini seasons. All they've done is slightly re-written the end of the first mini season and postponed the second one until later.

 

[lokiju]

Yea!

Reaper FTW!

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: KK
Damn, I was hoping this strike would last for years.

The strike is actually a bad thing for the economy of California. It affected not just the writers and the studios but all the other workers in the TV and movie industry (think of all the thousands of grips, model makers, sfx guys, stunt guys, etc).

While that may be true, you won't see me lose any sleep over CA.

 

[dr150]

Did you know many mansions around the ritzy areas of LA are owned by writers? LOTS!

And they deserve the realtive pittance they get.

Look at how much actors make........they aren't anywhere near as talented as the writers that INVENT stuff for them.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy

As a result of studio cutbacks, however, many of the writers who went on strike are unlikely to return to the same big-money contracts they'd had as individuals with the studios, Eisner said.

Serves em right the stupid fucks ... thats what happens when you get greedy.

You're the stupid fuck. What's the percentage of the major media company's revenue they were asking for again? (I'll give you a hint - less than 1.) How many cents is 8 divided 4-8 ways? (Hint - no more than 2) What's the cost of running episodes online? (Hint - Not enough that the companies aren't still taking home half a billion after all is said and done.) What percentage of total revenue does the media make up in the parent corporations, movies and TV combined? (Hint - No more than 8.)

The main reason I'm glad it's over is because I'm tired of jackasses like you making asinine and baseless comments like the one above. The fact that you called the writers greedy is absolutely ridiculous and ironic when you consider the true statistics. Learn your information.

Wow ... hit a nerve there huh ? :lips:


Considering it seems many of said writers will be making less money under the new deal then they were before walking out its hard to see how the decision to strike could be considered a smart one ... I thought the whole point of a strike was to make more money.

I will however concede one point ... you are correct in that the studios are the more greedy but somhow I can't work up a whole lot of sympathy for either side in this situation & I think both ultimately screwed themselves.

Of course you hit a nerve. You made an loaded comment about something you obviously don't understand.

The main problem with that quote from the article is that it's coming from CNBC. It's a general news company that's covering it. Throughout the entire strike these same companies constantly kept saying that the strike was almost over from week 3 through now, and that was seemingly their only extent of knowledge. Furthermore, NBC is probably going to want to put a negative spin on it since the strike affected them deeply* so of course they're going to make a comment like that. Show me numbers to prove this is true before making that kind of statement.

If you fail to see the writer's side of things then you probably haven't paid attention at all other than what non-industry news sources have said, which have been relatively misinforming. Writers are mostly middle-class at best, with a few feature as well as tv writers that might have big contracts. I'm assuming it's referring to them, but at the same time it doesn't make sense if the writers got all of the stipulations out of the new contract that they wanted. There's no way they should lose money out of this deal.

* - Just in case you're even more dense than I thought and don't realize how it all works, the reason it hit NBC hard is because they're an actual broadcast company and a subsidiary of the major company General Electric, which is who I was very liberally saying has about 8% of their budget tied into all media. It's closer to 6%.

I see the writers side ... they wanted more money from the studios & for the most part I agree they deserved to get it, however unless you can show me how they are substantially better off now then they were before the strike I'm still going to say it was a stupid move. They are lucky the studios didn't do what Reagan did to the air-traffic controllers & fire the whole bunch.

And finally a personal comment ... if you want to change somones opinion, it is perhaps best to refrain from name-calling & instead devote your energy to pointing out the flaws in their argument. You've made some valid & interesting points so its too bad you couldn't have taken the high road & not damaged your credability with unprovoked personal attacks.

 

[0roo0roo]

substantially is vague enough. media is transitioning to digital. if they were getting jack squat before and something now, and its only going to grow in the future, i don't see how they aren't better off.

you can train traffic controllers.
good writers are harder to come by, let alone create.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy

As a result of studio cutbacks, however, many of the writers who went on strike are unlikely to return to the same big-money contracts they'd had as individuals with the studios, Eisner said.

Serves em right the stupid fucks ... thats what happens when you get greedy.

You're the stupid fuck. What's the percentage of the major media company's revenue they were asking for again? (I'll give you a hint - less than 1.) How many cents is 8 divided 4-8 ways? (Hint - no more than 2) What's the cost of running episodes online? (Hint - Not enough that the companies aren't still taking home half a billion after all is said and done.) What percentage of total revenue does the media make up in the parent corporations, movies and TV combined? (Hint - No more than 8.)

The main reason I'm glad it's over is because I'm tired of jackasses like you making asinine and baseless comments like the one above. The fact that you called the writers greedy is absolutely ridiculous and ironic when you consider the true statistics. Learn your information.

Wow ... hit a nerve there huh ? :lips:


Considering it seems many of said writers will be making less money under the new deal then they were before walking out its hard to see how the decision to strike could be considered a smart one ... I thought the whole point of a strike was to make more money.

I will however concede one point ... you are correct in that the studios are the more greedy but somhow I can't work up a whole lot of sympathy for either side in this situation & I think both ultimately screwed themselves.

Of course you hit a nerve. You made an loaded comment about something you obviously don't understand.

The main problem with that quote from the article is that it's coming from CNBC. It's a general news company that's covering it. Throughout the entire strike these same companies constantly kept saying that the strike was almost over from week 3 through now, and that was seemingly their only extent of knowledge. Furthermore, NBC is probably going to want to put a negative spin on it since the strike affected them deeply* so of course they're going to make a comment like that. Show me numbers to prove this is true before making that kind of statement.

If you fail to see the writer's side of things then you probably haven't paid attention at all other than what non-industry news sources have said, which have been relatively misinforming. Writers are mostly middle-class at best, with a few feature as well as tv writers that might have big contracts. I'm assuming it's referring to them, but at the same time it doesn't make sense if the writers got all of the stipulations out of the new contract that they wanted. There's no way they should lose money out of this deal.

* - Just in case you're even more dense than I thought and don't realize how it all works, the reason it hit NBC hard is because they're an actual broadcast company and a subsidiary of the major company General Electric, which is who I was very liberally saying has about 8% of their budget tied into all media. It's closer to 6%.

I see the writers side ... they wanted more money from the studios & for the most part I agree they deserved to get it, however unless you can show me how they are substantially better off now then they were before the strike I'm still going to say it was a stupid move. They are lucky the studios didn't do what Reagan did to the air-traffic controllers & fire the whole bunch.

And finally a personal comment ... if you want to change somones opinion, it is perhaps best to refrain from name-calling & instead devote your energy to pointing out the flaws in their argument. You've made some valid & interesting points so its too bad you couldn't have taken the high road & not damaged your credability with unprovoked personal attacks.

Funny, because I recall you writing that they were the stupid fucks, hence the start of name-calling. You have to understand that as I have a personally vested interest in the matter I'm going to take it as a personal attack when someone writes something like that. Also, so many people have made so many idiotic comments over the past few months that it gets old to have to explain things time and time again in a polite manner when the favor is not returned. My apologies though.

As for being substantially better off, who knows? It's not as if they've disclosed the details of the new contract yet. But it wasn't a stupid move to strike by any means. If they didn't strike now when would they have the next chance to do so? The last contract was signed 20 years ago, and even you can't say that it wouldn't be stupid to wait even 5 years before going after internet revenue. The problem is just that it's still in such an infant stage that's why it looks like a stupid move now.

For all intents and purposes, the internet has fully developed for much of our use as regular people. We can communicate, we can play games, we can do work, etc. But for the media companies they're just now starting to toy with it, so they're somewhat behind relatively speaking.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
substantially is vague enough. media is transitioning to digital. if they were getting jack squat before and something now, and its only going to grow in the future, i don't see how they aren't better off.

you can train traffic controllers.
good writers are harder to come by, let alone create.

Since internet-based viewing is prety much garanteed to be a growth-industry in the future I agree that it will at some point very likely pay off, however meanwhile in the present many popular shows were irrepairably damaged & huge amounts of money were lost forever by both sides of the dispute. I havn't looked for any information about profit from online TV viewing, but my guess is that the amount of revenue it generates is miniscule compared to broadcast & that it will remain that way for the immediate future.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy

As a result of studio cutbacks, however, many of the writers who went on strike are unlikely to return to the same big-money contracts they'd had as individuals with the studios, Eisner said.

Serves em right the stupid fucks ... thats what happens when you get greedy.

You're the stupid fuck. What's the percentage of the major media company's revenue they were asking for again? (I'll give you a hint - less than 1.) How many cents is 8 divided 4-8 ways? (Hint - no more than 2) What's the cost of running episodes online? (Hint - Not enough that the companies aren't still taking home half a billion after all is said and done.) What percentage of total revenue does the media make up in the parent corporations, movies and TV combined? (Hint - No more than 8.)

The main reason I'm glad it's over is because I'm tired of jackasses like you making asinine and baseless comments like the one above. The fact that you called the writers greedy is absolutely ridiculous and ironic when you consider the true statistics. Learn your information.

Wow ... hit a nerve there huh ? :lips:


Considering it seems many of said writers will be making less money under the new deal then they were before walking out its hard to see how the decision to strike could be considered a smart one ... I thought the whole point of a strike was to make more money.

I will however concede one point ... you are correct in that the studios are the more greedy but somhow I can't work up a whole lot of sympathy for either side in this situation & I think both ultimately screwed themselves.

Of course you hit a nerve. You made an loaded comment about something you obviously don't understand.

The main problem with that quote from the article is that it's coming from CNBC. It's a general news company that's covering it. Throughout the entire strike these same companies constantly kept saying that the strike was almost over from week 3 through now, and that was seemingly their only extent of knowledge. Furthermore, NBC is probably going to want to put a negative spin on it since the strike affected them deeply* so of course they're going to make a comment like that. Show me numbers to prove this is true before making that kind of statement.

If you fail to see the writer's side of things then you probably haven't paid attention at all other than what non-industry news sources have said, which have been relatively misinforming. Writers are mostly middle-class at best, with a few feature as well as tv writers that might have big contracts. I'm assuming it's referring to them, but at the same time it doesn't make sense if the writers got all of the stipulations out of the new contract that they wanted. There's no way they should lose money out of this deal.

* - Just in case you're even more dense than I thought and don't realize how it all works, the reason it hit NBC hard is because they're an actual broadcast company and a subsidiary of the major company General Electric, which is who I was very liberally saying has about 8% of their budget tied into all media. It's closer to 6%.

I see the writers side ... they wanted more money from the studios & for the most part I agree they deserved to get it, however unless you can show me how they are substantially better off now then they were before the strike I'm still going to say it was a stupid move. They are lucky the studios didn't do what Reagan did to the air-traffic controllers & fire the whole bunch.

And finally a personal comment ... if you want to change somones opinion, it is perhaps best to refrain from name-calling & instead devote your energy to pointing out the flaws in their argument. You've made some valid & interesting points so its too bad you couldn't have taken the high road & not damaged your credability with unprovoked personal attacks.

Funny, because I recall you writing that they were the stupid fucks, hence the start of name-calling. You have to understand that as I have a personally vested interest in the matter I'm going to take it as a personal attack when someone writes something like that. Also, so many people have made so many idiotic comments over the past few months that it gets old to have to explain things time and time again in a polite manner when the favor is not returned. My apologies though.

As for being substantially better off, who knows? It's not as if they've disclosed the details of the new contract yet. But it wasn't a stupid move to strike by any means. If they didn't strike now when would they have the next chance to do so? The last contract was signed 20 years ago, and even you can't say that it wouldn't be stupid to wait even 5 years before going after internet revenue. The problem is just that it's still in such an infant stage that's why it looks like a stupid move now.

For all intents and purposes, the internet has fully developed for much of our use as regular people. We can communicate, we can play games, we can do work, etc. But for the media companies they're just now starting to toy with it, so they're somewhat behind relatively speaking.

In that case I apologize for my choice of words & look forward to being enlightened as to the terms of the new contract.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
substantially is vague enough. media is transitioning to digital. if they were getting jack squat before and something now, and its only going to grow in the future, i don't see how they aren't better off.

you can train traffic controllers.
good writers are harder to come by, let alone create.

Since internet-based viewing is prety much garanteed to be a growth-industry in the future I agree that it will at some point very likely pay off, however meanwhile in the present many popular shows were irrepairably damaged & huge amounts of money were lost forever by both sides of the dispute. I havn't looked for any information about profit from online TV viewing, but my guess is that the amount of revenue it generates is miniscule compared to broadcast & that it will remain that way for the immediate future.

If I remember correctly, I believe it was one of the heads of Viacom that said they generated around half a billion dollars last year. I could be mixing that up with somebody else though. (Viacom owns CBS, so if I'm right, then imagine what it is for networks such as NBC or ABC who have shows such as "The Office" and "Lost.")

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: lokiju
Yea!

Reaper FTW!

I kept waiting for missy peregrym to get nearly naked on that show... she has the goods but alas... I gave up.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: Colt45
don't care = 100%

Ok, then why did you post here?

I can't wait for the new Heroes myself.

PC++? I watch everything on DVD, so it didn't affect me much.

I also most often wait for the season to come out on DVD then watch it. (House/Heroes/24/etc.) Though I am glad to see that some of these shows will be returning. I wonder if they'll actually put out this season of 24 or not.

 

[LikeLinus]

Question for all you union lovers.

What is the percentage of network tv studios that hire freelance non-union writers to write on their shows?

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

As a result of studio cutbacks, however, many of the writers who went on strike are unlikely to return to the same big-money contracts they'd had as individuals with the studios, Eisner said.

Wait...so does that mean they went on strike because they felt they were underpaid, yet in the end they're coming back to lower paying jobs due to all the lost revenue and the resulting cuttbacks?

Irony much?

not really. imagine if your future work was going to transition to a new form, and this new form paid you squat. taking a hit today for a fairer deal tomorrow is what they were forced into. no one wants to strike. the studios with their greed forced the situation.

anyways, if you think they are overpaid...
http://www.theblankpage.us/arc...the_economics_o_1.html
"First, when they say "the average writer", they are actually referring to the average employed writer. However, in 2003, the WGA had roughly 7500 members, of whom 4,298 had some were employed at some point in the year. That means that only about 57% of WGA members had any income from film, TV, or other WGA-covered sources during the year.

So, if you have a 57% chance of being employed in a given year... and you can expect to earn $93,482 if employed... you have an expected income for that year of $53,284.74. Your agent gets 10% of that, and your lawyer gets 5%, so that's $45,292.03 left over for you. At least, until you have to pay taxes..."

FYI: I like the link you posted, but you may want to actually read everything on that page.

1. It doesn't include residuals.

2. "The numbers I cite have gone up a little--writers earned a little more, and were employed a little more often, in 2004 than in 2003"

3. "If a writer-producer on a TV show gets $5000/week for his work as a writer, and $10,000/week for his work as a producer, the WGA would only collect dues on the $5000 credited to his work as a writer. As a result, a guy who is making $15,000 a week would only show up in WGA statistics as making $5000 a week."

4. And the 40.7% of WGA members who didn't report any dues-related income in 2004 probably weren't getting a lot of non-dues income, either... although I guess they might well be getting residuals from prior years of unemployment.

He wraps it up by saying "Obviously, this could have a serious impact on the accuracy of the figures I'm citing here."

Take it for what it is. The numbers are obviously lower than they should be and not even accurate. They're also 4 years old.

 

[potato28]

Aw nows theres gonna be more shitty TV shows again?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy

As a result of studio cutbacks, however, many of the writers who went on strike are unlikely to return to the same big-money contracts they'd had as individuals with the studios, Eisner said.

Serves em right the stupid fucks ... thats what happens when you get greedy.

You're the stupid fuck. What's the percentage of the major media company's revenue they were asking for again? (I'll give you a hint - less than 1.) How many cents is 8 divided 4-8 ways? (Hint - no more than 2) What's the cost of running episodes online? (Hint - Not enough that the companies aren't still taking home half a billion after all is said and done.) What percentage of total revenue does the media make up in the parent corporations, movies and TV combined? (Hint - No more than 8.)

The main reason I'm glad it's over is because I'm tired of jackasses like you making asinine and baseless comments like the one above. The fact that you called the writers greedy is absolutely ridiculous and ironic when you consider the true statistics. Learn your information.

He makes $15/hour...you'll have to forgive him. He thinks every person in the US should be able to live comfortably on that rate.