I'll agree with you on the third one. The first two seems reasonable to me, especially since they got screwed once with home video residuals when DVD took off like gangbusters.


What? My life is continuing just fine.

Well DVD Josh I think part of the issue might be your wavering argument here:

Most of the response seems to be your first post which doesn't adequately lay partial blame on the studio's feet. Let's not forget that the AMPTP walked away from negotiations this last time and left what is clearly an ultimatum at the WGA's door. If the WGA takes even some of those items off the table then that opens the door for the AMPTP to issue another ultimatum when they aren't getting their way - it also may mean that the studios wait till they do remove all six of the items on the ultimatum which would defeat the purpose of contract negotiations.

The WGA has thus far shown a good faith effort in negotations. The strike was the result of essentially NO movement on the studios side. What have they actually offerred to the writers in ANY of the talks? $250/yr for internet residuals and new media compensation? Nothing to address increase in DVD residuals, nothing to indicate union coverage for animation, reality, or the internet, nothing on the lowered residual scale for the CW. Additionally $250/yr is such a ridiculous fraction of current residual rates that it doesn't take much to say that the Studios have offered the writers NOTHING so far.

The WGA on the other hand took reality off the table fairly early on and fairly quiety. Then when the studios said they wouldn't talk about internet residuals until dvd residuals were off the table, they took that off too. The studios didn't counter with an offer for the internet. The writers struck. They made a good faith effort to get negotiations going and even took one of their main points down. The studios did not respond in kind. Game over. Strike started.

Well mine is too my friend! But I think we can agree that evening television viewing is probably the #1 pastime of a majority of americans.

Anyone who takes LOST away from me will forever suffer my wrath

My only explanation for the contradictory posts is that one dealt with my response to a practical (and yes, oversimplified) reason for the layoffs and the other dealt with MY PERSONAL BELIEFS in the reason for the layoffs.

I do thank you for pointing that out though

Well stated. Exactly my point. He blamed the layoffs squarely on the writers when it is in fact the STRIKE causing it which is caused by the writers and studios disagreement regarding compensation.

I am not particularly pro-WGA. I simply recognize the absolute right of people to not work. As such, to blame the WGA for people getting laid off is simply wrong. Nobody is to blame for it. It is simply a logical consequence of the absence of revenue. One can reasonably infer that, by using loaded words such "fault," you believe that the studios are in the right and the WGA is wrong. If this is not precisely the case, as it appears to be based on your subsequent postings, then perhaps you should temper the tone of your language so that your purpose is more apparent. I simply logically inferred your meaning through your choice of words.

Your revised thesis is: Whether it's oversimplified or not, it's entirely true that if the WGA was working, people wouldn't be laid off.

This in no way even remotely supports your initial assertion: So Giz is absolutely correct, it is entirely the WGA's fault that these layoffs are happening.

If you can't see that these things are simply not equivalent, then I don't know what else to say.

Edit: Damn, some good posts came already. rfduncan and Mhepburn20, agreed.

If I ask you to come work for me at a salary of 11 cents per year, and you refuse to do so, can it really be said that it's all your fault that you are not my employee?

The studios told me that all writers make at least $200k per year.

To continue down that road, would if be right to blame the person who refused to work for 11 cents an hour for the secretary losing their job. After all:

You refusing to work for 11 cents leads to the company going out of business because they can't find labor cheap enough, which leads to everyone in the company losing their job, including the low-paid secretary.

Damn, man! I'll gladly cross the picket line MYSELF to scab write for THAT amount! I'm fairly certain that I can crap out a script better than any Cavemen episode!

yes?

Yes, because you provided me with a choice between two options;

a) get paid 11 cents
b) look elsewhere for a different job

it's my preogative that I chose b

Weinstein Co. gets interim WGA deal

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...&cs=1&nid=2562

First, I have no idea why A-list celebrities would make good mediators. Don't most of these people pay 10% to someone precisely because they aren't good negotiators? Second, why in the world would the studios agree to let members of the DGA and SAG mediate labor negotiations with the WGA? It would be like letting some teamsters mediate disputes between GM and UAW.

They wouldn't. But they think they would. They are, after all, shining stars in the Hollywood firmament.

Well, aren't Hanks, Clooney and Spielberg are also members of the WGA since they have written stuff in the past as well?

I see the Golden Globes are still going to give the gifts to the stars who refused to show up. A much better thing to do would have been to donate them (or the money spent on them) to charity.

Clooney has a very high opinion of himself, believes everyone else does as well. He is next to the wrench on the work bench.

so that is what that is ...

Do you actually believe that or are you saying it to highlight another ridiculous studio statement?

While I would conisder myself pro-WGA, has anyone considered that producers take all the financial risk? When a show/movie tanks, writers just move on to the next project. It's the producer that takes a bath when something fails.

That's why writers rates aren't as high as they could be, since the rest of risk is mitigated through payment in the form of residuals for the writers, actors, etc.

But that's their job. If they don't want to take the risk, they don't have to be producers. Why is that any different than those who tell writers to go do something else if they don't like the arrangement?

Besides, good producers make good investments.

I thought so but I can never tell in this thread. People are saying the strangest things.