Writer's guild strike to start Monday

[paul_r]

Originally Posted by Ding!

It was no "Heaven's Gate"

United Artists lost their bottle on that one, it would probably have done better if they didn't fuck with it in the first place.

[Ding!]

Originally Posted by paul_r

United Artists lost their bottle on that one, it would probably have done better if they didn't fuck with it in the first place.

But hey, now UA has creepy Tom Cruise running the show...

[UGrabMyDrumstick]

Originally Posted by spooky

lets extend your logic for a minute.

lets say its a band, and they made an album. your contention is, as i read it, they should take $100,000 up front, instead of $30,000. now, later the studio prints a million records, and they flop, and the records sit in a warehouse for a few years then get destroyed, a tax write off. in this case, the band made out. because of the budget for new talent though, two other new bands never got signed, and you'll never hear them, because they broke up and are working as mechanics and waiters now.

lets say another band comes along, and they made an album. your contention is, again, they should take $100,000 up front, instead of $30,000. now, later the studio prints a million records, and sell out overnight. and print ten million more every year for the next ten years, all selling out. are you going to argue that the studio then, isnt entitled to the millions in profits, without the band getting one red cent? or will you argue the bloated rich corporation should turn over more money then?

you cant cherry pick your logic.

Exactly.

Being critical of the WGA's demands is one thing. But the system has been in place for a very long time, and it's been there for a very good reason. Neither party, the studios or the artists, are going to allow either party to rip the other off. That's kind of the point of this strike.

[JackFetch]

Originally Posted by spooky

lets extend your logic for a minute.

lets say its a band, and they made an album. your contention is, as i read it, they should take $100,000 up front, instead of $30,000. now, later the studio prints a million records, and they flop, and the records sit in a warehouse for a few years then get destroyed, a tax write off. in this case, the band made out. because of the budget for new talent though, two other new bands never got signed, and you'll never hear them, because they broke up and are working as mechanics and waiters now.

lets say another band comes along, and they made an album. your contention is, again, they should take $100,000 up front, instead of $30,000. now, later the studio prints a million records, and sell out overnight. and print ten million more every year for the next ten years, all selling out. are you going to argue that the studio then, isnt entitled to the millions in profits, without the band getting one red cent? or will you argue the bloated rich corporation should turn over more money then?

you cant cherry pick your logic.

The companies take a risk every time they spend money. The band doesn't spend millions to make, print, and promote their media. The studios do that.

My logic is why get paid more than once for a job you only did once? The entertainment industry is the only one like that, and it's crumbing because they are using an outdated system. People aren't paying like they used to to get the product, so the residuals system is breaking.

That 99 cents for a song on iTunes breaks into many different parts before the artist sees any of it. They want more money when there isn't any more to give out. The lawyers, distribution companies, and a hundred other companies get a piece of that money, not just the artist. This goes for every means of distrobution. The entertainment industry has crippled itself by lawyers and unions. When you give more to one, it's going to raise the price, not take from another party.

People are not willing to pay more in an age where they could get it free.

[ababuu]

The difference, and this goes back to your architect analogy, is that intellectual property is, and rightfully so, handled differently than actual property because it can be sold to multiple parties at the same time.

The architect shouldn't expect residual income from further sale of the house because ownership is transferred. But, he should expect income if someone else bites his unique design of the house. If a studio is able to sell an IP multiple times, why shouldn't the creator of the IP expect to get a piece of that income.

AFAIK, some do go for the big payout up front for giving up future income; but if a creator decides to go the other way, it's stupid to say that there should be an industry rule that restricts them from getting income from certain sales.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by jwdd27

No, go fuck yourself spooki. You quoted a film which made a huge profit for the studio that produced it.

It cost $175m, made $88m in the US, and nearly $200m dollars overseas. I'm not saying it was a good film, I'm just calling you out for not knowing what the fuck you're talking about. It's not the first time either.

youre right, it was a huge box office success.

which disproves my point, because later DVD sales have nothing to do with the point i was making, and i know you know how to read.

and also, i didnt research it, and dont care to, as i recall, it was a box office flop, if im wrong, pick another. i didnt make up hearing that, i like that youre fact checking for me though. makes me giggle

[UGrabMyDrumstick]

Originally Posted by ababuu

The difference, and this goes back to your architect analogy, is that intellectual property is, and rightfully so, handled differently than actual property because it can be sold to multiple parties at the same time.

The architect shouldn't expect residual income from further sale of the house because ownership is transferred. But, he should expect income if someone else bites his unique design of the house. If a studio is able to sell an IP multiple times, why shouldn't the creator of the IP expect to get a piece of that income.

AFAIK, some do go for the big payout up front for giving up future income; but if a creator decides to go the other way, it's stupid to say that there should be an industry rule that restricts them from getting income from certain sales.

Bingo.

[jwdd27]

Originally Posted by spooky

youre right, it was a huge box office success.

which disproves my point, because later DVD sales have nothing to do with the point i was making, and i know you know how to read.

and also, i didnt research it, and dont care to, as i recall, it was a box office flop, if im wrong, pick another. i didnt make up hearing that, i like that youre fact checking for me though. makes me giggle

You make me giggle as well spooki.

Ishtar was a huge flop, that would have been a better example.

[UGrabMyDrumstick]

The strike is officially on.

Click

What will happen:

No more late night television. No Tonight Show, Late Night, Late Show, Daily Show or Colbert Report. This will happen immediately, since all of these shows write new episodes daily.

No more daytime television. Ellen and any other talk shows will end for the same reasons as the late night shows.

In about three to four weeks say goodbye to scripted dramas and comedies. Most shows film four or five episodes ahead of schedule, so networks will run those out and put everything on hiatus.

Say goodbye to anything new on television. Most brand new shows are only five or six episodes into their first season, and most networks won't believe that's enough time to gain any real following. Most new shows this season, regardless of current ratings or critical success, will end when they run all of the filmed episodes out (again, in about a month).

Say hello to gameshows and SOME reality shows. They'll need programs to fill slots, obviously, so look for tons of new game shows, since they don't need real writers. Reality shows actually do need writers, for the most part. Much of what you see is scripted. However most reality shows call the position something like "creative consultant" rather than "writer", so I'd imagine most of those shows can film without a problem.

Oh, any any movies filmed starting now until the strike gets resolved will most likely be crap. Every film out there needs rewrites, and there are always writers hired by the studio working day and night on updated scripts until the film wraps. This can't happen, so the director, the editors and the studio itself will try to pick up the slack. And that never ends well. So look for shoddy movies in Autumn/Winter '08

[golgi body]

Can someone just tell me if South Park will be affected?