The Writer's Strike ... do you care.

[Mofo Rising]

It seems odd to me that the argument is always cast with the writers as stand-ins for Hollywood dreck.

The strike is solely for share of internet profits. The writers helped create something that is being sold online, making their parent corporations a LOT of money. However, the writers are not granted any new royalties for their work being aired because the "technology is too new" and the companies can't quantify how much money they are making over the internet (a lot). If the companies can't quantify that amount, how come Viacom sued YouTube for $1 BILLION DOLLARS?

I agree with the idea of people being paid for their work.

Attaching the stigma of crappy Hollywood to the argument has spun discussion into realms that don't particularly touch onto the main event, internet dollars.

There may be, as some here contend, some justice to the writers' demands. Certainly, if television and movie moguls are making the big bucks, the writers whose scripts helped them get there may deserve a bigger cut. At the same time, as noted in this article, the ratio of film script quality to film financial success has been anything but friendly to the writers' contention that Hollywood needs them. Deservedly or not, the public still turns out in droves and pays the inflated ticket prices to see a lot of what the professional movie critics are panning. To turn the article author's contention on its head, however, maybe some of what he and his fellow critics think of as "creative" sucks every bit as much as the big-budget Hollywood garbage he's deriding. I mean, Valley of Elah? That's a "creative" movie? Maybe these writers haven't exactly been turning in their best efforts lately, you know? (Maybe we don't think much of professional critics either, eh?)

Maybe I'm unique in not caring to watch TV at all, but I'll bet a lot of people would share my contention that television's well on its way to rock bottom already, and that if reality shows are any worse than what they're replacing, they can't be that much worse than what would soon have replaced them anyway. The lowest common denominator might just be getting a little too low for anyone's liking these days. I don't think I'm alone in saying, too, that a lot of us might be happy enough to see this strike go on forever. Hey, guys, let's give this a shot: a year without scripting!

In short, I'm seeing a lot of benefits and not too many drawbacks to this whole writers' strike. Am I missing anything here? Does anyone disagree? I'd love to see some contrarian thinking on this subject.

Yes, but any movie or show was still written. Somebody always has the job title writer, good show or bad show, and that person should be paid for their work.

I would disagree that television is reaching rock bottom. It can certainly seem that way, if all one watches is crap like reality programming and game shows. However, there are more quality shows being aired now than I think there has ever been. (I like quite a few hour long dramas, most of which I watch on DVD.) With the writer's strike, these go away and anything that lacks a need for a solid writer stays. That's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, more like throwing away the baby and keeping the soiled diaper.

It's common to blame the people who strike for all the problems caused by it, but any of these companies could end the strike by paying the writers a measly amount for each internet showing. But nobody ever seems to talk about them. It's like when people get angry at a professional athlete for complaining about his salary but don't realize that the people who pay him are making thousands of time that amount many times over.

So yes, Hollywood dreck is bad, but there are good films and television out there. Let's reward that. Framing the argument of the strike in terms of the perception of low quality seems counterproductive. If good writers don't get paid for the work, we will only see more of the bad ones. And nobody is going to like that.

[Jack]

Framing the argument of the strike in terms of the perception of low quality seems counterproductive.

I disagree.  Job performance has always been - and should always be - the central criteria for deciding if someone deserves a raise or not.  Paying people more money for creating crap only encourages the creation of more crap.  It seems to me that the perception of low quality is the most important part of the issue.

As far as the internet, whoever came up with the idea of distributing movies over the internet deserves a raise, but it wasn't the writers.

[Yaddo 42]

Framing the argument of the strike in terms of the perception of low quality seems counterproductive.

I disagree.  Job performance has always been - and should always be - the central criteria for deciding if someone deserves a raise or not.  Paying people more money for creating crap only encourages the creation of more crap.  It seems to me that the perception of low quality is the most important part of the issue.

As far as the internet, whoever came up with the idea of distributing movies over the internet deserves a raise, but it wasn't the writers.

But a part of job performance is making money or generating revenue for the company. If a team of screenwriters crank out one more stupid comedy or another idiotic action flick directed by Brett Ratner or produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, and the film is a blockbuster or a huge seller on DVD, profits are made.

Filmmaking and producing TV shows are businesses, the "art" is secondary at best, it's the sad truth. The dreck that makes money makes the quality possible, it's a balancing act, and I know I like it when something great is a huge success, but it doesn't happen as often as it should.

And if we slam the writers for working on crappy scripts, do we also blame the viewing public for watching the junk made from those crappy scripts?  Is the audience as much to blame for the success of say, According to Jim? As far as job performance goes, the show made someone money or it wouldn't have stayed on this long, quality is hard to measure in culture and entertainment, it is all opinion afterall.

[Jack]

Well, it's certainly possible to sell crap at a profit, but when the profits on the sale of crap are increased via some outside means (internet distribution of the crap), do I think the creators of the crap deserve a raise?

My answer is still no.  I am morally bound to not endorse the rewarding of the production of crap. 

[Mofo Rising]

Well, it's certainly possible to sell crap at a profit, but when the profits on the sale of crap are increased via some outside means (internet distribution of the crap), do I think the creators of the crap deserve a raise?

My answer is still no.  I am morally bound to not endorse the rewarding of the production of crap. 

So you think it is okay that the distributors of that crap keep all the money for themselves? It's alright for them not to share any of it with the producers? Either way you slice it, somebody is going to get those profits.

I would still point out that the refusal of profit-sharing applies to the good works as well as the bad ones. There are two different arguments going on here. First, the writers deserve a share of profits made on the internet. I agree with that, especially since they ask for so little while distributors make so much. The second argument is that all Hollywood products are crap and they deserve nothing. I don't agree with this statement at all.

There are good movies and television shows made, and there are bad ones. Sometimes the good ones make money, a lot of times the bad ones do. Either way, the people in charge of the show that makes money should be proportionally compensated. The new form of distribution on the internet is making vast sums of money for media companies who have no intention of sharing it. One would think that more people would be on the side of the writers who theoretically represent at least part of the "artistic" side of the equation, who ideally would have a vested interest in making something worthwhile. Distributors are the "business" side, and they don't care how good something is as long as it sells. They are at least as responsible, if not much more so, as the writers for the proliferation of inferior and mediocre product. Yet they seem to get a free bill of sale from the public because they are not as visible as the striking writers. And in this case you can not reward one without punishing the other, and vice versa.

Hollywood is not a monolithic entity spitting out fast-food films, although it can often seem that way.

Put it this way, do you see yourself morally bound to endorse the rewarding of the production of quality?

[Mr_Vindictive]

Mofo,

Karma.

[Jack]

So you think it is okay that the distributors of that crap keep all the money for themselves?

The quality of the crap has not gotten better or worse.  It is the same as before.  If it had gotten better, they would be making more money.  But it has not, so they are not.

On the other hand, the people who distribute the crap - and yes, they are real people just like the writers - have come up with a  way of distributing more of the crap.  Their profits have increased because they have done something to make them increase.

I'll finish by saying that I couldn't care less what happens, and I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about something I don't give a damn about.  I've made my point abundantly clear, I don't feel they should get a raise until the quality of the work improves.  Instead of envying the distributors who have increased their profits, they should take a page out of their book and try to do their own jobs better.

[CheezeFlixz]

They are thinking of not having the Emmy's or Oscars or one of those Hollywierd elite award shows because of the writers strike, because they will not have anyone to write those clever banters between the presenters ... you know those highly annoying, highly boring, highly idiotic exchanges they do ... man to think not to have those. Wouldn't it be great.

[Mofo Rising]

So you think it is okay that the distributors of that crap keep all the money for themselves?

The quality of the crap has not gotten better or worse.  It is the same as before.  If it had gotten better, they would be making more money.  But it has not, so they are not.

On the other hand, the people who distribute the crap - and yes, they are real people just like the writers - have come up with a  way of distributing more of the crap.  Their profits have increased because they have done something to make them increase.

I'll finish by saying that I couldn't care less what happens, and I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about something I don't give a damn about.  I've made my point abundantly clear, I don't feel they should get a raise until the quality of the work improves.  Instead of envying the distributors who have increased their profits, they should take a page out of their book and try to do their own jobs better.

Alright. I disagree with your point and the validity of the statements used to support it, but if you truly do not care about the argument (or the issue), then I will not belabor it with you.

[CheezeFlixz]

I think the writer should get their fair share of the profits, but I'm not going to fell lost if $250,000 and episode actor doesn't have line to speak. If they want to strike go for it, personally I think union are dated. But if not working is the only way to get the point across so be it. However with the number of scabs springing up (Letterman, Leno, Steward, Colbert) it seems their effort is being undermined. Everybody deserve to be paid for there work and if there work makes the machine/company a ton of money they should be rewarded accordingly.

However, it Hollywood or anyone, anywhere, anyplace never made another show, another film, ever. I would never see everything that has already been made in my life time. So I don't really care about the writers strike, but I understand why they are doing it and rightfully so.

[Killer Bees]

I personally don't care.

We get mostly American or British stuff anyway.  So if the Yanks go on strike, the Poms will fill in the gap (which is never a bad thing).  I rarely watch local content anyway, it's always crap.  And now that we on non-ratings period until probably at least end of February, everything is reruns anyway.  Except Psych, which is quite a funny show.

I don't mind watching reruns of my fave shows (Law and Order Criminal Intent, NCIS Numb3rs, House, Law and Order, Criminal Minds, the CSIs, Shark etc).  Now that they come out on DVD, it doesn't matter if I miss them the first time, I just buy the DVDs.

I assume they're striking because they want more money?  Really? More money to keep writing crap like Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, Cane, and Ugly Betty?  They should be ashamed!   

I hope they get their demands met.  It can't be easy being constantly creative to an increasingly fickle public.

[CheezeFlixz]

I assume they're striking because they want more money?

Sort of, it's over royalties of non-air broadcast like the internet. They show shows on the internet and the writer want some of the money as many are PPV or ad revenue based. Write now the studios and the actors get the money and the writer are not cut in, they want a slice of the pie.

[Killer Bees]

I assume they're striking because they want more money?

Sort of, it's over royalties of non-air broadcast like the internet. They show shows on the internet and the writer want some of the money as many are PPV or ad revenue based. Write now the studios and the actors get the money and the writer are not cut in, they want a slice of the pie.

Thanks for that update, Cheeze.

Over here, we've heard about the strike, but there's not much more info than that on the news.  It almost seems as if because it's an American problem, it doesn't really concern us too much.  I just assumed it was about money in some form.

I agree that the writers should get paid for everything they do and  to keep getting paid every time their stuff is used, regardless of the media involved.  Actors get the residuals, why not writers?

As for the quality/lack thereof argument, quality is a very subjective thing.  So you can't really say they shouldn't be paid because their show is crap.  There will always be people who love things like According to Jim and King of Queens and think it's high art.  After all, if it's not making money, the networks wouldn't be showing it.

I think it should be just a straight case of you wrote it, you get paid.  Period.  The quality should then be left in the laps of those concerned, namely, the viewing public.  If I don't like something, it's easy enough to just switch channels.  And if I really love it, I'll buy it on DVD.  Not having a pc or net connection at home, buying the DVD is the only option for me.

I'm very happy to vote with my dollars over what I think is quality.  What I like to watch largely has no impact on anybody around me.  I've been slammed for my taste many times before and I've returned the favour.  But that's what great about having so much product out there - choice.