Badmovies.org Forum

As the writers strike drags out many shows are in jeopardy and as it seems actors/host are unable to create their own thoughts. Do you really care if the strike drags out and TV goes into total reruns?

I've been loosely following this and find it funny how TV could possibly go into shambles without their behind the scenes people. 

I wonder what they'll broadcast if TV goes into ruins.  Perhaps they'll finally have to re-air Cop Rock. 

Yes! The time is almost right for Manimal: The Lost Episodes!!!

I don't watch much TV anymore, but a writer's strike is always sad, if for no other reason than networks then look into airing more "reality" shows. Ugh.

I don't care because I don't remember the last time I watched network TV or any regularly running show short of the news.

They could put tons of old shows into reruns and likely get better rating. Which would you rather see, 'Survivor' or reruns of the 'Ed Sullivan Show'?

I don't watch TV so as far as shows going into reruns they could cancel all of them for all I care.

But as for the writers' livelihood, they have plenty of merit to strike as they're the low people on the totem pole in terms of residuals and the like.

Quote from: CheezeFlixz on December 13, 2007, 09:36:10 PM
I don't care because I don't remember the last time I watched network TV or any regularly running show short of the news.

They could put tons of old shows into reruns and likely get better rating. Which would you rather see, 'Survivor' or reruns of the 'Ed Sullivan Show'?

I worry that their bound to try new crap, before they use older shows like rockford files, magnum PI, I love Lucy etc. etc.
Personally I think that would be cool if they did run old shows, but it could be scary/amusing to see how low they can push the TV boundries.

Quote from: The DarkSider on December 13, 2007, 08:19:17 PM
Perhaps they'll finally have to re-air Cop Rock. 

They need to release all of the like 6 episodes of that show on DVD at some point.   :teddyr:

I care as I side with the writers.  The companies are getting huge amounts of cash from online video sales (iTunes) and DVD sales yet the writers see little to no money.  That's just wrong.  If I create something, then I should see some type of profit from any media the idea gets released on.

That being said, this does mean we get to see all of the strange sh*t that has been sitting on the studio shelves for a while.  All of the shows that only had three or four episodes and never made it to air will take the place of regular shows.

Hopefully this strike will help weed out all of the crap on TV today. 

I couldn't care less.  I never watch network TV except for Football.  Honestly, the networks could disappear off my television and it would be months before I noticed.  Considering that the writing is a big part of why I don't watch, I obviously don't think they deserve a raise.  It could only be an improvement if they all quit and new people were hired.

Oh goody, they'll bring back "The Duck Factory."  I always had a soft spot for that show.  Probably why I hang out here.

I do tend to side with the writers; they are necessary for new shows and are artistic talent just like actors (and I am using "artistic" loosely).  They should get royalties for their creative effort.

IIRC, the directors might soon be going out on strike too.

It's not a matter so much of not caring so much as not understanding.  IIRC they're peeved because they aren't getting a cut of DVDs sales, or something along those lines, to which I, as someone who's hurled their best (and worst) into the slush pile sargasso can only say. . .

WTF?

I would think their terms, as a writer working for hire, would be very clear.  Granted when studios start to rake in the megabucks writer's working for pennies probably feel shafted.  OTOH what about all the turds that made no money?  Are the writer's willing to give BACK a %age of their pay?

Of course not.

But, hey, if all else fails they can join the rest of us trying to sail out of the slush pile sargasso.  Granted the more effort you put into getting out the further you sink but, hey, you gotta try right?

:bouncegiggle:

TV? Whar's that? We got our satellite dish shut off about two months ago...and ya know what? Best thing that ever happened! The kids,Tara Sue and Angel watch movies that Angel (Tara's daughter) gets from her job-she works at a video rental store-and I watch old movies I have yet to see from my bizzare collection of trash and garbage...! Last night..rewatched 2000 MANIACS ,the original DRACULA,and KANSAS CITY CONFIDENTIAL!

Yes, to a point. I ditched cable almost two years ago, so I watch less TV, but what I do watch are mostly scripted dramas and sitcoms. I shudder to think of the networks airing even more "reality" programs. Even the TV shows I rent are most scripted shows that air on channels like HBO. A long term strike may kill off the few things I actually watch and enjoy.

Plus as it goes on, it has begun to affect movie production, delaying or shelving the beginning of some new films. When a strike loomed back in the 90s, Entertainment Weekly had an article pointing out that the studios would have to look overseas and to the indie market for product if a strike went on long enough, that could be interesting if it happened now, but the market has changed since then.

I'm curious to see what the talk shows will be like when they come back without regular writing staffs. Maybe they will have real interviews like in the olden days of Carson (in his prime), Cavitt, and Tom Snyder; rather than just plugfests and lame bits after the monologues that burn up half the show time.

I'm on the side of the writers' since they did make a bad deal back in the 80s, when no one knew how the revenue streams for their work would change. Things are changing yet again, and more of the money will come from other sources than just the network airings and syndication, they deserve a fair cut.

What strikes me as interesting about this whole strike is how it has exposed a lot of the less-well-known inner workings of the entertainment industry. For instance, I hadn't known (nor, apparently, had many others) that these writers were contributing a lot of the material for Jay Leno's show. Back before the strike, I remember hearing from some people saying his jokes were lame and they didn't think he was funny. Turns out he's just the front man after all; he might have to answer for himself now if he isn't funny enough, but back before this strike, any lacking bit of humor was the writers' fault. Some of you guys may be better connected than I am, so maybe you knew all about Jay Leno already, but I get the feeling most of the rest of the public was as much in the dark about this situation as I was. How enlightening.

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 (http://www.cracked.com/article_15773_p2.html), 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?)

The situation on TV is much the same. I wasn't allowed to watch TV growing up, so getting to see what was on TV used to be kind of a forbidden pleasure for me. As I've grown up and been able to see whatever I wanted, however, I've come to see that my parents probably had the right idea; I don't even want to watch TV anymore with all the mind-numbing sludge it's got on it these days. Just a few years ago, I had to write an essay for a class at my community college about my favorite TV show. Since I had long since ceased watching the boob tube, that assignment was a bit of a conundrum for me. Finally, I just reviewed one of my favorite anime series. I mean, hey, an anime series comes from Japanese television, right? (The assignment got a good mark, so I guess the teacher agreed.)

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!

It wouldn't be the first time there's ever been a conflict in which we wanted both sides to lose. Who doesn't want to see the high-and-mighty of Hollywood and TV land brought to their knees? Who hasn't seen something so bad that he was astounded anyone actually got paid for writing it? Who doesn't get sick of hearing what a bunch of manic-depressive crack-addled sluts Hollywood celebrities are? Maybe this is what we just didn't realize we wanted to see until now: every last one of them losing this fight. Maybe they're finally giving us exactly what we want, however unintentionally.

I wouldn't be too sorry if this strike did inspire some of those stuffed suits to dig up some of their old material, too. Indie film makers will doubtless be bringing forth whatever they've got to offer (which should be a bonanza for us on this forum at the very least), and foreign companies such as Walden Media will still be bringing out a few big-budget productions for us if we still want to see them, courtesy of the deals they've cut with domestic corporations such as Disney. (Prince Caspian's preview trailers, for one, are looking good.) We will not suffer any famine of spectacle in any case.

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.

Quote from: Inyarear on January 05, 2008, 07:21:22 AM
It wouldn't be the first time there's ever been a conflict in which we wanted both sides to lose.

Sorry, no contrarian thinking here, but karma to you for that quote  :teddyr:

I think part of the problem is that Hollywood is not looking for talented, creative writers any more than McDonald's is looking for professional chefs.  Their infatuation with remakes and the "humor" of a few over-the-top nutcase "comedians", not to mention that everything must be 100% politically correct, sanitized for your protection, sets up a framework in which creativity can't exist, and talented writers just aren't suitable for employment.  We're dealing with the Hollywood equivalent of fry cooks here.  We shouldn't discuss it as if we're talking about professional culinary artists.

And fry cooks can be replaced very easily.

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.

Quote from: Inyarear on January 05, 2008, 07:21:22 AM
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 (http://www.cracked.com/article_15773_p2.html), 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.

Quote from: Mofo Rising on January 05, 2008, 10:12:20 PM
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.

Quote from: Jack on January 06, 2008, 10:51:19 AM

Quote from: Mofo Rising on January 05, 2008, 10:12:20 PM
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.

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. 

Quote from: Jack on January 07, 2008, 10:22:54 AM
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?

Mofo,

Karma.

Quote from: Mofo Rising on January 07, 2008, 02:07:41 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Jack on January 07, 2008, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: Mofo Rising on January 07, 2008, 02:07:41 PM
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.

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.

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!   :bouncegiggle:

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

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: CheezeFlixz on January 08, 2008, 11:45:45 PM

QuoteI 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.