For for a different point of view. It’s not that I don’t think Writers deserve to be treated better or deserve more money… I just don’t agree with the system under which they’re trying to get it.
The writers deserve more money, but I just feel this flawed and outdated residual system just doesn’t work, and ultimately is ripping off the writers themselves. But more on that another time.
See what I mean below.
Feel free to discuss.
** UPDATE – Some excellent discussion and points are being raised in the comments section by people on both sides of this issue… since I can’t spend my whole night writing novels of responses, I’m going to just address many of the points raised on the Podcast tomorrow night (Yes, we’re having our Round Table Podcast SUNDAY night this week) **
oh and yeah there is value in giving things away for free online but to ask writers to do it for free and then make ad revenue on something you had your writers make for free is not right.
in some cases the writers worked for free on online webisode stuff because supposedly there was no money in it and it was all for promo etc etc…the writers happily did it only to find out the studio did make ad revenue by attaching buffer commercials to the content.so the writers worked for free while the studio made money. anmd they justify it by saying its experimental.
is that fair?
no its not.
again the writers are trying to have something put in place to cover them for the future.
and as for your comparison to the copy you write for people well if the copy you write on your clients web pages is the entire reason the product exists, like, the product they are selling doesn’t exist until you write the copy then you should get the residual.but thats not the case is it. because that is a terrible comparison.
well nathania you have missed the point of the strike.
you said “If you don’t like your job, find another one. If you want $$ that comes with being a producer or a distributor – go become a producer or a distributor.”
they don’t want the $$ that producers or distributors get. no one is talking about tipping the balance. the studios will always make more and get a bigger cut.
the writers didn’t just wake up one morning and decide they want more money. that is not what this strike is about at all.
there is currently a residual system in place. a very good system that makes sure that that the people involved in the creative process all get a share of the pie with the studio getting and rightly so the lions share.
there is a new revenue stream …online media and currently the writers get nothing from it at all. it isn’t even about getting money immediately it is about making a deal about the future. everybody knows that online is the future and the writers are looking ahead.
the studios don’t want to give them anything from the online revenue yet…the writers also want to raise their percentage on dvds as well which in a move to help negotiations they took off the table. they were willing to forget about the dvd raise and focus on a deal so that online revenue was to be addressed. the studios walked away from the table so the writers did what they have every right to do..they have gone on strike.
If writers want residuals, they can have them – but they should negotiate it at the beginning of a job.
You don’t just walk off a job because you don’t like what you KNEW you were going to be paid.
If you don’t like your job, find another one. If you want $$ that comes with being a producer or a distributor – go become a producer or a distributor.
Also, Hollywood writers need to learn what it is to produce web content. There are huge costs (servers, etc.) and many of us in online marketing (and are writers with STEADY WORK!) DO understand the value of giving away something for free (aka PROMOTIONAL) in order to attract people to premium content.
And there’s no way in the world I would charge my clients a “residual” on every product they sell as a result of my copy for their web pages.
that sums it up perfectly screenrant.
Hey Terrence, thanks for comparing my thought processes to those of a 10 year old… really.
How about this, let’s just change the whole system to eliminate residuals for EVERYONE and then let’s sit back and see what sort of creative people that then attracts to the industry, shall we?
I’d be really curious to see how that turns out.
Oh, and I’m sorry, but the book analogy IS valid. If the book writer doesn’t write: no book. If the screenwriter doesn’t write: no movie.
Creative works are different from other types of work.
And I have yet to see anyone hear refute my patent analogy. Exact same thing: Person creates/invents idea, a company comes along and throws resources at the idea to create a product, patent holder gets paid for his intellectual property. Nothing is done with the patent, no money. Patent turns into the next infomercial hit, inventor gets rich.
Or maybe inventors shouldn’t get paid based on how well the fruits of their idea perform, either.
Vic
@Chisox
Sorry I got back so late to answer, just woke up an hour ago :(
Darren and Alfie have given good answers to that question and also much shorter than I would have ended up writing :)
I see what you’re saying though, since the screenplay isn’t meant to be the finished product, like a novelist, Producers, Directors and Actors also contribute to the film’s creation and, mostly directors, can also share authorship over. But they add to what the screenwriter’s idea was, he/she is still a major creative contributor, not just a function of the production, and has authorship over that, despite what changes they make. The others contribution is in how they tell the story but they do not take away the screenwriter’s authorship while potentially adding their own.
@Chisox.
*”Anytime they choose”- still relies on the work of a writer, be it the original writer or another. Also, some writers do have contracts that give them a say in any changes.
I know my name isn’t Chris, but I wanted to chime in on that.
emad that is totally beside the point. you can’t bring taste into it like that.
these guys wrote films that went on to make hundreds of millions of dollars. the story they created and told.
taste has nothing to do with it.
apples and oranges??from the guy who compared the situation to the guy who builds chairs??? ;)
for the most part the idea for the film comes from the writer. without the writers idea and work all those people you listed who help make the film wouldn’t have a film to make….they are all important but writer is number one.
there is no film without the script. it could be the biggest piece of shit ever made but if it makes a ton of cash and you came up with the idea why shouldn’t you get a cut? you created it.
john if you sell your script will you turn down all royalties and residuals?
say the script you create…you come up with…you “invent” for lack of a better word went on to become a huge franchsie worth millions. all your idea you don’t think you deserve a piece of that. you’re seriously trying to tell us you would be happy with your flat fee up front while the studio went on to make hundreds of millions off your idea?
oh and chisox if the writers were being paid up front anything close to what actors and directors get then they might have waited but generally writers are not on anything close to pay parity with actors and directors.
@Chris
Do screenwriters have authorship over there work? A actor, a director, a producer, or another screenwriter can rewrite their work anytime they chose.
I agree with John 100%, a residual system is very flawed. He hit the nail on the head when he said this “your line of work is saturated you may want to find another line of work”. If the world operated like this nobody would want to work. Take for example Dean Devlin writer of Independence Day, Godzilla and absolutely nothing else of relevance. Those two films combined grossed 1.195 billion dollars worldwide and because of the popularity of these two films I would suspect the DVD’s sold a lot of copies, especially Independence Day. Lets say Independence Day sold 5,000,000(I lowballed this #) @ $12, Devin would get his .36% gross of the profit witch would amount to $18,000 just to sit on his ass. Now WGA is proposing a 2.5% residual fee on all forms of distribution. Do the math people that would amount to more that a lot of you guys salaries. Anyway Hollywood is full of looney tunes so a system like this isn’t a surprise to me. I suspect that the studios agreed to previous residual as a good will gesture and now it’s coming back to bite them in the rear.
It is to be noted that the two other guilds (actors and directors) do not get residuals from DVD’s and internet distribution. They receive residuals from television rebroadcasts. However there is an impending 2008 strike where they will both go on strike simultaneously to fight for the same thing the WGA is fighting for. You would think the WGA would have waited till 2008 make their case and all three guilds go on strike at the same time, but nooooooo they couldn’t wait. The WGA was never the smartest of the three.
As for the studios they have to be very careful because the outcome of this strike will have a big impact on the SAG and the DGA’s. One can only wonder how much residuals they will demand. I doubt it will be the measly .36-.4% that the WGA will most likely get.
when a movie like transformers makes more than half billion dollars at theaters just because of the Excellent P&A work of paramount,why writers should get a share?how many of Megahits Really have an excellent script?did writers movies like titanic,PotC,Harry Potter(about movies not book),War of the Worlds,Shrek3,or another megahits with shitty scripts,or adopted scripts or remakes deserve and residual?
BRAVO! Excellent piece! Allow me to throw my hat in with you on this and thank you for finally bringing some sanity to this issue.
1. To those who wish to compare screenwriters to book authors, they are two fundamentally different ventures. A book author essentially is the full genesis creator of the book. Their need is only for publication.
The screenwriter however is 100% in need of the efforts of other people to actually give any form to their work. In essence, their work is a theory that the efforts of other people must bring to fruition in its entirety.
2. The argument of book authors is the tactic of a 10 year old boy saying to his mother “but Billy’s parents let him stay up past midnight”. Let’s try to focus the debate in the merits of this situation.
3. Intellectual Property vs Physical Property. I’ve been reading some people in this forum claiming functional differences between intellectual property and physical property. That the man who create a physical commodity is deserving of less than the person who creates an intellectual commodity. This notion is nonsense. You can purchase an idea. It is a fundamental cornerstone in our process of copyright. If you want an idea you have to be your idea forever, then don’t sell it.
4. Some people are suggesting that Studios and Producers are nothing more than investors in the writer’s ideas. This is a tragically false notion. Investors merely give financing to an entity in hope of reaping a profit from the investment. The entity does all the functional work of brining their concepts to physical reality.
Not so with Studios and Producers. Studios and Producers are the ones who take the ideas and theories of writers, and do all the functional work (through other creative agents) to bring the concepts to reality.
5. The current residual system ensures that only a small percentage of writers enjoy large payouts at the expense of those other writers who do not. A non-residual system would lower potential monster payouts for those select few writers, but it would increase the average mean for everyone else. It is a flawed and terrible system for writers as a whole.
6. Lest we forget that the average screenwriter does not make the salary of a gas station attendant. according to Dr. Ian Olney, a professor of English at York College, the average screenwriter’s salary is about $200,000. That may not be what a Brad Pitt earns, but I assure you it is significantly more than what I earn.
7. I completely agree with the premise here. Support for writers and the idea that they deserve more, but no support for the continuation and perpetuation of a flawed residual system.
Sorry for the long rant. Kudos if you made it this far. Good discussion everyone.
This editorial may make a good point about about the validity of residuals in general, or not, as the case may be, but it is wrong with respect to this specific strike. This man is describing why residuals do not represent the real world where real people live – fine! He is free to make that case, but it has nothing to do with the strike – the strike is NOT about the overall legitimacy of residuals – his argument is funny and even valid, but irrelevant – either he supports the residual principle altogether and thus, can simply see digital residuals as just as fair as any other – or he feels that writers and actors should be stripped of all residuals, which is really the point that he seems to be making — again: nothing to do with the current strike. The Guild may be misleading, but so is this commentary.
I couldn’t disagree with the premise of this video more.
Robbie called this residual system “unusual” and he’s absolutely right. It’s an unusual way of payment in an unusual and “uncertain” system and profession, like musicians as well. There’s no inherent value to the work, that’s only decided by how it sells in an unpredictable market. Residual payments ensure that a writer retains authorship and is not just paid a fee based only on what the producers decide, but also a percentage of what the public thinks its worth.
Studios are the investors in the creativity of the people who make their products. They take the lions share because they put up the money to produce and promote the work that the author of the work couldn’t afford to produce; they have the most to lose, but also the most to gain, from that relationship. But that doesn’t mean that they get authorship along with that ownership. The Beatles, rightfully, still get paid for their work, even though they don’t actually “own” their recordings.
The analogy to the chair maker makes no sense to what they do. You’re relating a screenwriter to a completely unrelated field, role, and method of income earning. The guy who’s making the chairs at the restaurant is making something that is serving a function in the business; he isn’t actually driving the business. If that guy is building that chair for a film set, he hasn’t had a significant role in the film’s ultimate success, or failure, either. A writer doesn’t just serve a function, they create the business.
As for the second analogy, Apple is making a tool for others creative use, not making that end product or investing in its future use, other than ensuring the future use and purchase of its software. They’re being paid for that tool, not gaining future authorship or ownership of the creative use of it. They set the price and are paid the same way we pay for a paper and pen, we don’t owe paper companies or Bic for our material produced either. If Apple was to actually to be relevant to this, as you claim, then we wouldn’t be paying them for their services, they’d be giving it to us and even paying us a fee to use it, while they claim ownership of whatever is produced, not authorship. They’d act like a film studio would.
I think you’re right on a lot of things John, but not this. You were right before that the Studios ultimately have the right, as financier, to overtake directors and screenwriters, and alter the work if they feel that their investment is being threatened. But that doesn’t mean that the screenwriter is ultimately not author because of that.
The major problem with your thesis is that you misconstrue the role of the writer as basically to that of manufacturers, not as creators. Written works are what drive the film business and they depend of the creators of that. You’re arguing that once a work is sold, then it is effectively the property of the company who paid for it and is only authored in name only, irregardless for its potential market earnings. Studios are then ultimately buying the authorship of that work, if not in your intent but in effect, as well as the ownership. You assume that because the screenwriter might not lose the money that a company does, it is then a one sided relationship. That’s completely false. The both serve their respective functions and are paid by the results and the risk. The writer creates the material and the studio chooses to invest in it. This isn’t one-sided. The studios may risk the investment but they don’t create the material that drives it, they choose, and offset the risk only in exchange for the potential of the large percentage benefit of its success. We’ve seen films that have rescued companies from bankruptcy and others that have sent them nearly into it. The writer doesn’t take that risk, but that isn’t their function or role, it’s the Studios. The Studios job is to select the project they believe in and do what they exist for, to take that risk to produce, in return for the larger scale of future profits. But they don’t sever the relationship with the author of a work in the process. Residual payments ensure that the authors of works are paid fairly for their work that the Studios invested in. It’s not just like selling a piece of functional plywood. The writers might not go bankrupt with a film, but they aren’t going to share in its initial or subsequent success/wealth nearly as much for it either, despite having a major influence in its creation. The residual payments are a way of fairly compensating writers for success, measured from public recognition, which derived from their material.
Screenwriters are creators of a work, not manufacturers, and they shouldn’t be compared to, or paid, under the same system. They aren’t solely paid like a salary of a manufacturer but as authors of a work, which residual payments acknowledge.
A screenwriter might not have the same level of authorship as that of a book author, but they aren’t carpenters either.
Sorry for the ridiculously long post, John, I’m not writing angry and don’t even work in this industry, just have too much time waiting off a hangover….
BTW, watching Conan earlier, with your commentary track, while still partly drunk, was ridiculously fun to relax to. I’ve been a lurker fan on this site for 9 months, or so, and it’s great that you guys are all back!
Chris
One question: are the WGA members taking responsibility for the thousands of staffers being fired by studios now that the shows are off the air? Personally, if I were a lighting tech for the Tonight Show with Jay Leno (just an example), I’d be pretty pissed the the WGA.
I’m afraid your logic is flawed Mr. Campea. You keep using examples in your comparisons of menial labor to intellectual output, (i.e. guy makes a chair he should get paid every time restrauteur sells a steak.) The problem with this thinking is that in all parts of the “real world” as you state people are always now and forever paid for intellectual content. Songwriters/songwriter’s estate are always paid for the songs they write from now until 70 years after the death of the songwriter and 120 for corporate authorship.
Even your intellectual property example is off in its perspective. There is payment to apple every time some bit of intellectual property of theirs is bought up and you will be prosecuted if you try and copy that Mac OS program. Sorry, I mean if they catch you copying it.
It’s called plagiarism if you copy from your professor’s published works and use it as your own. Professors will often cite other people’s intellectual property anyways.
Even your website designer example doesn’t quite jibe realistically. Producers don’t already have an infrastructure for a movie and then just need the writers to relay that story. No they need to actually create a story for the screen, with directions for placement of actors, scenery, dialog, and whatever else they need to think up.
In all writer’s are simply asking for what happens already in the real world… of intellectual property.
totally agree that residuals are an unusual, complicated, and unnecessary part of the payroll for studios. I say they should be done away with altogether. However, I doubt that the actors, directors, producers, and yes, even the heads of studios would not want this to happen. All of these people receive residuals as well. Writers are striking to get a more fair share of what everyone else is already making, that’s all.
Hey Alfie,
I’ll address a couple of things:
Books
Totally irrelevant comparison. The writer of a book is the writer, the director, the actors, the cameraman, the makeup artist, the cinematographer, the producer, ect. ect. ect. ect. all rolled into one. You’re making a total apples to oranges comparison.
Studios are the greedy ones
Yes, the studios are greedy. But they’re also the ones who lose millions of dollars if a movie fails. If writers want their compensation attached the success of the movie, then they should be willing to give the fee money paid to them back to the producers if the movie fails. They want to have it both ways. Those that risk, are the ones who should reap the rewards.
the studios will always take the lions share
Yup… and rightly so. If you and I do a venture together, and I’m the only one who risked my money… then you’re damn right if it works out I’m keeping the vast majority of the profits.
you have probably just alienated a lot of people with your stand here.
Maybe… but fuck them if that’s the case. I have little to no patience for weak minded people who can’t accept other people have different points of view. Lots of other websites out there who just spout what’s popular. Best thing about online community is the environment to exchange different points of view and debate. People who just want to hear things they already agree with can go elsewhere… I don’t want them here.
Hey Drew,
Yes, I wrote that and I still stand by it. If you are staying inside a residual system, it’s reasonable for WGA to be covered for Digital distribution as well.
My whole point is that I don’t support a residual system.
it all goes back to the first few posts here.
should a novelist get one flat fee and thats it?
he/she should never get another cent from any future sales.the publisher can do what he wants with it? in fact the publisher can go and sell the movie rights get a cut of the box office and make millions while the writer gets his original flat fee?
of course not.
if the book doesn’t sell no one makes money if its a hit everyone gets a piece.
same for a song writer…you right a hit song that goes on to be a world wide number smash…you should get your cut of the pie.
there is no difference here.
the studios are still going to make more than the writers as are actors and directors…the balance is not going to get tipped ….
the studios are the greedy ones here and I hope they do not cave and that the studios agree to their terms.
and your chair analogy was way off the mark john. not even close.
the studios will always take the lions share and the piddly amount of changes the writers want is not going to hurt them at all.
i admire your balls though john. you have probably just alienated a lot of people with your stand here.
No doubt both sides will put their best foot forward to get their own point across. That doesn’t make either side liars. That’s the way marketing works. But even if your position was fair and acceptable(that creative authorship is like carpentry and screenwriters shouldn’t expect residuals the way book authors and songwriters do) what you’re suggesting is based on an assumption that all screenwriters work for studios.
Perhaps you’re only thinking of television but your premise won’t work for the filmmakers who don’t work for studios and don’t get paid to write a screenplay. There really is life outside the studio.
But then by your argument actors/directors/producers shouldn’t get residuals either. But they do. They each got paid and they each get bigger residuals.
Hmmm. From a post at themovieblog on 9/13/07:
https://www.themovieblog.com/2007/09/understanding-the-coming-hollywood-strike
“1) The WGA wants provisions for internet distribution in any new contract
This is understandable for the WGA to want. As things stand, Studios are selling their product through the new medium of the internet for which there are no provisions really in the current contract for writers to be compensated for. However, the AMPTA is wanting to put off the issue of the internet for 3 years because “it’s a new avenue” and they’re not clear how it will work. I can understand their apprehension to commit to something that may just die in 18 months… but at the same time there is no denying they are making money off the internet right now… and therefore it is totally reasonable for the WGA to want their agreement to cover that NOW instead of 3 years down the road.
WHO IS RIGHT? The WGA”
Keep in mind too, that when you sell a screenplay for $150,000 that you wrote in 2 months, being “unemployed” for 5 months isn’t that big a deal
Cross your fingers…
The talks resume shortly after Turkey Day.
(AP, November 16, 2007) – Hollywood film and TV writers who’ve been on strike two weeks will return to contract negotiations on Nov. 26, their union and producers said Friday.
In a joint statement, the Writers Guild of America, West, and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers said both sides had agreed to return to formal negotiations.
The statement said no other details would be released.
Hey Jeff,
I 100% agree with you. If a residual system was the only way under heaven this could all be done (but it’s not), then I would indeed support the Writers Strike, because under the residual system, they’re not being treated fairly.
I did a poor job in explaining my point.
But its really no use debating the merits of the residual system, because it is what it is. That’s the system that’s in place and has been for a while.
So within that system, writers should be given residuals for internet media just like they would if the show ran on TV.
That’s why I support them. Because within the current system, broken or not, they’re not getting paid what they’re owed.
I pretty much agree with Jeff here. It’s intellectual property, a much different thing than a tangible good. It’s a very sticky subject, producing intellectual property. Because of it’s intangible qualities, it’s very hard to decide what writers should actually get paid for.
I’m all for writers getting more money and everything, but I’ve got to agree with the guy who pointed out that this system just doesn’t make sense in the long run.
I’m not AGAINST the strike entirely, but someone needs to bring some sanity back to this system.
Wicked job on the video though john. Do more of them, and try getting Doug in more too.
Scoville… your name caught my attention.
I am wondering if i know you. DO I?
Ron Moore (producer/writer for Battelestar Galactica) wrote a great article about the strike & why he feels it’s important for the writers to stick to their guns during their strike. Ron’s experience with the web-isodes was very interesting.
John, I would disagree with your analogies here, but they’re so wrong, I don’t know where to begin, so I won’t even bother.
Although I’m not always in favour of unions, I must say that I feel the WGA has no choice but to to what they’re doing, otherwise they’re going to get royally fucked in the future.
John,
I respectfully disagree with you. Writers are already getting residuals from the studios. This was negotiated long ago as a means to keep production costs down. I am sure if the studios would quadruple the fees for they would pay for a script, the WGA would drop residuals altogether. However, it is more profitable for everyone if the residual system is in place.
Your analogy of the chair is incorrect. The relative value of script to a movie/show is not a restaurant’s chair, rather, it would be the menu ingredients – much more important to success of the business.
Interesting , good points (but horrible analogy-). It is alright to see /hear a counter arguement. I am, however disappointed in some of the int’l friends. The strikers aren’t jerks.
In fact, I take some slight offense at that.
I am supporting the strike till monday.
and i will resume my protest next friday night
Hey John- Just wanted to say good job on the little clip you put together- Don’t know what spurred the change but it seems different than any other videos you’ve previously put on your site and to be honest the production quality was better than most of your other clips. I thought the editing was well done and the music was not invasive with the message of the clip.
That said, I wanted to say that I’m not sure I disagree with the writers striking however I do disagree about them striking for residuals. I think that if anything they should be striking for a better salary (especially compared to the 3rd rate acting some are getting paid millions of dollars for). I think the real crux of the issue is whether they should be complaining at all taking into consideration how much they really do get paid for work that they probably enjoy- But I can’t really speak to that because I don’t really know what they make.
I’ve been saying for almost a decade that the current residual system in Hollywood does not work. A crippled system that has producers still paying monies to actors and writers on projects that lost money. The economics of a residual based system is ironically holding back writers from collecting much better payouts and compensation for their work. Well made video, I hope you make more of them.
@Krintina: Indirectly, that’s what happens. If you write one too many flops, your career as a writer is over. But someone definitely wouldn’t be willing to give money back directly for a flop.
But really, that’s the whole point to the residual structure. I don’t see it as a what’s-fair-to-the-artist question. I see it as a business model question. The residual structure mitigates the risk for the studios by giving the artists less money up front in case the movie IS a flop. If it’s not, it continually produces money down the road and everyone profits.
That’s the biggest difference between the WGA and the analogy of the auto or chair maker. Cars and chairs have limited lifespans and definitive market values; Warner Brothers is still selling copies and broadcasting rights for “Casablanca” 65 years later. But who could know that with any certainty when they first read the script?
Suppose we took the average money that all residual-receiving parties receive over the first 25 years of an averagely-successful movie’s lifespan. There is no way studios could risk this up front for every movie. That’s why they put a smaller amount up front in the beginning, and then agree to pay out a percentage based on profitability.
A residual pay structure makes sound business sense.
You are arguing against the concept of residuals.The reality is the movie industry does apply residuals in other forms of media.It is not surprising given that writers already get residuals from dvd sales that when faced with the coming digital only distribution revolution that writers,directors,and actors would want to negotiate a contract to ensure they will not be left out entirely of future sales of content.
Are the writers just supposed to accept that since there is now digital distribution that the rules and residuals no longer apply?
I can see this only being acceptable if there were no more residuals but higher pay rates in place for the content upfront.
I think what is a point of contention is that higher pay rates will not take place and now the studios will just keep more profit without residuals.
To disregard an established reality for the way hollywood works and what piece the unions have previously fought to get because now the studios can distribute digitally is unfair and wrong.
“Sorry creators of our content that reaps millions because there is no box art no residuals.”
To not support the writers strike is your right but I think you would feel differently if you were a writer for movies and television.
It is also strange the nature of your video with the bluegrass soundtrack as though you are some down home alternative to the overwhelming support around the web.Your argument sounds and feels eerily like this Kirk Cameron approved video in support of intelligent design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
I suspect you might not really care one way or the other but enjoy being contrary to popular sentiment and you also enjoy diggs and hits.
I love your site and content but in this instances something feels not right.Not the fact I disagree with you but I just don’t feel like this is the same editorial voice and honest opinion you bring to other facets of movie related news.Sorry but it just reminds me of the knee jerk strike you proposed on Warner Bros before hearing all the facts or waiting for an official studio response.
If I am wrong in your sincerity than I am wrong and I apologize.I do not wish to upset you or mean disrespect on this site I enjoy.I can only voice my opinion on how I see this just like you.Keep up the great work on movie blog.Regardless on our disagreement in this matter I am still a fan.
For “residuals” going to actors and directors:
Wait until later next year after the SAG contracts become open for debate. They will be fighting for the exact same thing. And I totally agree with them.
John’s analogy is correct if the chair use was for the singular. Millions of people could “watch a show/Use the chair” – and Bill shouldn’t complain, that’s what the chair is for. But if someone mass produced Bill’s “chair” for use all over the world, that’s *NOT* the job he was hired to do. Bill, the original designer, deserves a creative slice, a tiny slice sure, but not Nothing, of the mass produced pie. Why? He created the damn thing. And I know no one that would not want the same treatment.
Whatever the outcome of this strike is, will be up for debate again next year when SAG’s negotiations come up.
Hey Baron von Pupi
Appreciate the comments. There are just a couple of problems with your analogy:
1) Try comparing the average salary of a TV writer or what the average selling price of a feature length script is with a waitresses salary. It’s night and day.
2) I’m not REQUIRED to give a tip… yes, some places require gratuity, but that’s really just built into the cost of the meal anyway. Tips are optional choices left up to me and don’t apply in this situation at all.
And you know who else I’m sick of? Waiters and waitresses. They need to start living in the “real world” you know, the one where you and I live. I don’t get “tips” for my work. Why should they? And some waiters even say they depend on the tips they make because their wages aren’t high enough otherwise. They must be too lazy to get real jobs. Because, you know, they must be living in a decadent fantasy world if they make income in a different way than you.
Beautifully put sir. I actually find myself disagreeing with your final conclusions, but make some great points worth thinking and talking about. Cheers.
Hey SomeoneSomeone
I totally agree. Writers need to be paid more when you compare what they make to actors.
I disagree with the strike because I don’t agree that residuals is the way to do it.
So for anyone that can answer this question please do, maybe you can enlighten me….say I am a writer and I create a character….WHY IS IT THAT THE ACTOR THAT PORTRAYS THE CHARACTER I CREATED PAID LITERALLY MILLIONS MORE THAN ME? Yes, I support the strike, because of that specific reason. I absolutely support the strike. I don’t care about residuals. I am only concerned about percentage. I WANT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THE CUTS. Fuck residuals. I am a realist, not biased.
Not sure I’m with you on all points, but it is refreshing to see someone finally showing the other side of the argument!
What about actors and directors? Should they lose residuals too?
I have a question: Does actors, directors, producers (etc.) get residuels? If not, then the strike should focus on more appreciation for their work.
I never looked at it that way John. Great mini doc., and this is a different way at looking at the strike that I know many people aren’t thinking about. I agree with you totally John, and I just hope both sides get their act together, and come up with a agreement to end this strike.
Finally I get an other opinion on the subject. However I do think that there are different type of jobs in the world. If the revenue of a writer is to be based on how profitable his work is, I would say they are right to be on strike. I’m pretty sure studios would rather give a small percentage of the revenue than to sign a deal for an exceeding amount if the product does take off.
It’s sad that this is the only site I’ve found so far that isn’t just blindly towing whatever the WGA is telling them to say. Good job!
Whoops!!! I don’t know what happened with my post above ^^
You have completely missed the point John. Writers are already being paid residuals, they are NOT necessarily asking for more residuals (yes they are asking for increase in DVD residuals but it is generally accepted that that is more of a negotiation tactic. Infact, WGA took the increase in DVD residuals proposal off the table during the meeting on Nov 4th) The main issue is internet residuals and right now writers don’t get paid anything for it. Everytime a show airs on tv the writers get paid a certain amount of money all they are asking is that for it to be extended to the internet considering TV is a dying medium. That is I think a perfectly reasonable demand. The co-creator/writer of LOST explains this in a more articulate way than I could in this article You have completely missed the point John. Writers are already being paid residuals, they are NOT necessarily asking for more residuals (yes they are asking for increase in DVD residuals but it is generally accepted that that is more of a negotiation tactic. Infact, WGA took the increase in DVD residuals proposal off the table during the meeting on Nov 4th) The main issue is internet residuals and right now writers don’t get paid anything for it. Everytime a show airs on tv the writers get paid a certain amount of money all they are asking is that for it to be extended to the internet considering TV is a dying medium. That is I think a perfectly reasonable demand. The co-creator/writer of LOST explains this in a more articulate way than I ever could in http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11lindelof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>this article
If two screenwriters are paid $75K initially for a spec script, and one flops while the other goes on to great success, why shouldn’t the writer of the hit make more money?
That depends. Do you get to get part of your money back from the writer if the movie flops? I doubt writers would agree to that? You get paid for what you think it’s worth. If you want more if it’s a hit, then you have to agree to give money back if it’s a flop. You shouldn’t get to have it both ways.
Great video.
WOW.
I honestly never thought about it that way. Excellent work, Gio!
Either way, I just want this shit to end quickly so I can watch 24 already…
So what happens if the movie/TV show bombs? Do all involved have to compensate for their losses? That is what I don’t like. They get a hit, they win. The film bombs, they still get paid.
I agree with all those who see your little analogy for the strawman it is.
FINALLY! Someone who gets it! It’s so good to see someone actually call it like it is!
I see where you’re going, but I think the analogy is abit wrong. You clearly say that the quality, and there by often success, of a movie is based on how good the script is. Now to bring that to your analogy, that would mean that the chair the guy made actually was a HUGE part in making the restourant money, which it clearly is not.
There are a lot of sides to this argument, and a hole lot to discuss, but it’s 1:30am and I’m to tired. All I know is that I know to little to pick sides. I really don’t care who wins aslong as my shows don’t stop running. Hate strikes.
Hey Dimitri,
Your comparision of the CEO doesn’t apply because the job is ongoing. The Writer is done his/her job.
Hey Jeff,
I appreciate the note,
The relative value of a script is up to you buyer and seller to determine just like anything else. I just sold the intellectual (to use the term loosely) property of my website and all it’s posts. I decided what the value of it was, and charged accordingly for it. The buyer decides if they think it’s worth it or not. If the new company goes one to make $50 million off my intellectual creations, then that’s none of my business.
My comparison to salaried workers is actually applicable. If you work a 9 to 5, you are paid for the work you do and produce, just like a contractor in that regard.
John, you do make some very good points but ultimately I’m thinking more along the lines of ScreenRant.com. If two screenwriters are paid $75K initially for a spec script, and one flops while the other goes on to great success, why shouldn’t the writer of the hit make more money? It is easy to say that one studio made a wise investment while the other one didn’t, but I think that’s oversimplifying the situation. I get paid more than my co-workers that don’t perform as well as I do even though we work the same hours covering the same duties, and vice versa.
True, the studios already learn today who cranks out hits more often and pay them more up front, but I guess I see the compensation contract between the studios and the artists as more of a partnership/investment. The studios front the money to get the movie made using just enough to cover an acceptable risk for the production, and if it hits big then everyone profits. This is exactly how the venture capital system works in the entrepreneurial world, which seems very similar in spirit to how movies are made. Activities such as chair and auto production are consistent, repeatable processes for which it’s easy to calculate the value. The ROI on movies are determined much differently and more difficult to predict.
While I enjoyed the little ditty playing underneath your video, John, I have to respectfully disagree.
A tradesman like Joe makes a good or provides a service, he gets paid for it. Then he continues to do that while the demand is there. In your example he’s selling a TANGIBLE chair to this dude who needs a chair.
(Why this dude is short only one single chair is a mystery.)
Writers, just like authors and songwriters, are paid for intellectual property, which isn’t a tangible item that they can purchase. The nature of their contracts with the companies means that if their intellectual property is of a particular quality, they get paid more.
Your comparison to the rest of the world doesn’t fit either. Because most of the world is paid on a salary basis. They’re hired to do a job and they’re paid incrementally depending on how well they’re doing. Corporations don’t plop down a whole year’s salary and then own you for that amount of time/service.
Going back to the intellectual property thing, the studios don’t know what’s going to be a hit. For example, Transformers was a terrible script, but it was a monster hit. So they pay accordingly. There was no way for them to know if they purchased a lemon.
Unlike a chair, for the most part, where you know if you shell out $150 for a chair, it’s gonna be sittable. Is sittable a word?
I hope that all made sense.
Also, I agree that John August’s blog is a good source for more information on why you SHOULD support the WGA.
http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/why-writers-get-residuals
Residuals are a courtesy to the movie studio. The problem is that, in entertainment, one can never really be sure what the value of a film or a novel or any other mass-distributed work of art really is. The amount of money made by a work of art is dependent upon an incredibly fickle and unpredictable audience.
Clearly, for a work of art that makes hundreds of millions of dollars, it doesn’t make sense for the writer of the script to get paid a few thousand. Then again, if the film is a flop, you don’t want to have to waste all the money you made on paying out the script-writer.
So, we come up with the idea of the residual. This way, everyone can have their fair share of the income generated from the project.
You ‘shudder to think’ of what the rest of the world would look like in this situation? This is the reality of every CEO who is paid in stock options. Do you also oppose paying CEOs in stock options? No, you probably say that this just gives them an incentive to run the company really well – an incentive that isn’t there if they are paid a flat salary. Well, why doesn’t the very same hold in the case of the writers guild?
@ Peter – The thing is no different really. You produce a commodity, and you sell it. What the person who bought it does with it is a non issue.
Great piece John.
Great post John, I now really undertand whats going on, and I couldn’t agree with you more.
Very informative little short John. The only “counterpoint” i would bring up would be this: Doesn’t everyone else involved get “residuals”? (Actors, Studios, etc.)
Now, i agree that they should ALL start living in the real world and nobody should get residuals. However, as of now, actors / studios do get residuals, so i think the writers should get their share too.
Look at professional sports. Do i think that ANYONE should get 25 million a year to play baseball? No. However, since the players playing makes the team/franchise owners sometimes BILLIONS a year, i do feel the players should get more than minimum wage. And what happens when the next player who is better come along? Since player A gets 25 mil, and player B is better, he feels he deserves at least, say 26-27 mil. And so on.
The whole system needs to “reset” itself, but i dont see that happening any time soon.
I do eagerly await the day where we all get paid the same thing and just work to make mankind better. Damn you, Star Trek future where are you!!!!
Hey John,
How do you think that the strike will end? In favor of the writers, on in the favor of the other side of this argument?
Wow, John… that’s a helluva piece of linkbait regarding this situation. :-)
So are you saying the authors who write books should get paid once by the publisher and that’s it? I certainly wouldn’t argue with directors and actors not get residuals… at least the ones getting the monster paychecks.
I think you’re drawing an incorrect analogy with the guy who builds chairs. It’s more like the chair builder creates a prototype for which he is payed once, and then the restaurant owner decides to go into the chair distribution and manufacturing business.
The chair builder is paid ONCE for ONE chair but the restaurant owner/fledgling chair distributor and manufacturer then goes on to sell millions of chairs profiting in the millions, for which he paid the guy who created the chair… $150.
Isn’t that the point of copywriting one’s work? Or getting a patent on an invention?
I do understand what you’re saying, but I disagree with your conclusion. I think that in this industry residuals make sense. When writing a weekly series or a movie screenplay, it’s unknown how the final product will do. Will it bomb? Will it be a mega hit? It seems to me that the residual system is fair compensation.
If a movie sucks then there will be little ongoing payment and the writer ends up with his initial fee. But what if it turns out to be a huge hit to everyone’s surprise and the studio makes a billion off it? I think this system rewards those who create a profit for the studio and does not for those who write stuff that ends up making no money.
It wouldn’t be fair to get paid the same for a movie that bombs and goes down the tubes never to be seen again and one that is a hit and generates income for years and years because up front you just don’t know. This way there can be a “deposit” of sorts paid that is a flat fee (yes, I over simplify) and then the real pay comes in the form of residuals.
Vic
John, well put together minidoc, however you could not be more wrong, and are clearly missing the whole point. Read John August’s blog on why writers get residuals:
http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/why-writers-get-residuals
There is a differnece between “the real world in which you live in” and the world or artists.
“Let’s say you’re a Nashville songwriter. You write a song that Carrie Underwood records and takes to number one. You get paid royalties for writing that song: albums sold, radio plays, the generic Christmas Muzak version. A hit song is worth a lot of money. A moderately successful song is worth a moderate amount of money.
Or let’s assume you’re a novelist. You’re John Grisham, and you write a legal thriller that half the folks on a given flight are reading. You get paid a royalty for every book sold. Like a hit song, a best-seller is worth a lot of money. A book that doesn’t sell as well earns the author less.
In both examples, the way an artist makes money is not necessarily upfront (writing the book or song) but over the course of years. These creative works are annuities that keep generating money, for both the writer and the publisher. Every year, copies are sold. Every year, writer and publisher make money.1”
AMEN! Finally, someone who shares my thoughts exactly.
They can strike until their arms fall off carrying those picket signs, I’ll do my best to boycott their shows when they finally come crawling back to the networks.
It would suck if I had to pay HP for everytime I used my laptop to do some form of work lol.
I was never completely on the side of the writers strike because I think what they want is a bit unrealistic.
Great video John.
That was and excellent mini-short documntary. You made an strong point. I think its really crazy how actors make millions of dollars and writers make far less, but without them the studio could not make the movie, the actors could not get work etc etc. However, If the writers agree’s to getting paid the amount he is given then thats it. To me sounds like they want a bigger piece of the pie. In a sense its all about greed.
I never looked at it that way, I totally agree. Why should the writers of Street Fighter the Movie, Will and Grace and Friends deserve to make anymore money than what they already got paid to come up with those pieces of crap.
Yeah, I said it, Friends sucked. Stupid mainstream sitcoms, The Tick and Arrested Development, FTW!