• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hollywood Hit With Writers Strike After Talks With AMPTP Fail; Guild Slams Studios For “Gig Economy” Mentality

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
I'm not going to bash my head against a wall anymore, trying to explain how much dead weight there is at an executive level in the kinds of companies you're talking about. You seem quite happy to live in ignorance, believing that the studios are shining beacons of corporate virtue, and the actors and writers all deserve what they get, so I'll just let you get on with it.
You've not explained anything, because you don't actually know what you're talking about. Throughout the entire thread, you've actually responded to none of the logistic or financial realities of the situation. You've asked semi-rhetorical questions in hopes of displaying some moral high ground, and have failed to respond to the legitimate responses you've received.

Well, it could be that A24 aren't in the streaming business. Andrew Schulz made an interesting set of tweets in which he speculated that the huge stumbling block is that to accommodate the terms of the union they'd have to expose the actual viewing figures on streaming services. A thing they are refusing to do because if they did it would crater their stock prices because what they report is actually massively inflated.

Essentially the premise being that the entire streaming market is a massive bubble, and revealing the truth would cause it to burst instantly with catastrophic consequences for media investment top-to-bottom.

Could be bullshit, but I thought it was an interesting take as to why guys like Iger have been so defiant.
1. A24 is in streaming by proxy as it pertains to their TV programming - e.g. Euphoria on HBO. They have a bunch of deals to produce for larger services/networks. Otherwise, their trade is primarily film. And film is not the focus of this dispute.

2. Schulz is behind the curve. Everybody who's paid attentuon has known for years that viewership metrics for these streaming shows are mostly inflated. It was public knowledge that Netflix boiled their viewership metrics down to "watched 2 minutes". That's not what really has been boosting the stock profile of the likes of Netflix. The stock price was so high for so long, because what Netflix was doing was a digital efficiency play, where profit margins were supposed to be astronomical after some years or losing money and raking up cheap debt (in the billions) at a time when everyone was benefitting from cheap debt. In order for those margins to be astronomical, the cost of things was going to have to come down. No more greenlighting frenzy, and much lower budgets. It's not a coincidence this streaming debate happens not a year after Netflix in particular starts to pump the breaks, and not in the preceding decade of streaming being a big and growing thing.

Oh, that’s not bullshit at all. It’s absolutely correct. That’s what it’s really all about. They could all easily pay what the writers and actors want. It’s the transparency they don’t want. The whole streaming paradigm is a house of cards. Hell, Amazon Studios don’t even share streaming data with other departments of their own company. The whole thing depends on secrecy to keep going. That’s why it’s so important the strikers hold out until they get at least some transparency.
You're reading what you want to with this. How do you get that they could "easily" pay more when what you just quoted says that the perception of viewership numbers are way higher than they actually are, and when the likes of Disney, Amazon, WB, Hulu, and Netflix are or have been losing money in the 9-10 figures range?

It’ll be better for all of us. Shitty streaming shows, championed by idiot executives and activists, would never get more than one season, if they ever got made at all. And shows that do well would carry on, and wouldn’t be torpedoed by office politics.
If you wanted to get rid of shitty television that doesn't get significant viewership (because let's not pretend like network TV was the holy grail), office politics and activism, you'd be better off trying to dissolve the Hollywood unions.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Oh, that’s not bullshit at all. It’s absolutely correct. That’s what it’s really all about. They could all easily pay what the writers and actors want. It’s the transparency they don’t want. The whole streaming paradigm is a house of cards. Hell, Amazon Studios don’t even share streaming data with other departments of their own company. The whole thing depends on secrecy to keep going. That’s why it’s so important the strikers hold out until they get at least some transparency.

It’ll be better for all of us. Shitty streaming shows, championed by idiot executives and activists, would never get more than one season, if they ever got made at all. And shows that do well would carry on, and wouldn’t be torpedoed by office politics.
That's life.

I work in the finance department and don't even know all the metrics and calculations. Only the execs do. Nobody even knows exactly how the annual bonus is calculated. It just spits out one day from the CEO it gets applied to each person's personal evaluation and base bonus rate %.

It's a cycle as every department withholds info from one another. We dont like telling the sales department detailed product costs data because we dont want them leaving the company and telling a competitor whats going on. And sales people dont want to tell finance any weird deals they got with the Walmart buyer. The only way we know is just by luck one of the analysts notices some weird financials that happened and digs into it.

Sales people dont even like telling other sales people what they are doing because they dont want the other guy to know in case they copy them or try to upstage them doing a mega deal a week before the other guy. In fact it's so hush hush, each sales person only has visibility to their own customer data. But for my finance department we can see everything with full data access.

It sounds weird since you'd think all the employees hold hands and work together, but I've never worked at a big company that has 100% transparency.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
You're reading what you want to with this. How do you get that they could "easily" pay more when what you just quoted says that the perception of viewership numbers are way higher than they actually are, and when the likes of Disney, Amazon, WB, Hulu, and Netflix are or have been losing money in the 9-10 figures range?
It's that conspiracy theory where big corporations do magic accounting trying to make it look like everything they sell is at a loss, so they never have the budget to pay for stuff and can hoard up tax loss credits.

So the goal is to make the company have a negative EPS in every earnings report. The crappier the negative P/E ratio the better.

Ya, that's sure going to prop up any stock which a lot of CEO bonuses and stock options rely on.
 
Last edited:

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
1. A24 is in streaming by proxy as it pertains to their TV programming - e.g. Euphoria on HBO. They have a bunch of deals to produce for larger services/networks. Otherwise, their trade is primarily film. And film is not the focus of this dispute.

Exactly, its all about revenue sharing from these new markets.
The dispute though is levied through the AMPTP, and who exactly is calling their shots?

I mean all I know is its this kinda dummy front used by Hollywood producers to outsource handling trade disputes, and A24 apparently operate outside of it...


2. Schulz is behind the curve. Everybody who's paid attentuon has known for years that viewership metrics for these streaming shows are mostly inflated. It was public knowledge that Netflix boiled their viewership metrics down to "watched 2 minutes". That's not what really has been boosting the stock profile of the likes of Netflix. The stock price was so high for so long, because what Netflix was doing was a digital efficiency play, where profit margins were supposed to be astronomical after some years or losing money and raking up cheap debt (in the billions) at a time when everyone was benefitting from cheap debt. In order for those margins to be astronomical, the cost of things was going to have to come down. No more greenlighting frenzy, and much lower budgets. It's not a coincidence this streaming debate happens not a year after Netflix in particular starts to pump the breaks, and not in the preceding decade of streaming being a big and growing thing.

Well to be fair his tweets were largely musings about what the ramifications are for SAG-AFTRA/WGA if they "win" at a price of the revelations resulting in fewer shows getting greenlit and at lower budgets than under current conditions.

I suspect a big element is everything getting a boost under pandemic conditions and now the chickens have come home to roost as life's returned to normal. That spike in viewership will no doubt have been taken as validation that non-linear TV is the future, rather than purely a natural reaction to swathes of the globe being forcibly locked-down.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I'm not following whats going on with this A24 thing. So why can they keep operating while the rest of SAG shuts down? They arent considered part of SAG contracts and striking?
 
7tg4lg.jpg


Stay strong everybody.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
I'm not following whats going on with this A24 thing. So why can they keep operating while the rest of SAG shuts down? They arent considered part of SAG contracts and striking?

A24 agreed to the terms SAG AFTRA asked for, recognising that they can pay the writers and actors fairly, and still turn a profit with their movies.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
That's life.

I work in the finance department and don't even know all the metrics and calculations. Only the execs do. Nobody even knows exactly how the annual bonus is calculated. It just spits out one day from the CEO it gets applied to each person's personal evaluation and base bonus rate %.

It's a cycle as every department withholds info from one another. We dont like telling the sales department detailed product costs data because we dont want them leaving the company and telling a competitor whats going on. And sales people dont want to tell finance any weird deals they got with the Walmart buyer. The only way we know is just by luck one of the analysts notices some weird financials that happened and digs into it.

Sales people dont even like telling other sales people what they are doing because they dont want the other guy to know in case they copy them or try to upstage them doing a mega deal a week before the other guy. In fact it's so hush hush, each sales person only has visibility to their own customer data. But for my finance department we can see everything with full data access.

It sounds weird since you'd think all the employees hold hands and work together, but I've never worked at a big company that has 100% transparency.

Why do you keep comparing whatever it is you do for a living with the TV and movie world? Do you understand what residual payments are? Do you understand how residual payments provide transparency about viewing figures for TV shows? Do you understand how that transparency has only disappeared because of the streaming ‘revolution’?
 
Last edited:
I told Chatgpt to generate a fake script full of quips to be hip with the kids and it did this:

INT. ABANDONED LAB - NIGHT

The lab is filled with old, dusty equipment, and flickering lights cast eerie shadows on the walls. Our heroes, ZARA (late 20s, tech-savvy genius) and JAX (early 20s, sarcastic speedster), carefully make their way through the dimly lit room.

ZARA (adjusting her glasses) Well, Jax, looks like we stumbled upon another science experiment gone wrong.
JAX (grinning) Ah, the classic abandoned lab! I hope they left some snacks behind.

Zara rolls her eyes.
ZARA Seriously, Jax? You can never focus on the task at hand.
JAX (reluctantly) Fine, fine. Let's just find the McGuffin and get out of here.

They spot a mysterious glowing device on a nearby table.

ZARA (whispers) There it is. The Quantum Generator!
JAX (raising an eyebrow) Quantum what-now? Sounds like an energy drink for physics geeks.
ZARA (smirking) More like an energy drink for reality itself. It has the power to manipulate time and space.

Jax picks up the Quantum Generator, and it starts to hum with energy.

JAX (making silly poses) Time and space, huh? Let's see if it can do my laundry too.

Suddenly, the room starts to shake, and the lab equipment comes to life.

ZARA (panicking) Uh-oh, looks like the Quantum Generator is unstable!
JAX (mock concern) Oh no, we might break reality! Imagine the lawsuits!

They try to make their way to the exit, but the room morphs and changes around them.

JAX (grinning) Well, this is awkward. I didn't plan on redecorating the lab tonight.

ZARA (trying to keep her cool) Focus, Jax! We need to shut down the Quantum Generator before things get worse.
JAX (smirking) Don't worry, Zara. I've got this. Speedster to the rescue!

Jax uses his super speed to navigate through the room, dodging lasers and floating objects.

ZARA (shouting) Careful, Jax! Don't trip over your ego!
JAX (jokingly) Oh, please. My ego is like my charm—impossible to trip over!

As Jax reaches the Quantum Generator, he tries to shut it down, but the controls seem confusing.

JAX (teasingly) Who designed this thing, a crossword enthusiast?
ZARA (rolls her eyes) Enough with the jokes, just focus!
JAX (smiling) I got it! Shutting it down in 3... 2... uh-oh.

The Quantum Generator emits a blinding flash of light, and suddenly, everything freezes.

ZARA (startled) Jax, what did you do?!
JAX (playfully) Oops. Looks like I broke reality. Again.
ZARA (sighs) I knew I should have brought a backup speedster.

Suddenly, they hear a mysterious voice.

MYSTERIOUS VOICE (from the shadows) You meddling kids! You've disrupted the fabric of the multiverse!

JAX (whispering to Zara) Zoinks! Who's that?
ZARA (winking) Looks like we've got ourselves a supervillain.
JAX (smiling) I hope they come with a catchy theme song!

With reality frozen around them, Zara and Jax prepare for an epic battle.

I think it worked well, it's been ten minutes and I'm still cringing
I don't see any difference between this script and the average Marvel movie TBH
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Why do you keep comparing whatever it is you do for a living with the TV and movie world? Do you understand what residual payments are? Do you understand how residual payments provide transparency about viewing figures for TV shows? Do you understand how that transparency has only disappeared because of the streaming ‘revolution’?
I'm just telling you how businesses work and transparency is hit and miss. The union may win on streaming info and payments, they may not. Not every facet of a business is 100% transparent to every employee.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
I'm just telling you how businesses work and transparency is hit and miss. The union may win on streaming info and payments, they may not. Not every facet of a business is 100% transparent to every employee.

You're telling me how your business works. So bizarre that you think its the same across all industries. It isn't. Broaden your knowledge horizons a little. I'm not going to bore you with the specific ins and outs of how the entertainment industry functions, but just believe me when I say the strikes are happening because the business has been changed for the worse very recently, by the introduction of streaming companies - and the traditional companies who have copied them, thinking it was a nonstop cash producing strategy. It wasn't.
 
Last edited:

Dr.D00p

Member
I don't understand how the creative heart of the business, those that determine everything we see on screen, can be treated so badly.

Without the writers, there is nothing. You'd have thought they would have learnt how to properly leverage the power they have over the Studios by now.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
I don't understand how the creative heart of the business, those that determine everything we see on screen, can be treated so badly.

Without the writers, there is nothing. You'd have thought they would have learnt how to properly leverage the power they have over the Studios by now.

Problem is, it's not the writers and actors that have changed, it's the executives. Up until the last 10 years or so, you could at least count on some of the studio execs being 'movie' people. These days, hardly any of them are.

And frankly, the top of the tree writers and actors were quite happy making a great deal of coin, so they didn't rock the boat - until now, when they see a threat to themselves. They moved too slowly, and this strike is the end result. It was always coming.

Nobody at Amazon Studios is asking what kind of stories they can tell. They're asking what kind of content can they produce that creates the most Prime subscription sign ups.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member


^Timecoded

Nolan talks about why the strike is necessary due to how Hollywood has changed in the streaming era.

"It's not about Robert Downey Jr. or Matt Damon or myself, it's about working writers and working actors trying to pay their mortgages, trying to keep food on their table. The companies we all work for have changed their business models over the past few years, unilaterally, and the deals have not been changed to accommodate that. It's just one of those moments that comes along every few decades where action has to be taken and hopefully it can be as swiftly resolved as possible."
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
It's that conspiracy theory where big corporations do magic accounting trying to make it look like everything they sell is at a loss, so they never have the budget to pay for stuff and can hoard up tax loss credits.

So the goal is to make the company have a negative EPS in every earnings report. The crappier the negative P/E ratio the better.

Ya, that's sure going to prop up any stock which a lot of CEO bonuses and stock options rely on.

Not a conspiracy. "Hollywood accounting" is a real thing that loads of industries use when they've reached a critical mass of asset ownership and vertical/horizontal integration. As someone who is so versed in how corporations work and loves to tell us about it, you should know this is one of the oldest accounting tricks in the book, but perhaps corporations in Canada are just nicer than the ones in America.

The company that matters is not the one losing money, obviously. The "real" ones make money by siphoning off the profits from the "fake" ones that they also conveniently own using accounting tricks. Do you think "Return of the Jedi" is a failure? An unprofitable movie? Well, according to their bookkeeping it is, which is why David Prowse (Darth Vader) isn't getting any share of the "profits" of that movie because that movie on paper has zero "profits".


Here is an amazing glimpse into the dark side of the force that is Hollywood economics. The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

When you are a vertically integrated monopoly, or oligopoly as much of Hollywood is, these expenses are bullshit because they're basically paying themselves for services that they're selling to themselves. Your bosses probably do this too in some form or another, which is why you're also confused about the concept of corporate transparency. How meaningful are the terms "gross" and "expense" when the buying and selling contracts have the signature of the same dude on both contracts?


For example, a bunch of you sent in the example of how Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, under “Hollywood accounting,” ended up with a $167 million “loss,” despite taking in $938 million in revenue. This isn’t new or surprising, but it’s getting attention because the income statement for the movie was leaked online, showing just how Warner Bros. pulled off the accounting trick:

4774091502_d4084b2720_b.jpg


In that statement, you’ll notice the “distribution fee” of $212 million dollars. That’s basically Warner Bros. paying itself to make sure the movie “loses money.” There are some other fun tidbits in there as well. The $130 million in “advertising and publicity”? Again, much of that is actually Warner Bros. paying itself (or paying its own “properties”). $57 million in “interest”? Also to itself for “financing” the film. Even if we assume that only half of the “advertising and publicity” money is Warner Bros. paying itself, we’re still talking about $350 million that Warner Bros. shifts around, which gets taken out of the “bottom line” in the movie accounting.



This video also goes over a lot of aspects of how this works and how it also works among other corporations with a specific example being Twitch and Amazon.

 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
You're telling me how your business works. So bizarre that you think its the same across all industries. It isn't. Broaden your knowledge horizons a little. I'm not going to bore you with the specific ins and outs of how the entertainment industry functions, but just believe me when I say the strikes are happening because the business has been changed for the worse very recently, by the introduction of streaming companies - and the traditional companies who have copied them, thinking it was a nonstop cash producing strategy. It wasn't.
Looks like my businesses I’ve worked in are closer to media than you think. Because both the industries aren’t 100% transparent with employees with everything that goes on.

Just because companies are in different industries doesn’t mean everything is different. In fact most companies will operate pretty similarly with similar goals. It’s just that it involves different products or services.

As some of us have said, the biggest issue isn’t greedy management. Money is there. If execs were Scrooge Tom Cruise wouldn’t get $100M for top gun and Margot Robbie wouldn’t get $12.4M for Barbie.

The issue the everyday worker has in media is they are expendable, and their own members (any person in any role who can negotiate beyond the rate charts) hogging the money doing their own side deal. There’s only so much cash in the bank. The traditional union deal is something all members are supposed to abide to, not people doing their own contracts on their own.

But if that’s how the industry is you got to live with it. It’s one part union terms, one part free for all.

There would be a lot more money for the greater whole of celebs didn’t hog it. You can tell the union doesn’t even believe in it themselves because they are ok with people doing their own deal and the SAG 1% contribution is low. If they wanted more parity, let Tom cruise make $100M and for rich deals they have to donate 30%. Think of it like progressive taxes we all get grilled on when we work 9-5 jobs.

So the problem isn’t management. They just value celebs more and the union allows the stars to blow by everyone else.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
I don't understand how the creative heart of the business, those that determine everything we see on screen, can be treated so badly.

Without the writers, there is nothing. You'd have thought they would have learnt how to properly leverage the power they have over the Studios by now.

Because the (good) writers, like most creatives, give a shit about the quality of their work, and the studios don't, which is reflected in their financial and corporate organization. Just like how the American healthcare industry is not interested in keeping you healthy but rather making a profit, most of the major studios out there are not necessarily interested in making good content because making good content is not necessarily congruent with making a profit. The primary responsibility of a corporation is to turn a profit for the shareholders. Nowhere in that agreement is a responsibility to make good movies and TV shows. If a studio's path of least resistance is to turn a profit by making mostly shit, they will do that.
 
Last edited:

jason10mm

Gold Member
But I don't think a strike is gonna fix that kind of stuff, it would require government regulation and oversight. They can promise writers 20% of profit but 20% of 0 is stil 0.

And hollywood is hardly the only ones doing this B$, corporate overhaul in general is waaaaaaay overdue.

But writers and actors could enter a profit sharing agreement TODAY and the top 1% of actors/writers could make a little less and the bottom 99% could make substantially more. So if the top actors REALLY cared, why don't they do this?????? Margot Robbie could have accepted just a TEN PERCENT pay cut and the next TWENTY actors below her (minus Gosling I suppose) could have been paid SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND extra.....EACH, easily a livable wage for 2-3 months on set.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
But I don't think a strike is gonna fix that kind of stuff, it would require government regulation and oversight. They can promise writers 20% of profit but 20% of 0 is stil 0.
Why do you think America's tax laws are like this in the first place? For decades, the rich and powerful court the government and legally bribe them though lobbying and campaign contributions to make the laws favorable to them. This is why as a burger flipper you might still see a significant portion of your income get taxed by the government, while as a megacorp you have a vast array of tax write-offs available to you to push your effective tax rate way down. The government, or more accurately, the politicians in government have just as much incentive to kiss the asses of corporations because they're the ones taking them out to fancy dinners and fishing trips, not you. Labor actions like striking is historically one of the only ways that workers can leverage their power to enact real change. Do you like benefits such as a sick leave, a 40 hour work week, overtime pay, occupational safety standards, paid vacation, worker's compensation, and more? Unions and the threat of strikes is what got those benefits in the first place. If you read up on the Industrial revolution and how early industries worked, conditions were horrible, and the long history of worker organization is what got us to where we are today. People nowadays are comfortable enough to forget why we enjoy the benefits we have now. It's not because of the inherent good hearted nature of corporations. It's because workers fought tooth and nail to institutionalize these benefits for future generations.

And hollywood is hardly the only ones doing this B$, corporate overhaul in general is waaaaaaay overdue.
I know. Did you read my whole post? I talked about how everyone does this. Just to be clear, this is an observation, not a justification.

But writers and actors could enter a profit sharing agreement TODAY and the top 1% of actors/writers could make a little less and the bottom 99% could make substantially more.
There is no profit sharing when the executives pull accounting tricks to minimize the profits.

So if the top actors REALLY cared, why don't they do this?????? Margot Robbie could have accepted just a TEN PERCENT pay cut and the next TWENTY actors below her (minus Gosling I suppose) could have been paid SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND extra.....EACH, easily a livable wage for 2-3 months on set.
Why is it the worker's responsibility to make up for the corporation's stinginess?


Also, this does happen.


Beyond pursuing Miller for the film, Boseman went the extra mile: fighting for his co-star to receive a higher pay packet for joining the production, to the extent that he donated part of his own salary to increase her fee. “I didn't know whether or not to tell this story, and I haven't yet. But I am going to tell it, because I think it's a testament to who he was,” Miller says. “This was a pretty big budget film, and I know that everybody understands about the pay disparity in Hollywood, but I asked for a number that the studio wouldn't get to. And because I was hesitant to go back to work and my daughter was starting school and it was an inconvenient time, I said, ‘I’ll do it if I'm compensated in the right way.’ And Chadwick ended up donating some of his salary to get me to the number that I had asked for. He said that that was what I deserved to be paid.”
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Because the (good) writers, like most creatives, give a shit about the quality of their work, and the studios don't, which is reflected in their financial and corporate organization. Just like how the American healthcare industry is not interested in keeping you healthy but rather making a profit, most of the major studios out there are not necessarily interested in making good content because making good content is not necessarily congruent with making a profit. The primary responsibility of a corporation is to turn a profit for the shareholders. Nowhere in that agreement is a responsibility to make good movies and TV shows. If a studio's path of least resistance is to turn a profit by making mostly shit, they will do that.
And nowhere in life does it say every person on Earth wants the highest quality product. Animated and superhero movies make the most money most of the time (Ok, movies like Titanic and Top Gun do too). These are all impressively loud, good looking movies with cookie cutter plots, dumb dialogue and they all wear Halloween costumes. No doubt you'll get a ton more clever plots in a thriller or oddball indie film.

But hey, people want mainstream stuff. It's entertainment, not brain surgery. People just want to have some fun and move on. Not everyone wants every media they watch to be crazy stuff like Memento.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
And nowhere in life does it say every person on Earth wants the highest quality product. Animated and superhero movies make the most money most of the time (Ok, movies like Titanic and Top Gun do too). These are all impressively loud, good looking movies with cookie cutter plots, dumb dialogue and they all wear Halloween costumes. No doubt you'll get a ton more clever plots in a thriller or oddball indie film.

But hey, people want mainstream stuff. It's entertainment, not brain surgery. People just want to have some fun and move on. Not everyone wants every media they watch to be crazy stuff like Memento.

What you said has nothing to do with my point. I'm not talking about what "every person on Earth" wants, or the subjective value of entertainment, nor is that relevant to the point I'm making.

I'm speaking to Dr.D00p Dr.D00p 's point of why writing is so undervalued and why the studios think they are justified in treating writers and other creatives like shit. Talk about that instead, because that's what I'm talking about.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
But I don't think a strike is gonna fix that kind of stuff, it would require government regulation and oversight. They can promise writers 20% of profit but 20% of 0 is stil 0.

And hollywood is hardly the only ones doing this B$, corporate overhaul in general is waaaaaaay overdue.

But writers and actors could enter a profit sharing agreement TODAY and the top 1% of actors/writers could make a little less and the bottom 99% could make substantially more. So if the top actors REALLY cared, why don't they do this?????? Margot Robbie could have accepted just a TEN PERCENT pay cut and the next TWENTY actors below her (minus Gosling I suppose) could have been paid SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND extra.....EACH, easily a livable wage for 2-3 months on set.
Exactly.

Problem is this kind of union has a giant stated pay rates chart covering a ton of shit. Traditional union deals are supposed to cover everyone. Not have union member do their own side deal behind closed doors. So you can already tell the union members arent that serious about it. What's happened over time (like sports) is that having an open ended agreement should be good because you got the floor (contract) and no ceiling (side deals).

But what's happened is the all star cast (like all star athletes) blow away from the pack as they negotiate their own awesome package.

That can all come to a stop if the union held it's members to stick to the charts or progressively tax the high income earners more than 1% of SAG revenue they earn. Unions are the ones who originate union deals. No company ever is the first one putting up their hand wanting a union deal first. So if unions are so amped up on structured pay boxes, then tell every person making 1 penny more than a pay box to stop fucking around hoarding their own secret deal. It's so bad you dont even know how much more they get paid. At least in pro sports all player salaries are public. The more money the high media earners make means less for the rest as they are stuck in the stated rates.

The pie is only so big. What the union members at the bottom want is a magic pie getting bigger. What they should be advocating is sharing the pie more. And the first pie slice to target arent execs. They only make so much and there's only so many of them. It's their own union member red carpet stars making bank where many make more than Bob Iger himself.

But in life it always looks bad if you put a bullseye on your own team because that shows they dont know what they are doing and are being idiots infghting.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
What you said has nothing to do with my point. I'm not talking about what "every person on Earth" wants, or the subjective value of entertainment, nor is that relevant to the point I'm making.

I'm speaking to Dr.D00p Dr.D00p 's point of why writing is so undervalued and why the studios think they are justified in treating writers and other creatives like shit. Talk about that instead, because that's what I'm talking about.
Writing is undervalued because just as I said. Most consumers dont care about writing. No doubt they care about production values and star power. The blockbuster movies that make tons of money are mostly shit written scripts, but it doesn't matter as long as the viewers have fun watching their fav star jump around smashing stuff in spandex.

You are overvaluing professional writing.

If paid writers are so important to people, people wouldnt so amped up watching everyday people's YT or Tik Tok accounts who are doing these uploads for free. There's only a small number making a career out of it and most arent pro media people to begin with. Just normal people doing stuff.

This kind of material is watched and read more than pro media staff. Ya, nobodies doing random content are beating writers on a payroll. Go figure. If writer's content is so awesome, everyone would be reading it and the media staff wouldnt be so desperate for jobs and pay.

So it goes to show if Brad and Bernice can get traffic to their home kitchen cooking channel and SniperX can get popular doing FPS tips and tricks from his basement, then traditional media workers are old news.

You can already tell because most newspapers have either disappeared, on its last legs or cut down half the size. People want news fast. And if it means a Twitter dude with inaccurate info that's fine. People dont care. They'd rather read that than a verified newspaper article the next day. And if that Twitter dude tweets accurate info for an engaging story faster than pro media writers, then hey they got beat by a nobody whose probably tweeting while eating at a pub.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
This one will confuse people, now that everyone's fave Nolan has supported it those who slated the strike but love his movies will have a dilemma.

You’d think people would change their minds based on the fact Nolan knows more about movies and the movie industry than they ever will.

But then this is 2023, and confirmation bias trumps experts every single time.
 

ManaByte

Banned
Word is the WGA and studios have a deal, could end as soon as today. SAG will follow.

Funny as how the strikes caused Cena and The Rock to return to WWE and now they'll leave again.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Sounds like they fucked the AMPTP nicely. Good for them.



Lets see the terms of the deal first, as in what concessions have been made to whom.

I really don't see why the balance of power in negotiations would flip-flop so fast when nothing has changed on the face of it. In fact if anything the WGA's position would seem weakened by names like Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore announcing that they crossing the line and going back to work recently.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Lets see the terms of the deal first, as in what concessions have been made to whom.

I really don't see why the balance of power in negotiations would flip-flop so fast when nothing has changed on the face of it. In fact if anything the WGA's position would seem weakened by names like Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore announcing that they crossing the line and going back to work recently.

The reports coming out of the WGA itself suggests they are very happy with the deal they've struck, so I think they've done pretty well with it. They won't have got everything, but there must have been some major concessions by the studios to get to this point.

We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional – with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership.
 
Last edited:

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
The reports coming out of the WGA itself suggests they are very happy with the deal they've struck, so I think they've done pretty well with it. They won't have got everything, but there must have been some major concessions by the studios to get to this point.

Hmmm, let's see. If you remember how the last WGA strike ended -and memorably mocked in South Park's "Canada On Strike" episode- what the union claimed, and what they actually got in terms of meaningful change were two different things.

Most important is how it relates to streaming economics, because that always seemed like where the biggest division was.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Most important is how it relates to streaming economics, because that always seemed like where the biggest division was.

Yep. If they've secured more transparency around residual payments it'll have a potentially big knock on effect for the studios. Hopefully they won't be able to cover up how well a show is doing quite as easily anymore.

Can you imagine if we had more accurate figures for the way shows like The Witcher and She Hulk are actually performing?

Anticipation Popcorn GIF
 

DeafTourette

Perpetually Offended
Lets see the terms of the deal first, as in what concessions have been made to whom.

I really don't see why the balance of power in negotiations would flip-flop so fast when nothing has changed on the face of it. In fact if anything the WGA's position would seem weakened by names like Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore announcing that they crossing the line and going back to work recently.

And both Barrymore and Maher reversed their decisions after pressure from the writers
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
I really don't see why the balance of power in negotiations would flip-flop so fast when nothing has changed on the face of it. In fact if anything the WGA's position would seem weakened by names like Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore announcing that they crossing the line and going back to work recently.

How does your opinion change about this (if it does) if I tell you that they both backtracked on those decisions?
 

YCoCg

Member
Apparently real. Some really stupid stuff here.

Well hopefully the higher pay leads to dumb ones like that being squeezed out, with better pay comes higher quality standards.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
Yep. If they've secured more transparency around residual payments it'll have a potentially big knock on effect for the studios. Hopefully they won't be able to cover up how well a show is doing quite as easily anymore.

Can you imagine if we had more accurate figures for the way shows like The Witcher and She Hulk are actually performing?

Anticipation Popcorn GIF
See, I don't think the studios would ignore actual ratings either way. They still gotta put out quota stuff, they know most of it will be junk since most of EVERYTHING is junk, they are not gonna throw good money after bad if a show tanked in the ratings. They still gotta decide to keep it, how much to shake it up, or toss it and move on. We've seen it with D+ and how they dumped the Willow TV show. "Transparency" would only force them to generate magic numbers to report or decide to throw some extra money at the writers/actors to bolster fake viewership numbers, it's basically a marketing budget item at that point. I don't think they will ever report unique account viewership, clear data on how long folks did watch, and amount of repeat views. All that stuff comes from secondary sources handling the bandwidth.

The thing that WILL force streamers to give out clean data is ads, the cost to market on certain shows will be a clear indicator of viewership.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
See, I don't think the studios would ignore actual ratings either way. They still gotta put out quota stuff, they know most of it will be junk since most of EVERYTHING is junk, they are not gonna throw good money after bad if a show tanked in the ratings. They still gotta decide to keep it, how much to shake it up, or toss it and move on. We've seen it with D+ and how they dumped the Willow TV show. "Transparency" would only force them to generate magic numbers to report or decide to throw some extra money at the writers/actors to bolster fake viewership numbers, it's basically a marketing budget item at that point. I don't think they will ever report unique account viewership, clear data on how long folks did watch, and amount of repeat views. All that stuff comes from secondary sources handling the bandwidth.

The thing that WILL force streamers to give out clean data is ads, the cost to market on certain shows will be a clear indicator of viewership.
Most stuff is junk, but propped up by cable or sub plan fees. It’s like an open world game with lots of filler. There’s only so many people who will do it all.

Whether it’s 200 channels or 2000 tv shows and movies, if given a choice most people would rather pay a smaller fee to cherry pick a small amount of content. Instead the company’s pool of content gets propped up because people have to pay a certain minimum monthly fee which will cover (assuming the company is profitable) the entire content pool. And make that offer blanket to all with a handful of choices instead of pure customization. NF kinds of companies don’t offer any customization.

Cable TV is the best example. If people could cherry pick $1 per channel, I know I’d pick maybe 10-15 channels skewed all to sports and news and that’s it. Nobody would choose $100 to pay for 100 channels. Even the most hardcore TV and sub plan watcher can only watch so much content.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
Most stuff is junk, but propped up by cable or sub plan fees. It’s like an open world game with lots of filler. There’s only so many people who will do it all.

Whether it’s 200 channels or 2000 tv shows and movies, if given a choice most people would rather pay a smaller fee to cherry pick a small amount of content. Instead the company’s pool of content gets propped up because people have to pay a certain minimum monthly fee which will cover (assuming the company is profitable) the entire content pool. And make that offer blanket to all with a handful of choices instead of pure customization. NF kinds of companies don’t offer any customization.

Cable TV is the best example. If people could cherry pick $1 per channel, I know I’d pick maybe 10-15 channels skewed all to sports and news and that’s it. Nobody would choose $100 to pay for 100 channels. Even the most hardcore TV and sub plan watcher can only watch so much content.
Well sure, but that model is dying. And the "bulk cable" model allowed for LOTS of diverse content that otherwise couldn't survive on ratings alone. Hell, ESPN alone propped up damn near EVERYTHING, strip that out and we see that most stuff has no viable audience.

Streaming gives the companies CRAZY data, far far far more than they have ever had. They know EXACTLY who watches, when they stop, how long they watch, what they go back and rewatch, etc. We've already seen directors and writers talk about how the streaming model requires a lot of changes to how stuff is paced because the "networks" now have exact data for EVERYONE about how long they watch before punching out. It will take time for it to filter down to most shows but I think we will see a difference with how stuff is structured to maximize viewer retention, if not engagement. I'm hoping this puts the stake through the heart of all these INCREDIBLY slow prestige shows and we get back to more dynamic, plot focused ensembles, especially if bulk ep drops are going away and ad are coming back, shows need to be structured around these things, you can't just take a 9 hour movie and break it up into 50 minute chunks dropped each week with arbitrary ad breaks.
 

DKehoe

Member
Well sure, but that model is dying. And the "bulk cable" model allowed for LOTS of diverse content that otherwise couldn't survive on ratings alone. Hell, ESPN alone propped up damn near EVERYTHING, strip that out and we see that most stuff has no viable audience.

Streaming gives the companies CRAZY data, far far far more than they have ever had. They know EXACTLY who watches, when they stop, how long they watch, what they go back and rewatch, etc. We've already seen directors and writers talk about how the streaming model requires a lot of changes to how stuff is paced because the "networks" now have exact data for EVERYONE about how long they watch before punching out. It will take time for it to filter down to most shows but I think we will see a difference with how stuff is structured to maximize viewer retention, if not engagement. I'm hoping this puts the stake through the heart of all these INCREDIBLY slow prestige shows and we get back to more dynamic, plot focused ensembles, especially if bulk ep drops are going away and ad are coming back, shows need to be structured around these things, you can't just take a 9 hour movie and break it up into 50 minute chunks dropped each week with arbitrary ad breaks.
It's going to be great when streaming services chasing retention and engagement using the data they get means they start churning out stuff like this

 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Well sure, but that model is dying. And the "bulk cable" model allowed for LOTS of diverse content that otherwise couldn't survive on ratings alone. Hell, ESPN alone propped up damn near EVERYTHING, strip that out and we see that most stuff has no viable audience.

Streaming gives the companies CRAZY data, far far far more than they have ever had. They know EXACTLY who watches, when they stop, how long they watch, what they go back and rewatch, etc. We've already seen directors and writers talk about how the streaming model requires a lot of changes to how stuff is paced because the "networks" now have exact data for EVERYONE about how long they watch before punching out. It will take time for it to filter down to most shows but I think we will see a difference with how stuff is structured to maximize viewer retention, if not engagement. I'm hoping this puts the stake through the heart of all these INCREDIBLY slow prestige shows and we get back to more dynamic, plot focused ensembles, especially if bulk ep drops are going away and ad are coming back, shows need to be structured around these things, you can't just take a 9 hour movie and break it up into 50 minute chunks dropped each week with arbitrary ad breaks.
Thats one thing I love about Arnie movies. The opening scenes are usually good!

And ya ESPN. We don’t have that here but I’m sure TSN and Sportsnet act the same. I never knew till the internet came about telling details that ESPN was a giant cash cow compare to other channels.

And then there was an article when CBC lost NHL license to Rogers I think the article said crap ass CBC network got 30% of its ad revenue from hockey alone. Although I might be wrong and it was 30% from sports telecasts. In any given week there’s hardly any sports shown at all across 168 hours, but the sports stuff was 30% alone!
 
Last edited:

Blade2.0

Member
I don't see why giant corporations that can easily handle the demands of the workers let it get to a strike. They lost more money during the strike than they would have if they had just f****** signed the contract then.
 
Top Bottom