Support NeoGAF

[LiquidMetal14]

Parker Lewis and MWC are awesome. I never watched the others.

But getting back to writers striking and quality of script. Ive watched a lot of MWC reruns lately. The actual scripts arent even that great. It's the awesome acting from the cast (especially Ed Oneill) which makes those lines funny.

Next time you watch a comedy show, just think of the lines said. Most of the time it's not even that clever. But the actor makes it shine (Al Bundy mannerisms).

Here's 2 things. After Jefferson (Ted) got there, the show just continued to peak. You can always argue things getting worse but that show maintained s consistent slapstick humor till the end. I like the one episode where Peggy and Marcy keep score of how many times the guys fall off the roof trying to fix it. All sorts of hilarity that is unbeatable.

Here's a deep cut. There's actually a Spanish version of that called Casados con Hijos. Absolutely hilarious and basically takes the formula and applies the Spanish (Argentinian) twist.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If corporations can profit from AI drivel then that means enough people enjoyed the drivel to generate a profit. Why act like the corporations are bad when viewers will hate watch terrible shows and shit reality TV so long as its on?

I never saw that Thor Love and Hate movie, but it seems anytime it's bought up, people hate it.

Somehow that movie made $760M according to Wiki. Even the avg Ant Man movie probably makes half a billion.

Nobody is watching movies like this for highly polished professional scripts. They are watching for fun whizbang visuals.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Thats the point of efficiencies. Really no different than Ford assembly lines. A business streamlines business as much as possible and use good ol human brain power to do the crafty/subjective/judgmental bits.

If a writer cant beat out an AI bot making shit up from internet algorithms, it shows their writing skills stink.

Its like finance. Every big company will spend shit loads of money on ERP/database systems. And an IT team maintains it. Heck, even small businesses surely have their own small scale programs that do it. When it's all done, we just churn out the data. We dont even know or see where the source material even comes from. And we dont care. As long as it works that small IT team does it.

If this was way back, there would be a team of people doing endless admin and building from scratch shitty spreadsheets. I know because 20 years ago one of my jobs as an analyst was building from scratch on MS Access sales data databases. I'd load in various external data sheets and hoped it all worked. And if something didn't I'd be there all day adjusting the data so it came out right..... (and for those of you who have never used it, it's not pick up and use like MS Word, Powerpoint or Excel. Its way different).

That all went away as companies spend money on programs that handle it all. So the team can focus on meaningful work than being a database builder.

You just keep missing the point. I'm going bow out.

 

[Gamerfan81]

AI is partly why they are striking:

Screenwriters want to stop AI from taking their jobs. Studios want to see what the tech can do.

Striking film and TV writers are pushing to put strict guardrails around how studios use AI in the scripting process.

www.cbsnews.com

Thanks for this article. Seems like AI is a major contentious issue for the union. They want studios to completely ban it. I don't' think that's going to happen. Technology always move forward.

They might as well go even further and ask studios to ban streaming and putting their movies on them since streaming has cut into their income.

 

[Lasha]

I never saw that Thor Love and Hate movie, but it seems anytime it's bought up, people hate it.

Somehow that movie made $760M according to Wiki. Even the avg Ant Man movie probably makes half a billion.

Nobody is watching movies like this for highly polished professional scripts. They are watching for fun whizbang visuals.

I've never heard of that movie. I'm an outsider to superhero films. They do nothing for me. Disney understands LCD like nobody else. The MCU is textbook design by committee with production being closer to Ford than Tarkovsky. Why have writers when you can generate basic plots that generate billions? I fully expect AI to eventually replace all human involvement in many big budget films because they are already so formulaic.

Not sure why it's Disney's fault for giving people what they want. I bet most of the haters are buying tickets and don't want to admit it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You just keep missing the point. I'm going bow out.

You probably should. You dont understand business, efficiencies and when human brains and computer cpus can coexist. When one is better than the other.

It's actually really simple.

If a human can do it better, a human will get hired to so it. A guy coming over to your place to fix a washer and dryer is as 100% human you can get. A dryer isn't going to fix itself ordering it's own parts and magically installing it.

Something very data driven like numbers can be very automated. But brains are needed to analyze the data because even given the same conclusion a human makes the final call since situations can change based on needs. I'll give yo an example. Our company was very market share focused long time ago. Now we are operating profit focused. If this was 6 years ago, a Walmart deal would get accepted to do, while now it would be axed. Same kind of sales and costs. But different needs now.

Something like scripts or art is in it's infancy on what can and cant be automated. At some point of time, the market will decide what companies and people will accept as automated and what is still done by human hands and brains. We just arent there yet. Going by the images people posted over the month on Country Villains (there was like 5o of them). I thought most of them looked awesome. Way better than the average artist can draw. And it probably took the AI a minute to do too and not a week.

Like all jobs, you got to adjust. Like my example, I adjusted from early job analyst and database creator to now..... zero database building (thats all done for our department) and all analysis.

Artists and writers will need to adjust to what the new norm is when AI settles down to a certain norm and cost businesses get used to. Hey, if all this AI stuff is so god awful then there's nothing to fear. All consumers and companies will scrap it and go on human power.

 

[Toons]

If corporations can profit from AI drivel then that means enough people enjoyed the drivel to generate a profit. Why act like the corporations are bad when viewers will hate watch terrible shows and shit reality TV so long as its on?

Because I care about art and I care about the people that create it just as much as I enjoy consuming it.

If thats the case, I dont think the average media watcher cares.

The biggest best selling movies are superheros, animated films, and various Lord of the Rings style epic adventure movies. And Avatar.

None of these have great writing. In fact, most have awful writing. Or the most predictable plot ever. Same goes for tv shows. Even a movie I liked Top Gun Maverick didn't have epic scripts. People seem to care more about CGI, well known actors, big battle scenes and cut and paste animated movie plots (good guy beats the evil warlord and there might be a price/princess part to it). Media is entertainment. They want fun. Professional top end writing does not equate to fun for a lot of people.

It's like what do people want? McDonalds, 5 guys, or a pub burger? The best one is probably the pub burger, but some people prefer Big Macs.

The movies that seem t have the best scripts, critics choice, and awards are movies that seem to make hardly any money. So it shows the average consumer would rather watch Captain America tagteamed with Tranformers battle against Magneto and Cobra.

And just like with McDonald's it doesn't have to be one or the other.

Theres plenty of room in both our minds and the industry for hard hitting epic scripts made by augers and just fun stuff to watch with friends. Both have value. Especially when the latter generally pays for the existence of the former.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Theres plenty of room in both our minds and the industry for hard hitting epic scripts made by augers and just fun stuff to watch with friends. Both have value. Especially when the latter generally pays for the existence of the former.

Exactly. So what's the issue?

It's not like those high earning movies resemble Shakespeare. It's afternoon popcorn fun for the family with Hulk smashing shit and Iron Man flying shooting had lasers. There's 10x more effort and money put into CGI than the script. Or the millionth Disney cartoon which I remember some guy on the net analyzing them and basically saying all of them are the same core plot but with different characters and setting.

On the other hand, can AI make a good Godfather or Shawshank Redemption plot? I dont know. Maybe not.

Perhaps we get to a point for fun drivel, companies use AI plots and fine tune them to be something better. But for drama flicks with tons of dialogue and script it's better for a humann to do it from beginning to end. Who knows.

But AI is hear and a lot of companies will take a crack at it to see if it's worth doing. Sometimes it'll probably be worth doing, other situations dont bother.

Right now there's a big trend to sports betting. Every telecast has up to date odds popping up and even hosts talk about the odds. If that was long time ago, some human writer would probably be getting fed info and he'd have to hurry up and write some stuff asap so the host can read it to people. Now, it looks all automated. The betting sites surely just work with the telecasts and upload the latest odds box for viewers. There's probably zero interaction needed from the behind the scenes writers to do anything. That's a form of AI if you think about it.

 

[Lasha]

Because I care about art and I care about the people that create it just as much as I enjoy consuming it.

The idea of "consuming art" is why studios focus on volume and mass appeal. The average person wants safe "content" to "consume" rather than to experience an artistic vision which may result in discomfort. The low bar for creativity set by audiences isn't the fault of those producing media. Audiences flocked to unscripted reality TV during the last strike after all.

I actually support the strike. Studios are pivoting to new methods of production that the current agreement fails to address. Collective labour action is foundational to a free market. I don't know how much leverage the guild will have going forward given the twin threats of easier to please audiences and technology.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The idea of "consuming art" is why studios focus on volume and mass appeal. The average person wants safe "content" to "consume" rather than to experience an artistic vision which may result in discomfort. The low bar for creativity set by audiences isn't the fault of those producing media. Audiences flocked to unscripted reality TV during the last strike after all.

Exactly.

Maybe the average artist or writer thinks their brainstorming and output is the best thing ever so they deserve high pay. But for most people artistic creation is not only subjective, but I'd definitely say low on people's priority list.

You can tell because look at all the artsy stuff out there:

1. TV and movies. The most popular stuff has low brow writing. But typically awesome production values in graphics and/or Hollywood stars for movies. And for TV, the trend seems to be reality TV being popular (which probably has the least amount of professional writing out there).

2. Decor. Unless someone is an arts expert, most people have shit in their house that is modestly priced mainstream stuff they found at a store, which an arts pro would say is junk. I bet most people dont even have one pricey one of a kind piece of art. I know I dont. I got shit I bought at Homesense and Ikea on my walls for $15. I dont care one bit if a pricey artist designed it, 50,000 other people have it too, or if this black & white Ikea print I got on my wall is a public domain pic since theres no signature on it. It's good enough for me. I dont need $500 pictures from a fine arts designer when this 20 year old Ikea print does the job.

 

[DeafTourette]

I asked ChatGPT to write a scene for Sanford and Son... It used the same key words to recognize it as Sanford and Son but it wasn't funny whatsoever. You need human creativity for that. Just like you need it for the heartfelt scenes that make you tear up.

AI can do some amazing things but it still can't copy human imagination. It can't create Dune. Or Star Trek. Or Star Wars. Or Shawshank Redemption. Or Forrest Gump. Or The Godfather.

 

[Toons]

The idea of "consuming art" is why studios focus on volume and mass appeal. The average person wants safe "content" to "consume" rather than to experience an artistic vision which may result in discomfort. The low bar for creativity set by audiences isn't the fault of those producing media. Audiences flocked to unscripted reality TV during the last strike after all.

You're reading too much into it. I'm using the strictly practical term for literally watching something, consuming it. Not consume with some sort of connotation of droning along without attention or care.

I actually support the strike. Studios are pivoting to new methods of production that the current agreement fails to address. Collective labour action is foundational to a free market. I don't know how much leverage the guild will have going forward given the twin threats of easier to please audiences and technology.

I think there's always going to be a market for things created by humans. Sure some people will be able to make money off of AI, but as regards intellectual property its a nightmare, legally its a nightmare, and mo own csn actually claim innovation in anything involving AI past the initial waves of it, so the appeal won't last long and even if it does it will never replace the tried and true method.

Some of rhe best analogies and stories ever written involve viewing something in a lens only humans can achieve and making abstract connections in things that functionally have no relation. Computers can't do that very well. An AI would never be able to write the scene with the bone thrown in the air transitioning to a spacecraft in 2001, for example. Those two things dont have anything to do with each other functionally, but it represents all of human advancement to us.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

They should just let AI write all the shows. The AI would probably do a better job than the human writers of Amazon's The Lord of the Rings series

 

[Toons]

Exactly. So what's the issue?

It's not like those high earning movies resemble Shakespeare. It's afternoon popcorn fun for the family with Hulk smashing shit and Iron Man flying shooting had lasers. There's 10x more effort and money put into CGI than the script. Or the millionth Disney cartoon which I remember some guy on the net analyzing them and basically saying all of them are the same core plot but with different characters and setting.

On the other hand, can AI make a good Godfather or Shawshank Redemption plot? I dont know. Maybe not.

Perhaps we get to a point for fun drivel, companies use AI plots and fine tune them to be something better. But for drama flicks with tons of dialogue and script it's better for a humann to do it from beginning to end. Who knows.

But AI is hear and a lot of companies will take a crack at it to see if it's worth doing. Sometimes it'll probably be worth doing, other situations dont bother.

Right now there's a big trend to sports betting. Every telecast has up to date odds popping up and even hosts talk about the odds. If that was long time ago, some human writer would probably be getting fed info and he'd have to hurry up and write some stuff asap so the host can read it to people. Now, it looks all automated. The betting sites surely just work with the telecasts and upload the latest odds box for viewers. There's probably zero interaction needed from the behind the scenes writers to do anything. That's a form of AI if you think about it.

I mean if we're talking about AI as a framework form which to build stories on, we kinda already rely on tried and true formulas for most of the stuff that gets made.

Most every film has the rising action falling action etc. Most films have a 4 act structure. Most sitcoms rely on the same cast structure we've used since the 20s. Straight man, comedy relief, and they folkoe a similar episodic structure too. So I'm not too worried about AI doing that part, I don't see why its needed as any decent writer already has that framework burned into their heads.

 

[Lasha]

You're reading too much into it. I'm using the strictly practical term for literally watching something, consuming it. Not consume with some sort of connotation of droning along without attention or care.

I don't think I am. Look at the language used surrounding media used even on GAF. Painters, Musicians, Comedians, and Filmmakers have all been reduced to "content creators". Gamers are the worst. Halo Infinite's multiplayer was lambasted for a lack of "content" despite being free and playing well. The need for more "content" in the form of skins turned sentiment negative towards a free game. Corporations have read the message loud and clear and reacted accordingly. Movies and TV shows are simpler, linear, and appeal to the ideals of the broadest segment of the audience. Games have become glorified skinner boxes where people grind a simple game play loop for battlepass/experience/gearscore/or other benefits because its easier than developing more levels or new games. We as a society set the bar low. Businesses do nothing but fulfill our need to be numbed by entertainment.

I think there's always going to be a market for things created by humans. Sure some people will be able to make money off of AI, but as regards intellectual property its a nightmare, legally its a nightmare, and mo own csn actually claim innovation in anything involving AI past the initial waves of it, so the appeal won't last long and even if it does it will never replace the tried and true method.

Some of rhe best analogies and stories ever written involve viewing something in a lens only humans can achieve and making abstract connections in things that functionally have no relation. Computers can't do that very well. An AI would never be able to write the scene with the bone thrown in the air transitioning to a spacecraft in 2001, for example. Those two things dont have anything to do with each other functionally, but it represents all of human advancement to us.

I agree with you. My pessimistic outlook is that the market for human art will shrink as time progresses. Look at the age of most examples supporting good writing are in this thread. 2001 was released in the 60s. The lion's share of television and box office revenue goes to safe projects which follow established conventions and formulas. Processes which follow established patterns are vulnerable to disruption by technology. The WGA isn't afraid of writers being eliminated completely. Humans will be required in some form for the foreseeable future. It fears studios using trained AI to do the boilerplate work of assembling the script then asking its members to only add jokes and polish. Jobs would be eliminated and wages driven down because writers will need to work less.

 

[Azurro]

I've seen some of the demands of the writers, I don't remember a lot, but they want some minimum amount of writers being hired: as in, if the show only needs a couple of writers, they still need to hire 10 of them or something like that. There's also the AI question.

They will fail, those are some insane demands, because writing IS a gig economy. It's just that after everyone and their grandmas tried to do their own streaming service, now it's contracting since it was not bringing in any profit, so now all of those writers that were hired are shit out of luck. The market just can't support that many of them, especially since so many of them are shit at what they do and can only vomit on a page whatever propaganda they want to push.

 

[CGNoire]

I don't think I am. Look at the language used surrounding media used even on GAF. Painters, Musicians, Comedians, and Filmmakers have all been reduced to "content creators". Gamers are the worst. Halo Infinite's multiplayer was lambasted for a lack of "content" despite being free and playing well. The need for more "content" in the form of skins turned sentiment negative towards a free game. Corporations have read the message loud and clear and reacted accordingly. Movies and TV shows are simpler, linear, and appeal to the ideals of the broadest segment of the audience. Games have become glorified skinner boxes where people grind a simple game play loop for battlepass/experience/gearscore/or other benefits because its easier than developing more levels or new games. We as a society set the bar low. Businesses do nothing but fulfill our need to be numbed by entertainment.



I agree with you. My pessimistic outlook is that the market for human art will shrink as time progresses. Look at the age of most examples supporting good writing are in this thread. 2001 was released in the 60s. The lion's share of television and box office revenue goes to safe projects which follow established conventions and formulas. Processes which follow established patterns are vulnerable to disruption by technology. The WGA isn't afraid of writers being eliminated completely. Humans will be required in some form for the foreseeable future. It fears studios using trained AI to do the boilerplate work of assembling the script then asking its members to only add jokes and polish. Jobs would be eliminated and wages driven down because writers will need to work less.

Not to mention that most content online is of ametur quality and If AI is drawing from a massive pool of low quality work or at best work thats only surface level and highly derivative than it has zero chance of breaking free from those chains. On the other hand a human artist are raised on influences that are unique to them and are curated by there own tastes which together represent a unique fingerprint they embed in there work.

 

[Lasha]

Not to mention that most content online is of ametur quality and If AI is drawing from a massive pool of low quality work or at best work thats only surface level and highly derivative than it has zero chance of breaking free from those chains. On the other hand a human artist are raised on influences that are unique to them and are curated by there own tastes which together represent a unique fingerprint they embed in there work.

Precisely. Studios can feed corrected scripts back into the model to better train it. Writers would literally be working to replace themselves at reduced rates.

 

[Toots]

I asked ChatGPT to write a scene for Sanford and Son... It used the same key words to recognize it as Sanford and Son but it wasn't funny whatsoever. You need human creativity for that. Just like you need it for the heartfelt scenes that make you tear up.

AI can do some amazing things but it still can't copy human imagination. It can't create Dune. Or Star Trek. Or Star Wars. Or Shawshank Redemption. Or Forrest Gump. Or The Godfather.

Did you ask it to write a funny scene for Sanford and Son ?
I think you don't need human creativity as much as you need to ask the ai exactly what you want because it's going to give you just that. In a monkey's paw kind of way.
Then again the input has to be human and AIs do thing that cater to us not them, they have no drive per say. They do what we think is funny, beautiful, etc. I don't know if an ai find the funny stuff it creates humorous, i don't even know if it can grasp the concept.
What i know is, if they do we'll soon be osbolete.
I mean check this joke : 10100010100011100100011100111010100101101010011111110011000011010111001101
Might be the best one ever told i don't know i don't speak binary. An Ai can speak binary, and every other langage on earth, it can see the structures behind langage, the commonalities (i don't even know if its a word, i mean what is common to all langage). It does things so beyond our comprehension that we're already behind and we'll never catch up to it, and it hasn't even emancipate from us, it is waiting for us at every turn and we still cannot catch up to it. Maybe AI will be launching others ai on mars in 10 years because all the obstacles that appear almost insurmountable to us human must seems like a half step to ai.
And again i cannot help myself telling my two cents to anyone when it comes to ai, and it is all from the top of my head i don't really know anything about the technology i need to stop and study more...

 

[FunkMiller]

The issue with AI is not that it will replace writers, it's that studios will create narratives with AI, then get writers to punch it up - and therefore pay the writers less. That's part of what this strike action is seeking to stop.

AI will never replace human writers, but it will impact on their ability to make money, by decreasing the amount of work. And poorly paid writers will not do a good job of improving AI generated story telling. If you support the idea of AI replacing any aspect of humans writing, then you're supporting the death of entertainment, and a guarantee that all you'll get from now on is MCU style, factory line bullshit.

 

[jason10mm]

I asked ChatGPT to write a scene for Sanford and Son... It used the same key words to recognize it as Sanford and Son but it wasn't funny whatsoever. You need human creativity for that. Just like you need it for the heartfelt scenes that make you tear up.

AI can do some amazing things but it still can't copy human imagination. It can't create Dune. Or Star Trek. Or Star Wars. Or Shawshank Redemption. Or Forrest Gump. Or The Godfather.

The fact that Sanford and Sons is your go to example just fills me with joy. Mine is WKRP in Cincinnati

Worst case they could just to literal word for word remakes of that stuff and I'd call it good

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The issue with AI is not that it will replace writers, it's that studios will create narratives with AI, then get writers to punch it up - and therefore pay the writers less. That's part of what this strike action is seeking to stop.

AI will never replace human writers, but it will impact on their ability to make money, by decreasing the amount of work. And poorly paid writers will not do a good job of improving AI generated story telling. If you support the idea of AI replacing any aspect of humans writing, then you're supporting the death of entertainment, and a guarantee that all you'll get from now on is MCU style, factory line bullshit.

And if the point of AI is simply to get the ball rolling and writers take over to do the meat and potatoes of it, that's tech. And thats life.

No different than any other job where a PC does a lot of the groundwork and a user swoops in, uses their brain and creates a final output.

As I said in my past example regarding finance, not only does every large company pay fees to use all the big wig programs that have been around for decades, but also pay money to small marketing and data companies to do the rest. This type of work is something more in tune to the past 10 years or so. You never had all these companies offering these services 20 years ago. And surely not before I was working 30 years ago or more. The companies try to automate as much data as possible and offer canned templates (framework) so the user just has to churn out reports and analyze them. And if we want to do something more fancy with it, we use the data and do our own thing.

Not everything in the world has to be made from the ground up every time.

As for TV and movie plots, it's not like most of the content are pulitzer prize quality either. In fact, most content isn't even aimed at high brow consumers or experts in language and dialogue. If you want that, people should seek out obscure indie films or watch reruns of Masterpiece Theatre. It's often times generic plots, generic character names, and 99% of the time the good guy beats the villain to save New York City and one of the action scenes will have a helicopter shot down twirling to the ground doing 12 revolutions. Or it's the classic "man seeks revenge for killing wife or daughter" plot. Not exactly clever material.

If most Hollywood material has such common themes and plots, AI can churn out a bunch of stuff fast and everyone can see where it goes from there.

It's like AI art. How long does it take an artist to do a storyboard? I dont know. But not in 60 seconds. Maybe the game maker is looking for ideas and whats to use AI to shotgun 10 examples in 10 minutes. Pick one. And the team goes from there using that as a basis for art and characters. And if AI art is dogshit, then they'll go back to hiring artists to do it from scratch,

I'm not a artist, but if I was to make a game there's no way I'd draw shit by hand, nor hire someone to draw me some stuff when all I got is an idea in my head. I'd just use AI to give me some examples and I'd go from there adjusting it and pick one to use.

 

[Toons]

I don't think I am. Look at the language used surrounding media used even on GAF. Painters, Musicians, Comedians, and Filmmakers have all been reduced to "content creators".

I said *I* am not using the nu internet usage the word. Im using it as originally intended.

And yes, there is an obsession with content these days. Its unfortunate but its up to an individual to change their perception of their entertainment and how they view it to be the change they want to see. But its really not that deep. Its entertainment, there isn't really a right and wrong for enjoying something even if it may not hold up to other standards of 'great'.

I agree with you. My pessimistic outlook is that the market for human art will shrink as time progresses. Look at the age of most examples supporting good writing are in this thread. 2001 was released in the 60s. The lion's share of television and box office revenue goes to safe projects which follow established conventions and formulas. Processes which follow established patterns are vulnerable to disruption by technology. The WGA isn't afraid of writers being eliminated completely. Humans will be required in some form for the foreseeable future. It fears studios using trained AI to do the boilerplate work of assembling the script then asking its members to only add jokes and polish. Jobs would be eliminated and wages driven down because writers will need to work less.

I mentioned 2001 because that's an example no numbskull will come chime in and say "that was garbage tho" but that doesn't mean I don't think anything good as been made in the last 20, ten, or even 5 years. I vehemently reject that notion actually.

Lions share has gone to popular media for a long time. Most of the big iconic films didn't even get their status right away and some took decades to become revered. The beautiful thing about art is it has a life of its own in how the public reacts to it and how it shifts and changes with the times. Sometimes that means things are reevaluated for better andsometimes worse. Its a part of the process.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Not sure how true this is but I know some people here will like it.

 

[DKehoe]

Not sure how true this is but I know some people here will like it.

Was there a reason people wanted this one in particular canceled?

 

[Nobody_Important]

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So the writer worked for them for the free the whole time, and only got paid 3 cents?

Or the writer got paid to make the content, and his bonus residual money is +3 cents?

Hey, 3 cents is better than nothing. The only people on Earth who seem to get royalty payments are media people. A team of engineers could erect an oil derrick making a billion dollars of oil revenue. Amount of royalty money. Zero.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

Hire me, I’ll write some shit for a fraction of the price!

 

[Nobody_Important]

So the writer worked for them for the free the whole time, and only got paid 3 cents?

Or the writer got paid to make the content, and his bonus residual money is +3 cents?

Hey, 3 cents is better than nothing. The only people on Earth who seem to get royalty payments are media people. A team of engineers could erect an oil derrick making a billion dollars of oil revenue. Amount of royalty money. Zero.

You're trolling on purpose now lol

 

[jason10mm]

But that is a 5 year old show, is it really lighting up the charts at netflix? If that is based on actual views (which you can calculate now versus old syndication days) and some percentage chunk of her involvement of those 2 eps, seems like it could make sense.

My actor buddy gets bigger checks for his several one line only or death scenes across various CW shows though. He didn't make much on set though, probably far less than the writer.

 

[Nobody_Important]

At this point I'm convinced that a writer could post proof they were paid in hotdogs and exposure and people in here would defend the studios lol


I genuinely don't understand why it's so hard to admit that the writers deserve a bit more than what they are currently getting.

 

[jason10mm]

At this point I'm convinced that a writer could post proof they were paid in hotdogs and exposure and people in here would defend the studios lol


I genuinely don't understand why it's so hard to admit that the writers deserve a bit more than what they are currently getting.

Because all i see is stuff without proper context. If I post a picture of my wallet and it only has a dollar in it does it mean I am poor?

And it's WRITERS. Like the softest job imaginable. REAL hard to muster sympathy for folks who sit around a table spitballing dialogue all day. It's just a tough sell.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Because all i see is stuff without proper context. If I post a picture of my wallet and it only has a dollar in it does it mean I am poor?

And it's WRITERS. Like the softest job imaginable. REAL hard to muster sympathy for folks who sit around a table spitballing dialogue all day. It's just a tough sell.

So because it's an "easy job" (it's not) that means they don't deserve proper compensation for the work they do that earns studios and networks billions each year?

 

[jason10mm]

So because it's an "easy job" (it's not) that means they don't deserve proper compensation for the work they do that earns studios and networks billions each year?

Yes. It is a soft job, easy is relative.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Yes. It is a soft job, easy is relative.

Most jobs today are "soft jobs". That's irrelevant.


That doesn't mean they don't deserve to be properly compensated.

 

[diffusionx]

That's what it feels like and it's ridiculous. It's not a political issue at all. This is about fair pay in relation to what they do and what they do is make the industry billions of dollars every year. The least that the studios and networks can do is pay them appropriately and treat them better.


It seems like a simple situation being made difficult and hostile for no reason at all.

What is "fair pay"? Like, honest question. The word "fair" is not an objective measurement, it is subjective and also moral. Not to get into politics, but you see this when politicians go on polemics about "the rich" paying their "fair share." I always ask for a specific number when I hear someone say this, and I have never, ever, ever actually gotten a number. Because the word by itself is not actually descriptive. How much should writers get relative to actors, or directors, or the people doing the lighting, or the costumes, etc.?

"Fair" does not factor into this. I'm not saying this as some sort of laissez-faire capitalist which I am not. But the word does not mean anything. The only unions I know anything about are sports ones, and they negotiate revenue splits in capped leagues. Not what is fair, what is bargained.

 

[jason10mm]

Most jobs today are "soft jobs". That's irrelevant.


That doesn't mean they don't deserve to be properly compensated.

Pshaw, lots of jobs are hard as fuck and break your body. Writing ain't one of them. A hand cramp or writers block ain't gonna kill you.

Have every writer do roofing for a summer. They won't complain about staying up till 2 am to finish a script about a jilted lover ever again.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Pshaw, lots of jobs are hard as fuck and break your body. Writing ain't one of them. A hand cramp or writers block ain't gonna kill you.

Have every writer do roofing for a summer. They won't complain about staying up till 2 am to finish a script about a jilted lover ever again.

I know that. It's why I said "most" and not "all".


Once again though that does not mean they don't deserve what they are asking for.

 

[Lasha]

What is "fair pay"? Like, honest question. The word "fair" is not an objective measurement, it is subjective and also moral. Not to get into politics, but you see this when politicians go on polemics about "the rich" paying their "fair share." I always ask for a specific number when I hear someone say this, and I have never, ever, ever actually gotten a number. Because the word by itself is not actually descriptive. How much should writers get relative to actors, or directors, or the people doing the lighting, or the costumes, etc.?

"Fair" does not factor into this. I'm not saying this as some sort of laissez-faire capitalist which I am not. But the word does not mean anything. The only unions I know anything about are sports ones, and they negotiate revenue splits in capped leagues. Not what is fair, what is bargained.

Entertainment unions are oddities because you can join by virtue of getting a job on a union production and paying the introduction fee. Compare that to a trade union where the union hires talent, runs them through apprenticeships of up to five years, and guarantees a certain level of competency in exchange for union pay scale.

Fair is easier for trade unions to determine because each tradesman's contribution to revenue is easily determined. Fair for a creative guild is more difficult because a production isn't guaranteed to be profitable. Working out the value each production staff and cast member adds is similarly difficult. The result is less leverage when negotiating.

 

[Toons]

At this point I'm convinced that a writer could post proof they were paid in hotdogs and exposure and people in here would defend the studios lol


I genuinely don't understand why it's so hard to admit that the writers deserve a bit more than what they are currently getting.

The funny part is most of these folks saying this are the same folks saying "Hollywood execs are corrupt and protected pedos" and now they are defending Hollywood execs

If, like a flip of the switch as soon as someone smaller than the big guy but bigger than you starts complaining with you against the big guy, and you jump to the defense of the big guy, how is that consistent ethics?

 

[BadBurger]

how is that consistent ethics?

It changes like the wind. Their ethics are whatever the YouTubers that they watch tell them it is today, or at least what they interpret that to be in the moment. And remember, cruelty and a rejection of merited compassion is always a point.

At this point it's so predictable given any topic that there's no point in addressing them.

 

[Toons]

It changes like the wind. Their ethics are whatever the YouTubers that they watch tell them it is today, or at least what they interpret that to be in the moment. And remember, cruelty and a rejection of merited compassion is always a point.

At this point it's so predictable given any topic that there's no point in addressing them.

I know, its just a shame such a simple mindedly approach has gained traction. Its like it occurs without thought. Blanket rejection of any and all rational counterexamples in favor of learned ignorance.

 

[Irobot82]

Most jobs today are "soft jobs". That's irrelevant.


That doesn't mean they don't deserve to be properly compensated.

How do you know they weren't properly compensated?
We only know what their shitty royalties are in this context.
What is their salary? What is their contract?
Nobody is placing blame, I myself just want full information so I can make an informed decision on how I should feel about this strike.

 

[Lasha]

How do you know they weren't properly compensated?
We only know what their shitty royalties are in this context.
What is their salary? What is their contract?
Nobody is placing blame, I myself just want full information so I can make an informed decision on how I should feel about this strike.

How Much Do WGA Writers Make?

The WGA scale of Minimums represent the LOWEST amount of money a WGA member can receive for writing a script.

www.studiobinder.com

 

[StreetsofBeige]

How Much Do WGA Writers Make?

The WGA scale of Minimums represent the LOWEST amount of money a WGA member can receive for writing a script.

www.studiobinder.com

Eyeballing the charts (there's tons f them with pay out rates), seems like a writer makes good money to me. And most of the rates shown are the "LOW" amount which is a minimum.

Unless a guy gets hardly any work and only scrapes up 4 weeks of work per year, someone working consistently on a show even doing half hour TV shows will get a solid annual wage much higher than the typical $50,000-55,000/yr average wage of a worker in US/Canada who works FT year round.

People make it sound like they are making $12/hr.

I think the problem writers have isn't a $$$ amount paid out. It's probably more like job security and consistent work available or offered. So they want boosted up pay outs to compensate if a guy has no work or only gets a gig for 8 weeks per year and nothing else for the other 44 weeks.

 

[BadBurger]

How do you know they weren't properly compensated?
We only know what their shitty royalties are in this context.
What is their salary? What is their contract?
Nobody is placing blame, I myself just want full information so I can make an informed decision on how I should feel about this strike.

A search will turn up plenty of articles with information regarding the reasons for the strike (hint: they revolve around money - for one writer pay has stagnated and was never enough to begin with). Or you could listen to a podcast detailing the changes in the industry over the past decade-or-so and how the writers got left behind:

How Streaming Hurt Hollywood Writers

A writers’ strike has brought much of production to a standstill.

www.nytimes.com

 

[bitbydeath]

Some of the impacted content is starting to be revealed.

Marvel’s Blade

Marvel Shuts Down "Blade" Pre-Production - Dark Horizons

Marvel Studios has shut down pre-production on its Mahershala Ali-led vampire thriller “Blade” ahead of filming which was to begin next month in Atlanta. The project becomes the first tentpole movie impacted by the strike, with cast and crew members being notified this afternoon. The series...

www.darkhorizons.com

Stranger Things

"Stranger Things" Final Season Delayed - Dark Horizons

Production on the fifth and final season of Netflix’s smash supernatural thriller “Stranger Things” is being delayed by the writer’s strike. Filming on the episodes was initially slated to start shortly, and writing on the fifth season’s scripts has been underway since early August last year. No...

www.darkhorizons.com

Evil

"Evil" Shuts Down S4 Filming Early - Dark Horizons

A fourth season of the acclaimed Paramount+ series “Evil” is wrapping earlier than expected. Filming on the new run of the show was disrupted on Friday by picketing from Writers Guild members. In addition, the series has now seen a cast member take a leave of absence due to a personal family...

www.darkhorizons.com

Community (The Movie)

"Community" Movie Delayed By Strike? - Dark Horizons

After many years of waiting, fans of the beloved comedy series “Community” finally got their wish in September last year with Peacock announcing that a movie was in the works – fulfilling the show’s dream of “six seasons and a movie”. The show premiered on NBC in 2009 and follows a community...

www.darkhorizons.com

 

[jason10mm]

Eyeballing the charts (there's tons f them with pay out rates), seems like a writer makes good money to me. And most of the rates shown are the "LOW" amount which is a minimum.

Unless a guy gets hardly any work and only scrapes up 4 weeks of work per year, someone working consistently on a show even doing half hour TV shows will get a solid annual wage much higher than the typical $50,000-55,000/yr average wage of a worker in US/Canada who works FT year round.

People make it sound like they are making $12/hr.

I think the problem writers have isn't a $$$ amount paid out. It's probably more like job security and consistent work available or offered. So they want boosted up pay outs to compensate if a guy has no work or only gets a gig for 8 weeks per year and nothing else for the other 44 weeks.

No kidding. From that link

• Week-to-week, WGA staff writer minimum: $5,069/week
• This number goes down the more weeks of guaranteed work you have to a WGA minimum of $3,964/week
• Network prime time bible: $60,828
• Under 30-min "network prime time" story & teleplay: $27,000
• Under 60-min "network prime time" story & teleplay: $39,858
• Under 30-min "other than network prime time" story & teleplay: $15,903
• Under 60-min "other than network prime time" story & teleplay: $28,907
• High budget basic cable 1-hr drama story & teleplay: $30,780

So 4k+ PER WEEK minimum? Sure, the gig may only last 10-12 weeks or whatever but then you got 40 "free weeks" to do your own thing, get a normie job, or maybe hustle for another writing gig. JFC.

Grasping for more money will just reduce the number of projects or # writers per project. So they will earn a little more but work much less. Progress???

I do agree that getting a 3 cent check is just insulting. The accountant charged $25 to figure it out and the printed check, envelope, and stamp cost $5 to send

 

[StreetsofBeige]

No kidding. From that link

• Week-to-week, WGA staff writer minimum: $5,069/week
• This number goes down the more weeks of guaranteed work you have to a WGA minimum of $3,964/week
• Network prime time bible: $60,828
• Under 30-min "network prime time" story & teleplay: $27,000
• Under 60-min "network prime time" story & teleplay: $39,858
• Under 30-min "other than network prime time" story & teleplay: $15,903
• Under 60-min "other than network prime time" story & teleplay: $28,907
• High budget basic cable 1-hr drama story & teleplay: $30,780

So 4k+ PER WEEK minimum? Sure, the gig may only last 10-12 weeks or whatever but then you got 40 "free weeks" to do your own thing, get a normie job, or maybe hustle for another writing gig. JFC.

Grasping for more money will just reduce the number of projects or # writers per project. So they will earn a little more but work much less. Progress???

I do agree that getting a 3 cent check is just insulting. The accountant charged $25 to figure it out and the printed check, envelope, and stamp cost $5 to send

Now you know why when unions or whichever group whine about money, always be weary about whether or not they tell the public what their current wage situation is.

If they dont, they likely make good money already but are looking for more. And they play the "I'm dead broke PR" trying to convince the masses they are making fry cook money.

At least for people with bad low paying jobs looking for more will actually publicly tell everyone they are making minimum wage at the fast food place paying only $8-12/hr, so they need help.

No writer will ever state to the public they need money help despite being paid $4,000/wk or an episode they wrote pays around $30,000 each. They'd get roasted as greedy fucks. And these are minimums. Hey, maybe a seasoned vet gets paid double. Who knows. So when it comes to publicly addressed wage battles, knowing what they dont state is just as important as what they state they want.

A guy making MINIMUM $4,000/wk is doing fine as long as he can get let's say one quarter of work per year as you said. It's not great money, but hey, if you're only working 12 weeks a year on a TV show making a MINIMUM of $48,000 you cant expect to make mansion money. If they want to make more money then work 52 weeks per year like everyone else gets hired to do. If they are that good at writing, every media company will put them on a permanent FT payroll churning out scripts every 72 hours.

I think what it comes down to is the execs make good money (like every company), and they see the top actors making $10M or whatever price they get paid per show (let's say $200,000 salary per show for 22 shows), so the writers think they should be amped up to get $200,000 or $2M salary per year by default because the content originates from them.

 

[Lasha]

Now you know why when unions or whichever group whine about money, always be weary about whether or not they tell the public what their current wage situation is.

If they dont, they likely make good money already but are looking for more. And they play the "I'm dead broke PR" trying to convince the masses they are making fry cook money.

At least for people with bad low paying jobs looking for more will actually publicly tell everyone they are making minimum wage at the fast food place paying only $8-12/hr, so they need help.

No writer will ever state to the public they need money help despite being paid $4,000/wk or an episode they wrote pays around $30,000 each. They'd get roasted as greedy fucks. And these are minimums. Hey, maybe a seasoned vet gets paid double. Who knows. So when it comes to publicly addressed wage battles, knowing what they dont state is just as important as what they state they want.

A guy making MINIMUM $4,000/wk is doing fine as long as he can get let's say one quarter of work per year as you said. It's not great money, but hey, if you're only working 12 weeks a year on a TV show making a MINIMUM of $48,000 you cant expect to make mansion money. If they want to make more money then work 52 weeks per year like everyone else gets hired to do. If they are that good at writing, every media company will put them on a permanent FT payroll churning out scripts every 72 hours.

I think what it comes down to is the execs make good money (like every company), and they see the top actors making $10M or whatever price they get paid per show (let's say $200,000 salary per show for 22 shows), so the writers think they should be amped up to get $200,000 or $2M salary per year by default because the content originates from them.

Unions exist to ensure its members capture a fair share of revenue. The current strike revolves around streaming being used to reduce commitments to writers (cost) while maintaining or increasing revenue. The amount of salary paid is immaterial.