You're deluded if you think AI is going to help the smaller studios and not be abused by the big ones.
-
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.
WGA turns down $11,000 per week.
- Thread starter Torrent of Pork
- Start date
- Status
DKehoe
Gold Member
How am I showing my colours? You're the one who brought up gender identity by saying you think they hate your gender. You made it about your identity being victimised. So are you of a certain persuasion? Or does it not count when you do it, just when others do?
Becuase saying that every single writer is incapable of producing anything but propaganda and thinking they should all be fired is extreme. There's more than ten thousand people in the WGA. As I said previously you don't know anything about the vast majority of them. But because you're playing the victim, as being into identity politics leads to, you're constructing a large group of people who are out to get you for who you are. They all hate your gender as well as normality and reality. It doesn't matter that you can't point to anything specific about the vast, vast majority of them. They're guilty by association and so they should lose their careers.
So does the new Snow White film pose a bigger moral threat to society than The Little Mermaid did? How would you rate the threat of each on a scale of 1 to 10? Exactly how many more Disney live action remakes would you estimate we can take before society crumbles around us? How would you compare the threat films like those pose to society compared to other risks that aren't culture war related, how does it rank? Please answer these. I'm not asking them rhetorically.
The side you're on, where you're calling people diseased and saying thousands of people should lose their jobs because of guilt by association, is that the constructive side or the destructive side?
Where are you getting that I support this propaganda? You're taking this "if you're not with me then you're against me" attitude and that everyone has to be on a side on this. I think the whole thing is overblown nonsense. Do films and TV shows sometimes get a bit heavy handed with that stuff? Sure. But I don't think it's a threat to society and I don't think there's some grand conspiracy made up of an entire industry (and beyond) that are all in on the plot.
So if he decides to no longer reply then it's because he's triggered and has gone to a safe space. But if you decide to no longer reply then you are disengaging. Is that because he's diseased and you are very, very, very, very, very unbiased?
Also, my small group of people on GAF? So now it's not only the entire film and TV industry who are part of a conspiracy but there's some cabal here on GAF that I'm part of where we're out to control the narrative? Just to check, are we part of the same one as the film & tv industry or is this a separate group that's out to get you? It's getting a bit hard to keep track of all of this. Is it not just possible that people can have different opinions than you without them plotting about it? Are you part of any groups like that or is it just people on "the other side?"
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
Oh, no one sane would argue that there’s not a cross section of the Hollywood creative community that needs firing right now. They’re awful. Creatively bankrupt idiots who wouldn’t have got any work, were it not for agendas and politics pushed by studio executives. Kathleen Kennedy is the prime example of the people actually responsible for the trash we’ve been getting. Jennifer Salke also. Bob Iger. Ted Sarandos. Etc.
As I keep saying, it’s the executives who are to blame. Not writers or actors.
The same executives that these strikes are going after, which is why I support the strikes 100%.
Anyone who is sat there going “Hollywood is terrible now because of the writers and actors” sounds crazy to me - and shows that they know nothing about the entertainment industry.
It’s like blaming the actual devs for all the problems with the video games industry.
But culture war politics trumps common sense every time for some people - who really need to get out more.
MisterFalcon
Member
I love how people, if asked to years ago to list their 1000 favourite movies would never have Snow White (1937) on it, now consider it a huge loss to their life to see a new version they don't like.
Try looking for things to like instead of things to hate.
Try looking for things to like instead of things to hate.
DKehoe
Gold Member
I thought The Banshees of Inisherin was funny. It gets dark too but it handles the balance well. Worth checking out if you haven’t seen it.
JokerMM
Gay porn is where it's at.
oh hey that actually looks decent. british comedy just hits different
Last edited:
DKehoe
Gold Member
Hope you enjoy it! Like I said it gets a bit dark so just be aware of that when you’re sitting down to watch it. But I really enjoyed it.
*shakes head in Blade Runner 2049*
FunkMiller
Member
For me: The Lighthouse / Top Gun Maverick / 1917 / The Sound Of Metal / EEAAO / Get Out / Dunkirk / Logan /War For Planet Of The Apes / Avengers Infinity War & Endgame / The Batman
There's no doubt more, but I'd have to think about it a bit harder.
Thing is, there are still lots of great movies being made, but you have to look past the blockbusters and overblown tentpole movies for most of them.
Last edited:
Laptop1991
Member
Most of them can't write for toffee anyway, that's why the public don't seem to care, i don't , i'm not missing anything as their writing has ruined all the good ip's, and they want more money for doing it!.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Name a funny movie and I'll try and name something similar.
Ishma3L
Member
Maybe I don't understand, the answer is to pay people more to compensate for the times they are not working because that's the nature of their chosen career? "Honing skills, developing ideas, and negotiating" is necessary for anyone in any career to land lucrative roles. You don't just pay people for using their personal time for self improvement. That's a slippery slope.
$11K is ridiculous for the time they are actually on the clock.
Avocado toast, beachside yoga, and therapists are expensive but CRUCIAL for the creative process, that 11k/wk won't go far.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
How long has the strike been going on for? A month? Good thing I focus on watchig sports. No effect to me.
For you TV show watchers, has the content been affected yet? Or are channels are still showing new episodes of shows they already have saved up?
For you TV show watchers, has the content been affected yet? Or are channels are still showing new episodes of shows they already have saved up?
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Nvm
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Considering it would all add up to about 100k a year, minus the percentage their agents, managers and lawyers take out (not a set amount... And they need those people to get them work and negotiate contracts)... Not to mention the ridiculous economy in California where you would need to make at least 500k to be considered middle class ... It really isn't a lot. That's even just living within your means... The vast majority of writers are regular people... They're not all trying to live the high life. Just do something they love.
About 3 months now. We won't see the effects of it til late this year or early next.
Soltype
Member
So studio execs actually come up with the ideas? I don't know how all this works I always assumed writers would come up with things pitch them and get them approved.
Please tell me you are not suggesting that every writer working on a ten episode tv show per year should get at least half a mill? And every actor on that show. Every carpenter. Every audio engineer. Every cameraman. Etc etc. Just how many middle class jobs should 1 10 ep show per year support?
BlackTron
Member
Hey my late Grandpa became a fan of animation the first time he saw Snow White.
You make a valid point but it's never good to see a classic massacred. Imagine if they rebooted Toy Story in the worst way possible in 40 years and some kid was like "who cares its old"
simpatico
Member
We've already seen some pretty cool AI trailers. Extrapolate the tech a few years and there's no reason someone couldn't make a pretty nice movie on a tiny fraction of the budget that is used now. What would be abused by the big studios? Writers and actors? If that's the case, I'm rooting for AI.
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
I think the point is... The original is still there... You can still see it.
But no one has made a thread or post about Snow White, the original, like has been done for Godfather or other classic movies. It's only when THIS movie was announced and the cast and production stills were released and lead actress said what she said did anyone start saying "this is shit! This is taking a dump on my whole childhood!"
Instead of realizing it's just another adaptation... No adaptation is, or even needs to be, 100% faithful to the original work. Even the Disney Snow White isn't 100% faithful to the original story. Liberties can and should be taken... But the originals are still there if you want to peruse them instead, both the animated movie and the original story.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
You're rooting for people to not have jobs because you disagree with their current work? Or their ideologies?
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
That's basically how much you need to make to be middle class in California. This isn't the Midwest where middle class starts at like 80k. What is a good living, say in Mississippi, is barely covering your rent or mortgage in California. Same for NYC
simpatico
Member
They're actors and writers. A bit of a stretch to call those jobs don't you think? They could always learn to weld or do HVAC.
funkygunther
Banned
The horror. Can you imagine? I can’t. I just hope it never comes to that.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Ok, how about we burn all the copies of Godfather and Blade Runner and other classics and not have any more movies or shows going forward? You can't even watch anything from the past... Since you think what they do has no value.
-Minsc-
Member
At first glance, $11,000 a week does seem like a lot of money.
There is this comment in the thread:
Fair enough. How much of a cut do managers, lawyers, etc. take? When not getting actively paid, what amount of work are they actually doing the pertains to their career? How many one week installments are they paid per year? What is the cost of living where they live? When not actively working on a project, do they have no time to take on a part time job elsewhere to bring in an income?
I'm not a writer so I have no real idea what their day to day life entails.
There is this comment in the thread:
Fair enough. How much of a cut do managers, lawyers, etc. take? When not getting actively paid, what amount of work are they actually doing the pertains to their career? How many one week installments are they paid per year? What is the cost of living where they live? When not actively working on a project, do they have no time to take on a part time job elsewhere to bring in an income?
I'm not a writer so I have no real idea what their day to day life entails.
BlackTron
Member
I think it just gets under people's skin because it's Disney and presented as some sort of quality-stamped thing. It's not some dollar store version of a fairy tale. It's Disney!! Still, it's a good point.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
For any given production, each "regular cast and crew" person involved in that production should be compensated at a reasonable level that is proportional to both their involvement in the production and the success of the production. For example, a "regular" writer or actor should be rewarded more if they play a major part in the production and the production also goes on to be very successful. At the other end of the spectrum, if a person has only a minor role in the production, and/or the production fails to be successful, then they will of course be compensated less, but at least get a minimum amount that properly reflects the amount of time and effort they put into the project. Independent (keyword "independent") temporary contract workers who work on the production should be paid whatever they invoiced the production in a timely manner.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
FunkMiller
Member
They don’t so much come up with them, rather pick and choose from the countless scripts, pitches and concepts they get sent.
But it’s very definitely the executives that decide what kind of content is made. A typical conversation would go:
”We have to target the TikTok generation. What do we have that would appeal to them?”
It's never about what individual ideas are, it’s about what can be sold to an audience - and all execs are obsessed with capturing the younger market.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
First off, many screen writers do indeed have supplementary jobs, given how low their income can be.
The big problem these days is that tv shows have far shorter runs than they used to. A writer could earn a decent living from a 20+ episode a year broadcast show in the past, but these days with streaming it's all eight to twelve episodes at most. And if you're tied up with one show, you can't pitch for others, and have to wait usually months for something else to come along. Rare for a screenwriter to be employed constantly. It's all in fits and starts, with long layovers in between. That's the way the business has always operated. Same goes for actors and below the line people.
Agents and managers take 15% minimum gross. Can go as high as 20%, depending on contracts - foreign work usually has a higher percentage taken, for instance.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I just watched Cocaine Bear and slightly chuckled a few times.
Thats a lot of words but no numbers. How long should a set designer, key grip, camera operator, costumer, make-up person, script coordinator, extra, writer, actor with lines, etc have to work in order to make a solid 250K paycheck (just to temter that half mill DT wants). 10 weeks? 6 weeks? Half a year? The ENTIRE year? Just because a film COSTS a lot doesn't mean they can afford to pay everyone 3x more. The set construction guy is working just as hard on a PBS show as he is on a MCU headliner or Paramount Mission Impossible film. The writers, presumably, are WRITING just as hard, regardless of the total budget. So if we create this $$$ floor where ANY single project MUST pay for a workers ENTIRE ANNUAL COST OF LIVING, then there goes any kind of budget or indie project.
Again, my position is if writing projects are shorter, and writers are writing fewer episodes on each project, then they are WORKING LESS and need to GET MORE PROJECTS. Expecting shorter shows to somehow just "pay more" is silly and naive. Now how do writers get more projects? Gatekeep the NUMBER of writers for starters. TEN THOUSAND writers? GTFO, how is ANY industry supposed to support TEN THOUSAND WRITERS when there are only a few thousand TOTAL projects a year? Either you MUST accept that most writers can't support themselves solely on hollywood writing gigs or you must accept that 80% of writers just gotta go so the 20% left can work more consistently. The hard economic math simply can't support any other option at this time. And if syndication as a backend paycheck has gone away, well, welcome to EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY. No one keeps paying me because I did a job 5 years ago and they are still using the output from it. Syndication was paid for by AD dollars, it wasn't some charity from the distribution studio. Those ad dollars are GONE, everyone in the industry is feeling that pinch. Maybe writers should write facebook and Instragram copy to supplement their income because thats where the ad money went.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That was intentional. I'm trying to see which first principles we can agree on.
Showrunners, lead actors, film directors...those folks are CRITICAL to a projects success and every single one of them is highly compensated for their work. Even the most monir player in a film is pretty well compensated, FOR THE ACTUAL TIME SPENT. My buddy the actor will make NINE THOUSAND A WEEK as an extra with a few lines that are almost always cut in the final edit. Buuuuuuut, he only gets a few gigs a year, so he has a "day job". I see no POSSIBLE WAY for him to live solely off his acting unless A. he WORKS MORE, or B. he GETS A SERIES REGULAR GIG (which is kinda his goal, land a role as the third string cop in a police drama that runs 20 years). There is no other way, really. He makes his own stuff though, so he is now writing, directing, producing, acting, and editing. He's got hustle. This is the way.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
My only question was "does that seem reasonable to you?". If it is, say "yes". If it's not, say "no", and point out which areas are not reasonable.
And I've answered it thoroughly, twice. But just to be crystal clear
Each "regular cast and crew" person involved in that production should be compensated at a reasonable level that is proportional to both their involvement in the production and the success of the production
YES compensation should be based on level of involvement and NO, the "success" of a project should have no beating on compensation, unless written in their contract.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
No you didn't. I asked for your thoughts on general principles, and you answered in specific and irrelevant cases that apply parameters and qualifiers that I did not ask for. Just because you used a lot of words does not mean that it's thorough if it misses the point.
Cool
Does that mean you think the model of residuals is a mistake and shouldn't have been used? Is the business of copyright license fees a mistake?
What is this qualifier for? It's useless because it can apply to anything. Anything is fine if both parties agree to it in a contract. I can argue for my trailer to always have a Check E Cheese's ball pit in it all times if it's in my contract. Of course you want it written in your contract. That's what this whole issue is about - for workers to have a fair contract that compensates them fairly for the value they create.
Good grief, i get that you are trying to build some sort of logic trap here but sheesh, its a gaming forum, just spit out your point and move on.
My point is OBVIOUS. If your contract says "and i get 1% of gross profit from theatrical run" then yes, the SUCCESS (if profit is the measure of success") is tied to compensation. But, in general, I feel that NO, whether or not a project ultimately generates profit should have little to no bearing on compensation for the workers of that project. The guy building sets gets his paycheck whether the film ever gets released or not. I feel virtually all workers on a project should be treated in a similar fashion by default.
Movies, ultimately, are a high risk, high reward business where one runaway success floats dozens of middling to abject financial failures. BARBIE is carrying a dozen WB failures right now. And depending on who actually financed the film and how it was distributed, the company that actually paid to make it may have sold it for just a fraction of what it ultimately made theatrically while the distributor makes bank. Movies are a complex web of nefarious financials so if you can't handle nuance, deal with things in context, and consider SPECIFICS as a means of discussing generalities, this conversation isn't going to progress very far.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I'm not trying to build a logic trap, whatever that is. If you spend all of your mental energy trying to avoid some kind of trap that I'm not making, you're wasting your time. Just answer honestly so that I know which basic principles we agree on and which basic principles we don't agree on, and why.
Not as obvious as you think. The only thing that's obvious about "it's fine if it's in the contract" is that you and I both agree that the principle of sticking to a mutually agreed upon contract is a good thing. Cool. That's not what the discussion is about, nor is it what I asked you about. I asked you if you think the residual system of compensation as it has historically existed for TV/movies as well as the system of licensing copyrighted works of creative art like books and music is a mistake.
Again, you are talking about something I didn't ask you about.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Illuminating. I like Nathan too but I wish he was a little nicer IRL.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Just because there hasn't been a movie you have enjoyed doesn't mean there haven't been any good movies.
If you haven't seen what you consider to be a good movie in 7 years you either haven't seen enough movies or you just have really bizarre or picky taste.
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
With so many people here who know how to put together better stories and write better scripts than people who've risen to the top of the creative industries, one must wonder why they're not strolling over to the movie studios with their latest script, dazzling execs and cashing those cheques. They're choosing instead to work a job that doesn't earn them $11k a week. What a peculiar decision.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Illogical. Just because Person A sucks at their job doesn't automatically mean that Person B is going to be better at it.
TaylorSwiftFan
Member
At some point, you just cannot do a worse job.
Toons
Member
Everything you say here is spot on.
A bad movie is not a sign of frigfin society collapsing.
Hollywood is not a cabal trying to reshape the landscape of America.
They are corporations trying to make money. Any way they can. There is nothing they won't push or show if they don't think they can make a few bucks from it.
BlueAlpaca
Member
I'm personally not rooting for them to lose their jobs, but it's hard to care for the sort of people that tried to starve somebody for not baking their cake.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked