After the Rally: Whedon, Paglia and Kutner at Pandemonium Books

I like some good old-fashioned capitalist greed with my protests.

Way to represent the store there, chum.

Holy disproportionate response, batman!

I'm sick, I'd already deleted it before the responses showed up, and the first response, a minute earlier, in the Pandemonium Books community had been basically, 'I don't care.'

I did something that Pandemonium will see almost no profit off, since most people will bring stuff they've had for years, and we're offering materiel for people to make their own signs, and for this, the response is to call it capitalist greed. Which was the same response that I got to the last post I made here letting people know about something neat that was happening.

I really do want to know what's wrong with people that they feel the very first response should be to harsh on the squee. It's amazingly bitter, even for b0st0n.

The bottom of your post is an ad for your store.

I obviously didn't see the comment, but in light of what the store's been through in the past two years, I'd say the bile was probably deserved. Pandemonium is a great store with really good staff. I'm not even a regular and I've never had a clerk be surly to me or brush me off even when I was asking an obvious question.

it was pissy (I'm sick, and sick enough that yesterday I sent mail out to my roommates warning them of my impending crankiness), and I deleted it shortly (it would have been faster, but a friend showed up with a box of ThroatCoat tea for me). We're a tiny little store, owned and staffed by fans and gamers, and this bitter assumption after I spent the week working on this because I thought it would be unbelievably cool for local people to meet these writers did put me over the edge. I foolishly let the snarker troll me.

Let me guess, you think there's some sort of prize for being the first to snark a post?

Let's see... a local bookstore (non-chain) is offering support to a protest rally for writers to get a fair deal from the corporations, providing materials for signage, and giving customers a special discount for coming out and supporting the writers issues in the rally and you think that's some kind of capitalistic greed?

There's no logic to that Lass... you've snarked up the wrong tree.

I'd love to go and I think its great. But I have school. I wish it was at a better time.

Ack! I can't go. And just to make things better/worse, I work at Kendall.

Either way, you guys will be getting my money this week, I need my PS238 fix. Unless you got boned on the shipment again.

Isn't this similar to pro athletes striking? A bunch of people who have sweet jobs that could be filled in a heartbeat, albeit with lesser talent, are complaining because they don't make even more money than they make now? Now these guys with "Network" jobs are asking for Joe Blow to skip out on their minimum wage jobs to support them or they will withhold the one of the few things that make our pitiful lives worth living. I'll pass, thanks.

Good. More room in our small store. People who don't show up are just making it easier for the people who realize it's not about depriving them of their couch potato hours! :-)

To give you an idea of just why the writers are striking, here's a quick summary of the main issue:

Let's say you walk into your boss's office. You want a raise. Not much of a raise. About four cents on the dollar. You've been working pretty hard, some of your work is being used by other people without your getting any money for it, so you just want a minor adjustment in your paycheck. And, hey, you just got an email forwarded to the whole company about the record profits, so you figure, what the hell, right? It's pennies.

Your boss tells you that you are demanding money you don't deserve, and furthermore, you'll have to pay more for your benefits. After all, it's been a hard year for the company.

That's the strike in a nutshell.


When you buy a DVD, the writer receives, maximum, four cents. The studio receives, on average, $10.66 (this is assuming the writer is still alive and getting residuals in the first place, for the record.)

The writers want eight cents maximum. They are being told this is not only insane and unreasonable, but also that they cannot have a (literal) penny of any of those iTunes downloads or any of the money made off of streaming TV shows from websites (which are covered in ads and have ads contained in them), because that content is "promotional" and the studios make no money on it.

Which is bullshit, and everyone knows it. We know this is bullshit because something like The Office can get 50 million views on a website in a WEEK.

Let me just emphasize this: the studios are calling the writers unreasonable because they want, literally, pennies. I cannot TELL you all the ways movie studios make money off of movies and TV shows. We're talking an ENORMOUS amount that grows every year. It literally makes up a good chunk of our exports.



This really is for the little guys. Somebody like Joss Whedon, who's a name and has leaped to a feature career, he can work forever in TV, movies, comic books, and he's made a fortune off of something like Buffy, because he owns a piece. Most of the staff that worked with him for seven years? Not so lucky. They LIVE off of those residuals checks in between jobs. Those residuals checks are what keep them from having to work as temps and not write.

So if you want TV that doesn't suck, support the strike.

I appreciate the summary (not sarcastic). I'm not sure how accurate your numbers are, but pennies do add up. If I asked my boss for a 100% raise as you indicated, he would laugh in my face. Do writers get paid for how many people watch their show when it airs on television? Web views don't compel a raise because these folks using alternative ways to watch these episodes are no longer watching them on television, and seriously cutting into the studio's advertising revenues there. In most cases, more people aren't watching these shows, they're just watching them through a different medium.

If they feel they need to strike then more power to them, but if the studio's start hiring scabs then I'd be first in line.

Web views don't compel a raise because these folks using alternative ways to watch these episodes are no longer watching them on television, and seriously cutting into the studio's advertising revenues there.

There are ads both in the content itself and on the website displaying that content, which is usually the network's site. If not, it's the production house's site.

They're not giving either away for free, everyone knows this, and yet they're claiming that they make no money on it. Of course, they won't fork over the books to prove this, either.

Also, keep in mind that the studios make dollars and the writers make pennies. The writers want, maximum, another 4% out of each dollar, and that's really only in case where there's major volume, like "The Office." In most cases it's not even going to be a measly frickin' cent. This isn't going to cut into anybody's profits in any meaningful way.

It helps if you understand that come June, the actors and directors guild is going to be striking on almost EXACTLY the same issue. Basically the studios are playing a game of chicken; they're hoping they can break the writers so they have a precedent when the actors and directors come to the table. That's what happened in the last strike back in the '80s; the writers lost, big time.

You don't know much about how writers are paid (or are not paid as the case may be). "Sweet Job" is not how one describes writing for the networks, believe me.

Only a small percentage of screenwriters are actually working at any one time in the business. Many, the rest of the time, are holding down low paying jobs (even minimum wage jobs) while waiting for someone to pick up one of their scripts. Even then writers aren't paid in the same neighborhood as actors, directors and producers are (never mind the millionaire athletes you allude to). When working they are paid more in the vicinity of the tech crew. Think lower to middle middle class at best, poverty wages at worst.

This is mostly over them wanting to get paid a few pennies on the dollar for something that the studios are making billions on and is literally stealing from them.

Then why are there so many writers? Supply and demand would suggest that there is simply not a large enough market. If studios cared about the writing talent, then they would pay them accordingly. They clearly think, as do I, that it is a job that doesn't require much skill or that folks with the skill are so abundant that there is no need to post more competitive wages. It is not the studio's fault that there is such a surplus of writers, all who must think they have a pretty sweet job or they wouldn't stay in the field and put up with low wage work.

Then why are there so many writers?

75% of the WGA doesn't work in any kind of writing capacity in a given year. The only qualification to get into the Guild is you have to sell a script to a Guild signatory. You're required to join the Guild when this happens, and basically as long as you pay your yearly dues, you're a member until you die.

Also keep in mind that many types of producer are also members of the WGA but rarely receive any writing credit. This is because they might need to rewrite the script on the fly and the original writer was probably left by the roadside a while back in the process, and the Guild frowns on non-Guild rewriting.

They clearly think, as do I, that it is a job that doesn't require much skill or that folks with the skill are so abundant that there is no need to post more competitive wages.

First of all, a writer doesn't sit behind his typewriter, bang out a script and that's it. If anything, that's the EASY part, and the easy part isn't so easy. Considering your attitude, you should sit down and try writing a five page short. After that we'll have a talk about the creative drive.

Regardless of whether he's rewriting a script or putting out an original script, the writer has to pitch the material to several different people in a production house, regardless of whether it's TV or film. Sometimes this is a committee meeting, but other times you can pitch a script up to four or five times. If the script is turned down, as it often is, it's back to square one.

IF that script is accepted, the writer then has to work with the production staff to revise the script to reflect the demands of the production. This can range from the sensible (i.e. fitting the script into the budget) to the patently absurd. Just as an example, Kevin Smith, when writing a Superman script, was informed by the producer that the script "needed" a giant mechanical spider by the producer, Jon Peters. This is because Peters, as the creator of this spider, would get a chunk of the toy revenue. It was Smith's job to not only have a giant robot spider show up, but somehow justify this in the plot of the film. Not an easy job.

On TV, you might be a staff writer. This essentially means you work an office job and write on your own time. TV writers can easily put in eighty hours a week, and that's just a staff writer. A consulting or line producer can easily put in more time.

Oh, and most of the above involves incorporating very specific notes and meeting very specific deadlines.

At some point, your obligation does end, but your work might be substantially rewritten. It's very rare that the credited authors on a Hollywood production are the only ones who worked on the script.

Even better, if the movie comes out, and fails, and your name is on it, that can kill your career, even if what's up on screen has nothing to do with what you actually sold to the studio. If it comes out and is a hit, it'll be the director and actors who get recognition, not you. Even winning an Oscar won't do much for a screenwriter's career if he's not a "name" in some other way.


You're right in that the studios don't value writers. This is because the studios crank out shit, year after year, and that shit makes them money. Sure, they could take their time and put out quality productions, but why put the work in? You're wrong in that they should be undervaled. Again, it helps to know what you're talking about.

I'll admit I don't know much about entertainment unions and their enrollment methods, but this sounds like a poor policy. Whatever works for them, I guess.

I'm sure the job is a daunting one, and the work required is more than the perception. Still, the perception among the public (and likely the majority of the struggling writers) is that it is a very rewarding job, which means there is substantial pool of talented folks who would be willing to do it. Just as anyone would love to be a baseball player, but don't realize that the bulk of those guys drift through the minors with minimal pay, absurd hours and work harder than the two hours on the field a day would indicate.

What is the studios' objective? If the studios are simply cranking out shit and making money then the case is closed. The the formula for creating profit has little to do with writers, so why pay them? It is like paying a contractor to build you a house if you're just going to tear it down and do it yourself when he is done. Why waste your money? For artistic integrity? Because they are obligated to put out thought-provoking material? Some studios do pursue those ideals, and others don't. They shouldn't be forced to pay for work they don't deem necessary.

What is the studios' objective? If the studios are simply cranking out shit and making money then the case is closed. The the formula for creating profit has little to do with writers, so why pay them?

OK, let's break this down according to how it works on a film, because you're not clear on a very important aspect of the process: without the screenwriter, there IS no Hollywood. Part of the reason the strike is such a big deal is that once the completed scripts run out, Hollywood is shit out of luck.


Scripts are rarely commissioned by studios. It can happen, but there's a very limited pool of very highly paid screenwriters who get that kind of gig, and that's for something like "The DaVinci Code", a guaranteed blockbuster with a star and director already in place. So those are one or two out of dozens of movies released every single year.

90% of the movies you see started life as a "spec" script. On their own time, a screenwriter came up with the idea, plotted it, wrote it, and pitched it to the studio.

This is true all the way down the line to the cheapo direct-to-video horror flicks on the back rack and the cheesy made-for-cable movies: it all started with the writer. The script is where it starts. None of the executives griping about the writers would have their JOBS if it weren't for the WGA. You wouldn't have your favorite TV show if a writer hadn't independently come up with it and pitched it to a studio. THAT is why writers are important and why the studio is wrong.

That most movies and TV shows stink can't be pinned solely on the writer, either. After all, it wasn't a writer, it was a studio head who said "Nobody ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public."

Again, before you say things like the above you need to know what you're talking about. I've been tempted to berate you throughout this entire exchange. I'd encourage you to actually go out and make a short film; the technology is easier than ever. It'd be an education for you and teach you a lot about the entertainment you consume.

Why are there so many writers?

That's like asking why there are so many artists? Or Why are there so many dancers? Writing is an Art as well as a profession, and the arts work differently than fields like engineering or building automobiles.

Without writers the studios have no product, the same way they would have no product if they had no actors. Actors get paid more because of the cult of celebrity, which creates eyeballs watching the screen which means eyeballs watching the ads that make them the money. Writers give those actors the fuel that they need to perform.

The unfairness in pay is something that is created by the studios. It has nothing to do with supply and demand. The writers are trying to fix some of that inequity and force the studios to play fair.

If you were a writer (or let's say a photographer, since that is one of your listed interests on your LJ profile) who created something, and contracted to be paid for it for X use, and discovered that the folks you signed a contract with were not just using it for X use but were also going to use it without paying you for Y use and be making a billion dollars off of it wouldn't you be a bit pissed? They literally are stealing your property and selling it to someone else and then pretending they weren't making money off of it.

I am a photographer, in a specific field where we have no union and are at the mercy of the company that hires us for the most part. The terms of our work give the company, or studio, complete control of our work after it is produced, with no residual reimbursement. Photographers with experience or clout can alter the terms of that relationship on an individual level, but the majority are restricted by what the company feels they want to pay for our services. We accept these jobs knowing the terms. We are payed based on our ability, experience and productivity rather than a blanket policy that affords underachieving photographers a base rate that they do not deserve.

If networks and studios are using content created by writers on ways that violate the terms of their agreement, then it is grounds for a lawsuit, which would be my recourse if a company used one of my photographs without my permission. That is not the case here. They have permission to use the content with specific reimbursement. Those are the terms, and the Union doesn't accept them, but I'm willing to bet there are hundreds of writers who would jump at the chance to secure a regular or upgraded position within those studios. If a good portion of your union depends on these royalties, then there are plenty of folks who would gladly take a regular paycheck even if it isn't to the standards the union would accept.

Like any artist, our work is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. Fair pay is the amount a studio is willing to pay for these writers services, and if they feel they can get similar or superior content at that rate, then they shouldn't budge.

We are payed based on our ability, experience and productivity rather than a blanket policy that affords underachieving photographers a base rate that they do not deserve.

Oh, I see what this is about. You're anti-union. Again, it helps to know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

"Underachievers" in the film industry don't work, regardless of industry. Period. It's not like the WGA runs out and secures everyone under its aegis a job. They can help a producer connect with a writer, but there's nothing in their charter guaranteeing work, just that if you secure work with a Guild signatory you will be paid a certain scale.

More to the point, you don't even understand the contracts you yourself have signed. Go back and read them over, and you might notice that the exact use of the photographs you sell is detailed in the contract. It might be as simple as "the photographer grants all rights to the purchaser in perpetuity", although odds are pretty good the language is a damn sight more complicated.

In the future, get a lawyer, kid.

Actually I really doubt that there are writers who want to play scab in this situation. Look around the net, see how many working writers and wanna be writers are posting their support for the WGA action. The WGA is not the same as the currently mismanaged SFWA.