Actors, Writers And Directors on Strike??

[William A Chapman Jr]

On the other hand, if the movie makes a huge profit, the residual never goes into overdrive does it? It stays at the same percentage no matter what. Do you see how that works, if the percentage stays the same, than the money losing films are offset by the films that make a lot of money, and in the end it's all the same. Many times the productions that lose money lose money because they are reserve options just in case the blockbuster fails. So it becomes easy to designate a movie as a money loser simply because it did it's job, which was to be available as a back up option for a failed block buster.

 

I gotta say your response to the posted letter was rather snarky and trivialized the life experience of someone who has probably created a lot of work for other unions, your brothers and sisters. To sort of focus your response to one aspect of the letter while ignoring the fact that the letter was based on a 20 year career is not very respectful, in my opinion. You read a letter from someone who has led an existence devoid of earned perks because they were denied "simple, logical" money due. You attempt to trivialize that 20 year rite of passage with a smart alecky two sentence answer.

 

Get a clue, that letter was from the elite of the creative animation business who was being denied a 48,000 dollar a year residual on a show that will get aired 400 times a year all over the world, and that seems rather ridiculous. It wouldn't surprise me if all the the money that has been "saved" by denying deserving creatives their small annual residual did little more than keep a couple of attorneys employed. Perhaps every year those attorney's primary responsibility was to create enough "savings" to retain their own mercenary jobs. I kind of wish those few attorneys who have siphoned the money that should have gone to the creatives would just die, or be exposed.

 

I wonder if an illegal quid pro quo case could be made here. The studios employ a few extra attorneys who justify their job by stealing perks from the creative side, and in turn those attorneys and their law firms are then available to the studios for other cases, perhaps even personal issues such as divorce cases for the studio elite. I would examine the very studio attorney's who siphon their living from the creative side and see how their law firms get rewarded by the studios. It looks to me like an insiduous, unethical relationship that should be busted open before they bust the unions.

 

You can't just divert deserving money from the creatives by hiring extra attorneys who in turn reward the studios with additional legal perks. That is worthy of investigation and disbarrment.

 

 

I was not making A direct comment about the open letter but to the situation, I'm not against the union. I just think it should be decided on a per-job basis not a blanket "this is how it has to be" and I'm not saying it has to be a either / or situation with pay up front or percentage of profits, but if they want a bigger percentage then I think they should get less upfront. Maybe I did not explain it the best, for that I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone.

 

With that said I hope both parties find a quick resolution, If its prolonged nobody will win.

[Tenolian Bell]

A video from the writers perspective.

 

[Brad Grimmett]

I guess the teamsters have joined the writers. They're refusing to cross the picket lines at Warner Brothers and Universal, according to a Local 399 member I worked with today. It's nice to see one group of workers support another group of workers that are so far at the other end of the spectrum from what they do. No trucks moving means no shooting.....and no writers writing means no shooting....eventually.

Hopefully a fair resolution is near.

http://www.hollywoodteamsters.org/

[Guest]

"I'm not tring to start a fight, but what if the dvd release or a movie ect fails and loses money? Is the WGA or SAG ect going to give money back.? I dout it. The writers get paid regardless if the production makes a profit, if it dosen't studios take the loss. The productions that make it big covers the ones that don't."

 

The very point I've made dozens of times, unions/workers only want it one way, the way that it benefits them. I've certainly taken a financial bath on several of my self financed projects, & I still had to pay 100% of the costs.

 

Yes, I've made some killer cash off of a few projects as well, and kept 100% of the money for myself. But I deserved it, I assumed 100% of the risk.

 

The studios risk hundreds of millions of shareholder money every year, some times they score big, and some times they lose big. That's business for you, not just show biz.

 

You certainly won't find any sympathy for the WGA members amongst the self employed or small business owners of America.

 

R,

[Alex Ellerman]

" writers get $0.04 per dvd...

you figure a $25 dvd. that is a little over a tenth of 1%, ie 0.0016"

 

 

Just how much should a writer pay in order to get more than 1/10 of 1% ???

 

a couple million into the production? you tell me. how does what you propose make sense? should songwriters start bankrolling the CD's? i mean, then wouldn't we just abolish studios and their control?

 

 

more importantly, i believe the WGA has given up the dvd fight in order to fight on Internet and downloads. b/c as the video someone posted aptly pointed out, pretty soon, you'll get TV on your computer. and the studios would pay nothing! they're focused on getting max Internet dollars...

[Brad Grimmett]

Yes, I've made some killer cash off of a few projects as well, and kept 100% of the money for myself. But I deserved it, I assumed 100% of the risk.

 

The studios risk hundreds of millions of shareholder money every year, some times they score big, and some times they lose big. That's business for you, not just show biz.

R,

I think the point some people are making is that the writers are basically already taking a pay cut because they know if the project does well they will get a cut of the profits. That's why on most network TV shows almost all of the writers are also producers. They're lending their expertise to a project and taking a risk and hoping that that risk will bring a reward in the long run (their upfront investment is their time and creativity). This is standard operating procedure in TV, but they haven't worked out a deal yet for the internet, which is what they're trying to do now.

So, Richard, if I may use your example....did you pay top dollar to all of your crew on the projects for which you did well? And did you pay top dollar to your crew on the projects that didn't do so well? This is purely a guess, but I'm guessing that you (being an independent producer) couldn't pay top rates to your crew on your projects, which means that they did you a favor. So for the jobs that didn't do so well, you all took a pay cut, but on the projects that did well, the crew took a pay cut and you made a bunch of money. Why would it be such a bad thing if on the projects that made you money you gave a small cut to the people that helped you make it successful? Again, this is just an example, but it's very relateable to what the studios and writers are dealing with.

I'm no expert, but I believe I'm on the right track. When the project is a success everyone benefits. This is, to me, a sensible way of doing things. Of course, I understand that the studios (i.e....international conglomerates) would rather have ALL the money, but is it good business in the long run to alienate the talent that makes your product profitable just so you can show a slightly higher profit margin? I don't think so. And I think that kind of business is bad for the company in the long run.

[David Mullen ASC]

There is sort of an analogous situation in business where someone has a profitable idea and sells it to someone with capital in exchange for a percentage of future profits.

 

The person with the idea but no capital is not taking a financial risk... but on the other hand, there would be no profit for the person putting up the capital investment anyway without the original idea, so it seems that both people -- the person with the profitable idea and the investor with the capital -- are responsible for the product and the profits eventually generated, and therefore both might therefore share in those profits, despite the fact that the creative person put no capital into the project.

 

Of course, the person with the capital might have also made a deal to buy the idea outright, no profit-sharing... but perhaps not knowing the extent of the future profits, would have made a lower offer than the person who had the idea would accept, who then in turn, having greater faith in the sellability of the product, would have accepted a share of profits plus the low offer, rather than demanding a higher fee for the idea.

 

We're not talking about grips, or electrics, or even the DP -- we're talking about the writers of the screenplay, who surely are fundamental to the creation of this moneymaking product called movies. If the producers really don't think writers' ideas are partly responsible for profits generated, they should try making movies without writers and then see how much money they make. Capital investment without something to invest that capital into is not very useful.

[Brian Drysdale]

"I'm not tring to start a fight, but what if the dvd release or a movie ect fails and loses money? Is the WGA or SAG ect going to give money back.? I dout it. The writers get paid regardless if the production makes a profit, if it dosen't studios take the loss. The productions that make it big covers the ones that don't."

 

The very point I've made dozens of times, unions/workers only want it one way, the way that it benefits them. I've certainly taken a financial bath on several of my self financed projects, & I still had to pay 100% of the costs.

 

Yes, I've made some killer cash off of a few projects as well, and kept 100% of the money for myself. But I deserved it, I assumed 100% of the risk.

 

The studios risk hundreds of millions of shareholder money every year, some times they score big, and some times they lose big. That's business for you, not just show biz.

 

You certainly won't find any sympathy for the WGA members amongst the self employed or small business owners of America.

 

 

R,

 

I thought writers were self employed. I'm a member of a union and I'm self employed DP, I've written scripts and treatments on spec, and bought options: that's a risk. I've put my own money into films and I've paid the people who worked on them. Those people are self employed, many are union members.

 

I've also worked as DP for points, that a risk I'm taking by working on those productions. However, it'll be interesting to discover how creative the accounting will be.

 

As much as they would love it otherwise, studios need the creative work of writers and and being creative can be a very hit or miss business. Royalties etc are one means that creative people can be paid for the success of their work and it came help during those lean periods. It's actually a very free market approach.

 

I don't resent people going on strike when negotiations have fallen through, however, in the end both sides will have to sit down and strike an agreement. Unfortunately, problems at the high end of the industry get worse the further you go down and some of the practises in some companies don't belong in this industry.

 

As much some might like to believe otherwise, there are producers etc who are only in it for the money rather than any art.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Brian Drysdale

[Guest]

So, Richard, if I may use your example....did you pay top dollar to all of your crew on the projects for which you did well? And did you pay top dollar to your crew on the projects that didn't do so well? This is purely a guess, but I'm guessing that you (being an independent producer) couldn't pay top rates to your crew on your projects, which means that they did you a favor. So for the jobs that didn't do so well, you all took a pay cut, but on the projects that did well, the crew took a pay cut and you made a bunch of money. Why would it be such a bad thing if on the projects that made you money you gave a small cut to the people that helped you make it successful? Again, this is just an example, but it's very relateable to what the studios and writers are dealing with.

I'm no expert, but I believe I'm on the right track. When the project is a success everyone benefits. This is, to me, a sensible way of doing things. Of course, I understand that the studios (i.e....international conglomerates) would rather have ALL the money, but is it good business in the long run to alienate the talent that makes your product profitable just so you can show a slightly higher profit margin? I don't think so. And I think that kind of business is bad for the company in the long run.

 

EVERY ONE who has ever worked on one of my projects was paid top dollar based on their skill level. On my movie, Dark Reprieve, every one was paid a good salary. I asked crew members what their day rates where and that is what they where paid. I didn't negotiate down their day rates at all. No one worked for free. Every one was fed well with real hot food, and the hours where 90% of the time below a typical film day. I even paid every one weekly, instead of bi-weekly, because I'm a nice guy. My actors where paid well ABOVE the SAG min, even though it was a non-union shoot.

 

Many producers told me to pay my crew LESS to keep my costs down but I rejected this idea because I wanted people to perform well for me. Several of my crew members on the movie and the four commercials I just shot where also paid top dollar. The DOP I brought in for one day got $3500.00 for the day, top rate for Toronto.

 

On my animated Christmas special, The Snowman Who Saved Summer, I paid the animator that worked with me $200.00 a week, MORE, than what they where paid for the same work at one of the major animation houses in Toronto. Plus 50% of her travel costs.

 

These costs all stayed the same whether I made money or not, in answer to your question. If any one did me a favour it was their choice to do so, and they could have just as easily said no.

 

Bottom line is this, I will never understand how people being paid a wage to do a job also expect "back end." It's just silly. Do members of the UAW get paid a royalty every time the car they helped build gets sold? A car maybe sold 10 times over the course of its life. The list of these examples is endless, yet film and TV people seem to think they are different. If you can negotiate the back end up front, good for you, get what you can. But this is not always the case.

 

So what if Paramount made millions from the re-runs of the original Star Trek, and the cast and crew got zero in residuals. Paramount took a huge financial risk to get the series made in the first place, and every one who worked on it was paid what I'm sure was a good wage in Hollywood at the time. Again, if Paramount took a bath on the project would the cast and crew hand back their paychecks?

 

Same for every TV and film ever made, same for every business venture under taken.

 

R,

[Alex Ellerman]

Richard - i get what you're saying, and it's great that you paid your crew and treated them well... that fact notwithstanding, we're talking about a miniscule backen paid to writers. if you wanted writers to put equity into the production, then their backend would rightly increase to 20-30% of a production... and guess what??? The studios would rather give them low six figures against mid six and a miniscule percentage.

 

what you are advocating would most likely never meet with studio approval.

[Guest]

Maybe the WGA should be going after over paid actors:

 

Back-end participation deals with top directors, producers and actors, in which they receive a percentage of a movie's gross -- regardless of whether it is profitable -- have been principally responsible for pushing the movie industry into an annual loss, according to a report produced by research company Global Media Intelligence and Merrill Lynch and reported by today's (Monday) New York Times. In its report about the study, the newspaper commented that it may be particularly relevant during the current writers' strike. "As it turns out, the pot of money that the producers and writers are fighting over may have already been pocketed by the entertainment industry's biggest talent," the Times said. The study examined releases last year that yielded $23.7 billion from sales to domestic theaters, foreign theaters, home video, pay television and every other source of income. Total costs for those films, however, amounted to $25.6 billion -- or a combined loss of $1.9 billion. The loss, the study determined was due partly to a 15.5-percent decline in foreign DVD sales, but "the real killer," said the Times was the growth in participations, which totaled an estimated $3 billion. By comparison, the newspaper noted, citing WGA figures, total residuals for the year amounted to $121.3 million, while a single actor could easily earn $70 million from a so-called first-dollar gross deal on a hit movie. And such deals amount to super-residuals. As Steven Blume, CEO of Content Partners, a company that buys participations for cash, told the Times. "These participations are paid in perpetuity."

[Tenolian Bell]

As Hollywood digs in for a second week of a strike, the screenwriters might want to send a few angry picketers over to Will Smith?s place. Or Steven Spielberg?s.

 

And maybe the studio executives should think about joining them on the line. As it turns out, the pot of money that the producers and writers are fighting over may have already been pocketed by the entertainment industry?s biggest talent.

 

...much of the income ? past and future ? that studios and writers have been fighting about has already gone to the biggest stars, directors and producers in the form of ballooning participation deals. A participation is a share in the gross revenue, not the profit, of a movie.

 

....a Hanks, Cruise or Carrey whose movie brings $600 million back to the studio from all sources might easily wind up with a $20 million salary, and an additional $50 million on the back end, while an A-list director and producer could take in tens of millions more.

 

In fact, neither side should be cheered by figures that describe an industry that has increasingly doled out its wealth to star performers and filmmakers, at the expense of almost everyone else.

 

New York Times

[Alessandro Machi]

I thought writers were self employed. I'm a member of a union and I'm self employed DP, I've written scripts and treatments on spec, and bought options: that's a risk. I've put my own money into films and I've paid the people who worked on them. Those people are self employed, many are union members.

 

I've also worked as DP for points, that a risk I'm taking by working on those productions. However, it'll be interesting to discover how creative the accounting will be.

 

I'm self employed as well. Here's the big difference, I've never done a job for anyone that actually then came back to interfere with my finding more work. However, if residuals are not fairly doled out, producers and the studios can make money doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs and showing reruns while the creatives who write the material stand by and starve as they wait for the next new project to come along.

 

Right now the writers that are picketing, how much money are they making picketing versus the studios who continue to throw up (pun intended) any rerun they can get their hands on in any time slot on any channel they want?

 

One of the big controversies about television shows from the 60's is the actors were never paid residuals. So when the actors of the 70's fought for residuals, the studios were able to rerun non residual shows from the 60's in syndication as a way to keep the actors of the 70's in line. It's easy to break the back of a union if the studios have some type of residual income always coming in while the unions do not.

 

Having said that, at some point the reverse can also happen, it's possible that unions get paid well enough that they can afford to go on strike for long periods of time as they try to get even richer and richer deals, but at the moment I do not believe that is the case at all. It looks like the Studios might be able to afford to wait out the writers, which kind of points to the inequity that currently exists, the Studios really have no desire to share because it appears their share is big enough to survive while the unions suffer.

[Alex Ellerman]

Writer's blog

 

Great explanation of why writer's get residuals (not royalties) and what the strike is about.

 

excerpted:

 

"... I used the example of a guy who lays down sheet metal. He doesn't get a payment every time GM sells a car. When you’re paid for your work, you’re done. Why on earth would screenwriters feel we deserved anything more?

 

... The point that has been made to me again and again in my discussions with pro-residuals strikers is that a work of art is unlike a panel of sheet metal in that it can be reproduced - "cloned" as it were - over and over ad infinitum, and sold for profit each and every time. In other words, the guy laying out sheet metal produces one panel, then one panel is sold. He produces another, another is sold. Etc. But when a movie is made, it’s made once, then reproduced (not recreated) as many times as there is a buyer.

 

In this scenario, it is not the labor that is the key issue. It’s authorship.

 

... What's different about screenwriting from other forms of writing is that the author does not, in fact, retain authorship. "Authorship" implies control, something the studios are not willing to give, and so a system has been devised whereby the writer works on a for-hire basis, as an employee. This makes the studio the legal "author" of our writing, which in turn entitles them to do whatever they want with it creatively. (And if you’re one of the people who thinks Hollywood is a big poop factory, I’ve just given you a giant clue as to why.) For the privilege of owning and controlling our work, they have to pay us more up front. Because the studio is the legal author of a film, there can be no royalties to the actual writers. This is how the weirdo concept of residuals came about. They are in practical reality different from royalties only in that they are considerably less than royalties, which is due to the fact that we get paid more up front.

 

Joe Novelist gets less up front, controls his work, and makes more on the back end.

 

Joe Screenwriter gets more up front, has no control over his work, and makes less on the back end.

 

That’s the story with residuals. They’re about authorship. "

[Guest]

One observer writes this, and I will admit, it's a good point:

 

Ironically, Viacom sued Google for $1 billion in lost online profits over pirated video, but tells writers that their work is worth nothing online and they don't deserve a royalty. I say "stay on strike, horny-handed typists of the entertainment proletariat!" The residuals that Sumner Redstone doesn?t want you to have will buy your grandchildren a horse and buggy when the planet warms and the oceans rise. And they can trek inland to ? Nebraska.

[Hal Smith]

 

"What is Warner Brothers? Out with an eye patch and a tin cup on the street?" Classic!

[Phil Rhodes]

Just wandered past the front gates of Paramount where there were, as expected, a large group of disgruntled placard-wavers.

 

This place really does love to conform to stereotype!

 

Phil

[Matthew Buick]

Just wandered past the front gates of Paramount where there were, as expected, a large group of disgruntled placard-wavers.

 

This place really does love to conform to stereotype!

 

Phil

 

 

How long are you there for Phil?

[Brad Grimmett]

EVERY ONE who has ever worked on one of my projects was paid top dollar based on their skill level. On my movie, Dark Reprieve, every one was paid a good salary.

Sorry Richard, I shouldn't have used you specifically as an example. I was really just trying to refer to independent producers in general. It's my mistake for using a real person as an example. I obviously don't know how well you paid on your movie.

I asked crew members what their day rates where and that is what they where paid. I didn't negotiate down their day rates at all.

Wow! I've never heard of that since I started in the business. This is a first. I thought I remembered reading that you didn't have that large a budget. I didn't realize you were able to pay everyone whatever they asked. That's certainly a much better deal than you can get on any studio movie, no matter what the budget is. It's such a good deal in fact that I'm wondering if I've read what you wrote incorrectly. Am I?

These costs all stayed the same whether I made money or not, in answer to your question. If any one did me a favour it was their choice to do so, and they could have just as easily said no.

I have to agree with you there. If you don't like the rate for a job....don't take it. And if you do take it, then don't complain.

Of course the writers aren't in that situation. They're just trying to make a better deal upfront.

Do members of the UAW get paid a royalty every time the car they helped build gets sold? A car maybe sold 10 times over the course of its life. The list of these examples is endless, yet film and TV people seem to think they are different.

No, the UAW workers don't get any more when a car they helped build becomes extremely successful, but I'll bet you money that the people who designed it get a huge bonus when that occurs. Performance bonuses are very common in all kinds of business's, not just film and television, and the idea of a bonus and residuals are basically the same. GM or Ford or any other business would give a bonus to a creative employee with the intention of rewarding them for their hard work and success so that they don't jump ship to a higher paying company. I think it makes sense, but I guess if a company doesn't mind high turnover and high profit variance then they can just tell their employees "If you don't like it, go somewhere else." It's up to them of course.

Again, if Paramount took a bath on the project would the cast and crew hand back their paychecks?

Same for every TV and film ever made, same for every business venture under taken.

 

R,

The problem with that argument is that paying residuals has no upfront downside for the studio. You act as if they have to pull more money out of their pocket when a show makes money, and that it's tough on the company's bottom line. They don't and it isn't. They give a very small percentage of the profits to the people who had an idea good enough to make the company millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars. To say that that's an unfair deal for the people making billions seems really out there in right field to me.

[Brad Grimmett]

a single actor could easily earn $70 million from a so-called first-dollar gross deal on a hit movie.

That's why Paramount effectively fired Tom Cruise recently. Not sure if it's fact or not, but I heard Cruise made more money on MI3 than Paramount! It makes sense that Cruise turned around and bought a studio since he was already making more than the studio he was working with.

[Guest]

"Wow! I've never heard of that since I started in the business. This is a first. I thought I remembered reading that you didn't have that large a budget. I didn't realize you were able to pay everyone whatever they asked. That's certainly a much better deal than you can get on any studio movie, no matter what the budget is. It's such a good deal in fact that I'm wondering if I've read what you wrote incorrectly. Am I?"

 

You read correctly I had a very small budget, that meant a very small crew in terms of numbers, that's all. The audio guy asked for $400.00 a day, and he got $400.00 a day. The boom op asked for $175.00 a day, and he got $175.00 a day. The make-up guy asked for $200.00 a day, and he got $200.00 a day. And so on and so forth. The rate was the rate.

 

There where just 8 key crew members, each got paid exactly what they asked me for.

 

R,

[John Sprung]

No, the UAW workers don't get any more when a car they helped build becomes extremely successful, but I'll bet you money that the people who designed it get a huge bonus when that occurs.

A new model of car is sort of like a feature film, but the financial stakes are far higher. Far fewer new car models get greenlighted than movies. The big difference is that car people generally don't get the public recognition that movie people do. The exception that springs to mind is Lee Iacocca. He was to the Ford Mustang pretty much what Cameron was to the movie "Titanic". After that, he went on to save Chrysler, and co-star in TV commercials with Snoop Dog. Enzo Ferrari also did some Fiat commercials, but there really aren't a bunch of names like Coppola, Spielberg, or Lucas....

 

 

 

-- J.S.