If there was a framework for a deal, then it shouldn't take two weeks to hammer out the details. If there's not a framework for a deal (and I don't think there is), then there's no way to know how long it could take to get to a deal.

Word on the street has it resolving somewhere in mid-December. The prevailing rumor is that the framework is indeed in place, but the details may take some dragging out.

I just had my last scheduled day today, on "Ugly Betty". Thus I am now officially out of work until things resolve, unless something unexpected pops up (some potential features in the pipeline, but competition will be fierce). It felt strange to say goodbye to everyone on set since we don't know when we will be coming back to work...

Well, here's some good vibes out to the AMPTP and WGA to strike a deal, so everyone can get back to work soon. Of course, by mid-December, the holidays will be upon us soon after.

Heath

I've heard both encouraging and discouraging things from people close to the situation.

Generally speaking, it sounded like both sides were ready to negotiate rather than getting stuck on ego trips or politics, but it didn't sound like a deal that would be acceptable to the WGA was going to be anywhere near easy.

Leading me to believe that there wasn't a true framework for a deal (unless you consider getting rid of the ego trips and politics and getting down to negotiating on the key issues to be a framework for a deal).

I think it's going to hurt the WGA more than the studios. The studios are owned by bigger companies, like GE, etc., so they can weather a storm like this better than they could in 1988.

At some point, other unions, like the Teamsters, may put pressure on both parties to resolve it. Otherwise, the money is going to run out fast!

Heath

"Speechless" spots
 

Have you seen the "speechless" series of digital shorts that some writers/directors made with prominent actors to support the WGA?

George Hickenlooper, one of the makers, said they were all shot with a Sony HDV camera using natural lighting.

He didn't specify which cam, though they look like they were shot in 24p to me, so at first I thought it must be the V1.

But then I caught a glimpse of George in the Holly Hunter spot and it looks like a Z1.

Any thoughts as to what camera they're using? The results look terrific. I'd also love to know how they encoded these for the web.

Here's the Holly Hunter spot:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.co...-holly-hunter/

Writer's reject first offer...
 

Camera is a bit dark to tell. I'd guess it could even be a Cannon.

Writer's aren't happy with the first offer...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/bu...riters.html?hp

From today's Wall Street Journal. Looks like there's no end in sight unfortunately...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1197...oo_hs&ru=yahoo

And, essentially, no new episodes of our favorite shows, since show runners went on strike, too.

heath

The networks were able to finish whatever shows they had scripts for even after the showrunners walked out.

But now that they've blown through the scripts they had, there's nothing left to shoot and the shows have shut down.

Hello, reality TV!

heath

This is amusing...
 

On the AMPTP website they have a live counter showing how much the Screenwriters are loosing per second. It's up to 105.5 million as of this writing...

"Estimated losses are based on data supplied by WGA West on initial compensation paid to its members in 2006."

It's dodgey math at best but it seems like a effective way of communicating whats at stake.

In the world of wiki's there is an interesting wikipedia page about how many episodes of all the shows that are left.
quite interesting, in so many words in about 6-8 weeks we'll be out of new content on television.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_..._on_television

And how much are the studios loosing per second? If their profits exceed the payment to writers, (And they must by a great deal) Then the loss to the studios at this point must be ten times what the loss to the writers counter indicates.


Dodgy math indeed.


Writers don't COST the studios money... they MAKE THE STUDIOS money.


(The counter is more indicative of delayed payments... that money will still be paid, but at a later date.)

Although my sympathies are with the writers, I really don't have a dog in this fight. What I'm really fascinated is how cleverly the writers are using web and specifically web video to win the public over.

Example: the horror writers organized exorcism of Warner Bros.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2A3ha6N6NA

Check out this video, where fans of Joss Whedon travelled from all over the world just to picket with their hero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ze0orUIToM

They've even got the fans organizing a web site: www.fans4writers.com

I think it's something we can learn from, because (imho) it's one the best guerilla ad campaigns ever put together.

The studios really shouldn't be losing all that much money yet. Most of their shows are still on the air and generating advertising revenue. Movies are still going into theaters and will for some time. DVDs are still being released, etc.

When the strike started, writers stopped earning immediately, but it takes time for the studios to start to feel the pinch. In television far sooner than in film.

Not necessarily. The television writers who were on staff won't get back pay for the weeks they were on strike. There's a pretty good chance that some episodes won't be made up, either. There are also rewrites that might have been commissioned before that won't be now because of the strike because studios are more-or-less forced to go with what they have.

And that doesn't even include the fact that studios buy far more scripts than they ever make. It's not likely that the studios will buy more pitches, specs, etc. to make up for the time writers were on strike.

There's a decent bit of money that writers will never be able to get back (and, at this point, it seems unlikely that the resulting residual deal for new media will be any better than what we could've gotten had we not struck. So it's not even a matter of short-term sacrifice for long-term gain).

Well, I know some comic companies are looking for screenwriters to submit work. And I doubt the WGA would try to get in on it--it's too low paying vs. what the screenwriters and TV writers/producers are doing.

Heath

I don't really think the WGA as a whole should try and guide its members into different lines of work. The Guild really isn't designed for getting its members jobs. It's designed to set minimum standards for employment, but members get jobs on their own both inside and outside film and television.

I'd certainly write comics if any comic company wanted me to do it, but I'm not one of the A-listers or B-listers these companies are talking about hiring.

The WGA isn't guiding them, but they want to get in on the web (I think on shows that studios finance, or big production companies, like quarterlife, on MySpace and now, NBC). What I meant was, writers can write for comics now with no worries of WGA reprisals, but the web may be dicey, if they have a studio/major prod. co. backing it.

Thanks,

Heath

That's part of creating a minimum standard, though. We, as a Guild, want to cover filmed entertainment in its many forms, and Internet-related video is part of that.

There's nothing in our contract right now that would prevent any of us from writing material directly for the web. First-run web videos aren't covered by the WGA MBA, so the WGA doesn't have jurisdiction.

Just like we could write for non-Guild animated shows or movies or we could take jobs on reality shows, the stuff that isn't covered is fair game (the only complication is the strike rules, which prevent writing for a struck company even in a non-covered capacity, but it would be difficult to punish a member for doing work that isn't covered by the WGA MBA. And writing Internet-related stuff for non-struck companies would be perfectly kosher).

We can write comic books (even for DC). We could write novels. We can write television commercials. We could go to work for Rupert Murdoch at the Wall Street Journal if we could get the job simply because all of that isn't covered stuff.

Thanks for clearing that up, Ryan. I'm sure the web is gonna be a tough one in negotiations!

Heath

Quoting myself here, I realize this part isn't 100% correct. The strike rules do allow exceptions for some animated stuff largely because a different union generally has jurisdiction over writing for animated films and a lot of animated television (a handful of animated TV shows are WGA-covered) - and by "writing" I mean screenwriting. WGA members could write a novel for HarperCollins, for example, even though they're a subsidiary of a struck company.

There's also the complications illustrated by something like quarterlife. The show is being shown on FOX-owned MySpace, but the show itself is owned and produced by the creators. So, somehow, that makes it okay.

It's entirely too complicated for my feeble little brain to keep up with.

Ending the writers' strike hinges on pact divvying up online-video revenue
 

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...BF2A882EB6D%7D

We don't actually receive 1.2% of streaming video. We get 1.2% on online video rentals under existing agreements. Some of the studios have also been paying the home video rate (roughly .36% on most Hollywood movies) for downloaded movies and TV shows, but there's no agreement on that (and the WGA has sought arbitration on every instance in which they've paid the home video rate for downloads absent any agreement).

They've offered a flat $250 for streaming video. We countered with a flat fee per 100,000 (that was based on our wanted 2.5% rate) that worked out to roughly $600 per 100,000 views, but that was immediately rejected.

We've not made any movement on downloads.

I don't know how we say we were cheated on the home video rate. It's not a cheat if we agree to it (we even dropped a big arbitration over the issue at the end of the 1985 strike).

And if we believe the "fair rate" for Internet to be 1.5% or 1.8% of the distributor's gross, then we're going to be disappointed with whatever streaming or download rate we get since it's unlikely to be that high.

I don't think anyone makes money off streaming video. I know I don't.

Heath

The networks are streaming shows with advertising, so they are apparently making a small amount of money off of their streaming efforts.

But I think the desire to make a deal now that sets the residual rate is to have something in place when streaming or downloads or what-have-you does become a much bigger revenue stream.

If we wait, the studios and networks might get used to having that money and be less likely to part with it. And I think that's why we've been asking for a percentage rather than a flat fee. If the stream doesn't create any revenue, then there's no residual to pay (1.2% of $0 is still $0 after all). It wasn't until the studios proposed a flat fee that we countered with the flat fee per 100,000 views.

I don't know, though. The Internet is such a different animal than television, theatrical or even home video. Just the logistics of slicing up the revenue pie is going to be a major pain (and I think that even after we agree to a deal and the strike ends, there will be some legal wrangling and probably some lawsuits or arbitrations over definitions, etc. for years to come).

Divide et impera?
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/telev...35771320071217

My summary...

The producer's association got together and signed unity pact, mostly in reaction to:

1) World Wide Pants indication that they may break ranks and sign an interim deal with the union. WWP reckons they can do this because they are an independent production company separate from CBS.
2) The WGA's new wedge strategy. The WGA is trying to negotiate with the Studios individually rather than as a group.

There's an article in today's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/public/article...066332667.html (I think this link may expire quickly though)

It mentions several developments:

The article also points out that such a deal is by no means a certainty. It also claims that some studios may use the strike as a way to cancel existing contracts which they don't like:

Meanwhile, some other shows may go back on the air without the writers:

It seems disingenuous for us to say on Friday "Hey, we want to negotiate with our signatories separately" and as soon as one signatory says "Okay. Let's negotiate separately", we apparently change our minds.

Conan and Leno are back Jan 2nd
 

without writers...

Conan's statement:

http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc...fromconan.html

Leno's Statement:

http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc...tfromjayl.html

I don't know. On the music side ASCAP and BMI have to keep track of everything in order for composers to get their royalties. And then you have to reply on Nielsen ratings to guess the number of eyeballs. On the Internet you just look at the web stats and count the views. The studios want to give the largest number to the advertisers, but the smallest number to the writers and other royalty earners, so they'll probably split the difference and play it honest - we hope...

In television, writers get single flat fee for broadcast of the episode regardless of the ratings. But the amount is so high (over $20,000 for an hour-long program) that it would stifle streaming for all but the largest companies. So, both the WGA and the AMPTP have been arguing over a percentage of advertising formula (even the flat fee per 100,000 views plan reverted to a percentage in Year Two).

So, how do you count revenues?

Do the banner ads count? What about the revenues that come from selling products or services (ringtones, wallpapers, etc) based on the properties?

Which gross is the percentage based on? The gross that goes to the producer? Or the gross that goes to the distributor? That's an important distinction. On the one hand, writers feel like they got screwed by the Home Video formula because it's a percentage based on producer's gross. But the vast majority of WGA signatories don't self-distribute. So if the percentage is based on distributor's gross, they're paying a percentage based on money they don't earn.

And in these relatively early days of the industry, it appears that the studio sites sell advertising by the package. The last time I poked around a network website and watched some of the streaming programs, all the ads were the same GM ad. Presumably, the media buyer negotiated a flat fee for the total coverage, so how does that single advertising buy that covers advertising on shows that aren't WGA-covered (reality shows, for example) and probably banner ads on the main page and whatnot get allocated to the individual writer of the individual episode of a specific show.

And as it relates to movies, the WGA doesn't want to make any exception for partial use of a movie for promotional purposes. So, if the studios want to put a trailer for the movie online, they're required to pay a full residual for that. Same with those sneak previews we see from time to time that actually do promote movies (like when the first five minutes of a movie will be streamed online).

There has to be some exception for promotional uses, but where is the line drawn?

All these definitions have to be agreed to and all the loopholes have to be closed as best as possible, while also setting up a system that doesn't gouge producers or make them pay residuals on revenues that writers aren't entitled to.

I think it's a little more complicated than just counting the eyeballs.

That's not quite right, Ryan. The AMPTP doesn't want to pay for promotional use, that's true, but I don't think the WGA is looking to get paid for movie trailers. The AMPTP wants to the term "promotional" to apply to whatever they decide to apply it to. So if they want to stream every episode of the Simpsons, for example, sell advertising on the site, and call it promotional, the writer's of those episodes would not see a dime.
That's the sort of thing we're talking about with New Media, and obviously this would be a huge pay cut, since these episodes would not be repeated on the air, where we get paid for them through the residual system in place now.

I don't think we want to get paid for movie trailers, either, but the point is that it's complicated because we have to allow loopholes but we have to define them narrowly enough that the studios don't exploit them to our detriment. And so far, none of our proposals, which are admittedly not that detailed, have defined a loophole that allows for any partial use.

Daily Show, Colbert Report Returns January 9th
 

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/...32&entry=index

I’m going to have to record this since theirs a good chance I’ll be in Portugal by then.

Things look grim for the writers
 

Looks like the strike may go on for a while yet...

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.co...ook-very-grim/

Letterman signs deal with writers guild...
 

I love Dave.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1198...googlenews_wsj

UA may going back to work tomorrow?
 

Variety says yes and it is going to be announced Monday....

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryId=2821&cs=1

LA Times says the deal is still in the works but could be inked today

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-pe-california

Directors Reach Accord With Hollywood Studios
 

Directors Reach Accord With Hollywood Studios

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/ar...in&oref=slogin

Eisner says the strike has ended:

"A deal has been struck between the major media companies and the Writers Guild of America to end the writers' strike, former Walt Disney chief executive Michael Eisner revealed on CNBC."

Full story at http://www.cnbc.com/id/23057002?