Post by: Mashiro on November 14, 2007, 06:56:19 AM
Quote
Fox is producing fresh episodes of its animated comedy "Family Guy" without the participation of its striking creator Seth MacFarlane, who does many of the main voices, sources said.
The last episode completed before the Writers Guild of America strike began November 5 aired Sunday. Fox and sibling studio 20th Century Fox TV had the choice of going into reruns or continuing the show without MacFarlane, whose outspoken defiance of his employers has made him a cause celebre for striking writers.
After a large writers rally outside the Fox lot on Friday, where he was one of the speakers, MacFarlane said the studio could proceed without him, though he hoped it would not.
. . . . so wait . . . how the hell are they making family guy without him? Considering he is the voices for half the family (and many other characters).
Warning! Crappiest episodes ever approaching!
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2007, 07:09:41 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 14, 2007, 07:30:10 AM
Post by: vudu on November 14, 2007, 07:35:53 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 14, 2007, 07:40:55 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 14, 2007, 09:22:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
While I think it will suck, I'm glad they are doing it. For one the producers shouldn't be striking, and two at least the viewers will get SOMETHING this season.
As Rube Baker said, It's better to eat s*** than to not eat at all.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2007, 09:31:02 AM
Yeah but we don't need Family Guy to live. As entertainment Family Guy is more like a snack and I'd rather have no snack at all than to eat s***.
In curious as to why this is needed. Animated shows are made way ahead of time. I would assume that this entire season is already done so for now there are shows to, uh, show. Without writers they can only shoot episodes already written and Seth would have recorded voices for that way before the animation was started.
One advantage is since it is animation they could always dub Seth's voice over later on.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 14, 2007, 09:48:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"As Rube Baker said, It's better to eat s*** than to not eat at all."
Yeah but we don't need Family Guy to live. As entertainment Family Guy is more like a snack and I'd rather have no snack at all than to eat s***.
In curious as to why this is needed. Animated shows are made way ahead of time. I would assume that this entire season is already done so for now there are shows to, uh, show. Without writers they can only shoot episodes already written and Seth would have recorded voices for that way before the animation was started.
One advantage is since it is animation they could always dub Seth's voice over later on.
Well don't watch it. Tuh duh, problem solved!
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2007, 10:00:10 AM
And I won't be and it won't bother me not to.
I just don't like it when people have an attitude about entertainment where they'll support it even if it sucks (or is s*** in this case) out of some strange loyalty. Entertainment is optional and is supposed to be enjoyable. If your favourite show or videogame series or band or movie series or whatever starts sucking you don't have to stay loyal to it.
Post by: Shift Key on November 14, 2007, 11:46:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
at least the viewers will get SOMETHING this season.
get OUTSIDE?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 14, 2007, 01:52:35 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 14, 2007, 04:43:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
My comment there was meant to be taken sarcastically (curse this text-based internet). GP's post made me think of the movie line that was semi-relevant so I stuck it in there. I really hope the fans of the show make as big a deal out of this as it should be. I'm surprised the executives are this bold, they have to know that when people know the reasons why the writers are striking they will take the writers' side and something like this is only going to push them further and faster in that direction.
I know why the writers are striking and I think they are greedy, power hungry fools (Well let me correct that by saying I think the guild as a whole is being like this, not necessarily the individuals) after reading some of their demands (They like focusing on the percentage of DVD sale profits, but forget to mention other things like more control over shows writers have little to nothing to do with such as Reality TV). Also I want to know, if they are so "poor" how can they afford to sustain themselves during a strike? I feel terrible though for the stage hands and other low level employees who are going to suffer from this, many of which could lose their job. Anyway that is what I think. Either way I think people are going to get frustrated with both sides because neither side is even trying to compromise.
Post by: that Baby guy on November 14, 2007, 07:02:57 PM
Additionally, I think anyone who breaks the terms of a contract isn't a very good person. I think most of us realize that the individual writers themselves can't help this, but the actors and other people can. Lot's of actors have been breaking contracts to picket, and that's not right, IMO.
Post by: oohhboy on November 15, 2007, 12:00:55 AM
As with reality shows, do you really honest to god think that stuff is unscripted? Sure most of the dialogue outside of narrators are indeed unscripted, but the scenarios, entire premise of the show had to be written by someone. Someone had to conceive the stupid challenges, events, the overall progression. Otherwise you end up with 24 people starving to death on an island or whatever hell hole they can find.
If I also understand it right, I don't think they are breaking their contracts. Their deal with the studios dates back to the 80's and it is only now that it has expired. Do you really think that they are collectively that stupid to open themselves up like that to lawsuits? As with the actors going on the picket lines, most likely they have no work to go to anyway, contract or no contract. It also doesn't hurt them since one, they are already effectively out of the job, two, by applying additional pressure they can resolve the situation sooner, not later, three, they can expect quid pro quo in the future.
Family guy with out Seth Macfarlane. Dude, he is Family Guy. That is going to create one whole season of pure suck. Oh well, no matter, my plate is full enough as it is with study and general ethanol consumption.
Post by: UncleBob on November 15, 2007, 12:56:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Well don't watch it. Tuh duh, problem solved!"
And I won't be and it won't bother me not to.
It's nice to know that you have the same outlook toward everything - ready to condemn it based on your preconceived notions of how it's going to be, rather than give it a chance once it has been released.
Face it, we're talking about Family Guy here, not Shakespeare.
Post by: Stogi on November 15, 2007, 01:59:26 AM
Post by: wandering on November 15, 2007, 02:16:21 AM
Quote
I know why the writers are striking and I think they are greedy, power hungry fools (Well let me correct that by saying I think the guild as a whole is being like this, not necessarily the individuals) after reading some of their demands (They like focusing on the percentage of DVD sale profits, but forget to mention other things like more control over shows writers have little to nothing to do with such as Reality TV).
Getting a bigger cut of DVD profits has actually been taken off the table. The main thing the writer's guild is asking for is a percentage of internet, cell phone, and other "new media" sale profits. Right now, when you buy an episode of the Office on iTunes, NBC takes the $1 and gives the people who wrote the episode nothing. The studios are the ones being greedy, not the writers.
Post by: Ceric on November 15, 2007, 03:12:40 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 15, 2007, 04:22:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Guys. Fox is going to air some episodes that are mostly finished but didn't get Seth Macfarlane's final approval. That's all. They almost certainly aren't going to make new episodes with different writers/voice actors. (link)Quote
I know why the writers are striking and I think they are greedy, power hungry fools (Well let me correct that by saying I think the guild as a whole is being like this, not necessarily the individuals) after reading some of their demands (They like focusing on the percentage of DVD sale profits, but forget to mention other things like more control over shows writers have little to nothing to do with such as Reality TV).
Getting a bigger cut of DVD profits has actually been taken off the table. The main thing the writer's guild is asking for is a percentage of internet, cell phone, and other "new media" sale profits. Right now, when you buy an episode of the Office on iTunes, NBC takes the $1 and gives the people who wrote the episode nothing. The studios are the ones being greedy, not the writers.
Actually there is more to the demands then that, here is the OFFICIAL list of proposals they have. Here. I would like to know who this mysterious entity NBC is that takes the $1, is that a person? Oh wait, no they aren't, they are made up of thousands of people including shareholders. Guess what, if the writers want more of that profit maybe they should invest in stock especially for a medium that still is untested when it comes to profitability.
What bothers me most about this whole situation is two things. One I think the guilds are being selfish and yes, greedy. Why do I say that? Well because there are MANY people who could lose their jobs over this that will not benefit one iota no matter how this turns out. Some of these people are truly living day by day off their wages. Not only that but the viewers are getting screwed, especially those that are paying for cable or sattelite, and no matter what anyone says, they are the most important piece to this puzzle.
The second area that bothers me, and this is directed at BOTH sides, is that I have no idea what is true and what isn't. I don't know for sure what was pulled from the table, and what wasn't, all I have is the word of the negotiators on both sides (Mainly the writers side because the companies themselves are being painted as the villain), some of which conflict, such as who walked out of the negotiations. What I do have is the demands of the WGA as posted on their site, that is perhaps the only source I can honestly reference.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 15, 2007, 07:09:50 AM
But my general vibe is that I can't stand anything to do with unions and collective bargaining. Typically I side with neither of them as the whole thing is generally corrupt. I tend to have a little more respect for the employers since that side is usually honest about being dishonest. They don't hide behind some "worker's rights" BS and pretend they're doing some great deed like union heads do. A union head is just a second boss and typically the little guy isn't the one benefiting. Like so much in life when power over others is involved it's about grabbing what you can.
Though my hostility towards the subject is affected by public sector unions here in Canada. They'll go on strike even though they're already overpaid and then ask me, the taxpayer, to support them. Their pay comes out of my pocket. I'm their employer. Why should I side with them?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 15, 2007, 07:15:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think writers should get royalities if their work is bringing in any income. On that point I side with the writers.
But my general vibe is that I can't stand anything to do with unions and collective bargaining. Typically I side with neither of them as the whole thing is generally corrupt. I tend to have a little more respect for the employers since that side is usually honest about being dishonest. They don't hide behind some "worker's rights" BS and pretend they're doing some great deed like union heads do. A union head is just a second boss and typically the little guy isn't the one benefiting. Like so much in life when power over others is involved it's about grabbing what you can.
Though my hostility towards the subject is affected by public sector unions here in Canada. They'll go on strike even though they're already overpaid and then ask me, the taxpayer, to support them. Their pay comes out of my pocket. I'm their employer. Why should I side with them?
Good points Ian, personally I side with them as well when it comes to royalties based off stuff like iPod and perhaps other pay media. What i do not side with them in that area is getting much if anything from free programs that you can watch on the website in case you missed an episode. As a consumer I like the ability to see shows I missed for free and I feel if they start getting a percentage that could change. You can't tell me they make much money from them either, because the ads are minimal and I doubt they bring in much revenue.
Post by: Crimm on November 15, 2007, 08:05:37 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 15, 2007, 09:34:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
COME ON CANCELATION!
Quiet you wormhead!
Post by: Crimm on November 15, 2007, 10:22:25 AM
American Dad
Robot Chicken
Caveman
Sadly, the last one is the most original.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on November 15, 2007, 11:36:23 AM
Post by: Plugabugz on November 16, 2007, 12:18:24 AM
That said, the very idea will set me out amongst the dogs wont it?
Post by: SixthAngel on November 16, 2007, 01:59:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Good points Ian, personally I side with them as well when it comes to royalties based off stuff like iPod and perhaps other pay media. What i do not side with them in that area is getting much if anything from free programs that you can watch on the website in case you missed an episode. As a consumer I like the ability to see shows I missed for free and I feel if they start getting a percentage that could change. You can't tell me they make much money from them either, because the ads are minimal and I doubt they bring in much revenue.
The videos you watch without paying are just like television because they have ads. The studios still make money whether you watch it from their website or on tv because the ads pay for it. The difference is the writers see no money from the cash the studio rakes on the online advertisements with the videos. If you are watching from veoh or something then nobody is making money because you are technically illegally watching it.
I can't find the video right now but it has the ceo's of the major studios talking about how much money they are making and will increasingly make through their online videos. They then turn around and tell writers that they can't share this "untested" market that they admit is not only making them money now but they expect to make more and more in the future.
I haven't watched Family Guy in about a year so whether it is on or not it doesn't bother me.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 17, 2007, 07:33:37 AM
Post by: Mashiro on November 17, 2007, 11:21:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
The Family Guy is terrible. I've never seen an actual joke on the show, it's just random flash-backs to stuff that is funny, but makes no sense and has no place in the show. It sucks.
A comedy show that you admit is funny is terrible . . .
just think about that for a second.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on November 17, 2007, 11:24:57 AM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 18, 2007, 01:38:25 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy#Jimmy_Corrigan
Family Guy is the Dane Cook of animated sitcoms.
Post by: Mashiro on November 18, 2007, 02:53:39 PM
It's funny and that's all that matters to me.
Robot Chicken is hilarious for example and all it does is reference pop culture or do random jokes.
Many ideas are influenced or "ripped off" from other sources. It's just how the world works.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 18, 2007, 04:27:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
No it makes sense to me. The show is funny - but all it does is rip off other shows and books, and then fill in the other time with some random flash back. I don't even need to point out the Homer-Peter comparisons, but here's exactly what Stewie was ripped off of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy#Jimmy_Corrigan
Family Guy is the Dane Cook of animated sitcoms.
"Ripping off" other shows and books is called parody, there is nothing wrong with that.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on November 18, 2007, 04:29:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
Family Guy is the Dane Cook of animated sitcoms.
But Family Guy is funny...
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 18, 2007, 04:51:51 PM
Post by: ThePerm on November 26, 2007, 09:56:05 AM
abe: Fore Score and 7 years ago
me: lets play golf
bill: do you know where Bridgette is?
Post by: capamerica on December 07, 2007, 07:58:51 AM
After the last couple episodes I finally decided to just stop watching it all together. They blame the fact that the episodes weren't that great because Fox finished them, But seriously even if the writers were back I can't see how much help that would have been. I would not have any problem what so ever if Family Guy was canned again, Let them do a few Direct to Video movies, like in the theme of the StarWars special, but no more of these totaly random, wrong and pointless episodes. Fox should take the money going into Family Guy and move it over to Futurama.
American Dad is still pretty good, but I'm getting the feeling they are trying to make it more like Family Guy, which is ruining the show for me.
At least I still find Robot Chicken fun. =/
Post by: 18 Days on December 09, 2007, 02:06:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I would like to know who this mysterious entity NBC is that takes the $1, is that a person? Oh wait, no they aren't, they are made up of thousands of people including shareholders. Guess what, if the writers want more of that profit maybe they should invest in stock especially for a medium that still is untested when it comes to profitability.
OH NOES NOT THE SHAREHOLDERS! And why should the writer's be asking for money for their work when really they should be gambling their fortune on the stock market.
QuoteOh yeah totally. I mean those policman, nurses and teachers. Who do they even think they are? Saving our lives, protecting us and educating us, when was the last time any of those did us any good? You're right in believing that these thieves, collecting less than the median wage deserve any more, especially when we're already giving them our contempt for free.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Though my hostility towards the subject is affected by public sector unions here in Canada. They'll go on strike even though they're already overpaid and then ask me, the taxpayer, to support them. Their pay comes out of my pocket. I'm their employer. Why should I side with them?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2007, 08:54:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: 18 Days
Clearly they should put the idea balls back in the manatee's tank. That'll end this writer's strike. When the Family Guy manatees cross, everyone will.Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I would like to know who this mysterious entity NBC is that takes the $1, is that a person? Oh wait, no they aren't, they are made up of thousands of people including shareholders. Guess what, if the writers want more of that profit maybe they should invest in stock especially for a medium that still is untested when it comes to profitability.
OH NOES NOT THE SHAREHOLDERS! And why should the writer's be asking for money for their work when really they should be gambling their fortune on the stock market.QuoteOh yeah totally. I mean those teachers, nurses and teachers. Who do they even think they are? Saving our lives, protecting us and educating us, when was the last time any of those did us any good? You're right in believing that these thieves, collecting less than the median wage deserve any more, especially when we're already giving them our contempt for free.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Though my hostility towards the subject is affected by public sector unions here in Canada. They'll go on strike even though they're already overpaid and then ask me, the taxpayer, to support them. Their pay comes out of my pocket. I'm their employer. Why should I side with them?
::rolls eyes:: Let me just say this. If you aren't willing to take a risk, then you don't deserve to reap the rewards. The writers are not risking anything, I'm sorry they aren't. They already get paid decently and if they wish to expand that, maybe they should actually take on some risk and invest in things they see as potential money makers in the future. It is easy to demand things, when you have no risk attached to it.
In regards to teachers, I wish I could work 180days a year and get paid 40-70k with a job that is virtually bullet proof when it comes to firing, even if you are one of the most inept teachers around.
Post by: odifiend on December 09, 2007, 10:01:01 AM
I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching. But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on December 09, 2007, 10:18:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching. But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.
Yes there are. I've seen it with my own two eyes.
Post by: odifiend on December 09, 2007, 11:05:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching. But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.
Yes there are. I've seen it with my own two eyes.
Bah - I was definitely wrong on that. I just looked through NY and CA pay charts. I would like to point out that those states have notoriously high costs of living. I remember when I was a boy in Canada, teachers went on strike for more pay. I was about 9 so it didn't effect my schedule, but I do realize it could hurt students. Now that I live in NC, I see the alternative where a teacher's starting salary is around 30k (because teachers union's are illegal). And yes a teacher who doesn't do summer school works 180 days (+teacher work days - more like 200 days) but the average person works 52 wks *5 days = 260 days - vacation alotted. The time difference is about a month - month and a half, but often the pay difference for someone with the same amount of education is more than a month salary.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2007, 11:28:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiendQuote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching. But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.
Yes there are. I've seen it with my own two eyes.
Bah - I was definitely wrong on that. I just looked through NY and CA pay charts. I would like to point out that those states have notoriously high costs of living. I remember when I was a boy in Canada, teachers went on strike for more pay. I was about 9 so it didn't effect my schedule, but I do realize it could hurt students. Now that I live in NC, I see the alternative where a teacher's starting salary is around 30k (because teachers union's are illegal). And yes a teacher who doesn't do summer school works 180 days (+teacher work days - more like 200 days) but the average person works 52 wks *5 days = 260 days - vacation alotted. The time difference is about a month - month and a half, but often the pay difference for someone with the same amount of education is more than a month salary.
Now lets talk about job security, you have perhaps some of the most inept teachers around that cannot be fired because of the guild. I think teachers should be payed on merit, and how well they perform not seniority like the guild pushes for. Not everyone is equal in talent or drive. There are some teachers that I think deserve MUCH more than they are paid, but on the flip side there are those that are getting paid way too much and maybe shouldn't even have a job.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2007, 11:32:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
Golden, are you f'ing serious? It is not a risk to quit your job for indefinite amount of time now? I'll give you logical risk because the deal is the country (really countries) will not go without new programming for an extended period of time. But it makes a lot more sense to redistribute this 'extra' money that writers generate (in the same way they generated profits before). Networks couldn't really expect the loophole that the internet wasn't in their contract to run long term.
I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching. But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.
Yes I am fing serious, the writers suck for the most part and frankly I would fire the vast majority of them. I'm to the point where I hope the studios say "We offered you a fair deal accept or don't" and then give them an ultimatum, they either accept or the studios cut ties with the WGA and hire young talent that is chomping at the bit to have these poor writer's jobs. If they want part of the profits beyond their job, they can invest in the company. What about the greedy heads of the guild now wanting the Networks to not deal with reality tv companies until they sign on with the WGA? They want ultimate power to cripple networks and it is sick. So they get no sympathy for me. The networks offered them a deal and they rejected it, and instead want more power. If you truly believe this is all about internet residuals you are extremely naive, it is about power and money which you would know if you actually read their demands. Interesting you mention them "risking" so much for a strike, shows me that they must be doing quite well if they can sustain a strike like this. Let's not even get into the fact that many of these people are more than likely FORCED to strike, or face dire consequences from their guild.
I realize it is convenient to make the studios the bad guy, it simplifies things for people but greed is coming from the writers side as much if not more than the studios who have more people to worry about. All the writers guild cares about is the writers guild, they don't care who gets the pink slip or who loses a job that isn't part of their guild. Instead they want ultimate power to cripple a company if they feel they aren't getting paid enough by digging their tentacles in all aspects of the company. So if thise drags out much longer, I say cut ties with the WGA and start anew, besides the WGA is saying how important they are to studios, maybe they can take that supposed greatness and start a new company.
Post by: odifiend on December 09, 2007, 01:08:39 PM
Internet residuals was the straw. I didn't follow the WGA before but I'm sure they work like every other union composed of humans - they had endless complaints and actions to institute and now that they have a stage of course they will push for more. Of course the writer's guild only cares about the writer's guild and who pays it dues. It is a union. An organization of humans facing up against an organization of humans will always be gray. One - humans. Two- a group of them means it is a lot harder to back down. There is nothing naive about me - I just thought your alternative was ridiculous.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2007, 01:28:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
Your alternative: invest instead of strike sparked the fing serious. If the same job they were doing is generating new profits, they are entitled to those new profits. They shouldn't have to play the stock market to gain the true value on their work. Then there is the fact that not everyone is going to have the disposible income to invest at the end of the day.
Internet residuals was the straw. I didn't follow the WGA before but I'm sure they work like every other union composed of humans - they had endless complaints and actions to institute and now that they have a stage of course they will push for more. Of course the writer's guild only cares about the writer's guild and who pays it dues. It is a union. An organization of humans facing up against an organization of humans will always be gray. One - humans. Two- a group of them means it is a lot harder to back down. There is nothing naive about me - I just thought your alternative was ridiculous.
Once again, if you aren't willing to take a risk why should you reap the benefits? On a side note I found out a staff writer makes 60k per year. That is not a poor person even in a place with a high cost of living, not to mention that is for a BEGINNING writer. They can make upwards to 200k with residuals, so excuse me for not feeling sorry for them. Writers are only one piece of the puzzle, you have other staff as well, everything from the lighting people, to the stage hands, to the actors, to the producers, to the stakeholders, to the viewers themselves who are paying money into cable networks. What makes the writers so freaking special? They area already well paid, and really have no financial risk attached to their job.
Here is a fair solution, how about the studios give them what they want in internet residuals, but with a catch, if they end up losing money from the risk, the guild is responsible for covering whatever percentage that agreed to get if it was a success. So if they agree to let's say, 4% return on internet sales, if it ends up losing they need to cover 4% of whatever was lost. That sounds fair, but of course they won't because it is easy to push someone into something where you have no negatives attached to yourself if it ends up flopping, because you can take the money you did get out of it and laugh all the way to the bank.
For the heck of it, here is an article on a staff writer and how they are compensated Here along with this one also from the WGA's website. See now everyone can be edumacacted .
Post by: odifiend on December 09, 2007, 02:31:51 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 09, 2007, 05:28:30 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2007, 06:13:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
My question is: "If you are willing to take a risk, why shouldn't you reap the benefits?" There is a huge risk in entering the entertainment industry in the first place. Not everybody makes it. Not every pilot is well received. Not every show lasts forever. A writer who gets picked up should be compensated for the entertainment they provide. That is how it works for actors. The difference is that an audience can physically see an actor and actress - naturally they can garner more support for themselves. Not true for the writer. You are right in that writers don't do it alone - but they aren't as replaceable as a best boy especially once the audience has gotten a taste for them. Nor is the risk of being a stage hand as great as that of deciding to write.
I think you would be surprised how replaceable many of the writers can be, and if this strike drags on long I think we may find out. You are right it is not easy to get in the business, but once you are there, if you are talented you can and do succeed. Though I wouldn't really call trying to get into something a "risk" it is more of a goal, because most people do something else if they cannot achieve that goal. There are different things that a decent writer can do, and sure it may not be their dream job but they can still utilize their talents. Heck with writing you can write your scripts bits and pieces at time with good time management, that is not a big risk IMO, all they are dedicating is a few hours a day (Or whatever) and when it is ready they can start shopping it around which perhaps requires the biggest dedication but it still can be done and if it gets rejected you move on with life.
On the flip side if you are a corporation with shareholders, your assets are physically invested in a company and you cannot just move on and try again, if you do you may be filing for bankruptcy depending on how much you have invested. Whether people wish to admit it or not, the corporate heads have many people to worry about, the writers just have themselves so they may not care or really see the big picture. With that said, I do support some residuals to the writers but I think it should be dependent on merit, not what the guild dictates. Though on the flip side I have trouble caring about a group of people are doing relatively well, perhaps not rich, but at the very least middle class who get paid thousands of dollars for a 30 minute script. Now if they were coal miners or some dreadful job with poor wages and working conditions, I could be more sympathetic. As it stands, I hold them in slighly less contempt than I do professional athletes who go on a strike. Let's just say, if I could get into the script writing business I would be more than happy with what compensation is now.
But, let me just say you are definitely a fun person to debate odified! I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. One area I think we can agree on though is that it is hard to get the full story from these negotiations, both sides are throwing pot shots at each other and you have no idea who did what because each side is blaming the other! It would be great if they could sit down like civilized adults and politely negotiate without slinging mud at each other in front of the media.
Post by: Plugabugz on December 09, 2007, 10:25:38 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 10, 2007, 07:45:15 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 10, 2007, 01:25:38 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 10, 2007, 01:28:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Plugabugz
A protracted American strike results in a few things, to me at least: The sudden resurgence in British and Canadian productions (Torchwood season 2 starting next month, Sanctuary, Stargate Atlantis becoming interesting when there's nothing to compare it against etc)
Is Stargate Atlantis written by Canadian writers that aren't involved with the strike? Regardless if this goes on too long it can mean bad things for the California economy.
Post by: Plugabugz on December 10, 2007, 10:22:16 PM
Doctor Who, Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures etc are filmed in Wales.
Post by: capamerica on December 12, 2007, 07:34:35 AM
Over the last 8 years I can only think of 5 shows I watched that were actually made in the US.
I hope the networks take this time to open their arms to more shows from other countries.
Its time to stop remaking UK shows and just air the originals.
American TV sucks, time to bring over more shows from Canada, UK, Australia and Japan.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on December 12, 2007, 05:34:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiendQuote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching. But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.
Yes there are. I've seen it with my own two eyes.
Bah - I was definitely wrong on that. I just looked through NY and CA pay charts. I would like to point out that those states have notoriously high costs of living. I remember when I was a boy in Canada, teachers went on strike for more pay. I was about 9 so it didn't effect my schedule, but I do realize it could hurt students. Now that I live in NC, I see the alternative where a teacher's starting salary is around 30k (because teachers union's are illegal). And yes a teacher who doesn't do summer school works 180 days (+teacher work days - more like 200 days) but the average person works 52 wks *5 days = 260 days - vacation alotted. The time difference is about a month - month and a half, but often the pay difference for someone with the same amount of education is more than a month salary.
My mom being a teacher in Ontario, I'm a little familiar with the general pay scale. 30k is less than the starting salary, but not as far off as you would think. My mom having taught for over 25 years pulls in a bit over 70k (before Canadian Taxes, keep in mind). And when teachers strike, salary is usually not the main issue. If you ask almost any teacher, they would prefer more prep time over a 1% salary increase.
Post by: Plugabugz on December 13, 2007, 12:34:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
I hope the networks take this time to open their arms to more shows from other countries.
Its time to stop remaking UK shows and just air the originals.
American TV sucks, time to bring over more shows from Canada, UK, Australia and Japan.
So what does everyone think of the UK versions of stuff like The Office?
Post by: IceCold on December 13, 2007, 09:32:38 AM
Post by: 18 Days on December 15, 2007, 03:02:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PlugabugzQuote
Originally posted by: capamerica
I hope the networks take this time to open their arms to more shows from other countries.
Its time to stop remaking UK shows and just air the originals.
American TV sucks, time to bring over more shows from Canada, UK, Australia and Japan.
So what does everyone think of the UK versions of stuff like The Office?
Superior in every way.
Oh and GP, merit based pay for teachers is absolute fail. You cannot measure teacher performance in any objective way.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 15, 2007, 01:26:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: 18 DaysQuote
Originally posted by: PlugabugzQuote
Originally posted by: capamerica
I hope the networks take this time to open their arms to more shows from other countries.
Its time to stop remaking UK shows and just air the originals.
American TV sucks, time to bring over more shows from Canada, UK, Australia and Japan.
So what does everyone think of the UK versions of stuff like The Office?
Superior in every way.
Oh and GP, merit based pay for teachers is absolute fail. You cannot measure teacher performance in any objective way.
So pay the inept lazy teachers the same as hard working teachers that the kids learn something. When students can tell who a bad teacher is and a good teacher is, means there is an objective way of doing so whether it be testing or another way. Idiot teachers are just as easy to spot as good teachers.
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 15, 2007, 01:40:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PlugabugzQuote
Originally posted by: capamerica
I hope the networks take this time to open their arms to more shows from other countries.
Its time to stop remaking UK shows and just air the originals.
American TV sucks, time to bring over more shows from Canada, UK, Australia and Japan.
So what does everyone think of the UK versions of stuff like The Office?
American Version of The Office > UK version of The Office.
British humor is definitely not for me. I like rude, offensive and unbelievably politically incorrect humor.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on December 15, 2007, 05:36:03 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 19, 2007, 02:53:03 AM
But, to allow teachers that have a TRACK RECORD of poor student scores, parent evaluations, and here is another one...other teacher evaluating. Should not get the same raises as the teachers doing better...or probably should be fired.
I believe personally, in raising teachers salaries to pull in the best talent possible, and then stop this PC crap and help the teachers design their own teaching plans (that obviously must be reviewed) and give them the power to actually discipline and remove trouble students.
So, really I believe Schools need to be pulled away from Federal Control, and away from State Control and be privately run. The States as a whole for fund them, and the Federal Government just loosely monitor all the states and insure they are teaching required basics. Then if a public school is failing because of mismanagement, then the private company can be booted out. Hell, it would take awhile to work out the plan, but it would better.
Or, if that is too complicated for you...then lets just get a good Voucher program going and allow parents to send their kids to private schools, if they choose. More private schools will open up and competition is always a good thing.
