What is Digg?75 Comments
- AphraBenn, on 11/18/2007, -1/+21I think for the screenwriter to retain "authorship" the way novelists and playwrights do is a great idea. It would mean less money up front but it would put the screenwriter on the same footing as every other kind of creative writer in this economy (except for copywriters). It might even totally revolutionize what creative output is presented to the public. It means less security upfront but it would also place screenwriters in the public eye the way they presently don't exist. The public knows the names of great novelists and great playwrights, how many great screenwriters does it know, how many screenwriters are kids taught to quote?
For the writers that have nice, cushy gigs at the top of the heap that could mean a swimming pool or two less. But in return you get integrity and real creative control. Pity that integrity and money often have to be on the opposite sides, but that seems to be one of the strange ways that choices for creative professionals line up.
Mind you, producers will fight this tooth and nail because it does mean they lose the control they now retain, but that's another story. - JavertHolmes, on 11/18/2007, -5/+13Hollywood pumps out *****. The populace says that the latest movies are *****, but still packs the theatres. Hollywood sees ***** sells, therefore Hollywood pumps out more *****. Hollywood knows it's *****, the writers know it's *****, the people know it's *****, but people keep swallowing the ***** wholesale, sucking down one fat lincoln log and asking for more. Hollywood then asks for ***** from the writers, because ***** is what sells, and the writers don't mind selling out to write *****, so more ***** gets written.
Now you have a bunch of writers who have sold out and written ***** wanting control of their ***** so they can make more money selling their precious residual turds in the future, ***** on any new medium that pops up out there in a way analogous to the cat that likes ***** in a litter box 4 seconds after you've cleaned it.
Does this about sum it up? - thecheatah, on 11/19/2007, -2/+9Can us programmer picket too? I write art all the time in my code. Its very beautiful and many people appreciate it when things "just work." I want to get residuals for code that can be used in the future!
- actorboy, on 11/18/2007, -3/+9"heyre beaing treated unfairly, like most workers, get used to it."
Or stand up and change it. - mediaphile, on 11/19/2007, -1/+6You have no idea what producers actually do in the film business. Without producers, films would never get made, unless someone else like the director took over the duties of the producer. But that would never work, because directors already have enough work to do as it is, and the whole reason there are producers is because they're good at a specific task that someone like me as a director of photography has no skill with: business. The producers are responsible for handling the entire business side of a film from conception to distribution. They secure funding, locations, actors, times, equipment, transportation. There are individual people who work under the producer who handle specific tasks, but the producer is the major player in the making of a film. The producer is the only person working on a film who handles it from beginning to end; the director stops working once the film is finished, which is long before it ever gets marketing and distribution. Because of how producers are typified in the media, people think they're these slimy money-grubbing douchebag nimwits. But I challenge you to look up every single one of your favorite movies, the greatest movies of all time, and you will find producers behind them that worked hard to get those films made.
As for screenwriters retaining control of their scripts throughout the filmmaking process, that would be a terrible idea. No script ever written has been so perfect that it doesn't need to be changed during production of the film. The skills necessary to write a good story are completely different than making a good film. If the screenwriters retained complete control of the scripts, then every writer would have to become the director, and that rarely happens as it is because it's so difficult to be good at both sides of the script.
For example, say a screenwriter writes a camera move into his script, for whatever reason. Typically, this would be a big no-no, unless it's extremely necessary to the story. As the director of photography, I would get this script, look at the camera move, and with years of training and experience behind a camera, I might see major problems with the camera move described in the script. Maybe it doesn't work with the shots we have planned for the rest of the scene. Maybe it's a little too jarring of a move. Maybe the move isn't feasible in the location we're shooting. Maybe we just can't afford the equipment necessary for the shot. For whatever reason, I would have to be able to take it and change it however I thought would best fit the story. But if the screenwriter still held control of his work even into the filming process, I wouldn't be able to do my job unless the screenwriter said it was okay. Things could never work that way on set, or nothing would ever get done.
So while it's nice to think that this would be a tidy little solution to the problem of stale hackneyed Hollywood films, it's just not realistic in the least. - Swift2, on 11/19/2007, -0/+5No. Why does it pump out *****? Because the megacorporations have no idea what makes a good story. They just buy "properties," and get the guys to type out scripts exactly like last year's hit.
- bratpack8, on 11/18/2007, -3/+8Comparing writing to a sheet metal factory worker isn't the best analogy, because he makes one-piece of sheet metal, which cannot be duplicated. But let's take the pro-residual argument to other professionals. What about the engineer that designed that piece of sheet metal? What about the engineer who designed the machine that that sheet metal is produced with. These both are used over and over. What about a programmer of software code? What about a game programmer? I could go on, but hopefully the point is made.
- DephexTwin, on 11/19/2007, -0/+5I must disagree. We had Arrested Development 4 years ago.
- Rapter09, on 11/19/2007, -2/+6Because your plumber didn't write the pipes. Your plumber also probably didn't even install the pipes himself. It's also a completely different industry alltogether and a very poor analogy to make. Home plumbing is a dime a dozen. You're talking about an almost infinitely sustainable job. Writers don't get that same benefit.
- tewcewl, on 11/19/2007, -0/+4Coders are able to license their work and get paid every time a license is sold; engineers can patent their inventions and get paid every time that patent is used, just like residuals and royalties. Your point is invalid.
- JavertHolmes, on 11/18/2007, -0/+4The writers of gcc or assemblers, as well as the CPU architecture creators should be getting a load of residuals. :)
- ZenMojo, on 11/19/2007, -0/+3Yeah, they all need to ***** unionize and get with the program. I've heard of comic writers considering the opportunity of unionizing because, as it stands, they get hired for a page-by-page rate and get jack control over their own creative property.
- ZenMojo, on 11/19/2007, -0/+3Then do that. People keep whining and making analogies as if their rut and own exploitation is how the entire world should be. Maybe if more people stood up to management they would get what they deserve?
- ChaosMotor, on 11/19/2007, -1/+4The ability to negotiate fair payment for your labor is freedom. The ability to fire anyone who disagrees with you is tyranny. Which do you support?
- reddikilowatt, on 11/19/2007, -0/+3Reality TV got a toehold during the last writers' strike.
- Swift2, on 11/19/2007, -1/+4And why would that be? Because some cigar-smoking turd in a suit wants them to make it that way, because it worked last year.
- thebrawl, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2Why don't these writers just stop complaining and start their own studio. They could put their money together and start getting 50% instead of 2%.
- kinerry, on 11/19/2007, -2/+4This is exactly why unions are worthless these days, they have no negotiating power
- ChaosMotor, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2It sums up that you have no idea at all how this process works.
- Math, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2As a programmer we make about 2-3 times what a writer would, so get more money up front, but no residuals like the article mentions.
A lot of programmers write applications that are only used internally too, so generate no money directly. It would suck for programmers to get residuals and a lower income. - mediaphile, on 11/19/2007, -1/+3What about the writers who are actually talented? ***** them too?
- donatj, on 11/18/2007, -4/+6Hate communism, love america. The freedom to fire people who don't do their jobs is freedom.
- ChaosMotor, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2Or we can use it to expose the same discontent festering under the surface nationwide and worldwide, and use it to force the same issues into common discourse. It can go either way, which direction do you want to take it?
PS It's not the writers whose ideas are *****, it's the studio executives who interfere, change, censor, and neuter the writers' product that turn quality products into *****. - inactive, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2I wanted to add. Having been an agent, a personal manager and a producer- the amazing and wonderful scripts that get optioned and never produced is amazing. "Hollywood" intentionally keeps the best off the screen and will hand you either a big pile of ***** or a remake a great film and hand you and even bigger pile of *****. Once in a while when they get tired of a bitchy public- they thrown in a jewel. Don't be such a putz!
The answer is- quit digging into your pockets giving them your hard earned dollars for *****. If you are willing to pay for *****- then don't complain how much the meal stinks. - bugsy187, on 11/18/2007, -3/+5They have done their jobs. They just want to be paid for it.
- fantasticFlan, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2How do you feel about authors making money off the sale of the same book over and over again?
- ihate2reg4u, on 11/19/2007, -1/+3The entire issue becomes moot if works enter the public domain in a timely manner the way the founding fathers intended.
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2People must remember, that good show or not- without the writer(s) there is no show and it would do well for "producers" and "executives" to remember this. This ugly and now completely corporate greed ridden business has always been dog-eat-dog- but it has now come to a major crossroads with the creative side and the financial side. I personally feel that with the advent of the internet that creative sides should disenfranchise from the financial side, pool our resources and create our own original content and distribute equally amongst our creative collaborators. There really is little need for interaction with executives, bean counters and independent producers. Seriously- it takes a studio village of idiots to produce a movie for $50 Million dollars and for the most part the show ends up being ***** anyway. However, for those of us who collaborated with creative friends have managed to create truly wonderful projects for a fraction of the price and end up with a very entertained audience. Aw- but the bravery it takes for such a step! Many writers are still weaning on the electric teat of an un-nurturing and disease ridden mother!
- heinousjay, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2Home plumbing is a dime a dozen? Somebody's never tried to do it.
- reddikilowatt, on 11/19/2007, -1/+3Does your company give you stock options? In a way, they are your residuals.
Everyone focuses on the "big check" these writers now get for writing movies. How many movies tank after a weekend and are hardly ever seen again? I doubt the writers get big payments for them.
If you are working on the next Oracle, those stock options may be worth quite a bit. The next MS Bob may not be as lucrative a project. - rocket777, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2Why does this writer think that there is a "cause" to be on one side or the other.
Writer's and the people who buy their work are simply negotiating a price. Residuals is a way of making the writer share in the potential profits as though they were an entrepreneur. Being an entrepreneur means taking a risk. It is the job of the producer to decide when and if they will risk their capital. For taking the risk, they receive a higher payoff when successful, and go broke when they are not.
But the decision is simply between the two parties, and has nothing to do with some form of collective notion of fair pricing. It's like asking if Actors should get paid more than teachers. We live in a market situation, and the bottom line decides. - donatj, on 11/18/2007, -3/+4Frankly, I write a program for my boss, he reuses it, I don't get a piece every time its reused whole or in part, and I wouldn't want that, sure I'd like the money, but is it right? Have I done anything to diserve it, or was I hired to make a product for them to sell? Frankly, I'm having trouble empathizing with people that already make loads more than me whining that they need more money.
- WolverineBlue, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Authors aren't normally hired by publishers as salaried employees; they write on their own money and time, that's why it's THEIR work. What the writer's guild is proposing seems analogous to a factory worker being paid to pound sheet metal then, afterwards, asking the company to BUY the sheet metal from him. Maybe they could ask for something akin to stock options whereby they would have partial, albeit small, ownership of the movie as a whole, but they obviously can't have total ownership/control of the script so long as they're being paid by the producer to write it.
- cameljoe, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Thank god for professional sports!! No script required.
- ChaosMotor, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Top to bottom, bottom to top. Let's proceed through the revolution in any and every area that we have leverage.
- ZenMojo, on 11/19/2007, -1/+2"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 ***** factory, I’ve just given you a giant clue as to why.)
--A.E. Vogler
This guy explains the whole dilemma in the article. Good thing you didn't read it and risk sounding intelligent on the matter. That would suck. - reddikilowatt, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Most movies are targeted at kids who are too young to drive. Once you get your license you can make out in the back seat.
- ZenMojo, on 11/19/2007, -1/+2Just because you don't get it and are happy to take it up the back end instead of getting more off the back end does not mean your willingness to subject yourself to intellectual slavery is the "right" approach. Whatever works for you, fine, but demanding a bigger take of what you create is your right.
- Swift2, on 11/19/2007, -2/+3Very interesting. For the author to retain the rights is "communism," but for the studio to buy the rights and represent itself from that point on as the "rights holder" is capitalism. Actually, not. It's some kind of feudalism. As the author points out, the first demand, back in the '30s, was that a writer retain copyright, a right that was first mentioned in the Constitution. It's Congress, by the way, that has the power "...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" but the studios did say, at that time, that this was a bunch of "communists." Funny definition of communism. If I start a company, who owns the rights to the logo, to the property that belongs to it? Me. I'm the capitalist. But if you write a movie script, all of a sudden it's different.
The history of this century, instead, has been a history of alienating the creator from his work, and investing total creative rights to the proxy "holder."
Let's say, instead, that residual be abolished, but the copyright of a movie returns, after say, five years, to the artists who made it. Then if it's been a big success, and can be sold on TV, or disc, or the Internet, it's the authors, the actors and the director, that retain the rights. If it's a flop, it might become understood later. If it's a hit, why should the multinationals have all the rights, going more than a hundred years now? The studios, the labels and the networks have been bullies until now. Why should it go on forever? If it's Star Wars or Die Hard, the studios could just forget about residuals. But to profit past year one, they'd have to buy the rights again in the competitive market, for another limited period. - Icyfenix, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1That kinda made me sick to my stomach.
- TAGline, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1They could, tewcewl, but only if they did it independently. If you are employed by a company to program or design you are almost always forced to give your patent/code rights to that company entirely. You could argue that its your choice to work for a place that does that, but its also the choice of professional writers who work on shows like The Office or the Daily Show.
- pennvneff, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1How the ***** would you know? Try getting off your dad's dick first.
- internetcoward, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1Ok so shows like Mad TV and Cavemen are ....?
- Icyfenix, on 11/19/2007, -1/+2Why? WHHHYYYY? Why when there is so much good tv on is there a writer's strike? Why not 4 years ago when we only had reality TV and long-running sitcoms
- DephexTwin, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Somebody has to be doing the work somehow!
- DAC1138, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1You play right into my question. With so many other people out there with great writing talent, why is hollywood canceling all these currently in-development projects (Like the new Justice League movie). Why? Why is hollywood acting like the writers that are on srtike are the only writers on the planet? They're not! I have a list of friends with great writing talent that have the same ability as these big shots. But they are never given a chance because of the closed doors of hollywood.
- splendic, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Here's two issues the article is missing...
1) The writer's will never keep control over their work if they're willing to work FOR studios and productions companies.
The whole point of their writing in that hiring system is to immediately use it for the purposes of the companies they work for. Television programming would never get finished without maintaining a writing staff whose job is to essentially write what the studio tells them to.
Films COULD be made by buying single scripts because the studio would be buying the content as opposed to hiring a writer. However, they would never let a single person maintain control over the work after it was bought because they couldn't risk creative conflicts with someone who they no longer need on the project. Especially, not with so much money on the line with projects already in production.
2) The real reason that writers get residuals is that NOBODY would be doing the job if they didn't. A lot of the reason people are willing to try their hand at a career in writing for the screen is that they know one hit series, or film, will payout big time in the long run. And this is a necessary solace to people who might not sell a script for years, if ever. Remove their ability to make a wage off of the small amount of work that actually gets bought, and you'd see many current and future writers giving it the profession.
For projects to actually get produced, writers must cede creative control after the sale of their scripts, and studios must pay fair residuals to continue attract talent to the field. - jamesmudgett, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1very nice
- sazai, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Screenwriters write on their own time too. More than half the guild isn't employed in the industry a majority of the time. The only "steady" jobs are those who work in TV and even that can be iffy. The whole stock option thing is somewhat built into the system via the point system. Not many writers get points though.
- bugsy187, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Actually, collective bargaining puts workers on roughly equal footing with bosses and owners. It's empowering. The culture of anti-unionism that gets working people to undermine their own class interest.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is