Strikes are good for "scabs," and any screenwriter who hasn't sold enough to join the union is suddenly a scab because producers give new writers more attention when strikes last long enough that established writers aren't filling the well. Writers desiring an actual full-time career can suffer later but part-time screenwriters, trying to sell a spec script, have been known to score during a strike. Take the money and run.
From the point of view of a playwright, I find it very hard to have sympathy with screenwriters about anything. From the point of view of a playwright, they are ridiculously over-paid as it is. It is totally ridiculous that I've made more money on screenplays that never were produced than on plays that got produced and won awards. Or that you can make more selling the film rights to a play than on the royalties for the play. Totally ridiculous. But that's the marketplace for you.
Hollywood contract talks resume
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Hollywood writers have a revision ready for TV and movie producers.
Contract talks resumed on Wednesday, with the Writers Guild of America ready to submit a revamped contract proposal with the hope of avoiding a strike after the current pact expires at midnight.
Details of the proposal were not released.
Producers said they would consider the revision but won't agree to anything that would restrict their ability to experiment with new Internet and other digital delivery options for films and TV shows.
A key issue in negotiations involves giving writers more money from the sale of DVDs and the distribution of shows via the Internet, cell phones and other digital platforms.
It was unclear when writers might walk off the job if a new deal isn't reached. More than 5,000 guild members recently voted, with 90 percent authorizing negotiators to call the first strike since 1988, if necessary.
|
8 comments:
Yes, how ridiculous that someone who creates something that makes a lot of money gets paid more than someone who creates something that makes much less money.
Ridiculous, I say! Let me also add that gravity is for morons, and 4+4=orange.
But why are you hiding behind "anonymous"?
Any playwright in the world knows what I am talking about, especially those like myself who also are screenwriters. Let's say an equal amount of writing sweat & tears goes into a stage play and a screenplay. The stage play gets widely produced to rave reviews and picks up a few awards. The screenplay gets bought, shelved, and never made. The later makes 1000x more than the former. Many of us find that ridiculous.
And we even sign our name to the opinion.
Even shelved, a screenplay has a greater earning potential than a play. It's not ridiculous, it's economics. And there, I've attached my name. Since I'm no one, it's the same as being anonymous, but if it quiets your self-righteouness, all the better.
Welcome, Colin.
Well, I guess it's not so ridiculous that I returned the money!
Odd that you would take that position.
You already know all of the history, so no need to run it down for you. You were actually around for a fair amount of it...
It was playwrights turned screenwriters who brought the idea of ownership of their work into Hollywood, and led the fight to organize. The residuals are a recognition of that ownership. Use my work to make money, and you cut me in on some of the profits. It works pretty much the same way for music on the radio.
Your argument that any playwright understands your position falls flat because many of the striking WGA members are playwrights. Of course, they tend to write popular plays.
It's a bit silly to confuse one's own personal definition of the moral worth of a literary work with the market value of said work.
I don't begrudge Neil Simon his fortune. He made his money by being popular and his plays have bought joy to millions of people. I would never suggest that he's overpaid, that it's somehow unfair for him to own the rights to his work and receive the appropriate compensation.
I don't begrudge any writers their fortunes. I just think it's regrettable that someone gets rich from a script on a shelf while a popular stage play makes a fraction of this.
Of course, the situations of the playwright and screenwriter are very different.
Only playwrights own their work. They lease rights to produce it.
Screenwriters sell their work outright and have no control over it after that.
A director can't do whatever he wants with a play the way he can with a film (well, unless the playwright is long dead). When somebody produced Albee's VIRGINIA WOOLF as a gay couple, Albee found out and had it shut down! There is no equivalent situation for a screenwriter. Screenwriters sell the work outright, not lease production rights to it. After the sale, a director can do whatever s/he wants. Max Adams hated what they did to EXCESS BAGGAGE so much that she sells her original screenplay on the Internet!
Playwrights only retain rights and artistic control.
Maybe this is why screenwriters get paid so much more, they "sell out": is this like selling your soul to the devil ha ha? (Well, it's not my original suggestion.)
Hey, Charles, old friend. Quit beating around the bush. Just own up that what you find ridiculous is capitalist culture. Got ya!
Why, PJ, I think it's the pinnacle of maturity for a crowd of grown men and women on Wall Street to stand around pushing, shoving and shouting to be heard. How else would you want to run an economy?
Nonetheless, I resign. :-)
Post a Comment