If the studios aren't going to pay residuals, the other options are to either pay a higher amount to buy a script, or else keep writers on staff. If they pay more to buy a script, then there's a lot more risk on the part of the studio. They could end up paying $10 million for a script and it never sees the light of day. I think the more well known writers would like this option, because they are the ones who will likely get the most for their scripts. Lesser writers probably won't love this option, though, because it will be a lot harder to sell a script.

The other option would be to keep writers on staff. I think a lot of writers might like this, because it means a steady pay check. However, I don't the studios love the idea of having to keep a guy on salary, pay benefits, and all of the other crap that goes along with it.

Edit: I think some people on here think Hollywood operates the same as an auto manufacturer, or a bank, where everyone is essentially an employee of the company. I was kind of under that impression when all this first started, but as I've learned more I am beginning to understand that very few of those people are actually workers for their studios, but rather they are independent workers who just sell their services to the studios. I do think that everyone would be better off without a union, though. If Paramount isn't giving you what you want, just don't do business with them and instead just sell your services to Universal. It would probably mean a lot more business for contract lawyers, though.

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Mark Harris is an idiot.

Jobs are worth what they are worth. You can't make flipping burgers worth $100/hr no matter how "economically fragile" the employees are. If a fast food chain tried, then their prices would go up, and people would stop buying their burgers, and they'd eventually go out of business. If the employees went on strike, or government passed a $100/hr minimum wage, the ONLY survivable alternative for the employers is to automate those jobs and fire all the workers.

The question should be, "why are these employees economically fragile" now? People have done these jobs for over a century and have been able to live fine. It's because the cost of living has gone way the hell up. And who's fault is that? The government. These Hollywood employees should be pissed at the local, state, and federal government policies that push costs way the hell up. But they won't, because they are ignorant enough to support those policies. They don't know better.

Well reality doesn't give exceptions to people because they are ignorant. The laws of economics effects everybody just like the law of gravity. To me this is a case of karma being a *****.

---

Starting with this post, you've been doing nothing more than spouting off extremely basic economic principles that everyone and their dog already knows, and using them to rant about the government and whatever else for the umpteenth time on this board.

---

Apparently not, because you guys keep using hilariously naive economic fallacies in your arguments, such as "the fat cats just don't want to share the wealth with the writers."

Quote:

---

When, in reality, if you'd actually read the guilds' positions, or read even a fraction of the articles posted and discussion had earlier in this thread, you'd know that the primary issues are systemic in nature, and that a number of the standard pay increases were nearly settled on and where the various sides were closest. In other words, this isn't just a bunch of entitled assh*les striking because they want to get paid more per hour. If it was, agreements would have been reached weeks and months ago. Rather, the guilds are striking over bedrock issues that Big Tech has completely upended, in ways the industry won't be able to sustain going forward, should the studios go unchecked.

---

Hilarious. So you think these idiots are in it for the INDUSTRY. Not for themselves? That they really have everybody's interest at heart? The studios included? How naive can you be?

These morons don't know a damn thing about "what what would sustain" the industry. How do I know? Because they are 90% liberal who vote for policies that push the cost of living in California to unsustainable levels, and then STRIKE to try to force their employers to pay them above their value in response. It's like moron McDonald's burger flippers going on strike to protest their jobs being automated away. What better incentive could there be for McDonalds to press on with automating than their dumbass workers going on strike?

Quote:

---

You think Hollywood is insufferable now? How much more insufferable will it be when only a handful of veterans and a spatter of trust fund kids are the only ones who can afford to be writers?

You think Hollywood makes sh*t now? How much more sh*t do you think will be made when most everything is then written by AI and features only digital actors?

---

Hard to imagine it being worse than what we've had for a damn long time. Maybe AI would catch on to the clue that people don't want woke horse crap or rehashes of the exact same story over and over again.

Quote:

---

We had a system that worked. Extremely well. One that made the rich richer and allowed everyone else a livable wage, with infinite opportunity for not only upward mobility, but for writers to actually gain valuable experience learning the trade via traditional writers' rooms and everything that comes along with them (learning to produce, cast, edit, etc on the job). Thus novices becoming veterans, and so on and so forth, ensuring the health of the industry for decades to come.

---

Ahhh. There we are again, the "livable wage". The reason wages are no longer livable is because costs in California have gone way the hell up. And THAT is because of policies that the vast majorities of these morons supported and used their platforms to promote. This is karma. And I couldn't be happier.

Quote:

---

But then Big Tech came along and destroyed that, turning the writing industry, in particular, into a gig economy. And now the entire industry - even most of the traditional studios - have wised up, and realized just how catastrophic it was to chase Big Tech's nonsense.

---

You realize that this makes no sense, right? Probably not. Why are the strikers striking AGAINST the studios if they AND the studios are on the same side against "evil Big Tech"?

And exactly HOW did Big Tech destroy that. You guys keep saying this without actually stating how.

Quote:

---

These strikes are an attempt to correct those mistakes.

---

Yeah, and the strikes against McDonalds were to teach the corporation how to properly run a fast food chain. Go ahead and keep telling yourselves that.

There have literally been hundreds if not thousands of studios over the years. If Big Tech were running the current crop into the ground and even the studios know it, then why don't any of these people go start their own new studio and run it "right"? If you were right, then they could run these big tech operations out of business with their superior content.

Quote:

---

That's what this is all about.

---

The guild can claim whatever the hell they want. Their actions and common sense show otherwise.

---

Every condescending point or question you bring up has been answered ad nauseam in this thread. Every. Single. One. Multiple times, explained in detail, with all kinds of specifics and examples. So the last thing I'm going to do is appease to your already-made-up-mind, and your obsessively argumentative nature, with more answers you'll simply ignore, talk around, or outright dismiss, just so you can continue bloviating on the internet, since that's like heroin to you.

Seriously, have you ever been capable of being just a nice, pleasant person? Why are you always so combative, aggrieved, and disgruntled, in every last thread on every last subject, constantly hurling insults every which way? Like, what's the point? What do you gain from it? Or are you so far down the rabbit hole that it's just second nature now?

---

LOL... look in the mirror dude. You bash anybody who doesn't toe your line.

And nope. The notion that every single point has been answered "ad nauseam" is simply not true. No matter how much you wish it was.

TCTTS said:

---

Whos Juan said:

---

Are we positive aTmAg isn't an AI Chatbot?

---

This would seriously explain so much.

---

Well, he is like the Terminator. Can't be bargained with, can't be reasoned with. Doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and absolutely will not stop. Ever.

TCTTS said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

No, not every employee gets to claim a piece of the profits.

Thing is, actors aren't employees of the studios. They are gig workers who don't get steady paychecks. Another key difference.

The streaming services are getting billions in subscription revenue each month and they're keeping it all to themselves. Actors and writers are only trying to get what they used to from syndication royalties. New technology requires renegotiations. It's just common sense.

And you're basing your whole argument on the fact that I said they depend on their work. You're right, that's not correct. It's not dependent on their work, it IS their work. Without scripts or actors, you have nothing.

---

Your entire argument revolves around the opinion that they deserve more money because there is money being made by the studios and streamers to be had.

Good luck with that. People earn what the market deems they are worth. They are not automatically entitled to more just because there is more available to be had. They are certainly entitled to try and get more...and admittedly that's pretty much what unions try to do - overinflate the worth of the people they represent.

---

The problem is, if writers and actors are paid only once, and never see residuals of any kind, especially under this new system, the whole system implodes. Hollywood simply can't sustain itself by operating as a gig economy, for multiple reasons outlined in this thread. Is that a bigger issue in and of itself? Maybe so. Either way, the fact is, we had a system that worked. For decades. And there is absolutely no reason it can't work again. Even with Big Tech. Even with all the streamers. Even with AI.

---

That's just opinion and fear mongering. You're basically saying nothing will work except to keep the current system as is, except give the workers a bigger cut.

I can guarantee that IF this resulted in Hollywood imploding, then the exact same studios that made the mistake in the first place would self-correct - the studios would not willingly commit suicide. Additionally, IF this did happen it would actually give the writers/actors more negotiating power in the long run.

To your comment about "no reason it can't work again": I would agree, IF the studios would also agree - it takes two to tango as they say. BUT, there is also no reason a different system can't work as well. To say otherwise is just denial and being afraid of change.

None of this is to say that the writers don't deserve more pay - they may indeed deserve more. But in general unions tend to distort the free market and make it hard to tell what someone is actually worth based on supply and demand.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Actors are NOT employees.

---

It doesn't matter what you call them. The principle is the same.

Employees, contractors, company to company, etc.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I'm not being obtuse. There's a pretty huge difference. Employees are salaried, actors are not. Which is the kind of the crux of this whole thing.

Plus, if a certain show fails to perform well, that just means they don't have to pay as much in royalties for it. It's not like actors are asking to be paid like they're in a smash hit for every show they make. If a show is a massive worldwide smash like Squid Game, then everyone gets a nice payday.

The problem for Netflix is those shows don't always equate to a big bump in new subscriptions. But that's a Netflix problem. There's only so much growth you can have before you plateau.

---

It's an everybody problem (for those working). To pretend that Netflix can lose money for 20 years and that all their employees, contractors, subcontractors, etc. should be paid the same is just ignoring basic math. That's not the way the real world works.

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I'm well aware the difference between revenue and profit. But, the profits shouldn't really concern actors and writers. It's the streaming company's problem to spend less than they are bringing in instead of dumping trucks of cash on The Rock's doorstep for one crappy action movie.

---

The less risk an employee is exposed the less reward they deserve. You are saying they should have 0 risk on the downside and be paid like they have plenty of risk on the upside? That's not the way risk works.

If you expect the studio to actually absorb 100% of the risk then the actors and writers should get less of the pie. That's just simple math.

---

With the residual model, actors and writers do take on risk. It's possible they work for a year creating the show and it flops. They get virtually no money if that happens. The residual model also reduces risk for the studios, as it lowers the up front cost for creating something.

The idea that most writers are making anywhere near $360,000/year is laughable, and shows, yet again, a complete lack of context or understanding as to how any of this works. Like, say, the top 5-10% are maybe in that category and above. But everyone else? Right now they're making less than teachers in many instances. And even in the old system many were making under $100K. By and large, screenwriters simply aren't rich and never have been, to the point where most of them have always depended on residuals to get by.

TCTTS said:

---

The idea that most writers are making anywhere near $360,000/year is laughable, and shows, yet again, a complete lack of context or understanding as to how any of this works. Like, say, the top 5-10% are maybe in that category and above. But everyone else? Right now they're making less than teachers in many instances. And even in the old system many were making under $100K. By and large, screenwriters simply aren't rich and never have been, to the point where most of them have always depended on residuals to get by.

---

First of all, it was a $360,000 one time payment. Not per year. I wrote that clearly. It's ironic how you misread that and then accuse me of "complete lack of context or understanding." You can't even get reading comprehension right. Secondly, I never said most writers are making that. I was using Stallone as an example on how risk effects how much people earn and what form.

And under $100K/yr? Boo freaking hoo. The mean salary in the US is $45K. And $100K used to be a comfortable wage even in California. The reason it's not anymore is because of policies that these morons support in droves. More and more movies and shows are being filmed in states and nations outside of California. What is happening to Hollywood is the same thing that already happened to other industries in America. They got moved elsewhere due to ridiculously high cost imposed by government here.

Studios are having to cut costs now, just like steel and electronics companies had to cut cost in the 70s an 80s. Unless our economic policies change, it won't be enough anymore, and they will have to leave California and even the nation someday.

What is ironic about this is that when states like Georgia passed laws that liberal Hollywood morons didn't like, many took a stand to not do business there. Ooops... maybe if they lived in Georgia where people can live more comfortably while making $25K less per year, then they wouldn't be in this situation.

I have no sympathy for them.

aTmAg said:

---

I have no sympathy for them.

---

I think we get that.

aTmAg said:

---

jeffk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I have no sympathy for them.

---

I think we get that.

---

They made the bed. Why shouldn't they lay in it?

---

They don't want to lay in it, so they are remaking it. Actors and writers will get concessions, there will be less but higher quality content and you will have to pay more or watch more ads.

Get over it. And if you don't like go watch content with crappy actors and writers, you can get it all day for free on youtube.

aTmAg said:

---

jeffk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I have no sympathy for them.

---

I think we get that.

---

They made the bed. Why shouldn't they lay in it?

---

Have you ever asked for a raise?

javajaws said:

---

aggrad02 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

jeffk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I have no sympathy for them.

---

I think we get that.

---

They made the bed. Why shouldn't they lay in it?

---

They don't want to lay in it, so they are remaking it. Actors and writers will get concessions, there will be less but higher quality content and you will have to pay more or watch more ads.

Get over it. And if you don't like go watch content with crappy actors and writers, you can get it all day for free on youtube.

---

They aren't "remaking" anything. As TCTTS said - they want the status quo, just more of the money.

They just better be careful about unintended consequences. If they get what they want, there may indeed be "less but higher quality content"...at the cost of a lot of Hollywood jobs. Something the Unions I'm sure fail to tell the people they represent.

---

Adding residuals for Streaming is remaking, thats not the status quo.

If it means being able to make a living, then some jobs will be lost.

You have no idea how bad streaming is killing residuals. When a job is worth 5 times as less than one 10 years ago (across the life of the project) then losing some jobs isn't a problem.