They Have the Plant But We Have the Power...

I know there is some discontent among the nation's TV watchers over the current Writers Guild strike. But who can make any sense of the whole complicated thing?

It is in these times of confusion and despair that the Internet community turns to me, someone with no insider knowledge and only a superficial understanding of the key issues involved, to explain the whole mess. Thus, I present to you:

Whiny Hacks Who Get to Live a Hollywood Lifestyle While Still Being Unattractive
vs.
Soulless Corporate Machines That Would Rather All Human Existence Were Under Their Control ala The Matrix

The writers think they're getting screwed out of money. Of course they are. We're ALL getting screwed out of money, every day. They have a point though, in that they don't get paid squat for "new media". This is because they have really shitty contracts and, apparently, shitty agents. And the major studios and media companies have excellent lawyers that do nothing but think of ways to screw writers (and actors; and directors; and anybody who isn't them).

Sympathy for the writers begins to wan, however, when one realizes that the money they lose out on comes in the form of residuals. Residuals are when you get paid well after a TV show or movie is actually produced, because it is distributed in DVD form or played in syndication. Everybody involved in these shows gets a check (size depends on involvement in the production, usually) anytime the media they helped create is reproduced or replayed.

First of all, "everybody" in the preceding paragraph doesn't mean technical people. Grips, stagehands, and others usually get nothing except their weekly paycheck. Writers, actors, directors and producers get the residuals.

Second of all, this concept--which is very dear to Hollywood--likely seems quite foreign to most Americans. If I write an outstanding brief, I may get a bonus (hah!) but if my brief is used as a template for years to come, will I see a penny? Nope. This is true for most professions; you're paid for your work and that's that. So when actors/writers complain that they "need" residuals to get them through the lean times, most people are highly unsympathetic. I would love for my work today to carry me through unemployment in 2009, but it's not going to happen.

Of course, despite being a little out-of-touch with what most people would consider "fair compensation", it is still this uninformed writer's opinion that the WGA is the side to support. For one thing, out-of-touch does not equate to wrong, and the corporate studio systems is absolutely screwing the writers out of compensation. They do this by classifying produced materials in such a way so as they do not have to pay the writers (i.e. anything on the web is "promotional", not a show, and thus writers get no part of the revenue gained from such "promotion").

This is unfair and they are right to complain; the residual system may be loopy to many Americans, but it what Hollywood uses. To single out the writers as ineligible receivers of "new media" profits is unfair and greedy.

But writers? Most of you aren't as good as you think you are (I am assuming somebody writes "According to Jim") and if you want sympathy, you should stick to the straight facts. Reminding people that you'll still be getting paid in 2015 for your work on "Cavemen" is not going to help your cause.

Now do Classical Gas!