So...which do we think will prove to be more embarrassing to Rudy Giuliani? His relationship with Bernard Kerik, who today was indicted on multiple counts of tax evasion and corruption —
— or his relationship with Televangelist Pat Robertson? My money's on Pat.
While I've got your attention: Mayor Giuliani seems to like to dress up in women's clothing an awful lot for shows and stunts and parties. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
However, I think that if a possible/probable Democratic candidate for the presidency had even done that once, this election would not be about Iraq or Health Care or jobs or "the Economy, stupid" or any of that. It would wind up being about the charge that the candidate and anyone who'd even think of voting for him is a sexual deviant and a pervert. Somewhere on my hard disk I still have the e-mail from an acquaintance trying to convince me that John Kerry wasn't a "real man" because he went wind-surfing.
Time for more of these, starting with this message from Ed Coyote...
On basic principles, based on the YouTube video, I have no problems supporting the strike, or the writers' goals for fair compensation. That being said, I'm left with the impression that it was a strike at some point in the past that led to the residual payment plan in the first place, and with that having been established, the genie was let out of the bottle so to speak. If that first deal hadn't been cut, do you think some other compensation system would have been worked out? Or would the issue always come back to that, meaning more strikes along the way?
Beyond that, maybe you can help me with the math in the video. The original deal was for 2 1/2 cents on the dollar. Then there was the 80% reduction, which took it down to 1/2 cent on the dollar. Which means that the residual on a $19.99 CD works out to .09995 cents, which is damn close to a dime. I know it's not the only issue, but the math says you're doing better than the 8 cents you're looking for. Did I err? I mean, I must have, but I'm not seeing where based on the video.
Anyway, thanks for your time. I'm glad you're blog isn't covered by the WGA.
If it were, maybe I'd make a buck on it once in a while.
To your first question: I think that if the WGA hadn't established the principle of residuals when it did, it would have happened later, either because we fought for it then or another labor organization had set the precedent.
To your second: I think the math has been over-simplified a bit here for public consumption, and it omits a very important aspect of all this, which is that the way in which the DVD money is paid lends itself to what some people call Hollywood Accounting.
In its raw form, Hollywood Accounting is when you write the top-grossing movie of the year and your deal calls for you to receive 5% of the profits...only the studio forever claims that there are no profits. The film cost $50 million to make. It's taken in $500 million so far but around the same time, the studio decided they needed to spend a billion dollars to put up a couple of new office buildings...and of course, since people who'll work in those buildings work on the marketing of your film, that means the new buildings are an expense of your film and must be deducted before they get around the calculating profits, which means there aren't any.
Our DVD formula not only stinks but it's configured to allow for loopholes and number-juggling. The Producers can deduct some expenses before they pay you your teensy percentage. I don't know if it's still part of the WGA demands but at some point, one was going to be to clean up some of the language that lends itself to that kind of chicanery. Saying that we get four cents per DVD and want it upped to eight cents is not precise but it's close. The main stonewall in this area is that we think the number needs to be improved and the Producers are resisting the whole idea of ever raising it for any reason. They like how poorly all the unions (not just us) are paid and want to hold onto that for as long as possible.
Next, we have this from Janet Harriett...
Reports keep coming out of this show or that show "shutting down production." Does this mean the shows are effectively being cancelled, or will shows that have shut down come back with new episodes once the strike is over? I'm guessing some shows are fairly safe — Comedy Central isn't going to permanently boot The Daily Show — but could the strike jeopardize shows that were new this season, so they don't necessarily have a long track record with ratings or a lot of episodes to take them through an extended period of reruns?
Most shows will come back with new episodes whenever it seems possible to make them. "Shutting down" generally means they just can't film or tape them at the moment. However, networks would be cancelling some of these shows even if there was no WGA strike, so those shows probably won't come back. And I suppose the following is possible: A show is limping along with feeble ratings and the network is thinking of getting rid of it. If it shuts down because of the strike, that might seem like a good time to pull the trigger on it. They're certainly starting some new shows because of the strike. (A revival of American Gladiators hosted by Hulk Hogan? Wouldn't you have loved to have been in the meeting where they came up with that? I'll bet that meeting was more interesting that the show will be.)
And this last one is from Christopher Jones...
I watched the "Writers Strike: Why We Fight" video on your website, which ends with a statement urging the viewing to "Support the WGA."
OK, I'm sold (I was already). I'm thoroughly convinced that the WGA is fighting on the side of the angels. So what can I do to "support
the WGA." I live in a suburb of Minneapolis, not Hollywood, so I can't come out and join the picket lines. What else could I do? Is there a fund to help support striking writers? Would writing letters actually help apply pressure to the producers in any meaningful way? Where would these letters need to be sent?
I don't know about any fund. I would think the two main things would be to help send out the right message and to bitch mightily about the reruns and the hardships and your favorite scripted entertainment being replaced by a revival of American Gladiators hosted by Hulk Hogan. If you hear your friends moaning about those overpaid, stuck-up Hollywood Writers who don't know how good they have it, set them straight. More important, you have an Internet. Use it to voice your support of our cause and your rejection of all that Management Spin.
If your favorite show is in reruns, don't watch 'em. Call or write to your local station or to the network and tell them you're going away and may not be coming back. It's the same way you'd protest if they cancelled your favorite show, the same numbers and address. You ought to be able to get it off the network's website.
Really though, there's not much you can do except to help us remind everyone who the Good Guys are in this battle. The Producers control a lot of the media and it's tough to fight them in that arena. Right now, we're doing great but if this strike goes on for a time, the stories won't be about Julia Louis-Dreyfuss coming out to join the pickets. Some members will get scared and the stories will be about them and their fears and problems. In '88, we got hammered by a lot of inaccurate press coverage and there is the hope that with the Internet now in the equation, some of that can be countered. So it would be nice if you all helped keep the faith on the web.
That's all for now but I did want to repeat my disclaimer: I'm not an official of the Guild, just a longtime member. Anything I post on this site is just my opinion...which is worth about as much as anyone's. Or maybe a little less.
The Writers Guild (my Writers Guild) has put together a little three and a half minute video that explains a few of the issues in our current strike. As you watch it, keep in mind there are others. And try to ignore the obvious jokes about whether the guy who wrote this got paid for it.
Rereading my answer to Martha Thomases (below) I see that in my haste to get back to work, I skipped over part of her question. Here's something else I should have said...
During a strike, it has sometimes been a WGA tactic to offer what are called interim agreements. We negotiate with this multi-employer bargaining unit called the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) which represents six big companies. Once we make a contract with them, all the other employers sign what are sometimes called "Me Too" agreements, meaning that they agree to abide by the same terms. So the AMPTP, in effect, negotiates on behalf of all the producers in town.
An interim agreement is when we're on strike and an independent producer says, in effect, "If you'll take me off the Strike List and let my writers return to work, I'll agree to your terms." There are variations on how these pacts are structured but in most cases, the Indie has a Favored Nations option. That is, he signs a new contract that the WGA draws up and then when we make our deal with the AMPTP — a deal which presumably will have more favorable terms for a Producer — the Indie can elect to switch to that. In any case, the principle is that they agree to sign with us, we go back to work at that studio and then, whenever the new contract is finalized, it displaces the interim agreement.
As a strike tactic, there are pros and cons of whether interim agreements help or hurt us in forcing a settlement with the AMPTP. Some also worry — and I think this is unwarranted but it is a concern — that it will wound Guild Solidarity if some members go back to work while others march the picket lines. In the past, we have sometimes (not always) offered interim agreements after a strike was on for a period of time...but the results have not been impressive. The AMPTP studios have put pressure on the independent producers not to sign them and it usually works. As Larry Gelbart once noted, an independent producer is a producer who's dependent on everyone else
Martha asked if Harvey Weinstein, for example, could go in and sign a WGA interim agreement. Well, if and when we offer them, he could. At the moment, the WGA is not offering interim agreements. As I understand it, the thinking is that we don't want to let a few, unimportant companies go back, at least not yet. If NBC wanted to sign, we'd probably make an exception because that would put pressure on the other majors. In fact, it would rupture the AMPTP and its precious collaboration...but signing a few companies won't put any heat on the Big Guys right now.
However, Harvey Weinstein probably wouldn't sign an interim agreement if they were available. Why? Because the members of the AMPTP — Sony, Universal, Time Warner, etc. — would have told him not to, and Harvey has to do business with those people. So it may not even matter if we offer them or not.
The other night, Glamour Magazine presented its Women of the Year awards. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was among the honorees and she was introduced by Stephen Colbert. Here is that introduction...
November 9, 2007
