Community >> View Post
·
Post By
mtyoung

In Reply To
Trent Trueheart

Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:30:51 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:42:45 am EST

Previous Post

> > > So, assuming you support the writers, may I ask why?
> >
> > Well, first and foremost, I think they deserve most of what they're asking for. I rarely watch unscripted television, so writers are important in my viewing habits.
>
> Thats completely understandable, but are you aware of how much they make? How does that figure compare to what you think they should make? Should the average television writer make more than a doctor?

Oh, in a perfect world, the more important your job is, the more you would make. In the grand scheme of things, writers aren't that important when compared to doctors, police, firefighters, teachers, etc. But we don't live in a perfect world and if the writers think they deserve more, they're more then welcome to fight for it. And I think they should get it because it doesn't sound like much.

>
> http://www.amptp.org/dollarsandsense.html has a lot of really cool information about the writers and the financial side to movies and television. Worth reading.

Yeah, like I want to read their spin. 6 out of 10 movies never recoup their original investment? Sure, if you're talking about every movie ever made. These days though, between DVD sales and the international market, I really don't believe that.

>
> > Secondly, I know they're probably going to lose. The last two strikes haven't gone the writers way and I really doubt that this one will. Although I understand why the went on strike so early, they really should have waited until the end of June so the actors could join them (and the directors, if they hadn't renewed their contract by then). I don't know if the separate strikes (because I'm sure the writers will give up long before the actors strike) was a good idea because it does hurt the little guy more than a single strike. I don't know how long the actors will strike before the studios finally give in, but if the writers are on strike for 5-6 months and the actors strike lasts 3-6 months, everyone else is going to be out of work for way too long.
>
> I kinda of hate the writers union here just because I perceive it to be managed poorly.

Perhaps. The strike would have worked better had there not been rumors of it at least a year before it happened.

>
> > > I haven't seen any polls of viewers, but I would assume the majority of America either doesn't know about the strike, or just doesn't care. If I had to guess, I would think that most people are against the writers, just as they would be when/if pro athletes strike.
> >
> > I don't think you can compare the two. An athlete who makes the league minimum pulls in a lot more than the average writer. And there are a lot more million dollar athletes than writers. Also, not everyone watches sports, but nearly everyone watches scripted television.
>
> Well there is alot of things you have to take in here. I used the pro athletes as an example because they are in the entertainment field, and when they strike, its big news.
>
> I'm sure the average pro athlete has a very narrow window concerning the amount of years he has. I'm sure the total number of pro athletes is much smaller than the total number of people in the WGA. I'm not sure what is watched more, sports programs or scripted television, but I know that the television event of every year is the Super Bowl, with MNF being the most watched show every week its on.

Eh, the Super Bowl being so highly rated is BS though. Yes a lot of people watch it, but a good chuck watch for the commercials, which is the most idiotic reason ever. And MNF is not the most watched show on television every week. It's the most watched show on cable. Dancing with the Stars, CSI and Grey's Anatomy all have more viewers.

>
> All in all, I'm not really rooting for either side, since I just don't think I know enough about the whole thing. I just want to watch the shows I watch, and both sides are preventing that.

> Oh, in a perfect world, the more important your job is, the more you would make. In the grand scheme of things, writers aren't that important when compared to doctors, police, firefighters, teachers, etc. But we don't live in a perfect world and if the writers think they deserve more, they're more then welcome to fight for it. And I think they should get it because it doesn't sound like much.
>
It might not sound like much to you, but you aren't writing the checks. I'm not going to say if it is alot or it isnt, cause I simply don't know enough about the financial side to this to offer a real judgement.

> > http://www.amptp.org/dollarsandsense.html has a lot of really cool information about the writers and the financial side to movies and television. Worth reading.
>
> Yeah, like I want to read their spin. 6 out of 10 movies never recoup their original investment? Sure, if you're talking about every movie ever made. These days though, between DVD sales and the international market, I really don't believe that.

Ok, just offering up another side to this story. I'm sure the WGA isn't distorting facts at all.

But look at Golden Compass, a recent movie flop. $250M budget, $60M in marketing, and will probably only make $150M in theater gross. Then the studio probably only gets half of that total gross. So right there, you are looking at the studio with a net loss of $235M.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DE1F3BF93BA15752C0A961948260 is a site with where the movie ticket money goes. I really just skimmed through it though to make sure my 50% goes to the studio thing was right.

And I am completely aware that not all movies lose money, and you could easily offer up an example of the blockbuster to counterargue here.

> Perhaps. The strike would have worked better had there not been rumors of it at least a year before it happened.

The strike would have worked better if they just waited till the summer. Then they would have the SAG on their side, and most importantly, television writers wouldn't get upset.

> > Well there is alot of things you have to take in here. I used the pro athletes as an example because they are in the entertainment field, and when they strike, its big news.
> >
> > I'm sure the average pro athlete has a very narrow window concerning the amount of years he has. I'm sure the total number of pro athletes is much smaller than the total number of people in the WGA. I'm not sure what is watched more, sports programs or scripted television, but I know that the television event of every year is the Super Bowl, with MNF being the most watched show every week its on.
>
> Eh, the Super Bowl being so highly rated is BS though. Yes a lot of people watch it, but a good chuck watch for the commercials, which is the most idiotic reason ever. And MNF is not the most watched show on television every week. It's the most watched show on cable. Dancing with the Stars, CSI and Grey's Anatomy all have more viewers.

I knew that MNf was only the highest rated show on cable, my apologies for not putting that in there. You caught me and I apologize.

But I just saw this. For the current TV season, I assume beginning in September, here are the most watched programs.

1) Patriots vs Giants
2) Patriots vs Colts
3) Patriots vs Steelers
4) Patriots vs Cowboys
5) Seasons premiere of CSI

So I don't think you can say that sports don't get a high number of people watching. And to argue that the Super Bowl is only watched for commercials is wrong, I would think. People watch it because its the cumulation of a seasons of America's most watched sport. Commercials do get people to watch, but I would guess less that 10% watch only for the commercials.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software