Writers on strike

[Slpy3270]

Well, we kinda knew it was coming.

The Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers and the Writers Guild of America were unable to come to terms on a new contract last night, leading to the first writers' strike in 15 years.

Unlike the last strike, I'm very pessimistic, simply because the two sides are so far apart on the issues that matter. Not to mention Wall Street, who has made their contempt for unions well-known, is holding the studios hostage (case in point: Trian's failed hostile takeover of Disney).

Only way I can see this end is if the government intervenes on behalf of the unions and forces the studios to accept their demands or face criminal investigation.

 

[John park hopper]

Not a good time to be without a job

 

[Slpy3270]

Media stocks tumbling but I don't think that's gonna incentivize them to a deal.

In fact, investors might demand they look at AI, which would be the death knell of American arts.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Media stocks tumbling but I don't think that's gonna incentivize them to a deal.

In fact, investors might demand they look at AI, which would be the death knell of American arts.

In large part its an idiotic repeat of what we JUST went through with streaming. Wall Street and Wall-Street-focused execs become obsessed with a shiny new technology (AI in this case) and run after it with absolutely no degree of self-reflection or consideration of the long-term ramifications. This is much more insidious, of course, because instead of ignoring and discarding cinema history as they did with streaming, the deeply stupid decision makers are now ignoring and discarding the entire history of human creativity.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This is gonna be long and ugly…

The whole situation is really bad. The WGA has been wrecked by streaming

Anyone remember the last strike? It did serious damage to episodic tv formats and lead to the rise of STUPID reality tv that almost killed cognitive thought.

Not good.

 

[Slpy3270]

This is gonna be long and ugly…

The whole situation is really bad. The WGA has been wrecked by streaming

Anyone remember the last strike? It did serious damage to episodic tv formats and lead to the rise of STUPID reality tv that almost killed cognitive thought.

Not good.

IMO what might get the two sides to start talking is if either a) there's a sudden economic shock that ruins both sides financially so much that they have to get a deal done, b) writers start worrying about losing their overall deals, which is de facto employment, by force majeure, or c) governments step in to force the studios to compromise or face investigations into accounting fraud.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

there's a sudden economic shock that ruins both sides financially so much that they have to get a deal done

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

IMO what might get the two sides to start talking is if either a) there's a sudden economic shock that ruins both sides financially so much that they have to get a deal done, b) writers start worrying about losing their overall deals, which is de facto employment, by force majeure, or c) governments step in to force the studios to compromise or face investigations into accounting fraud.

Oh I agree…

It’s not “happy”…but a controlled recession is really needed across the board. It may help here too.

But as it stands…wga has gotten battered by the streaming conversion and they have no leverage.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

ignoring and discarding the entire history of human creativity

That's a little bit dramatic, mate.

There hasn't been a great novel written in the West in 20 years.

The commoditization of popular fiction into a union with 15,000 members isn't where actual creativity comes from.

 

[el_super]

I had said in another thread somewhere far away that Disney+ strategy going forward would be to pivot to cheaper production. There's nothing cheaper than game shows and reality TV that don't require much writing. The problem for the writers right now, is that the big studios are sort of right that streaming isn't bringing in the money they thought it would.

Conversely, if they are forced to make a deal, or the studios end up giving up too much, it's going to put even more downward pressure on streaming content production.

 

[Slpy3270]

Conversely, if they are forced to make a deal, or the studios end up giving up too much, it's going to put even more downward pressure on streaming content production.

If writers get less work but more in residuals and better working conditions, that's a great trade-off for me. Besides, the streaming bubble had to burst.

 

[celluloid]

I had said in another thread somewhere far away that Disney+ strategy going forward would be to pivot to cheaper production. There's nothing cheaper than game shows and reality TV that don't require much writing. The problem for the writers right now, is that the big studios are sort of right that streaming isn't bringing in the money they thought it would.

Conversely, if they are forced to make a deal, or the studios end up giving up too much, it's going to put even more downward pressure on streaming content production.

Like what the Disney Channel started with 80s to early 90s(and then just mostly bad sitcoms from there on out) Disney Plus did it all wrong. Oversaturated market and way too costly. Netflix model of Marvel productions should have showed them this.

 

[Slpy3270]

Like what the Disney Channel started with 80s to early 90s(and then just mostly bad sitcoms from there on out)

The original Disney Channel was a money pit since it was an HBO-esque channel where you had to pay extra (and get a de-scrambler from the cable operator) to get it, and not a whole lot of people had it. When Disney merged with ABC and took ESPN with it, giving them the cable foothold they needed, that model made no sense anymore and they turned it into the basic cable channel it is now. (Though they're technically still commercial-free, they have "sponsors" that are de-facto commercials anyway.)

 

[celluloid]

The original Disney Channel was a money pit since it was an HBO-esque channel where you had to pay extra (and get a de-scrambler from the cable operator) to get it, and not a whole lot of people had it. When Disney merged with ABC and took ESPN with it, giving them the cable foothold they needed, that model made no sense anymore and they turned it into the basic cable channel it is now. (Though they're technically still commercial-free, they have "sponsors" that are de-facto commercials anyway.)

The Disney Channel launched in 1983 and reached profitability by 1985. That is a bit disingenuine to call it a money pit. By the late 80s into early 90s it was steady enough due to original content that was low budget to produce. Teen Win Lose or Draw, Mickey Mouse Club. It would still have the occasional special, and rerun White Fang, outside studio films like Ghostbusters, Goonies and Beetlejuice as well as shows like Avonlea and Danger Bay. While it gradually became more of a basic cable vs premium target(cable providers were given the choice in how they marketed and sold it) I don't think there is any justification to call it a money pit, as again, it was profitable only two years after launching. Something Disney Plus, with all Disney's resources and base could not do.

 

[Slpy3270]

I don't think there is any justification to call it a money pit, as again, it was profitable only two years after launching.

You want to know why it was profitable? On top of the consumer charge they were also being paid by cable/satellite telcos for the right to retransmit the network. No retransmission fees, no profit.

Disney Plus, being solely paid for by consumers, was never going to be profitable no matter how many consumers paid for it.

 

[celluloid]

You want to know why it was profitable?

Because it made a return on investment and then some.

 

[Slpy3270]

Because it made a return on investment and then some.

You didn't bother reading my explanation....

 

[celluloid]

You didn't bother reading my explanation....

I did. I it was irrelevant to the earlier discourse when you said it was a money pit. Disney Channel was not ever a money pit. Your facts were wrong. It made its money back in its first two years after launching in the 80s. It made its money back and more when it was still a premium channel. You can point out you don't like how they did it. But it does not change the fact. Part of it was because it honed in one what production costs were a good balance for its revenue. That is why it was brought up. Your points explaining how it made money does not remove the point that it was not a money pit.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers will not even agree to not using AI to write scripts in the future. What the?!?!?! I'm guessing that the thinking here is that studios believe they can have AI write a basic script and then they can just hire a writer to come clean it up for cheap.

Also, writer pay has been reduced at least 23 percent over the last 10 years while the streamers’ profits are through the roof.

This strike is going to last for a minute.

 

[Jedijax719]

Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers will not even agree to not using AI to write scripts in the future. What the?!?!?! I'm guessing that the thinking here is that studios believe they can have AI write a basic script and then they can just hire a writer to come clean it up for cheap.

Also, writer pay has been reduced at least 23 percent over the last 10 years while the streamers’ profits are through the roof.

This strike is going to last for a minute.

Was that bolded part a joke? How exactly does AI write scripts? That itself sounds like a sci-fi story concept.