Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Deal Reportedly Reached In Writers' Strike

Posted by kdawson on Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:21 AM
from the gonna-be-a-backlog dept.
BlueshiftVFX writes to let us know that the writers' strike may be over. CNBC and other media are quoting former Disney CEO Michael Eisner: "It's over. They made the deal, they shook hands on the deal. It's going on Saturday to the writers in general... A deal has been made, and they'll be back to work very soon."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I guess... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:23AM (#22348732)
    I guess this means the Colbert/Stewart/O'Brien fued has been resolved, too...
    • Re:I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday February 08 2008, @10:48AM (#22349130)
      I guess now the shows can go back to the same tired old bits they were rehashing before the strike forced them to get creative for the first time in years. -sigh-
      • by squiggleslash (241428) on Friday February 08 2008, @11:18AM (#22349634) Homepage Journal
        Well, some of them. The good news is that they can take some of the programs that were suspended due to the Writer's Strike, like Bionic Woman and Journeyman, and go ahead and cancel them.
      • Re:I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by moosesocks (264553) on Friday February 08 2008, @02:08PM (#22352318) Homepage
        I've actually been rather impressed with some of the new TV programming over the past few years. Also remember that 99% of anything is crap (and that includes reality shows)

        Lost is far from formulaic and repetitive, although the writers have been taking it a bit too far, and need to start winding down the series (ideally in one or two seasons, rather than the proposed three). I lost track halfway through the second season, so I can't comment on how it's been recently.

        Heroes is one of the most popular shows today, and has terrific nerd-appeal. The current season has been somewhat subpar, but the original series was engaging and enjoyable.

        Battlestar Galactica is easily the best-written and produced Sci-Fi series to air in years. It's also quite a bit more palatable for normal audiences.

        24 is the best 80s action movie ever made. Although I don't particularly agree with its politics, it's quite an engaging storyline.

        House is quite good. Perhaps becoming a bit repetitive, but definitely the best of the "medical" shows.

        Mythbusters? How can you read slashdot and not love mythbusters, even in spite of their disregard for the scientific method?

        The Daily Show and Colbert Report singlehandedly got an apathetic generation interested in politics. That's no small feat.

        Over in the UK, they've got Top Gear, The Mighty Boosh, the current incarnation of Dr Who, along with a fantastic array of other programming that doesn't make it to the US -- Thanks to advances [youtube.com] in filmmaking technology, their documentaries and nature series are also absolutely captivating to watch.

        (After writing this post, I feel the need to assert that I'm not a couch potato! The magic of TiVo lets me save the good stuff for saturday nights.)
        • Re:I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by zenkonami (971656) on Friday February 08 2008, @11:51AM (#22350160) Homepage Journal
          Actually, I think this past decade has been one of the most creative decades for Television since the medium began. Anywhere from BSG, The Sopranos and 30 Rock to Lost, The Office and Heroes. And let's not forget Firefly.

          Now are the geeks happy?
  • Terms? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timeOday (582209) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:24AM (#22348752)
    With no linked article and no information in the summary, I'm curious if the writers got their Internet distribution royalties after all?
  • Too late? (Score:4, Funny)

    by n0dna (939092) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:27AM (#22348798)
    I've nearly forgotten which couple of shows even held my attention.
  • Original story link (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheBiGW (982686) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:30AM (#22348838)
    This seems to be missing so here it is: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23057002/ [cnbc.com]
  • Sooooo.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nickj6282 (896871) * <nickj6282@@@yahoo...com> on Friday February 08 2008, @10:30AM (#22348840)
    We're just not going to get an article with this one? Are we supposed to take Kdawson's word for it? Way to go!
  • Darn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Friday February 08 2008, @10:31AM (#22348856) Homepage Journal
    Part of me was hoping this would never be resolved and that this would eventually cause a media revolution. Whether it was the rise of local access channels or simultaneous live airing and official torrent release, I thought there was a small chance it might have really changed things from top to bottom.

    Ah well, at least The Office will be back.
  • Man, if the strike is over too soon then the new reality shows will get killed.

    I mean, aren't you dying to see My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad [nbc.com]?

    It debuts on February 18th! Don't miss it, kids!
  • by jbarr (2233) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:51AM (#22349194) Homepage
    ...for all of that quality programming to return!
  • by initialE (758110) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:54AM (#22349258)
    It was either that or outsource scripts to India. Imagine Bollywood style comedy on American TV...
  • 40 comments about the writer strike ending and not a single one of you posted the obligatory:

    That's Great, When's Battlestar Galactica Going to Be On Finally?

    They just don't make geeks like they used to, I guess.
  • Pity It's Over (Score:5, Informative)

    by Phoenix666 (184391) on Friday February 08 2008, @11:03AM (#22349416)
    I had a dark horse hope that perhaps the writers would learn to disintermediate the studios. The reason is a friend recently turned me on to BBC's "I.T. Crowd," which you can only watch in the States over the intertubes.

    There are no commercials in the webcast, of course, but the BBC shop sends me emails advertising box DVD sets of Doctor Who and the like; definitely a fave show and the sort of message I'm open to, as opposed to endless commercials on regular TV for cars and feminine hygiene products, which I'm not in the market for.

  • Great (Score:4, Funny)

    by slapout (93640) on Friday February 08 2008, @12:02PM (#22350366)
    Now we can get new episodes of our favorite reality shows. Oh wait...
  • by VValdo (10446) on Friday February 08 2008, @01:04PM (#22351350)
    Guys... Eisner proclaiming the strike over is just part of a PR effort to attempt to pressure writers to vote for the strike proposals by creating the wide expectation that the strike is over, that it's a done deal. That way, if the writers turn the proposal down, people feel let down.

    The strike is NOT over.

    If you watch the video [cnbc.com] where Eisner insists the strike to be over, he says quietly at the end that he is really just passing on a rumor. He also points out that the writers have to vote on the offer. He says the writers would be "insane" not to take it, but he also previously had stated [wikipedia.org] that the entire strike was "insanity" so he's not the most unbiased person on this.

    The strike is not over until the full WGA membership votes on the proposal. They may do so, but they may not. The terms of the contract proposal have not even been seen by the writers, so there's no way to know right now what's going to happen.

    If you don't believe me, may I recommend this post by Joss Wheden [blogspot.com], or this one [deadlineho...ddaily.com], or this one [deadlineho...ddaily.com].

    W
  • by steppin_razor_LA (236684) on Friday February 08 2008, @03:52PM (#22353846) Homepage Journal
    WGAW is having a meeting Saturday night with its members to discuss the deal points proposed by the studios. I don't know if the studios have finished "inking" their proposal (i.e. I believe that there was a verbal "fuzzy" agreement but specific legal language is still being drafted).

    The deal will be presented to the membership on Saturday where I believe an informal vote will be taken. I believe that a full ratification vote is required by the constitution for the deal to be formally accepted but that the Board of Directors can lift the strike without before that happens.

    The terms for compensation for Internet re-usage in the DGA deal were not very appealing for Writers and Actors. I haven't seen what the deal terms are that have been proposed to the WGA, but if they didn't make good progress on this, the deal might be met with a mixed reception by members.

    That said, the Negotiating Committee and the Board of Directors have the pulse of the membership my guess is that the membership will go along with the recommendations of the Negotiating Committee and the Board of Directors. I don't know how unanimous the NC/BoD are with respect to the deal (i.e. whether there is agreement that the deal is fair enough or whether the strike should go on longer).

    • by rainmayun (842754) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:26AM (#22348780)
      ... because many nerds watch tv.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Because they want something to come back to when they reach a deal. If they held out past the oscars many "analysts" of the industry speculated they wouldn't be able to recover their viewers. As it is I suspect most of the decent new shows are going to be dead anyway.
            • by Misch (158807) on Friday February 08 2008, @12:16PM (#22350610) Homepage
              I really don't know why the different shows didn't just hire scabs and keep going

              Because the actors are represented by the Screen Actors Guild, and the stagehands by the ISTEA. If the studios tried hiring scabs to replace the writers, the actors and stagehands would have walked out as well.
            • by Original Replica (908688) on Friday February 08 2008, @01:35PM (#22351786) Journal
              Speaking as someone who is in the entertainment industry and has been on strike in the recent past I just want to say; Going on strike is not an easy decision. There is a great deal of consideration that goes into what the industry itself can bare. There is also a great deal of consideration about the long term effects of not going on strike would be. You say that there are have been people that would have been fine with the old contract. True. There are probably people who would be willing to do your job for much less money as well. But what would the long term effects be? In the case of the writers, it would be the end of writing as a viable career option. They were fighting to have the same royalties on internet distribution as they currently have on DVD distribution. Everyone knows that in ten years the vast majority of the distribution will be via the internet, so in essence they were fight to have royalties at all. Royalties are what allow for writing to be career. [johnaugust.com] It was clear from the outset of this strike that the writers would have to do some short term damage to the industry as a whole, in order to preserve the long term existence of their jobs. The reason this was obvious was because the management on the other side of the bargaining table was putting forward a proposal that would have short term gains and long term damage. In the short term they would have profited 3% more on internet sales, but in the long term they would have destroyed the position of professional screen writer, leaving only those who would pursue writing as a hobby. Sure they could always get some starry eyed recently graduated newcomers to fill the job, but as those people tried to do things like buy a house or raise a family, they would be forced out the job by the financial realities of the "old contract". There would be no one around with 20 years of professional experience, there would be no one to really refine the craft, there would only be glorified interns. That isn't good for the industry.
    • by YA_Python_dev (885173) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:43AM (#22349064) Journal
      Joss Whedon, Dollhouse [wikipedia.org].
    • Re:Is it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by NekSnappa (803141) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:32AM (#22348862)
      Well according to the Writers Guild website

      The Latest Word

      (2/4/08)

      Dear Fellow Members,

      I would like to update you on where we stand with bargaining with the AMPTP. While we have made important progress since the companies re-engaged us in serious talks, negotiations continue. Regardless of what you hear or read, there are many significant points that have yet to be worked out.

      In order to keep members abreast of the latest developments, informational meetings are being planned by both Guilds for this weekend - details to be announced. Neither the Negotiating Committee, nor the West Board or the East Council, will take action on the contract until after the membership meetings.

      As the talks proceed, never forget that during this period it is critical for us to remain on the picket lines united and strong. We are all in this together.

      In Solidarity,

      John F. Bowman

      Chair, WGA Negotiating Committee

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday February 08 2008, @10:39AM (#22348974)
      Personally, I thought Conan, Colbert and Stewart were a lot funnier WITHOUT the writers. It forced them to get creative for the first time in years. Now that the writers are coming back, looks like it's back to the 10-millionth reiteration of "Masturbating Bear" and other tired old skits.

      Could they have just STAYED on strike?

      • by AmaDaden (794446) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:45AM (#22349100)
        They were damn good, but for how long? I don't think they would be able to keep coming up with original material for much longer. They would burn out eventually. If you noticed while their skits were good they needed to be dragged out. More interviews and more 'lets look at this'. They were able to make skits just not nearly as many.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Conan, Colbert and Stewart were a lot funnier WITHOUT the writers
        They were hilarious, but uneven. A lot of what they did was novel and fun. But, a lot was pretty weak. As fun as the "feud" was at times, other times it was obviously a lot more drawn out than it needed to be (Captain Obvious, I know...)

        I can't say that I really missed it while it was gone, but I do welcome back The Word.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Same here. If a network used the money to pay the Giants and Patriots to play a tiebreaker, it would be more likely to get my attention than new episodes of Law & Order competing with the three Law & Order reruns and eleven CSI reruns on at the same time.
    • by danguyf (631016) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:54AM (#22349244) Homepage
      Well, aren't you just Mr. Too Cool For School?

      I'm so glad to know that you didn't even deign to notice that a large portion of those who work hard to entertain you lost their jobs and houses in a fight over the future of online content rights.
      • by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday February 08 2008, @11:03AM (#22349408)
        In all fairness, I'm not sure the "According to Jim" writers deserve your vigorous defense.
      • a large portion of those who work hard to entertain you

        If someone doesn't watch tv, then how are/were they affected by this strike? They weren't. I do watch some tv but didn't really notice any change except for reruns of 'How I Met Your Mother' and 'The Big Bang Theory'. Other than that, no problems here either.

        Aside from that, this is probably one of the few times I will agree with a union demand. In this case, yes, the writers should get compensated for their work when that work is sent onli

      • by EVil Lawyer (947367) on Friday February 08 2008, @12:54PM (#22351210)
        Who lost their houses? The vast majority of writers saved up 6 months' salary in anticipation of exactly this strike. Not to say it wasn't a financial hardship, but my friend who currently writes for Scrubs tells me that almost everyone was planning for this.
    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday February 08 2008, @10:51AM (#22349182)
      As a Hollywood writer, I am intrigued by this concept of "originality" that you speak of. But I can't quite wrap my head around it. Can you explain it in terms of other things that I'm already comfortable and familiar with?
    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday February 08 2008, @10:51AM (#22349198)
      'As a result of studio cutbacks, however, many of the writers who went on strike are unlikely to return to the same big-money contracts they'd had as individuals with the studios.'

      That sounds a lot to me like "We fired these guys for supporting the union, but we can't say that because that would get us in trouble with the NLRB."
      • by Sancho (17056) on Friday February 08 2008, @11:42AM (#22349992) Homepage
        The studios weren't making as much money due to the strike. It's pretty reasonable for them to cut back on the budget. Now that the writers are willing to write again, they get to deal with the budget.

        I was pulling for the writers from the beginning, but we can't pretend that money just grows on trees like the government likes to think.
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OG (15008) on Friday February 08 2008, @11:03AM (#22349412)
      That's thinking a bit short term. If their terms are met like they were hoping, it means that they're not cut out of emerging media outlets. That's going to be an important point in the next couple of decades as people shift their content viewing to legitimate online venues and away from traditional television.
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jacobw (975909) <slashdot@org.yankeefog@com> on Friday February 08 2008, @11:08AM (#22349452) Homepage

      So the writters get like a couple percent increase in their salaries while they lost about 1/3 of their anual income. These are writters not mathamatitions,


      And based on your comment, "mathamatitions" are not "writters," either.

      Actually, a lot of the people on the WGA negotiating committee are "show runners"--IE, writer/producers with a huge amount of responsibility. One of the negotiators, for example, is Carlton Cuse [imdb.com], one of the two guys who runs LOST; as you can imagine, you don't end up running a multi-million-dollar enterprise unless you have a lot of financial savvy.

      So why would a bunch of smart people recommend a strike under these circumstances? Two main reasons.

      First, writing careers can be very short-lived, and they are usually sporadic, with many periods of unemployment. (In fact, in any given year, nearly half of WGA members are unemployed.) The major issue in this strike was "residuals"--the royalties that writers get every time a TV show they wrote is broadcast, or a movie they wrote is sold. So, it's not entirely foolish to give up your 50% chance of employment this year to get a good deal on royalties that might be feeding your family for the next two decades.

      Second, believe it or not, this was not strictly a selfish action. WGA members are very conscious of the fact that a lot of the stuff that makes it possible for us to earn our livings was won by previous generations of writers. Obviously a desire to have a good living is the main incentive in any business negotiation, but in the back of all our minds, we don't want to be the generation that let the studios roll back several decades of labor gains.

      DISCLAIMER: I am an individual WGA member. These are just my opinions. I don't speak for the union.
    • Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mpapet (761907) on Friday February 08 2008, @11:18AM (#22349628) Homepage
      You and the moderators have no clue. Here's a couple of Fun Hollywood Facts.

      1. There is so much money flowing through the distribution cartel, that unions are the only way to wrestle it out of the Producers/Studios. I'm old enough to remember a blockbuster low-budget movie called "My big fat greek wedding" has, to date, not turned a profit. Now, I could see a bad movie not turning a profit, but that movie was and still is INSANELY popular. Hell, my wife still gets residuals from a commercial that appeared in a big-budget movie made 20 years ago. That's how shady Hollywood accounting is.

      2. Writers are about the least respected guild in Hollywood. Seriously, food craft gets more respect. (probably because they aren't a union)

      5. Producers routinely turn great stories/scripts into trash. Once they own the rights to the script, let the destruction begin!!! This is why good books rarely make good movies. Once the writer gives up control it's all downhill. Notable exceptions usually have the writer having final say on the script.

      You, and the idiots who modded you up have no clue.
        • Writers' incomes (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jacobw (975909) <slashdot@org.yankeefog@com> on Friday February 08 2008, @11:29AM (#22349786) Homepage

          Yeah. As it is, those folks only make $75000 to $100000 a year. That's not much to live on.
          Actually, writers' incomes are all over the place. According to the WGA's annual report [wga.org], 45% of its members had no income at all in 2006. (Or, at least, no writing-related income; they may have been waiting on tables or doing something else to pay the bills.) Of those who DID work, 25% earned less than $38,740, while 5% earned more than $685,000! With such a wide disparity, you can juggle the statistics to suggest pretty much anything you want. The studios said something like "Working writers earn an average of $200,000 a year" while some writers said things like "the median income of a writer is below $5,000." I suspect both those statistics are, technically, true--notice that one is about an average while the other is about a median.

          Personally, I think the most useful way of looking at a writer's salary is this: 55% of WGA members are employed in a given year, and among those who are employed in a year, the median income is about $107,000. So, with a 55% chance of earning $107,000, your expected annual income is $58,850. This is an excellent income if you are young and single. If you have kids and a mortgage, and you live in LA or NYC (two of the most expensive cities in America), then it's still a good wage, but it's not mansion-and-a-yacht level. This confirms my own experience--the WGA is basically a middle-class union, negotiating with multibillion dollar global companies.

          (I know--I'm making a number of assumptions in my analysis, but I'm not a statistician and I have to simplify things a little. I'd welcome corrections from any of the numerous Slashdot readers who must be better at statistics than I am!)
            • Re:Writers' incomes (Score:4, Informative)

              by jacobw (975909) <slashdot@org.yankeefog@com> on Friday February 08 2008, @02:14PM (#22352386) Homepage
              You're right about the mean/median/average thing. Thanks for catching that.

              However, you're (most likely) wrong about the WGA including "unpaid interns" in its stats. The WGA statistics only cover WGA members; and before you can become a member, you have to have a certain amount of paid TV or film writing work.

              As a labor union, the WGA has to have independently-audited reports of the membership dues it receives and what it does with those dues; it then publicly releases the report as well as submitting it to the Department of Labor. If the WGA is including anybody other than WGA members in its statistics, it is violating federal labor law, and the independent auditors who certify it are colluding in fraud.

              Of course, fraud does happen, auditors do look the other way, and there have been corrupt labor unions in the past, but tbarring evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to assume that the basic data in the WGA annual report is not fraudulent.

              (Of course, once the WGA releases the data, the numbers can get pulled out of context and subjected to all sorts of technically-true-but-misleading manipulation, which leads us back to where we started.)