Slashdot Mirror


Deal Reportedly Reached In Writers' Strike

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."

333 comments

  1. I guess... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess this means the Colbert/Stewart/O'Brien fued has been resolved, too...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:I guess... by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Stewart on Letterman's show before Conan was on Stewart's and Stewart could spawn Colbert?

      (I don't have Sirius, but I'm sure Stern is taking credit for all of them.)

    2. Re:I guess... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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-

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:I guess... by eln · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but Letterman has writers, so he didn't need to get involved in the fight.

    4. Re:I guess... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:I guess... by reddburn · · Score: 1

      Creative? Replacing one tired genre (a sitcom/hour long crime/medical dramafest) with "Reality"?

      --
      "Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
    6. Re:I guess... by jacobw · · Score: 1

      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-
      Heh. I'm amused that this came from one of the four people to make the same Onion reference!
    7. Re:I guess... by Thyamine · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I'm afraid of. I enjoyed Journeyman, and was disappointed that they decided to not even give it a full season, although they were blaming that on the writer's strike. There were some hopeful glimmers that if the writer's strike lasted through the spring pilot season, in the fall they'd have a good chance of getting at least part of a season again. Instead, they felt that having Deal or No Deal on extra nights somehow was a better choice. Thanks NBC for once again dropping a good show that has a chance to grow into something amazing, and instead substituting in more reality trash.

      --
      I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    8. Re:I guess... by zenkonami · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --

      Do You Experiment?
    9. Re:I guess... by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed Journeyman, but it didn't seem to really be going anywhere. The only mystery was how and why they (and the targets) were picked. Everything else was just... drama. They needed to seriously get things rolling or I was going to quit watching anyhow. I haven't missed the show, unlike others.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    10. Re:I guess... by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe I should apply for a writing job at the Daily Show.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:I guess... by Thyamine · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are saying, but I think they were going for more of a mix of things. Not just a show about mysterious time travel, but also a drama with interesting characters. I know the Quantum Leap comparison gets made a lot, but it was sort of a mix of Quantum Leap (time travel, each episode can usually stand on it's own, drama) but also Lost or X-Files (mysterious reasons why they jump, slowly revealing why/what/how). In QL, right from the beginning you knew why he was hopping around time (oops, computer go boom), but that didn't make the episodes less compelling.

      --
      I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    12. Re:I guess... by Misch · · Score: 1

      Correct. David Letterman has his own production company for his show, as opposed to NBC which owns "The Tonight Show". Worldwide Pants came to a separate agreement with the WGA to get Letterman back up and running. NBC would have had to come up with an agreement for the entire studio to get Leno back up and running.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    13. Re:I guess... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      I just watched Dexter season 1 and enjoyed it. A serial killer makes for an interesting and unusual protagonist.

    14. Re:I guess... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Maybe now Stewart can come up with something better than "Fuck You!" in response to Mitt Romney's speech.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    15. Re:I guess... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 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.)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    16. Re:I guess... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, after the lunatic rambling of Old Mitt, Johns reply was spot on.
      I thought we liked it here when people are called on FUD, just like Mitt was spreading?

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    17. Re:I guess... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Can you explain to me, then, exactly what the roles of Big Dog Productions and Conaco are, and how they differ from that of Worldwide Pants?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    18. Re:I guess... by LionMage · · Score: 1

      The show (Journeyman) seemed to be getting around to revealing some big stuff. I assume there was a reason they kept showing us the physicist whom the protagonist has been trying to ask important questions about why this is happening, and the mechanics of it. (Still wondering about that mysterious cell phone call the protagonist got in the past from the physicist he met in the present.) I gave the show a shot because of its lead-in, and was pleasantly surprised how much I liked it.

      OTOH, I am not sure what to think about Bionic Woman. I thought the new show was a clever update, but really, it seemed like a work program for Battlestar Galactica actors in some episodes. I mean, cripes, they even had snippets of BSG episodes playing on TV screens in the background in at least one episode that I can recall! Personally, I was a bit irked that they killed off one of the key characters introduced in the pilot, pretty much at the beginning of episode 2. I realize they left his fate up in the air at the end of the pilot, but the effect is very jarring for viewers of a new program. "Hey, don't get too invested in any of the characters if you watch this!" seems to be the message I'm getting.

    19. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some types of insane ramblings that don't even deserve a response. Mitt's most certainly fell into that category, IMHO.

    20. Re:I guess... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's true there is still PLENTY of good stuff out there for the discerning viewer (mostly on cable, Network TV is still a wasteland for the most part). I too love Battlestar Galactica (though I think it has went slowly downhill since the groundbreakingly brilliant 1st season) and Mythbusters (but I don't think that was has writers, per se).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    21. Re:I guess... by glwtta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bionic Woman could not have possibly been affected by the strike - there is no way that someone was getting paid for writing that.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    22. Re:I guess... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of production companies involved in most shows/movies. Basically, the compnanies get credit just as actors/directors/etc. do. However, only one production company owns the show. NBC owns the Tonight Show (after all, it predates Leno and his BDP). However, WWP owns Letterman's show.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    23. Re:I guess... by rdradar · · Score: 1

      But for example Conan went on without his scripters, and I think they were one of the greatest episodes made :)

    24. Re:I guess... by dcam · · Score: 1

      I guess your standards are different to mine. Lost is a just screwing with your mind, why bother watching? The writers have no idea where they are going, so why would you watch to find out where it is going? 24 plot summary: terrorists are trying to do x, Jack tortures and shoots some people to prevent x. The terrorists then reveal that the failure of x was just part of their plan and move on to plan y. That gets really boring and stupid when it happens every episode. I mean how many redundant plans do these guys have?

      --
      meh
    25. Re:I guess... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Don't travel with citrus. It tends to explode.

    26. Re:I guess... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Funny
      I like all those shows, but, I gotta admit, I miss seeing Jennifer Aniston weekly, bra-less in tight shirts/sweaters.....

      We need more shows like that on the air again.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    27. Re:I guess... by rkanodia · · Score: 3, Funny

      Every time 24 goes over the top, you find out that it was just a local maximum.

    28. Re:I guess... by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 1

      You shut the hell up, I want my Heroes! I had to watching fucking American Gladiators and just pretend that Helga had super lesbian powers. Do you know what that's like? =)

    29. Re:I guess... by bvimo · · Score: 1

      >Jennifer Aniston weekly, bra-less in tight shirts/sweaters....

      Don't forget her lovely nipples :)

      We need a lot more of Jennifer on our TV's.

      --
      In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
    30. Re:I guess... by tapehands · · Score: 1

      (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.)

      Not a couch potato, but you're watching TV on a Saturday night?! Go out and impress the opposite sex with your TV knowledge and save the watching for a weekday!
    31. Re:I guess... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Like I said. It's the greatest 80s action flick ever made. I'm putting it in the same league as the original Die Hard, not Schindler's List.

      24 isn't meant to be sophisticated. It's a simple pleasure, and you'd be nuts to treat it as anything else.

      However, I agree with you about Lost. The first season was absolutely brilliant, but they took it too far. It seems that the writers didn't actually have a conclusion in mind for the series (reportedly, so many networks turned down the pilot that the writers felt it was doomed, and never made a proper outline of the plot)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    32. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sturgeon's law (as commonly cited) only says 90% of anything is crap...

      Considering he was a writer, it's quite apt for the situation.

    33. Re:I guess... by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      When I watched the "Christmas" episode of House last week, I was incredibly disappointed and started to think maybe the show was on the verge of jumping the shark. I mean, repeats of medical cases I can deal with, but do we have to investigate the nature of truth AGAIN?

      But then I watched Frozen and this Tuesday's episode and my faith was restored. Both were excellent. I mean, this week's did rehash the "can people change" thing, but unlike last week's, the new hires actually added something as distinct characters. Last week we just had 13 playing the role of Cameron, with Kutner as a dopier Chase. And, of course, having CTB around just makes everything better.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    34. Re:I guess... by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      *rubs eyes to make sure he isn't seeing things* O_O

      Slashdotters *complimenting* the current state of entertainment...!?

      Now I've seen everything...

      ~Jarik

    35. Re:I guess... by kb0hae · · Score: 1

      I guess I am not a geek! 98% of all of the television shows put out in the last 10 years are shear crap! Add that to the fact (yes I have timed this out a a friends house!) that we now see more than 30 minutes of comercials per hour, and you see why I do not watch broadcast/cable TV/satellite TV at home. I do not have cable or satellite TV service, and since all of the broadcasters in the area have reduced power, I cannot pick any local stations up. I watch DVDs ( and VHS tapes) that I buy, rent, or check out from the local library. I also find myself reading more books, and spending more time on my hobbies insetad of vegging out in front of the TV.

      I really do not miss anything, as the shows I used to watch on Cable TV are all available on DVD. I get my news via the Shortwave radio, and also some other interesting stuff.

      I don't watch commercial ridden TV anymore...and I have a life!

    36. Re:I guess... by AiToyonsNostril · · Score: 1

      Season 2 was even better, IMO. Sometimes it veered off too much into "lucky coincidences" but it was a nail-biter throughout.

      --
      "I'm not good. I'm not nice. I'm just right."
    37. Re:I guess... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      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. Was. The first two seasons were terrific, but once they got away from new Caprica the series completely lost its steam. It started to remind me of the Wheel of Time series where they started going off on minor subplots instead of actually advancing the main Cylon storyline, not that the Cyclons are the same stalking killers we got to know them as anyway. I don't know what's coming in season four but I think they should have dropped most of season three and finished it by the end of the season.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    38. Re:I guess... by dcam · · Score: 1

      Like I said. It's the greatest 80s action flick ever made. I'm putting it in the same league as the original Die Hard, not Schindler's List.

      24 isn't meant to be sophisticated. It's a simple pleasure, and you'd be nuts to treat it as anything else.


      But it doesn't even reach that standard. In Die Hard, to use your example, the terrorists don't continually change plans. They just adapt their plans to match the damage done by the Bruce Willis. They are simply shown to be well prepared.

      Compare that to the one of the seasons of 24. The terrorist plan seems to be:
      1. Capture the secretary of state, which will "generate lots of traffic on firewalls"
      2. Blow up some nuclear power plants
      3. Because we expect (2) to fail we will also build a nuke

      and I stopped watching about there, but I think there was also a (4), based on the expectation that 3 would fail.

      The few other episodes I've seen seem to revolve around unecessary tension being added over ill conceived plans (on both sides).

      There are few, if any, 80s action movies that are as illogical and poorly planned (plotwise) as 24. The only reason that 24 gets away with it is that it is broken up into 24 episodes and they seem to think the viewers have no memory of the previous episodes or they are only watching to see Jack torture someone/blow something up/run around looking heroic. Unfortunately, given the popularity of the show, they seem to be right.

      If you want an example of a really well written TV show with a consistent plot and characters, look at the first season of Desperate Housewives. It went really downhill from there though.

      --
      meh
    39. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are shear crap

      "sheer".

  2. Is it? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've heard rumblings elsewhere that Eisner is spewing crap, and honestly he's not someone I'm going to trust without outside confirmation. When a writer says it's over, I'll believe it.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    1. Re:Is it? by NekSnappa · · Score: 5, Informative
      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

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    2. Re:Is it? by longacre · · Score: 4, Informative

      That WGA post was made three days before Eisner's statement. Still, Eisner is the only one saying it's over. No one from WGA or any studios have said a word.

    3. Re:Is it? by andphi · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right.

      The story isn't that the strike is over or even that the strike might be over soon (though it might be). The "story" is that Michael Eisner thinks the strike is (or should be) over. Eisner sided with the AMPTP, so this announcement of opinion is no surprise.

      The truth is, the strike ends when the WGA says it does. The WGA membership hasn't yet voted on the latest proposals, so the picketing continues.

    4. Re:Is it? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Sumner Redstone of Viacom seems to believe the strike is about to end too. I'd imagine Eisner's lack of power means he's one of the few people who can talk directly about what's going on.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Is it? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Michael Eisner, the Steve Ballmer of the entertainment industry.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Is it? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Except that Ballmer at least continues to run a successful company, instead of running a currently successful company into the ground, while at the same time doing obscene things to the corpse of the company's founder.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    7. Re:Is it? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some choice Eisner quotes:

      "Writers, Writers, Writers!"
      "I'm gonna fscking KILL the WGA!" *throws chair*
      "The Creative Commons licenses are a virus that's destroying the movie industry!"

      and, finally:

      "Linux violates 439 Disney patents!"

    8. Re:Is it? by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Deadline Hollywood Daily is stating that the strike is not over and that while there is a tensive agreement worked out they are only now starting to draft it in writing and agree to the wording, so the strike is not over until everything is completely hashed out in writing and signed by both sides. They are also stating that Eisner is the only one saying this, and further speculated that he may be saying this to pump Disney stock.

    9. Re:Is it? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Um, Windows Vista? Microsoft is successful because of momentum and despite Steve Ballmer.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  3. What a relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Bread goes better with circuses!

  4. Was that still going on? by LWATCDR · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I didn't even notice it to be honest.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Was that still going on? by schnikies79 · · Score: 0

      Nor did I.

      I don't watch TV or movies really, except for the local evening news.

      --
      Gone!
    2. Re:Was that still going on? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Was that still going on? by AmaDaden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Was that still going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I don't watch TV or movies really, except for the local evening news.
      And we all know white house staff are non-union writers.

    5. Re:Was that still going on? by Otter · · Score: 2, 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.

    6. Re:Was that still going on? by gnick · · Score: 2, 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.
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:Was that still going on? by danguyf · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Was that still going on? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks for letting us know.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Was that still going on? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In all fairness, I'm not sure the "According to Jim" writers deserve your vigorous defense.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:Was that still going on? by garcia · · Score: 1, Informative

      Could they have just STAYED on strike?

      No, please fucking God no, seriously!

      While many people here might be single, some of us have wives that like to watch garbage TV and w/o the normal dreck that is shown on TV she had to find something else to occupy her TV watching time. Unfortunately for me that included such highlights as America's Ballroom Challenge and Masterpiece on PBS. If you think Dancing with the Stars was bad, well, Ballroom Challenge is a completely new level of horrendous bullshit that no human should ever have to see (ballroom dancing to rap is surprisingly worse than to horribly outdated music). I won't even get into the Masterpiece bullshit because, well, no one should give a shit less about Jane Austen.

      Believe me, even though I don't watch all that much TV (I have been obsessing over BBC America's Kitchen Nightmares and Last Restaurant Standing) it has been fucking hell for me.

    11. Re:Was that still going on? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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 online, on DVD or elsewhere. The medium doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, they worked to produced the product, they should get compensated.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    12. Re:Was that still going on? by bobobobo · · Score: 1

      Nor did I. I never watch TV in fact.

    13. Re:Was that still going on? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are doing a poor job entertaining me.
      I can not think of one show on the networks that I really want to watch. I have about 8 episodes of Heros sitting on my DVR that I have yet to watch because they are just not that interesting to me. They are about the best show on TV right now.
      While I do think good writers are vastly under paid I have to say what they are turning out now is of such a low interest to me that I just didn't notice.

      I tend to watch a lot more of the History Channel and the like than the big network shows.

      If it makes you feel better I really didn't notice the Baseball strike, the Hockey Strike, or the Actor strike.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Was that still going on? by highlander76 · · Score: 1

      I agree. I thought that Letterman, who came back on the air with his writers, was actually the weakest show. Conan was absolutely hilarious. Those types of shows really benefit from the personality of the hosts and I think sometimes a committee of writers can hide those quirky personalities.

    15. Re:Was that still going on? by danguyf · · Score: 1

      Writers have to start somewhere.

    16. Re:Was that still going on? by bhunachchicken · · Score: 1

      "some of us have wives that like to watch garbage TV"

      [ever so slightly off topic]

      That's right, and that's why I encourage as many people to go to the cinema, buy CDs and basically pay for the stuff they enjoy rather than getting it from p2p networks.

      My one, absolute fear with the writer's strike was that the TV networks would simply fill the void with us much "reality tv" and other minimal scripted talent shows as possible.

      However, my other fear is that movie and TV studios will feel inclined to start doing that anyway if they don't keep seeing decent returns on the shows, movies and music they have invested in.

      Maybe that's just paranoia, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    17. Re:Was that still going on? by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      And the programmers for Windows ME probably don't deserve to have their jobs defended from being outsourced, but some things harm the good as well as the bad.

    18. Re:Was that still going on? by morari · · Score: 1

      Working hard to keep me entertained? Which ones were those again? Last time I checked, the large majority of material released today is absolute garbage.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    19. Re:Was that still going on? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I do actually watch TV. I guess I just don't watch the Network shows enough to notice.
      I watch a lot of the History Channel. I do DVR some of the older sit-coms that I like such as Mad About You. I found that I like some of the much older shows. I DVR the Waltons and watch that now and then. I didn't watch it when I was a kid but now I actually like of like it. The characters are actually people that I can like. Doctor Who on BBC America is also pretty good.
      So no I am not bragging about not watching TV at all. It is more a statment about how bad the Network show have gotten that I really don't miss them.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    20. Re:Was that still going on? by zenkonami · · Score: 1

      I thought they did play a tiebreaker...and the Giants won. =D

      Okay...maybe not strictly a tiebreaker...but for once, the NFL was entertaining.

      --

      Do You Experiment?
    21. Re:Was that still going on? by Deagol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could ditch (broadcast) TV entirely. Rent movies and quality TV shows on DVD. It takes a few weeks/months to "decompress" from the frenetic need to have some sort of constant visual stimulus to occupy your spare time, but afterwards, you'll both be much better off. Read, play cards, listen to music, or, you know, *talk* with each other. :)

    22. Re:Was that still going on? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      Philistine.

      (Well, I can appreciate your angle on 'ballroom dancing to rap' but aside from that....)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    23. Re:Was that still going on? by KirkH · · Score: 1

      no one should give a shit less about Jane Austen.

      Right... because literary masterpieces are sooooo 19th century. While these recent Austen adaptations aren't the best, they're still 100x better than Bionic Woman or generic sitcom #47 and the like.

    24. Re:Was that still going on? by garcia · · Score: 1

      It takes a few weeks/months to "decompress" from the frenetic need to have some sort of constant visual stimulus to occupy your spare time, but afterwards, you'll both be much better off. Read, play cards, listen to music, or, you know, *talk* with each other. :)

      You're talking to the wrong person. I read a book a week, listen to plenty of music, do homework towards a Masters I won't obtain for at least 20 years at this rate, surf the web, play with my dog and actually do stuff outside (yes, even in Minnesota, in the winter). It's my wife that's interested in constant visual stimulation from the TV, not me -- unfortunately while we have more than on TV in the house only one has a DVD player and that same one has the Tivo, thus she gets control of what is on and I have to do my own thing somewhere else.

    25. Re:Was that still going on? by mbrod · · Score: 1

      LOL, having to go through the same stuff here. My wife busted out the entire run of Touched by an Angel on DVD. Oh my, talk about pain.

    26. Re:Was that still going on? by john83 · · Score: 1

      Which would work for just as long as it took her to figure out where to get shit TV on DVD.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    27. Re:Was that still going on? by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    28. Re:Was that still going on? by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 1

      The fight was not "over the future of online content rights", as if they were championing some abstract cause, it was for more money for themselves.

    29. Re:Was that still going on? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Look up 'work for hire'. They don't deserve a damned thing.

    30. Re:Was that still going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the OP's credit, at least he managed to refrain from using the word "meh" in his post.

    31. Re:Was that still going on? by crotherm · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, I'm not sure the "According to Jim" writers deserve your vigorous defense. I know you jest, but don't forget there are lots of other workers that had no jobs as well. Stage hands, drivers, etc etc.... Pretty much normal people.
      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    32. Re:Was that still going on? by danguyf · · Score: 1

      Not just for more money for themselves, but for deserved money for themselves and future writers. All writers since the VHS negotiations have been shafted, not just the ones who took part at the time. Failure to get a good bargain now dooms future generations.

    33. Re:Was that still going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, according to you, they don't. According to Jim, they do.

      You and Jim are just going to have to settle your difference of opinion.

    34. Re:Was that still going on? by pokerdad · · Score: 1

      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.

      I think alot of what we were seeing was entertaining primarily because it was not expected from them. Like last night when talking about Mitt Romey's dropping out speach Jon Stewart's reply was "well fuck you!" I loved it cause I didn't see it coming, but given a few more months it would seem as tired as the old stuff, and at least with regard to Stewart and Colbert, their old stuff was usually pretty clever.

    35. Re:Was that still going on? by hb253 · · Score: 1

      If I happen to walk by when my wife is watching one of those dancing shows, I find myself atracted to the TV screen to ogle the barely dressed female partners. A lot of those women have delicious legs :-)

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    36. Re:Was that still going on? by jaymzter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any word on a series finale for Scrubs?

      --
      If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
    37. Re:Was that still going on? by everphilski · · Score: 1

      The writers sure as hell don't ... but now let's think about all the people that (a) aren't writers and (b) were forced out of a job (suspended, fired, whatever) because of this strike. A lot of innocent bystanders haven't gotten a paycheck in months over this. They deserve that defense.

    38. Re:Was that still going on? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      No one who plays any part in producing "According to Jim" can be called innocent.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    39. Re:Was that still going on? by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 1

      The strike started immediately after the WGA contract expired. Most people in the industry were expecting that the WGA would keep working through an expired contract and would strike when SAG's contract expired. Therefore, plenty of people were caught off guard.

      FYI - WGA offers loans to its members who have financial problems due to the strike.

      --
      Evolution: love it or leave it
    40. Re:Was that still going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do what I do then.
      Had to keep cable to have cable internet, but switched to the most basic of basic plans, the one that is local channels and networks.
      Only costs $10 a month over the internet fee.

      oh.
      And you were bragging.

    41. Re:Was that still going on? by netsavior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who lost their houses?
      the thousands and thousands of working class people who run lighting, sound, catering, construction, etc etc for these shows.

      The writers and the studios are probably among those LEAST effected by this strike.

    42. Re:Was that still going on? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      I know you jest, but don't forget there are lots of other workers that had no jobs as well. Stage hands, drivers, etc etc.... Pretty much normal people.


      Oh boo hoo, they chose not to work. They get no sympathy from me.
    43. Re:Was that still going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tiebreaker? They are not "1 and 1" but "won and lost". The two games are not comparable as everybody knows the superbowl is 'must win'.

    44. Re:Was that still going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 online, on DVD or elsewhere. That's nice. That's also not their entire demands.

      They're also demanding that union writers be required for animation and reality shows.

      Yes, that's right - the Writer's Guild is demanding that their writers be hired for reality shows, shows that don't even have scripts.

      The digital media demands make some amount of sense, but the entire package is crazy. Don't buy the hype - the strike isn't over digital residuals, it's over gaining control of all writers.
    45. Re:Was that still going on? by crotherm · · Score: 1

      I know you jest, but don't forget there are lots of other workers that had no jobs as well. Stage hands, drivers, etc etc.... Pretty much normal people.


      Oh boo hoo, they chose not to work. They get no sympathy from me. Just curious, how did they choose not to work? The writers are on strike by choice. The other people have no work because nothing is in production. They were laid off.
      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    46. Re:Was that still going on? by Anspen · · Score: 1

      The writers aren't working for hire. They recieve money for (re)broadcasts en (a small amount) for DVD's. But no money for internet/digital sales. Which is the biggest reason dfor the strike.

      Also I can't quite understand all these people who apparently feel that all the money from succesful series en movies should only go to non creative types.

    47. Re:Was that still going on? by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 1

      Well, "most people in the industry" might have been expecting it, but I'm telling you (you don't have to believe me, but it's true), that the vast majority of writers had saved up 6 months' expenses in anticipation of a strike.

    48. Re:Was that still going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if you can't give your wife constant stimulation without leaving her to watch TV, let me do it...

    49. Re:Was that still going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you forget that 99% of people affected by this are not the writers who make "above the line" income. Restaurants, Prop houses, All technical staff (electricians, Cameramen, PA's, Actors, etc, etc, etc) who are making far less than either the writers or the Producers are the ones most hurt by this. If you were in LA right now you'd see all the people affected, you'd feel it, and no matter what you did for a living life would be harder because so many people were cutting back.

    50. Re:Was that still going on? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My problem is that even on the five-disc plan I can watch movies on average about twice as fast as netfux will send them to me. I have this tendency to wake up at 0530 and I need something to do in the morning - in this season, anyway, I have to wait for the air to warm up to the point where I want to go outside to be in it. The problem is even worse with TV shows, which have about 22 minutes of content per half-hour, tops. I can really go through those. I'm thinking of joining peerflix, I have a ton of movies I could dump^H^H^H^Hput into the system.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:Was that still going on? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    52. Re:Was that still going on? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is, they worked to produced the product, they should get compensated.

      The fact of the matter is, they shouldn't sign a contract which doesn't compensate them for things they want to be compensated for.

      If there are too many writers who will work without being compensated for online distribution for that tactic to work, then there are too many writers. I think from the state of television since... well, since forever, we can see that this is true.

      Unions only serve to create imbalances of power that primarily benefit a few. Labor unions reward mediocrity. Trade unions exist to manipulate markets. Unions were a necessary step to the development of labor laws. Now that we have them, they are a millstone around the neck of commerce.

      If there are so many writers that writing is a commodity, and it requires special protection in order to ensure that writers can get paid, then perhaps writers aren't so valuable as they think they are? You know, like IT employees who lost their jobs to outsourcing.*

      * Yes, some outsourcing was just stupid. Thanks, I know.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re:Was that still going on? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Also I can't quite understand all these people who apparently feel that all the money from succesful series en movies should only go to non creative types.

      This is equivalent to asking why Ford workers don't get a royalty on every car sold. They're paid a wage to do their job. If the writers want more royalties, they can set up their own movie studios.

    54. Re:Was that still going on? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      LOL, having to go through the same stuff here. My wife busted out the entire run of Touched by an Angel on DVD. Oh my, talk about pain. You think that's bad, my wife Netfilx'd the whole run of Queer as Folk. I am tolerant of gay lifestyles, but really, there's only so much graphic man-on-man action I can stomach.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    55. Re:Was that still going on? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Why are you paying $10 over the internet fee for only local channels that you could get for free with your antenna?? Does your cable company really require that you pay for a cable plan in order to get internet service from them? That's insane if they do.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    56. Re:Was that still going on? by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      Believe me, even though I don't watch all that much TV (I have been obsessing over BBC America's Kitchen Nightmares and Last Restaurant Standing) it has been fucking hell for me.

      A writer's strike being "fucking hell" for you is indicative of problems with something other than the medium.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    57. Re:Was that still going on? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The Onion really should do an article about people who link to that article.

      On a more serious note, I wonder how many people just recently gave up TV, atleast partly due to the writers' strike, only to never return now that they have found something better to do with their time? My guess is that it will take a long time for the ratings to recover, if they ever actually do recover.

    58. Re:Was that still going on? by Anspen · · Score: 1

      So Ford workers should just start their own company if they feel they're worth more than they are paid? No, when the contract is up their union renegotiates. If they disagree there's a strike. Why should this be different.

      Beyond that writers aren't as interchangeable as ford workers and they don't "make" each product. They write once and the product is reproduced.

    59. Re:Was that still going on? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      No, when the contract is up their union renegotiates. If they disagree there's a strike.

      Unions. An industry-wide union is a monopoly. If it was a corporation, it would be carved up by the courts for being illegal (at least in theory they would be). Monopolies are toxic to free markets.

      Beyond that writers aren't as interchangeable as ford workers and they don't "make" each product. They write once and the product is reproduced.

      Software developers aren't paid royalties either, unless they are super-stars who can negotiate their own contracts. We are paid a salary for the code we write. The software company then takes our work and makes millions of copies and billions of bucks. This is fair because we work for them, are guaranteed a salary, and take no risks with the market. If we wanted to take risks, we would set up our own software companies and pocket the profits ourselves. But most of us are too wussy to do that and therefore deserve no royalties, just like the writers of TV and movie scripts.

    60. Re:Was that still going on? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      The fact of the matter is, they shouldn't sign a contract which doesn't compensate them for things they want to be compensated for.


      That's all well and good except I'll wager that when they signed their previous contract, NBC et al were not redistributing their shows via iTunes or other means. It's only been a year or so the major players started doing that so the writers had no way of knowing that that would take place when they signed their previous contract.

      I've said many times I am not a big fan of unions, especially since I worked in a forced union dues paying environment (state government) but on rare occasions I do agree with some things unions want for their members.

      Unions only serve to create imbalances of power that primarily benefit a few.

      Agreed. And those few are the ones at the top end of the unions themselves. The amount of money those folks make while stealing money from those they supposedly represent is ridiculous.

      Labor unions reward mediocrity.

      Yeah, have to agree with you there. Even though I don't fall under the mediocrity mindset (I'm there to do a job and I do it well) there are those people that you have to wonder how they function every day they're so stupid.

      I kid you not, we have at least one guy who every day, day after day, would try to get at adult sites for 20 - 30 minutes at a time even though we block that stuff. We logged every attempt and every site and as far as I know, passed the info along to the higher ups. He's still working.

      By the same token it's not always unions that reward mediocrity. Our CIO is essentially incompetent. As far as I can tell he has no organizational skills, most definitely has no social skills and knows he's in over his head with the ERP upgrade we're going through but will never admit it, yet he still gets his 100K salary because the higher ups think he's doing a good job. Why do they think he's doing a good job? Because we're doing our best to keep things on schedule despite his incompetence.

      Hopefully, if things go well, I'll be moving up and out in a few weeks and so won't have to deal with the nonsense any longer. Spend a few more years getting some experience under my belt then move back out to the private sector.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    61. Re:Was that still going on? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Corporate execs are definitely rewarded not just for mediocrity, but even for doing their level best to destroy a company.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Terms? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With no linked article and no information in the summary, I'm curious if the writers got their Internet distribution royalties after all?

    1. Re:Terms? by Steepe · · Score: 1

      here is a link I found.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ac6jnk1bz4nM&refer=us

      not much info in it, but hey... its a link.

      --
      Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
    2. Re:Terms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Almost certainly - that wasn't the main sticking point.

      The real question is if the writers were able to force Guild members into cartoons and reality shows - two aspects of the strike that weren't quite as widely publicized, and the real sticking point.

    3. Re:Terms? by BigDaveSittingOnHisC · · Score: 1

      well, to be honest... they needed to get a deal as soon as they could, as the strike went on, more re-runs of junk TV went out, and the American people watch it. Thus proving Americans will watch anything and the writers putting themselves out of a job by default. so my best guess the deal they got was pretty rubbish. I personally don't watch TV (because its utter crap!!!) but that's my 0.02

    4. Re:Terms? by sjaguar · · Score: 1

      Hey, maybe some of us didn't want to RTFA. Thanks for the link though. I can now properly comment on this story without RTFA. :)

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
    5. Re:Terms? by slodan · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope they did. From an outsider's perspective (I am neither a Hollywood writer nor much of a TV watcher), there was no reason not to give writer's their royalties. Revenue streams may be less clear in an online world since making people watch commercials is more difficult and bandwidth costs are absorbed by the distributer rather than the television stations, but that shouldn't have any affect on the amount paid to a writer. I am surprised they don't have a default pay-template that applies to any given script, and that any special considerations would be decided by independent negotiation on a case-by-case basis.

    6. Re:Terms? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Is that true?

      I haven't been following closely, but I'd expect that ratings would be down overall. I'd further expect that ratings would be way down on the flagship stations (NBC, CBS, FOX, and ABC), and up a bit on the cable channels (FX, USA, TNT, etc.) But that's still got to hurt the media companies right? The decreased value of an NBC ad wouldn't be offset by the modest increase in a BRAVO ad would it?

      Does anyone have any links to any actual analysis of the financial effects of the writers strike on the media companies?

    7. Re:Terms? by BigDaveSittingOnHisC · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have any links to any actual analysis of the financial effects of the writers strike on the media companies? hah, You could have a look, but i'm sure they would just make them up like the RIAA!
    8. Re:Terms? by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      While I understand the argument that they are "entitled" to Internet Distro Royalities, I can't say that I fully agree. I guess I tend to put things into the context of what would the average company do if I came up with something novel on their dime. Maybe, I'd see some of the profit, but probably not, I can't see why we hold these people to higher standards. In other words, if I work for company A and devise a really good process for something. That company can basically use that process or parts of that process in just about anything they want. They own it. Maybe I need to renegotiate my terms with the company I work for because I don't agree with the way they're using their property. In the end, everyone will take the side of the little man over the behemoth, but just remember, the little man is raking in an assload of money as it is.

      Like it or not, I don't think the garbage the writers were coming up with in the first place was that original. I think the networks should've sued them.

    9. Re:Terms? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      That's the difference between working on contract and working as a W-2 Employee. You get more control in a contract but you have to pay for more shit out of pocket. You get to keep your ideas and inventions as a contract and as a W-2 you don't own anything you create on the company's dime.

    10. Re:Terms? by werfele · · Score: 1

      I guess I tend to put things into the context of what would the average company do if I came up with something novel on their dime. . . I work for company A and devise a really good process for something. That company can basically use that process or parts of that process in just about anything they want. They own it. Maybe I need to renegotiate my terms with the company I work for because I don't agree with the way they're using their property.
      I suppose it's precisely because their employers would otherwise exploit their labor without compensation that the writers are unionized. It's really irrelevant what your employer or the average employer might do in the absence of collective bargaining.
    11. Re:Terms? by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      They were handed pretty close to the percentage they wanted from soon after the strike started. The big question was how much more they could get, and what other wage increases they could manage in the process.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    12. Re:Terms? by el_gordo101 · · Score: 1

      Here you go: Networks feeling the impact of writers strike. It basically says exactly what you thought, the big networks are feeling the crunch and viewership is way down. Some networks held back some new programming and are doing OK, but the episodes they had in the can are running low. Fox kicked ass last week with the Superbowl, but everything else was way off.

      --
      TODO: Insert witty sig
    13. Re:Terms? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      How is making people watch commercials more difficult online? It seems to me it's VERY much easier, and one reason why I don't watch the shows online.
      The online shows have unskippable commercials, so unless you go through the trouble of recording video out to watch/FF through later, it's less convenient than using a Tivo or even a VCR.

      Then again, the length of the commercial breaks is typically much shorter online. Also, if they don't have 'bugs' on the screen online, that's a point FOR online.

    14. Re:Terms? by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      There isn't actually a deal yet, just a proposal that will be brought before the union on Saturday. Theoretically, the union leaders could lift the strike order by Monday if all goes well. From what I understand, the guy saying the deal is all but done and sure to be accepted doesn't even work in the industry anymore...

      AP Story

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
  6. Re:This is news for nerds... by rainmayun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... because many nerds watch tv.

  7. Seems like noone won by TheBiGW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    '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.' It seems like no-one won from these strikes. TV companies take write downs, writers are not paid as well as they were, everyone looses.

    --
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for an hour. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Seems like noone won by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Depends if the writers are going to get new media royalties I guess. That could be a pyhrric victory for the writers.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Seems like noone won by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      '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."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Seems like noone won by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Seems like noone won by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      It might be, but it's also just a fact that companies can't generate revenues without a product if the people creating the product are striking, and without revenues you really actually genuinely truly in fact can't pay people. The options for a business to keep pay people are pretty much to either sink cash (if they're lucky enough to have) or take out a loan. Such is the nature of striking.

    5. Re:Seems like noone won by guruevi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Any type of way to fire unions is a good way to me. I have never been unionized and I don't want to be either. Unions are for people that don't want to work very much, get mediocre wages and get their @$$ outsourced asap. They don't care about the economics. If it weren't for the unions, we would still have decent jobs here in the West, maybe not payed as well overall but people would be forced to get the skills and get to working or lose their job. This would've in turn be a good thing for the economy since more people working (albeit somewhat lower wages) means more people spending money and less people profiteering of the welfare systems in many Westerner countries.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Seems like noone won by john83 · · Score: 1

      Any type of way to fire unions is a good way to me... Life before unions sucked royally. They've little enough to to at the moment as the labour laws are okay, but they serve a purpose. In this particular case, they were dead right. They'll continue to be relevant because employers are unionised, and are continually looking for ways to return to the days when the employer was king.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    7. Re:Seems like noone won by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      That's just short term. Give it six months for TV to ramp back up in its budget and production and they'll be churning out the same good ol' drivel in no time, writers and all.

    8. Re:Seems like noone won by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Life before unions sucked royally.


      That had little to do with the unions and more to do with labor laws.

      Only 12% of working americans are members of a union. Are you saying that work for 88% of america "sucks royally"?
    9. Re:Seems like noone won by genner · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right.

    10. Re:Seems like noone won by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      Wow, any idea whatsoever who campaigned for and was the driving force behind those labor laws?

    11. Re:Seems like noone won by Mark+J+Tilford · · Score: 1

      I think that the existence of labor laws is closely related to the existence of unions.

      --
      -----------
      100% pure freak
    12. Re:Seems like noone won by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    13. Re:Seems like noone won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peter Noone won? What does Herman's Hermits have to do with this?

      (ba dum, psh!)

    14. Re:Seems like noone won by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      (Of course, they were supporters of and supported by the unions, but it was mostly political liberalism that's important, unions or no.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  8. yawn by moseman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I am sooooo excited.

    --
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
  9. Too late? by n0dna · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've nearly forgotten which couple of shows even held my attention.

    1. Re:Too late? by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      Me, too... fortunately, MythTV will still remember and when they pop up in my available recordings list maybe I'll remember what the story is all about...

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
  10. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My TV has been off for the past month, and I just canceled my cable service and got a gym membership.

    (I'm dead serious.)

    1. Re:Too late by avronius · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did we finally find someone who choose the "Posthumously" option?

  11. I guess by bigpaperbag · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That means next season will be back for most shows. I wonder how this will relate to current season DVD releases. You would think they will be bundled with another season or sold as very low prices. Which ironically is the writer's shooting themselves in the foot, because even if they get more shares in dvd/download profits, they've made there be less to sell/download. This whole strike is a farce. The WGA is sickening. I'm sure there are plenty of poor little writers out there who think this might actually help them, but I bet any deal ends up highly favoring the top end writers. I hope Eisner's comment about top dollar contracts being canceled is true. Teach them that whining for months and not working is not how you get more money.

  12. So... by jellomizer · · Score: 0

    The strike went on long enough and saved the publishers enough money to pay for their demmands... 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, They are good at making the general population feel sorry for them but... They don't realized they screwed themselves.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:So... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Does it save the publishers money?

      I thought writers were paid per script. They still need those scripts to make shows.

    2. Re:So... by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      With reality TV, you don't even need actors let alone scripts to make a show.

    3. Re:So... by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      And I bet it's not like these people (well, the good and creative ones anyway) just sat on their asses for that time. Most likely they have quite a few things thought out and written down that they'll be able to adopt and sell now with the new rules - the producers are starved for content right now, they've run out of shelved things, taken breaks, and now need a lot of scripts to catch up again.

    4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you don't even know the terms yet, math genius.

    5. Re:So... by zulater · · Score: 1

      I was wondering more about how the people that design the sets, the camera people, stage hands, makeup people etc. are going to be compensated or how screwed they were when they had no control over it.

    6. Re:So... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Seems like lots of the better/more-known writers packed up and went on tour performing stand-up type gigs with the material they come up with, rather than handing it over to a show.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    7. Re:So... by Reverend528 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah. As it is, those folks only make $75000 to $100000 a year. That's not much to live on.

    8. Re:So... by sammyo · · Score: 1

      Well actually you do. Do you really think a 'producer' comes up with the 'challenges'? The host is all 'adlibs'?

      One subtle sticking point was that the 'non-writers that 'sketched' out the challenges are covered by another union (IATSE?) and the studio heads were able to use that to play off workers against each other.

    9. Re:So... by OG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:So... by jacobw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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, 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.
    11. Re:So... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well I am going to assume that they are going to get a higher percentage on DVD and Internet Sales > 4% - 8% which is was the key thing they wanted.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:So... by MrJSuppish · · Score: 1

      These are writters not mathamatitions

      I take it that you must be the other way around...

  13. Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping that the strike would go on forever.

  14. Original story link by TheBiGW · · Score: 5, Informative

    This seems to be missing so here it is: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23057002/

    --
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for an hour. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  15. Sooooo.... by nickj6282 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Sooooo.... by RpiMatty · · Score: 1

      Now no one can say RTFA.
      Its a win/win for everyone who knows your not supposed to read the article anyways. Pesky "facts" from the article won't get in the way of our discussions.

    2. Re:Sooooo.... by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 1

      Judging by your mod point so far, only one other ./er even noticed that. Articles? We don't need no stinkin' articles!

    3. Re:Sooooo.... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I certainly hadn't noticed. You guys must be new here! (As you can see from my UID, I've been around for awhile.)

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:Sooooo.... by charlesnw · · Score: 1

      In other news Slashdot writers go on strike :)

      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
  16. Darn by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Darn by funkatron · · Score: 1

      Didn't The Office finish years ago?

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    2. Re:Darn by iknowcss · · Score: 1

      Ah well, at least The Office will be back.
      You said it. I would have loved for things to get shaken up as much as the last slashdotter, but when The Office got the axe, all I could do is curl up into a little ball, rock back and forth, and console myself with the words "Michael Scott is out there, somewhere, making people's lives miserable in a comedic way."

      I needed it to be true. Needed.
      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    3. Re:Darn by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I'd hoped the same thing. Listening to the writers was a good reminder that most of them couldn't survive in a model which didn't have their stuff automatically piped into someone's living room. I still hope those who have aspirations above writing "cavemen" do strike out on their own a bit more, and take a good look at experimenting with where they can push their talent. But this whole thing was a big, depressing, sign to me that it's not going to happen as a whole for a hell of a long time.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    4. Re:Darn by glwtta · · Score: 1

      I was kinda hoping it wouldn't get resolved, too. I was foreseeing 2-3 years of nothing but "reality" programming that would eventually disintegrate in a giant implosion of suck, taking the whole industry down. Then the writers could go back to writing books, and we could all go outside, or something.

      Yeah, it was a fairly tenuous hope.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    5. Re:Darn by Floritard · · Score: 1

      I was too. Actually, aside from independent and homegrown stuff, I was kind of hoping international films, which seem to be getting more and more sophisticated in recent years, would take over and capture more mindshare here in the states.

      I recall reading somewhere about an actor's strike possibly following on the heals of this one. Maybe that one won't go so well, hope hope.

    6. Re:Darn by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      You're probably thinking of the UK version of The Office. The US version started a few years ago and was on the fourth season when the writer's strike began. It should hopefully resume once the writer's strike is over.

    7. Re:Darn by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was a fairly tenuous hope.

      Particularly since you massively underestimate the public's willingness to consume the incredibly crappy content put out by most US media outlets.

    8. Re:Darn by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Yes, a Utopian dream, but never to be a reality. First, provide local access channels with a modicum of talent that could actually compete with the tripe produced on the West Coast. I know, hard to imagine, but they are much worse than that dreck. Next, find the money locally. Like it or not, it takes money to make something even as pitiful as the "Starsky and Hutch" remake.

    9. Re:Darn by OpenSourceNut · · Score: 1

      I thought it would turn into an opensource writing free-for-all with sites like http://writeforcolbert.com/ and http://writeforstewart.com/.

      One labor market goes on strike... why not introduce another? I think any longer of a strike and replacements would be found.

      --
      I'm now in Poland: http://williamwnek
  17. Here's a link by dvanduzer · · Score: 1

    Not much in the way of detail though:

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/23057002

  18. End of the stike, eh? by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 1

    Does anyone really care?

    --
    I'd rather be flying
  19. Oh No!!! What About The Great New Reaility Shows! by webword · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    It debuts on February 18th! Don't miss it, kids!

  20. It's all timing by techpawn · · Score: 1

    Like any good comedy it's all about timing. Writers used the directors deal as a template, or so it's rumored. Then again, now the studios have had a wonderful excuse to cut some dead weight and they'll have a deal in time for the Oscars.

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  21. Not really... by audi100quattro · · Score: 1

    http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/wga-timetable-for-next-few-days/

    The union still needs to vote on the contract, after some meetings.

  22. So what? by Canosoup · · Score: 1

    Does anyone really even give a damn anymore?

    --
    Hey! Look a Distraction!
    1. Re:So what? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does anyone really even give a damn anymore?

      Uhh, yeah. I'd like my last season of BSG, thankyouverymuch.

      Plus a couple of other shows, but that one's top of the list.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:So what? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Personally I'd like the Sci-Fi channel high leadership(Hammer and Stern) to be fired and replaced with people who actually like science fiction.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  23. oblig. by syrinx · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm sure this will be needed at some point, so let's get it out of the way now:

    Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  24. We know who did it by eebra82 · · Score: 1

    Sources say that once Jack Bauer got bailed out of jail, he then met with the WGA to discuss the details over a friendly cup of White House approved tea. Interestingly, it took only 30 minutes for the WGA to agree on a 30% salary cut.

    1. Re:We know who did it by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Funny

      I say put Jack Bauer in "Lost" - it would only take HIM 24 hours to get off the island...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:We know who did it by sconeu · · Score: 1

      A lady in my Weight Watchers(tm) group was a production assistant on 24, and she got laid off due to the strike.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:We know who did it by Non-CleverNickName · · Score: 1

      Dude, that is actually an amazing idea!!

      Step 1: Put Jack Bauer, Chuck Norris, and MacGyver on Lost
      Step 2: Plant a timed bomb to destroy the island once someone escapes
      Step 3: Set up blackjack tables and shag vans full of hookers for extra distractions
      Step 4: Watch them battle for 16 weeks to see who can escape first
      Step 5: PROFIT!!

      And the beauty of this plan is that there aren't even any missing steps!!

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  25. Not dead yet by xsarpedonx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although it would appear that the strike is likely on it's way to being over, it's not quite over yet.

    Here's the WGA's timetable for the next few days which may result in the actual end of the strike.

  26. I need only three words to explain this by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Joss Whedon, Dollhouse.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    1. Re:I need only three words to explain this by howdoesth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Joss Whedon, Dollhouse. I was really expecting Dollhouse to get killed during the strike before it ever even had a chance to get off the ground, but it looks like Fox is fully committed to letting me see it, fall in love, and then break my heart after 14 episodes. Thanks, guys.
    2. Re:I need only three words to explain this by sxeraverx · · Score: 0, Redundant

      One word: Firefly

    3. Re:I need only three words to explain this by AiToyonsNostril · · Score: 1

      And then lock it in a vault under a mile of ice in Siberia and refuse to sell it to a channel which only wants to cherish it, love it and share it with the fandom.

      --
      "I'm not good. I'm not nice. I'm just right."
  27. A deal isn't a deal till the paper is signed by cyxs · · Score: 1

    Anyone that has done work with contracts knows that till its written in black and white the deal isn't done. Sure you might come to terms but those terms need to be defined otherwise its pointless.

  28. Lets hope... by madhatter256 · · Score: 1

    Let's hope that the deal means no more crappy sitcoms that just take and take from old favorites like Seinfeld, Friends, & Cheers. That type of workmanship is why they've been getting crappy pay in the first place.

    --
    Previewing comments are for sissies!
    1. Re:Lets hope... by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Lets hope... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      Can you explain it in terms of other things that I'm already comfortable and familiar with?

      Yeah. It's sort of like a new Windows OS release. It's almost entirely not unlike the last version and thus holds a high quantity of originality that can be marketed to users (or in your case, viewers).

      --
      That is all.
  29. Re:This is news for nerds... by tritonman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    oh thank God it's over! Now I can finally stop not giving a rats ass about it! I almost cared as much about this as I cared about the baseball players strike.

  30. Fantastic! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0

    I can get back to watching Lost! Maybe they'll actually tell me what the hell that Black Smoke thing was, and how the hell a Polar Bear got on the island. Or maybe they'll just kill the rest of the characters, then go all "Who Shot JR?" and bring them back because it sucks.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Fantastic! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I have to admit I like that show. It has a mysterious quality to it, despite being a vacuous soap opera. Also, it's mesmerizing somehow. The production is very slick.

      In any case, the secret of the island is that it will do what the writers tell it to.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  31. Eisner putting the screws on by Serengeti · · Score: 1

    This seems to be nothing more than Eisner playing to the cameras. No deal has been made until the writers actually agree to it (Sunday seems to be when everyone expects it to go down.)

    Eisner's just suggesting (somewhat aggressively) that the deal being offered to the writers is so good they won't turn it down.

    FUD??

    1. Re:Eisner putting the screws on by Stanistani · · Score: 1

      You knew this when he turned his head to the right and whispered, "Line?"

  32. Oh boy! I can't wait... by jbarr · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...for all of that quality programming to return!

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    1. Re:Oh boy! I can't wait... by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      Not me, I was so excited for Moment of Truth to replace House in my weekly schedule.

      Oh wait.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    2. Re:Oh boy! I can't wait... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      you must really be a fan of reality TV, because that's what the networks had planned to wait out the strike.

  33. American Gladiators by zebb2000 · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the Hulkster will have a whole new set of intelligent dialogue?

  34. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully this has shown America just how much of a waste of time watching TV shows really is.

  35. slashdot, i'm disappointed by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    whenever the subject matter of tv comes up, i can count on someone in the comments smug enough to loudly announce that he doesn't watch or own a television. who do i get to ridicule now?

    where oh where is my favorite smug stereotype?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:slashdot, i'm disappointed by myz24 · · Score: 1

      I own a TV but don't use it for much more than playing Wii these days. In fact, this week I've watched less than 1 hour of TV.

    2. Re:slashdot, i'm disappointed by yabos · · Score: 1

      There's a certain type of person that thinks they must be smarter than everyone else because they don't watch TV. They think every movie plot is crap, tv is all crap, their RSS feeds are the shit. I watch lots of tv and am happy that this is finally going to be resolved.

    3. Re:slashdot, i'm disappointed by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      Already been done well ahead of your comment (search through and you should find it) ;) That being said, I approve of people who don't watch TV! Then again, I'm a "good ol' days" TV hater. When I was young I just remember the programming being so much better... and don't get me started on the news! Oy, removing the "equal airtime" requirement for politics, or whatever its technical name was, that was the nail in that coffin...

      There, was that enough for you?

  36. 1/3 their salaries by EnOne · · Score: 1

    Even though they were no longer being paid for new scripts the actual writers were probably still getting residuals from previous scrips, reruns... the people who really got hosed were the people that are not members of the WGA. The writers' assistants, production assistants, and other lower-level staffers that were immediately fired when the strike started.

    --
    Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
  37. damned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now tv is going to suck again...except for Family Guy

  38. Over? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know that if it's going back to the writers, they can vote against it.

  39. Outsourcing Scriptwriters by initialE · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was either that or outsource scripts to India. Imagine Bollywood style comedy on American TV...

    --
    Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    1. Re:Outsourcing Scriptwriters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean comedy that is actually funny?

    2. Re:Outsourcing Scriptwriters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hell yeah! It'll be the only new and interesting thing on television in the last 20 years. I'm all for it.

  40. Slashdot Users, Yall Let Me Down! :-) by tjstork · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    This is my sig.
  41. Re:This is news for nerds... by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Damn, in time for the Oscars... Why couldn't they hold out for another couple of weeks?

  42. Cue comments from by mattgoldey · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    all the condescending douchebags who are far too intelligent to watch television.

    1. Re:Cue comments from by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      Damn Skippy.... TV is Evil. It sucks out your ambition and your attention to the real world around you. Go get a hobby! Talk to your neighbors! Go for a walk!

      Snatch back your brains Zombies... Snatch 'em back and HOLD 'em.

      -T

    2. Re:Cue comments from by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 0

      ....Anyway...back to WoW.

    3. Re:Cue comments from by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      all the condescending douchebags who are far too intelligent to watch television.

      I was gonna post that going in to a Television thread just to say you don't watch tv/only own a tv to watch DVDs is like going in to a MS Windows thread just to talk about Linux/Apple.

      Then I remembered, this is /.

  43. Congratulations! But it's too late! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Congratulations!

    However I am sad to say, it's too late. I acquired another hobby to take up my time.

    I am now a welder as well as a seamstress; I've been sewing for the last 15 years because movies were bad enough.

    Now, with the dearth of good entertainment because of the strike, I decided, in desparation, to run out and get a tig welding machine from Miller Electric and am self teaching myself welding to make jewelry to accent my home made clothing.

    Now, I am hooked. It will be difficult to make me go back to the movies.

    Check out my welding and sewing journal at www.clearplastic.com

  44. So what does this mean by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    for shows like Prison Break, Ugly Betty* and Lost? Will their seasons just end as they are or will they just have a little hiatus and continue the season in a few weeks?

    *obviously I don't watch the show, as charming as it is. I'm asking on behalf of others

  45. Pity It's Over by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Pity It's Over by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

      Just a quick note, The IT Crowd is on Channel 4, not the BBC.

    2. Re:Pity It's Over by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I had a dark horse hope that perhaps the writers would learn to disintermediate the studios.

      The reality is that the reverse was more likely.

      friend recently turned me on to BBC's "I.T. Crowd," which you can only watch in the States over the intertubes.

      I wonder how much (if anything) the writers of that show are getting from the Internet delivery...

    3. Re:Pity It's Over by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      BBC's "I.T. Crowd," "The IT Crowd" isn't a BBC show; it's made for Channel 4. Why do Americans seem to assume that every British TV show is made by the BBC?
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:Pity It's Over by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Because most of them are, and a lot of the ones that aren't are distributed here by the BBC America guys?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  46. Get BSG on the air ASAP by Araxen · · Score: 1

    pls k thx!

  47. Re:This is news for nerds... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  48. Does that Mean Fred Thompson Will Comeback? by CR0WTR0B0T · · Score: 2, Funny

    I heard he dropped out because without writers he had nothing to say. :) Think he will make a comeback?

    --
    "Nothing to see here. Move along."
  49. Craig Mazin usually has the most salient details by FuckTheModerators · · Score: 1

    At his blog, The Artful Writer

  50. Wow by mpapet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:Wow by cain · · Score: 0

      "three sir"

    2. Re:Wow by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1

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

      Not the lowest. The lowest are performing musicians. Ever notice on the credits to a movie, they list such high-skill jobs as caterers and the 3rd assistant janitor... but the actual musicians are never mentioned?

      That's right, you can spend 20 years training to become a professional musician, graduate the top of your class from Juilliard, win international competitions, be the best player in the entire time zone, beating out thousands and thousands of people to a single spot in a world-renowned symphony orchestra... and they'll list Joe the Janitor, a few thousand extras, and few hundred "production babies" instead of you.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    3. Re:Wow by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Do you know why there was no sequel to "Forrest Gump"? The writer of the original book didn't want his next book to become another failing movie. ;)

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  51. This Matters? by John+Hasler · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Stuff That Matters", remember?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  52. Whew... by CannedTurkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    I had begun to worry that my supply of fresh books might dry up any day now.

    --
    Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
  53. Go Battlestar! by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 2, Informative

    actually I Included that when I submitted the article! since BSG is in it's final season it currently got cut short to 16 eps. now hopefully it can go out with the full 20-22 eps. and finish as intended.

    (I used to work on the show)

  54. No news on the strike.... by jonfr · · Score: 1

    I've been checking news sites for information on the deal that is claimed here. So far I haven't found nothing that indicates that the strike is off.

    Not on BBC News and not on CNN. Both news sites would have reported this if the strike was off and an deal had been reached.

    Until proven otherwise, the writers are still one strike from my point of view.

    However, there are two news on this. But nothing confirmed yet.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=4260711
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/08/television.filmnews?gusrc=rss&feed=media

  55. the relevant quote from Michael Caine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    in 'Deathtrap': "I'll tell you how good [the script] is. Even a gifted director couldn't hurt it."

    1. Re:the relevant quote from Michael Caine by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      That was fantastic; more people should see it. :-)

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  56. Writers' incomes by jacobw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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, 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!)
    1. Re:Writers' incomes by KKlaus · · Score: 2, Informative

      A median is an average. The studios were probably doing a mean (which is what most people think of when they think of an average). And to be honest, there's probably even more distortion than you think. I'm sure the WGA is including a whole pile of unpaid interns on the bottom, and the studios aren't counting those. A lot of ugly distortion all around.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    2. Re:Writers' incomes by crashfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Except that it's also a 45% chance of having no income at all (at least not from writing), and that's not so great. It's pretty hard to pay the rent with a 55% chance of having money.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    3. Re:Writers' incomes by jacobw · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.)

    4. Re:Writers' incomes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect both those statistics are, technically, true--notice that one is about an average while the other is about a median.

      Both of those statistics are about averages. One of them is about a mean average and one is about a median average.

    5. Re:Writers' incomes by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      I think it's safe to assume that the basic data in the WGA annual report is not fraudulent. Not without third party auditing it isn't.

      Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics springs to mind.

    6. Re:Writers' incomes by Merchant+of+Cool · · Score: 1

      I hope I don't come off as a heartless hyper-capitalist, but if half of all writers are out of work, and most of the remainder make paltry salaries, would it not be entirely reasonably to conclude that the reason might not be The Evil Fat-Cats but instead one of the following alternate explanations?
      A) There are too many writers relative to demand OR B) Performing the functions of an average Hollywood writer does not require any particularly rare abilities, and so the abundant supply of potential writers drives the price down (this is related of course to "A", previously stated) OR C) The writers receive some other, non-monetary compensation for their work that supplements their $ figure (the ability to boast to yourself and friends about all the cool shows you are involved with, sense of fulfillment coming from creative expression, etc.) OR D) Writing is a lottery sort of profession, like acting, which entices people to work for lower wages than they could earn elsewhere because of the perceived possibility of "hitting it big" and living the good life financially or alternatively receiving widespread respect/admiration from peers (I really have no clue whether or not this is the case, but it is a diagnosis that would explain all the symptoms) OR E) A combination of some or all of the preceding explanations.

  57. Wooohooo! Lost won't be lost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have only finished 8 of the 16 episodes this season, due to the strike, so hopefully they will have the time to put together the remaining 8 episodes in high quality. The reason they took a whole year between seasons was to not rush the actors and post production, so I fear that they'll have to rush to get the 9th episode out on time.

    I'm all for the union process, but the consiquences often suck for everyone involved. It's so hard to balance these things, because everyone is so "me, me, me" these days...

  58. Wonderful? by Cnik70 · · Score: 1

    Now we can look forward to more brand new remakes and loads more sequels and a healthy dose of the same shit they've been trying to pass off as 'good television and movies' for the past 20 years. As far as I'm concerned, we should have let them stay on strike till one of them could finally prove that they had actually came up with an original idea.

    --
    -Cnik
  59. Re:Oh No!!! What About The Great New Reaility Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I'm going to wait for the copycat derivative on a competing network.

    "My Dad can beat up your Dad!"

  60. Re:Oh No!!! What About The Great New Reaility Show by 0x15e · · Score: 2

    I was really, really hoping you were joking about that. I almost hoped it was a rickroll or goatse or something. Anything would've been better than that.

  61. -1 Redundant by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    Didn't you post almost exactly the same sentiment just nine minutes previous? Talk about rehashing old bits...

  62. Re:This is news for nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do they really need writers for "And the winner is..."?

  63. Re:This is news for nerds... by mrxak · · Score: 1

    I really don't know why the different shows didn't just hire scabs and keep going. I'm sure there were other people that would have probably been fine with the old contract. Going on strike really does just hurt the writers since more reality shows get created in the meantime, so there's less time slots for them to work in. And of course the viewers hate the reality shows so they stop watching as much TV.

  64. Re:This is news for nerds... by NorthWestFLNative · · Score: 1

    Not if that's all they said, but it doesn't "play well" on TV.

    Actually the issue was that the SAG actors would have boycotted the Oscars just like they did the Golden Globes. Without the stars there's nothing for people to watch.

    Personally I'd prefer simple "and the winner is", but the networks want more.

  65. Mod parent up by ProteusQ · · Score: 1

    The new Doctor Who is one of the most original series in production, and it's from the UK.

    I tuned in to Numb3rs to see what it was all about (I'm a math prof), and it was the same old retread garbage that's been on since the days of "Barnaby Jones", at least. Oh yeah, and they flashed a few equations across the screen at near lightspeed.

    No cable? Just get NetFlix.

    1. Re:Mod parent up by prockcore · · Score: 1

      The new Doctor Who is one of the most original series in production, and it's from the UK.


      It's only original if you've never watched Buffy. RTD is infamous for ripping off Wheadon.
  66. And They Have a Plan by tjstork · · Score: 1

    ctually I Included that when I submitted the article! since BSG is in it's final season it currently got cut short to 16 eps. now hopefully it can go out with the full 20-22 eps. and finish as intended

    Most definitely hope so. I've been waiting for a long time to see how the Galactica makes it out of that nebula.

    --
    This is my sig.
  67. Great by slapout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now we can get new episodes of our favorite reality shows. Oh wait...

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  68. is cowboy neal away? by pig-power · · Score: 0

    what strike? hhmmmm...

  69. Re:Oh No!!! What About The Great New Reaility Show by realthing02 · · Score: 2, Funny

    But seriously they aren't going to get rid of American Gladiators, are they?

  70. Will we even notice the difference? by slashname3 · · Score: 1

    Now that the strike has been resolved, will we even notice the difference when the writers go back to work? Really. From what I could tell the level of writing did not seem to drop that much. Sure there were a few shows that have been delayed being put back on the air. But did you really miss them that much?

    I was kind of hoping people would learn to read a book. You know, those things that sit on the shelf next to the TV gathering dust. They have pages with letters that make up words on them. Oh, never mind. Go back to watching Three and Half Men or what ever pablum you are addicted to.

    1. Re:Will we even notice the difference? by lord_dragonsfyre · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that smug and yet entirely pointless addition to our shared discourse.

      Is there a lot of bad television on? Oh, hells yes. But let's remember Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap, and believe me, I have read some truly *awful* books in my time. Just like there are plenty of good books, there's plenty of good television being made, especially in the last few years. It may not be to your taste, but that doesn't mean it's not well crafted. I don't particularly like procedural dramas, so House holds little interest for me; but it is a really well put-together show, with writing that ranges from good to fantastic (even when the medicine's dodgy).

      So spare us the posturing. No one's coming by to take your geek card away just because you get cable.

      There are a lot of interesting media happenings going on under the surface, and this strike is one of the more interesting clashes. These are the kinds of dustups that will determine how media production and ownership evolve in the next few decades, and it's definitely worth paying attention to.

      --
      "I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams." - W. B. Yeats.
    2. Re:Will we even notice the difference? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      From what I could tell the level of writing did not seem to drop that much.

      That's because, with the exception of reality programming, you've been watching the episodes that were in the can before the strike started. If it lasted a couple more months, the remaining shows would run dry and THEN you'd really see a difference.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    3. Re:Will we even notice the difference? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Funny example, because Three and a Half Men is one of the funniest sitcoms on nowadays.

    4. Re:Will we even notice the difference? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Though I think the Daily Show and Colbert report have been *close* to as good as they were with writers. Conan has been doing interesting skits (which very much remind me of Letterman from the early 80s) too.

    5. Re:Will we even notice the difference? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Talk shows are more on the "reality" side of the spectrum, even though the comedy bits for those are usually scripted. And of course, it helps that the hosts of those shows are writers themselves. I don't think the cast of Lost is going to be improving any episodes. Once the pre-strike episodes have aired, that's it.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    6. Re:Will we even notice the difference? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I just realized that while I meant "improv-ing" as in improvising, it came out looking like improving, like making better. Who knows, maybe they could improve the episodes. But not likely via their writing talents.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  71. But "The Office" was Off the Air!!! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    The Office didn't finish out their season. This was the biggest loss of this whole Strike. It screwed over a great show with a great cast and great writers. Nothing the Studios do can fix that. Ever!

  72. Re:Oh No!!! What About The Great New Reaility Show by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    But seriously they aren't going to get rid of American Gladiators, are they? You took the tongue right out of my cheek.
    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  73. Finally! by Teflon_Jeff · · Score: 1

    We'll see a drastic cutback in reality procrapping. I mean programming.

    What do you mean they're not cutting back? Firk!

    --
    "Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
  74. Re:This is news for nerds... by Misch · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  75. Re:Oh No!!! What About The Great New Reaility Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I'm going to wait for the copycat derivative on a competing network.

    "My Dad can beat up your Dad!" There'll also be a pay-per-view gay adult channel version (s/up/off/).
  76. Disintermediating the Studios by jacobw · · Score: 2, Informative
    There has been some movement in that direction. For example, screenwriter John August recently decided to start shooting a "short-film-slash-web-pilot" on DV. Here's how he explained his decision to take production into his own hands:

    The message from writers to the studios had been, "Come back, baby. We can work this out." But after the second time negotiations fell apart, the message became, "Maybe we should see other people."

    I decided to start seeing other people.
    And then there's StrikeTV. As StrikeTV's MySpace puts it:

    It's an online "channel" featuring original video shows created by working professionals in the TV and Film Industry. These shows are self-funded and owned by their creators. Funds raised by ad revenue will go toward the Writers Guild Foundation Industry Support Fund, assisting non-WGA members, including IATSE and Teamsters affected by the strike. Strike TV videos will not be about the strike. This is a chance for writers to do what they do best - be original and tell stories.
    Of course, the fact that StrikeTV's web presence is a MySpace page demonstrates that technical expertise and writing ability don't always go hand in hand. I think there will always be room for middlemen with business and technical knowledge, but I don't think the studios will ever regain the stranglehold they had on the market a decade or two ago.
  77. Even with the strike there's been plenty to watch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's been loads of decent US TV shows available during the strike.

    A lot of shows had many scripts already written so continued running well into the strike itself. Many shows have only just exhausted their currently written scripts so if the strike really does end soon the only noticeable effect will be a slightly longer (version of that baffling) break in the middle of US TV seasons.

    Even with a slight lessening of US shows it has been easy to supplement with shows from other countries. I found myself watching increasing numbers of Japanese dramas (kindly subtitled by the fansub community) and there has been massive amounts of quality TV in the UK over the past couple of months (especially period/costume dramas; like busses you wait years for one and then five come along at once!), including "Ashes to Ashes" (follow-up to "Life on Mars") which started last night.

  78. Wake me when they strike again... by AnomaliesAndrew · · Score: 1

    Some of the best Daily Show and Colbert Report episodes were done without writers.

    Sure, the shows became a little bit less organized, and don't flow quite as smoothly as before, but the comedy has never been so true to the hosts' styles. I personally loved the experimentation they were afforded in this time. Hopefully when the writers return they will continue on this path, but I wouldn't put money on it.

    --
    Move all sig!
  79. The strike is NOT over. by VValdo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 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 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, or this one, or this one.

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:The strike is NOT over. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      And as I pointed out above, he's not-too-subtly threatening to fire them if they don't take it.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:The strike is NOT over. by Urox · · Score: 1

      This post is spot on.

      The strike is not over until a deal has been SIGNED. The strike is on until a deal has been signed. Just because the AMPTP is coming back to the table (after illegally leaving it) does not mean the deal is agreed to.

      --
      "Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
    3. Re:The strike is NOT over. by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1

      Joss Wheden

      Come on, at least get his name right, we all know it's: Joe Sweden.
    4. Re:The strike is NOT over. by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      :) (sorry, I stopped modding long time ago. Consider this +1 Funny)

  80. New and edgy!!! by setrops · · Score: 1

    Frankly they have no originality left.

    New and edgy Battlestar Galactica, Bionic Woman and even though I have not seen 1 episode yet, the new Knight Rider with Val Kilmer as the voice of KITT.

    And as Brian and Stewie say so well, here come the new night time swill.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQuF_t-rTZQ

  81. Details of the settlement by PPH · · Score: 1

    Consonants are determined by a spin of the wheel and vowels cost $50 each.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  82. Coming soon on FOX! by quibbs0 · · Score: 1

    12 people living in a Boston apartment. 6 of them from the Writers Guild. 6 of them from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. Every room is filled with tv's that cannot be shut off and air the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air 24/7. Who'll crack first?

    Find out here on FOX! Every Wednesday at 8!

  83. They've had to rely on gameshows too much by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

    It turned out that after making the deal at $88,000 per annum, they'd sold the industry bosses their briefcase which contained $1,000,000. Oh well. We won't be seeing you next week on Deal or No Deal, because 24 is starting again! Yay!

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
  84. Re:Even with the strike there's been plenty to wat by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

    yes but it is a domino effect and when all things work out we don't run out of dominos. the industry is always months ahead of what is actually on air. they are almost wrapping up episode 12-13 of BSG but we haven't even seen episode 3 yet (razor was episode 1&2)

    The way it is now though is even if the strike is over now, viewers may not notice the gap in the dominoes till late spring or summer. I on the other hand depend on it for work and my end date is rapidly approaching with the stop in the flow of scripts.

    for instance I am currently on ep 12 of unsaid show, which airs next week. but it will only go till ep 15 in which case I will be joining thousands of other crew that will be out of work till the new scripts come in. this could take months before my dominoes are up again too.

  85. Re:This is news for nerds... by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. 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.

    --
    We are all just people.
  86. Re:This is news for nerds... by TheSync · · Score: 1

    Even stuff ranging from running fiber to getting deliveries are slowed by the picket lines...

  87. I don't give a crap about the WGA by billcopc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They all stopped writing good shows about a decade ago. I say fuck 'em all!

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  88. Re:This is news for nerds... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, stagehands are represented by the IATSE - or the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  89. Sweeps by Dracos · · Score: 1

    Sweeps months (the viewing periods that set advertising rates for the following months) are November, February, and May.

    The strike began in November, when there were still enough episodes produced to keep the air schedules full. With nothing produced since then, there's nothing to save the current sweeps period, and the ads rates will probably slip. If production doesn't resume soon, May sweeps could be even worse.

    At this point, I think the writers have the upper hand. I'm sure the studios/networks have been talking to the advertisers to minimize potential losses (that could last until this December), but the only real way to prevent ad revenue losses is to get new shows on air ASAP.

  90. The writers are back? by ReverendRick · · Score: 1

    The writers are back? Does this mean I can now stop... - reading books? - spending time with my kids? - working on a new business? - writing letters to my senators and representatives? - riding bikes with my friends? - interesting discussions with my wife? - studying for my next college degree? On second thought...

    1. Re:The writers are back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd say not. Reading this bit of fantasy it sounds more like you can get back to work.

  91. whocares by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Programmers are also writers whose work gets syndicated on the Internet without royalty payments. The difference is that TV writers have a union.

    Programmers might like to think that the other difference is that there are more than enough TV writers, but not nearly enough programmers, so supply/demand keeps programmer jobs/benefits/salaries safe. But programming is getting easier for anyone to do - at least the kind of programming that most people will buy, just like the mostly crappy writing on TV. In a few years, the global supply of programmers will be a lot bigger, and programmers won't have as much safe privileges in the market.

    Then programmers will want a union, and wish they'd helped TV writers secure these basic fairness rules of commerce that would protect everyone writing creatively for profit.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  92. Actors are scum by subl33t · · Score: 1

    The Oscars are a huge boost to the visibility of the actors and their films. All the actors who were just paying lip service to the writers and their cause began howling for their own benefit and put pressure on the studios the closer the Oscars got.

  93. WGA denies it! by Funk_dat69 · · Score: 1
    http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/ny-etstrike0208,0,5180930.story

    choice quote at the bottom:

    However, a WGA representative said, "The strike is NOT over -- as you know, we are under a press blackout, but I can tell you that the strike is NOT over."
    --
    FUNK!
  94. They were on strike by vision864 · · Score: 0

    Wow hadnt really noticed.

  95. Re:This is news for nerds... by old+and+new+again · · Score: 0

    they download it, and my connection has not been maxed for the past 3 months and I miss the feeling...:)

  96. Is Fox still going to cancel every new show? by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I think Fox was a huge reason writers went on strike, because they got tired of Fox canceling every new show they come up with...

    With the writers strike over, we can finally get rid of this cheap "reality" TV and get back to the prime-time dramas and crime shows... but Fox will keep doing American Idol and 5 ripoffs of American Idol...

  97. Curse you monkeys! by IgLou · · Score: 2, Informative

    You heard the man! Back to work and no one gets this banana until someone comes up with the next sitcom!

    --

    Oops, how did this get here?
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  98. Finally! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    I'm going to write a sit-com about a sassy robot.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  99. It's not over yet.... by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

    --
    Evolution: love it or leave it
  100. Re:This is news for nerds... by prockcore · · Score: 0, Troll

    Going on strike is not an easy decision.


    Sure it is. You just mindlessly follow your union leadership. No decisions necessary.
  101. Re:This is news for nerds... by wish+bot · · Score: 0, Troll

    Spoken like a true fascist.

    --
    lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
  102. I love the moderation. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    When ever I post anything remotely conservative or Anti-Liberal I tend to get modded into the ground. When I am a Moderator If I disagree with someone I usually let it be because I know I am to emotional about the topic to judge it fairly. Face it Unions have their problems they are not always in the workers self interests but their own. Dragging this strike probably hurt them more then it will gain. Just like GM strikes when the company faces it worse year ever (With many people blaming Union workers as the reason). These strikes are not for the worker it is for the Unions to show to the public that they are still there, with all time low in people joining the Unions they are grasping at straws to get known.
    Yes Unions had positive impact in the past and I do not want to see any laws that outlaw them, We need unions to keep industry in check. But lately the Unions have been striking over silly things for people who make a decent middle class wages. We are not talking about people working 80 hours a week to make enough to make enough to buy little food, we are talking about average people who want more money like we all do.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:I love the moderation. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of comments both pro- and anti- union in Slashdot discussions. But what I see from you is bad grammar. Try fixing that, it makes your post hard to read. You'll probably get better mods that way.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:I love the moderation. by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      We are not talking about people working 80 hours a week to make enough to make enough to buy little food, we are talking about average people who want more money like we all do.

      We are talking about people who make most of their income through residuals. If internet distribution has no residuals, and DVDs go away in favor of the internet, they do not have a career that will support a family. It's not about making more money - it's about making sure that 10-20 years from now, they're still making money at all and enough that they don't have to change careers. That future writers will be able to choose this career instead of doing something else for a living and writing as a hobby because writing as a career is financially infeasible.

      Maybe you get modded down because you spout off random opinions about unions in general while obviously having no understanding of the specific situation you're applying your opinions to?

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  103. Royalties nonsense by pyrr · · Score: 1

    The main reason I just don't care about writers' "hardships" is that they were primarily demanding royalties over so-called "new media" that haven't proven to be all that profitable yet.

    And more to the point, I feel that they shouldn't get royalties in the first place. Sure, if you're a screenwriter who wrote a brilliant screenplay on your own time and on your own dime, you *should* rake in the money every time derivatives of your work are used if that's the way you shop it out (i.e., the film utilizing your screenplay is sold to a consumer in one form or another, because you licensed the studio to produce your work). But these unionized writers were demanding royalties on stuff they wrote while on the payroll of studios. They arrive in the morning, sit at a desk and write or edit scripts all day for a wage-- the studios pay them for their creative input.

    Now take Joe Programmer. He works for a software developer. He sits in his cube all day, writing out code. He uses his creativity and produces a relatively unique product. His employer pays him for that creative input. But at the end of the day, when the product goes to market, he will have received only the paychecks his employer cut him based on his salary/hourly wages. How is this appreciably different from a screenwriter, that a programmer simply doesn't deserve to double-dip and make another few bucks every time the software he labored on is sold or used?

  104. Work it out by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 1

    You're not so good with statistics. Let me help you out a bit.

    For under the cost of living: 45% chance of making nothing each year.
    That means you have a...
    20.25% chance of making nothing in two years
    9.11% chance of making nothing for 3 years straight
    4.1% chance of making nothing for 4 years straight
    1.85% chance of making nothing for 5 years straight
    0.83% chance of making nothing for 6 years straight
    0.37% chance of making nothing for 7 years straight (well, as you can see, this is starting to get improbable)



    Seven years of full time work (40 hour weeks) at minimum wage (~$7) is $101,920. So, as you can see, they only have to work one year out of seven at their expected $107,000 (with odds of 99.63% for), to be able to afford to pay their rent

    Sure, that would put them in working class territory not middle class, but here are some numbers to get you thinking about just how good their chances really are.



    Lets add that 55% chance of making $107,000 each year
    That means...
    For two years you have a 30.25% chance of making $214,000, and 49.5% chance of making $107,000
    For three year you have a 16.64% chance of making $321,000, and a 40.84% chance of making $214,000, and a 33.41% chance of making $107,000
    For four years you have a 9.15% chance of making $428,000, and a 29.95% chance of making $321,000, and a 24.5% chance of making $214,000, and a 20.05% chance of making $107,000
    For five years you have a 5.03% chance of making $535,000, and a 20.59% chance of making $428,000, and a 16.85% chance of making $321,000, and a 13.78% chance of making $214,000, and a 11.28% chance of making $107,000
    For six years you have 2.77% chance of making $642,000, 13.59% chance of making $535,000, and a 11.12% chance of making $428,000, and a 9.1% chance of making $321,000, and a 7.44% chance of making $214,000, and a 6.09% chance of making $107,000

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    1. Re:Work it out by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      So, as you can see, they only have to work one year out of seven at their expected $107,000 (with odds of 99.63% for), to be able to afford to pay their rent

      Right, but it has to be the first year, which means we're back to the 45% chance of not being able to pay the rent.

      You've got the stats down pat, to be sure, but apparently you don't know how rent works, or else you'd know that it's not very likely that your landlord is going to be especially understanding when you explain that you're not going to have the rent this month, but three years from now you'll have a pretty good chance of being able to pay him everything you owe.

      The simple truth is that one given writer doesn't make 55% of $107,000 every year; in your model he either gets $107,000 in a year or he gets nothing. Even one year of no income is ruinous, particularly if its the first year. The rent has to be paid either way.

      I think your problem is that you've confused the average writer with an individual writer.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    2. Re:Work it out by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 1

      Ah, but like out of work actors, writers wait tables when they don't have steady work. So really, they just have to coast through on waiter's pay (which isn't bad money) until they get in 1 year of steady writing, then they can coast through an easy 6 years of doing nothing - at least, if they wanted to live a meager lifestyle. Actually, it would be a little more than 6 years if they stuck what they didn't need each year in a C.D.

      On top of which, from what I hear the guild gives out loans to struggling workers.

      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    3. Re:Work it out by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      Ah, but like out of work actors, writers wait tables when they don't have steady work.

      I've always wondered if out-of-work waiters go into writing.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
  105. Re:This is news for nerds... by bvimo · · Score: 1

    >Personally I'd prefer simple "and the winner is"

    That's a lot more than I want. I'd prefer if they posted the list of winners on some notice board in some sleepy village in the middle of nowhere.

    Does the Oscar event serve a useful purpose?

    --
    In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
  106. It was these same professionals responsible for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Spiderman 3. They should be more selective about what they create. I hold them all responsible for those wasted minutes.

  107. bent studio accounting (Re:Wow) by ErkDemon · · Score: 1

    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. ... That's how shady Hollywood accounting is.
    Yeah, it's like when record companies say that albums don't make a profit ... the accounting is designed specifically to make sure that they don't show a profit if at all possible.

    Ditto with newspapers. Murdoch's trick when he took over the (profitable) HK&S Times was apparently to sell the artistic rights to the paper's masthead to a shell company that he owned, located in an offshore tax haven. Then, whatever profits the paper was going to make in a given year mysteriously turned out to correspond almost exactly to the licensing fee that year for the right to use the masthead.

    One of the Hollywood studio's latest tricks is supposed to be aggregation. If a hit film is supposed to pay the actors, director, producer or writer a percentage of the profits, what the studio will do is unilaterally decide to bundle that film with a group of big loss-makers, and treat that group as a single accounting entity. At the studio's discretion, the hit film is then deemed not to have gone into profit until it's paid back the studio for all the losses that they made on the other films in the bundle. The really bent thing about this, of course, is that the decision as to which films are going to be "grouped" for accounting reasons can be deferred until the studio has spreadsheeted combinations are going to save them the most in contracted percentage fees.

  108. back to work soon... by alxkit · · Score: 0

    yeah, they need a vacation. cuz being on strike is soooo straining. writing in general is so hard. maybe they should propose mandatory naps for those lazy fucks. if i was in charge - i would not hire any striking moron back. let them shovel manure for a decade or two. but then again, what do i know?

  109. Re:This is news for nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure he meant it as an insult.

  110. Most Creative TV Shows are not network by evilninjax · · Score: 1

    The Best shows in the past 5-10 years have NOT been on (or created by) Network Tv. HBO had taken the lead in good storytelling in television, pioneered with SOPRANOS but continuing to such shows as DEADWOOD, CARNIVALE, THE WIRE, ROME. As of late, HBO has lost much of that edge as their flagship shows have ended or been cancelled (ROME, *sigh*) and now Showtime is coming on strong with DEXTER and BROTHERHOOD (SLEEPER CELL, DEAD LIKE ME in the past).

    And now AMC has MAD MEN and BREAKING BAD which are both substantially better than anything on network tv.

    FX has THE SHIELD and now SUNNY IN PHILLY.

    THE OFFICE almost doesn't count as an NBC product since Ricky Gervais is basically remaking the UK version.

    BSG is sci fi.

    FIREFLY was cancelled prematurely, as were excellent shows FREAKS AND GEEKS and WONDERFALLS. This seems par for the course: Shows are too good for tv; i think if FREAKS AND GEEKS were on HBO, they would've gotten a second season or so...

    I'm not a fan of LOST or HEROES or 24 or CSI:foo, personally, but those are rare wins for Network tv. But what are the Biggest Name shows on network tv? AMERICAN IDOL, SURVIVOR... meh. Of those ilk, I again, prefer the cable offerings: ICE ROAD TRUCKERS, DEADLIEST CATCH.

    This past season on network tv, I watched THE OFFICE, REAPER, CHUCK, and PUSHING DAISIES. oh and a guilty pleasure: BIG BANG THEORY.

    1. Re:Most Creative TV Shows are not network by ShadowMarth · · Score: 1

      I agree with you for the most part. Honestly, anything on NBC or Fox WILL be screwed up. NBC because of their shameful product placement and other practices (see any episode of The Office after it became popular, every three seconds there's an advertisement, then for half of the broadcast more blatantly in commercials), and Fox because... Well, most of their stuff sucks, and every time they get something good, they tent to screw it up. See: Firefly, Sliders. In both cases, Fox's demands for more sex and violence hurt the shows badly (See every episode of Sliders after Season 2 when Fox started interfering, where it ceased to be about the interesting situations and started to have a lot more guns, and the main was replaced by a Kirk wannabe, and every single reason Firefly was canceled. The whole character of Inara was made up because Fox insisted on a Space Hooker). I haven't watched Reaper, but all the other shows you mentioned are my personal favorites, though I probably wouldn't admit to watching Pushing Daisies. Other than that, there has been some fantastic television to come out of BBC. Ashes to Ashes promises to be fantastic, the predecessor Life on Mars was one of the best shows I've ever watched, and the latest run of Doctor Who is incredible.

  111. Re:This is news for nerds... by Fael · · Score: 1

    Don't forget about the Guild Of American Theatrical Stage Employees. I forget the link, but you can probably find GOATSE on google...