A Thread for the Writers Guild of America Strike

[Ag3ma]

I however find it funny that a person who wrote one episode of a, to put it mildly, controversial show that most people don't hold up as some great classic or big hit is upset that he only got an extra $396 on top of his (as yet undisclosed) salary which when compared to other writers in other area actually is far more than their pay. Like I can't think of many people talking about She-Hulk (except in the context of their writers claims) for quite a while after the show finished. No-one really cares about it, it's being left to basically rot in the corner and be forgotten. It's like said writer lives in a different reality where She Hulk was some absolute classic show that everyone just wanted to watch again and again and was the next Game of Thrones or something.

Unfortunately for your argument, what really counts is how much something is watched.

There's a lot of comment from the usual keyboard warriors that you're very tapped into about how shit it was, how low its scores are on various review aggregators and how much of a failure it was. However, the viewership ratings for it are available, and it did fine. If you bothered to raise your head out of that cesspit of futile internet rage, you might get a broader perspective.

 

[Silvanus]

They're 30 minute episodes...............

Mostly self contained with little need to make sure some complex series of twists is followed though on.............

Ah, the classic "writing is easy" angle, very insightful.

With a budget per episode bigger than Game of Thrones and you're running half as long so even more budget to play with.

Yes, an enormous budget-- meaning there's more than enough to properly pay the people who actually make it.

I find it odd you'd intentionally point to the enormous amounts of money they had to play with, when your argument is based around the idea that money shouldn't go to the people responsible for creating the product.

 

[Gordon_4]

Ah, the classic "writing is easy" angle, very insightful.



Yes, an enormous budget-- meaning there's more than enough to properly pay the people who actually make it.

I find it odd you'd intentionally point to the enormous amounts of money they had to play with, when your argument is based around the idea that money shouldn't go to the people responsible for creating the product.

Since residuals are an ongoing expense, I don’t imagine they’re calculated in the show’s overall budget. The salary for writing the episode certainly would be, as would the salaries for most of the people working on it. The additional royalty/residuals are going to be coming from the parent company’s operational expenditure (opex if you want the truly cringeworthy shorthand for it) accounts.

But this goes back to a separate question: on what basis are they calculated or what metric are they measured against? In the old days if you wrote something for a show that managed to hit that magical 65 episodes making it eligible for syndicated reruns you could look forward to some pretty consistent returns even if they weren’t big because the reruns came from all over the world. And if you were one of the journeyman types of writers who moved from project to project the residuals would add up after a while.

But, we don’t really do that anymore. 90% of this stuff is on streaming platforms now. People don’t watch regularly in X day at Y time week to week. If it’s on Netflix chances are it get consumed in total within a week or so, with stragglers finishing up over two to three weeks. So when do they start getting the royalties? And how do you calculate them? Does their episode need to be watched to a certain point? In full? Or does it just count if the whole show is watched?

 

[Ag3ma]

But, we don’t really do that anymore. 90% of this stuff is on streaming platforms now. People don’t watch regularly in X day at Y time week to week. If it’s on Netflix chances are it get consumed in total within a week or so, with stragglers finishing up over two to three weeks. So when do they start getting the royalties? And how do you calculate them? Does their episode need to be watched to a certain point? In full? Or does it just count if the whole show is watched?

I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure streaming stiffs creatives.

In fact, it turns out streaming may not in fact be a good business model generally. Streaming services appear to be vastly less profitable than the TV channels that preceded them, and that will inevitably squeeze everyone, including creatives.

Netflix did well because it was pretty much unchallenged for years. Everyone else took a look at Netflix and wanted in on the growth, but all the competition did was end in even smaller margins and make investors realise how underwhelming the entire structure was for profits. Companies like Amazon, Disney, Apple etc. have sunk vast billions into streaming, and Wall Street woke up one day and realised they were spending more than they received and it was never going to get much better.

 

[Baffle]

Netflix did well because it was pretty much unchallenged for years. Everyone else took a look at Netflix and wanted in on the growth, but all the competition did was end in even smaller margins and make investors realise how underwhelming the entire structure was for profits. Companies like Amazon, Disney, Apple etc. have sunk vast billions into streaming, and Wall Street woke up one day and realised they were spending more than they received and it was never going to get much better.

It also seems to have required vast amounts of low-grade shit* just to fill up the catalogue (more so now that there's so many separate catalogues to fill), to the degree that faced with having to trawl through it to find something that sounds worth watching, I just don't watch anything at all sometimes.

I have a certain amount of nostalgia for the days of going to the video shop to choose something, or even the deliveries from Love Film, and sitting down to watch a film being a nice weekend evening activity. Now it feels overexposed and actually a bit of a chore.

*Yeah yeah, one's man's low-grade shit is another man's cult classic.

 

[Ag3ma]

It also seems to have required vast amounts of low-grade shit* just to fill up the catalogue (more so now that there's so many separate catalogues to fill), to the degree that faced with having to trawl through it to find something that sounds worth watching, I just don't watch anything at all sometimes.

I have a certain amount of nostalgia for the days of going to the video shop to choose something, or even the deliveries from Love Film, and sitting down to watch a film being a nice weekend evening activity. Now it feels overexposed and actually a bit of a chore.

*Yeah yeah, one's man's low-grade shit is another man's cult classic.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It also seems to have required vast amounts of low-grade shit* just to fill up the catalogue (more so now that there's so many separate catalogues to fill), to the degree that faced with having to trawl through it to find something that sounds worth watching, I just don't watch anything at all sometimes.

I have a certain amount of nostalgia for the days of going to the video shop to choose something, or even the deliveries from Love Film, and sitting down to watch a film being a nice weekend evening activity. Now it feels overexposed and actually a bit of a chore.

*Yeah yeah, one's man's low-grade shit is another man's cult classic.

In my day, we only had 5 TV channels, and there was often two good shows on at the same time, (even on 02:30 on Thursday mornings for some reason) so we'd have to tape one. Sometimes 3 and we'd have to miss something.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

In my day, we only had 5 TV channels,

Bloody luxury. I've lived in places that there were only 2 channels.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, when I say we had 5 channels, I mean we had ABC and SBS...and also 7, 9 and 10.

 

[Baffle]

In my day we had to tune the TV with the little red and green buttons and the yellow line that went across the screen. And it was walnut veneer.

 

[Satinavian]

It also seems to have required vast amounts of low-grade shit* just to fill up the catalogue (more so now that there's so many separate catalogues to fill), to the degree that faced with having to trawl through it to find something that sounds worth watching, I just don't watch anything at all sometimes.

Yes, but that was true for TV as well.

 

[Baffle]

Yes, but that was true for TV as well.

Not to the same degree; TV has limited air time compared to streaming so it doesn't need to be filled in the same way, and since it's advertising-based the shows had to be good enough to get people in their seats.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not to the same degree; TV has limited air time compared to streaming so it doesn't need to be filled in the same way, and since it's advertising-based the shows had to be good enough to get people in their seats.

Well, except on government run stations where they just have a quota to fill. Apparently sometimes Dr who got made because it was better than a blank screen for 30 minutes.

EDIT: Though, yeah, only to an extent.

 

[Satinavian]

Not to the same degree; TV has limited air time compared to streaming so it doesn't need to be filled in the same way, and since it's advertising-based the shows had to be good enough to get people in their seats.

I do remember when all the new channels popped off in the 90s and mostly had one or two shows to draw customers whille fillig the rest with sitcoms and other cheap trash. And then, as if that wasn't enough we got advertisement shows. And even the channels that were better mostly got by with reruns of classics from the last four decades.

I have a far far easier time to find anything worthy watching on streaming than then at TV. And less ads is nice as well.

 

[Baffle]

I do remember when all the new channels popped off in the 90s and mostly had one or two shows to draw customers whille fillig the rest with sitcoms and other cheap trash. And then, as if that wasn't enough we got advertisement shows. And even the channels that were better mostly got by with reruns of classics from the last four decades.

I have a far far easier time to find anything worthy watching on streaming than then at TV. And less ads is nice as well.

There's nothing wrong with sit-coms per se, they just have to be good. And some of them used to be. I doubt I'd sit down to watch sit-coms now (i.e. I definitely don't), and I don't think they work well in the streaming binge-watch era because they're generally repetitive/a bit one-note.

I'm sure there are some good shows on streaming networks, just not good enough to spend time wading through all the other stuff, and the recommendation algorithms are so bad.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ah, the classic "writing is easy" angle, very insightful.

Bad writing is.

Yes, an enormous budget-- meaning there's more than enough to properly pay the people who actually make it.

They were paid, with fucking salaries. Salaries the writer complaining about his bonus conveniently deliberately didn't disclose. I wonder fucking why?

I find it odd you'd intentionally point to the enormous amounts of money they had to play with, when your argument is based around the idea that money shouldn't go to the people responsible for creating the product.

Catering
Effects
Locations
Stunt work
set design

All this stuff costs money


But hey sure lets pay the people making the show 99% of the money and have the set be 2 hay bales and the effects be a dude running on with sparklers every now and again, totally would be better right?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Unfortunately for your argument, what really counts is how much something is watched.

There's a lot of comment from the usual keyboard warriors that you're very tapped into about how shit it was, how low its scores are on various review aggregators and how much of a failure it was. However, the viewership ratings for it are available, and it did fine. If you bothered to raise your head out of that cesspit of futile internet rage, you might get a broader perspective.

A look at the numbers (this was during the shows debut)


1. Echoes (Netflix) - 1.12 billion minutes viewed
2. Stranger Things (Netflix) - 890 million
3. The Sandman (Netflix) - 681 million
4. Only Murders in the Building (Hulu) - 578 million
5. Locke & Key (Netflix) - 518 million
6. Untold (Netflix) - 485 million
7. Virgin River (Netflix) - 471 million
8. Never Have I Ever (Netflix) - 433 million
9. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law (Disney+) - 390 million
10. Glow Up (Netflix) - 336 million

That's minutes views btw not viewer numbers.

For context here's the most watched shows list


1. Game of Thrones (HBO Max) - 909 million minutes
2. NCIS (Netflix) - 770 million
3. House of the Dragon (HBO Max) - 741 million
4. Cocomelon (Netflix) - 677 million
5. Bluey (Disney+) - 615 million
6. The Big Bang Theory (HBO Max) - 606 million
7. Grey’s Anatomy (Netflix) - 567 million
8. Friends (HBO Max) - 460 million
9. Breaking Bad (Netflix) - 397 million
10. The Blacklist (Netflix) - 392 million

Oh and these figures are based on figures by Friday of a week.

Game of Thrones House of the Dragon's debut episodes, was released 2 hours before the Neilson numbers were calculated

New Data Reveals She-Hulk Viewership Vs. House of the Dragon & Other Competitors

She-Hulk: Attorney at Law and House of the Dragon may have more comparable viewership than thought.

thedirect.com

.

So it's actually stupidly hard to find actual reliable numbers because they don't measure 1 weeks viewership, they measure viewership until the end of Friday of a week so releasing early in the week She hulk still lost.

Other estimates put the viewership at about 1.5M an episodes on steaming.

For Comparison Stargirl which was a show only watchable live initially was clocking in between 0.8 and 1.2 Million and episode on the CW.

DC's Stargirl: Season One Ratings

The CW has had some great success with TV shows based on DC Comics characters. The DC's Stargirl series was created for DC Universe and episodes are

tvseriesfinale.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Since residuals are an ongoing expense, I don’t imagine they’re calculated in the show’s overall budget. The salary for writing the episode certainly would be, as would the salaries for most of the people working on it. The additional royalty/residuals are going to be coming from the parent company’s operational expenditure (opex if you want the truly cringeworthy shorthand for it) accounts.

But this goes back to a separate question: on what basis are they calculated or what metric are they measured against? In the old days if you wrote something for a show that managed to hit that magical 65 episodes making it eligible for syndicated reruns you could look forward to some pretty consistent returns even if they weren’t big because the reruns came from all over the world. And if you were one of the journeyman types of writers who moved from project to project the residuals would add up after a while.

But, we don’t really do that anymore. 90% of this stuff is on streaming platforms now. People don’t watch regularly in X day at Y time week to week. If it’s on Netflix chances are it get consumed in total within a week or so, with stragglers finishing up over two to three weeks. So when do they start getting the royalties? And how do you calculate them? Does their episode need to be watched to a certain point? In full? Or does it just count if the whole show is watched?

Fun fact, Amazon Prime actually does or did publish it's royalties pay out info based on watch time (not excluding initial deals to have the content on the platform). Depending on watch time milestones the initial rate is about $0.35 per 1 hour watched rising to about $1 per hour for the more popular shows pulling in lots of views. (Now you can argue that's backwards with less popular shows earning less etc etc which I'd say is a good point) but the info is there and yeh a studio earning $0.35 per 1 hour watched doesn't sound huge when you know it's being split among people but it's still something and a show exploding or suddenly becoming popular could be a decent earner.

Also with Amazon 50% of the sales money goes to studios and purchases.

 

[Silvanus]

Bad writing is.

Viewership is the only meaningful metric if we're talking about the success of a program on a streaming service. Viewership figures would suggest She-Hulk was pretty successful.

They were paid, with fucking salaries. Salaries the writer complaining about his bonus conveniently deliberately didn't disclose. I wonder fucking why?

Probably because residuals were intended to be a significant portion of the writers' remuneration, as is quite normal.

Catering
Effects
Locations
Stunt work
set design

All this stuff costs money


But hey sure lets pay the people making the show 99% of the money and have the set be 2 hay bales and the effects be a dude running on with sparklers every now and again, totally would be better right?

You believe that $25 million per episode, about $10 million more than Game of Thrones, is juuuuuust enough to pay for those things, do you? To the point where there's just not enough left to pay the creators any more? Hmm, seems unrealistic somehow.

 

[Cheetodust]

But hey sure lets pay the people making the show 99% of the money and have the set be 2 hay bales and the effects be a dude running on with sparklers every now and again, totally would be better right?

You say that like it isn't the left that also wants them to be paid more. Sure they're convenient for you now but if they wanted more money you would tell them to get fucked too.