A Thread for the Writers Guild of America Strike

[Dwarvenhobble]

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.

Far from it actually, see my points above. She Hulk managing in 1 week 1.5 Million viewers on steaming where as CWs Stargirl managed 0.8 to 1.2 Million viewers for a live broadcast show at time of broadcast.

Yeh that's a failure. Especially on a budget bigger than Game of Thrones

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

Then why would the writers not reveal that again? Oh right to find out how much he was paid up front would have people laughing him out the room when he tried to pretend he wasn't fairly paid.

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.

No they also got paid too out of it. They won't reveal how much either which makes it far more suspect lol.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

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.

How much do you pay a hay bale?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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

We had the ABC and... some fucking regional lash up channel. It was glorious.

 

[Gordon_4]

We had the ABC and... some fucking regional lash up channel. It was glorious.

For some reason this had me remember I spent a few hours watching Police Rescue on Amazon Prime last night.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

For some reason this had me remember I spent a few hours watching Police Rescue on Amazon Prime last night.

Errr... why?

 

[Gordon_4]

Errr... why?

Well, mainly because it was there and I remember it more or less fondly. Its aged well enough in some aspects, and very poorly in others. As most shows do.

 

[Silvanus]

Far from it actually, see my points above. She Hulk managing in 1 week 1.5 Million viewers on steaming where as CWs Stargirl managed 0.8 to 1.2 Million viewers for a live broadcast show at time of broadcast.

Yeh that's a failure. Especially on a budget bigger than Game of Thrones

According to Nielsen, She-Hulk pulled >5.7 Million in a week. It would appear that what you've done is misinterpreted Nielsen's metric.

Then why would the writers not reveal that again? Oh right to find out how much he was paid up front would have people laughing him out the room when he tried to pretend he wasn't fairly paid.

Probably because its not relevant to a conversation about residuals.

No they also got paid too out of it. They won't reveal how much either which makes it far more suspect lol.

Ah, so your entire position is predicated on the assumption that they got paid sufficiently out of the budget, even though their contracts were focused on residuals.

 

[Ag3ma]

Far from it actually, see my points above. She Hulk managing in 1 week 1.5 Million viewers on steaming where as CWs Stargirl managed 0.8 to 1.2 Million viewers for a live broadcast show at time of broadcast.

You've cited a source which says that the viewership equates to nearly 6 million. This is derived from Nielsen, which is the industry standard. Nielsen report the minutes of streaming time. For the week in question, the source calculated the viewers by the simple estimate of 390 million minutes divided by the 68 minutes of runtime available = 5.74 million. Of course, this is technically streams: in all likelihood the actual viewership was even higher because in some cases multiple people will have watched the same stream.

However, because this is embarrassing to the point you want to make, you have simply replaced this with a less reliable metric that's lower, of 1.5 million (that you haven't sourced). This is spectacularly grotesque and obvious dishonesty even to a casual inspection.

Next, to contextualise with just cursory research, the 1.5 million viewers for SH:AaL comes from a company called "Samba TV", which has software in certain brands of TV for audience monitoring. Rings Of Power, no-one would doubt, was a major viewer success on premiere - the equivalent numbers Samba TV had for that were 1.8 million. And indeed, when releasing its numbers for SH:AaL, Samba TV say that it "delivered hulk-sized viewership". In other words, you are attempting to contradict the source supplying the numbers you are using.

This could be dishonesty, but it could also be gross incompetence.

Either way, dishonesty and incompetence is the level of your argument here. Move on, for your own sake.

 

[Cheetodust]

How much do you pay a hay bale?

Catering
Effects
Locations
Stunt work
set design

I was referring to these people.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I was referring to these people.

Most of them don't get residuals, except maybe stunt performers who actually really do get screwed on them for what they do.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

According to Nielsen, She-Hulk pulled >5.7 Million in a week. It would appear that what you've done is misinterpreted Nielsen's metric.

nope

She-Hulk Episode 1 Scores Abysmal MCU Premiere Score - Was Watched By Only 1.5M Households, Second Lowest After Ms. Marvel

She-Hulk: Attorney at Law has been panned by Marvel fans from the start, and the viewer count stats just after 4 days of its premiere aren't helping.

fandomwire.com

I said others put it at that 1.5 Million figure.

The issue with Nielsen is it's calculated on percentages of a panel that watched the show which is why I showed the numbers before in the context of other shows watch minutes etc.

Probably because its not relevant to a conversation about residuals.

Yes it is, if you're paid $750,000 up front then getting less residuals is to be expected because you were paid more up front.

Ah, so your entire position is predicated on the assumption that they got paid sufficiently out of the budget, even though their contracts were focused on residuals.

We don't actually know their contracts were focussed on residuals. We know their contract included them but we don't know it was focussed on them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You've cited a source which says that the viewership equates to nearly 6 million. This is derived from Nielsen, which is the industry standard. Nielsen report the minutes of streaming time. For the week in question, the source calculated the viewers by the simple estimate of 390 million minutes divided by the 68 minutes of runtime available = 5.74 million. Of course, this is technically streams: in all likelihood the actual viewership was even higher because in some cases multiple people will have watched the same stream.

However, because this is embarrassing to the point you want to make, you have simply replaced this with a less reliable metric that's lower, of 1.5 million (that you haven't sourced). This is spectacularly grotesque and obvious dishonesty even to a casual inspection.

Next, to contextualise with just cursory research, the 1.5 million viewers for SH:AaL comes from a company called "Samba TV", which has software in certain brands of TV for audience monitoring. Rings Of Power, no-one would doubt, was a major viewer success on premiere - the equivalent numbers Samba TV had for that were 1.8 million. And indeed, when releasing its numbers for SH:AaL, Samba TV say that it "delivered hulk-sized viewership". In other words, you are attempting to contradict the source supplying the numbers you are using.

This could be dishonesty, but it could also be gross incompetence.

Either way, dishonesty and incompetence is the level of your argument here. Move on, for your own sake.

I actually said other sources (which I've now linked) in a post above.

Nielsen may be industry standard but then the industry has plenty of bad ideas in metric analysis

 

[Silvanus]

nope

She-Hulk Episode 1 Scores Abysmal MCU Premiere Score - Was Watched By Only 1.5M Households, Second Lowest After Ms. Marvel

She-Hulk: Attorney at Law has been panned by Marvel fans from the start, and the viewer count stats just after 4 days of its premiere aren't helping.

fandomwire.com

I said others put it at that 1.5 Million figure.

So... a Fandomwire article looking at 4 days' worth of figures for a single episode. And that's 1.5 million households, note, not viewers.

Here's another article from the same outlet, from the same author, a month later... reporting that it's a success, and trusting the Nielsen number.

The issue with Nielsen is it's calculated on percentages of a panel that watched the show which is why I showed the numbers before in the context of other shows watch minutes etc.

Nielsen's calculation formula isn't perfect, but it tends to be about the most accurate available, and is considered the industry standard. It absolutely beats an online commenter putting together 1 episode's worth of viewership by household over 4 days. Sorry.

Yes it is, if you're paid $750,000 up front then getting less residuals is to be expected because you were paid more up front.

So, just assumption, then. Assumption that the writers are acting in bad faith with a gigantic pile of money they're inexplicably unhappy with, and that the studio execs are acting in pure good faith.

 

[Ag3ma]

I actually said other sources (which I've now linked) in a post above.

Why bother? It's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted considering I've already explained where they got their numbers from and why they and you are wrong.

Nielsen may be industry standard but then the industry has plenty of bad ideas in metric analysis.

So what? You're still wrong.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Why bother? It's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted considering I've already explained where they got their numbers from and why they and you are wrong.

Because I also explained why Neilsen isn't the best source and showed an example of another such thing that was being considered industry standard for a while about analysis of the "success" of a program.

So what? You're still wrong.

On what bit?

For the massive price She-Hulk underperforming?

Yeh nope.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nielsen's calculation formula isn't perfect, but it tends to be about the most accurate available, and is considered the industry standard. It absolutely beats an online commenter putting together 1 episode's worth of viewership by household over 4 days. Sorry.

It's also calculated based on 1 calendar week not 7 days of viewership.

So release a show Saturday or Sunday and you actually get better results on Neilsen then Friday releases.

I also posted the Neilsen Watch time numbers which showed in 2 hours House of the Dragon eclipsed She-Hulk lol.

She-Hulk released earlier in a week.
House of the Dragon released 2 hours before the Neilsen ratings numbers were calculated.

So, just assumption, then. Assumption that the writers are acting in bad faith with a gigantic pile of money they're inexplicably unhappy with, and that the studio execs are acting in pure good faith.

Well if he was arguing in good faith why not disclose the initial pay?

If you're deliberately obfuscating things it does make it seem far less of a good faith move.

 

[Silvanus]

It's also calculated based on 1 calendar week not 7 days of viewership.

So release a show Saturday or Sunday and you actually get better results on Neilsen then Friday releases.

The days of the week affect viewership numbers! Breaking news.

Meanwhile, you were happy to base your position on... even less than a calendar week. Hm.

Also, uhrm, are you mistaking a calendar week for a working week? A calendar week is 7 days.

I also posted the Neilsen Watch time numbers which showed in 2 hours House of the Dragon eclipsed She-Hulk lol.

She-Hulk released earlier in a week.
House of the Dragon released 2 hours before the Neilsen ratings numbers were calculated.

"It was beaten by something so therefore it was a failure". K. Guess almost everything is a failure, then.

Well if he was arguing in good faith why not disclose the initial pay?

If you're deliberately obfuscating things it does make it seem far less of a good faith move.

OK, so apply the same argument to the studio execs. If the pay they gave was sufficient, why not disclose what they were paying?

I mean, we both know the sole real reason you're so invested in She-Hulk being a failure.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The days of the week affect viewership numbers! Breaking news.

Meanwhile, you were happy to base your position on... even less than a calendar week. Hm.

Also, uhrm, are you mistaking a calendar week for a working week? A calendar week is 7 days.

Oh dear Cthulhu I cant' tell if you're actually not getting it or being deliberately dense here.

Yes obviously the days of the week something comes out on would impact the 1 days numbers.

The issue is Nielsen measures from Friday to Friday

Thus House of the Dragon releasing when it did had numbers for 2 hours while She Hulk had what was it 4 days or 5 days numbers.

Nielsen adds those numbers so in 2 hours House of the Dragon had eclipsed the numbers for She-Hulk's 4-5 days.

"It was beaten by something so therefore it was a failure". K. Guess almost everything is a failure, then.

Context.

She Hulk was $25 Million per 30 minute episode.
Estimate put Game of Thrones on £15 Million per 60 minute episode.

When She Hulk is one of the most expensive shows that's been put out it really needed to do the numbers to be worth it and it didn't. Hell outside of this thread barely anyone mentions the show anymore. The most attention it's had is in the context of writers residuals for a long time. Meanwhile people still seem to be talking about House of the Dragon lol.

OK, so apply the same argument to the studio execs. If the pay they gave was sufficient, why not disclose what they were paying?

Because they're not the ones crying about being unfairly paid and how they need more money durrr

I mean, we both know the sole real reason you're so invested in She-Hulk being a failure.

Yeh, it looked shit, had the normal crowd rally round it pretending it was the best thing since sliced bread and insulting anyone who said otherwise and were celebrating the series kind of making a joke out of a few characters.

In before you claim it's misogyny because I hate strong female characters and I can point out I deliberately compared it to Star Girl a show I strongly advocate for and the weird hand wringing begins as you have to try and claim but Star Girl doesn't count or something and I'm just evil

 

[Silvanus]

Oh dear Cthulhu I cant' tell if you're actually not getting it or being deliberately dense here.

Yes obviously the days of the week something comes out on would impact the 1 days numbers.

The issue is Nielsen measures from Friday to Friday

Thus House of the Dragon releasing when it did had numbers for 2 hours while She Hulk had what was it 4 days or 5 days numbers.

Nielsen adds those numbers so in 2 hours House of the Dragon had eclipsed the numbers for She-Hulk's 4-5 days.

Context.

She Hulk was $25 Million per 30 minute episode.
Estimate put Game of Thrones on £15 Million per 60 minute episode.

When She Hulk is one of the most expensive shows that's been put out it really needed to do the numbers to be worth it and it didn't. Hell outside of this thread barely anyone mentions the show anymore. The most attention it's had is in the context of writers residuals for a long time. Meanwhile people still seem to be talking about House of the Dragon lol.

A longer-winded way of saying "something hugely successful beat it, so it must be a failure". Again: guess that means almost everything is a failure.

>5.7 million is more than respectable. Even the outlet you cited supports that number and conclusion. It's completely irrelevant waffle to just point at HotD and say it did better in less time so therefore other shows are failures. What specious bollocks.

Because they're not the ones crying about being unfairly paid and how they need more money durrr

Try putting even a few seconds' thought into it.

The studio are currently engaged in a dispute over pay. If the upfront pay was enormous (as you assume), then the studio could defuse that debate instantly by releasing those figures.

You're assuming the only reason the writers won't release the figure is because it hurts their case. The exact same rationale applies to the studio, from the other direction.

Yeh, it looked shit [...]

You want to draft it into your weird culture war, that's all.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

A longer-winded way of saying "something hugely successful beat it, so it must be a failure". Again: guess that means almost everything is a failure.

>5.7 million is more than respectable. Even the outlet you cited supports that number and conclusion. It's completely irrelevant waffle to just point at HotD and say it did better in less time so therefore other shows are failures. What specious bollocks.

Based on similar comparisons it would be 390 Million watch minutes for a show costing $25M an episode. It was beaten (but the article I pointed out) by a show with 50 minute episodes which cost $2 Million per episodes. or there about (lets say $2.5 Million to overestimate a bit).

So the Blacklist at $2.5 Mil per 50 minute episode beat out She Hulk at $25 Million per 30 minutes episode lol.

In corporate terms that's failure. If it weren't a failure we'd already be hearing news of She Hulk season 2 I'm sure.

Try putting even a few seconds' thought into it.

The studio are currently engaged in a dispute over pay. If the upfront pay was enormous (as you assume), then the studio could defuse that debate instantly by releasing those figures.

That would cause issues with pay disparities for certain writers etc I'm sure and not be a good look for the companies involved.

You're assuming the only reason the writers won't release the figure is because it hurts their case. The exact same rationale applies to the studio, from the other direction.

No studios generally talk through lawyers not twitter slap fighting tactics.

You want to draft it into your weird culture war, that's all.

It was drafted in early on lol It was made into a part of it. Either by poor writing making it out to be something else or people latching onto that poor writing thinking it supported their ideology and pushing it as anyone against it hating all women and all women heroes ever.