Comments on: Not a word

By: Crystal

Crystal — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:55:30 +0000

Lalalalaman:

About shareholders: they watch television and go to movies... so if I were one of them, I think I'd be demanding answers about why I'm not getting my TV and movies....

By: POW

POW — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:22:38 +0000

At the rally they gave a stat (I'm paraphrasing, the you'll get the idea) that even if the studios gave into the HIGHEST demands of the WGA, and then MATCHED that offer for SAG and then MATCHED it again with the DGA -- the highest demand, no negotiating...if they did all this...

The amount of EXTRA cash they'd have to pay is less than HALF what the CEO's of the main studios make each year!!!!!!!

That is astounding fact that illustrates the sickening greed of the studios.

By: r dahl

r dahl — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:44:01 +0000

nice John... the banners work well too btw.

the first time i read i actually clicked by accident. one of the few ads i've read all the way though. (consider that a compliment from this former adguy)--> most clicks do not get read.

those brads look kinda' familiar...

cheers & best

By: Lalalalaman

Lalalalaman — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:47:33 +0000

Well, being a writer myself, I like more money for writers, however, something struck me as funny in this post:

"If I were a theater chain, Iâ€™d be worried. If I were Wal-Mart, Iâ€™d demand answers. If I were a shareholder, Iâ€™d demand blood."

In reference to the shareholders: on the one hand, you'd stand to lose money in the short term, which is bad-ish, but on the other hand, a strike isn't something you NECESSARILY want to end quickly (by giving in to the demands of the strikers) because if you spend the time to negotiate a lower share for writers than they're requesting, you retain more money for the company, and thus pass more money back to the shareholders, which is good for them.

So that little bit SOUNDS good, but it's actually not that well thought out.

Sorry to spoil the party.

By: kristin

kristin — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:27:32 +0000

where is Carrie Fisher?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:52:14 +0000

A television writer checking in here. In the ‘88 strike there was no such solidarity and public defiance coming from the A-list. And there was a general sense that all unfinished scripts were being written and would be turned in the minute the strike was over. Management has seriously underestimated our resolve and our commitment to the welfare of writers not yet born. It’s like Lord of the Rings: Sauron was defeated because in all of his vast and intricate calculations the one thought that never came to him was that any of his opponents might be thinking of somebody’s welfare besides their own. The Mind of Power is incapable of conceiving of such a thing, and that’s why we will win: they just don’t get it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:07:13 +0000

There are a lot of showrunners’ names NOT on that list…wonder what THEIR shows are doing? I respect the writers who stand strong; and loathe the scabbers out there.

By: Mike Rinaldi

Mike Rinaldi — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:32:39 +0000

How is it that studios are contracting writers this week? Even if they initiated the contracts two weeks ago, I thought they couldn’t sign during a strike?

By: Dominic

Dominic — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:24:26 +0000

Bryan – yeah, the more you look the more names you notice not there. Brian Helgeland, David Mamet, Tony Gilroy etc. But it’s still a heck of an impressive list. And I’m sure those not on it would like to be. Tough to get hold of 12,000 people at short notice I suppose.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:10:49 +0000

where’s my boy Favreau at?!

By: Paul Atkinson

Paul Atkinson — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:05:07 +0000

WOW, my bad. Wrong blog, I thought I was on Ken Levine’s. It’s been a long day. >_<