The Business of Hollywood & Streaming

[Biff Tannen 45211]

Probably not related to the current goings on, but does it seem like there are almost no older (or even halfway recent) movies available to stream for free anymore?  It used to be that I could think of any movie and someone would have the licensing rights to it (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, whoever).  Now you pretty much have to pay for any of them.  

I recently tried this with Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, The River Wild, and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Gene Wilder version, thank you very much).  They either weren't available at all or could only rent for a fee.

Am I off base here?  Did something happen?  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13317]

14 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

smaller than zero? 

what you're describing is how it should work and has always worked in tv.  popular shows stay on the air longer and the actors/writers get paid more, because the ad revenue is higher.  netflix changed the model and here we are.

The public is relatively happy with the model and I’m sure netflix and others know that. If my streaming services jump up to 125, 150 or even 200, I’m dropping some of them.

I can pretty much find free entertainment, with some commercials, either thru YouTube, TikTok, other internet channels or even OTA. Why pay much for entertainment when so much is free or low cost. And as for movies, I’m only up for 1-2 theater visits per year.

if it’s a quiet day with nothing going on, I can lose a couple of hours on YouTube or TikTok. And I’m in my mid 50s. I assume that younger people forgo mainstream entertainment unless it’s some cultural event for them like Barbie. The pie is getting smaller not larger for Hollywood. I might sound like I don’t support the writers and actors but it’s the opposite. I support them but the trends are against the entire industry.

[AnimalTobacco 34]

17 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

 

what you're describing is how it should work and has always worked in tv.  popular shows stay on the air longer and the actors/writers get paid more, because the ad revenue is higher.  netflix changed the model and here we are.

Give me your best argument for why it should work besides "it's always been that way", especially considering it wasn't until the 1960's that residuals came to be.

I say that because what I've read is:

Quote

 

The entire idea of residuals arose from the idea that talent shouldn’t have to compete with itself when it came to re-running a movie or show; the key thing to note, though, is that this concern made sense in a world where there was scarce distribution. To go back to the 1960s, there were only three networks: that meant there were only 504 hours in a week to air content on television; airing a two-hour movie reduced the available space for talent to 502 hours.

Streaming, though, is purely additive. The Internet makes distribution effectively free, which means there are an infinite number of hours available for talent to monetize. This does, it’s worth noting, render talent’s original argument for residuals moot; if anything Netflix had it right when it temporarily shifted the model to simply paying up front as one of the ways Netflix broke into Hollywood was by forgoing residuals and just paying talent upfront: this removed the potential for huge upside if a show was a massive hit, but it guaranteed that talent got payed, even if a show wasn’t a success.

 

 

[AnimalTobacco 34]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The public is relatively happy with the model and I’m sure netflix and others know that. If my streaming services jump up to 125, 150 or even 200, I’m dropping some of them.

I can pretty much find free entertainment, with some commercials, either thru YouTube, TikTok, other internet channels or even OTA. Why pay much for entertainment when so much is free or low cost. And as for movies, I’m only up for 1-2 theater visits per year.

if it’s a quiet day with nothing going on, I can lose a couple of hours on YouTube or TikTok. And I’m in my mid 50s. I assume that younger people forgo mainstream entertainment unless it’s some cultural event for them like Barbie. The pie is getting smaller not larger for Hollywood. I might sound like I don’t support the writers and actors but it’s the opposite. I support them but the trends are against the entire industry.

From that same piece and to your social media point:

Again, though, scarcity in terms of distribution is now gone; the only scarce resource on the Internet is consumer time and attention, and commanding that is far more difficult and risky. Look no further than the deteriorating financial condition of most of Hollywood: not only are the studios competing with Netflix and Amazon and Apple, but also with things like YouTube and social media. Indeed, you could very easily make the case that a far more legible labor action would be for the studios to lock out the talent in an attempt to remove residualscompletely, given how much more risk any content producer is taking on today.

This angle is, obviously, a non-starter, but it does point at why these negotiations are likely to be so fraught: actors and writers are angling to get a larger share of revenue that they arguably no longer deserve.

[henrygandorf 28886]

12 minutes ago, AnimalTobacco said:

Give me your best argument for why it should work besides "it's always been that way", especially considering it wasn't until the 1960's that residuals came to be.

I say that because what I've read is:

i also said "it's how it should work" but you ignored that part.  netflix changed the model and the netflix platform (streaming with no ads) required new rules that were not covered by the 2009 agreement, an unfortunate timing situation.

a good analog for netflix is something like hbo, which relies on subs not ads.  does hbo pay residuals?  why does netflix think they're special and don't have to pay?  can they not afford it?  aren't they going around bragging about how much growth they're experiencing?  hasn't the stock been climbing for a year after it got shot to pieces?

right now they get away with running and re-running (or acquiring old shows, see suits for ex) and not compensating the actors/writers who have been living and surviving off this structure for decades.  either they need to pay more up front or come up with some sort of residual system.  i know they don't want to be transparent, i've covered this at length, but they can't have it both ways and expect everybody to just be cool with it.

there are plenty of instances in the world where "that's the way it's always been done" is a terrible argument for whatever it is.  this is not one of those times.  they need to figure out what's fair, they've had 14 years to exploit the shit out of everyone.  the party's over.

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

“right now they get away with running and re-running (or acquiring old shows, see suits for ex and not compensating the actors/writers ”

Why does the money come from Netflix in this situation and not from the money Netflix paid to the seller of the program rights?

Ex if Netflix paid NBC/Comcast a million a month for a year to stream SUITS (for their customers to watch as much or as little as they like) wouldn’t some of that $12 million go to the writers and actors?

Charging per stream would seem like it could cost a fortune on something like a kids movie that gets watched 100 times in a month, because kids…

Edited August 13, 2023 by ChickenSandwich

[henrygandorf 28886]

52 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

“right now they get away with running and re-running (or acquiring old shows, see suits for ex and not compensating the actors/writers ”

Why does the money come from Netflix in this situation and not from the money Netflix paid to the seller of the program rights?

Ex if Netflix paid NBC/Comcast a million a month for a year to stream SUITS (for their customers to watch as much or as little as they like) wouldn’t some of that $12 million go to the writers and actors?

Charging per stream would seem like it could cost a fortune on something like a kids movie that gets watched 100 times in a month, because kids…

that's just not how show ownership works, and someone else could probably explain it better.  it's on the producer/production to pay them when they filmed the show, and up to the network/studio/distributor to pay residuals.  where it gets tricky is when actors/writers are also producers.  if you've noticed, after season 4 or so of the office, a bunch of the actors became producers - their deals were structured that way and they get to share in the profits. 

so the owners/producers of suits got whatever they got from the netflix deal (which prob wasn't a huge deal considering how much it's being watched right now).  and while it's blowing up, all the writers and actors (non-producers) don't get shit, but would if any broadcast network picked it back up and ran it, like nbcu.

again, like any business, there are loopholes and loopholes get exploited until closed.  writers/actors didn't walk off sets or take a piss on their contracts, they waited until their deal expired, considered offers on the table, and decided to strike.

the gymnastics that are going on to find any other possible way to solve this other than "pay them for their work" is pretty outlandish.  not just on this thread, but social media, whatever.  writers and actors want to get paid for their art.  the public wants to watch their art and is willing to pay for it.  last i checked, there were no executives from netflix, apple, disney, or amazon on the bread lines, so apologies if i feel zero sympathy. 

they're helping to destroy an occupation and an industry to enrich themselves and their shareholders.  same as it ever was.

[AnimalTobacco 34]

5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i also said "it's how it should work" but you ignored that part.  netflix changed the model and the netflix platform (streaming with no ads) required new rules that were not covered by the 2009 agreement, an unfortunate timing situation.

a good analog for netflix is something like hbo, which relies on subs not ads.  does hbo pay residuals?  why does netflix think they're special and don't have to pay?  can they not afford it?  aren't they going around bragging about how much growth they're experiencing?  hasn't the stock been climbing for a year after it got shot to pieces?

right now they get away with running and re-running (or acquiring old shows, see suits for ex) and not compensating the actors/writers who have been living and surviving off this structure for decades.  either they need to pay more up front or come up with some sort of residual system.  i know they don't want to be transparent, i've covered this at length, but they can't have it both ways and expect everybody to just be cool with it.

there are plenty of instances in the world where "that's the way it's always been done" is a terrible argument for whatever it is.  this is not one of those times.  they need to figure out what's fair, they've had 14 years to exploit the shit out of everyone.  the party's over.

I wasn’t intentionally ignoring that part— I’m genuinely asking why you think it should work this way still in 2023 you answered, thank you. Admittedly I need to read that answer a few more times to understand it better, because I’m still not actually hearing the logical argument for why residuals are an entitlement in a streaming model considering that residuals were a response and answer to a misaligned value matrix (scarcity of hours on TV/opportunity cost) that no longer exists. At least it no longer exists in the same way.

If the argument is boiled down to a simplified emotional one of “mean rich businessmen versus smart cool creatives (which it kinda sounded like with the bread line comment)”, then creatives asking for a cut of everything that’s already been paid for, in my mind, is really no different than turning the iPad around and asking for a tip because it’s been normalized (and your employer isn’t paying you a living wage).

[AnimalTobacco 34]

5 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

“right now they get away with running and re-running (or acquiring old shows, see suits for ex and not compensating the actors/writers ”

Why does the money come from Netflix in this situation and not from the money Netflix paid to the seller of the program rights?

Ex if Netflix paid NBC/Comcast a million a month for a year to stream SUITS (for their customers to watch as much or as little as they like) wouldn’t some of that $12 million go to the writers and actors?

Charging per stream would seem like it could cost a fortune on something like a kids movie that gets watched 100 times in a month, because kids…

Exactly this question too. If you wanted a cut, shouldn’t it be a cut from the deal you made and the monies extracted from Netflix?

[henrygandorf 28886]

4 minutes ago, AnimalTobacco said:

I wasn’t intentionally ignoring that part— I’m genuinely asking why you think it should work this way still in 2023 you answered, thank you. Admittedly I need to read that answer a few more times to understand it better, because I’m still not actually hearing the logical argument for why residuals are an entitlement in a streaming model considering that residuals were a response and answer to a misaligned value matrix (scarcity of hours on TV/opportunity cost) that no longer exists. At least it no longer exists in the same way.

you said it yourself - not in the same way.  but they're still competing for the minutes and hours and eyeballs same as always.  just because there are nearly unlimited options on what to watch and literally unlimited hours that can exist on streaming platforms, doesn't mean a person can all of a sudden watch 75 hours a day of content.

6 minutes ago, AnimalTobacco said:

If the argument is boiled down to a simplified emotional one of “mean rich businessmen versus smart cool creatives (which it kinda sounded like with the bread line comment)”, then creatives asking for a cut of everything that’s already been paid for, in my mind, is really no different than turning the iPad around and asking for a tip because it’s been normalized (and your employer isn’t paying you a living wage).

this has nothing to do with being mean and rich or smart or cool.  netflix (and the others) have had the advantage for a long time because they control the distribution.  same as the owners/networks in pro sports or whatever the equiv would be in the nil situation (which is an unusual structure, as it comes down to donors, not the universities) or the ncaa tv contracts - the source of the entertainment is coming from people who aren't being fairly compensated for their work.  

if an actor or writer is not getting paid enough, they can choose another line of work.  if a streaming service isn't successful, they can close down or sell/merge.  things work both ways.  speaking of which, other than "because we have never been forced to in the past", what's netflix's explanation for not paying residuals?

[henrygandorf 28886]

3 minutes ago, AnimalTobacco said:

Exactly this question too. If you wanted a cut, shouldn’t it be a cut from the deal you made and the monies extracted from Netflix?

who is "you" in this scenario and how exactly would that work?

[Biff Tannen 45211]

6 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

that's just not how show ownership works, and someone else could probably explain it better.  it's on the producer/production to pay them when they filmed the show, and up to the network/studio/distributor to pay residuals.  where it gets tricky is when actors/writers are also producers.  if you've noticed, after season 4 or so of the office, a bunch of the actors became producers - their deals were structured that way and they get to share in the profits. 

so the owners/producers of suits got whatever they got from the netflix deal (which prob wasn't a huge deal considering how much it's being watched right now).  and while it's blowing up, all the writers and actors (non-producers) don't get shit, but would if any broadcast network picked it back up and ran it, like nbcu.

again, like any business, there are loopholes and loopholes get exploited until closed.  writers/actors didn't walk off sets or take a piss on their contracts, they waited until their deal expired, considered offers on the table, and decided to strike.

the gymnastics that are going on to find any other possible way to solve this other than "pay them for their work" is pretty outlandish.  not just on this thread, but social media, whatever.  writers and actors want to get paid for their art.  the public wants to watch their art and is willing to pay for it.  last i checked, there were no executives from netflix, apple, disney, or amazon on the bread lines, so apologies if i feel zero sympathy. 

they're helping to destroy an occupation and an industry to enrich themselves and their shareholders.  same as it ever was.

I hate to jump into this with the music business, but it sounds like we are talking about something in the realm of "mechanical" payments, which means every writer/artist gets a set fee (.07 cents back when I was bangin) for every time their song was played and every album sold.  This seems like where this is all heading, or should be heading.  I'm sure with streaming it would be negotiated for way less, but isn't this kind of what they are asking for?  I may be making this WAY too simplistic.

[henrygandorf 28886]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I hate to jump into this with the music business, but it sounds like we are talking about something in the realm of "mechanical" payments, which means every writer/artist gets a set fee (.07 cents back when I was bangin) for every time their song was played and every album sold.  This seems like where this is all heading, or should be heading.  I'm sure with streaming it would be negotiated for way less, but isn't this kind of what they are asking for?  I may be making this WAY too simplistic.

there's definitely some overlap in the music business.  to use a song to sell something or in a movie/tv show, you need permission and you need to pay someone to do it most likely.  much like showbiz, things are constantly changing, and 1995 didn't look like 2005 in the music business.  same with 2015 and i'm sure 2025.  but at the same time, either musicians (or song owners) are compensated or they're not.  they shouldn't be on one distribution stream but not the others.  it should be comparable.

the other side for music, and why it's probably not a fair comp, is that plenty of musicians are ok with their songs being streamed for free, because that can build a band's following and they can make money selling songs/albums and on tour, merch, whatever.  if patrick adams gets super popular right now because of the reemergence of suits, it's not like he's gonna sell out madison square garden with his one-man show.

i don't know much about how musicians/bands get paid out, but i would assume the more something gets streamed on spotify/pandora/watched on youtube, the more $ they get, right?  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13317]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

Agreed.  Smart phones, YouTube/Tik Tok, and decreasing attention spans are their real competition.  A big part of me thinks the industry may have gotten everything backwards the last few years, and that they need to be focusing on the theater experience and spectacles that can’t be recreated anywhere else.  That would still be a smaller market than it used to be, but that is the market where they can actually thrive.  The consumer who is just fucking around at home browsing apps isn’t going to be any more likely to watch period pieces on Max or Netflix than a bunch of random YouTube videos.   Why spend your money investing huge sums in that when randoms who invest no money in it can compete just as well?

Interesting post about theater experience. For the music industry, I don’t believe there is as much money in sales or streams, so the money making is in live shows. Or you see how the comedy world has embraced podcasts/YouTube and the comedy podcast stars are raking it in with ad deals and live performances.

seems like actors and writers should be pushing for less streaming content and more in the theaters. Maybe even some brave movie/tv actors should try more live theater including on the road. 

[AnimalTobacco 34]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

who is "you" in this scenario and how exactly would that work?

I mean, as an example:

Netflix pays NBC or whomever $500mm to air Seinfeld. Seinfeld creatives owed residuals takes their cut from the $500mm that was paid to NBC or whomever. Why do they still have a double dip claim to take a cut from Netflix as well? That seems duplicative.

Netflix paid whomever owns the Suits IP $xxx. Why would they pay residuals when it turns out to be getting a ton of views for the few weeks it's hot?

Edited August 14, 2023 by AnimalTobacco

[henrygandorf 28886]

52 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

seems like actors and writers should be pushing for less streaming content and more in the theaters. Maybe even some brave movie/tv actors should try more live theater including on the road. 

though the guilds cover both, this is much more of a tv issue.  there's more and more tv shows coming out and fewer and fewer movies coming to the theater.  way of the world.

 

36 minutes ago, AnimalTobacco said:

I mean, as an example:

Netflix pays NBC or whomever $500mm to air Seinfeld. Seinfeld creatives owed residuals takes their cut from the $500mm that was paid to NBC or whomever. Why do they still have a double dip claim to take a cut from Netflix as well? That seems duplicative.

Netflix paid whomever owns the Suits IP $xxx. Why would they pay residuals when it turns out to be getting a ton of views for the few weeks it's hot?

well they wouldn't pay residuals and aren't.  that's the whole point.  they'll have to redesign it moving forward.  if they're able to work in residuals or higher up-front rates, they'll have to give something up, just like in any negotiation. 

to use your seinfeld example, what would likely have to happen is nbc (it's actually sony, but whatever) would figure out all their additional costs, and then charge $525mm instead.  don't kid yourself - either way the $ is coming from netflix.

[Biff Tannen 45211]

11 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't know much about how musicians/bands get paid out, but i would assume the more something gets streamed on spotify/pandora/watched on youtube, the more $ they get, right?  

Yes

[Chopper 16666]

Let's be clear. Netflix is a big dark data hole and it's on purpose. They have their top 10 lists, which they game for their own benefit, but they also don't release any viewership numbers to anyone except perhaps very specific data to the very top tier of stars and agents in the industry with whom they seek to deal. There is no Nielsen or other independent ratings for Netflix. You have their "word" and that's it. With Netflix nobody has any idea about gross revenue from a particular show or movie, let alone net. There's no way of structuring a contract you enter with Netflix to reward risk taking or viewership. Ask the people behind Octopus Games how much they made.  Some of the biggest stars on some of the biggest shows Netflix produced got paid next to nothing because Netflix told them they weren't making any money for the company.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Chopper

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

4 hours ago, Chopper said:

Let's be clear. Netflix is a big dark data hole and it's on purpose. They have their top 10 lists, which they game for their own benefit, but they also don't release any viewership numbers to anyone except perhaps very specific data to the very top tier of stars and agents in the industry with whom they seek to deal. There is no Nielsen or other independent ratings for Netflix. You have their "word" and that's it. With Netflix nobody has any idea about gross revenue from a particular show or movie, let alone net. There's no way of structuring a contract you enter with Netflix to reward risk taking or viewership. Ask the people behind Octopus Games how much they made.  Some of the biggest stars on some of the biggest shows Netflix produced got paid next to nothing because Netflix told them they weren't making any money for the company.

Seems irrelevant to their business model. They get the same monthly fee regardless of what is watched or how many times. Releasing that info would just make it harder for them to negotiate. 

[Chopper 16666]

47 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Seems irrelevant to their business model. They get the same monthly fee regardless of what is watched or how many times. Releasing that info would just make it harder for them to negotiate. 

It's not irrelevant to how the people who put together hit shows get paid and rewarded. The lack of data transparency from streamers as compared to broadcasters is a large part of what's driving the strike.

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

7 minutes ago, Chopper said:

It's not irrelevant to how the people who put together hit shows get paid and rewarded. The lack of data transparency from streamers as compared to broadcasters is a large part of what's driving the strike.

Of course the actors/writers want Netflix to pay the old syndication style of cable/network TV, but why would they?  What additional benefit does Netflix get that they couldn’t by simply paying a higher up front fee for streaming rights?
 

But it is a different distribution model not reliant on the number of streams per month of any one show of their thousands available. 
 

I guess studios could withhold their content from Netflix if they refuse to pay per view, but then they could simply obtain content from other providers (foreign, originals etc). 
 

The obvious solution seem to be that the content owner selling the rights to the content should be the ones paying additional revenue to the actors/writers. Is that model on the negotiating table?  
 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by ChickenSandwich

[Queen Bitch 1692]

If Suits is keeping people subscribed to Netflix -- meaning generating $$$$ for the company -- the actors and writers deserve to share in that success. Full stop. This is why we need streaming transparency (and also a fucking counter proposal after 105 fucking days.)

THAT BEING SAID...

I'm starting to come around to the idea of ST maybe being something we take off the table if it means we get our other asks. If the streamers are going to inevitably become internet broadcast networks by diving head-first into ad-based revenue, those buyers are going to need to see actual data to invest in said ads. So maybe we get it that way instead... but I obviously defer to our negcom on the matter -- we may never be on a dual-strike with SAG again in my lifetime, and the two guilds hold enormous power if they hold steadfast together in their overlapping demands...

Also, Tom Morello performed an acoustic set on our lines today. It was a nice little treat.

[Captain Ron 12722]

On 8/14/2023 at 7:41 PM, ChickenSandwich said:

Of course the actors/writers want Netflix to pay the old syndication style of cable/network TV, but why would they?  What additional benefit does Netflix get that they couldn’t by simply paying a higher up front fee for streaming rights?
 

But it is a different distribution model not reliant on the number of streams per month of any one show of their thousands available. 
 

I guess studios could withhold their content from Netflix if they refuse to pay per view, but then they could simply obtain content from other providers (foreign, originals etc). 
 

The obvious solution seem to be that the content owner selling the rights to the content should be the ones paying additional revenue to the actors/writers. Is that model on the negotiating table?  

I don't see how the model being slightly different has anything to do with this. In the end this is still a distribution model, done slightly different. Henry laid this out pretty well a few days back. They are able to entice subscribers because you can watch any of their content anytime you want.

IMHO, Netflix will have to play ball along with everyone else eventually. They aren't special just because they aren't attached to a studio. They are negotiating along with everyone else in AMPTP. I don't see how they get some special segment carved out for them. In fact now that we are entering the fall season and no shows are going to be restarting, the regular studios are probably going to be pushing Netflix to get in line.

"but MoVE fast AnD BrEAK thINGS"

Meh, now we see that maybe this doesn't work so well when you're tying to break an industry that is already make a ton of money and it's important to keep your pipeline of talent (actors and writers) moving along well.

I still think that this is one of the biggest points missed - the actors and writers are still fighting for a healthy industry in the future. The studios want to make a ton of money now and are risking damaging Hollywood for a generation or more.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13317]

Whether streaming "residuals" are a flat amount or per-view, the overall amount to all actors or writers remain the same. If switched to per-view, then the popular content artists will see an increase and the unpopular content artists will see their residuals get even smaller.

I ultimately see that streaming companies will make ad-free incredibly expensive and push as many subscribers as possible to ad-supported content. Viewers will just trade some of their time for more money in their pockets.

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

i hope no one watches anything the networks put out in the fall.  if there are decent ratings it's the beginning of an Idiocracy TV lineup with Ow, My Balls up for 5 emmys in 2025.

[blacklab 11826]

On 8/14/2023 at 6:47 PM, Queen Bitch said:

If the streamers are going to inevitably become internet broadcast networks by diving head-first into ad-based revenue, those buyers are going to need to see actual data to invest in said ads. So maybe we get it that way instead...

Probably not. An advertiser will pay per view of their ad. Netflix will sell them 100,000 views on show "x" or 100,000 views in Austin area on any show, the advertiser will not know how many times the show "x" was shown, they will just know it's >100,000.

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

16 hours ago, Captain Ron said:

I don't see how the model being slightly different has anything to do with this. In the end this is still a distribution model, done slightly different. Henry laid this out pretty well a few days back. They are able to entice subscribers because you can watch any of their content anytime you want.

IMHO, Netflix will have to play ball along with everyone else eventually. They aren't special just because they aren't attached to a studio. They are negotiating along with everyone else in AMPTP. I don't see how they get some special segment carved out for them. In fact now that we are entering the fall season and no shows are going to be restarting, the regular studios are probably going to be pushing Netflix to get in line.

 

Why should Netflix be prohibited from paying a flat fee to a studio to stream old content?  We both agree that fee should also go to the writers and directors, not just the studio.

The studios could simply refuse to license their content to Netflix, so why the prohibition?

[henrygandorf 28886]

4 hours ago, gyroprotagonist said:

i hope no one watches anything the networks put out in the fall.  if there are decent ratings it's the beginning of an Idiocracy TV lineup with Ow, My Balls up for 5 emmys in 2025.

i read a script years ago of a show that didn't go, and there was a back and forth that stuck with me, mostly because it sounds like a joke i would've written.  essentially it was someone bemoaning the state of tv/film and he said something like, "i'll toil away on this project for months, but don't go there will be the script that sells."

and the other person responds, "actually david fincher set up don't go there at fox.  it's supposed to be sick."

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Rumor is that Netflix is starting to get very nervous about the strike’s duration impacting the final season of Stranger Things. Contracts have lapsed, and certain actors are vocal about a desire to move on.

I don’t know *how* nervous, or how it impacted the timing of the studios finally starting negotiations, but it’s juicy and credible so there ya go.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Queen Bitch

[animaltobacco11 107]

On 8/16/2023 at 7:50 PM, Queen Bitch said:

Rumor is that Netflix is starting to get very nervous about the strike’s duration impacting the final season of Stranger Things. Contracts have lapsed, and certain actors are vocal about a desire to move on.

I don’t know *how* nervous, or how it impacted the timing of the studios finally starting negotiations, but it’s juicy and credible so there ya go.

How is the energy and the morale on the front lines? I assume Tropical Storm Hilary has paused any physical strike activities, but the fight goes on!

[henrygandorf 28886]

3 hours ago, animaltobacco11 said:

How is the energy and the morale on the front lines? I assume Tropical Storm Hilary has paused any physical strike activities, but the fight goes on!

eh, that shit was over in 36 hours.  it was beautiful out by monday afternoon.

[Queen Bitch 1692]

There were 3000 people at the Disney picket yesterday for National Day of Solidarity.

We are going nowhere without a fair deal.

[animaltobacco11 107]

6 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

There were 3000 people at the Disney picket yesterday for National Day of Solidarity.

We are going nowhere without a fair deal.

Heck yea!

I've gone from being ambivalent to rooting for y'all because of your posts. 

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Hey thanks. Appreciate that.

Anywho, this is what corporate greed looks like:

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Queen Bitch

[animaltobacco11 107]

Read today that Disney (of course, Disney is historically a great for-profit ran business) was absolutely screwing people over with Hollywood accounting:

Quote

 

Maybe you’ve already heard, but Disney’s in hot water—and not just because of the actors and writers strikes happening right now.

Disney is being accused by one of its major financial partners of using “nearly every trick in the Hollywood accounting playbook to deprive” TSG Entertainment, a film financing firm, “out of hundreds of millions of dollars,” according to a lawsuit filed on August 15 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

In the suit, TSG took aim at both Disney and its subsidiary, 20th Century Studios, formerly 20th Century Fox, which joined Disney in 2019 as part of a multibillion-dollar acquisition.

Since 2012, TSG has been in a revenue participation agreement with 20th Century Studios under its former name, and this agreement was amended nine times throughout its duration, per the lawsuit.

The RPA outlined how TSG would profit from selected films’ revenue in exchange for its financing commitments, including production and marketing costs.

The financier said it has invested “in good faith” over $3.3 billion into “some of Fox’s most successful, beloved, and award-winning films,” including blockbusters like Avatar: The Way of Water, Bohemian Rhapsody, and the Deadpool and X-Men franchises.

Over time, though, the financier noticed that the return on its investments was decreasing “dramatically,” leading the firm to hire an independent auditing firm to conduct an audit “of Fox’s books and records” to see whether or not the terms of the RPA were being upheld.

The independent audit found that Fox underpaid TSG by at least $40 million using “a number of underhanded Hollywood accounting tricks,” according to the lawsuit. It also throws a number of other allegations at the defendants, including the claim that Disney negotiated “sweetheart” deals in which TSG-backed films boosted Disney’s subscriber numbers, while minimizing “the profit payments to stakeholders like TSG.”

 

 

[animaltobacco11 107]

The New Yorker has a write up that is interesting as this thing has been in the dog days of Summer:

Quote

 

But, beneath the pep, other emotions are roiling: dread, restlessness, economic panic. Strikers are getting survival gigs as nannies, Uber drivers, dog-walkers, brand ambassadors. No one knows how long it’s going to continue. Just before I arrived in Los Angeles, to take inventory of Hollywood’s surreal “hot labor summer,” the actor Billy Porter lamented that he would have to sell his house. “Everyone I know is slowly sinking into a depression and brainstorming alternate career paths, but not aggressively enough to be taking any tangible action,” the writer-director Desiree Akhavan told me. A TV writer I know has been alleviating the monotony of the picket line by listening to Agatha Christie audiobooks. Studios are delaying movie releases; the 2023 Emmys have been bumped to 2024. The prolonged stasis has ricocheted through the L.A. ecosystem in strange ways: plastic surgeons’ offices have reportedly been overrun with stars trying to squeeze in procedures before they go back to work.

Nerves are jangled within the studio walls as well. When I asked a friend who works in marketing to describe the mood in Hollywood in one word, he thought for a moment and answered, “Exhausted.” With the shutdown potentially stretching into next year, wasn’t it a little early for everyone to be exhausted? He considered the corporate and creative denizens of the entertainment industry and said, “I’m not sure these are the hardiest people.”

 

Quote

 

A former senior studio executive called me from his car. “Everyone is feeling down on all sides,” he said. “It really does feel like the business is in a lot of upheaval. People are talking about how linear television is declining faster than anybody thought, which means that the twenty-two-episode scripted network show is becoming a rarer and rarer thing. And the six-to-eight-to-ten-episode series on a streamer—the economics of that turns out to be much harder for everybody. If you look at all the legacy studios, it seems like their profit margins are going down. And, obviously, talent—writers and directors and actors—are feeling like they’re getting squeezed.”

He went on, “So the mood is tough for everybody. There’s a lot of mistrust and animosity between the studios and the guilds. In the past, there has been more empathy across the aisles. Right now, it just feels like everybody’s sort of frustrated with everybody, almost like everybody’s fighting for a bigger piece of a shrinking pie.”

The A.M.P.T.P. has long represented legacy studios such as Disney and Paramount, but it now includes the likes of Apple and Amazon. “I think it’s making it harder, because, in the old days, it was a bunch of old white men who all knew each other and had been in their jobs for a long time,” the former executive explained. “Their business models looked really similar: theatrical, home entertainment, television. There was just a lot of overlap.” Did Netflix deserve its reputation as the strike villain? “Netflix is the outlier,” he said. “In the beginning, they were making so much content, and they were paying people really handsomely, so there was this gold rush. But now that Wall Street has reëvaluated how to value Netflix, and its subscribers are subservient to profit, they’re having to adjust their business model. And then talent isn’t loving that, because adjusting it means being more selective and paying less.”

Did Netflix really have enough content banked to wait out the strike for months? “It seems like they have an advantage,” he said. “And that frustrates people, because everybody else is in pain. Everybody else is bleeding. Writers and actors are worrying about paying their rent, taking care of their kids. And this giant company—wait a minute, this is actually working to their benefit? Psychologically, that’s just really galling.”

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/notes-on-hollywood/scenes-from-hollywoods-hot-labor-summer

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Happy fuckin’ Labor Day.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-08-31/wga-sag-aftra-strike-studios-amptp-surrender

[animaltobacco11 107]

21 hours ago, Queen Bitch said:

Happy fuckin’ Labor Day.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-08-31/wga-sag-aftra-strike-studios-amptp-surrender

Stat: Hollywood’s writers have been on strike for 127 days, and actors joined them on the picket line in July. With no resolution in sight, the shutdown of the film and television industry has already deprived California’s economy of almost $5 billion, according to one recent estimate. The Milken Institute’s Kevin Klowden, who came up with the figure, told the Financial Times it’s because other businesses that serve the industry, like caterers, rental companies, and even dry cleaners, have also taken a hit from the work stoppage. That’s already more than the $2.1 billion the think tank believes the 2007 writers strike, which lasted 100 days, cost the state.

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

Was the leaked offer real?
 

 

 

This is the highest wage increase for the WGA in 35 years: a compounded 13% increase over the three-year contract, with an increase of 5% in year one; 4% in year two; and 3.5% in year three.

On top of wage increases, a 15% increase in minimum weekly rates for Article 14 writers (other than Story Editors or Executive Story Editors) in the first year of the agreement with further general wage increases in the second and third years of the agreement. This would take a writer from:
* $9,888/week to $11,371/week for guarantees of up to 9 weeks;
* $8,240/week to $9,476/week for guarantees of 10-19 weeks; and
* $7,412/ week to $8,524/week for guarantees of 20-29 weeks (all are 15% increases)

High Budget SVOD Residual Increases
Total worldwide (domestic and foreign) residuals would increase from $72,067 to $87,546 per episode for 3 exhibition years.

• A new structure to train writers to become the showrunners of tomorrow, by guaranteeing the length of employment and requiring that at least two mid-level writers, chosen by the Showrunner, be assigned to production.
  
  The AMPTP is committed to allowing the Showrunner to select at least two mid-level writers to be assigned to production who are each guaranteed at least 20 weeks of employment (unless the production period is shorter).
• A new compensation structure for development rooms
  Writers will be guaranteed a minimum of 10 weeks of employment and, for Article 14 writers (other than Story Editors or Executive Story Editors), the week-to-week rate of pay will increase by 43.8% over the current rate, raising the rate from $9,888 per week to $14,214 per week.

 

 

 

 

https://deadline.com/2023/08/wga-strike-amptp-deal-revealed-1235525636/amp/

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Yes, the studios took their offer directly to the media after the WGA refused the offer *as is*, which possibly violates labor laws (not that the govt is going to go after them for it, no CR.) The WGA publicly told its members the offer was "not nothing, but not nearly enough."

Basically, their offers on room minimums and AI among other things have loopholes you could steer a yacht through. 

[Queen Bitch 1692]

WBD announced today they could lose upwards of $500m this year on the dual strikes, after bragging last earning's call that they'd saved $100m. 

Fun reminder that the WGA estimates the cost to WBD to agree to the writers' terms would be $47m PER YEAR. 

https://deadline.com/2023/09/warner-bros-discovery-earnings-hit-hollywood-writers-actors-strikes-1235536463/

[gofuckyourself 8066]

57 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

WBD announced today they could lose upwards of $500m this year on the dual strikes, after bragging last earning's call that they'd saved $100m. 

Fun reminder that the WGA estimates the cost to WBD to agree to the writers' terms would be $47m PER YEAR. 

https://deadline.com/2023/09/warner-bros-discovery-earnings-hit-hollywood-writers-actors-strikes-1235536463/

To put it in athletics terms, it sounds a bit like they're frolicking down the aggy 100 year decision path. Good solid math skills.

Also it appears that vis-a-vis studio decisions, from the outside looking in you can't understand them. From the inside looking out you can't explain them.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13317]

I understand why the writers don’t want AI but what industry would intentionally agree to not use new technology? And for the idea that writers would not receive compensation if AI uses their past work, that already happens today with people. Stories are repeated from one show/movie to another and j doubt the original writer gets paid. And the original writer may have easily reused concepts from 10 other writers themselves so it’s not their place to get paid anyway.

Would the use of AI make some writers redundant? Yes along with many other jobs in other industries industries. People need to adapt not ban technology. Protectionism always ends up losing.

[Captain Ron 12722]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I understand why the writers don’t want AI but what industry would intentionally agree to not use new technology? And for the idea that writers would not receive compensation if AI uses their past work, that already happens today with people. Stories are repeated from one show/movie to another and j doubt the original writer gets paid. And the original writer may have easily reused concepts from 10 other writers themselves so it’s not their place to get paid anyway.

Would the use of AI make some writers redundant? Yes along with many other jobs in other industries industries. People need to adapt not ban technology. Protectionism always ends up losing.

The scale at which AI can copy things is far beyond anything a human can do. A person can do a one off here and there, people use AI tools to generated original art, print, jokes, etc "in the style of X" in massive troves. It is vastly different things.

Why would an industry agree not to use technology? Because that's what you collectively bargain.

Part of adapting is regulating properly, there are very good reasons to do it - especially in creative industries. This is funny, but makes a point:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CwoIG_ys-Sa/ 

 

A week ago Barry Diller chatted with Kara Swisher and went into a lot of this as well, his AI stuff is a bit weird, but hits some of the right notes. I think he also has some really great points about how Netflix played damn good long game in blowing up the industry and got everyone else to jump in only to lose money. Solid interview.

 

 

[animaltobacco11 107]

That was a very funny clip, thanks for sharing @Captain Ron

As for this, @henrygandorf

Quote

 

• A week ago Barry Diller chatted with Kara Swisher and went into a lot of this as well, his AI stuff is a bit weird, but hits some of the right notes. I think he also has some really great points about how Netflix played damn good long game in blowing up the industry and got everyone else to jump in only to lose money. Solid interview.
  
•  

 

 

What is your take? Considering you have been very vocal about Netflix not surviving the next few years/short term?

[henrygandorf 28886]

1 hour ago, animaltobacco11 said:

That was a very funny clip, thanks for sharing @Captain Ron

As for this, @henrygandorf

 

What is your take? Considering you have been very vocal about Netflix not surviving the next few years/short term?

i haven't listened to the podcast nor do i plan to, but i know how your pager goes off anytime you can drag me into a conversation.  i won't go back and find my exact quote, but i believe i said something to the tune of "they either won't be around or they will look a lot different", which was in reference to leaning more on foreign content. 

have you been on netflix lately?  it already looks different and the content quality is in the toilet.  go look at their top 10 daily tv or movies.  they'll probably blame the strike, but this was an issue pre-strike and the production calendar isn't some great mystery.  they've also started to employ the part 1/part 2 rollout of shows, which is a two-putt into eventual weekly, even live programming. 

they're abandoning their own model because they know it's not sustainable.  there are only so many "suits".  they did a great job doing what they're doing, and they certainly fooled a lot of other entities into believing they could do the same.  i guess that makes them geniuses or at least wealthy.  i still think in the long run their shitty content will make them a less desirable streaming option, and the lazy young people will become lazy slightly older people, who don't want to pay the highest prices in the game.

anecdotally, we rarely even open netflix anymore when we want to see "what's on tv".  used to be the first button push.  i have no idea what we pay, it's my sister-in-law's account.

[animaltobacco11 107]

25 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i haven't listened to the podcast nor do i plan to, but i know how your pager goes off anytime you can drag me into a conversation.  i won't go back and find my exact quote, but i believe i said something to the tune of "they either won't be around or they will look a lot different", which was in reference to leaning more on foreign content. 

have you been on netflix lately?  it already looks different and the content quality is in the toilet.  go look at their top 10 daily tv or movies.  they'll probably blame the strike, but this was an issue pre-strike and the production calendar isn't some great mystery.  they've also started to employ the part 1/part 2 rollout of shows, which is a two-putt into eventual weekly, even live programming. 

they're abandoning their own model because they know it's not sustainable.  there are only so many "suits".  they did a great job doing what they're doing, and they certainly fooled a lot of other entities into believing they could do the same.  i guess that makes them geniuses or at least wealthy.  i still think in the long run their shitty content will make them a less desirable streaming option, and the lazy young people will become lazy slightly older people, who don't want to pay the highest prices in the game.

anecdotally, we rarely even open netflix anymore when we want to see "what's on tv".  used to be the first button push.  i have no idea what we pay, it's my sister-in-law's account.

Not sure what the pager comment mean, just found it interesting as a running-tab to see how your prediction about Netflix is going, which was for posterity sake:

Quote

once shows started reverting to their original creators (mostly peacock and warners), what many predicted would happen, happened.  at the end of the day, they can't all survive, and this is a really bad time for netflix to be (1) losing shows and (2) getting serious about restricting password sharing.  it's idiotic, and my guess is they're basically gone in 3 years, or will exist on their current model, which is to buy everything not nailed down, and end up with 50%+ of their content being foreign language, because that's their one built-in advantage, they are active all over the world.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

33 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

have you been on netflix lately?

It's horribad.

Want to be nostalgic and watch and old movie? It's not on Netflix.

Want to watch something that's a new release? It's not on Netflix. 

So where is their niche? (Besides spamming "new and original content" where 1 out of 20 movies is watchable) 

[henrygandorf 28886]

30 minutes ago, animaltobacco11 said:

30 minutes ago, animaltobacco11 said:

once shows started reverting to their original creators (mostly peacock and warners), what many predicted would happen, happened.  at the end of the day, they can't all survive, and this is a really bad time for netflix to be (1) losing shows and (2) getting serious about restricting password sharing.  it's idiotic, and my guess is they're basically gone in 3 years, or will exist on their current model, which is to buy everything not nailed down, and end up with 50%+ of their content being foreign language, because that's their one built-in advantage, they are active all over the world.

 

i said 3 years but they're basically ^^^ right now.  they just paid hbo for some of their catalog, so at least they're smart enough to take advantage of other companies when they're bleeding. 

a few days ago we looked at their top 10 tv list, and the only 2 on it that my wife and i had seen or had interest in seeing were near the bottom - suits and swat (she used to watch swat on cbs like an old).  neither is owned by netflix.  this was an issue they identified ~5 years ago and are no closer to fixing it, though they have managed to throw billions at it.

[Captain Ron 12722]

8 hours ago, Captain Ron said:

The scale at which AI can copy things is far beyond anything a human can do. A person can do a one off here and there, people use AI tools to generated original art, print, jokes, etc "in the style of X" in massive troves. It is vastly different things.

Why would an industry agree not to use technology? Because that's what you collectively bargain.

Part of adapting is regulating properly, there are very good reasons to do it - especially in creative industries. This is funny, but makes a point:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CwoIG_ys-Sa/ 

 

A week ago Barry Diller chatted with Kara Swisher and went into a lot of this as well, his AI stuff is a bit weird, but hits some of the right notes. I think he also has some really great points about how Netflix played damn good long game in blowing up the industry and got everyone else to jump in only to lose money. Solid interview.

 

 

I will say this to anyone that wants to get Diller's views on the strike, you can basically listen from 41:00 - 58:00, but the whole podcast is really good.

Just an FYI for those that don't know who Diller is - he's worked for ABC, 20th Century Fox (where he helped found the Fox Network) and Paramount. He has really strong insight into the industry and knows it well.