I haven't talked to a Sony exec in months and months, but chatted with one earlier today. And in the course of the conversation, I asked him, "So, this Sit Down, Shut Up thing. Were the writers not told what contract they would be working under?"
This was the answer:
"Writers agents were told from the start that this was going to be an IA, Local 839 show. If somebody on the production represented otherwise, they didn't have any authority or authorization to do it."
This pretty much tracks Colton's comment down below:
As one of the writers on this show who has walked out, let me explain the situation: When we got the offer back in April, before upfronts, they proposed that the show be IATSE. We said we weren't interested, but we were assured that once it was officially picked up we could go through the process of turning it into a WGA show.
Both we and the execs we dealt with assumed it would be a no-brainer ...
The conundrum is with the word "propose." If you believe my Sony exec, agents were informed it was IATSE. I'm assuming the writers didn't like this, and that some production exec said "Oh, we can change the deal to WGA a little ways down the road ..."
A little backing and filling, as it were. To keep everything on an even track.
But there's another facet to this tale. This afternoon I visited the studio where the visual side of Sit Down, Shut Up is being done. You know, the storyboards, designs, background and layout keys, all the art elements that go into making animated projects? The production manager told me:
"We got the first script to board and design, also a rough draft of the second script. We've hired ten people to work on them, but everybody else that was coming in to work on Number Three is on hold, because there is no Number Three. Until the writer issues are worked out and scripts come in, we can't hire the people we planned to. Thirteen episodes of the show have been ordered, and we're hearing Sony is still going to make it" ...
The production manager was sure that Sony is going ahead with Sit Down, Shut Up, either with these writers or others, and that the episodes will ultimately get made. Me, I only wish that Sony production people had had the stones to level with everyone in the first place. Maybe all or most of the fustercluck could have been avoided.
Posts
15 comments:
As simply as possible:
why is it so important to the writers that they be WGA for this show rather than IATSE? Do they lose hours towards their WGA guild medical benefits? Or is it that if they were WGA they would be assured residuals they wouldn't get with IATSE/839?
...internet royalties...
MAILBOX money!!!!
After their job is done they want to keep getting paid for it because they feel that they weren't paid enough to do the job in the first place. Just like everyone else that does creative work...on...the...show....oh, wait...no one else get's mailboz money on these shows except maybe some of the producers - not even the directors...never mind.
SOOOO the big question is: if they are under WGA for the show do they get paid significantly less then 839 writers for their scripts and that's why they feel they deserve more later on?
I'm guessing that it's just the opposite...if it's TAG then the producers don't have to pa the usual going WGA rates (at least that's how it works in features)
to mailbox money poster above - professionals working mostly under a certain collective bargaining agreement prefer their employer matching contributions be credited to that agreement. those benefits far outweigh any individual scaled residual agreements in the long term. just look at the state of business today. healthcare and pension, healthcare and pension. its extremely important, and extremely expensive.
BTW, Steve - best title for a thread. Ever.
why is it so important to the writers that they be WGA for this show rather than IATSE? Do they lose hours towards their WGA guild medical benefits?
Sure, if they mostly work WGA, then being in another pension plan is counter-productive.
The problem for the writers (stop me if I've mentioned this) is that there is a long-standing IA contract in place. Neither the Writers Guild nor Sony could dislodge it even if they wanted to.
(WGA wants to, Sony doesn't. But their wants are irrelevant, legally it can't be displaced without many procedures happening.)
Why this wasn't communicated clearly or understood fully is a mystery best explained by the participants.
I heard from a Disney staffer the other night that the animation is going to be subcontracted to Rough Draft Studios now.
To anony at 7:05: so why wouldn't any writer who could be thrilled to be represented by 839 - according to your reasoning. But instead almost every writer that can would rather be repped by WGA -- please explain...
11:43 anon
you don't get invited to james brooks-type dinner parties by working iatse shops. aspiring writers point their compass' in a different direction than artists. there is overlap, but only at Fox. the overlap is where the difference between the two histories is so abundantly clear. all i'm saying is that mailbox money is a small part of the equation, that the long term issues weigh in heavier. but i do understand why you pose the question. i am not a primetime writer, but that is the feeling i get when trying to understand their different perspective.
Scratch an animation writer and you'll find someone who's desperate to be any kind of writer except an animation writer.
Scratch an animation artist and you'll find someone who's wanted to be an animation artist their whole lives.
Therein lies the difference ... both are equally vulnerable to management chicanery because of their above-stated prejudices. It has nothing to do with unions or jurisdictions.
you don't get invited to james brooks-type dinner parties by working iatse shops
Hollywood potentates call it "below the line" for a reason. The Hollywood caste system.
"Scratch an animation writer and you'll find someone who's desperate to be any kind of writer except an animation writer.
Scratch an animation artist and you'll find someone who's wanted to be an animation artist their whole lives.
Therein lies the difference ... both are equally vulnerable to management chicanery because of their above-stated prejudices. It has nothing to do with unions or jurisdictions."
Sad, but one of the truest and best descriptions of the way it is.
Hey y'all,
Couple of things to quickly straighten out...if I have them right. First, the mailbox money you mention is a result of a writers' walkout...I think it was 1960. They gave up the rights to all the old work being recycled endlessly, and in exchange figured out how much their work was worth. The number was staggering. So the producers made a logical suggestion: instead of paying you this big pile of money up front, we'll space it out over time, depending on how successful the show was. It was an intelligent compromise. And one that stuck. Unfortunately, in the interests of diminishing the amount paid to creative people in general, the story has changed somewhat. So everyone thinks of it as extra money now.
A second point. Scratch any animation writer and you'll find a guy who wishes he was writing live action. I can only speak for myself, but I'd much rather be writing animation...but the pay is better on the live action side (for no good reason that I can see, given the amount of money our shows can generate), and this mailbox money isn't something to sneeze at...I remember getting a writer on the phone during a guild drive and before I began my spiel he stopped me and said, "you don't have to talk to me about residuals..." and proceeded to reveal that he had scripted one of the disney/pixar blockbusters.
In the rest of the world, our creative contributions have what a friend called "a very long tail." So write a lousy Steven Segal movie, and when it sells in Botswana and on into airplanes and onto cable, network and god knows where else, you get a nice check.
That's a hell of a pull for a writer. But there are plenty of folks who'd stay in animation if the money was the same.
H.C.
If "work for hire" hadn't been enshrined in law in 1912, and corporations hadn't been given the ability to own copyright, then quite possibly individuals would be licensing their work for use, and everybody would be collecting royalties (just like songwriters and playwrights).
But we live in a corporatist age. And we have to deal as creatively with that reality as we can.
As for disparity in pay, part of its the way the entertainment industry was divvied up seventy years ago, part is bargaining history.
Writers of porn films, many of those films huge sellers, make a pittance, even compared to animation. Not fair, not right, merely the way it is.
Steve,
"But we live in a corporatist age. And we have to deal as creatively with that reality as we can."
And that is going to be the fun part moving forward. We need to make sure we hold onto everything we can...the truth is that in New Media, we need studios less than we ever did. It could be good for everybody.
I agree with you completely...but just try to couch similar sentiments in more provocative tones. After all...you're the union...you're the last person who should be saying "that's the way it is." Let's look at where and when we can wrestle back some of those creative rights.
We just have to head into the internet with open eyes and not make the same mistakes.
Walt woulda called me a commie, but I'm just excited about the possibility of writers and artists owning a piece of their work.
onward.
you're the last person who should be saying "that's the way it is."
Mais non. I'm the first person who should be reality-based.
Because if I'm not, I'm accused of being a "union propagandist."
I look at the colorful, passing parade and come to my conclusions (which are subject to change as I get new info). Some people agree with them and others don't.
You obviously agree with some, but not others. Fine by me.
Post a Comment