| choirsoftheeye said: But you just highlighted the reason collective bargaining (aka Unions) are necessary. The studios won't pay for one of them, but they will pay for all of them. The studios are collectives - they're a handful of groups with all the money, so having a group with all the workers to negotiate with them, and have their own way of fighting back, is only fair. As for the issue of fewer millionaires, lets just say that there's something to the piece of wisdom that having money is the best way to make money. Very few of these supposed geniuses started off poor, regardless of what rags-to-riches american dreams may tell you. So I'll have to say that your proof is non-proof, especially since a shitty would-be-writer can probably still get published (hi Gossip Girl and romance novels!), while a shitty would-be-millionaire is just not counted. This also answers why there aren't people willing to give them what they want - to get anything made with any sort of mass-audience on television, you have to already have money. No matter how talented I was, if I started raising money tomorrow, I'd still never have enough to make a major-budget film. "Quite simply put up and coming writers with a fair bit of talent are basically a dime a dozen right now and until that changes you are going to have a hard time convincing the folks who do have the money that it is worthwhile to invest big bucks in each one that comes along." If they're a dime a dozen, why can't they replace the screen-writer's guild? They're 15000 of them, so that's only $150 dollars! In all seriousness, though, I think that if a collective strike has a real impact, it proves that while an individual writer may be replaced, all of them can't be. Which means, they as a group can have some impact on their lives in ways that they as individuals can't in a capitalist system. Your capitalism answer is still not an answer. Amoral means doesn't concern itself with morals. Your responses have all be economics-focused and ignored morality. Therefore, amoral. (not to be confused with immoral)
I'm not sure if I addressed all your points, though. |
In responce to "The studios won't pay for one of them, but they will pay for all of them.": Think about what you are saying though. Basically you are saying that each writer is worth the sum value of all writers. This simply isn't true, not every writer is on equal footing much less worth the sum of all writers. Plain and simply, if they are truly worth the value they think they are worth, then someone should be willing to pay them that value. This is not a hard concept, a product/service is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Nothing more nothing less.
The idea that a product/service is worth the value you can force someone to pay by not only removing their access to the supply you are selling but also access to any supply being sold is ridiculous. And in this case I am sure if the "guild" weren't ruining the careers of people who break their strike the studios would be happy to hire on new writers in their place.
Which brings me to the next point which is, if you don't feel you have an informed opinion on the situation I have to question why you are taking strong positions. I understand that you may not have been aware of this, but if that is the case you should do the research before persisting in your viewpoint.
With that in mind, the ability of the guilds to make and break hollywood careers is nothing new and I am rather shocked you haven't heard of this before.
You do understand that this is renegotiation of contracts that happens every 3 years right? This isn't them all of a sudden getting upset, this is a standard 3 year negotiation and every 3 years they do this there is a lot of screaching from the writers over this issue.
As for the people who have money and the people who don't. You have completely missed the point. I am not drawing skillful comparisons between people who manage money and people who write. What I am saying is that there are far more people who have writing skill than their are people who have $40 million to spare. And thus the guy with $40 million is far more valuable to the production of a movie than any writer, director, or actor.
On the subject of replacing the writers, the reason is simple and one I have stated before. All writers join the guild. The enter into a an agreement because to work in their industry they must be part of the guild. How is that hard to understand? I really think you are being obstinate on this point simply to avoid the enevitable conclusion that they do in fact have a monopoly on the industry. And as you would say, ignoring that point would be amoral.
Which leads me to that point of contention. What I am saying is not amoral or immoral. Expecting people to pay more than something is worth simply because a large group of people who have lots of that something to provide want it to be that value is not a moral solution. Its a solution that provides for the needs of one group but not the other. The reason capatalism as a system works is because the moral issues are intrinsic to the system. Thus it is a stable economy with competitive jobs producing great results. The fact that each party is entitled to determine the value of what he is purchasing controls the pricing. If a fruit vendor believes apples are $45 a piece he will not sell as many apples as the vendor selling for $0.35. Is it amoral or immoral for us to ignore the complaints of that vendor and force the price to be $45? Is it not the right of the customer to choose the value? How is that any different than this situation? You are allowing basic emotions combined with a woefully incomplete view of the situation to dictate your opinions. This situation is larger than the concerns of just the writers and this morality viewpoint you are taking is only looking at it from their perspective. 8 fruit vendors selling their apples for $45 should not be able to shut down the vendor selling his apples for $0.35. That just doesn't make sense!
Finally, I want to point out that this situation is extremely complex and goes beyond the writers. If the Studios give in to the WGA then all of a sudden the SAG and DGA will expect similar concession when their current contracts expire (July '08). So any concession made to the writers is also a concession made to the Actors and Directors. This whole thing is a vicious cycle of "Well the Actors/Directors make a ton, we should get more!"...followed by "You gave the writers more so we want more!".
PS - Sorry for all of the edits, guess I'm not a great writer =)
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
