On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:49:13 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>I agree totally in theory. In practice? Everybody would take the
>additional up front pay, and still want the residuals. As long as
>people see one group wanting the residuals, they're going to want them
>too.
The problem is, Ani, and this is what makes me think that you really
don't know anything about the industry that you think it is, is that
residuals are NOT royalties (ie: bonuses), they're deferred salary.
While I think that it's fair to compare residuals and royalties when
some stupid idiot decides to make a comparison between the writers and
assembly-line autoworkers (among the weakest straw man arguments ever,
btw), when you finally stop using the Stupidest Straw Man Argument
Ever and then start discussing the topic on its own terms, then you
havae to make the disntinction between royalties (bonuses) and
residuals (deferred salary that the writers/actors/directors and
others entitled to such residuals take because both these creative
types are betting against the house (the studio/company) about how
successful a given movie or television series will be. In the cases
of flops, less residuals are paid because the show or movie is
aired/distributed/bought far less often than the creative types
thought in taking the upfront pay cut that is the residual system and
thus, said creative types lose (or get smaller residuals than they
thought they would get). In the cases of hits, the studio has to pay
out more to these creative types *because* the creative types *agreed
to get paid less up front* -- *and* the studios agreed to pay them
less up front in the first place (that's what deferrment means, after
all.)
And yes, that even goes up the ladder to the biggest names -- A Jim
Carrey or George Clooney who makes $20-million-ish per movie or a Zach
Braff who will make $4.2 million to $6.3 million this year depending
on if Scrubs runs only 12 or goes the entire 18 episodes of Scrubs
this year -- the principle is that they are *also* deferring even
larger salaries. Without the residual system, you'd see *every*
actor's asking price, from the A-List-Stars to the
guest-villain-of-the-week on CSI: Topeka demanding and getting higher
salaries because the unions would be getting them much higher base
pay.
Or let's put it this way: totally hypothetical: J.J. Abrams says to
Paramount, I'll write and direct the next Star Trek movie for you for
$6 million dollars (or however much he's actually getting) plus
residuals -- Paramount says, "Forget it, no residuals, $6 million is
enough for you." He goes "To revive a needlessly moribund
multibilliondollar franchise -- ut, no. You want me to revive Star
Trek with only a flat salary, with no residuals. Ok then -- my fee is
$100 million -- and, oh, by the way, don't try asking anybody else on
my level to do it for no residuals because they'll tell you the same
thing. Go to Berman & Braga or some desperate hack equally stupid
enough to not realize that he's in over his head if you want people
who you think will bend over for you for no residuals -- and you'll
never get it off the ground again and you'll lose hundreds of millions
of dollars in profits that I can deliver. The whole point in hiring
me is that you want someone who has not just the enthusiasm to do the
property, but more im****tantly the *talent* to do so (which Berman and
Braga clearly lack due to having been burn outs for the past 15
years.)" And Abrams would be doing this in an environment where Bryan
Singer, Steven Speilberg, Martin Scorcese and other A-List directors
and writer-directors and stars and writers would be making similar
demands. A-List actors making demands of $50 million and getting
them, C-List actors who would make only $250K or so for a movie would
demand $3-4 million and get it, etc.
Of course, if the new Trek movie flopped under such a scenario,
Paramount would take a $100 million bath on Abrams' salary alone, not
to mention the higher flat fees that everybody at every level would be
charging *because* they wouldn't be getting residuals.
IOW, what you don't get is that residuals are upfront salary that is
deliberately deferred in order to balance the company's desire to
limit the losses that it might take on a flop with the
writer/director/actor's need to make as much money as they possibly
can up front just to earn a living -- both in a volatile marketplace
based on the opinions of fickle consumers. The residuals formula has
worked because it maximizes profits for *everybody* on the successful
stuff and minimizes losses for everybody on the flops, all the while
encouraging everybody, suits and creative types, to continue to do
business with each other.
-- Rob
Long PS: Still don't believe me? Well then, here's a writer blogging
at the Huffington Post on the subject at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/what-were-residuals-dadd_b_71107.html
What Were Residuals, Daddy?
Chris Kelly
Posted November 5, 2007 | 02:20 AM (EST)
I don't expect a lot of popular sup****t for the Writers Guild strike.
(I don't expect most people to care one way or the other. Most people
have problems of their own, and things to do, and Call of Duty 4:
Modern Warfare isn't going to play itself. (Or is it?))
Luckily, this isn't about popular sup****t. It's collective bargaining,
not a straw poll.
If we writers do want more sup****t, though, we should probably do a
better job of explaining what a residual is. (If only to demonstrate
our skills as professional communicators.)
A residual is a deferred payment against the lifetime value of a
script.
It's not a bonus.
That's why it's called a "residual." The word means "left over." It's
the left over part of the compensation the author agrees to wait for.
It's not money for nothing. The word for that is "commission."
A residual isn't a handout or an allowance or Paris Hilton's trust
fund. It's not a lottery payout, or alimony, or an annuity from a slip
and fall accident at a casino.
A residual is a deferred payment against the lifetime value of a
script.
It's not a perk.
It's okay if you didn't know that. It's in the best interests of a lot
of fairly large cor****ations that you don't. And it makes it easier to
imagine that writers are asking for something workers don't deserve.
Here's an actual "comment" I got last week, from an actual "commenter"
just like you:
"When an engineer develops a product for a company should the engineer
receive compensation each time the company figures out a new market
for the product or a new application for the product (?)"
This is a fair question, but it employs a truly dunderheaded example.
An engineer does receive additional compensation when a company finds
a new application for the product he created. This is called "owning a
patent."
(I don't think even Rupert Murdoch wants to get rid of patents. Well,
not yet.)
"When the product loses money for the company should the engineer give
back his salary?"
Of course not. Because his product always retains its potential to
create revenue. The capital gets used up. The idea isn't unthought.
But now I'm nitpicking at an analogy that doesn't apply in the first
place.
"When a writer is paid for work on a show for the network that not
only doesn't make money for the network on the Internet but doesn't
make money for the network period, should the writer give back his pay
to the network (?)"
I appreciate that this is a rhetorical question. But it's ineffective,
rhetorically, because the answer is no.
The writer did her part. She wrote the episode. And in doing that, she
created a product with a potential value, which is infinite. (Or, in
the case of Seinfeld even more than that.) Because the episode can be
shown an infinite number of times. (Or in the case of Seinfeld, even
more than that.)
Yes, and you're already saying, "But Seinfeld isn't your typical,
run-of-the-mill sitcom. That's Two and Half Men." And I'm saying --
rudely, over you -- that I know it's not typical -- but I'm trying to
explain that, technically, the potential value of a sit om -- any
sitcom -- is infinite. I'm just using Seinfeld, because that's the
example the New York Times would use.
(The potential number of New York Times references to Seinfeld:
Another good illustration of infinity.)
An episode of a television show can produce revenue forever.
Yes, most TV shows aren't Seinfeld. But each of the 180 episodes of
Seinfeld -- a show that started without bankable stars or a high
concept -- will make about ten million dollars in syndication. In real
economic terms, every sitcom could be Seinfeld when the writer
commences work.
(Unless it has Nathan Lane in it.)
What should a writer charge, then, for a script that could make $10
million dollars?
A: I dunno. Nine million dollars? Gotta leave something for the
actors.
But what's a fair price to charge up front?
A: Right now, we'll take $19,125.
If it's a hit, you can pay us the rest later. I know! We'll call it a
residual!
Because writers understand that most shows aren't hits. Most shows
lose all the studio's money and go straight down the toilet, like John
Ridley's Barbershop.
That's why, for decades and decades, the system has been that the
writers take far less than they should be paid for a hit show, because
there's no way of knowing if the show will be a hit or not. This is
the "residual" difference in its value. If the show doesn't succeed --
for whatever reason (Nathan Lane) -- we don't get the rest of our
money.
We take far less than our labor is demonstrably potentially worth on
the understanding that most shows fail because we like what we do.
But it's the opposite of cheating anyone.
Anyway, I'd be happy to give up my residuals. And not just for
syndication and DVDs, but for downloads and streaming video, too. The
studios are right; who knows if this crazy Internet thing will last?
All I want, in return, is an up front payment of nine million dollars
per teleplay.
Short of that, all I want is for people to understand one thing:
A residual is a deferred payment against the lifetime value of a
script.
--
Disclaimer:
Terrific people I idolize worked on Barbershop.
--
Apology:
That crack about "commission" being for nothing. That's just a joke,
Ted.
--
Not a Correction, But Added Later Nonetheless:
Yes, living on this planet as I do, I understand that engineers can
assign their patents to the cor****ations that employ them. They can
also give them to strangers on the street, or mail them to fickle
prostitutes like a piece of Van Gogh's ear.
Some engineers assign their patents. Some don't. Some children work in
mills. That doesn't make it their place in the divine order of things.
Or even their legal obligation. Except at The Gap.
--
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
|
