We will all be losers

0 Comments | Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Nov 6, 2007 | by Scott D. Pierce Deseret Morning News

I don't know who will win the dispute between the Writers Guild of America and the Hollywood studios, but I do know who the losers will be if this lasts more than a few days.

The writers. And the studios.

And the producers. And the television networks. And everyone else involved in producing TV shows and movies, from the teamsters to the caterers to the grips to the stars of the shows.

And, of course, those of us who enjoy watching TV will be big losers as well.

As with all things contractual in the entertainment industry, this is a complicated issue. Basically, however, it's the result of the studios finding a new source of revenue and the writers' desire to share in it.

At the bottom of the dispute between the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers is the advent of DVD sales and Internet downloads.

Currently, writers receive a fee for the first two times an episode airs in prime time. After that, they're paid "residuals" -- a (very) small amount if the episodes are sold into syndication or to overseas markets.

The last time a contract was negotiated between the guild and producers, DVDs and downloads weren't such a big deal. Now they are.

The writers are asking to double their take from DVDs. Which sounds like a lot until you realize that the writers (collectively) make a nickel from each DVD sold.

They're not getting anything for online or cell-phone distribution right now. The guild is asking for 2.5 percent of the gross revenues. That doesn't sound like much considering all the shows you can download for $1.99 off iTunes, but who knows how much that might grow into in the next few years?

Of course, without scripts, there would be no DVDs or downloads to sell.

On the other hand, the producers point to the need for additional revenue streams to offset the huge production costs.

Those production costs might not be so high if there weren't so many producers. Take a look at the credits of your favorite TV show sometime -- it isn't unusual to see 15-20 executive producers, supervising producers, associate producers and so on and so on.

Of course, a lot of those producers are writers, too ... so nothing is simple here.

Viewers will see a few immediate effects of the strike. Such shows as "The Daily Show" and "Saturday Night Live" are off the air effective immediately. Late-night hosts like Letterman and Leno will be doing more talking with guests in lieu of scripted monologues.

Prime-time shows will remain in production until they run out of scripts -- and they're going to run out soon. Without a resolution, most scripted shows will only be able to deliver half to two-thirds of their episodes this season.

Daytime soaps -- already an endangered species -- don't have much of a backlog. This could, conceivably, kill them off altogether.

I have great sympathy for the writers, but I'm worried for them as well. My fear is that, if this strike drags out for weeks or months, fewer of them will have jobs to go back to.

It's not as if viewers are going to be sitting by their TVs watching endless reruns, waiting for scripted shows to return. No, they're going to watch movies and DVDs and so-called "reality" shows (which, believe it or not, don't require writers). They'll turn to cable channels. They'll play video games. They'll watch YouTube.

Some of them might even (gasp!) read books!

And when the strike ends and TV shows go back into production, a lot of those people won't come back.

That's not simply conjecture. The last time the writers went on strike, back in 1988, 10 percent of the prime-time audience didn't return to TV when the strike ended.

There's quantifiable evidence that when shows go on hiatus for even a few weeks, the audience is smaller when they start airing new episodes again.

The last writers' strike lasted five months. And television faced less competition two decades ago than it does today.

I just don't see how an extended strike this time will benefit anyone.

And, not to be overly pessimistic, but producers' contracts with the actors and directors expire next year ... so an agreement with the writers might not be enough.

LAST TUESDAY, in a column about the Mormon character on "House," I chided TV Guide for its online summary of the show, which referred to the character as "Big Love, aka Dark Religious Nut."

Both are terms used by the Dr. House character on the show, which I did not make clear. However, TV Guide's blog didn't make it clear that it was quoting, either.

The folks at TV Guide disagree with me, but I don't think tossing something that offensive around lightly without attribution is appropriate.

On the show, when Dr. House calls the Mormon/black doctor "Dark Religious Nut," he is chided by other characters. On the TV Guide Web site, that didn't happen. It just read like a "funny" little aside by the writer of the blog.

If I had done something like that, one of my bosses would have, at the very least, told me to rewrite the story.

The folks at TV Guide insist that there was nothing wrong with the original blog. However, they have made changes to it to clarify that the offensive term was a quote.