Understanding the Writers’ Strike
If you’re interested to see through the platitudes and understand the real financial dynamics behind (both sides of) the writers’ strike in Hollywood, it’s hard to imagine anything better than the new International Herald Tribune article “Hollywood strike underlines bleak outlook for movie business.”
The article is based upon six months of research into the finances in the movie industry. Their primary findings? That movie executives are paying far more than they should to A-list actors and directors — even on films that lose money — leaving them in the red even before they try and pay the royalty increases that writers so understandably are requesting.
The article concludes:
Once it is understood that the biggest stars and directors can rake in dollars even from money-losing movies, it becomes easier to understand why companies dug in their heels when asked to make richer residual payments on media of the future than they offered on home video of the past.
These would trigger higher payments to other guilds, and would probably create pressure from lawyers and agents in search of still fatter participation deals for their star clients.
It is also not hard to see why the situation is especially galling for movie writers, who typically do not share in the most lucrative gross deals.
When it comes to finding a fix, some of the stars and filmmakers who have joined them on the picket lines may have a thought.
Translation: If the stars who are so “sympathetic” to the writers want to help the writers’ plight, they should offer to take a pay cut themselves. If anybody can afford to trim their bottom line, it’s the stars making $20 million for each movie they appear in.
