WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

    https://deadline.com/2019/06/wga-rej...es-1202635517/

    revenue sharing off the table.

    https://www.wga.org/members/membersh...e-june-19-2019

    i have to admit i'm impressed by the guild's steadfast approach and unwillingness to accept revenue sharing by taking it off the table as a viable negotiation option.

    i'm not sure how the membership feels, but i think this is a good move.
    "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

  • #2
    Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

    Whew, here we go! Guess everybody should get comfortable with the state of things. This is going to take quite awhile. Early on, my manager predicted it could last until the end of the year. After today, I'm thinking it'll be even longer.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

      Originally posted by Lahlowen View Post
      Whew, here we go! Guess everybody should get comfortable with the state of things. This is going to take quite awhile. Early on, my manager predicted it could last until the end of the year. After today, I'm thinking it'll be even longer.

      My guess is, there's no "it" anymore. Presumably, the smaller agencies will gradually sign modified versions of the Code... but I doubt that WME or CAA will ever come to terms with the Guild.

      There may never be a day that "it" is "over" and things go back to "normal." WME and CAA's lit departments (and maybe even UTA's) may simply wither over years, until it becomes gradually clear that they'll never rep lit again.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

        Originally posted by AnyOtherName View Post
        My guess is, there's no "it" anymore. Presumably, the smaller agencies will gradually sign modified versions of the Code... but I doubt that WME or CAA will ever come to terms with the Guild.

        There may never be a day that "it" is "over" and things go back to "normal." WME and CAA's lit departments (and maybe even UTA's) may simply wither over years, until it becomes gradually clear that they'll never rep lit again.
        i think you're probably right. it's interesting (and possibly a tell-tale sign?) that the ATA felt it necessary to respond almost immediately with an announcement that their committee members plan to meet about the WGA's stance before the end of the week.

        i mean, what's the hurry? the WGA takes its time responding.

        i'm so curious about what the mid-tier agents are thinking right now? i mean, what are they doing? are they busy with SOP w/out writers? how are they not seeing troubled waters ahead?

        and even more curious is this 20 scribe petition. i want to understand their motivations for such a move.

        i mean, the endgame seems pretty clear to me. negotiate with agencies to sign a COC that excludes any packaging, right? no revenue sharing at all. i know this petition went out prior to Goodman's response.

        https://deadline.com/2019/06/wga-ata...ta-1202635478/

        i'm not even in the WGA and i think i understand the goals. did these writers expect a swift resolution. did they expect to have a revenue sharing deal in place by now?

        can someone shed a light?

        cannot even believe the suggestion that we should be divulging our endgame, bottom line.
        "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

          meanwhile, Verve just keeps verving

          https://deadline.com/2019/06/netflix...tt-1202635794/

          would love to be a fly on the wall this pilot season in the ATA rooms when their agents tell all the actors and directors they rep that they're not allowed to go out for jobs on any of the Verve shows

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

            Originally posted by JoeBanks View Post
            meanwhile, Verve just keeps verving

            https://deadline.com/2019/06/netflix...tt-1202635794/

            would love to be a fly on the wall this pilot season in the ATA rooms when their agents tell all the actors and directors they rep that they're not allowed to go out for jobs on any of the Verve shows
            why can't they go out on Verve shows? they don't have the writers but they should still be able to negotiate deals with studios for their director and actor clients, no?

            or do you mean that the ATA agents won't support their clients by packaging a deal with only directors and actors they rep?

            sorry for the ignorance.
            "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

              Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
              or do you mean that the ATA agents won't support their clients by packaging a deal with only directors and actors they rep?
              that's been the threat, explicit and implicit, all along by WME and CAA to keep the mid-tier members in line: if you sign the CoC, you don't get our talent for your writers' projects. but they can't stop networks and studios from buying shows and obviously somebody is going to have to act in and direct them. you're going to deny those clients work if Paradigm or even ICM eventually decide to cut their own deals?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

                What a mess.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

                  Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
                  .
                  i'm not sure how the membership feels, but i think this is a good move.
                  This member supports it wholeheartedly.

                  Online, it appears the vast majority of WGA members do, too. There is no way to act in a fudiciary capacity while lining your own pockets "selling access" to your client.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

                    Originally posted by JoeBanks View Post
                    that's been the threat, explicit and implicit, all along by WME and CAA to keep the mid-tier members in line: if you sign the CoC, you don't get our talent for your writers' projects. but they can't stop networks and studios from buying shows and obviously somebody is going to have to act in and direct them. you're going to deny those clients work if Paradigm or even ICM eventually decide to cut their own deals?
                    I don't know how true that is. I'm a Verve client and have traction inside CAA right now on a feature.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

                      Originally posted by docgonzo View Post
                      I don't know how true that is. I'm a Verve client and have traction inside CAA right now on a feature.
                      i'm curious, and it's obviously none of my business, but were you always a Verve client? or did you move to Verve after they signed the CoC.

                      the reason i ask, is i wonder if WME and CAA may hold a "grudge" against former clients they used to rep and not so much other writers that were not previously their clients.

                      i can't imagine a director or actor accepting being held back because of a dispute between the WGA and ATA. how would a director know? in the past, how would a writer know if their agency pitched a different writer for a project that another writer might have wanted?

                      then there is the letter from Nagy to Goodman.

                      https://deadline.com/2019/06/wga-ata...5478/#comments

                      they say that their vote for the CoC did not give the WGA the authority to demand members fire their agents, but how does the 20 think there is ANY leverage in "asking" the ATA to sign the CoC without consequences if they refuse.

                      that's what happened with the ATA and SAG agreement. they just continue to work without any consequence. which means nothing has changed. and that would have been the same result if the WGA applied no consequence. the WGA has actual power to control and change the narrative.

                      if you believe packaging is wrong, then it's wrong and the CoC needs to be signed by agencies and agents. if you believe packaging is illegal, then negotiating revenue sharing should not be a consideration in the negotiation. if you believe actions against the membership have been illegal in the past, then you should sue on your member's behalf. if a deal was initiated prior to the WGA's deadline, how is it wrong for that writer to continue with their negotiations when the guild said they could? and does that really constitute a conflict for that council member to remain on the board? i don't see that as hypocrisy, do you? the rules are being followed from what i understand, no? and clearly i am ignorant about many facts but am trying to understand it.

                      i mean, am i getting something wrong here?

                      it seems, and i could be wrong, the 20 really want to go back to working with their agents and continue packaging with revenue sharing. if they really feel there is a greater majority who agrees with them, why don't they start a petition of names to show it, before demanding a vote. twenty doesn't seem to convey a majority. i'm not a guild member, so i don't know what the rules are on dissent. when the membership votes, are the votes anonymous?

                      excerpt from the letter:
                      It’s impossible to know how many full voting members of the WGA there are as we don’t have those numbers. By many estimates, there are about 15,000 members. We do know that a total of 8,374 members cast votes— slightly less than 56% of the membership. That is hardly the guild entire.

                      It’s impossible to know how many of our members work in any given year or have agents, as we are not privy to those numbers. But in 2017, the last year for which there are figures, a total of 6610 guild members actually worked.

                      I wonder if leadership considered these numbers and what they mean before asking for a vote. I wonder when and if leadership will consider it necessary to formally gauge the current feelings of working membership about this action.
                      i may be wrong, but it seems the 20 are saying, basically, the "working" writers count more than those who are not currently in a "working" status. i thought that every guild member is equal, regardless of status and regardless of whether you make $5 or $5 million.

                      oh, and congrats, docgonzo, on your feature!
                      "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

                        I was with them before all this went down. And I can see your point about former clients, and definitely wouldn't put it past them. I had an issue with WME in the past and know full well how terrible they can be.

                        The trick with packaging talent is you have to go through the agents first (unless you're friends with the client), so a director or actor won't even know about the project. Even in normal times, agents pass on behalf of their clients without the clients knowing about a project. It's pretty brutal.

                        As for the letter, I don't understand Nagy's point. Everyone knew they were firing their agents in April as they voted for the CoC. Makes no sense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

                          I do not trust the bigs [agencies]. I'll never sign with one again unless they blow me... literally. I've seen too much. 15 years behind the scenes.

                          Ooops... lemme back up: I'm back under a new name. But, on hands and knees, humbled, after getting my ass kicked and my teeth punched down my throat for the last 5 years by the industry. Oh, and a steel toed boot to my balls. I'm not the same guy. At all...

                          So, I apologize for being an ass in the past. I'm done with that... kinda.

                          Anyway... I've seen first hand how friggin shady these people [agents] are (used to be married to one of those absolute liars... thank god that's over with! New chick). Made a huge deal where they were trying to strong arm us into taking a crap deal for their bigger client. Literally called us and demanded we take the crap deal. FU! Nope, I'm getting paid. Sorry not sorry. Unbelievable... yet perfectly believable. I'm just surprised it took the WGA this long to realize what the frick was going on. Was I the only writer married to an agent at a big who knew the truth? No idea.

                          I'm agentless right now (got a manger/lawyer that's it). I'm actually curious if Verve is the place to be. I'm looking for one, but definitely not a big. They DO NOT look out for the writer. I've seen some crap deals made for fairly big writers, (INTENTIONALLY!) they made a shitty deal in favor of say, the partners fancy client (ACTOR). Even if your spouse is an agent there, you ain't protected. I learned that the hard way. I would have thought so. NOPE! Thought I was "family"? NOPE!
                          Last edited by GucciGhostXXX; 06-22-2019, 11:56 AM.
                          Bruh, fukkin *smooches*! Feel me? Ha!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

                            I'll say this too:

                            CAA etc should just move the frick on. They don't care about the writer anyway. They haven't for years. Easy solution -- STOP repping writers and focus on your real interests. We don't need CAA (as an industry) in order to make shiz. Sorry, that's the truth. We F'd up way back when by inviting them to the party in the first place.

                            There's other ways to package. Creatives don't care where their material comes from. If I were the WGA and CAA etc didn't want to negotiate like grownups, I'd be like "Cool, later... we'll go around you. We tried. Peace!"
                            Bruh, fukkin *smooches*! Feel me? Ha!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: WGA Rejects latest ATA Offer - Revenue Sharing Off the Table

                              hmm, i didn't know that, docgonzo. i guess i thought your agent would tell you all the projects available and let the client decide what they wanted to decline, not the other way around. good to know.

                              i've been reading the comments on these Deadline articles and they seem to be getting deeper into the conversations. there is talk that writers either have, or may be considering going back to their agents on the side.

                              i don't know if it's true, but it is discouraging if it is true.

                              because i can see the ATA's endgame now, i think. they want the writers to break with their guild, come back to them and continue to package and produce.

                              below comment's quotes are from the new Deadline article regarding the upcoming WGA elections. keep in mind that these comments are written anonymously, so who knows who they are and what their motives might be.

                              https://deadline.com/2019/06/wga-ele...6492/#comments

                              Anonymous
                              on June 22, 2019 10:23 am
                              The problem with the people running is that most of them are angry journeymen tv writers — Mazin excluded.

                              These folks spend their time in the rooms with their friends (and one diversity hire) and talk trash on everyone and anyone (mainly other writers, their families, and always their agents) while the diversity hire is forced to chuckle for fear of being labeled “unlikeable.” For the most part, these journeymen writes’ skills are weak and this is why most of the product is terrible.

                              These same folks don’t want packaging fees bc they don’t want new voices to emerge. The little secret is that packaging fees incentive the agency to work for anyone they believe has the talent and hard work to create a great show. These journeymen don’t want a level playing field for fear that the minority they didn’t hire (because hey, we can only have 1!), will go create a show that is actually decent and better than their own show.

                              So they tell membership false truths, and get them riled up and threaten them that they must fire their agents. And yes, repeated emails and texts telling us to sign the letter is a threat. And yes, I saved them. All the while, Keyser goes and shops a show with the “enemy.” He claims this was a contractual agreement — well, any lawyer can tell Chris that you can walk away from an if/come deal at any time. They haven’t paid you a cent. You don’t owe them anything.

                              So, here is the thing. I’m a writer. And I come from a family of top notch lawyers. If Keyser doesn’t drop his project, I’m going back to my agents. Wanna try and come after me? I’m game. My family has already told me I will win and they are begging for this lawsuit.

                              Is this the guild anyone wants? No. But it’s what Keyser and Goodman and Young have created.

                              Anonymous
                              on June 22, 2019 10:20 am
                              Fact checks: if you run by petition, you don’t need the approval of the Nominating Committee. That’s the whole point.

                              Rasheed and Ayelet have been openly critical of the Guild’s action and were put forward. As was Ashley Edward Miller, the writer of that first dissenting letter that was published many weeks back. And it’s a well known fact that Craig Mazin has been back-channeling with CAA in recent weeks and has been critical of the campaign.

                              So there are 4 dissenters for starters that were nominated to run. But of course, the narrative will be that the Guild suppresses dissenting voices, even though the Nominating Committee – comprised entirely of fellow writers and yes, board members – happily nominated these dissenting members.

                              Anonymous
                              on June 21, 2019 11:42 pm
                              It’s important to clarify that the 95.3% that the guild continues to promulgate conveniently omits the fact that half the guild didn’t vote. It’s not a real number. Additionally, and admittedly anecdotally, there’s a feeling afoot that writers will eventually re sign with agencies before any resolution comes to pass, whether it’s a legal or legislative one. It certainly won’t be a negotiated one. The agencies haven’t waged an effective hearts and minds campaign against the WGA’s highly effective strike-like campaign, but the WGA also hasn’t provided the kind of confidence the guild membership is looking for. They will tire and be anxious to get back to something that allows them to feel their needs are being served, notwithstanding the writers who have successfully staffed through their own networking. The Chris Keyser hypocrisy was also very damaging to the WGA campaign, as much as they tried to minimize it. The “historic gains” Goodman refers to in the last AMPTP strike are not enough of salve to the feeling that is growing among writers.

                              REPLY
                              Anonymous
                              on June 22, 2019 9:43 am
                              Newsflash: many of us have already quietly gone back to our agents. Have to. There’s work to do and this action is both prima facie stupid and poorly managed. It’s both!

                              REPLY
                              Anonymous
                              on June 22, 2019 11:07 am
                              If you’re working with your agent then you’re in violation of rule 23. And more importantly, you’re a selfish human being who has no respect or understanding for what the WGA has done for writers over the last 100 years. We can disagree with the Guild’s position and strategy on all kinds of matters. But undermining the Guild will only hurt every writer in it.

                              Of course, the above comment was probably written by an agent. So never mind…
                              Netflix's Ted Sarandos commented in a recent sit down (Deadline article today) regarding talent agencies producing:

                              Next lighting-round topic: major talent agencies, which are locked in a battle with the Writers Guild and others in Hollywood over their mounting production activity. “The further they get away from their core, the more difficult it is, I think,” Sarandos said, without designating a “buy/hold/sell” rating. “Their core is, talent really does need help. They need, how do you find projects, how do you – who’s looking out for you all the time? But if they’re going to be another producer of content, I don’t know that they’re going to be a great one.”
                              he seems to be saying that agencies should do what agencies are supposed to do. it gets a little muddled in the middle, but that's what i got from it. haha.
                              "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X