Today’s take on the WGA strike originates from an essay on SFGate by Noah Hawley, a novelist and writer for “Bones.” The piece is called “What the writers strike is really about,” and like all op-ed columns written by striking writers it conveys a certain veracity. In fact, Mr. Hawley makes one of the most convincing arguments I’ve read yet to justify the strike– and then counters it with one of the weakest.

Hawley’s unique and rather starkly honest observation: He points out that if the residual system for writers is curtailed or eliminated, the result will be the virtual elimination of middle-class careers.

It’s not the richest members of the guild who will suffer - the A-list writers and script doctors - it’s everybody else. Writers who earn their living staffing, or writing smaller films will find their incomes cut dramatically. The majority of writers in Hollywood are middle class. If the residual system as we know it disappears, we will see a writers guild that looks much like the rest of America, with one percent of writers controlling 90 percent of the wealth. This elite tier of creators will continue to realize huge profits, even in an Internet-only world, through a combination of giant script fees and profit sharing. But without residuals, without fair compensation paid each time their work airs, TV staff writers and the screenwriters of smaller movies will find themselves back in the corporate cubicles, just another employee punching a clock and dreaming of a better life.

This is a remarkable insight. It absolutely acknowledges that star writers like John August and Akiva Goldsman, those in the elite top crust of screenwriters who generally write every major motion picture, will continue to do well with or without WGA support. The gap between star “have” writers and wage-earning “have-not” writers will become a gulf. The WGA, in fact, is one of the few entities in Hollywood enforcing something like equitable profit sharing at levels relatively low in the food chain. Hawley is not just interested in getting a fair break from the studios: he wants to make sure the big fish don’t eat the small ones.

It also illuminates a question I’ve had about the WGA’s core issue: when did the current residual system start? I can’t imagine that back in Hollywood’s “Golden Age” writers enjoyed the long-lasting benefits of the structured deal they do today. Ben Hecht, Charles Brackett or Herman J. Mankiewicz probably got one check per screenplay (Two if they scored an advance), then they moved on to the next gig. I’m just going to put that question out there: maybe someone else has a definitive answer.

Anyway, Noah Hawley, before making the making a fine, significant point above, nearly blew it with the standard-issue “What about the Internet profits?” theme.

When first-run movies are released for purchase online the same day they premiere in theaters. On this day, all media will effectively be transmitted to your home by computer. There will be no such thing as a screenwriter or a television writer. We will all be Internet writers. And once that happens these media conglomerates will become, in a very real sense, the sole author and owner of our work, entitled to 100 percent of the revenues they generate.

According to this idea, in the near future stuff will stop coming out of your TV. The studios will all become webcasters and all the writers will be fired– replaced by, I suppose, robots.

The problems with Internet content-delivery structures are so profound it amazes me people still hang up over it. Almost all for-profit media centers on control over content: the theatrical release, the scheduled broadcast, the CD release, the DRM-controlled music file. The Internet is fully open, and as such is anathema to this scheme. Take, for example The Podcast Network: Box Office Weekly. Quality, thought-provoking content put out by two schmoes– who should be doing something more productive with their time– for no pay whatsoever.

The leading internet content delivery scheme is personified by YouTube. I do not think Hollywood really understands YouTube. Imagine if YouTube was an actual cable channel. This channel broadcasts anything it wants to, from any source they want. They tape shows from other networks and broadcast them. They also show any other kind of content they want, from camera-phone rants to pirated theatrical movies. And they really don’t care if they make any real money doing it, and they don’t care if the content originators get a dime. In fact, people are clamoring to get on the air for free.

The studio system is patently unready for this paradigm. Until a truly workable content-control scheme is developed, the Internet will continue to be great for viewers and terrible for studios.

The biggest danger to television these days seems to be the strike itself. Ratings are falling, the networks are refunding advertisers, and Rupert Murdoch, the cuddly teddy bear who runs Fox, is calling the writers out. Why shouldn’t he? He has “American Idol,” that writer-free ratings juggernaut, to get his network through this rough patch.

–Skot C.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 13th, 2007 at 7:19 am and is filed under Ancilliaries, DRM, Digital Wonderland, General, Hosts, Internet, Motion Pictures, News, Television. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.