PDA

View Full Version : Heroes: Origins Canceled / Delayed



Oreo
November 1st, 2007, 07:05 AM
And it's all because of the writers strike, and that starts tonight. They wanted 30 episodes of Heroes written and yet they won't give the writers money they deserve.

******* networks.


The HEROES:ORIGINS spin-off has been placed on hold due to WGA strike concerns, says Variety. NBC has been planning to air this six-episode series during the scheduled hiatus of the network's original series, HEROES. It would feature a look at new possible characters, the most popular making their way onto the lead series in Season 3. Directors Eli Roth, Kevin Smith and Michael Dougherty were already attached to helm at least three of the intended six shows.

NBC Universal entertainment co-chairs Ben Silverman and Marc Graboff didn't want to move forward with the project given the financial uncertainties of a possible WGA work stoppage.

http://www.mania.com/56499.html

Morrolan
November 13th, 2007, 12:39 PM
And it's all because of the writers strike, and that starts tonight. They wanted 30 episodes of Heroes written and yet they won't give the writers money they deserve.

******* networks.



http://www.mania.com/56499.html

Ignorant post.

IcyNeko
November 13th, 2007, 06:06 PM
Uhh, do you even know what the strike is about? It's not that they don't get paid (because slavery is illegal in the US), but that they want money rights to the DVD-sales, which they don't write for. They write for the show that AIRS ON TV.

And considering how badly Maya y Alejandro is, I think we should strike as fans and demand that the writers pay US back.

Morrolan
November 14th, 2007, 12:07 PM
Uhh, do you even know what the strike is about? It's not that they don't get paid (because slavery is illegal in the US), but that they want money rights to the DVD-sales, which they don't write for. They write for the show that AIRS ON TV.

And considering how badly Maya y Alejandro is, I think we should strike as fans and demand that the writers pay US back.

There are multiple writers on any given episode of a show. Many don't even get credit for what they do. But these aren't the people that are leading the picket lines. It's the credited writers that want to negotiate like the actors for points and residuals.

Given the fan fiction that I've seen here and other ideas discussed in forums all over the net, maybe studios should look toward fans to contribute to the writing. I side fully with the studios on this one. The supply is so much greater than the demand.

One demand that I heard was certain writers want residuals on syndication of series of which they wrote maybe one or two episodes.

MarshAngel
November 14th, 2007, 12:16 PM
Well here it is from a screenwriters mouth http://www.newsweek.com/id/70297

My perspective is, it isn't an unreasonable request to expect to earn off your contribution to a production, if the studio earns profits from that production when it airs. If your writing is successful and gets reaired in another format and people watch...the studio gets paid, you get paid. If it's not reaired the studio doesn't get paid, you don't get paid. It Doesn't sound that unreasonable especially when you consider they aren't working everyday. If they get what they want and you don't think they deserve more money then the easy way out is not to buy the dvds or watch reairings on other media.

Morrolan
November 14th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Well here it is from a screenwriters mouth http://www.newsweek.com/id/70297

My perspective is, it isn't an unreasonable request to expect to earn off your contribution to a production, if the studio earns profits from that production when it airs. If your writing is successful and gets reaired in another format and people watch...the studio gets paid, you get paid. If it's not reaired the studio doesn't get paid, you don't get paid. It Doesn't sound that unreasonable especially when you consider they aren't working everyday. If they get what they want and you don't think they deserve more money then the easy way out is not to buy the dvds or watch reairings on other media.

I don't care if they get more money or not. I just don't feel that a strike is necessary.

Part of my issue is that a television show or a movie normally has teams of writers. Some of them are not even credited. I don't feel the studio should have increase costs to give each of them a piece of the pie for the final product each time it is aired.

MarshAngel
November 15th, 2007, 04:04 AM
This is a genuine question.

Is there any evidence to support the idea that uncredited writers would get a piece of the pie?

Also..how much of an increase in studio costs would occur given that especially with internet reairings the studio isn't spending that much? ....and at least in one case gain $500 million from internet alone.

Morrolan
November 15th, 2007, 08:56 AM
This is a genuine question.

Is there any evidence to support the idea that uncredited writers would get a piece of the pie?

Also..how much of an increase in studio costs would occur given that especially with internet reairings the studio isn't spending that much? ....and at least in one case gain $500 million from internet alone.

Evidence? Well, all writers are on strike. All writers want more money, specifically residuals. A studio can't pay one writer residuals and tell the other that they're out of luck.

Normally, you bring in a guy to write the script, another to polish it, and yet another to focus on certain aspects, such as dialogue. Generally one person gets screen credit despite 4 or 5 hands contributing. Only the credited writer gets residuals?

You're forgetting that most movies do not make a profit. And the writers are getting a piece of that imaginary $500 million. So, the studio have to work even harder to turn a profit. If the movie bombs, which can generally be attributed to a poor script, the writers still get paid while the studios lose money.

What example do you have of a movie making $500 million on the internet? I guess I would have to say that it is another issue. The original writer is paid for his work upfront. I see no reason he needs to make money every time the movie is aired.

MarshAngel
November 15th, 2007, 09:42 AM
I wasn't talking about an individual movie, but internet profits overall for Viacom I think. (btw, that's just something someone in the industry said. not anything I can prove absolutely).

Morrolan
November 15th, 2007, 10:56 AM
I wasn't talking about an individual movie, but internet profits overall for Viacom I think. (btw, that's just something someone in the industry said. not anything I can prove absolutely).

I would need to find more information about that. My point was that some writers are wanting residuals off the top, so they get paid whether the movie makes $1 billion or it loses $500 million.

People go to the movies to see the actors, not to see how well the script was written. For example, just look at those Will Smith summer blockbusters that are horrible like Wild Wild West. A bad script can sink a movie, but a good script rarely ever saves a movie.

And again, I point out that thousands of great scripts are posted online or submitted to studios each year. These properties can be purchased for pennies, but because they aren't written by someone's nephew, they are discarded. The supply of quality material far outweighs the demand for quality product.

I really do feel for those writers trying to make it in the industry, but it's the veterans that are behind the strike.

The Signal
November 15th, 2007, 11:50 AM
They're looking for a percentage, if a film does badly, they'll get paid less, if it does well, they get paid more. With TV they want paying for all new media, including online distribution and DVD sales, none of this is unreasonable and they more than deserve it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RI3Ek8N1VsM will set right a lot of misconceptions about the strikes.

Morrolan
November 15th, 2007, 02:36 PM
They're looking for a percentage, if a film does badly, they'll get paid less, if it does well, they get paid more. With TV they want paying for all new media, including online distribution and DVD sales, none of this is unreasonable and they more than deserve it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RI3Ek8N1VsM will set right a lot of misconceptions about the strikes.

While, I understand what he is saying, I disagree with it. It's great in theory for a single writer who has taken his script from creation to final shooting draft, but when teams of writers are needed, the concept is convoluted.

They would be getting a percentage every time the studio brings in money for a property. If the studio expends more money than it brings in, the writers are still getting their cut, but the studio is losing money. Not every piece of media makes a profit.

It still doesn't address the thousands of great freelance scripts that are ignored to do inferior stories from established writers.

I also disagree with the stance of people like Joss Whedon and Seth McFarlane. They generally write, produce, direct, and take the lion's share of the profit anyway. Joss gets paid every time one of his shows is sold in syndication. He has residuals. Seth has made a fortune on Family Guy that includes residuals on his creation. These guys are not hurting for checks. I have to ask would they take lower points on their media to help pay the writers? I bet not. They expect the studio to cover that burden as well. In fact, the studio's profit would decrease while the writer's profit would significantly increase.

I want to add a disclaimer to my posts. I have searched, but I cannot find the official terms that the writers are asking for. Nor have I found anything official on the counteroffer from the studios. Based on the articles, interviews, and videos that I have researched, I side with the studios. The information is very general, and with more specific information on terms, I would reserve the right to change my mind.

IcyNeko
November 19th, 2007, 12:24 PM
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/133113/Writer_s_Strike_In_Simple_Terms.html