Thanks, CaBil. Just another way the writers (and everyone else) are getting screwed, I see.

If there's no money to give, what's the harm of signing 2.5% of it away?

I think the problem in this argument is the assumption that the writers want 2.5% of the net profits, and I think they want 2.5% of the gross profits. So yeah, it's feasible that if expenses run too high, a percentage of gross profits can end up losing money for the entity paying it out.

I also saw somewhere that directors get the same measly percentage of DVD sales that writers do. If this is true, I wonder why we haven't heard anything from the DGA on that issue. Or maybe they're being quiet because they plan on screwing the writers over again.

I also saw somewhere that directors get the same measly percentage of DVD sales that writers do.

Yep. Writers and directors get 4%, and actors get 12%.

Well, these are the base rates that everyone agrees will be the floor. It is that for writers rarely have the ability to negotiate a deal better the base rate. Usually a writer gets the big bucks for becoming a hyphenate (writer-producer) and the big bucks come from the producer half of their duties. As a theoretical example, Joss Whedon gets paid for every Buffy DVD out of several different payment pools, one being for the writers of the episodes and another for producers. I am willing he makes more money as a exec producer per episode than what he makes as a writer. Heck, I am sure that his cut for being a director of an episode is more than the writer's cut (assuming that there is DGA minimum for TV)

I think individual directors are in much better position to get more money than writers. So while the base rate is the same, the typical DGA member is a much better position to negotiate a better rate for himself than the writer ever is. So the DGA as an entity has not fought for bigger pie slices.

As for the difference between net and gross. If you don't get gross percentage, it's not worth bothering. Virtually every film you care to name has lost money according to net accounting, along with most TV shows. I am sure that if the writers accepted net points, they would get nothing.

So while the base rate is the same, the typical DGA member is a much better position to negotiate a better rate for himself than the writer ever is. So the DGA as an entity has not fought for bigger pie slices.

This makes perfect sense, thanks.

As for the difference between net and gross. If you don't get gross percentage, it's not worth bothering. Virtually every film you care to name has lost money according to net accounting, along with most TV shows. I am sure that if the writers accepted net points, they would get nothing.

So the argument that paying writers a percentage of unknown profits in new media is a win/win for writers and studios is somewhat disingenuous. In fact, gross percentages can make the difference on whether a project has a net profit or not. (This doesn't mean that the studios don't lie about the net accounting and make gobs and gobs of money anyway, just that the argument is not so simplistic.)

[link] I don't know who the girl standing next to Gunn is (and I'll feel extra silly if it's someone I should know) but I also own the shirt she's wearing and so it's kinda like I was there! Which I totally would have been if I still lived in LA.

ETA: That's totally Amy Acker, isn't it? Hee!

Isn't that Amy Acker?

Bwah! We share a name and good taste in clothes!!

I didn't recognize her in another picture when she was walking with Joss. I had an 'oh wow, that's amy acker' moment too.

Gotta say I'm liking Amy's haircut.