41–45 of 45 posts
> " Meanwhile, average pay for Hollywood writers has remained virtually flat at about $260,000 as 2021,... " Somehow any iota of outrage I might have felt just evaporated. Elites griping about even bigger elites don't muster much sympathy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How little do they need to make before you feel outrage? Can you still have support and sympathy without outrage? What are some of the strikes in the last few decades where you have felt outrage, and how did that help the strike effort?
> How little do they need to make before you feel outrage? Certainly it would have to be a small enough amount that they might face some kind of financial hardship under normal circumstances. If a company is paying all their employees (which to be clear I know is not the case here, but just as a hypothetical example) enough that they can comfortably raise a family in even the most expensive cities in the world, I'm n…
you know, strikes aren't always only for money for one's self.
This strike is also about keeping a career pathway open for the future. One point is that the route the companies want to go gives short-term profit (writers are involved less) but will result in long-term disaster for the film industry (as fewer writers will understand the ropes).
But hey, even if that doesn't affect your sense of outrage, why do you accept the company owners and upper management by default are expected to get all the money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Average“ means there are a few who make millions and the rest make like 40-80k. JK Rowling would still be considered a writer, for instance, pushing the average up for her few movies.
Another issue is that it tends to be very bursty. They will often get a big payout, but then nothing for several years. There aren't that many writers who get a reliable pay check, so it is more (in common with acting) a lot of people getting occasional big payouts and then drifting off to be replaced by the next batch of hopefuls. I doubt average amounts are in any way meaningful in this context.
What we really need to know is median pay per year but I suspect that's going to be a difficult set of numbers to find.
Zaslav, of course, is famous for killing a lot of in-production Warner Bros. projects to take a tax write-off on them when he took over. This includes the Batgirl movie, which was in post-production at the time. Crazy to think how many people worked for years on that film only to have it all thrown away at the end like that. If I'd been heavily involved in making it I might have left the industry after that.
> This includes the Batgirl movie, which was in post-production at the time. They screened it and it was so bad they threw it and the 90mil they spent on it in the bin as there was nothing salvageable. Sometimes, despite all hard work and good intentions, the final result is still trash. If it was going to make a billion at the box office, they would not "write it off" for tax purposes.
[1] disagrees. Do you have a better source?
"Batgirl’s test score, which was for a director’s cut, is comparable to scores for the first It (2017), which wound up grossing $700.3 million globally, as well as an early score for the upcoming Shazam! Fury of the Gods. Both of those films tested in the 60s."
(SFOTG is, admittedly, a bit of a flop sitting on about $130m gross currently.)
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/batgirl-...
Zaslav, of course, is famous for killing a lot of in-production Warner Bros. projects to take a tax write-off on them when he took over. This includes the Batgirl movie, which was in post-production at the time. Crazy to think how many people worked for years on that film only to have it all thrown away at the end like that. If I'd been heavily involved in making it I might have left the industry after that.
That's not how business taxes work. You are taxed on profits.
[1] https://www.productionhub.com/blog/post/the-return-of-sectio...