[Peace-discuss] Re: writers' strike

[John W.]

Attribution, Carl?  Who wrote this?



At 01:48 PM 12/14/2007, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>[The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers respond to the 
>writer's strike...]
>
>December 10, 2007
>
>We are heartbroken to report that despite our best efforts, including 
>sending them a muffin basket, making them a mix CD, and standing outside 
>their window with a boombox blasting Peter Gabriel songs, our talks with 
>the WGA have broken down. Quite frankly, we're puzzled as to why this 
>happened. We talked about it all the way home ­ after we walked into their 
>hotel room, slapped our list of demands on the table and abruptly left the 
>negotiating session ­ and none of us could figure out what went wrong.
>
>While we're not going to point fingers or assign blame, we do feel 
>justified in saying that they are entirely at fault. The AMPTP has 
>successfully concluded 306 major agreeements with unions since its 
>founding in 1982, and there has never been an incident like this. Except 
>for that writers' strike in 1985. And the directors' strike in 1987. And 
>that other writers' strike in 1988. Aside from three isolated incidents, 
>however, this strike is completely without precedent.
>
>We believe our New Economic Partnership™ proposal ­ under which the 
>average salary for writers making between $220,000 and $240,000 would be 
>$230,000 ­ is the single greatest document since the Magna Carta. And we 
>have proved, over the last five months, that we want writers to 
>participate in producers' revenues. Mostly by repeatedly saying, "we want 
>writers to participate in producers' revenues." Still, we must be clear: 
>Under no circumstances will we knowingly participate in the destruction of 
>this business. If we destroy this business, it will only be through 
>accident and incompetence ­ that's the AMPTP Pledge®!
>
>While the WGA's members can clearly stage rallies, concerts and mock 
>exorcisms, maintain unity in a large and diverse workforce, gain the 
>support of a majority of the general public, prompt a sharp dip in our 
>stock prices, derail half a dozen major movies and force us to refund 
>advertisers' money after they learn that they'll be getting "American 
>Gladiators" instead of "Chuck," we question their ability to get things 
>done. It is now absolutely clear that the WGA's organazis are determined 
>to advance their own personal ideologies, political agendas, sexual 
>preferences, barbaric tribal customs, canine wardrobe choices, religious 
>beliefs and blood rituals upon working writers and other working persons 
>who depend on our work industry for their work.
>
>Instead of negotiating, the WGA organizateurs have made demands, then 
>expected us to counter with our demands, and for them to adjust their 
>demands, and for us to do likewise, until we reach a mutually acceptable 
>resolution in some sort of "give-and-take" process. Needless to say, we 
>consider this to be a roadblock to progress (of both boldface and italic 
>proportions). Thus, we have asked that they withdraw these demands:
># They demand full control over reality and animation programming, despite 
>the fact that neither genre requires any writing at all. It is, after all, 
>a well-documented fact that "Flavor of Love" is a Frederick Wiseman 
>documentary about a man who happens to be choosing a bride from among 20 
>whores, and that "Family Guy" is entirely improvised by a cast of 
>extremely precocious illustrations.
>
># The WGA is demanding the right to join in strikes of other labor 
>organizations. This is simply unacceptable, as we plan on gutting the 
>contracts of many other unions in the upcoming year.
>
># Their proposal for Internet compensation could doom the Internet media 
>business before it ever gets started. (Projected start date: October 4, 
>2012.) We have already offered the writers a very generous $250 per 
>episode for using their work on the Internet. Sure, $250 may not sound 
>like much, but it adds up ­ a whole season of "Heroes" would cost NBC.com 
>nearly $6,000! Who's going to pay that money? Go look at at the "Heroes" 
>web site ­ unless you count Nissan, Cisco, Sprint, and American Express, 
>nobody's willing to step up and advertise on such a risky and unproven 
>medium. And who knows how much longer those fly-by-night operations will 
>be around? (I mean, have you seen the Nissan Rogue? It looks like a 
>Pontiac Aztek fucked a PT Cruiser, am I right?)
>
># The writers are demanding that, when we sell content within our own 
>companies, we have a neutral third party ensure that we aren't deflating 
>the price in order to cheat them out of their share. This lack of trust 
>hurts, quite frankly, especially after all we've done for writers over the 
>years. I mean, we've stuck with them through thick and thin ­ even going 
>so far as to bankroll their unprofitable vanity projects, like Forrest 
>Gump, Lord of the Rings, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
>
>In summary, the writers are demanding respect they haven't earned, 
>privileges they don't deserve, and money for work they haven't done. And 
>those are perquisites we reserve solely for the severance packages of 
>departing CEOs. Simply creating a hit show isn't enough ­ if they want 
>tens of millions of dollars, they will have to earn them by driving a 
>company so far into the ground that it's worth $85 million to shareholders 
>to be rid of them.
>
>We urge the WGA's pedophorganizers to abandon their Quixotic pursuit of 
>radical demands. We will not let you tilt at windmills. (We have placed 
>all studio windmills under heavy security). The fact of the matter is, 
>we're going to win this thing. We've got enough material to wait out the 
>strike. On the feature side, we've got great scripts ready to shoot. How 
>do we know they're great? Because they were already hits! Get ready for 
>"Talladega Nights" starring Dane Cook! Wait until you see "Titanic" with 
>Keira Knightley and Zac Efron! And on the TV side, we've got enough 
>reality shows to choke a horse. Literally ­ one of the shows is "Can You 
>Choke This Horse?" And for the fall, we're already working on "Can You 
>Choke This Horse With the Stars?" (Pepsi, you want a logo on the horse? 
>Consider it done.)
>
>We look forward to hearing from the WGA. Once they've unilaterally dropped 
>the majority of their demands and acceded to our wishes, we look forward 
>to having a full and frank exchange of ideas with them.