Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by Bionic Squirrel, Nov 3, 2007.
SFR = single family residence, sorry I frequent a housing bubble blog too...:lol: .
Tell me about it! When I went to the Rose Bowl, I met a fellow Illinois alum who was living in Orange County. He said he just sold his 1300 square feet, 2BR condo for $1.5 million.
Thanks - I probably should have figured that out!
This is probably the most difficult thing to communicate. Within much of California, housing costs are roughly three times that found in many other parts of the country.
And when there are too many people for too few jobs, then the least talented workers must find other jobs.
The median income for a household in Los Angeles is $36,687. This isn't about getting enough money to live.
In the end, this whole dispute is solely about power, the union's unwarranted insistence on getting more power and the studio's steadfast refusal. As evidenced by the DGA contract, the studios are completely willing to share profits for online broadcasts. They are NOT willing to extend the power of a power-hungry union to include animation and reality writers. Let those folks have their own unions.
Why is that? An oral surgeon I know tried to purchase a house in SF 20 years ago and told me the same thing.
In Central NJ, $100,000 a year is just getting by. A lot of union electricians work like the strikers and between the high wages they make when they are working and unemployment compensation and odd jobs, they make out pretty well.
I heard a talk show host a few years ago who posed the question, "How much do waiters and bartenders make in NYC?" The waitresses and bartenders that called in said they were pulling in at least $1500 a week in undeclared income. LA and SF must be about the same, no? Oh, most of the people that called in to that show were actors and other show biz people who did the service work when not employed.
Don't know if anybody mentioned this, but the papers in NYC have started to call the striking writers "striters".
I stared at it, went away and came back to it and I couldn't figure it out. Acronyms should be banned. I only started to notice them in the early '60s, but, wow, have they ever caught on.
So we need to get the writers back so more deserving people can get the 'service industry' jobs? "People who did the service work when not employed" is offensive. People IN service work ARE EMPLOYED. Most of them just don't have another paycheck coming in from 'non-service industry' work.
San Francisco can be that much depending on where you work, but most range from 50% to 80% of that number. Of course they aren't out of work actors.
Those people who called in to the radio show considered themselves actors, writers, etc. They thought of the "service jobs" as something to do when not employed as actors or whatever. And they repeatedly made that distinction.
I have nothing against waiters and bartenders. I'd be thrilled to make $1500 tax free every week. I meant no offense.
I used to hang out in the Village in NYC. Every bar I went in had someone working who was an "out of work actor or something". Pretty interesting people. Pretty interesting bars. Lots of pretty waitresses. Never realized how much they made.
LA must be like that in some sections, no? These people have to supplement their pay somehow, and it sounds like being a waiter or a bartender (the bartenders made less, but still a lot for undeclared income) would be a perfect way to do it.
I was pegging the offense on the "out of work" people occupying those jobs "when not employed". They are employed when in the service industry ... and should not be looking down on fellow employees. It's like saying service jobs are not real jobs. (Probably slang, but "when the work dries up" might be a nicer way of putting it.)
I worked a retail 'service job' for 10 years ... many of my co-workers were lifetime employees doing a very needed job.
Perhaps actors and writers are just out of work service industry employees?
I myself am just an out of work world leader doing some other job while waiting for my chance to rule. :lol:
That's exactly how they think of it. They think they are ACTORS and DANCERS and everything else is a step down.
In my experience, yes that is reality. They don't see reality as we do. That time I referred to was in the late '70s middle '80s before Guiliani became mayor and took all the fun out of life. And the same actors and dancers were still tending bar and waiting tables during those times. That is exactly the opinion I got from going out with some waitresses and partying with the bar crew after hours. A lot of those people have such high hopes, it almost pitiful.
One of the questions the host asked several callers was why so many "out of work" actors were calling up and hardly any people who did it for a living. Most callers said the regular staff didn't want to talk about how much they made. And they were afraid someone would recognize them. Can't blame them. Good money.
If you haven't been closely following the news related to the writers strike, you probably aren't aware of the networks cleaning house - scrubbing commitments to scripted programming in preparation for cutting a deal with the writers.
Beginning with ABC Studios on January 11, the five major TV studios terminated about 70 deals under the force majeure provisions in its producers' contracts. These cases include "producer" contracts, some of which were opportunistic in that there were already disputes between the producer and the studio. See the Hollywood Reporter's "ABC Studios terminates nearly overall deals" and "Black Monday at TV studios" .
In the past few days, the studios started terminating scripted projects beginning last Friday with "CBS releasing 20 projects". Tuesday it was reported that Fox dropped over 20 scripts and the CW about a dozen, with ABC said to be close to making a similar move.
All these announcements come with statements indicating that the strike caused these terminations, except Fox gave what I consider to be a more honest statement: "In the current environment, we've been forced to take a hard look at our needs for the upcoming season, and as a result we're going to target a more focused range of projects."
As I have noted before, in my opinion the AMPTP never had any intention of settling with the writers and was not bargaining in good faith because of the changes in the distribution environment surrounding scripted programming. I expected broadcast tv to degenerate into mostly news, sports, and reality/game show programming, but I frankly didn't expect it to happen so rapidly. It appears the conglomerates were more prepared to adapt to change than I anticipated and they are using the strike as an excuse to rid themselves of commitments inconsistent with the current economic reality.
Instead of the slow, painful transition from radio to TV that occurred between 1948 and 1958, it appears the conglomerates are cutting out the vestigial organs of scripted TV body in a headlong attempt to adapt. If you like scripted programming, you should start practicing to access among others Hulu.com, the Fox/NBCU joint venture to stream programming on the web. (Of course E* and D* could give us direct access to web-based programming.:sure: )
To repeat what I noted in November in Why Broadcast TV Can’t Use Scripted Programming, Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC-Universal, said: "We don't want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side."
Zucker noted that NBC.com had 50 million video streams in October, 50% higher than the previous record, in May. "It's become a small cable channel in our universe," he said. Of the Hulu venture he said it was a "superstore" while NBC.com was a "specialty shop." He indicated that the digital issue is the biggest nightmare in his job. "Nobody has figured out the economic model yet. And if we don't figure it out soon, those dollars will turn to pennies."
Regarding the writers strike he said: "It will be a real watershed event, [and we'll see] whether [viewers will] come back to scripted programming," he said. "An event like this will happen at everyone's peril."
NBC has been mum so far on its plans to weed out its commitments.
^ So in summary as some of my boot camp CCs liked to say (and if you figure out what that acronym is you'll win...) HURRY UP AND WAIT!
Camp Counselors :lol:
Thanks for playing....
The New York Times reported today that Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC-Universal, indicated that NBC would not be buying numerous pilots in the future as it traditionally has. Instead they will order a couple each year, but would shift more toward a system of straight-to-series orders buying "first episode" scripts.
At the same time, the network will stick by its current script commitments.
This announcement is a win-win for writers, but for producers, directors, actors, and the technical and support staff, the model change is a disaster. They make millions each year shooting pilots that never become series.
The announcement is also consistent with what is becoming an NBCU future business plan for scripted TV, a plan that includes Hulu.com and NBC Direct.
Zucker noted in November that NBC.com had 50 million video streams in October, 50% higher than the previous record, in May. "It's become a small cable channel in our universe," he said. Of the Hulu venture he said it was a "superstore" while NBC.com was a "specialty shop." He indicated that the digital issue is the biggest nightmare in his job. "Nobody has figured out the economic model yet. And if we don't figure it out soon, those dollars will turn to pennies."
He emphasized: "We don't want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side."
For the slow folks (me), what does this mean? Does this effecively mean they are cancelling shows?