Hilariously, and quantifiably, false. The writers left much MUCH more on the table under the terms of their ‘88 CBA than they lost during the strike itself. The reason the writers are more entrenched this year is that they don’t want to repeat the mistakes of ‘88 (sorry if that sounds like a campaign slogan).

TV and film need to go the way of the music industry: Independent. Technology now affords cheap production and independent distribution. The guilds need to form their own production and distribution entities and create a New Entertainment Order. It’s just sitting there, waiting for them to do it.

I’m sure agents and producers are aware of this, but entire crews have been discussing the reality that they can produce and distribute the shows they’re working on by themselves. If necessity is the mother of invention, it just might be that the AMPTP and the agents are making it necessary for TV to go indie.

Emanuel’s argument against the economic logic of the WGA position is that it will cost more to strike than the writers will gain. The problem with this claim, however, is that he is basing this explanation on the last strike, and only on his opinions of the last strike at that. He writes, “If you look at the amount of money that was at issue during the last writers’ strike in 1988, I bet it was less than the amount the strike ended up costing all concerned.”

“I bet?!” So the entire crux of his argument rests on his own speculation? Well, that’s a convincing argument!

Now beyond that, there could also be the argument (even if his bet is valid) that if by striking and potentially costing more than is gained, the writers lose LESS than they would have by not striking, it would also still make economic sense. Not sure if I’m being clear about that, but if the losses due to a strike were less than the shortchanging that the writers face without a new CBA, then it makes good economic sense in that case as well.

Nice try, Mr. Emanuel. But it seems your only angle here is that if there is no stoppage of work, your company can continue to make its 10%. So only the lack of a strike would make economic sense, TO YOU!

Even if your math is correct, and I doubt it is, strikes can rarely be measured in simple short term dollars and sense (please spare me the spelling correction. It’s intentional). Yes, I know that’s the currency you traffic in, but it’s short sighted.

The fight is always about tomorrow. The fight is always about your brother/sister and his/her family. The fight is about principle.
That being said, this IS Hollywood so I know your eyes are starting to glaze over.

We can all add. In addition some of us feel. Deeply.

You know, I want to believe this. But it feels like the WGA has something to prove and they believe this is the only way to do it. Their concerns are extremely valid, but the powers-that-be have been itching for a strike for not just weeks or months, but years.

Nobody wants to strike. But there comes a time when you either take a stand, or make it very clear to the Companies that they can do whatever they want in the future, to anyone’s detriment. And trust me, they will.

As to whether or not Ari is representing his clients’ best interest… Is only telling your clients what they want to hear serving their best interests? I think not.

Lets stop with the inane chest thumping and make a deal or everybody loses.