Watch Strike.TV Video! Online Network Created During WGA Strike Gets Real

23 Comments »

1. I have got to get me some of those!

   Comment by Scott Ellington — July 3, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

2. They’re using a union crew, right?………

   Comment by NotgoingtoTip — July 3, 2008 @ 6:55 pm

3. Consider me excited!

   Comment by excited! — July 3, 2008 @ 6:57 pm

4. After seeing Mindy Kaling twice, I am already addicted.

   Comment by fiori — July 3, 2008 @ 7:01 pm

5. I’m going to have to check that out.

   Comment by Furious D — July 3, 2008 @ 7:15 pm

6. That is the funniest teaser promo I have seen in a long long time…

   Comment by VPP — July 3, 2008 @ 11:47 pm

7. @Comment by NotgoingtoTip — July 3, 2008 @ 6:55 pm

   Oh I’m sure they did. They wouldn’t dream of screwing someone over. /sarc

   The video was so so.

   I don’t see the 4th promise. Once they are done with the first 3 months of ad revenue, does that mean that they will then fork over the 80% that the WGA (wrongly) believed they were entitled to? Hmmm…methinks we’ll be hearing some problems about this site very soon…

   Comment by manny — July 4, 2008 @ 4:01 am

8. Public Access television comes to the internet!

   Comment by LAMEWGA — July 4, 2008 @ 8:05 am

9. i would love to hear from ANY union crew that worked on these. oh yes, they used NON_UNION crews. where are the union set dressers?

   Comment by Local 44 — July 4, 2008 @ 10:22 am

10. I could be completely off about this, but my guess is that given the tiny budget of these videos they were able to get waivers from the Teamsters and other unions. And do remember a large percentage of the profits are going to help those that lost their jobs during industry strikes.

    Comment by George Glass — July 4, 2008 @ 11:01 am

11. Good god, not another thousand videos like those ‘unscripted’ things.

    Comment by Joe Melnick — July 4, 2008 @ 3:34 pm

12. and the next excuse for not hiring union crews….?

    Comment by Local 44 — July 4, 2008 @ 3:47 pm

13. There won’t be profits. I’m not talking out of my hat here, I work in new media — the profits are peanuts, it’s all speculation at this point. Facebook hasn’t technically made any money yet.

    Get paid up front, only do the work for the experience and if it bumps you up one position.

    And yes, most of the crew is non-union. You can’t afford to do these as union productions. Studios/production companies intentionally budget them that way. New media is big trouble for IATSE - smaller screens, smaller budgets, smaller crews.

    But the other unions are in a tough spot as well. No- name talent has no presale value but all the hassle of union rules - why bother? Name talent (writers and actors) are used to bigger money, both in pay and in budget but they don’t know how to work on this scale. And their names aren’t really worth the trouble, anyway. You can get as many pageviews from a creative amateur or a kid right out of film school if you’re strict on time. And you can keep both of those kinds of people in check. Try that with a former showrunner or anyone with an entourage. And if they get big or get an attitude, cut them loose. You need someone with a fresh eye, anyway.

    What’s really interesting is: they were writing during the strike? Interesting. And what was the official stand on non-union writers working for non-signatory made for new media productions? (leave aside the fact that they should have no say in this, non-union writers, non-signatory companies, etc.)

    I believe it was — “since we don’t get to work, no one else should, either”

    I thought they were full of shit. It’s nice to be vindicated.

    Comment by sdinla — July 4, 2008 @ 4:05 pm

14. “and the next excuse for not hiring union crews….?”

    I suspect the crew was paid as much as the above line talent… Zero.

    But, hey, maybe they were union crew.

    Comment by gg — July 5, 2008 @ 2:43 am

15. I was involved in the forming of Strike.TV, so let me clariffy several things:

    The crews were union. None of the unions have minimums for low budget internet projects, so the fees were negotiable as per union contracts. (Note to IATSE people: IATSE has no internet contract or minimums. In fact, they had no official stance whatsoever. They left it up to individual crews.) Percentage of gross was highly encouraged, so as to counteract up-front salaries. But in each case, the exact terms were left to the creators and crews involved.

    Secondly, during the strike writing was only prohibited for struck companies. The copyrights for these projects are all self-owned (a unique concept in Hollywood) and were therefor NOT created for struck companies.

    Lastly, everyone involved knew that very little money would be generated initially. That is not the point. The point is to learn to create projects independently from the studio system and generate income from new media. The site was launched for less than 10K, not relient upon venture capital but on indiviual creators putting up their own money.

    Comment by ziboskwitz — July 5, 2008 @ 7:49 am

16. sdinla asksk: “And what was the official stand on non-union writers working for non-signatory made for new media productions? (leave aside the fact that they should have no say in this, non-union writers, non-signatory companies, etc.)”

    There was no official stand as the strike was about getting signatory companies to pay writers for re-using their material to make a profit on the web (on nbc.com for instance, which does indeed make a profit. A big one.)

    That said, I’m sure the Guild would love if all new media writers were covered by the WGA. That way, the current non-union writers working for non-signatory made for new media productions could get health benefits and paid when the material and characters they create make a profit (if sold into a TV show for example.) You know, giving these writers the same benefits and rights all writers want. How dare the Guild want that for them!

    Comment by George Glass — July 5, 2008 @ 10:13 am

17. i think it’s absolutely great! way to go strike tv and ziboskwitz. way to use your creative advantage in a productive, exploratory and industrious way. This is exactly what this climate calls for.

    this is all new turf, nay sayers are plenty, figuring out the details and how to make money will take time and ingenuity which you folks clearly have.

    I signed up and am eagerly waiting to see the projects.

    much respect to all of you. Let us know how your audience can support this enterprise.

    i love the part where the guy pops the bottle cap with his eye.

    Comment by andrea — July 5, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

18. Why doesn’t the guild create it’s own contract for new media and sign those new companies.
    As for the IA I believe they are negotiating a contact now. The stance should be you can’t work non union but I think in this case the IA is turning a blind eye waiting to see where all this goes.
    I personally have shot several shorts for new writers and directors. There’s no money in it, just a hope for the future. Beside sometimes it’s film making at its best.

    Comment by just a thought — July 5, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

19. Enough with all of this drivel - soon there will be no Hollywood unions at all if this is the best WGA “writers” can come up with - I can only guess the most work these “writers” have gotten in the past three years was actually during the WGA strike - and now it’s back to obscurity and posting their “talents” on various web sites… This is exactly what is wrong with the entire system from executives down to the talent - absolute mediocrity.

    Comment by mindy — July 5, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

20. #

    Enough with all of this drivel - soon there will be no Hollywood unions at all if this is the best WGA “writers” can come up with - I can only guess the most work these “writers” have gotten in the past three years was actually during the WGA strike - and now it’s back to obscurity and posting their “talents” on various web sites… This is exactly what is wrong with the entire system from executives down to the talent - absolute mediocrity.

    Comment by mindy — July 5, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

    And what is that you do, dear Mindy, that enables you to sneer @ us lowly mediocrities?
    Why not put YOUR talent where your (obviously big, filthy) mouth is & create something that puts the lot of us undeserving writers rightfully to shame.
    I’ll wait.

    Comment by e — July 5, 2008 @ 10:41 pm

21. People can no longer congratulate another for trying something new. It’s all about hate, and spreading it the world over.

    Comment by David — July 6, 2008 @ 1:00 am

22. But how “new” is this? There’s been quite a few web-based shows, both amateur and professional.

    “The point is to learn to create projects independently from the studio system”

    Someone needs to learn to do this? Huh?

    Comment by Rachel — July 6, 2008 @ 12:54 pm

23. It sounds as though this might be a terrific opportunity for gifted actors and auteurs who are currently working under too many constraints — either to appeal to a broad market or appease advertisers.

    However I read that advertisers are still involved and I wondered to what extent this will still impact creativity, and casting?

    For example one thing that bugs me about network shows (and many on cable) is way too much exposition (I watch NO network show). Comedies are still to punch line driven. Also the casting often isn’t very interesting or well fit to the specifics of a character. Even in cases where men are engaging, the woman are often too generic. It almost seems like a pre-requisite. I’m not talking about appearance alone but the tone of the performance.

    This seems less true of HBO. For instance nothing in THE SOPRANOS, (even in heavily criticized seasons) took my out of the story. The nudity had far less to do with why the show worked, (tho in that case the profanity was essential). And for the most part, same with DEADWOOD. There was also much care and attention to language.

    I realize those had huge budgets, but the kind of things I’m talking about seem obtainable even on a tight budget. I’m just wondering how much further you’ll actually be able to go in this current format?

    Comment by pf — July 6, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment