Rushfield Day 2: Now the Hard Part
Rushfield Day 2: Now the Hard Part
If studios are prepared to endure pain, so are the folks on the line
The purpose of ending negotiations is each side feeling they can inflict enough pain on the other to compel them to return to the table with greater flexibility.
So there's where we're at. Waiting to see who starts to hurt, and who hurts more. Get comfortable everybody.
There will of course be the bluster, the finger-pointing, the name-calling. Right now neither side seems to be interested putting forth a coherent, consistent message, so bluster it will be.
As for the hope that some larger community leadership might emerge, as of Day 1, Hollywood leadership remains on its decade-long sabbatical. But their office expects them to be checking in for messages any day now.
Some other thoughts and observations from Day 1, on and off the line.
• My visit to the Paramount picket line was heartening, that this is no lark for the writers. To the extent I might have expected the pickets to be dominated by hotheads tossing rotting vegetables over the studio walls and deafening passers-by with whistle-calls, the tone was much more subdued. Resolved. The few cars that came in and out of the studio gates did so unmolested.
The writers on the line were cheerful on their first day, but there was no deluded sense that the studio bosses were going to crumble at the first glance of their matching t-shirts. No one I spoke to expected this to end anytime soon but not none seemed to doubt that at this juncture, they had any choice but to go down this road. There was much debate over what "No time soon" meant in terms of an ending, but as of Day 1, if the studios should be disabused of any hope that this was just a vanity-lark, and the writers will come to their senses once they stomp and yell and get it out of their systems.
If the studios are prepared to endure some pain, so were the folks on this line.
Now we'll see what "some pain" means and who it hurts the most. An individual writer can only withstand so much, but the same can be said for an already unsteady studio.
• As of Day One, Wall Street met the news with a big shrug, so alternate hopes that investors would either punish or reward the studios for this are, at this point, off the table.
• A couple of annoying questions I got the answers to at Paramount. Strikers checking in were handed distinctive Palatinate Blue t-shirts to march in. I asked whether they would be given new t-shirts every day or whether they were expected to wash their shirts nightly. I was told by one captain that the strikers should not expect a daily supply of new t-shirts and plan their wardrobe maintenance accordingly.
I was also concerned about the lack of amenities, namely restrooms, in the vicinity of this picket line — particularly with the tragic passing of Lucy's El Abobe right across the street. The official guidance pointed towards the restrooms at Pavilions, a good half mile away.
• The writers are already out of the running for shortest strike in Hollywood labor history. I was reminded that that record belongs to the Directors Guild, who in 1987, staged a labor shutdown that lasted all of 12 minutes.
• I’ve gotten sporadic word that as of Day 2, Teamster members aren’t crossing the line. Whether this is sporadic or general we shall see but if it is general and if it lasts, this will be a big deal.
• The next big turning point is likely to be the Directors Guild talks, scheduled to begin in one week's time. If we get an early indication of progress or lack thereof, that could put the wind in one side's sails.
• Another big one: the Upfronts next week. How much will the strike disrupt those? Will attendees cross a picket line? And will it matter on ad sales one way or the other, given that this is looking to be a tough year already.
• The hot issue today is the is AI element of the negotiations. Because AI is the hot issue right now, so why shouldn't it be here.
The WGA's grid gave this indication of where the two sides stand:
It's hard to imagine an issue that less lends itself less to a comprehensive solution in the atmosphere of a strike than AI in Hollywood. It's definitely something we need to talk and think about, something that in a different atmosphere, all sides would work together to plan for, but hard to see how that gets unravelled at this juncture in any way that doesn't raise more questions than it answers.
On the flip side, if some studio wants to shoot an AI-generated script and throw away tens of millions making a movie that feels like a corporate training video, maybe they should be encouraged to do that?
I'm off to the lines again today. Come say hi if you see me. Let me know what you're thinking.
I'm a showrunner, but I'm also a member of the DGA. However, I identify as a WGA writer. One of the most prevalent comments I get from my director friends is, "that mandatory staffing level thing -- that's crazy, you'll never get that." What is ironic about that comment, is that the DGA already has "mandatory staffing levels" built into their deal. When a DGA director arrives on set, there is a DGA 1st AD, a DGA 2nd AD, (sometimes a 3rd), a DGA UPM, a DGA Set PA, and often a DGA Production Manager and/or Line Producer. So every DGA director, on every DGA production has a "mandatory staffing level" because it is in the DGA minimum basic agreement. That is exactly what the WGA is asking for -- that a certain level of staff, trained to write/produce the show and know it's history, is built into our MBA deal. The streamers would like to get to a point where there is a showrunner/creator who sits alone in a room and hires some freelancers to write eight episodes for the WGA minimum. No weekly salaries, no extra pension and health costs. No training for writers on set or in post. That's the gig economy at work. So the WGA ask for mandatory staffing levels isn't "crazy" it is parity with our DGA colleagues.