All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I mean seriously...I don't care how unfair they think it is or if it's just how the industry works as far as money goes...if getting paid 60-70k for writing is the poorest Hollywood treats it's people, they're sure livin' the dream.
That's not that much if you're living in Hollywood or New York. I know administrative assistants who make more than that and they get full medical and dental. A scriptwriter (for the most part) has to pay for his benefits.
Also, consider this: electricians, carpenters, and others get paid much more than this because they're union. I've seen Teamsters at movie sets sit on their asses for most of the day because their jobs were to drive a truck in at the beginning of the day and drive it out at the end. They're not required to do anything else.
60-70K is nothing for the financial risk you're taking. A lot of people forgo the financial security of a so-called REAL job to pursue a career in writing and most of them never see a dime. The ones who write stuff that is good enough to be produced should be rewarded for their courage as well as their talent.
60-70K is nothing for the financial risk you're taking. A lot of people forgo the financial security of a so-called REAL job to pursue a career in writing and most of them never see a dime. The ones who write stuff that is good enough to be produced should be rewarded for their courage as well as their talent.
Exactly.
I think there's this insane notion that because 65k is "a lot of money" to you and me, you should just shut up and be thankful that you're talented enough to get paid that much.
But if a movie based on a script you wrote makes 100 million, is it really fair to assess that the writer's contribution only amounts to close to one percent, while the actors and director (who by the way clock in way fewer hours than the writer on a project) get 10-20 times that?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Now that you mention it, I think he said he was a production assistant.
That's friggin' hysterical. PA's are no more than glorified gophers who each think that the movie can't be made without them. Here's a clue for all you PA's: You're not indispensable. If something happened to you during the shoot, the director would simply tell someone to get his coffee.
I worked craft service on a film and a PA was really pissed that there were only peanut M&Ms on the table. He insisted on plain M&Ms because he was allergic to peanuts. When I pointed out that the plain ones have peanut oil in them, he snapped back that he was allergic to peanuts, not peanut oil.
I do think writers should receive royalties for internet sales and dvd sales. This just makes sense.
But there are more alternatives now. I can buy complete series on dvd. I can download European and Japanese tv shows. And I can watch plenty of independent films on youtube.
All this new strike means is that more television will move to Canada, and some shows I enjoy might get canceled.
Just a note, it's not just the writers guild that's going on strike. Studios are expecting an Actors Guild strike next June and possibly a directors guild strike.
Russell Crowe was quoted as saying (to the effect) that screenwriters should get over themselves and get back to work. That's pretty funny coming from a guy who makes over twenty million per movie.
The peanut allergen is a protein, and it would not be found in highly-refined oils. That does not mean it would not be found in some oils. It depends on the processing.
Only 57% of WGA writers are working (an increase from last year).
Median earning for those that are working is $106,756.00 (also an increase from last year). In other words, an estimated 28% of WGA writers (writers that have broken into Hollywood) earn $106K or more.
Great movies like American Beauty and Shawkshank Redemption tank at the box office. Most of the money is made from DVD sales -- where viewers discover it for the first time by good-word-of-mouth. Writers should get financial credit for that.
Box office hits that failed to impress audiences don't get repeat viewings on DVD. Thus, little on the residual checks. Sounds fair to me.
But don't worry, the whole strike issue will be over real soon.
This makes sense with what I have read in the past. A non-staff tv writer usually writes 3-4 scripts a year making $25-30k a script. Now, given the cost of living in LA, that's not a lot of money.
Writers shouldn't get any more than a nickel from DVD sales. Depending on who they are, they've probably received a lot of money from theater profit. And if there was no theater profit, their paycheck is bigger than the average American yearly income.
I wanted to address these points.
What's the difference between being paid for a theater showing and being paid when a DVD sells? I don't understand. You are paid by selling a product which you help to create. In the case of films, that product includes a theater showing, a DVD release, a TV airing, and so on and so forth. When people watch that movie, they are benefiting from your hard work. The chair they are sitting in was built by someone who got paid to build it. The pop they're drinking was bought from someone who was paid to vend it. What's the difference?
I think your main point here is in the latter half of the statement - they don't need any more money from DVDs because they make a lot of money initially. Fair enough. Let's look at that.
I doubt the possibility of finding accurate estimates of what professional writers are paid, so I instead wanted to focus on the fact that a writer's "paycheck is bigger than the average American yearly income."
Now these guys are some of the most successful writers of all time. But they are NOT writing 2 to 3 movie scripts a year. They are averaging one a year at the MOST; much less for the ones who have had a full career.
So $65,000 a year, sure. Still more than the average American. Don't forget the agent, though...there's 10% off the top. $58,500. Not so bad a year, right? What about two years? What about three? People have already discussed the financial risk, so I won't go over it again, but there is a reason that one-time work pays so much more. Not only that, but Hollywood winds change, and writers just aren't in style anymore. What happens then?
Look at Joe Ezterhas' page, for instance. Looks like 17 movies in 28 years (he sold his first script when he was 34...who knows what he did until then). So that's $1,105,000 total profits if we assume $65,000 per script (I know Mr. Ezterhas in particular was paid significantly more for some of his work, but for the sake of argument). That's $39,464 per year for the 28 years (so far) that he's worked as a writer. Still not too shabby. Minus the agent, $35,517 per year.
I dunno. Doesn't look like our friend is raking in the extreme high-level cash to me. Looks like he's just a few grand above the median, actually. But he's got no pension, no job security, and no dental plan.
There's more! "Legendary, prolific screenwriter Joe Eszterhas has had 17 screenplays produced, and as of 2006, has at least 25 unproduced scripts and treatments collecting dust on Hollywood shelves." (That's from the IMDb trivia page for Ezterhas) Ouch. That's a lot of work that more than likely will never make him a cent. And he's an enormously successful screenwriter. I wonder what other Hollywood writer's closets look like...
I bet a lot of wanna be writers find the salaries depressing. More than once have I heard people talking about hoping to sell that 1M script. I guess that would be like winning the lottery...