Not the Daily Show
Now that the writers’ strike has forced the Daily Show off the air, what’s the average Joe viewing public to watch? Worry not, the Daily Show’s writing staff has put together Not the Daily Show to tide you over:
I really like President John Jay Viacom Jr. III. I hope when the strike is over, he makes it back to the real Daily Show.
Via United Hollywood.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:04 am
This just got picked up by reddit’s front page (and I didn’t even submit it).
http://politics.reddit.com/info/60m10/comments/c02gvwy
6,217 views and counting. Surprising. Anyone want to go for a Digg too?
http://digg.com/television/Not_the_Daily_Show_featuring_Not_John_Stewart
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Writers are already leaving the old media to rot in a slow death like TV deserves. Instead, many are moving on to the next medium, the internet. Blogging, paid writing sites like storymash.com and ad sites like thisisbyus.com and trioned.com, and video sites like revver. They are all forming the new business model that pays the content creators their fair share (over half in some cases like storymash), forever.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Funny.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Genius.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Priceless, though I still miss the daily show… I hope this gets resolved right quick.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Maybe these writers sould get together, make some more stuff, video it, get some sponsors and find anoter medium, like the internet, and start making their own shows and their own stuff and just screw TV. They have talent to create stuff. They should find a way to use it that they own. Good luck.
D
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Great job. What can average fans do to support their writers? Should we stop downloading?
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANYTHING SO IDIOTIC AGAIN, WHAT A WASTE OF MY TIME! THERE IS A REASON WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE ON TV AND OTHERS ARE IDIOTS LIKE THIS GUY!
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
How fortunate for all of us if they(those in the writer’s guild) where to begin to produce content without the bureaucracy and filtering that goes on by statistically guided content. To much of our television is designed with agendas that are not in our best interest and certainly not in the name of entertainment, and more in the name of big money interests in getting us to believe certain things… because most people may not realize that your beliefs control your actions. So to get you to go to war I get you to believe that you are in danger…
Anyway, I would love to see more content that was off the leash of corporate controllers and backroom agendas. Without you they are nothing, you must give your power to them, because these greedy monsters have the slightest clue how to access creativity within themselves so they think they must steal. It’s sad really, I mean how much money do you need in one life time? If I had that money I think I’d find something better to do than spending all my time trying to figure out how to increase my stockpile of money from 1 Billion to 2 Billion. Like enjoying myself… oh wait, when you lie, cheat, and steal it is hard to live with your self so you gotta keep busy! Poor suffering souls will never admit the pain they are in, ah well, sooner we stop allowing them to subjugate us the better, for us and them.
Peace,
Marc
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Oh boo hoo! The poor abused writers want more royalties and whatever else. I could care less if they are out of money for half a year between gigs. They get paid way more than anyone else (except the actors), so suck it up and stop buying $5 coffees. The makeup artists and the costume designers had just as much to do with the making of a sought after DVD flick as the god damn writer. Do the set designers, or camera operators get royalties? No really, I don’t know do they? If not, then why don’t they stand around with little signs and $5 coffees and poo poo their sorry lot in life.
The way the “work/employment” system works is you make something or provide some service and then people give you some green backs. It is just that simple. If you suck or your employer runs out of work for you, your ass gets to sit at home in a cold, dark, foodless house ’til your lazy fat ass can get enough energy worked up to find a new job. It is just that simple. This is why I hate writers and photographers. You pay them for a service and then they keep coming back with their nasty little hand out. “Oh you want to sell my plot on a DVD… give me more.” “Oh you want another print of a picture you paid me to take… I want more! You can’t have the negatives and if you scan the picture you paid me to take your ass will be in court.” It does not matter that you already paid them for their services they still think they need more for the entire life of the product?
Where else does this messed up system work? Even in other art fields this system is crap. If you make a painting or a ceramic bowl and sell it the deal is done. You gave them something they gave you something, end of story. If the new owner chooses to photograph it for a book about their collection the artist does not see a dime. Every guest to a museum does not have 4¢ of their visit going to each artist who’s work they placed an eye ball on. This is crap! Total crap!
If this system works then I want every nut tightener and widget maker to be paid once for their work and then again for rest of their life based on the durability and success of said bolt tightening or widget. If you fix a machine, lets say a printing press, do you get paid for every sheet of paper your hard work helped the owner of that machine produce? Hell no! I am a graphic designer, do I get paid every time my ad gets placed in a new publication? You can bet your sweet ass it does not! Does Ford get paid a few extra pennies for every fat ass your Fiesta hauls to Taco Bell? Shit no! Then why do writers and photographers think that after the studios or I pay them for a good or service we do not own that good?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not a flag waver for the money-grubbing, snobbish asshole movie companies I just hate them for a whole different set of reasons. Let me try some logic on you… If writers did not need royalties on every DVD and dish towel based on some line they wrote for some fancy picture show, the cost the DVD could be reduced. Makes sense. Then if the cost of a DVD or a showing of a TV show costs less because the studios are not paying silly royalties they can charge less for the advertising. If the advertising costs less the manufacturers hawking products can sell those products for less and raise worker wages. This all seems logical to me. So I can now conclude the reason people in this country are starving and can not afford food is because over paid writers need to have $5 coffee and royalties on reruns of Sanford and Son.
Just think what all us common folk could afford if those fake-ass actors did not need royalties and million dollar pay checks! Do your job, get paid, go home… shut the hell up.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Brad: That’s a silly argument. They are in the midst of a contract negotiation and management is offering the writers less than the writers are willing to work for. Why does it matter if it’s called residuals or salary? If the studios were offering them $1000 per script and they were requesting $5000 per script, should they just give up and take the $1000 because that was what was initially offered?
When you, as a graphic designer, are offered work below what you consider the value of your work to be, do you take the job because, hey, someone offered you a job? Are you morally bound to take any work that’s put in front of you?
Residuals are the issue, but thinking of residuals as bonus pay just confuses the conflict. The real issue is that the management wants the writers to write for less than the writers think their writing is worth. They’re not bad people for thinking their labor has a certain value.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Brad’s argument isn’t that silly if the debate were between getting residuals and not getting residuals, since one can debate the merits of large single up-front payments vs. small up-fronts and continued residuals for the life of the product, but that isn’t the issue anymore. The studios agreed long ago (maybe in 1988?) to give residuals to writers, and nobody (except Brad, it seems) thinks writers should get zero residuals. There are (at least) two numbers to be considered in this deal, how much money for up-front work, and how much for incentive pay. Both are valid payment schemes if sides have agreed they are valid, and thus both are subject to periodic negotiation, which is what’s going on now.
Brad, writers aren’t the only people in society with performance-based incentives (which is what residuals are). Aside from other people involved in movies and tv shows (producers, actors, editors, maybe even some of the crew) you can count fund managers (salary for managing the fund; bonus for fund performing well), insurance agents (salary for selling insurance, small percentage for as long as client keeps the policy), any employee who gets stock as part of a salary deal (company does better = more money). Whether or not you agree that this type of compensation structure is just, there is certainly wide precedent for it. There is even an argument to be made that if an ad or logo or layout you design nets your client large profits you should get a piece of the action. Perhaps you can band your fellow designers together to unionize!
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
And, 19,000 views later, we’re now off the front page of reddit. I’m sure my host will be happy about that.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Troeltsch: Right, his argument would be fine if it was merely that residuals are not (or should not be) a good means of paying writers. Instead, a slightly higher up front payment (shifting some risk away from the writers and onto the producers) would be a reasonable alternative.
If his argument had been that, however, I doubt he would have concluded with “Do your job, get paid, go home… shut the hell up.” I think his argument was that writers don’t deserve more money in any form and certainly not in the form of residuals which he appears to consider… well… uncapitalistic? I can’t quite tell what the issue is. Greedy?
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I am not opposed to writers asking for more for their work. If a studio thinks they are asking to much they can find a cheaper and maybe less talented provider. The more you pay the better product you get, yet another fact of life. If a studio wants to provide stock options that is great then all employees can benefit instead of just those that feel entitled. I honestly think no one should make extra cash after the job is done. This just adds chances for corruption and places for bean counters to fudge numbers. Oh and as far as unions go, even if such a thing existed for my field they could bite me as well. If you are good someone will pay you, if you are not they will find someone else. This applies to nut tightens as much as writers. Unions just help prop up the unmotivated and slackers. If your job does not pay what you think it should find a new one or live more frugally. If a studio wants to pay low wages they can. If that means they get a crappy product from a low bidder they will not be around long. This is just my take on things.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
The interesting thing about the “performance based compensation” argument is that none of the other lines of work mentioned in that argument (like fund managers, producers, and salespeople) are unionized. They are professionals and they negotiate individually based on their ability and experience. Writers want to be professional, yet have the benefits of being part of labor as well. Well, which are you? Interchangeable working cogs who belong in a union, or professionals whose compensation should vary based on ability?
This should be a negotiating point in individual contracts, not something decided at once for everybody who ever bothered to join your little union. And if you don’t like the terms the hollywood corporations offer you, refuse to contract and get another job. If you’re worth residuals, you certainly should be capable of finding another good job.
My lord, stop whining already, will you? The entire world would benefit greatly if you people would break up your union and compete with each other, so that those of you that actually can write are kept busy and the rest of you end up in other fields better suited to your talents. The crap writing in so many places is probably directly attributable to the existence of a “writer’s union”.
[.]
November 15th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
It’s true. Nothing says “lack of motivation” like making huge financial sacrifices for the sake of principle.
[.]
November 16th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I think we are missing the point.
Producers want to receive income forever on their product (Movie, TV Show)
They don’t think the writers should.
Doesn’t anyone else see the hypocrisy here??
My opinion the advertisers pay the producers, we pay the advertisers, so in the end the PUBLIC owns it, so it should be FREE after that. mmm, makes sense to me! There problem solved.
[.]
November 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Do you think the authors should sell their books to the publishing studios for a one time fee?
Anyone can hold a camera. Anyone can be shown how to put on makeup. Aren’t that many that understand how to tap into that creative genius that is inside us.
[.]
November 16th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
It’s interesting that nobody’s mentioned yet that TV writers (like actors, farm workers and lots of other per-project employees) face seasonal unemployment. As someone in a similar situation, I would personally be willing to accept less up front in exchange for a series of small payments later on, if such a structure existed. Seems like a strong argument for the residuals system. (Or for careful budgeting.)
[.]