Wait, What’s the WGA?

The Writer’s Guild of America (WGA) is used to refer to the joint operations of two affiliated labour unions founded in 1954; Writer’s Guild of America, East (WGAE) and Writer’s Guild of America West (WGAW). These two labour unions represent writers in television, film, radio and online media in America. They have headquarters in New York City and Los Angeles respectively, each administering its respective side of the United States. Although they are separate entities, they share certain functions like hosting The Writers Guild of America Awards, negotiating contracts and launching strikes.

So Why Are They Striking?

There is a common misconception that everyone in the film industry is rolling in money. It’s understandable, considering that Hollywood is often depicted as the land of glitz and glamour with films and TV shows raking in billions.

The thing is, not much of that actually goes to writers.

Of course, there are a select few screenwriters out there making big bucks but many of the brains behind your favourite shows are living paycheque to paycheque. This hasn’t always been the case, though. Writers simply aren’t being paid as much as they are used to.

One of the main reasons is the disappearance of residuals in the era of streaming. Residuals are a percentage of the profit received when media a person works on is syndicated, re-run or re-released. For decades, residuals have been an important part of a writer’s long-term income. However, the laws that governed residuals applied to traditional TV, not streaming. With most TV shows moving to streaming and studios grinding the minimum payments down to the ground, writers are making close to nothing. Writer Valentina Garza recently shared a tweet in which she received a residual cheque of only three cents (yes, three cents!) for her work on the hit show Jane The Virgin.

Another sticking point is the emergence of mini-rooms as opposed to fully-staffed writers’ rooms. Basically, many studios are hiring almost half the number of writers they used to on a short-term basis to bang out the structure of TV shows. Fewer and fewer writers are retained on long-term payrolls, and it’s making screenwriting as an industry shift from a full-time career to almost exclusively gig work.

Bottom line; the average Hollywood screenwriter can win an Emmy but still not know when next month’s rent is coming from. All of this is going on as studio execs are making increasingly obscene salaries. The strike is a direct result of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) aka the union of America’s biggest movie studios, refusing to meet WGA’s reasonable conditions during negotiations.

What Does the Future Hold?

We can already see the immediate effects of the strike. Several productions have completely shut down as writers lay down their pens. This isn’t the first time a strike has interrupted Hollywood productions; the 2007 strike had Conan O’Brien spinning his wedding ring on The Tonight Show to fill airtime. A great deal of the Californian economy also relies on these shows to keep running.

But the short-term losses have potential for positive results for both writers and viewers. Not only will it give writers some semblance of financial stability to writers, but it will also probably lead to better TV. With fully-staffed writers’ rooms and regulations to curb use of AI to write scripts, we could see a drastic improvement in the quality of the TV shows produced. We’re all tired of dozens of Netflix shows that are cancelled after one season and look like they were written in the dark.

Want to Help?

Follow the hashtag #WGAStrong or join the picketing.

Also Read: Equal Writes: Why We Need More Female Writers

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post WGA Strike and the Future of Television appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today we’ll look at two factors (advertising and consolidation) that could in the future make streaming resemble the old cable television model.

Ads Will End In…

Streaming services supported by adverts are nothing new. Think of the likes of FreeVee, ITVHub, All4, Pluto TV, YouTube, etc., or the value apps available on smart TV sticks. But surprisingly big streaming players like Netflix are now moving to include a subscription tier on their service that allows you to watch their content for cheaper with adverts. Will audiences accept this shift?

Well, commercial advert-supported services like All4 and ITVHub have a firm foothold in the UK. According to an early 2022 Ofcom survey 45% of online adults/teens aged 13+ had used ITVHub/STV Player and 41% had used All4 in the past 3 months to watch films/tv shows. Outperforming all major SVoD brands except for Amazon Prime and Netflix. The BFI 2021 Statistical Yearbook also showed 31% of UK households using ITVHub and 22% using All4. So adverts don’t necessarily hinder viewer interest.

However, surveys like this one from Morning Consult indicate that a majority of streaming audiences hate this idea. Would this stop people from taking up Netflix’s advertiser-friendly model? Would advertising be seen as more egregious if introduced to a previously ad-free service? Possibly but in the midst of a cost of living crisis, the cheaper advertising-friendly option may prove very attractive.

And Then There Were Fewer

Advertising isn’t the only way streaming is starting to resemble cable TV. Warner Bros Discovery’s boss David Zaslav has announced the plan to merge HBO Max and Discovery+ into one platform in 2023. Consolidating Warner’s streaming service approach. With the aim of reaching around 130 million subscribers by 2025. A bigger market share than what HBO Max and Discovery+ currently have.

With all of Warner’s media available in one place, this move will undoubtedly provide convenience for potential customers. And the consolidation of technology assets could provide a better quality experience.

However, this merger of different streaming services into a single package resembles how media conglomerates consolidated the number of TV stations they owned which meant cable customers had to have specific network subscriptions in order to get what they wanted. If this move is taken up by other conglomerates it could have bad consequences for consumers as customers will be forced to pay for multiple services to access everything they want. It will mean less major media released on third-party services. Many companies would rather retain their projects as a selling point for their service. And if consolidated services gain market power due to their content access they could begin raising prices as they won’t have to worry about competing with rival services.

The New Cable TV?  

With the success of advert-supported streaming services, the adoption of adverts by already established companies and the consolidation of streaming services owned by bigger companies the streaming market is slowly starting to resemble that of cable TV. These measures are undoubtedly being done to make these businesses more profitable and to increase their hold on the streaming market. And it does offer some benefits to consumers in terms of convenience. But it’s also driving customer-unfriendly practices. Ultimately we shall have to see how audiences react to these changes to see if streaming ends up becoming just like its predecessor.

Also Read: The New Hollywood: Streaming Giants

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Streaming is Becoming More Like Cable TV appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

In this article, we will explore the possibilities of what might happen after Channel 4 is privatised and how it will affect the media industry. But to see how the upcoming changes may impact the company let’s refresh ourselves on Channel 4’s history.

The Inbetweeners

Margaret Thatcher’s Government created the public service broadcaster Channel 4 in 1982. One of the only good things from the Thatcher years. But it was and is unlike other PSBs. It does not receive public money (like the BBC) it instead generates revenue through advertising. Which is then used to commission projects. Additionally, Channel 4 does not make its own programmes. Instead, it commissions them through smaller UK production companies. And its mission statement is to present challenging, unique content that also showcases the diversity of British life. This outlook informs its programming and film production arm (Film4). Making it different from the broader public interests of the BBC and the commercial interest of ITV and later Channel 5.

Since its formation, the company has broadcast a range of classic scripted shows like Black Mirror, Derry Girls, Desmond’s, The Inbetweeners and It’s A Sin among others. Its hard-hitting news programmes and Dispatches series have added great diversity to the news landscape. And it has produced films by great creatives like Steve McQueen, Danny Boyle, Ken Loach, Asif Kapadia, Lynne Ramsay and more.

A Very British Coup

So what is the aim of privatising Channel 4? According to those in favour of privatisation, it will secure the company’s future. With competition from hundreds of TV channels and streaming services coupled with declining TV advertising revenues and traditional viewing patterns, the channel’s revenue will likely get smaller over time. And with rising production costs the company faces huge challenges. These are the problems that privatisation aims to solve.

One big claim is that privatisation will get rid of the channel’s funding restrictions. Allowing for more investment from different sources besides advertising. Meaning it will have more money available for new projects. The channel will also potentially be allowed to own and produce its own shows. This can facilitate more direct income through selling these projects to other services. And could create new jobs as the company builds its production staff. Finally, the government has said that it would make Channel 4’s remit part of the conditions for buying the channel. Meaning the channel’s future owner would have to stick to its mission statement of producing diverse content for underserved audiences. Some are also suggesting that the sale terms can be used to ensure that the channel still spends a certain amount of its budget on independent productions. Which sounds positive.

It’s A Sin

However, while all this sounds beneficial it also risks stripping away a lot of what makes Channel 4 important. The fact that Channel 4 produces no content in-house has led to huge growth in independent production throughout the UK. This means more diverse ideas and creatives have had a platform and opportunities that would not be as prevalent were it not for this production model.

Additionally allowing the channel to produce its own shows will ultimately lead to a shrinking of overall jobs. As less work will be outsourced. This means there will be less opportunity for independent production companies new and old.

Finally, putting the channel into private hands is concerning for those that love Channel 4s challenging content. While the government says any future buyer must keep the channel’s remit, how long will a new owner heed the remit if they are looking to make profit? While Channel 4 has many hit shows much of its content appeals to smaller markets. Meaning it may not earn as much. And if the channel is aiming to maximise profits the independent projects it chooses will likely be determined by money-making potential rather than merit.

What Happens Now?

Channel 4’s future now entirely depends on the conditions the government give potential buyers and who the potential buyers are.

If the buyers are passionate about television and film production above making money and keep to the mandate to make content for underserved audiences, with independent productions still needing to meet a certain threshold Channel 4’s brand and importance in UK production can possibly be maintained. However, significant job losses would still be a concern.

If the buyer is purely profit-driven then it is reasonable to expect that the challenging nature of Channel 4s output will slowly be eroded. Making way for projects with mass appeal. Regardless of the government’s requirements. Whatever the outcome it is an unfortunate situation for a unique and integral part of UK media production.

Also Read: New Research Shows 70% of International Audiences View British film and TV As High-Quality

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Channel 4: What Happens Next? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Boar On The Floor

This is one of the most intense and uncomfortable things I have ever watched. At a retreat comprising of the Roy family and the top people in Waystar RoyCo, Logan is determined to find out if there is a traitor in the group and to demonstrate his authority. Logan picks out three potential traitors – Karl, CFO of the company; Tom, his son-in-law; and Greg, his brother’s grandson and they play the “game” Boar on the Floor. What follows could be a scene from Lord of the Flies or a documentary on a sinister cult as they break people.

Logan whips up the non-boars into chants and accusations, whilst ritual humiliation is doled out to the “boars”. It is awful to see those who could have been picked but weren’t take gleeful enjoyment out of the game and only a few of the older, more seasoned professionals present seem troubled. No one objects. This is Logan, a man known for his cruelty and ruthlessness, in his most frightening and upsetting. It’s hard to tell whether this is Logan genuinely blind with fury lashing out or this is a more calculated display of power and I’m not sure which is scarier. We see Logan’s fixer Colin quickly ushering out the wait staff and Kendall stop his brother Roman filming the display, both aware that this is not something where you want to have witnesses. Logan flicks between his usual shouting and bullying behaviour to, whenever anyone questions what is going on, saying it’s just a fun game.

Notably, it is not Logan’s children, Kendall and Roman, who are singled out, despite Kendall already launching one coup against his father and Roman having suspicious phone calls and are as likely traitors as anyone else. This perhaps suggests it was never about finding the traitor but simply exerting authority by humiliating people. The other child in the picture of taking over, Shiv, is not present and as Tom is her husband you would hope she would object to this.

Beach Scene

In the final episode of the second season, we see a heartbreaking scene between Shiv and Tom. The two characters married at the end of the first season and the second season has been hard on their relationship (see Boar on the Floor). It is one of the most honest conversations the two ever have, or at least Tom’s part of it is.

Many people, including me, thought at the beginning of the show Tom was only with Shiv for the money and power. So to hear Tom actually complain, to share how he’s been hurt by Shiv (and her family) is almost a surprise, someone only out for money would not do this. Tom delivers one of the most heartbreaking lines of the entire show, in fairness a show not known for dealing with romantic heartbreak or romantic happiness, “I just, uh, I wonder if, I wonder if the sad I’d be without you would be less than the sad I get from being with you.” It is hard to feel too sorry for Tom, or indeed most of the characters, as he’s done terrible things but it is an incredibly rare moment of vulnerability. The battle to control the multi-billion dollar business empire relies on constant lies and schemes to get power and it’s sad that Shiv and Tom’s relationship works in a similar way. In an earlier episode, Logan tells Shiv she purposefully married a man who was not her equal so she would never feel threatened by him, the only way she could trust a husband was to have one she would always have far more power then. Tom’s declaration of his unhappiness and the potential end of their relationship is probably not what Shiv had in mind.

While Shiv was not present for Boar on the Floor she was present for the discussion about who should be the “blood sacrifice” needed in the scandal engulfing Waystar RoyCo and she barely objected when Tom was put forward. Shiv’s argument that if Logan thought she was just sticking up for her husband out of loyalty that would have been worse for Tom, but I think that’s what he really wanted.

Succession can be incredibly funny and anyone looking for comedy I’d suggest these scenes – Tom and Greg testifying before congress, any scene concerning Connor’s political ambitions (Connor being the eldest of Logan’s children but showed no interest in running the business), Kendall’s rap tribute to his father, the game of Good Tweet Bad Tweet.

Also Read: Five Reasons To Watch Succession

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Iconic Scenes: Succession – “Boar On The Floor” & “Beach Scene” appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.