Strike!

It may have come to your attention that in the US at the moment there is a writers strike on. Now equally this may well have passed you by, but if you don’t know much about it then ponder the fact that a few months down the line and the effects will be felt by all. Currently all members of the WGA (writers Guild of America) are on strike, they will produce no writing during this time. Of course this has led to productions being shut down of many of TV’s big shows, 24 has already announced it has been postponed indefinitely and will not start in January as usual, writers also from Lost and nearly every major TV drama have joined in meaning that while the companies may have a certain amount of materials stored up, if the strike continues for a while this will soon run out and the lack of programming on TV will be all too obvious during much of next year.

So what’s the fuss all about? Why are the writers striking? Well many much more knowledgeable bloggers than myself have answered this very question eloquently and I shall link to a number of articles on this subject in a minute. But in layman’s terms, and from my limited understanding, it comes down to the subject of residuals and the internet. Currently a writer is paid in two ways, they get an initial fee for a piece of work and in exchange for signing the work over to the studios (so they become the recognised legal authors) they are entitled to residuals. These are basically royalties, the same as what artists get for music and authors get for books. So every time a TV episode is repeated on TV, or bought on DVD the writers gets a small share of the money (currently 0.3%). The systems works well because the media is an uncertain beast, when writing a pilot for a TV series or a screenplay both the writer and the production company have no idea how big (if any) a success the finished product will be. Consequently a better received, and thus promoted, watched and sold, product leads to more money both for the studio and the writer, the risk of the new remains but it is now shared. After all if there was simply a set fee it would unfair for a studio to continue to make millions from the property years later and have the writer lumped with nothing.

The internet is where the problem lies. You see the future will see convergence between TV and the internet and eventually the two will become one. Already stations are streaming whole episodes and series on their websites and even offering them for download from places like iTunes, and yet the writers have no residuals when it comes to the internet. The production companies claim these streaming broadcasts are merely ‘promotions’, and yet they feature adverts (which make the studio’s money). The strike has happened now because writers got stung a few years back with the proliferation of DVD sales, whereby the studios were very reluctant to negotiate a residuals deal. Rather than make the same mistake twice the guild has decided to sort out internet residuals now, rather than down the line. You see already it is costing money, by streaming episodes or offering them for download the networks don’t need to repeat old shows anymore, in realty they’ve found a way of bypassing the writer and keeping all the profits to themselves. The studios argue that they don’t make any money off of the internet, an argument that is irrelevant especially as residuals deal with a portion of the profits made from a property, hence if the studio makes a loss, the writer doesn’t get anything. The trouble is neither side wants to budge and in the long run it is the viewers who will pay. Writers get a rough enough deal as it is sometimes, they also have pretty amazing jobs, but anyone who views them as whining spoilt rich kids needs to get acquainted with the way things really work. It is a justified and long established idea that creative artists are entitled to royalties and for the muti-billion dollar networks who already control so much of the media and even the production of that media to play the innocent victim in all this is unacceptable.

A deal will be done, and at the end of the day the writers probably will get slightly screwed over once again, but the strike is as much about the result as it is taking a stand. It is heartening to see so many actors and producers supporting the writers, they are the lifeblood of the entertainment industry and are so easily overlooked. If someone asked you to name 10 TV writers could you? I think even I might struggle. Writers fade to the background, many intentionally, but they deserve the proper credit and reward for the job they do. From these people come all the thousands of hours of free entertainment we enjoy every year, some of which affect us in real and life changing ways. Without the writers there would be no TV, and if things continue the way they are, the executives are going to find this out sooner rather than later.

If this story interests you at all then do read up on the stories below, I frequent some of the blogs and they are always entertaining and insightful and, being an (aspiring) writer myself something to look up to and learn from.

The Artful Writer – Blog of Craig Mazin screenwriter of Scary Movie 3 and 4, his site is a veritable goldmine of info on the WGA and the strike and is well worth reading.

John August – Screenwriter of Big Fish and Go details more about residuals and the strike on his blog.

John Rogers – Screenwriter and TV writer whose blog constantly makes me laugh has a lot on the strike as well.

Ken Levine – Legendary writer of shows such as Cheers, Mash and Fraiser keep daily updates of the strike amongst his other humorous posts.

Josh Friedman - Elusive scribe has his own unique take on events, read if you dare.

Article by Damon Lindeloff, one of the key writers from Lost on the strike.

Ratatouille

Two years ago Brad Bird made my favourite film of the year, it was an animated film called The Incredibles, his first film for animation giants Pixar, and barring some extraordinary films passing my way in the next two months, he’s gone and done it again with Ratatouille. The film began life under director Jan Pinkava before Brad was brought on board, normally this is cause for concern, but somehow Bird and Pixar reached deep down and pulled out their A-game. This truly is a magnificent film, funny, touching, absolutely gorgeous to look at and full of heart. What Bird is so good at is working on many levels, all Pixar films have this and it’s what makes them so special. No other production company in recent memory, aside from maybe Studio Ghibli, has produced such a diverse, and high quality series of films and seemingly they just keep getting better, the fact that they churn these masterpieces out at a rate of one a year just makes the films more astonishing. Remy (Patten Oswalt) is a rat that dreams of bigger things than simply eating garbage. He longs to be a chef and loves food. Sure enough when the chance comes he teams up with hapless garbage boy Linguini at Paris’s most famous restaurant and gets a chance to shine. The way that this unusual premise is built upon and established is great, it feels natural and that’s no mean feat when the mere idea of a rat in the kitchen is enough to put most people off their food. Remy himself is a great character, astute, ambitious and torn between his calling and his nature, once again the people (and the rats) of the world feel completely real, there is nothing artificial about them and once again the subtle bits of animation convey so much without the need for words. People always talk about animated films being for kids but there is much here for everyone to enjoy, the deeper meanings of the story and the lavish attention to detail appeal to cinema lovers of all ages, it is obvious that Bird practices what he preaches; the love care and attention are worth it for quality. There is no settling for second best and this striving for greatness is what fuels the film, its message that greatness can come from anywhere is surprisingly heartfelt and a great call to arms for creative people anywhere. The simple act of putting yourself out there and chasing your dreams is celebrated here, a heady message for an animated film about talking rats. As usual the animation is peerless, Pixar have become so accomplished so talented that they make it looks easy. In fact the animation fades into the background, not because it isn’t good, but because it’s so good that you forget about it, you become engrossed in the story and the characters and the fact that they only exist in a computer escapes your mind. This is a living breathing film and on a technical level it amazes, but on an emotional level it accomplishes something else entirely. Paris has never looked so inviting, food is rendered to look mouth-watering and there is seemingly nothing these guys can’t do. There are so many thing I could talk about relating to the film, but I don’t want to spoil it, least of all the hilarious short film that accompanies it beforehand. This is a film best discovered knowing as little as possible, a film that feels fresh and original and in the current cinematic climate that in itself is something to be proud of. I’m sorry if this review sounds like gushing but there is nothing more I can do. This is one of those films that leaves you on a high, reminds you of the magic of cinema and that you keep revisiting for days afterwards. Like the perfect meal Ratatouille somehow mixes all the right ingredients and creates something truly special. This may well be Pixar’s best film, and one I know I will savour and cherish for years to come. A masterclass in storytelling, animation as well as an entertaining and heartfelt ode to creativity, passions and the talent that is uncovered from the most unlikely of places. The best film of the year and yet another reason why Pixar remain one of cinemas greatest treasures.

Reviews, scores and sequels – far from perfect?

There has been a air of muttering and discussion in the gaming community recently with regards to game reviews and scores, in my opinion very welcome discussion as to whether the current model and system is effective and accurate and indeed a fair way of rating and judging the plethora of new releases that hit the shelves every week, some with every increasing hype and publicity surrounding them. Now that we are in November there are two months coming up packing to the gills with big releases, and that’s after such big titles as Halo 3, Bioshock, Metroid Prime 3, Heavenly Sword, Guitar Hero 3 and the Orange Box have already been released within the last couple of months. With all these titles competing for your hard earned money reviews will play a big part in many people’s purchasing decisions, so what exactly is the problem with the way things are at the moment? Well one of the big things people are quite rightly contesting is the scoring systems favoured throughout the industry. Typically games tend to be rated either out of 10 or 100 (as a percentage) but when it comes down to it who decides if a game is worth 86 or 58 or even quite how a 77 game is better than a 76 game? Personal choice? Along with these rather meaningless numbers that can be associated with a game, comes the belief that anything below 70-ish is rubbish. This comes from having too wide a spread of numbers, logically a 50 game should be average, not bad but not great either, however in reality these games are marked in the 60s or 70s. Very few games tend to score below 50, So why have these numbers as an option? Even the magazines and sites that score out of 10 don’t avoid this problem, naturally a game rated 5 will be seen as bad, and best avoided, so average games scores get a bump as a result. Then comes along the issue of perfection. Scoring on a numerical scale implies that a perfect score is possible, it also implies that a game that received this mark is therefore perfect. This is, of course, a load of old rubbish, there is no such quantifiable thing as a perfect game, no such measures exist to mark such a thing, even without such heavy weighing factors as personal opinions there are millions of variables which cannot be measures in such a way. I mean what in life can be? Have you ever had a perfect meal? A perfect date? The term can only exist in quantifiable situations, a perfect score on a maths test for example, a perfect score on the snooker table etc. But while games remain scored this way reviewers will be reluctant to hand out 10s, equally a scoring system out of 100 will never give out the 100 score, meaning that there are scores that will never be used as part of the rating system, it’s crazy. Logically a 10 game should be a rare occurrence, but not impossible. A game that stands head and shoulders above others, that represents the pinnacle of the genre or platform should be applauded as such. One solution is to adapt a similar rating to that used with relation to films, a scar system out of 5, as some have commented a pictorial system doesn’t imply perfection and therefore is less psychologically limiting. However many would argue that scoring at all does games a disservice, how often have you looked a review score first without paying attention to the writing of the review? After 500 words of carefully selected prose, all that matters to some is the number at the end, similarly after years of hard work and thousands of man hours poured into a 20+ hour gaming experience, for many people it boils down to the review score. In this respect I have sympathy, gaming has become such a lucrative hobby and with so many games vying for your attention often review scores are all they have. But equally this leads to rushed reviews, heavily weighted scores for the most hyped games and a general unbalancing of the system. Big magazines and websites fight to get their reviews of the big games out first scrambling to deadlines, are they giving the games a proper run through? How can you just such things as the online service and longevity of the ingame features when you have a couple of days to complete the game and get your review up? Yet these articles are so sought after, and so lucrative that the cycle continues. Unfortunately because of the nature of the beast review scores are here to stay, like them or not. Without a measurable way of rating a game the power would be lost. Central to much of this debate, and what certainly sparked these thoughts in my own mind was the subject of sequels. Unlike films, where sequels are often viewed as inferior and money driven, gaming suits itself to sequels and they have been, in one form or another, it’s backbone for many years now. Yet as new generations of games roll around there are cries to old days of innovation and creativeness, but what many fail to realise is that such a leap is not possible any more. How can any game simulate the jump from 2D to 3D. From pong to Mario? When any art form is in its infancy the leaps are huge and revolutionary, but become less as time progresses. Film critics do not criticise films because they fail to replicate the same sense of shock as the first time they saw Star Wars, or watching a film in colour, or with sound? So why do a lot of game reviews begrudge such a thing? A recent review of Mario Galaxy in Games TM magazine praises the game highly, in fact I spotted barely a negative comment, so why did it not garner a maximum score? What else would it have needed to do to make this jump? The review claims that it is more of an evolution than a revolution – similar claims were recently made of Halo 3 recently. But what else could the developers do? There may well have been justifiable reasons for the score the game received but they were not clear in the review. Sometimes it feels like sequels are actually punished for building on work established in their predecessors, especially if their predecessors are celebrated. No game can replicate what Mario 64 brought to the table, so why mark them down for this? If Galaxy can improve this, add new ideas and show genuine innovation and be celebrated as a better game in itself, why should it be marked down? Surely it should be marked up? I admit that games should be punished for not showing innovation and merely being carbon copies of what has gone before (many EA sports game spring to mind) but the notion that a game could never score as highly as Zelda Ocarina of Time or Mario 64 purely because they are not as revolutionary now is ridiculous and basically trips up all new games at the first hurdle by saying ‘no matter how good you are, you can’t match up to this’ which limits the reviewers opinion from the off. A game that is a sequel needs to be looked at in light of its place in a series, but also as a game in its own right. If the previous game had not existed, what would you think of it? Without the hype and the previews and the claims of the developer, how do you feel when you play the game? How does it compare to similar titles? If the bias of the familiar is clouding out your opinion, ask yourself whose fault that is, the games or your own expectations? This is not an issue that will go away any time soon, but in the future when looking at games, take time to read the reviews, read a few not just one and from a variety of sources. Ultimately games are to be enjoyed, worrying about which games are better than others, or certain games place in the all time rankings is missing the point, as I have said before the games are meant to be enjoyed, savoured and appreciated and with such rich picking this winter, there should be plenty out there for everyone, regardless of the reviews.