MICHAEL B. DEL CAMP'S HOLLYWOOD RESUME:

September 22, 2007 (NPR Post Nov. 29th)
To: The Working Screenwriter
From: Michael Del Camp
Subject: Film Industry - In My Experience - Is a "license to print money" -- (keep reading; you may learn something quite wonderful and awe-inspiring about Hollywood possibilities. No, I am not talking about money; read on, and learn.)

I just read your advisory to a hapless young scriptwriter from Florida on MySpace. I sent a couple of pages letter "treatment" to Disney years ago, describing the "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" premise. All I got back was the resealed letter, and a note from Disney Legal suggesting nobody ever read my treatment, don't call them, they'll (not) call me, and telling me never to send them anything unsolicited ever again.

As it happens, I saved Disney when it was about to go bankrupt, years ago, by
recognizing the hidden value in Disney
products from previous decades that were
already "in the can" (all the animated movies I watched as a kid) and encouraging Chicago Illinois USA (Jewish) money to invest. They did, and they installed CEO Eisner.

Later, I met Warner Bros. Chairman Steve
Ross, who ran film studios, while he was
meeting on the merger with the Time Inc.
Chairman (a U.S. Marine) in Portland, Maine that weekend. After advising him how to negotiate, He asked me, "What kind of movie would you like to see made?" and again, I told him specifically, "Batman without Robin
initially, near futurist like Blade Runner, dark Urban thema, with Jack Nicholson playing "The Joker" character at any price, and with Kim Basinger as the love interest." When Warner Bros. Studio Head Steve Ross looked at me blankly in response, I said, "That's okay: When someone's eyes light up at your mention of "Batman," that person will be your Movie Director for this Film Project." Ross hired 30-something Tim Burton, who went on later to make that weird, animated Halloween film.

At this point, I would like to mention that I gave James Cameron the initial idea for his mega-hit blockbuster movie, "Titanic" when I met with him personally. Also, more recently,
I was the Idea Man behind "300" which is a movie treatment of the Greek vs. Persian Battle of Thermopylae. It was also my idea to make the recent film starring Brad Pitt as Achilles, based on Homer's Odyssey and The Illiad. The film out soon about that proto-hero Gilgamesh (rather, that other English proto-hero) was also my idea. So was the Spiderman thema, using modern cinemagic (computer animations and scene generation.)

Anyway, getting back to Steve Ross and
Warner/Disney, I asked Mr. Ross why they did not do the Marketing and merchandising of their movies, with affiliated products, like Disney did. Now, that style of movie promotion is standard in the (movie making) Industry. I advised Steve Ross to have overseas factories contracted on a standby basis, to crank out the Batman toys and
merchandise in a big hurry, should the film tun into the Blockbuster I anticipated. Mr. Ross made more money, owning these Batman merchandising contracts alone himself, than all the money he made in his entire career up
until that point. In fact, he left so much money to his Connecticut Widow, that she ran a high-end private school that took the kids on a "field trip" to Paris on the French supersonic Concorde. How about that for rich?

When I wrote Steve Ross a letter reminding
him of my origination of this Batman
blockbuster movie making idea that made him fabulously wealthy, he sent his Attorney, the Oliver North House Hearings committee Attorney, Arthur Lyman (sp) (Limon) around to talk to
me in person. He just said, "So then, you have no proof that you were the source of the Batman blockbuster movie idea?" and that was the last I heard from either Steve Ross or his Attorney, Arthur Lyman (Limon). But his meeting
with me is proof that Steve Ross acknowledged my origination of the Batman movie blockbuster Idea. (I did not get two nickels to rub together as a result.)

Not long after, I was met personally by a Canadian Jewish scion of the Seagram's family owned distillery empire, named Edgar Bronfman Jr. (sp). I told him in enthusiastic terms that he should definitely get into Hollywood businesses, because "it is 'a license to
print money'" and I told him about my Batman blockbuster movie idea, that proved so successful for Steve Ross.

Bronfman promptly bought into a Hollywood studio, and I think he is still involved with Universal music publishing company, isn't he? It is the largest in the world, and just signed Utada Hikaru at my instigation. She is
destined to be an even bigger musical
recording star, than she already is in the Far East.

Finally, I am the originator of the idea for the recent Matt Damon movie trilogy, Bourne Conspiracy, Bourne Ultimatum, Bourne Identity or whatever. I met Matt Damon in Harvard Square (actually, in a smaller corner bookstore up the street from the newsstand) with his Significant Other at the time, the beautiful movie actress and singer Minnie Driver. I advised her to "guard your heart" while dating this "pretty boy" Hollywood Hunk Matt Damon, to which Matt took offense. So, to make it up to him - (they did
eventually break up) - I told him about (the) Jason Bourne novels (written by Robert Ludlow), and suggested he could play it as his own "James Bond - like" movie franchise. Well, needless to say, my idea worked, and Matt Damon has made millions using my great movie/film original idea to his own benefit.

All these folks involved can confirm my
retelling here today the tale of my Hollywood genius. Plus, I christened the new Actress, Liv Tyler (in person, of course, in Portland, Maine). Also, I advised Adam Sandler at the start of his movie career, suggesting to him that, "Well, there IS an opening for a Jerry Lewis in the movies, since we have no
one like him now. But you will 'take it on the chin' from your fellow American Jews, because they don't seem to like Jerry Lewis' comedy." Then I suggested to Adam Sandler - (who says in interviews he is 'from New York'
but who is really a graduate of Manchester Central High School here in New Hampshire, and shows up back in-town here with some frequency) - I suggested that if he could somehow combine Sports with Jerry Lewis slapstick, pratfall, physical humor comedy, he might be onto something of a successful Hollywood formula. I said, "Do you like sports?" and he answered that he liked hockey. I said, "What about golf?" and he answered me, as I recall, disparagingly. I said, something along the lines of, "Well, I
guess playing that Bill Murray character in that golf movie is out!" But he did come up with several of the humorous, blockbuster, sports comedy movies that were his trademark - including the hockey player who hit a mean golf ball. Remember Happy Gilmore? That was kinda my idea. Again, not two nickels to rub
together.

I met briefly with the Englishman who came to America and created American Idol. Again, it was my idea, and again, not two nickels to rub together, for me. I specifically advised that he work with his female judge and partner, the American choreographer (Paula Abdul) who did work for Janet Jackson, before starring as her own music artist and music video maker, and then married and divorced Charlie Sheen's brother (star of Repo Man).

I met personally with the famous Manchester inventor, Dean Kamen, and gave him the idea for his people mover invention, the Segway - a motorized, gyroscopically stabilized pogo stick on wheels. Again, not two nickels.

Did I mention that my grandfather Scipio M. Del Campo invented over one hundred
electronic patents for Cinch Connectors (now owned by TRW) and helped create the solid state electronics industry, a precursor to the (miniaturized) microchip electronics industry of today?

Again, not really two nickels.

I could list more of my achievements and
failures in life and business, but you really would not believe it, much as you do not believe what I have already offered you, here. Suffice to say, that when I met with Ray Kroc, and together, we invented the idea for McDonald's, both the franchise industry, and ten percent of successful world business
endeavor (today), was invented.

As I recently asserted to the Senior Senator from Illinois, (Richard Durbin) who is sponsoring his Junior's run for the White House - Richard Durbin and
Barack Obama - I have personally invented more of America's GNP than Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, combined. (And yet still, No Health Insurance!) Sen. Durbin replied, "Yes, but they are in high-tech." So, I told him about my Grandpa, who helped invent the electronics industry as we know it today.

When I find two nickels for myself, (apart from the Hollywood Screenwriters' Strike, because I am not included in their Writer's Union) I will call one (nickel) "Bill" and the other (one) "Steve."

ItaloSuave@earthlink.net

MichaelBernard1@hotmail.com

mdelcamp@yahoo.com

Michael B. Del Camp
174 Brook Street
Apt. 4, 3rd FLR
Manchester, NH 03104-3715

HEAD SHOT: Nevermind

Sent by Michael B. Del Camp aka ItaloSuave aka Manchester Mike | 7:27 AM ET | 11-29-2007

What a pro-industry pile. Sorry, John, no sale.

Sent by Bob Funkhouser | 9:01 AM ET | 11-29-2007

Even were your tone of voice not so petulant, your smere of the writers' collectivism would have been just as offensive, as if to say, "communists". Corporations are no less collective, and having studied and traveled in the old Soviet Union several times, I can tell you that our large corporations, with their bureaucracies and you're either with us or against us mentalities mirror the old Soviet state much more than American unions. Indeed, it's communistic to suggest it's somehow wrong for workers to organize for a fairer slice of the pie, but right for corporations to simply dictate terms. It may be right wing but it's not right or wrong. Your suggestion, which I don't believe for a minute, that the strike has caused you to exhaust your assets to the point your balance sheet is literally going into the red, would, were it true, only ad to the justice of the writers' cause. If writers' really are going into debt after only a few weeks of strike, their share of the pie must really be unfairly small compared to the corporations. It need not be so small to justify action. Though you may wish to deny it, people are behind the writers because they've watched most peoples' share shrink, as the fews' share has grown, to the point a dangerous amount of wealth is controlled by far too few, which history has proved time and again is a recipe for disaster.

Sent by Fred Staggs | 9:24 AM ET | 11-29-2007

Truth. But, writers like artists have followed a clear career path that is well supported by our schools and institutions. It's not just the entertainment produced by writers, its all of the technologies, electronics and gadgets that deliver the product. America exports its culture which in turn influences the world, for good or ill. That culture is pictured, refined and redefined by the professionals who craft it. You. So, I support the writers and the cause, entertainment producers are the migrant workers of the 21st Century. Take what's yours and be done with the mounting debt.

Sent by DC | 9:35 AM ET | 11-29-2007

If I understand Mr. Ridley correctly he is using fear as a tool to undermine what is probably the most important strike ever in the entertainment industry. It is not a joke or even funny to stand on the picket line in the rain and the cold knowing that you are one atm withdrawal away from bankruptcy. I do not know where Mr. Ridley pickets but here in New York the scene has been one of both solidarity and intention. There is a very clear message being sent out and it seems to me that people both care and are increasingly aware. These polls he mentions do not reflect an understanding of what is at stake. If you explain to people that Grey's Anatomy or even Barbershop(the series) was being cancelled due to the strike then you can be rest assured there would be a fight and people would care. It is your job as a writer to make people understand that. Not to perpetuate the elitist image Hollywood writers may have by whining about the cold winter to come but to stand up for what is right. We are all suffering. From actors, producers,grips, electrics to craft service. All of us. You, Mr. Ridley, speak over the air waves from an obviously safe place. You are continuing to get paid for your time and your "writing". Instead of waxing public about a strike that means so much to so many maybe you should take the time to talk to your colleagues on the picket line who are out there everyday getting colder and poorer by the day, nevertheless believing in something enough to fight for. It is commentary like yours that provide fodder for the conglomerates we fight against, but then again I understand you work for them or how you put it...they provide the financial risk in order for you to work for them. So i guess your philosophy would be to bend over and take it.

Sent by Scott Cohen | 9:40 AM ET | 11-29-2007

I appreciated the links in your latest entry. After viewing the You Tube clip, my sentiments exactly matched the quote at the end of your other link: "Stop making me laugh," the writer told his buddy. "It doesn't look good to people who drive up. They will think we're not serious."

I almost hate to say it, but I feel somewhat relieved to not have some of the shows to which I've become addicted. I suddenly have more time to read, cook, and get more involved in the basics of life. I'm actually enjoying it. I hate to say it, because the fact that I love these shows is a tribute to the writers and I feel for them in their struggle.

Can creative people find a way to come across as serious strikers and will that make a difference? What do I know? I'm too busy enjoying my extra free time.

Sent by amy kulik | 9:48 AM ET | 11-29-2007

Although you make a compelling case that America doesn't care who "wins" the writer's strike, as a writer I take offense to the way you trivialize the craft when speaking of the writer's strike. "What's happening in Hollywood isn't a labor action by coal miners fighting for safer working conditions or migrant farm workers trying to earn a living wage," you said this morning. True enough. But is the rest true? "The writers' strike basically shapes up as a couple of third cousins at Thanksgiving dinner arguing over who gets a slightly larger slice of the billion dollar pumpkin pie: the writers who create the movies and shows, or the corporations who actually take all the financial risk that allows us Hollywood writers to write in Hollywood in the first place."

While it is true that the effects of good writing, good stories, fall somewhere higher up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs than safe working conditions, it is unfair, and even traitorous, to declare writing unimportant. Many historians, philosophers, politicians, sociologists, and psychologists--many of them authors themselves--have argued convincingly that art (admittedly a troubling term) requires courage. In the 1970s, psychologist Rollo May wrote about many different types of artistic courage in The Courage to Create; recently Francine Prose picked up the thread of this centuries-old argument in Reading like a Writer: the last chapter of her book, "Reading for Courage," makes a convincing case. Now, I'll allow that perhaps Isaac Babel--the brilliant Russian writer who died by Stalinist fired squad--has little in common with the writers of Grey's Anatomy. But Babel lived in a different time, with different media.

Since you, too, are a writer, I would appreciate the gesture if you could perhaps acknowledge the importance of a good story, well told--and the courage it takes to write one.

Sent by Ben Pfeiffer | 9:52 AM ET | 11-29-2007

I cannot put into words how upset I am about the writers strike!! How dare the money-grubbing corporate employers and the downtrodden sweatshop-living Hollywood writers do this to us??? What are we supposed to do? Watch reruns?!?!? Read a book?!?! Play a board game?!?! Go for a *GASP* walk?!?! This is AMERICA for God's (can I say that?) sake!!!! We demand our mindless distractions.

Sarcasm aside, I could care less about the writer's strike. I won't lose any sleep if there isn't a new episode of Grey's Anatomy or Boston Legal or CSI. In fact, is there anything I can do to make sure the strike goes on forever?

Sent by John Pflum | 9:54 AM ET | 11-29-2007

Your comment about how the studios take "all the financial risk" is a bunch of hooey. Maybe you have never missed rent or Christmas with your family because putting all of your time, energy and money into a project required it. "Financial Risk" is relative to those take it, but the financial gains of the studios would never come to fruition if not for the real courage of the creators who put their futures and families on the line to create the "product". Do those CEO's put their families or vacations or dividends on the line to make a movie? No. Even if they fail, they get a golden parachute. If we fail, there is nothing and no one to cushion the fall. You sound less like a writer and more like a CEO. Interesting. Too bad you choose to use your microphone in such a selfish and irresponsible manner. Shame on you. Expecting to see you on the other side of the rope sooner rather than later.

Sent by Amanda | 11:13 AM ET | 11-29-2007

Why would John Ridley deliver this commentary? There are valid concerns in it, but it profoundly undermines the mission of his fellow writers. I'm sure lots of striking writers have ambivalence and misgivings about the cause, but they don't go on the radio and share it with the country. He spoke of the writers starting to fracture. I wasn't particularly aware of that until he self-fulfilled his prophesy with his commentary. I can only assume he wanted to hear his voice on the radio and could think of nothing else to talk about, or that he is working on behalf of the AMPTP. What a shitty thing to do to the thousands of his fellow writers who are really putting themselves on the line in this strike.

Sent by Dan Sterlign | 11:22 AM ET | 11-29-2007

Of course the WGA picket lines are all about maintaining union solidarity. It's not like they can shut down production. They can only try to cut off the source material. The last scene in the YouTube video "WGA Strike Gets Violent" goes right to the crux of their problem. White collar workers are relative newcomers to union organizing and most haven't yet developed the deeply ingrained grit and determination that's needed for a protracted strike.
PR and public opinion, while not totally irrelevant, help the cause more by bolstering members' unity and resolve.

No, they aren't coal miners or migrant workers. But they are on the cutting edge of a new brand of worker activism. The American economy is shifting to one that depends heavily on intellectual rights, whether it be patents or entertainment content. The rules for slicing up the pie will have to change to reflect this shift. Business always resists such changes, e.g., going from piece-work to the hourly wage. (Ironically, most writers still do piece work - double entendre intended.)

The comment about "the corporations who actually take all the financial risk that allows us Hollywood writers to write in Hollywood in the first place" is totally irrelevant. EVERY organized worker action of any sort is always against a company that takes risks to reap the rewards. The only real issue is how much of those rewards should go to the people whose work made the rewards possible.

In the end, strikes aren't won by PR or videos or speeches. They're won by raw, naked power. To put it bluntly, "Can we make it hurt so bad for the company that it will negotiate an acceptable contract with us?" If you can, then you win. That's what the solidarity speeches and morale building activities are all about.

Hang in there, WGA. It's going to get a lot uglier before it ends, regardless of who wins.

Sent by John | 11:37 AM ET | 11-29-2007

So, John, can we expect a blog with the title of "Bad TV" to pop up anytime soon? Surely a spoof of what talentless, disrespectful picket-crossers might come up with is in order, just as recreation during the strike. The notion of what the arbiters of entertainment consider worthy of distribution is bound to come up too. In the constant battle between what is good and what sells surely someone will be watching and pointing out the dilution of quality, eh?

Sent by Andrew Kottenstette | 11:59 AM ET | 11-29-2007

I was going to make a longer commentary in an attempt to help Mr. Ridley understand a bit more about the dynamics and workings of a strike, but after reading over his other recent articles in the archives I see little point.

Apparently in bio-speak, "intellectually aggressive" means "aggressively jumps to conclusions" and "intersection of politics and pop culture" means "I'll sell you politics like my beloved media corps sell you pop music."

As Mr. Ridley makes abundantly clear in this article, public opinion is useless and inconsequential to him, so don't waste yours here. If Mr. Ridley's pandering to media mega-corps bothers you, spend some time working against the cause instead of the symptom. Stop Big Media, FreePress, and others are there to give you a useful outlet.

Sent by Kelly Logan | 1:11 PM ET | 11-29-2007

I think, Mr. Ridley, you're being defeatist before somebody cries "uncle". There's a gap between the creatively inclined and the common...slubs, but it doesn't mean the Writers Guild's strike is a lost cause. Any social protest is a form of social upheaval. This one happens to be more creative. Aren't you a writer yourself or a wannabe scab?

If there's a "devil may care" attitude, it's from people who've never critically think in their lives. Why the hell we have that idiot in the White House? Also, as an struggling African-American screenwriter, you should have more respect towards your fellow brothers and sisters-in prose on the picket line, as I do, despite bigotry in the industry. Writers, despite race, religion or sexuality, are the same color. Not all of use can be lawyers, doctors, athletes or rap artists.

Sent by Roy Phillips | 1:25 PM ET | 11-29-2007

Maybe I am one of the few who actually care but I have been following the writers??? strike since the beginning and I care. I mean I truly care. I don???t think the writers are being greedy and asking for a little more for their high paying jobs. I think they are owed the royalties they deserve. If the media companies who are paying the writers to write for a show that will be broadcast on television the media company will obviously make money from the broadcast of this show so they should share the wealth with the people who made it possible. That???s part of the way business works in every way. But if the media companies then take that same show and broadcast it over the Internet and the media company makes additional money from that show they are obligated to pay royalty fees to the writers. The writers should have some ownership in their intellectual property. I understand about the risk factor but all companies take a risk when hiring a new employee. However, the company is still obligated to pay their employees before realizing income. The same should be the case for the writers. I think it is unfair that the media companies are making money off the intellectual property of the writers multiple times without sharing the wealth. And besides, I really miss new episodes of ???The Office.???

Sent by Molly Simpson | 2:13 PM ET | 11-29-2007

Ok, I probably don't even have a right to comment about the writer's strike - having the habit of giving the TV a wide berth - but I just cannot resist the temptation to comment on your piece after listening to it this morning.
May be the writers have every legitimate claim to strike, but somehow it still smacks of selfishness - even though I hear that other parts of the industry is rallying to their cause. To bring an entire industry - and its dependents - to its knees for the sake of profit to just a part of it doesn't seem right to me. It doesn't mean that I support the Corporations, but it always seems worse when people try to justify that 2 wrongs make a right.

Sent by Lavanya R | 2:36 PM ET | 11-29-2007

Since overstatement is a popular rhetorical device to get someone's attention, I raise the following question:

Is it unpatriotic to disparage the writers' efforts to secure a greater share of the wealth associated with their work?

Now, how on earth would I come up with such a question? Simple, I refer you to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (emphasis on part between the ellipses):
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries...."

The Constitution does not emphasize the protection of wealth for investors or corporations, but the exclusive rights of authors. This is an explicit recognition that creative work is of great value to society, not just its creator, and must be protected from opportunism and exploitation. If you believe that the basic foundation of American commerce, as defined by the Constitution, has merit then I think you have to side with protecting the exclusive rights of authors.

The fact that authors (writers) have to collectivize in order to secure a share of the wealth derived from their creative works is testimony to the ease with which their exclusive rights can be trampled upon. Collective bargaining is the mechanism by which writers secure some time and opportunity to continue to be creative rather than having to spend all of their remaining time and energy fighting to protect their exclusive rights.

Moreover, as others have intimated in posting, authors take an enormous risk (accrue a large opportunity cost) when producing their works. Their time and effort could have been dedicated to other productive activities. Producers and investors are not the only ones taking risks.

Please, let us not dismiss the wisdom and foresight that led to explicitly addressing the commercial protection of creative works, with emphasis upon the authors of these works, in the first article of our national constitution. Let us not allow the details of how authors secure the wealth derived from their exclusive rights overshadow the fact that it is their exclusive right (of commerce) that is at stake.

Sent by Ross Mitchell | 2:48 PM ET | 11-29-2007

Like most of the public, I support the writers in this struggle. I???m disappointed that you think so little of that. 59% of the American public said the strike has no impact on our lives. But that???s because 77% of us said that we have not missed an episode of our favorite show, yet. Also, I can only speak for myself here, but I???m willing to look for entertainment elsewhere until this gets resolved appropriately. I???ll read more. I???ll surf more. I???ll watch my favorite DVD???s. If this drags on, I'll miss my favorite shows. But, I know they are my favorites largely because of the writers.

An important question was unasked in the polls: ???How long do you expect the strike to continue???? Just guessing here, but quite a few people may believe this will be over quickly, like a recent automotive strike you may recall. Short strike = little impact.

Oh, and your comment about how the studios take the financial risk is completely over the top. No one???s buying that ???risks??? the studios take are in any reasonable proportion to the rewards they???ve reaped. The American people have very little respect for the studios, the profits they generate, or how they distribute the money we give them.

Sent by David Rosselott | 3:22 PM ET | 11-29-2007

Shill of the first degree. I heard this tripe on the way to work this morning. NPR continues its fade from greatness...

Sent by Chris Doyle | 3:55 PM ET | 11-29-2007

The manly thing for you to do after this post would be to refuse whatever gains are made by the WGA from this strike on your behalf. You seem to think you're getting paid too much already, anyway. Okay... so take less of the pie if that's your feeling. But you don't have to disparage those who are fighting for those who will soon be forced to take less when all shows are streamed through the internet and the studios offer zero residuals for it. Or are you just one of those "I got mine, Jack, screw the rest of yas" kind? Shame.

Sent by Clare | 6:25 PM ET | 11-29-2007

I find John Ridley's cynicism towards the writers who are willing to strike over such issues as new media jurisdiction very interesting. Especially since his movie, the very funny Undercover Brother, is a prime example of an internet property turning into millions of dollars of revenue for a studio. Maybe he's so cynical about other writers fighting for their fair share because he's already gotten his.

Sent by Saladin K. Patterson | 6:47 PM ET | 11-29-2007

When John Ridley bites the heads off of fellow striking writers in his stinging NPR critique of what he calls their ???psy-ops success???, he stated that writers aren't, after all, ???coal miners fighting for safer working conditions??? or ???migrant farm workers trying to earn a living wage,??? he???s implying ??? what? ??? that writers don???t have the right to strike because they don???t have dirt under their fingernails?

I???ve got news for Mr. Ridley, in a nation where just about every other middle class white collar job has been out-sourced to third world countries by what he terms ???soul-less corporations,??? preserving the power and heft of America???s middle class is in itself a righteous and, yes, patriotic act. And with the average member of the Writers??? Guild earning $37,500 a year, by any definition, writers are squarely in that middle class.

Dollar for dollar, writers contribute more to the creation of high-level white- and blue-collar jobs than just about any other union group. So don???t talk to me about corporations who "actually take all the financial risk that allows us Hollywood writers to write in Hollywood in the first place.??? No, Mr. Ridley, it???s the other way around. Writers allow corporations to be in the high-stakes money game in the first place.

For the most part, writers are highly educated artists with specialized technical knowledge that allows them to create new worlds, and hence new markets, out of whole cloth. Think J.K. Rowling, George Lucas, Anthony E. Zuiker (creator of the CSI franchise), etc. They are the engine that pulls an economic train of gigantic proportions.

And as for Mr. Ridley???s assertion that the strike boils down to ???a couple of third cousins at Thanksgiving dinner arguing over who gets a slightly larger slice of the billion dollar pumpkin pie,??? again he???s wrong. Because of an inside faction of producer/writers who tilted the settlement of the 1988 WGA strike in favor of those ???giant, soul-less corporations,??? as Mr. Ridley calls the studios, union writers did not get any piece of the DVD pie at all. So now, with new technologies for delivering entertainment emerging, and the bitter experience of losing out to the lucrative DVD market behind them, those members of the middle class, who happen to be union writers, come to this bargaining table with more resolve, more passion and more tools at their disposal ??? tools Mr. Ridley mocks as snarky.

As for what Mr. Ridley terms writers??? ???high-minded collectivism,??? since when was caring about each other and the fate of the community at large a trait not to be celebrated?
And apparently, the public feels the same. They side with the writers ??? even though their lives aren???t impacted.

Maybe America is finally waking from its somnambulism it fell into when Ronald Reagan took office in 1980. Maybe Americans are realizing that a strong and educated middle class, health care benefits shouldered by those who rake in the most profits, and the right to speak truth to power in a public forum are worth fighting for. The striking writers know what???s at stake here. It???s too bad, Mr. Ridley doesn???t.

Sent by prudence baird | 9:09 PM ET | 11-29-2007

It is important for all wage earners that the WGA members stick together and strike until they are treated fairly. Nothing has ever been given for one's labors that was not demanded. At a time when the middle class continues to see their wages stagnate, but conporations, and executives who run them, continue to have their earnings leap ahead. At a time when the earnings of one's labor are taxed at a higher rate than dividends and capital gains, it is up to the vast middle class who support themselves through wages to fight together for the sake of all of us. Corporate America would like nothing better than to see each of use stand individually fighting rahter than band togehter.

Sent by Michael W. Fisher | 9:22 PM ET | 11-29-2007

wow, so much heat regarding this issue...
I don't really watch TV or movies that much myself, I've always considered the whole entertainment industry to be mostly trash. But I'm wondering, my perception of these writers tells me that this whole affair is like a bunch of rich people whining that they aren't rich enough, how much money do these writers actually make? Is my perception off at all?

Sent by Nate | 9:30 PM ET | 11-29-2007

yes, Nate, your perception is off. If you think thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars a year makes you wealthy, then you should be a writer because that is how much the average WGA writer makes annually. Less than a teacher, a policeman, a garbage man, many administrative assistants and more. Yet, writers create whole worlds that employ thousands and thousands of people -- for years.

Sent by pgb | 7:55 AM ET | 11-30-2007

I don't read this with the vitriol of most of the previous posters, but I think it's important to separate the average writers from the highly paid ones--the writers in the trenches of daily work probably slog pretty darn hard and they deserve to paid as much as possible for what they do, especially given the astronomical profits made by the studios. I find that tv has gotten dull but that isn't the point--the point is that as long as the studios, actors, directors and producers rake in the profits, so should the folks who give the actors the words to say. I hope the writers are victorious!

Sent by Marcy | 7:57 AM ET | 11-30-2007

For the most part, I'm a liberal, but I just can't support unions anymore. I think they separate the working class from each other, and as seen here and as evidenced by the polls you cited, most people are too worried about how to feed their own families right now to care about anyone else's. The working class needs to come together as a whole. And while I know that not all writers are millionaires, there are too many that are for most of us to care beyond being disappointed that we don't have our escape mechanism anymore. However, I've found the internet and books to be surprisingly good at filling the void. Even if the writers get everything they want, there will still be effects for others (most likely the studio's personnel not protected by unions) and it will be one small victory in a war we continue to lose.

Sent by April | 1:56 PM ET | 11-30-2007

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head, the Joe's spectrum of feelings regarding this matter range from:

1. Oh, I sort of identify with the writers, writers are the necessary core to movies\tvshows\ect. and it seems unfair to underpay them, but hey, it's not starving children Africa(of which we also don't care too much about).

2. Meh, who cares?

3. Rich b*******, stop complaining and write my stories. SOME OF US HAVE REAL PROBLEMS!

Most who have posted prior have complained about your post have strayed from your point, which is that normal(what passes for normal) people don't care, and even if you win support, it will be in the form of a mild opinion.

I will comment, that funny youtube videos and smart-alec comments takes away from the severity of your situation. It comes off not as charming resilience, but as smugness.

Sent by Phartimus Pungentis | 12:25 AM ET | 12-03-2007