The Phantom Menace, anything with Adam Sandler: just look at that parade of terrible, terrible films. Surely anybody could write better films than these. You could write better films than these, couldn't you? Yet you may have read that Hollywood's screenwriters are threatening to go on strike because they want more money.

Why on earth should the people behind Little Nicky get a cent more out of the movie studios? How dare they?

The writers' concerns divide into two areas. First there is the financial issue, which revolves around what the industry refers to as residuals (more about this in a minute), and second there is a more subtle debate dealing with the lack of respect that writers feel they receive. (Golly, they write American Pie and then they ask for respect, the nerve!).

On May 1st, the WGA (Writers Guild of America) and the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) are due to agree a contract which will set out the financial arrangements between the movie studios and the writers for the following year. The two sides are currently bellowing at each other trying to sort out their differences. If they fail there is a real possibility that the writers will call a strike, thus shutting down all movie production for the foreseeable future.

There are more worries ahead for the studios two months later when they have to approve contracts with the actors' union and the television workers' union. Last year, these bodies called a strike in the commercials industry which cost everybody a fortune. Actress and model Liz Hurley got in serious trouble when she worked on an advertisement during the dispute and ended up having to pay $100,000 to the Screen Actors Guild in compensation. Although they are fighting for similar things, the writers and the actors unions do not get on, so they are negotiating separately.

Let's look at the financial side first. A "residual" is a payment made to a writer, actor or director whenever their work is repeated. In the past, this was fairly straightforward: there were a limited number of television channels and your film was only going to be shown once or twice a year. But over the last few decades this situation changed radically.

New markets have emerged. In the 1980s, video and cable television arrived and more recently we have seen the unstoppable rise of the Internet and the DVD. Also the foreign market - that means us by the way - has mushroomed. In the 1980s, the overseas market accounted for 30 per cent of movie revenues, now it is about 65 per cent. Twenty years ago, the writers agreed to accept artificially low residuals for these new markets in order to keep costs down and help sales to grow. Now they say the time has come for them to get what they are due.

It is remarkably difficult, however, to find out exactly what increase the WGA are asking for. Hilariously, the writers claim it amounts to a 2.7 per cent rise in their residuals, while the studios say it is nearer 40 per cent. To be fair, Writers Guild president John Wells acknowledges this absurdity when he quoted Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics."

Then there is the issue of respect. The writers have got themselves into a tizzy about the way they are ignored by the studios when it comes to press interviews and promotional trips. Think about the number of interviews you've seen with actors and directors - have you ever seen Jonathan Ross talk to a writer? (Then again, would you want to?)

The most contentious issue here however is the so-called "possessive credit". When you see the phrase "A Film by Joe Shmoe" at the start of a movie, you can be sure that Joe is the director rather than the writer. This infuriates writers, who feel that the film is as much their work as the director's.

So will there be a strike? Well, we don't know because, to quote the Hollywood Reporter: "A cone of silence has fallen over the negotiations; nobody is saying anything."

Whatever happens, the studios do seem to be in control. They have rushed dozens of films into production far quicker than normal. As a result, they have a stack of movies that they can release at their leisure, so there is no danger of your local cinema being empty this summer.

Does this mean that the movies will be even worse than usual? Not everyone thinks so; Steven Soderbergh - this year's Oscar-winning director - has said that he thinks that scripts get destroyed when they are worked on for too long. He thinks that the rush into production may be a good thing.

The TV companies have also been busy preparing reality-television shows. These are shows like Big Brother, which feature the public rather than actors. There is no need for professional actors or writers. Clever, huh?

All this has got the writers a bit nervy; maybe the producers can get by without them after all.

Charles Holland, co-chairman of the writers' negotiating team, said in last week's New York Times that the chances of an agreement were better than 50/50. Variety magazine has also reported that the writers may have dropped their objections to the possessive credit. As usual, it seems the guys with the money hold all the best cards.