Well, they saw reason.

Sort of.

SAG leaders Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen made the choice to postpone the authorization vote, and wisely so.

Unfortunately, they seem to be pursuing a strategy of convincing the no voters that they really ought to vote yes.

Ain’t gonna work.  The circumstances simply haven’t changed.  The deal hasn’t changed, the economy hasn’t changed, and last I checked, AFTRA hadn’t disappeared in a poof of smoke.

For all of my disagreements with Patric Verrone and David Young, I always knew why they were doing things.  I often disagreed with their underlying assumptions, but their actions had an internal logic.

I have no idea why Alan and Doug are doing what they’re doing right now.  Their behavior and decisions all feel like reactions, and none of it seems to fit into a coherent strategy anymore.

The strange thing is that there’s really only one possible outcome left, so the machinations are taking on a bit of a sad tone.

Regardless of how the next few weeks play out, I do hope that SAG does find a way to heal itself (and AFTRA along with it).  The rest of us need SAG to find her practicality and proactivity once again.

45 »

Over the course of the last week, things have gone from “difficult” to “dangerous” for the Screen Actors Guild.

Here was the difficult status quo.  The WGA went on strike, the DGA made a deal, the WGA took that deal, then AFTRA chose to split off and bargain on its own.  SAG failed to reach an agreement with the AMPTP, at which point AFTRA stepped in and took what was basically the DGA/WGA deal.

Months ensued, and despite the presence of window-dressing a federal mediator, SAG still refused to accept the DGA/WGA/AFTRA deal.

SAG’s election cycle brought a weakening of the political influence of Alan Rosenberg’s militant faction, but SAG’s negotiating committee, which had been appointed by a prior Rosenberg-led SAG board, responded by requesting that SAG call a strike authorization vote.

At that point in the story, things went quickly from difficult to dangerous.

In the span of just a few days, an open, sizeable and organized revolt began.  It started with letters from individual SAG members like Jason Alexander asking their fellow actors to vote “no” on the authorization vote.  Then the New York SAG Board officially came out against the authorization.¹ Alan called a compulsory national meeting to address this schism, then apparently realized he couldn’t actually compel that, and so he withdrew that meeting.  This was followed by a statement against the authorization by 130 actors, including George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Sally Field, Alec Baldwin, Alan Alda, Steve Carell (who supported the WGA very valiantly during our strike), Matt Damon, Cameron Diaz and many others.

Then Alan and SAG E.D. Doug Allen traveled to New York to meet with the actors out there, and they ran into a buzzsaw.

On top of all of that, NBC opted to eliminate an entire block of prime time programming and replace it with Leno, lopping away WGA and SAG jobs in the process.  And Fox was rumored to be considering doing more–if not all–of its new television programming under AFTRA contracts.

There are bad weeks, and then there are bad weeks.

This was a terrible week for SAG.

Why is this happening, and what should they do?

Militant voices tend to presume that unity is everything.  If something good happens, it’s because the membership was unified and demanded it.  If something bad happens, it’s because the membership was fractured.  Ergo, membership dissent leads to failure, and membership unity leads to success.

And sometimes that’s true.

Not always.

Not this time.

The arrow of causality points both ways.  When you have a just, compelling and reasonable casus belli, the membership will unite.  When you do not, they will fragment.

When the WGA asked its members to authorize a strike, consider what we were being offered.  No residuals for New Media.  Rollbacks in separated rights.  A proposal to move to profit-based residuals.  Armageddon, basically.  That’s one reason I supported the WGA strike authorization.

SAG doesn’t have a compelling reason to strike right now.  Three of the four creative unions have accepted the AMPTP deal.  Subsequently, the financial markets melted down and the world economy slid into recession.  Add to the mix the reasonable perspective that the AMPTP can’t afford to undermine future negotiations by improving upon deals that they’ve already made with the other unions, and then throw in the precarious and shifting political sands underneath Alan Rosenberg’s feet, and it’s pretty clear where this is going.

There’s also the problem of the authorization vote rhetoric.

Union leaders will tell everyone that voting yes on a strike authorization IS NOT THE SAME AS VOTING TO STRIKE!!!  They will put it in caps and repeat that over and over and over.  Yes, that is technically true.

Except that’s what the WGA told everyone, and then we struck a few days after the “Yes” vote came in.

No one believes for a second that Alan and Doug won’t fire the missiles if the membership gives them the launch codes.

But even if they do manage to pull off the difficult 75% threshold on their SAV, it won’t matter.  Too many very high profile actors have already lined up against this publicly.  Melissa Gilbert, a former SAG President, has raised the spectre of a fi-core rebellion.  And AFTRA is likely licking its chops at the prospect of pulling more television under its jurisdiction…and thus putting actors to work in the middle of an actors’ strike.

No, the SAG strike is dead.  You can smell the rot from here.  So what can Alan and Doug do?

First, they need to shift into reverse as quickly as possible.  No sense in mailing out those SAV ballots.  Call off the vote, let everyone know that they’re being responsible leaders and that they are listening to the diverse voices in their union, then sit down with the AMPTP and take the DGA/WGA/AFTRA deal.

It’s the only deal they’re going to get, strike or no strike, and I think they’re starting to realize that.

Second, they need to claim the recession as a face-saver.  Hell, you couldn’t have scripted a better one.  They were ready to fight the companies tooth and nail ’til the bitter end, but since the economy collapsed and good working people are already hurting, they’ve decided to postpone that fight until they know that the only blood they’ll draw is corporate blood.  That’s reasonable.

Third, they need to assure their militant base that this isn’t the last bite at the apple.  And that’s not spin.  New Media is mostly vapor.  For all the Sturm und Drang, the AMPTP companies aren’t making real money on made-for-internet stuff, and they’re not making real money on streaming either.  The deal that the DGA got sets critical precedents for us all, though, and it doubled the DVD rate for EST.  That’s the basis from which we can negotiate if the revenue stream becomes clearer.  Remember…leading up to the WGA strike, the writers assumed that internet sales was all-important, and internet rentals was of secondary value.  Then iTunes came along, and the value of sales and rentals flipped.  Point?  The future is cloudy.  We can attack the companies on principle, or we can attack them on specifics.  I’d rather go for specifics, and I think a lot of actors would agree.

Call off the SAV, cite the economy as a face-saver, make the deal, and prepare for the next round.

This one’s pretty much done, and for good reason.  It’s not the dissenters that killed it.  It’s the facts and circumstances.

1. Curiously, New York tends to be less militant than Los Angeles when it comes to actors, and more militant than Los Angeles when it comes to writers [↩]

76 »

As promised, here’s the story of the pricey pamphleteer.

Before I get started, here’s a little background for those of you who haven’t been following the exciting serialized story known as “The WGA’s Fight To Organize Reality TV.”

In 2004, Patric Verrone began a crusade to organize the workers of reality television.  He was not President at the time, but he was an officer of the WGAw and the chairman of the Organizing Committee.  David Young was not the Executive Director at the time, but the head of the Organizing Department.

Here’s how Patric’s theory went.

In order to get a good contract for writers like, say, me, the WGA needed a better strike threat.  In order to have an effective strike threat, the WGA needed to take away the wedge of non-union reality television, which would help fill programming hours during a WGA strike. In order to take the wedge of non-union reality television away, the WGA needed to unionize the people who made reality television and bring them in under the WGA MBA. In order to unionize the people who made reality television, the WGA would have to step away from its traditional role of representing people who create “literary material” as defined in our constitution, and start representing people who didn’t…like producer-editors, story producers or, well, just editors. And in order to represent all of those people, the WGA needed to do what it’s never done before and get a “union standards” clause, which would bind the companies to require all of their suppliers to be union shops. And in order to get alllllll of that….the WGA needed to run a corporate campaign which would attack the companies, in order to alternatively shame and pressure them into signing over all of reality to the Guild.

Oh, and somewhere in there, I think we had to start breeding unicorns and farting pixie dust, but I was always sketchy on that part.

In 2005, Patric became President. David Young became Executive Director, and David brought in his old boss from his seamstress union days to be the head of organizing. That man, Jeff Hermanson, was subsequently elevated to the number two position at the Guild, assistant executive director.

Since 2004/2005, here’s what Patric, David and Jeff have accomplished in the effort to organize reality television into the WGA.

Nothing.

Zero.

Well, let me take that back, because it’s not exactly true.  We have accomplished some things.

• We convinced the writers of America’s Next Top Model to go on strike. The strike failed, those writers lost their jobs, and ANTM hasn’t employed a single writer since.

• We personally antagonized some of the people we have to negotiate with (Les Moonves and Dawn Ostroff come to mind) without actually achieving anything other than ill will as a result.

• We launched DOA websites protesting product integration that we were told would “go viral.” Hint: if you design something to go viral, it almost certainly won’t.  No exception here.

• We hired dozens, if not more, new staff members to help achieve our organizing goals.

• We bussed and flew and housed lots of people to San Francisco and Puerto Rico in an effort to stop people from watching American Idol.

• We spent millions and millions of dollars, all provided by the dues of working writers.

• Last but not least, we actually did strike without having reality under our contract. And even though Verrone had suggested this would make us a toothless dog, we proved that we don’t need reality.

Here’s what we haven’t done.

We haven’t organized a single true reality show¹, much less an entire production company or network or industry.

Not one. In four years.

After millions of dollars.

So…what to do?  Time to abide by the old Einsteinian saw and cease doing the same thing, expecting a different result?

Nope.

You see, this reality organizing strategy refuses to die.  You can shoot it, stab it, feed it poisoned cakes and throw it into the icy river, but like Rasputin, it just won’t go down.

Unlike Rasputin or the Terminator, it doesn’t try and sway your monarchs or kill Sarah Connor.

It just eats money.

Day after day, week after week, fiscal year after fiscal year…this beast burns through our dues, accomplishing nothing, making no dent…

But you came to find out about the pamphleteer.

A few weeks ago, Jeff Hermanson, along with three other staffers, was arrested at the Hollywood & Highland Mall for handing out fliers protesting American Idol. The charges were likely baloney…trespassing or what have you. But that’s not what caught my eye.  What caught my eye was that Hermanson was out there doing this.  Still.

Union staff salaries are public record.  Jeff Hermanson makes about a hundred and fifty grand, and this is what we have him doing?  Standing on corners handing out leaflets?  Is that what it’s come to?  The number two staffer in our union is doing something that pointless, that ineffective, that useless?

I’m sure the arrest itself was something of a high note, as it might have given the whole affair a patina of old-time labor heroics, but the old-time labor heroes actually got stuff done.  We’re not.

Now I’ve taken many pains to suggest that people who actually do the job of writing on these shows are being mistreated.  They do deserve the benefits that come with union representation. That’s why we should drop this nonsense of using them as a strike wedge against the companies, and just do the job of organizing them show by show under a separate collective bargaining agreement.  By not doing that, we’re holding all of those people hostage to our own misguided strike strategy.

Meanwhile, we’re not only failing reality writers, but we’re failing our own members.  It takes TEN MILLION dollars of earned income to generate the dues to cover Mr. Hermanson’s salary each year.

Ten million dollars.

I should think that for the ten million dollars of earned income, we’d be getting someone who is spending his time either revamping a complete failure of a strategy, or creating a new and effective strategy for other areas we sorely need to organize, such as basic cable. But standing on a corner handing out pamphlets to tourists? Because we actually think that’s going to make a dent in American Idol’s ratings? Like zombies, the reality organizers keep stumbling through their old routines, not realizing they’ve been dead for years.

I submit that Jeff Hermanson is passing out fliers to anyone bored enough to reach for one because he really doesn’t know what the hell else to do.

It’s a sign, don’t you think?

As a dues-payer, I really feel like we deserve better.

Reality writers really really deserve better….and fast.

1. There are certain variety game shows, like Smarter Than A 5th Grader, that we have organized, but they aren’t true reality programs like Survivor or American Idol or other shows that don’t feature a new contestant for each episode [↩]

35 »

Cleaning out my e-mailbox, I came across a copy of the WGAW’s electronic members’ newsletter, WRITE NOW, from December 3.

In the upper right hand corner was a box, that said:

DID YOU KNOW … that MBA [sic] covers writers on ‘Reality’ television?

It went on:

To better understand this point, one must simply be aware of the WGA’s historical jurisdiction along with a few simple definitions within our MBA.

Murderlized syntax aside, I was intrigued. Since the reality production process was specifically designed to skirt the Guild’s historical jurisdiction — in no small part, by exploiting definitions within the MBA intended to prevent non-writer employees from encroaching on the compensation and benefits won by writers for writers — I wondered how Guild organizers were going to prove their thesis.  So I clicked on the READ MORE link, which took me to a hidden page in the “If You’re a Member” section of the WGAW’s website.

According to the article:

The WGA has always covered the ‘reality’ genre …

Really?

Odd, then, that in the last negotiation, even after Guild negotiators had yanked off the table things like increases in DVD residuals and premium cable residuals and eliminating the discount for the CW network and other things that directly affect writers who work under MBA, the Guild nonetheless still had us all  picketing in support of a demand to cover reality.

If the WGA has always covered the ‘reality’ genre, I mean.

But, okay, the article’s thesis is, the MBA covers writers in “Reality” television, and the first proof is, the WGA has always covered the “reality” genre. Continue:

… although historically these shows have been called comedy-variety, quiz and audience participation, documentaries, docu-soaps, and competition shows.

Huh. I recognize “comedy-variety,” “quiz and audience participation” and “documentary” as areas of employment covered under Appendix A of the MBA. 

“Competition” and “docu-soap,” though ..? Those words are sometimes used to describe different types of reality shows, sure — but they are not areas of employment that the Guild has ever covered. 

Historically speaking, that is.

The article then goes on to draw a false syllogism. Take a look:

For example, Star Search was covered under the MBA. Thus, it’s disconcerting when reality-producing giants, like FremantleMedia, refuse to admit that there are professional writers on a hit-show like American Idol. Indeed American Idol’s show concept is the same as that of Star Search. The reality is simple: writers existed on Star Search and they exist on American Idol.

See what I mean?

• The Company that produced Star Search employed people in the capacity of “writer” to provide services writing literary material as defined in Appendix A of the MBA, and was signatory to the MBA.
• Star Search was a talent competition.
• American Idol is a talent competition.
• Therefore, the Company that produces American Idol employs people to provide services writing literary material as defined in Appendix A of the MBA.

The last is presented as though it has been proven, but it hasn’t been.  All this argument proves is, employees of Freemantle who work on American Idol could be covered under the “comedy-variety” provisions in Appendix A of the MBA — if any of those employees meet the definition of “writer” in Appendix A of the MBA.

And, as far as I understand the terms of the MBA, none of ‘em do. 

But, then, that’s why I wanted to read the article. Because it promised it was going to help us Guild members simply understand a few simple definitions in the MBA.  So, first up:

Article 1.C.1.a. (1) of the MBA states:

A “Writer” is a person who is engaged by the Company to write literary material as defined herein (including making changes or revisions in literary material), when the Company has the right by contract to direct the performance of personal services in writing or preparing such material or in making revisions, modifications, or changes therein.

Yes, that is the definition of “writer” from the general television definitions of the MBA. Somebody who is employed by a production company to provide services writing literary material as defined in the MBA. 

But, since the Guild’s reality organizing campaign keeps running smack up against the fact that reality prodcos don’t employ people to provide services writing literary material as defined in the MBA … this doesn’t really prove that the MBA covers writers in reality television.

But, wait, now we come to the “professional writers” portion of our edumacation. This is a key point to the article’s argument, so here’s what the article offers up, in full:

The MBA covers PROFESSIONAL WRITERS defined under Article 1.C.1.b of the MBA, which states: 

A “professional writer” means any person who has received employment for a total of thirteen (13) weeks as a television, motion picture or radio writers…

Hey, hold up — that’s not the entire definition — oh, you’re not done? Sorry, go on.

Explains the article:

Basically, a professional writer is a writer who is hired for at least 13 weeks of employment to provide literary material as contracted by a Company who has the right to direct the performance of the personal service in writing such material or in making revisions therein.

Basically?

Basically that’s how the MBA defines “professional writer”?

Only if “Basically” is being used here to mean:

“Ignoring the language in the contract, the bargaining history of the contract, and the Guild’s history of enforcement of the contract, and presenting only part of the definition out of context while ignoring everything and anything else that does not support the argument –”

– then, sure, “basically,” that’s what a professional writer is. 

But that’s not even close to what “professional writer” actually means.

The term “professional writer” in the MBA means — in both the television and theatrical articles — someone from whom a signatory Company acquires or licenses the rights in literary material written on spec, who meets one of a number of criteria that entitles to him (or her or they) to all terms and rights in the MBA as minimum terms in the sale/license agreement.

One of those criteria is, if the Company acquires literary material written on spec from a person who “has received employment for a total of thirteen (13) weeks as a motion picture and/or television writer, or radio writer.”

That means, if a spec writer has at any time in the past been employed for an aggregate of 13 weeks in any of those capacities — whether under Guild jurisdiction or not — then the Company must acquire or license the spec material subject to the MBA.

(The other criteria are: has received credit on the screen as a writer for a television or theatrical motion picture; has received credit for 3 original stories or 1 teleplay for  1-hour or longer live television program; has received credit for 3 radio scripts for 1/2-hour or longer radio programs; has received credit for 1 professionally produced play on the legitimate stage, or 1 published novel).

The most interesting thing about the definition of “professional writer” as that term is used in the MBA?

Anyone who is covered under the MBA as a “professional writer” is, must be, and can never not be, a non-employee for the purposes of the spec literary material being acquired or licensed.

The fact that the material is written outside any employment or work-made-for-hire arrangement is what makes it spec material, and is exactly the reason why the Company must acquire or license the rights in it.

Sheesh.

The Guild’s argument that the MBA covers employees in reality television that Guild organizers call writers is founded in a term of the MBA that is wholly inapplicable to any employee of Freemantle, or Mark Burnett, or any other company that produces programs in any “genre,” including reality.

But, there’s a bigger issue here.

This article is posted on the WGAW website, it was linked to from the WGAW members newsletter, and it is targeted at Guild members.

The article intentionally misrepresents the very definition of the work writers are paid for under the MBA … to the membership whose professional interests the Guild is supposed to represent.

This article is intended to misinform the membership about fundamental terms of the contract that has major impact on our professional careers.

This article is endemic of the willful ignorance toward the MBA that has plagued the  WGAW for the last few years — a willful ignorance that allowed networks to exhibit entire episodes of tv shows on the internet as “promotional use” without the Companies ever applying for waivers or the Guild billing them for clip fees … that encouraged Guild members to call other Guild members “scabs” and “strikebreakers” for providing services that are not covered under the MBA and, in some cases, specifically and explicitly excluded from MBA jurisdiction … and that ultimately resulted in a contract that …

… well, for now, let’s just say that when WGAW President Patric Verrone called it “the best deal this Guild has bargained for in 30 years,” his use of the word “best” had the same relationship to the actual meaning of the word “best” as the article’s use of the word “basically” has to the meaning of “basically.” More later.

There’s no excuse nor justification for the Guild publishing this article, or doing anything else, that demonstrates such monumental disregard and disrespect for its own collective bargaining agreement.

Because, you know … if we do that, then the studios may get the idea that its okay for them to do it, too.

Oh, wait.

Hm.

-Ted Elliott

5 »

I usually don’t comment on stuff from Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily.  Her site isn’t really my cup of tea: too breathless, too concerned with “toldja!” and a little too enamored of current WGA and SAG leadership.

On the other hand, her site (unlike this one) exists in no small part to generate readership and ad revenue, and she seems to do that well, so more power to her.

Sometimes Nikki gets into scraps with people. Currently, she’s in a bit of a contretemps with another journalist cum blogger Sharon Waxman.

Nikki takes issue with Sharon’s post about an alleged meeting of big stars giving a prospective thumbs up to a SAG strike.

I think Nikki’s right.

The whole thing smells of bullshit to me.  Here’s Waxman’s opening paragraph:

 

They met in the private room of an Italian restaurant, like in a scene from one of the Godfather movies: Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Nick Nolte, Annette Bening — about 20 of Hollywood’s great stars from the past 30 years.

Their faces were grave. The subject was serious: the livelihood of the entertainment industry and the prospect of yet another strike, months after the end of a painful writers guild strike.

Waxman goes on to allege that a source told her the group literally voted, with bits of paper, on whether or not SAG should move toward a strike.

In another post (written after Nikki criticized the story), Waxman writes:

Here is what makes me curious about this story. SAG acknowledges that it has occasional meetings “on set” and elsewhere with top stars to talk about issues of the day. How often does this occur? In what context? And who is informed about such matters? Apparently not the membership.

This was when I started to think Sharon had just been rooked, plain and simple.

Yes, these meetings occur in advance of every negotiation.  Yes, there are broad outreach meetings to the membership at large as well as smaller outreach meetings to “top” artists.  The WGA has done this for years (I myself presided over one in Pasadena when I was on the Board in 2004), and I have no reason to think that the DGA and SAG don’t do it as well.

Why shouldn’t they?  The WGA understands that the companies don’t care as much about the rarely-employed.  If the top 200 screenwriters aren’t firmly on board and if the big network and cable showrunners aren’t on board, a strike simply will not work.  Ever.  That holds even more true for SAG. Their big members aren’t just of greater interest to the studio, but they also have the precious ability to get on the news and speak out.

Why would SAG ever dare hold a strike if they thought thirty bigshot actors were going to badmouth them on the news?  Can you imagine how devastating it would be if someone like Morgan Freeman–a man who is routinely paid millions of dollars because he is so good at portraying innate wisdom–went on MSNBC and calmly explained in his Voice of God why the strike was a bad idea?

Who among the general membership of SAG would be dense enough to criticize such efforts by the union?

Yes, of course SAG holds outreaches with big stars and influential actors.  Yes, of course Alan and Doug are both telling them what they think is coming and then asking them for their opinions in return.  Yes, of course they’re trying to gauge whether or not they have real support for a possible strike.

And yes, of course members-at-large presume this happens.

Where Sharon went wrong is turning those obvious, common-knowledge facts into some sort of back-room conspiracy replete with secret ballots. And what would those votes even mean? Is it something as simple as “So…if we struck, would you support us?” Or “write down some of your thoughts on why you would strike, we’d like to know?”

And then rinse-lather-and-repeat that across many meetings, rather than just target one super-secret Godfathery cabal meeting?

Does anyone honestly seriously believe SAG’s strike policy revolves largely around the concerns of Nick Nolte?

Sorry, don’t buy it.

Well…I’ll admit…I thought about buying it…but then I read this from Waxman:

Readers will recall that SAG is not always an organization that makes full disclosure a part of its every day habits. Just weeks ago I broke a story about SAG sitting on $25 million in “unclaimed residuals.”

She’s talking about foreign levies.  I’ve been writing about the foreign levies issue for years now.  Eddie Haskell sued SAG over this very issue over a year ago.  How the hell is she “breaking” this story?  This is old news.  If she’s talking about breaking the fact that number has gone up from 10 million to 25 million, I suppose she can technically count that as a “break,” but is that really something to crow about?

If Variety reports on the discovery of JFK’s clone…and he’s been murdered, stabbed to death 10 times!…and then a year later Sharon finds out that he was really stabbed 15 times…is she really “breaking” that big JFK Clone Murder story?

I know as well as anyone that reporting on the facts of labor-management negotiations and work actions is tricky…people tell you things that they honestly believe are true, and it turns out that they’re not. Mistakes are inevitable.  I was told in the first day of the WGA strike that picketers weren’t covering the truck gate at Warner Brothers, and I was wrong about that one and apologized.  Hell, I myself ended up picketing that gate a few weeks later.

Still, most mistakes are made avoidable simply by knowing more about the world you’re blogging.  Ms. Waxman may have gotten the facts right…

…but I’m pretty sure she got the context completely wrong.

3 »

 

23 »

 

Christmas is just around the corner, because it’s not summer anymore.  Well, I think that’s the new definition of “Christmas is just around the corner,” and I’m sure that’s why I just received a nice new catalog from The Writers Store.

I’ll probably never get one again after this.

When it comes to the cottage industry of books, software, conventions, pitchfests, readathons and whatever the hell else preys upon the desperate and unsold, I’ve always taken a dim view.

That said, this latest catalog brings a fresh harvest of useless crap, and in the interest of saving you some money during a tough economy, here’s some of the stuff that I think might actually be worth owning, and much more of the stuff that really, really isn’t.

LifeJournal For Writers - $39.95

Writers write.  We’ve all heard that a million times.  Unfortunately, it’s not easy.  That’s where LifeJournal comes in.  You pay $40 for software (ooh, it’s on your computer…!), that lets you “work on drafts, do writing exercises to increase your skill and record thoughts, all the while staying completely organized.” The software encourages you to “write freely, more deeply, and more often.”

The only other tool I can think of that does this is paper.  But if you hate paper, I think you could probably get the same encouragement from a combination of TextEdit and a minimum of one finger.

PASS

 

MacSpeech Dictate - $179.95

“Hey,” you proclaim.  ”I like what you had to say about that LifeJournal, but I don’t have a minimum of one finger! My hands are just palms and knuckles.  Is there writing software for people like me?”

Why yes, there is! MacSpeech Dictate and its similarly expensive PC cousin Dragon Naturally Speaking allow you to TALK your screenplays into your computer! That’s right! If screenwriting was burning up too many calories before, now you can do it without moving at all.

If you are legitimately disabled, then you already have this software, because it’s necessary.

If you’re not, this is just a bad idea. Screenplays are supposed to be written.  The act of writing forces the mind to be disciplined. If you speak screenplays, you will end up with horrendous runs of endless, unedited dialogue. Besides, this isn’t the bridge of the Enterprise, and you’re not Whorf.  Talking commands to your computer is absurd.

Data was the smart one, right? He always typed.

Save the money you’d waste on this and take that much-needed touch typing class at your local night school.

PASS

 

Classic “Writer” Hat - $9.95

It’s a classic! A baseball hat with the word “Writer” on it! In Courier, no less!  Isn’t that great? Now the whole world will know that you HAVE NEVER BEEN PAID TO BE A WRITER.

PASS

 

Quotable Mugs - $14.95

These lovely mugs come with encouraging quotes like “Life isn’t about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.”

Or “Take pride in how far you have come, and have faith in how far you can go!”

I presume the mugs themselves are to collect the copious puke these quotes elicit.

I should start selling mugs that say “Piss Off…I’m Writing”.  Because if you’re not, well, coffee’s for closers, people.

PASS

 

Gorilla - $189 - $399

Making movies was either something film students or professionals could do. Not so anymore. Excellent cameras and editing systems are affordable to the layperson.

All you need to do is have some talent, right?

Well, not exactly. Writing is a skill and directing is a skill, but so is producing. If you’re going to make your own movie, there are about fourteen million tiny moving pieces that need to be planned for, organized, wrangled and executed.

Gorilla seems like a pretty good way to get on top of that, from scheduling to budgeting to call sheets and so forth. I’ve never used it, but the idea of it seems pretty good.

RECOMMEND IF YOU’RE ACTUALLY MAKING A MOVIE

 

The Writer’s Mind - $17.95

This product will help you “increase your creativity, find the motivation to finish your latest writing project, and get rid of writer’s block once and for all.”

What do you think it is?

No, not cocaine.

It’s a CD! And what do you think is on that CD?

No, not a lecture.

It’s….wait for it………here comes the secret…..!

THE SOUND OF GENTLY FALLING RAIN!

At first I was skeptical, because the sound of falling rain always interferes with my ability to finish my latest writing project. Then I went back and read it again and noticed the word “gently.” Ah, NOW I’m intrigued!

Gently falling rain DOES sound motivating!

How does it work? Well, it manipulates our brainwave states through sonic frequencies! Boy, I sure hope so…all that science talk sure has my brain reeling!

And what do the brainwave changing sonic frequencies do? Well, according to this catalog, “your mind will be kicked into creative overdrive!”

Holy shit! MY MIND! IN OVERDRIVE! I CAN SMELL THE DIMENSIONAL FABRIC OF THE UNIVERSE! THE THIRD EYE! I AM STARING INTO THE THIRD EYE!!!!!!!

Oh, wait, no…I’m just listening to a CD of rain. Falling.

Gently.

If you buy this product, you are neither a writer nor a person in the Venn Diagram Circle entitled “Not Morons.”

PASS

 

Let’s Sell Your Script - $23.96

Here’s the description of this boook.

“Get prepared to navigate your way toward actually selling your screenplay!”

Well…damn.

The presumption of this book is not that your screenplay is unsellable. No, the book is quite sure that it is.

The presumption of this book is that you’re so psychologically crippled, the mere thought of selling it is paralyzing to you.

First, you must prepare. No, not to sell it…slow down, you’re going to hurt yourself! Just prepare yourself to NAVIGATE.

And then sell it?  Easy now, big fella. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Just navigate your way toward selling it. Just toward it. In that general direction.  But don’t don’t actually get there. And don’t actually even move at all toward it. Just prepare to move toward it. Pack some sandwiches, put on sunblock, that kind of shit.

The word “actually” in “actually sell!” comes with the full payload of your own incredulousness at the notion that you’ll sell this script, or get out of your mom’s basement, or get laid, or not die alone.

PASS

 

So, Is It Done? - $27.96

This book contains “five rounds of revision that you can try on your own or with a group or class.”

I don’t know what the rounds are, I don’t know what the advice is, but yeah. Sure. This can’t hurt. Most writing “groups” are really just circle jerks designed to pump the egos of both the narcissists and the bottomlessly insecure.

But if a writing group actually commits itself to doing the hard work of writing and rewriting and revising and improving, then the participants might actually get something valuable out of it. Even if the advice is bad, the mere act of subjecting one’s self to critique is a necessary part of the growth cycle of a professional writer.

RECOMMEND UNLESS THE BOOK IS STUPID

 

Script Binding Kit - $39.95

Not a bad little package for someone looking to mail out a bunch of scripts. You get three hole punch paper, some nice linen script covers, good old Acco brads, a script binding mallet, and some–

Wait, what?

A script binding mallet? What’s that for, to beat yourself in the face once you realize no one’s buying your 184 page space opera?

I swear to God, just when this thing was looking reasonable, they have to throw in a mallet. I have survived for 15 years in the screen trade without ever malleting a single draft.

Must have been dumb luck.

PASS

 

Scriptfolio - $65-$85

This is a leather clipboard with pockets and so forth for “IDs, credit cards, access passes and business cards.”

Finally, a place to put my business cards and access passes!

Here’s a closely held belief of mine. If you’re a writer and you have business cards, please dispose of them. They’re stupid. Your business cards are your screenplays. No one will ever call you about anything other than your screenplay, and your screenplay has your email address or phone number on it already.

As for the access passes, well I suppose that could come in handy–

–if you’re working inside Blofeld’s volcano.

PASS

 

Little Thinker Writer Dolls - $13.95

11″ tall, soft squishy dolls.  They have Jane Austen, Charlie Chaplin, Edgar Allen Poe, Oscar Wilde, Sherlock Holmes, Virginia Wolfe and William Shakespeare.

Isn’t that just adorable-worable-schmorable?

Still, a few concerns.

First, I don’t know who Virginia Wolfe is. I know who Virginia Woolf is, but let’s not be picky. That’s the sort of mistake only writers would care about, and this isn’t a catalog for…oh.

Right.

And then there’s the famous writer Sherlock Holmes. Yes, I want an 11″ tall soft squishy Sherlock Holmes, because I’m so fond of all the novels he would have written if he had actually existed.

Look, it’s obvious that if you buy anything called a “Little Thinker Writing Doll,” your life is functionally over. You’ve become that person–the sort that just waits around until their heart stops–filling the irrelevant moments of your existence with small, misspelled plush toys that manage to mix up great writers with the characters they created.

If you purchase this item, Arthur Conan Doyle will rise from the dead and smash you in the face, possibly with a….

 

Literary Figure - $9.95

These 5 1/4″ tall hard vinyl ACTION FIGURES are the “perfect writing desk companion!”

You can choose from Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde…again, there’s the inexplicable option of Sherlock Holmes, but just in case that’s not strange enough…

…there’s Leonardo Da Vinci.

Genius, yes. Wonderful painter, illustrator, scientist, thinker…

…but I don’t recall ever reading his novel.

PASS

and finally…

 

Shakespeare Naughty Pillow - $29.95

This is exactly what it sounds like. It’s a pillow with a bunch of “bawdy” Shakespeare quotes.

So you’re a writer…overweight, slouchy posture, pallid skin, bad eyesight…but don’t worry. Once you get those four Long Island Ice Teas into that girl at the bar and bring her back ’round your sweet Valley Village love pad, she’s going to stumble to the bed, catch a glimpse of the naughty pillow and read something like:

But that I will have a recheat winded in my forehead or hang my bugle in an invisible baldric all women shall pardon me.

Ohhhhh YEAHHHHHHHHH.

You know what’s great about the Shakespeare Naughty Pillow? It pretty much guarantees you will never have sex for the rest of your fertile life, ensuring the end of every genetic line predisposed to buy stupid crap like a Shakespeare Naughty Pillow.

Might take a few generations, but Darwin is patient.

PASS

24 »

Good. It’s over.

But more importantly, even though I didn’t vote for Barack Obama, I’m happy that he’s my President, and I support him.

I think two very positive things may emerge.

First, I hope that the Republican Party pulls its head out of its ass, quits being the Party of the Evangelicals, and returns to both preaching and practicing the core values: lower taxes, less expensive and intrusive government, self-reliance, entrepreneurialism and a strong defense.

Second, I hope that we shed some of this awful cynicism. See? Diebold didn’t steal Ohio. No one shot Obama. There is no “Bradley” effect. I dread that the cycle will continue, and we’ll see a repeat of what happened when Clinton was elected (the investigations, the accusations, the stupidity from the right wing) or when Bush was elected (the investigations, the accusations, the stupidity from the left wing).

Part of “hope” for me is the hope that we all give each other a little more of a break. Turn away from the blogs that do nothing but spout partisan divisiveness. Stop thinking of elections and government as sporting events.

Maybe I’m just used to this because I’ve voted for the loser three times in a row now.  :)  All I can say is this: I have nothing but the highest hopes for President Obama.

And you should too.

In the next couple of days, I’m going to write a piece about what this could mean for unions in this country.

20 »

The trend seems inescapable. Studios are obsessed with adaptations. The movie business, which used to be powered by original screenplays, is now concerned mostly with converting pre-existing works into films. If it isn’t a comic book, graphic novel, book, foreign film or video game, well…no one’s interested.

That’s the conventional wisdom, at least.

But is it true?

I don’t have any statistics to back the claim up, but let’s stipulate that everyone’s gut sense is true: studios are more motivated to fund adaptations than they are originals.

It’s nothing new, of course.  Movie studios have always chased best-sellers and Broadway musicals, but as culture grows around itself, the movies inspire books that inspire movies that inspire musicals that become CD’s that become movies.

That’s how John Waters can write an original film called Hairspray that becomes a musical called Hairspray that becomes a film of the musical called Hairspray.

Fair enough.

But why are the studios so attracted to adaptations?

Here are some theories (with attendant debunking).

Adaptations Have Marketing Advantages

Competing for eyeballs has become a bloodsport in our culture, and if your movie is based on material that has already planted its flag in the audience’s brain, you can draft behind that awareness.  Of course, this theory doesn’t explain the entire obsession, since many adaptations are of yet-to-be-released novels or extremely obscure comics.

Adaptations Are Easier To Create

Writing something new is hard, you see, whereas adapting a pre-existing work into a screenplay is like a cakewalk.  Easier for the studios, easier for the writers.

Except that’s pretty much never the case.  Movies often differ wildly from their source material, and the process of taking something that wasn’t written to be a movie and turning it into something that is can be brutal and, occasionally, impossible.

I’m a huge fan of the graphic novel Watchmen. I cannot fathom how the screenwriters managed to adapt all that material in a satisfying way. That’s an extremely high degree of difficulty.

Adaptations Do Better At The Box Office

That seems plausible. Think of all the huge hit films from comic books alone. The only problem is that it’s apparently not true.  According to Variety, when you look at the top 20 films from each of the last ten years, you find that movies from original screenplays (and their sequels) actually earn more than adaptations! Don’t believe it? Well, consider The Matrix, all the Pixar films, the Austin Powers movies, Meet The Parents, Rush Hour…even our lowly little Scary Movie series.

So if it’s not money earned, then…?

Adaptations Are Cheaper To Make

Well, that just doesn’t seem very likely. Sure, big original spec sales like the one for Deja Vu can cost a pretty penny, but so can buying out the underlying rights to a bestseller.

So what’s left?

Maybe the dreaded psychological explanation?

Adaptations Feel Less Risky To Make

I’m sure everyone who read The Matrix thought it was a fantastic screenplay. That’s not the Big Question. The Big Question is…should you make it or not?

I’m happy that I don’t have to make those decisions. Not my problem. But for those who do, I suspect that there’s a comfort in making adaptations that goes beyond even the fact of the so-called “built in audience” (which often isn’t really built in).

No one would argue that there’s a natural human tendency that connects “belief in” with “realness,” and I think people view underlying material as more real than screenplays.

Why?

Books aren’t written to be movies. They’re written to be books.  Same for plays and graphic novels and epic songs and video games. They are their own ends. They are, for better or worse, completed works of art.

Screenplays are not. Screenplays are transitional art. They are a theory, an imagining…but of something else.

I’ll argue that studios and producers are occasionally seduced by the notion of adaptation because it grounds them and their risk in something that is very real and permanent.

Does that make sense? No, not particularly, but I’m not here to pen jeremiads against irrationality. We are all irrational to one extent or another. What matters more, I think, is how to navigate the predictable currents of bias when we encounter them.

Hollywood will always buy original scripts. I don’t think they’ve gone completely out of style. Still, given the predilection for source material, more and more screenwriters are doing something very bold and very smart.

They’re writing their own.

My friend Larry Doyle, for instance, had a story for a very funny screenplay, but no one was jumping at it.

So he wrote the very funny book first.  And, somewhat predictably, once it was real, he was hired to adapt his novel into the screenplay he had intended to write in the first place.

The movie is coming out next spring.

My former writing partner did something similar. He and his partner wrote the manuscript for a graphic novel, sold it to a publishing company, and then turned around and sold the film rights to Ben Stiller’s company, where they are writing the script.

I think you’re going to see this more and more. Don’t get me wrong: it’s not required. And there are still plenty of smart producers and executives who know a great original screenplay when they read one.

But…if your material is offbeat or challenging or not “instantly gettable” as the town so often desires, consider this another path. The psychology of the buyer doesn’t always make sense, but just as it’s capable of working against you…

…there’s no reason to think you can’t turn it around and make it work for you.

26 »

Oprah came out to celebrate the opening of Tyler Perry’s new studio, but I guess she either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that Tyler Perry is apparently a union buster.

From THR:

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Four writers involved with a Writers Guild of America organizing effort at writer-director-producer Tyler Perry’s cable TV show “House of Payne” have been fired.

The production company says they were fired for cause, but the union said Thursday that they were dismissed because they were involved in the organizing effort. The WGA West plans to picket Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta when the facility opens the wekend of October 3.

The guild claims that the problems began in April when the writers — Kellie Griffin, Christopher Moore, Teri Brown-Jackson and Lamont Ferrell — were among seven scribes seeking to negotiate a first WGA contract with Perry’s production company, House of Payne. The company produces “House of Payne” and the upcoming TBS show “Meet the Browns.” No contract has been signed.

Perry’s attorney, Matt Johnson, said that the four were fired because of poor work performance. Griffin, Moore, Brown-Jackson and Ferrell had worked on more than 100 episodes of Perry’s TBS series, now syndicated on Fox. The three remaining writers were asked to stay on, and two did.

“We continue to work toward a resolution of their contract,” Johnson said.

The WGA has filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, claiming the four were fired unjustly and that Payne’s company bargained in bad faith.

Just going by what’s been reported, the WGAw has a pretty good chance of winning this one. You don’t employ people for years, and then suddenly decide they’re no good and need to be fired shortly after they ask for union representation. That’s a blatant no-no, and I expect that Tyler Perry is going to get his ass handed to him on this one.

In thinking about this case, as well as some other organizing problems the WGA has been dealing with, I started to wonder a bit about how the union views one of its own working rules. The working rules govern the conduct of WGAw members. If you violate them, you can be fined…all the way up to the entirety of what you earn on the project for which you’re in violation.

Some of the working rules are obvious. “Don’t accept less than minimum for your work” is a no-brainer. Without that one, union members would be caught in an undercutting race to the bottom. But perhaps the single most important working rule is Working Rule #8.

No member shall accept employment with, nor option or sell literary material to, any person, firm or corporation who is not signatory to the applicable MBAs.

Violation of this Rule shall automatically subject the member to a fine, the maximum amount of which shall not exceed 100% of the remuneration received from such non-signatory.

Why is this the most important rule we have? Well, the companies own subsidiaries that have agreements with our union, but they also own subsidiaries that do not. For instance, Disney has a company that has a deal with the WGA, but it owns plenty of companies that can do non-union work.

Working Rule #8 is so important because it requires union members to only work for union companies. Right? Disney can make a non-union live action movie if it wants to, but it can’t get any members of the WGA to write on those movies, because those writers would be violating Working Rule #8.

The key limitation to Working Rule #8 is “applicable MBAs.” What that means is that Working Rule #8 only restricts me as long as we’re talking about a project that could be covered under our existing collective bargaining agreeements.

Our MBA doesn’t cover feature animation, so I can do a non-union feature animated project if I want. But our MBA does cover live action features, it does cover network prime time, it does cover game shows, it does cover basic cable…

Uh…wait. Whoa. Hold up.

Every feature writer knows they can’t work non-union gigs. I don’t know any feature writer in the WGA who has ever broken this rule. But isn’t our entire argument on reality TV that most of those shows should be covered by the MBA as game shows? And if we have a deal on basic cable, why are we trying to get WGA deals on shows that WGA writers are working on?

Why are any WGA writers working in scripted reality or basic cable shows if they’re non-union?

Why are we not enforcing Working Rule #8?

The easy answer is that no one wants to “blame the victim.” If WGA writers are working non-union for Tyler Perry’s basic cable show or for a “reality” game show like American Idol, we shouldn’t punish them by taking their salaries. We should attack the shows.

Well, at the risk of saying something extremely unpopular (yet again), how about we do both?

If every WGA writer working in reality and basic cable stopped tomorrow, that would have a serious impact on those shows. An immediate impact, one would hope. If a reality show chose to continue on without WGA writers, then so be it. But could most basic cable shows do so? I doubt it.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but if I nor any of my feature film sisters and brothers line our pockets or support our families with non-union work (in order to not undercut each other on union work), why should game show or basic cable writers be able to get away with it? Why aren’t we demanding that Working Rule #8 be applied fairly and consistently across the board?

Hell, we don’t even have to apply the fines. Use it as a lever if you want. If a basic cable show has a staff that’s 50% WGA, apply #8 to those writers and try and force a WGA deal on the show.

Look, there’s no chance we’ll ever get real jurisdiction over basic cable if we’re soft on Working Rule #8. No chance at all. The companies will always find the path of least resistance, and here’s an area where we’ve just rolled over and not bothered to resist at all, even though we have the means to do so…and even though we ask many of our other members to do so.

It appears that at least some of the writers protesting their termination on Payne are WGA members.

I support the fight to get them a WGA contract. I support the WGAw’s unfair labor practice charge against Tyler Perry.

But I have a bigger question that I think deserves an answer.

Why were some WGA writers allowed to violate Working Rule #8 for a hundred episodes on a non-union show?

Perhaps there’s something I’m missing. If so, I’m all ears. But I fail to see how we’re ever going to win an organizing war if for every writer we recruit through the front door, there’s a writer walking out the back.

26 »