Yikes. Sorry. It’s been a little nuts. But I’m back, and I’m going to start blogging regularly again. I’ll kick things off with this short but sweet post.

If you’re a member in good standing of the WGAw, you have received your ballot for the upcoming Board election.

Here are the candidates I strongly suggest you vote for.

CHERYL HEUTON – the brilliant co-creator of “Numb3rs.” Cheryl is an absolute expert on the state of the art of network television. We are beyond lucky that she’s running. Please vote for her. She’s fantastic.

MARK GUNN – Mark has been serving the Guild for a number of years now, and he’s a real union guy (I believe he started out as one of the early proponents of organizing). He’s also thoughtful, rational, pragmatic and really smart. He’s not afraid to challenge leadership either (any leadership…militant or moderate). We need him back.

CHRISTOPER KEYSER – Wouldn’t it be great if we had someone on the Board who created a hit network television show? And who won a Humanitas Prize for his writing? But who was also a Harvard Law grad with a penetrating mind for business, contracts and negotiation? Well, you got him. No one on the Board right now has his kind of qualifications. He would be a tremendous asset for all of us.

MICK BETANCOURT – I met Mick last year, and I was really impressed. Another working writer, a strike captain and a Teamster to boot, Mick is my kind of union guy. He’s tough, he’s union all the way, but he puts “do what works” above “do what sounds good.” He’s all about getting results, and he ain’t shy about it either. I love him.

AARON MENDELSOHN – Aaron has a wealth of experience on the Board and NegCom, and he brings a level-headed approach to governance. That’s probably why so many politically diverse people are all supporting him. You should too. We can’t afford to lose guys like Aaron…they’re the ones who do the work behind the scenes.

And that’s it.

Just those five.

“Hey, we’re supposed to vote for eight.” No…you can vote for up to eight. You don’t have to vote for eight. Indeed, if you really want these five to be elected, just vote for these five.

Why? It’s not that other candidates aren’t good people. Some of them are my friends. But many of them are ahead of the vote-gathering game. They don’t need more help. And these five–diverse as they are–are the ones that I believe will be most likely to help us get the best possible contract. I also think they’re the ones who will be most likely to improve the general affairs of our union.

Whether you agree with me or not, please vote. The companies study our turnout. Honestly. They really do. The higher the turnout, the more serious they take us. You may not think this stuff matters, but as someone who served on the Board, I honestly and sincerely assure you…

…it definitely, definitely does.

When I’m back (soon, probably early August), I plan to write about the following:

1. What’s next for credits and the WGA

2. My preview of the upcoming negotiation season

3. The world of screenwriting classes, books and coverage services

4. Hulu and new media

5. Whatever the hell else comes to mind

For those of you that don’t subscribe to my RSS Feed, consider doing so. It will alert you when new posts are up.

Hope you’re having a great summer. See you in a few weeks…

As a writer, I have absolutely zero issue with a studio enforcing a deadline. Why shouldn’t they? They’re negotiated as part of the contract, and part of being professional is fulfilling your contractual obligations. But I hate one-step deals, and I’ve maintained that the proliferation of one-step deals has diminished the quality of the work. It looks like WB is making a trade here. We turn our scripts in on time, and they give us two drafts. By returning to two-step deals, writers can finally take their eye off the next paycheck and really marry the work they’re doing.

Well done, WB. A step back…in the right direction.

This is so gratifying to me for two reasons:

1. It’s the single most significant change to our credits guidelines since they were first devised, and

2. It passed without rancor.

The second point is an important one; similar proposals had been shot down before in a hail of controversy and intra-Guild warfare. I want to thank the hard work of our wonderful Screen Credits Review Committee, the officers and board and council of the WGAW and WGAE, as well as the work of our Credits and Referendum staff (and member volunteers…I had the pleasure of chatting last night with the legendary D.C. Fontana, who helps supervise our votes).

My biggest thanks is due, of course, to you. The members. We really took a major step today toward a better way. Our work is far from done, but our credits are stronger and truer than ever before. On behalf of our Committee, I thank you all.

Please vote YES on all three proposals. It’s quick and easy…just punch three chads, and the postage is prepaid.

The arguments in favor of the proposals are in the booklet. For those who don’t feel like reading them, I’ll put our committee’s statement here. One thing to note: these proposals were approved unanimously by the Board of the WAGw and the Council of the WGAE. There are two statements with a ton of names in support in the ballot booklet, and no statements against.

Credits are a difficult thing to wrangle, but I believe our committee has…like last time…managed to craft a reasonable proposal that everyone can agree is change for the better.

Here’s our committee’s statement in support of Proposal #1. The other proposals are for television, and are largely academic in nature.

Again, PLEASE VOTE YES TODAY! We need every vote out there!

Credits Review Committee Statement

In 2008, writers in the WGA West and East overwhelmingly approved your Screen Credit Review Committee’s three proposals for changes in our screen credits manual. Since then, those changes have done much to improve the fairness of both our rules and our procedures.

The Screen Credits Review Committee remains a philosophically diverse group composed of both WGAW and WGAE members, representing viewpoints from every part of the screenwriting spectrum and appointed to represent fairly all theatrical film writers. We are first writers and subsequent writers, hyphenates and non-hyphenates, studio writers and indie writers.  Most of us have been all those things.

Now we wish to continue to update our rules in a way that reflects changes in our guild and changes in our industry.  After much debate and deliberation, we are presenting you with a new proposal. Despite the many differences in our backgrounds, perspectives, and positions in the film industry, 14 of our 15 members voted in favor of this proposal. We hope you will as well.

In the case of non-original screenplays only, we propose that all writers be held to a 33% threshold for screenplay credit.

What does this change?

Our credits manual has special rules for so-called “production executives.” The term calls to mind a studio vice-president of development, but the fact is that in today’s film industry, those so-called “production executives” simply do not submit literary material for credit arbitrations. Per the credits manual, what the term really refers to is writer-directors and writer-producers:  hyphenates who are members of our guild – who are, in short, us.

When the credits manual was first written decades ago, there were almost no such hyphenates in our union. Today, there are 1,400 members of the WGA who are also members of the DGA. In addition, as development slates and budgets continue to be squeezed, the committee feels that we should be encouraging writers to be entrepreneurial and take charge of the projects on which they write, whether as directors or as producers.

The more power we have as the prime authors of movies, the stronger we are individually and as a guild. Yet, as currently written, our guidelines state that if a writer-producer or writer-director isn’t the first writer, he or she shall be held to a more-than-50% standard for screenplay credit. So if a subsequent writer is offered a production credit, our rules force that writer to think twice about accepting the offer.  He or she may be risking a hard-earned writing credit.

PLEASE NOTE: we do not propose any change when it comes to original screenplays, whether they are spec scripts or screenplays written from the writer’s original pitch or treatment. Original screenplays are a special breed, and they deserve special consideration. This is why the special protections that currently exist for writers of originals will remain exactly as they are now.

And in all cases, the inclusion of writer-producers and writer-directors among participating writers will continue to trigger automatic arbitrations.

But in the case of non-original screenplays (most typically adaptations, sequels and remakes), the committee is proposing that everyone be treated equally – those writers who happen to be directors or producers alongside those who are not.

In the case of non-original screenplays only, we feel that if you wrote more than a third of a screenplay, as determined by an arbitration panel of your fellow writers (and only if so determined), you deserve a credit. You would get one if you weren’t a hyphenate. We think you also should if you are.

As it is now, whom does the penalty hurt? Many of our most celebrated and talented members have produced or directed. Of our new members, who among us doesn’t aspire to produce or direct? Our dark imagination may conjure images of fat cats firing fellow writers and stealing credit. But the reality looks more like this: a writer has managed to crack a graphic novel everyone thought was impossible to adapt…but she’s afraid to accept a co-producer credit acknowledging her enhanced role on the project because she doesn’t want to risk losing her writing credit.

One of the most popular services the WGA west currently offers is a writer-director training program. We shouldn’t be surprised that it’s in such high demand. As we enter the new age of self-driven media, we will find ourselves increasingly wearing the different hats of writer, director and producer.

More and more, we are in charge. That’s a good thing.

For non-original projects only, the majority of this committee believes that we need to recognize that there is no “they” when it comes to this issue. “They” are “us.”

The combined WGA West and East Board and Council voted unanimously in favor. We hope you join all of us in supporting this proposal.

Apparently, a screenwriting professor at a major university is teaching his students that scene headers should be formatted like this:

INT     LIBRARY     DAY

That is to say, no period for the abbreviation of interior, no dashes, and exactly five spaces between the words. The professor is, according to the email, very strict about this.

The professor is also, of course:

completely     and     utterly     wrong

Screenwriting formatting exists as it does for a number of reasons. Some make sense, some are anachronistic, and some are nothing more than tradition. Still, the format is the format. Are their acceptable variations? Certainly. For instance, I prefer to bold my sluglines, and I like two carriage returns before them, to indicate a new scene. Others don’t.

But those variations are minor. In the actual world of professional screenwriting (for which this professor is certainly charged with preparing his students), we never ever ever write sluglines like INT     LIBRARY     DAY.

Ever.

It’s INT. LIBRARY – DAY

or

INT. LIBRARY — DAY

That’s it. That’s the variation you get. If you do anything other than that, it’s annoying and amateurish and, frankly, bizarre. Look, showing up at the prom in shorts and a t-shirt doesn’t make you a bad person. It just indicates to everyone else that you either don’t give a damn about general conventions, or you’re just dumb and didn’t know. Neither is a particularly good way to start out with folks.

And if you write that way for a studio, they’ll likely just throw it back to you and say, “Reformat the right way, please.” Paramount and Warner Brothers include a style sheet with their contracts when they hire you to write.

Trust me when I tell you that “INT     LIBRARY     DAY” ain’t kosher with their style.

Look, I’m always the guy who says not to fret about picayune formatting issues and just concentrate on the writing. But the last thing you want readers doing is picking up your script and saying, “Oh Jesus, another script with these weird frickin’ scene headings. Who’s TEACHING this crap to kids?”

Well, you are, Mr. Professor. Cut it out. It’s okay to be wrong. Happens to the best of us. Fix it and move on.

It’s a different Craig Mazin (yeah, there are something like three or four of us in the world). I don’t write for Ask Men. I also don’t write lists of stuff.

And this list doesn’t include Larry Kasdan, so I don’t like it very much anyway.

http://blogmaverick.com/2010/04/06/why-you-should-never-listen-to-your-customers/

Very relevant for our business, which has always struggled balancing chasing with leading.

Thanks to Phil Hay for sending it along.

Seriously, it's a trap

I’m talking to you, the aspiring screenwriter. You haven’t sold anything, or maybe one thing a few years ago. Been a while since you cashed a real check for writing; maybe you never have.

But you know what you do have? A community. You have the scribosphere. It’s a rich, vibrant support group, where you can seek out information, inspiration and encouragement for your creative and professional ambitions.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Let’s be real. It’s mostly a waste of time.

I’ve been to the places you go. Done Deal, the blogs, the forums…even my own are potentially ruinous for you.

I’ll explain.

When I started in this business in the early 90′s, we barely had email (and we tied an onion on our belts, which was the style at the time), much less all the stuff you whippersnappers have. If I had a question, you know who I asked?

The frickin’ sky. Then I curled up into a ball and fretted.

But mostly I just wrote.

And there, of course, is the problem. You’re all so saturated with discussions, analysis and interactions that many of you would rather talk about it than actually do it.

At their best, sites like mine offer you a chance to slip away from your work, maybe learn something…and maybe procrastinate for a bit in a relevant way. At their worst–and I’m afraid I see more “worst” than best–these sites are a trap. They function like some nightmarish barrel of crabs, where the ones on the bottom fight to make sure none of the others rise to the top. The inhabitants of the scribosphere are often jealous and petty, doling out horrendous and uninformed advice mostly to regulate their own fragile emotional states. “Do what I tell you. I know what I’m talking about!” types the man who is terribly frightened that he has absolutely no idea what the hell he’s talking about.

Everybody on the internet seems to know The Right Way. Everyone is ready to beat you about the head and neck with snark and attitude and smug superiority. Everybody seems to have perfected the art of “participating in a forum.”

But you know what 99.99999% of them haven’t figured out?

How the hell to be a professional screenwriter. A real, consistent, steadily-employed professional screenwriter.

So here’s the deal. Are you a real, consistent, steadily-employed professional screenwriter? You are? Good. Enjoy. Use the internet as you wish.

Are you an aspiring screenwriter who is completing drafts, getting your work out there, hustling for gigs and trying to perfect your craft? Good. Enjoy. Use the internet as you wish.

Are you a wannabe who is spending more time arguing, posing and socializing on the internet than you are actually writing?

It’s a trap. Retreat.

All the zeros you’re fighting with and winning points against and PM’ing with and snickering about? They last thing they want is for you to actually tune them out and write something. Because if you did, you might stop being an unaccomplished internet tough guy like them…

…and actually become a professional screenwriter.

What does it mean for us?

Well, for those of us already covered under the WGA-Industry Health Plan, there seem to be three specific areas to note.

First, the bill indicates that dependents living at home must now be eligible for coverage until the age of 26 (the current cut off age in our plan is 19…or 23 if the child is a student).

Second, the bill disallows limits on lifetime benefits. Currently, our plan limits total lifetime benefits to $5,000,000 (I think to the insured, including his or her dependents…not $5M per family member).

Third, and most significantly, there is a tax on “Cadillac plans,” i.e health plans with high premiums (presumably for better benefits or service). From CNN…

So-called “Cadillac” plans costing more than $10,200 a year for individuals or $27,500 for family coverage (not counting dental and vision plans) will be subject to a 40% tax on the portion of the cost that exceeds the limit. Though the tax would actually be paid by insurers, it’s expected that it would be passed along to plan holders in the form of higher premiums.

The last sentence from CNN quoted above is the obviously the key one; most employers don’t live in a world where they have to suffer this new financial burden on their own. And the increase on dependent age and the eliminate of lifetime benefit maximums will also serve to increase the amount of money the WGA plan will need to maintain its current service.

So what’s going to happen? Will our deductibles and premiums go up? Will our coverage decrease? Will eligibility tighten?

Or will we duck it all somehow?

The truth is that we’ve always had to fight hard during negotiations to keep our plan where it is (which is among the best in the nation). Happily, we’ve succeeded. The 2004 deal was entirely about that, and it’s done the trick for six years now.

But if the Cadillac Tax goes into effect, that fight will get harder, and the total war of negotiation gets a little tougher with every new front we have to manage.

Even so, I’m hopeful that we can see our way through this without ending up with a health insurance plan that’s worse than we had before this vote. No doubt it’s going to be a pivotal issue in 2011.

Comments welcome, but only on the boring specifics of how this affects our WGA plan. No political debates, please.