You know, until I started posting here, I thought I was at least moderately knowledgeable of screenwriters–but I’m having to look up easily eighty per cent of you guys to see what movies you’ve written. It’s a little embarrassing.

I think the guild should consider a campaign with this corporation to change public/critique perception of the writer’s role. Either through asking members who use the service to request they add writer to their search parameters – or even Guild contact offering information about writers (link to articles about writers that they already do?)

I know a few years ago – when I emailed Netflix, they told me they were adding this, but so far nothing. I know people more recently have requested it and they’ve been less encouraging.

JD

I just live to embarrass you and Scott Frank.

And no, I didn’t threaten to kidnap their dogs or anything.

Also, for the record, the Premiere magazine folks are nice, whether or not they print my name. And kudos to Entertainment Weekly, which tends to print screenwriters’ names in the preview issues.

Unfortunately, this requires the uncredited (again, preliminarily) writer to spend the entire production period of a movie he may well have originated awkwardly reminding people in meetings that he wrote the first three drafts of the project and will be arbitrating shortly. You’ve all done it, don’t lie to yourselves…

Furthermore, despite attempts to keep a level playing field vis a vis anonymity in the arbitration process, writers are consumers, too. If they’ve driven by a billboard for a huge summer movie for three months with one writer’s name on it, that tends to sink in…It puts the burden of proof (subconsciously or otherwise) on the uncredited (and presumedly less well known) writer.

I’ve argued this with people before and some believe writers are inherently fans of the underdog and if there’s any subconscious bias it’ll be for the uncredited writer… I’d like to believe it’s all unaffected by the preliminary credit but it’s not an easy answer.

And you can argue the “social engineering” thing all you want but ultimately it’s up to the individual. I don’t like to take rewrite jobs when I know I’m going to fall in love with the material and then have to arbritrate against the first writer. Unlike original writers, a rewriter KNOWS the score and goes into it with eyes wide open. Take the job to get paid. Then go home and write an original.

I spoke to Michael Stiner (sp?), unit publicist on POTC 2 & 3, about why it’s a practice to omit writing credits in preview issues. He said it was because even puff entertainment industry magazines are loathe to essentially reprint studio publicity material — which is exactly what any preliminary writing credit would be.

-

Dan –

On-screen story credit is already guaranteed in the case where the first writer hired writes a full draft without being assigned any source material or literary material — which applies to original screenplays written both on spec and on assignment.

The bias I’m speaking of is the heightened standard for some writers that depends not on the literary material they contribute to the movie’s final script, but rather on the date they are hired, or the capacity in which they are hired. Screen credit is supposed to recognize the story and screenplay as they exist in the finished movie, not the first draft, and there is no good argument (other than purely emotional) for not evaluating all writing contributions equally.

But I sincerely doubt that will ever happen, because there are too many WGA members who are terrified of the prospect of having their work stand on its own.

-

” It is a crying shame that our union has a formalized process to deny writers credit from projects they have worked on, erasing any evidence of their work in the public record.

Flaw, obviously.

Think of it more in the light of an arbitration which actually aims at determining exact contributions; when any form of rewriting takes place, it is asking for a partition of all credits, end, initial, by, final and what else.

So the theory being that shared multiple proofs of authorship can represent entirely real responsability over different aspects of the writing process, fails (by subjective manners or opinions) to declare some evidence for anyone to believe including the “external” observations Craig mentioned.

Then,

1. The written by credits are a mix bag of contracted variations that CAN be manipulated to serve everyone but the actual screenwriters who can prove work via arbitration.

2. The end credits would supplement to that notion, listing the totality of work(s) done.

3. The filtering of such contributions has the advantage of stating THE truth beyond facts or interpretation based on objective proof.

4. Authorship(s) is either real or shared.

Knowing this, even the smallest of contributions is recognized and credited for. Need i add, were PAID for under contracts.

This would provide a complete record of every writer engaged on the project.

It is a crying shame that our union has a formalized process to deny writers credit from projects they have worked on, erasing any evidence of their work in the public record.

If you want a complete knock-down-drag-out argument about this, check in the archives for Craig’s post about end credits.