End Credits...or the End Of Credits?
Arguing about end credits is a bit like debating whether a parachute or a glider would be the best way off the roof of a burning building…even though you have neither.
We can discuss the merits and drawbacks, but there’s always this sense that the membership won’t vote for them anyway. Regardless, this is an important debate to have, because it’s possible that the membership would vote for end credits, and their justification goes to the heart of the differing credits philosophies.
Currently, our credits system is designed to recognize authorship. The problem with our system is that in cases where the first script written is an original script (i.e. not based on underlying material), a subsequent writer must show that he wrote at least 50% of the final script to receive credit.
In short, you could write nearly half of a script, and not only receive no credit…but no residuals, no awards, no separated rights, no official acknowledgement from your peers. Nothing. Zippo. It’s like it never happened. Even worse (in my opinion), the work that you did do is now fully attributed to someone else. That’s the criminal part.
I’ve never been shy about my view of this situation. We currently award credits based on a socioeconomic scheme designed to reduce the firing of first writers and the hiring of subsequent writers. I consider that immoral. In my mind, writing credit ought to be for writing done. Contributions made. And that’s it.
Suffice it to say, I’m not the only one who thinks this way, but there are plenty of Guild members who disagree. And so, into the breach…end credits.
The idea of end credits is simply to add a list of participating writers in the back credits, somewhere in there between the grips and the gaffers. It’s a way of acknowledging that these writers worked on the movie. After all, as it’s often been pointed out, if you write almost half a movie you don’t get a credit, but if you work for a month at the craft services table, you do.
You’d think I’d be in favor of end credits.
I am…sort of…a little bit.
My basic view is that end credits will clearly diminish the value of the front credits, no matter what the specific form they take (Ted argues that “consulting writers” is the best phrasing, since that doesn’t necessarily imply that they made a contribution). The question is: how can we limit end credits in order to not unfairly diminish the contributions of the author(s) of the movie?
Remember, end credits are blanket. They don’t discriminate between the guy who wrote nearly half the movie and the guy who wrote one line of dialogue. If it’s a crime to suggest that someone who writes nearly half the movie isn’t one of the writers, it’s also a crime to introduce the notion that someone who wrote 99% of the movie may have only written a little over half. That is, in effect, what a blanket end credit could conceivably imply, and since we’re dealing with a public acknowledgement, we ought to consider that equally.
Here’s my stab at how end credits ought to be implemented.
You will receive an end credit if you are a participating writer not receiving a front credit, and:
- You were employed to write, at the very least, the equivalent of a polish.
- You were not employed as a participant on a “round table” or the equivalent.
- You clearly contributed at least two unique elements to the film as it appears on screen. Those elements can be any combination of: a specific scene, a specific primary or secondary character, a specific characterization of a primary or secondary character, or the equivalent of five standard script pages of dialogue.
Obviously, these changes would require membership approval as well as a negotiation for inclusion in the MBA. It’s a starting point. What do you think?
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: End Credits...or the End Of Credits?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://artfulwriter.com/mt4/contages.cgi/34
[The Artful Writer](http://artfulwriter.com) currently has a vigorous dicussion about [end credits for contributing writers](http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2005/02/end_creditsor_t.html) that many readers may find interesting. Here's the situation... Read More
Would residuals be tied to end credits?
—Robert King
The entire point of end credits is that they should be given according to an objective criteria — given the same information, the same result will be reached by ANYONE.
The “unique element” criteria is a subjective one. I have seen at least one instance where the contribution of a character, characterization and character relationship was subjectively judged as identical to a previous contribution on the basis that both could be reduced to the same archetype.
Any subjective criteria for receiving end credits defeats the purpose of giving end credits.
-
Robert:
I’d say no.
Ted:
I’m not sure why you think the entire point of end credits is that they be judgment-free, esp. considering that to qualify, one must be a participating writer…and that determination in and of itself isn’t judgment-free.
Nonetheless, I agree in spirit that the end credits ought to be as easily determined as possible. My first two criteria are strictly factual. My third criterion is subjective, but extremely narrow. It’s not necessarily subjectivity that’s the enemy, but overly fuzzy rules of determination.
I can see it now - what starts off as a good idea gets butchered in negotiations and now such-and-such producer can add a sex scene and a dog and, ta da, is magically an A-list a writer. Hell, the writer end credit has the potential to be the new “producer” credit.
That said, some sort of “absolute” measure of writers’ contributions would be nice, but is, of course, impossible. I’d like to see the “story by” credit and then “screenplay by” followed with “secondary writing by” for those who wrote less than 50% but more than a polish. And then, finally, “consulting writers” to round up everyone else.
And while we’re at it, make them all front credits.
There’s no doubt that end credits open up a world of abuse.
However, if you read my criterion #1, you’ll see that I required the participant to have worked under a contract for at least a polish.
Nonetheless, if you add a sex scene and a dog and both of those make it into the movie, well, then, yeah. You probably deserve an end credit.
I do like that “secondary writing” credit idea, though. That’s interesting. I never really thought about a “written by, jr.” sort of credit.
>We currently award credits based on a socioeconomic scheme
“Socioeconomic scheme”? And where is this documented? Or is this just a hubristic, loaded phrase? I suspect the latter, as I’ve seen it thrown around by quite a few folks before. If one supports protecting original writers, one is hustling a “scheme.” Wrapping something in pejorative language might work well with White House spin, but I think writers are smarter than this.
>designed to reduce the firing of first writers and the hiring of subsequent writers
And this is a bad objective? Recognizing and rewarding authorial originality is a bad thing? The WGA, which is a union, should not be concerned with keeping people from being fired?
Interesting statistic: the mostly highly acclaimed screenplays usually are not rewritten. How many of this year’s Oscar and WGA-nominated scripts were written by a parade of hired-and-fired writers?
>I consider that immoral
“Immoral”? Now that’s a bit purple. Perhaps we should all rise from our chairs and stamp our little feet to add extra histrionic emphasis. Deep sighing and eyerolling might help, too. Hands on hips are optional.
All of the above notwithstanding, are those your two comments above, Craig, signed “Anonymous?” They seem to be. Maybe you should fix. Would hate to see you not get credit for what you’ve written. ;)
Stay dry,
DH
First off, it should be apparent that David Hoag is one of those people on the other side of the debate. :)
If you don’t like the word “scheme,” pick your own. Socioeconomic strategy? Anyway, there’s no documentation, David. I’ve drawn a conclusion.
Reducing the firing of first writers and the hiring of subsequent writers isn’t a bad objective per se. It should, however, be immaterial to the distribution and award of credits.
The WGA should not be concerned with the firing of writers if those firings are immediately followed by hirings. It’s rather obvious that the more writers the companies hire, the better off we are…if our union is at all concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number of members.
I’m interested in your interesting statistic. Source? Given that employment records and credit arbitrations are supposed to be confidential, I can’ t imagine how anyone could compile such a stat or make such a statement.
Finally, I use the word “immoral” with all due dispassion. :)
C.
PS: Thanks for the tip. I did add my name to those comments.
The WGA already requires that anyone seeking participating writer status to have a contract that conforms to the MBA Schedule of Minimums.
The WGA must grant a waiver to a company to conduct a roundtable, and one of the conditions for that waiver is that the roundtable participants will not be participating writers for the purposes of determining screen credit.
In those cases where participating writer status is determined based on subjective judgment, what is being judged is whether or not the literary material in question constitutes a contribution to the final script (as represented on screen). If it does, then participating writer status is granted.
So the fact of participating writer status means the writer has a contract for at least a polish, that the writer is not a roundtable participant, and that the writer has contributed literary material toward the final script (as represented on screen). That’s two of your three criteria satisfied.
But the fact of participating writer status does not satisfy your third criterion. That requires that, first, a subjective judgment has been made by someone to use some part of the writer’s contribution in the final script, and then that whatever part was used be subjectively judged to constitute two unique elements.
Whereas if the fact of participating writer status were used as the sole criterion for receiving end credit, it would be an objective standard (the same information produces the same result, regardless of who applies the standard), and it would mean that those listed contributed literary material toward the final script, which the Company may or may not have chosen to use.
Hence, a “Consulting Writer.”
Ted:
Yeah, I keep forgetting about that roundtable point. Okay, we can lose one criterion.
You’re wrong about the polish, though. There’s a weekly rate that’s cheaper (currently about $4,000 minimum). What’s concerning about the weekly rate is that the theoretical end credit participant didn’t even have to do the work required of a polish. Indeed, they didn’t even have to work the full week, as one week is the smallest possible increment of employment the Guild offers.
You can write one line (as, say, an actor), ask to be paid scale for a weekly (four grand), and suddenly, you’re on the end credits.
Yikes.
On to your other point. Now, I grant you that a Boolean determination of whether or not a contribution has occurred may be easier than determining the quantity of contribution, but my point stands. Our system demands some subjectivity, and the fact that our current subjective system is such a mess shouldn’t deter us from the notion that subjective judgments could, in theory, produce better credits.
I guess I’m ultimately unconcerned with the fact of subjectivity; I’ve made my peace with its necessity in determing meaningful attributions, just as Justice What’s-His-Face made his peace with its necessity in determing whether or not something is obscene.
I’m more concerned with protecting the intent of a given credit…and personally, I intend for the end credit to reflect something other than the merest of contribution.
C.
PS: If you were going with your system, why not simply say “Additional Participating Writers”? Consulting is a bit of a loaded term.
Potter Stewart.
What bothers me the most about this is that the practice of theoretically ennobling writers by obscuring truth has been accepted without question as the membership’s desire for a very long time without any sort of referendum — at least twenty years, and I’m guessing it’s been a whole lot longer than that.
Personally, I’d like to see some sort of end credit. I don’t have a strong feeling about where to set the bar for it, but I think I lean toward setting it lower rather than higher.
In answer to David Hoag and anyone else who thinks that not having end credits keep first writers on their projects longer… I just don’t believe it. First off, I don’t think the studios — the people who make the decisions whether to replace us — will be deterred in the least.
Second, I’ve had the experience of being the first writer on an adaptation, later to see the director replace me with himself and change so much that there really was no chance of my getting a credit. In that instance, if anything, the knowledge that he’d have to deal with my name somewhere in the end credits might have DETERRED this director from doing what he did.
I guess I’ve lived at both ends of this spectrum. Three big-name rewriters worked on my one credited feature before I got there, and though two of them have virtually nothing in the final movie and the third fairly little, I guess “the public” might assume greater contributions from them, and thus less of a contribution from me.
On the other hand, there are two other produced movies (one an award-winner, the other a famous dud) which would not have moved forward without my contribution — one getting the project set up, the other getting it greenlit — and my name is nowhere to be found on either.
I’m pretty sure I’d rather see the latter wrong rectified. More often than not, end credits would get us closer to the truth. And what’s more, in the long run such truthfulness just might actually accrue to the dignity of writers, and even better working conditions.
Howard:
Just out of curiousity, do you think I set the bar too high or too low for end credits?
In answer to David Hoag and anyone else who thinks that not having end credits keep first writers on their projects longer
Howard, I’m not saying that at all. I specifically did not address the issue of end credits. I only was addressing some of Craig “Camille” Mazin’s comments about credits in general.
COUGH…(gasp)…how COULD you…COUGH….
It’s rather obvious that the more writers the companies hire, the better off we are?if our union is at all concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number of members.
There is a certain absurdity in what you advocate.
Heck, let’s try all to get fired more often so there’s more work for everybody! Maybe we could negotiate this as part of our next contract — everyone has to be fired at least five times a year. Hey, we could even put in an assembly line with a conveyer belt to speed things up. Woo-ee!
You know, Craig, there are other things in this world beside money. Getting more money isn’t necessarily the best goal. Quality of work and pride in one’s work, in my opinion, are more important than trying to get more money.
I think our Guild exists to achieve more things than just trying to get more money for its members. The Guild also strives for greater dignity for its members. A greater understanding of our professionalism.
That’s what all unions do. It’s not just about the paycheck. It’s about decent working conditions and being treated like a human being.
If we make money paramount, then how much money would it take to shut us up about the possessory credit? Heck, we could junk the whole credit system if they paid us enough money.
I’m interested in your interesting statistic. Source? Given that employment records and credit arbitrations are supposed to be confidential, I can’t imagine how anyone could compile such a stat or make such a statement.
My source is the Q&A Series at the WGA. All of this year’s Oscar and WGA nominated writers have done Q&As. As have last year’s. And the year’s before. And the year’s before. Might want to drop in on one sometime, Craig, you could learn something. :)
Now unless you have evidence there’s a mass cconspiracy by award-nominated writers to lie about being rewritten, I think I’ll take their word for it.
But one need merely look at the credits for Oscar-and WGA-nominated films. Did anyone rewrite Charlie Kaufman? No. Richard Linklater & Ethan Hawke? No. Paul Haggis? No. Jose Rivera? No. Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor? No. Mike Leigh? No. Zack Braff? No. Bill Condon? No. Tina Fey? No…
Gee, is anyone noticing a trend here?
I’m glad you liked my Camille dig, Craig. I was worried it was too artsy and obscure.
David:
Your source ain’t good enough. Not when we have Oscar Award winners thanking uncredited writers. Films as good as, say, The Godfather, have had rewriters. Films as bad as, say, Senseless, have had no rewriters. :)
I dispute the correlation, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.
Finally, I’m not entirely concerned with money. I’m all for dignity as well. However, I find it fascinating that your definition of “dignity for writers” hinges upon dignity for writers like you, whereas there’s not much concern for the dignity of, oh, writers like me.
Where’s the dignity for Mike Rich? Have you read his story? When we have producers and companies doing more for the dignity of our writers than our own arbiters, then yeah, we have a problem.
We’re writers too, pal. We don’t fire the guys who came before us. They’re already fired. We just try and do the best we can.
I agree with Mr. Hoag about the absurdity of making “Get writers fired mored often” a goal for the Guild. A more sensible (if less pithy) goal might be “Get writers fired less often, but get them more money for each job, with the result that they are less likely to be fired, more likely to have the final movie reflect their original vision, and financially no worse off.”
But I disagree with him that helping studios lie about how many writers worked on a film is a good strategy to accomplish this goal. The very fact that he and Craig are arguing over whether the Oscar noms were single-writer demonstrates that a strategy of misleading the public and ourselves over who wrote what actually makes it harder to increase the dignity of writers. Being honest about the credits would actually help audiences look for movies with single writers, especially if the Guild makes a point of educating them.
In other words, how can we convince the studios to treat writers with respect if we are in public denial about the disprespect they already show? Basically, the studios have a dysfunctional relationship towards writing, and (like many family members of a dysfunctional person) we are lying to help them cover it up. I think maybe it’s time to stop lying for Daddy.
I don’t really have any great idea for alternate credits. I Just wanted to register my agreement that they’d be a good idea, whether you call them “consulting writers” or “auxiliary poobahs” or what have you. (I was thinking of proposing that, if Writer A’s contribution is 25% less than Writer B’s, than Writer A’s name should just be 25% smaller, but, well, maybe not.) Hmm… What’s wrong with just listing them explicitly by percentage? IE: Written by Joe Schmo. Story by Jane Roe. Consulting Writer (10%): Marvin Finckelbaum.
-Jacob
PS: Given that I think that covering up for the studios isn’t the best way to reach our get-fired-less-often-but-get-the-same-overall-pay goal, how do I think we should do it? One small step might be a rule that says when a studio fires a writer, they must pay him a fee equal to (let’s say) 20% of every fee they pay subsequent writers. So, if Fox wants to pay me $100,000 to rewrite my own script, it will cost them $100,000. But if they want to fire me and pay Craig 100 grand, it will cost them a total of $120,000, since they’ll have to pay me that 20% fee. And if they fire Craig and hire David Hoag for $100,000, it will cost them an extra $140,000—$100,000 for David Hoag, and $20 grand apiece for me and Craig.
I realize I am vastly oversimplifying here—for one thing, in real life, my quote is probably a speck on the shirtsleeve of Craig and David’s quotes. And I’m certainly not claiming that a few hundred grand here and there is going to change the way Hollywood does business. But I do think it would provide some additional encouragement to treat firing as a last resort.
Jeez, this was a long comment. Maybe I should get my own blog or something.
Jacob:
First, let me be clear. I’m not advocating the firing of writers! Sheesh. Most of my writing is done as the first writer. I’m simply saying that if the firing of writers is followed by the hiring of other writers, it’s not so simple to look at the situation as a net loss for our union and our members.
As for your penalty suggestion…look, we’re getting very lax here with the word “fire”. No one is actually getting fired. We are hired to do a set amount of drafts. We’re paid for that. Studios then have the option to continue or not.
What first writers are complaining about really is that they’re not being hired anew.
C.
Yes, our current system demands some subjectivity in the award of one, two or three forms of credit; yes, it should not deter us from the notion that subjective judgment could result in better credits; and, yes, you’ve made your peace with the fact that the current system requires subjective judgment.
But what you have not done is make an argument as to why there should not be a fourth form of credit that is awarded absent any subjective judgment, and guaranteed to any writer who meets an objective standard.
The reason for “Consulting Writer” rather than “Additional Participating Writer” is because I would still have to explain to my mom what “Additional Participating Writer” meant. “Consulting Writer,” she’d get: oh, he consulted on the writing, got it.
More importantly, I believe it is imperative that we not dilute the authorial claim of the front-end credits — which both “participating” and “contributing” would do.
There is no question that the WGA should try to deter Companies from firing writers. Job security for its members is one of the goals of any union.
But the fact is, screen credit represents a fixed cost to a Company, no matter how many writers they hire. One writer, the company gives screen credit and X in residuals and bonuses; ten writers, the Company gives screen credit and X in residual bonuses, to be divvied up between the credited writers. Screen credit cannot be used to deter companies from firing writers.
So the first question is: should the WGA have a policy intended to deter members from accepting legitimate employment?
And the second question is: should the WGA have a policy intended to award greater compensation to one member employed in a job than to any other member employed in that job?
And the third question is: since the “original writer” policies do not deter Companies from hiring subsequent writers, and since they do not deter writers from accepting rewrite assignments, they neither protect the original writer’s job nor the original writer’s work.
So what exactly are the “protect the original writer” policies intended to protect? What are they protecting?
Craig, fair enough—“fired” is the wrong word. But whatever you call it, handing in a script and bring told that it is not good enough, that it needs to be rewritten, and that somebody other than you is going to do the rewriting is not a pleasant experience.
(Let me interrupt myself and say that I’m probably the least experienced of all the people who are commenting here. My experience with the way the studios operate is next to nil, but as an American, I cherish my God-given right to talk about things I know only secondhand.)
Maybe the way to explain myself is to invite you to imagine two possibilities:
You get paid $100,000 apiece for each of three projects. On one, you’re an original writer who is rewritten; on the second, you’re a second writer who is then rewritten by a third writer; on the third project, you’re the final writer in a series.
You get paid $300,000 for a single script. You do multiple drafts, but you are the only writer on it from beginning to end.
EIther way, you end up with $300,00. Nonetheless, I suspect most writers would prefer #2, although in the absense of a formal survey, that’s just a guess. And it seems to me that the Guild should be either (a) officially neutral between 1 and 2, or (b) actively working to encourage whichever possibility its members prefer. I agree with you that manipulating credits is a lousy way to attain (b)—but I’m curious to know if you think that a rewrite tax would be a more effective strategy.
Craig: Like I said, I don’t have a strong feeling about this, but if anything you probably set the bar too high. I’m not sure that I wouldn’t prefer the credit given to anyone hired on the project for a polish or more, with all subjectivity removed from the process. (In part because that makes things simpler: no extra arbitration step to be serviced.)
David: Sorry I misunderstood. But another of your points, about all the nominees who haven’t been rewritten, and “is anyone noticing a trend?”
How about this for a trend: Of the nine writers you list, five were writer-directors, the sixth was a writer-producer who controlled the underlying material coming in, the seventh was a celebrity writer and co-star of the movie, the eighth was an already much celebrated writer re-teamed with a director he’d made a movie with before, and the ninth was working in Spanish.
My point is that NONE of these movies represent the typical situations we talk about when we think about “first writers,” “rewriters” and the like.
We need to be realistic about how our business works. There are certain projects — the kind much likelier to win awards — which usually grow outside of the studio mainstream (go back over that list of nine), and which often begin with writing on spec or well below quote. That in itself gives the writer more leverage in terms of staying with the project and being sole writer.
Then there are studio assignments. Unless we’re hyphenates, we serve at the pleasure of the studio, the director, the star. For this we should get fairly compensated and fairly credited (however such fairness is defined).
But the idea that we’re going to turn the latter category of movie into the former through credit engineering has always struck me as ludicrous and willfully blind to the way things work.
Please ignore the questions posed at the end of my previous post. They are off-topic.
The point I was making was only that making it more difficult for subsequent writers to receive screen credit in accordance with the terms of the MBA will not deter the companies from hiring subsequent writers; the only thing it might possibly do is to deter writers from accepting legitimate employment.
I cannot make an argument in favor of a WGA policy intended to deter writers from accepting legitimate employment.
Last night, as I was drifting off to sleep, the true absurdity of David Hoag’s “interesting statistic” suddenly hit me.
Let’s suppose it’s true. The best movies have only one writer.
David suggests the line of causality is:
No rewriters ——-> good script
Does anyone else think that arrow is backwards? :)
Of course you don’t need to rewrite scripts that good! What we’re talking about here, David, is the mulched forest-worth of scripts written by the original writer that aren’t good enough to shoot.
Ted commented:
I did, although perhaps not to your satisfaction. I wrote:
Craig — ah, so you did.
You seem to be arguing the position that end credits should be used to correct for the inequities, perceived or real, that result from the subjective judgment used in awarding screen authorship credit.
My position is that end credits should be used to correct the real inequity of someone who worked on the movie being erased from from the history of the movie, not because they failed to fulfill the terms of of their employment contract, but because they were not awarded the additional compensation of screen credit.
Like I said: I just don’t see any point in adding yet another form of credit that is awarded based on subjective judgment — particularly since I believe it is that fact that screen credit is awarded based on subjective judgment that is the cause of nearly all dissatisfaction regarding the screen credit system
Further thought:
Since there is no standard for End Credit, any suggested standard is suggested in order to achieve a specific ends.
So what is the ends you want to achieve through the subjectively-applied standard of “two unique elements”?
Is there a way to achieve that same ends through a standard that can be applied objectively?
Not when we have Oscar Award winners thanking uncredited writers.
Like who? Julia Roberts thanking Richard LaGravenese for his uncredited rewrite on Erin Brokovitch? Read Susanna’s script and read his script — they’re both available on the web. He did very little work, and it was entirely unnecessary. He was only brought in to make a neurotic moviestar feel more comfortable that a “known” writer rewrote the unknown Susanna. (The great absurdity is that he did not even rewrite the Julia Roberts role; he only enlarged the Albert Finney role.)
The Erin example — which Craig so kindly suggested — underscores why some writers are replaced. Not because they’re bad writers or because they did bad work.
They’re simply hired to placate neurotic moviestars and neurotic studio execs.
Last night, as I was drifting off to sleep, the true absurdity of David Hoag’s interesting statistic suddenly hit me.
Aw, Craig, wow, you think about me before you fall asleep?
Should I be excited? What am I wearing when you think of me? Do I have good hair in your fantasies?
Let’s suppose it’s true. The best movies have only one writer.
[snip]
Of course you don’t need to rewrite scripts that good! What we’re talking about here, David, is the mulched forest-worth of scripts written by the original writer that aren’t good enough to shoot.
Hey, Craig, guess what? I agree with you! Lots of scripts are crap. I’ve been hired to rewrite my share of crap. And, guess what, I’ve never been replaced! (Or at least I don’t think so.)
The problem here is that the system is badly flawed and getting more flawed as time goes by. Why are crap scripts being put into development in the first place? Should we try to do something about it?
I think, as a union, we should be concerned about working with a faulty product, just like millworkers should be concerned about a faulty machine on the assemblyline.
What I think we need to do is get creative control back into the hands of creative people. And we have to think well outside the box to do that. And we also have to convince the studios it would be a lot more profitable to do that.
It would be a lot more profitable and efficient to have Craig Mazin as Senior Writer, supervising several other writers, than to have Joe Nonwriter, the “creative” exec, steering the boat. And Craig, Senior Writer, would be paid for that service, both in salary and a share of the gate.
The best development execs and producers I have worked for are also credited writers/WGA members. Although the studio system was badly flawed, this sort of senior/junior writer process was widely used.
Here’s a good real-world example. Two fairly green writers wrote a pretty fantastic road-trip script about Lewis and Clark. It got into a bidding war and was bought by a major studio. At some point, some uncreative executive got the idea to turn it into an Amadeus ripoff. The original writers were fired and a not very creative writer was brought in to turn the script into a ripoff.
At that point, the second writer was fired. I took a meeting on the project. I read the latest script and agreed it was crap. Only after that point, I learned of the original script and asked to read that. I was dumbfounded. It was fantastic. They could’ve shot the script they had in hand. And I don’t give out praise easily. As you might suspect, I’m picky and opinionated. I hate most everything. But this was a great script!
This is a perfect example of pointless development. Sure, Writer 2 made money. I would have been paid had I agreed to be Writer 3, and I imagine whoever they hired made money.
But the original team should never have been replaced.
I think we need to explore ways to prevent good writers from being replaced on a whim.
P.S. I wish you’d change your comments feature to allow for underlining and color.
Ted’s right - the end credits shouldn’t be based on any subjective standards, even if that means there’s a roll of twenty names at the end.
I’m all for end credits - you get coffee for one of the producers, your name goes in. You write twenty pages of dialogue, your name doesn’t. It’s absurd. It’s one of my least favorite things about the guild.
I think back to the orientation film we’re shown when we join the guild (yes, I was one of the suckers who went). Over and over, a booming voice refers back to a dark time when writers WEREN’T GETTING ON SCREEN CREDIT FOR THEIR WORK! So, the guild was born. To finally GET WRITERS ON SCREEN CREDIT FOR THEIR WORK! Phew. Thank goodness.
At that time, I was working on a TV show with three full time writers - the creator and two staff writers. We had consultants, who had their names in the credits, but as you can imagine, the other staff writer and I did a fair amount of work. And yes, can you believe it, WE DIDN’T GET ON SCREEN CREDIT FOR OUR WORK!
Then I started doing rewrites on movies. And, shockingly, I DIDN’T GET ON SCREEN CREDIT FOR MY WORK!
It’s ridiculous. We’re the only element involved in TV or features that has to convince outsiders that we really did work on a project. Everyone else can point to the IMDB, point to the credits… we have to explain an arcane system that locks us out.
Now I’m all worked up and pissed off. Thanks a lot, Craig.
(Cross-posted with David)
David: Much as I love someone telling Mazin he’s wrong, I’ve got to disagree about the noble goal of protecting first writers. While it would be lovely to “prevent good writers from being replaced on a whim,” I think it’s impossible. It’s a simple problem: who’s going to decide who the good writers are?
We’re all read shit scripts with a great idea at the core. Are studios supposed to be banned from buying the scripts? Because making a shitty writer who had one good idea the Senior Writer in charge of the project would be a disaster.
The only alternative is some kind of system where someone judges whether or not the original writer is talented enough to execute the changes and get a quality film made. Which is exactly the system we have now - studios and producers fill that role, and we often disagree with their choices.
Jeff
Just to state my instincts at the top:
Now, as for the “social engineering” effect of the current system:
Q: Who determines whether a screenwriter gets replaced on a project?
A: The studio, sometimes at the request of a producer, director, star or other person of questionable judgement and/or inflated ego. Does it suck? Yes.
Q: Would listing all the writers on a project do anything to change this?
A: IMHO, no. Not a bit. Because the decision to swap writers comes months or years before a movie comes out. At absolutely no point does a studio executive think, “I’d really like to hire Norman Goodwriter, but what about the credit issue?” Hiring Joe Bigwriter might help you land a big star, but it’s not like you’re going to make an extra $20 million because his name is in the end credits of your film.
David Hoag’s underlying point is unassailable — we do need to find ways to keep good writers from being replaced. But I don’t think the one tool in on our shelf — written by credit — can do the job.
Keep it simple, and true:
Credit every writer who was hired under a WGA contract.
Call the end credit “Contracted Writers.”
Make it automatic, objective and accurate.
Every writer who was contracted on the project deserves to have an accurate record of their professional engagement. They deserve to have their name on any film they were contracted for. If the Guild considers the work done adequately substantial to fall under the MBA, then it’s enough to get a credit. Imposing an arbitrary cutoff for “at least a polish” makes no sense.
Get a contract, get a credit. Simple.
“Contributing” or “Consulting” writer are terms loaded with subjectivity. A writer could argue that the 25 pages of new material they added qualify them for more than “consulting.” “Contributing” begs for more arbitrary qualifications.
“Contracted Writers” defies subjectivity. Either you had a WGA contract, or you didn’t. It doesn’t speak to your contributions, your participation or whether you wrote or consulted. It simply states the fact — these writers were under WGA contract for this project.
The entire end-credit issue is about providing an accurate, truthful record of the writers who were hired for the project, but were not awarded credit by WGA arbitration.
So keep it simple and true: Contracted Writers.
Get a contract. Get a credit. Period.
Ted wrote:
Nope. The manner in which front credits are awarded is irrelevant. They could be awarded by computer analysis. The fact is that the credit “Written by” or “Screenplay by” is necessarily indicative of a broad spectrum of actual contribution.
As they should be.
The problem is that if we award end-credits on a blanket-basis, I’m concerned we are ignoring the reality of the nature of the front-end credits, and perhaps diminishing some of them unfairly.
Diminish what unfairly?
Craig, are you actually talking about … the presitge of the screenplay achievement?
I must say: gasp! and heh.
Well, I disagree. The prestige of the screenplay authorship credit would not be diminished by a blanket end credit for all writers who made non-authorial contributions toward the screenplay, used or not — because the authorial contributions is what makes possible the inclusion or exclusion of any non-authorial contributions. The front-credited writer (s) is the author of the story or screenplay; the ones at the end are not.
In fact, end credits would eliminate the very thing you are discussing with David Hoag: Was this screenplay that was credited to a single writer really written by a single writer? The presence or absence of names in the end credit would dispel any question of that.
But, again, I come back to this:
Exactly what ends are you trying to achieve via the “unique element” subjective criterion? Is there any way to achieve it with an objective criterion?
Ted:
Hmmm…yeah, I guess I am concerned with the prestige of the credit after all.
Who knew?
Right, sorry I didn’t answer that one before. In between writing about writing, I actually did some writing today. :)
I’m trying to achieve the following: preserving end credits for those who have contributed more than the merely incidental.
If we allow any individual an end credit, here’s what could (maybe even probably) happen. Every single major actor in a motion picture ad libs at least one line. They write it down. They are paid $4,000 for a weekly.
They are in the end credits.
That’s just silly. I’m concerned about it though, because I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen actors on chat shows insecurely boast about how they “ad libbed” a lot. They don’t want to be meat puppets any more than we want to be typists.
And so it goes.
Some quantifiable, objective minimum standard would be nice. Do you share this concern of mine? If so, what’s your suggestion?
David:
I’m not sure why the underlining tag isn’t working. I’ll look into it.
Coloring text is possible, but it works on a code. August probably has them memorized. I sure don’t. :)
Coloring text is possible, but it works on a code.
I know HTML color code rather well. I’m coding for color in my responses — as I just did on this one — but it’s not showing up. You may have some sort of override toggle where only you can post in color, but the unwashed masses who come to lap at your font of wisdom may not specify colors.
I coded this message (remove spaces after and before ) but it nary did work.
Okay, how bout this?
Since this credit would be negotiated with the AMPTP, and since it would not be tied to any money they have to lay out, we can ask for this as a term of employment in Theatrical Schedule A:
A participating writer who is not credited on screen in any other capacity shall be given credit in the form of … (end credit)
?
David:
Let me check into what’s going on. I’ve been chasing down bugs on this commenting stuff for a few days now. New software and all…
Ted:
I hope you weren’t suggesting that as a solution for my needs. :)
If the signatory company will give the actor a WGA contract, and the actor is/becomes a member of the Guild according to WGA rules, the actor should get a credit.
The real abuse is that the signatory would give the actor a fraudulent contract, and help the actor get into the Guild if need be. Better to let a big ego get their name in the end credits than have the uncredited writers be excluded from the end credits once again because of arbitrary standards.
It all comes back to truth. If the signatory feels strongly enough to give the actor a WGA contract, and the Guild lets the actor join, then the truth is they are a Contracted Writer.
The point of the Contracted Writer end credit is not to offer a list of the “deserving writers” of the script, but rather an accurate list of every WGA member who was contracted to the project — even the actors.
Spec:
Giving Tom Cruise a $4,000 WGA weekly contract to cover a line of dialogue he wrote is hardly a show of faith or commitment on the company’s part.
Nor is it fraudulent. The problem is that the end credit will not indicate to what extent Cruise contributed. If the script was an original that you wrote, Cruise’s end credit means anything from “Tom Cruise penned a single line of dialogue in the film,” to “Tom Cruise wrote nearly half of this movie.”
Personally, I don’t think that ambiguity is worth it. I’d vote against that kind of end credit.
While calling TC a contracted writer would be true, so too would a new WGA credit for us writers entitled “Script Typist”. The larger issue is: are these credits meaningful or not? I simply disagree that the point of end credits ought to be a mere regurgitation of the list of participating writers, no matter how minor their participation.
Mind you, I’m using Mr. Cruise as an example. Never met the guy.
Craig —
Re-read my suggestion.
A participating who is not credited on screen in ANY OTHER CAPACITY will receive (end credit).
Do you really think that Tom Cruise will give up star billing just to get an end credit?
That a director would say “You know what, screw the ‘directed by’ and ‘a film by’ credits; I want me some of that writer’s end credit action.”
And the kind of stuff you are talking about could be disqualified easily as literary material by a participating writers investigation — they’re memos, they’re notes, etc. (I can’t find the section of the MBA that defines what does not constitute literary material, but it’s late). And if they were, then it wouldn’t matter that the “writer” had a contract — he would not be a participating writer, he would not get end credit.
I’m genuinely disappointed that you failed to appreciate the jewel-like perfection of my suggestion.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh.
Yeah, see, I just automatically substituted the word “writing” in front of “capacity”, thus covering your mental diamond in mental poop.
You know, I think I could live with that. End credits for writers who aren’t actors, aren’t directors, aren’t producers and aren’t round tablists.
Yup, I could sign on to that. Nice job, T.
Now…I wonder…is it legal? You wanna ask Grace, or should I?
Since some people want objective standards, how about very rigid standards. A computer program (Screenwriter can already do part of this) scans all contributing scripts, compares them to the shooting script and assigns a percentage of contribution to each writer, always giving credit to the first writer to write each line. Then this ARBITRONATOR gives front billing to each writer with 25% or more and end credits to each writer with 5 - 24.999%. This ARBITRONATOR would only kick in if one or more writer complains about the credits.
Now, of course, this would lead to writers padding scene descriptions, so the PURPLEPROSEDELETOR plugin would have to be run first.
The magic of technology triumphs again.
Eric
Only a lowly copywriter.
Eric/WordCooper…
The problem with your approach is that dialog alone is not considered in the writing/rewriting percentages. In fact, dialog is counted for little/nothing in the abritration/percentage process.
If I write a script, the studio sacks me, and hires you to rewrite, but you primarily rewrite my dialog without subsantially changing the story, you’re unlikely to be considered as having contributed enough of a percentage to warrant credit.
Where it becomes sticky (amongst other places) is when dialog contributes to story. How much does that dialog contribute to new story versus story that’s already there?
The arbitration process involves far more than a word count. It’s also supposed to see through superficial changes, like turning Fred the wacky neighbor into Hanna the wacky neighbor and that sort of thing.
(Those more knowledgeable about the process like Jiffy Lawton and Craig and Ted would be better to explain the specifics of this.)
DH
PS to Eric/Word Cooper…
Fruitville Pike! Was duscht du hier?
Planning on going Hollywood?
DH (PA born and raised)
DH,
My comments were to be a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to those who wanted a objective process. There can never be completely objective criteria, IMHO, for determining who contributed most to a screenplay or any work of art.
PS Just lurking on the fringes. Fascinated by the process. Maybe someday.
Craig, I think you’re (deliberately?) missing the point.
The purpose of an end credit for Contracted Writers is not to derive or imply contributions to the finished script.
The purpose is to give an accurate credit to every WGA member who was hired to work on the project under a Guild contract.
A truthful, accurate credit to every Contracted Writer — simple as that.
(FWIW, I disagree with Ted’s idea of making Credited Writers choose that credit as their only credit on the picture. It’s another artificial manipulation to try to control the end credits. The Contracted Writer credits should accurately and truthfully reflect every WGA member who was hired under Guild contract for the picture.)
Spec:
Hmm. You talk about the purpose of the end credit as if such a credit currently exists…or ever existed…with the full weight of precedence behind your argument.
Ain’t so.
The end credit is a bit like a manned mission to Mars. Drawingboard material to be sure, but since it’s never happened, it seems a bit presumptuous to disagree with me on the basis of purpose.
Purpose is precisely what we ought to be debating. Personally, I do not believe the purpose of end credits is to give an accurate credit to every participating writer (remember, participants may not be WGA members if they haven’t earned enough points for admission).
Craig:
You’re inferring things. I assume no precedent. I was merely referring to my own proposed idea for an end credit, which is derived from many similar ideas that have been discussed ad naseum at the Guild. I’ve been squawking about this for over a decade, and we’re still no closer to accurate credits.
You also seem to be missing important details of my proposal. I deliberately avoid words like “participant” and “contributor,” because they are inherently subjective. It is my opinion that WGA members who receive a WGA contract for a project should be credited accurately and truthfully.
Let me focus on that, so there’s no missing it:
I believe that all WGA members who receive a WGA contract for a project should be accurately and truthfully credited for that project.
Are you against the accurate crediting of WGA members hired on a project?
Eric —
If the purpose of credit is to recognize who contributed most, then you’re right: no objective standard can be used.
However, if the purpose of credit is to recognize who did what job, then its certainly possible to create an objective standard.
For instance: if the purpose of a credit is to recognize who played the role of Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the same data will yield the same result, no matter who applies the objective standard: name of actor who played the role of Indiana Jones in etc.
That was never my contention.
I believe that the purpose of end credits is to give an accurate credit to every WGA member who was hired under a WGA contract.
If you’re not a member, you don’t get a credit.
It has nothing to do with participation, contribution, or any other arbitrary standard. It hinges on two objective standards, regulated by the Guild: who is a member, and what contracts fall under the MBA.
As long as we argue over the nature of “participation” versus “consultation,” writers will be denied their right to see their work experience accurately credited.
The need for an objective standard is painfully obvious.
I believe that every WGA member who was hired under a WGA contract should be credited.
Spec:
I am against the accurate crediting of all WGA members hired on a project, because that’s not really a crediting as I understand the word, but rather more of a list of paid studio employees.
If an actor works on a movie but none of his footage is included in the final cut, he doesn’t receive credit. He would, however, be on a list of employees.
Extras do appear in the movie, but they don’t get credit either. They’re not acknowledged anywhere. The cruel fact is that some writers perform the writing equivalent of extras work. I don’t think we ought to be crediting them, particularly when writing is invisible (unlike acting…I mean, crediting extras would hardly diminish the featured acting credits).
I guess I just don’t think a roster of employees will ever be particularly interesting, but it can be potentially diminishing unless vetted in some very basic, simple and low-threshold way.
Spec:
I don’t think you can arbitrarily deny credit to non-WGA-members who have worked under an MBA contract.
Pretty sure that would be illegal.
Spec —
I think you’re missing the point of my suggested standard:
No one would have to choose End Credit instead of any other credit; rather, any participating writer who did not receive any other credit, including screen authorship credit (front credit), could choose to to receive End Credit.
The standard you suggest — all WGA members with WGA contracts — I know would not be legal. A collective bargaining agency must represent equally all employees of a company signatory to the collective bargaining agreement, whether they are members or not.
A possible standard could be “any employee with a WGA contract” — bearing in mind that a contract can be created for work that has been done as well as work to be done.
Which means that for about $800 (Guild minimum for two minutes or less of narration written for an assembled motion picture), a Company could give Sheila in accounting a nice retirement present of End Credit as a “Contracted Writer” on the movie you wrote.
However, “participating writer” is a definition that it is possible for any employee with a WGA contract to meet, but that not all employees with WGA contracts can meet.
Way I see it, if an employee did not do the work necessary to be eligible for screen authorship credit (ie, front credit), they should not be eligible for end credit, either.
Filter down any form of credits, what you still get is participation to an END product. Split it in many parts, all and each lowers the value of the overall result since it no longer belongs to anyone but a total that has to be determined objectively by outside evaluation. Rewriting everything can only lead to one dilution of all credits (including the initial) however pre-owned or progressively taken away. Plus or minus 50% rule or not.
Craig wrote:
And so I despair.
Your committee, as I feared, is likely to generate a great deal of activity, but no progress. Years from now, the WGA will probably still be the only union actively engaged in removing its members names from projects they work on.
Or even more ironic, you may implement a secondary arbitration system to determine who “deserves” to be credited at the end, thereby giving writers a second chance to be subjectively denied accurate credit.
And sadly, you’ll think it’s a good thing.
Ted —
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the idea was if the Director does a polish, and loses arbitration, he could either have his director credit or the writer end credit.
‘splain, please.
Ted —
I’ll take your word on the labor law — it’s not my area of expertise, or I would’ve considered it.
Sounds like a good standard to me.
Where do I sign? I would LOVE that policy for end credits. Objective standards, accurate listing in the credits of every person hired under a WGA contract, and no way to subjectively exclude a writer who was hired under the MBA.
Adding Sheila from accounting to the end credits doesn’t bother me one bit, because I know for one of her, there are likely a half dozen real writers who will get their names on the picture that would be excluded without end credits.
BTW, I don’t mind other contracted writers getting a credit on a movie “I wrote.” We’re the union that bellyaches about the “film by” credt, remember? We’re the ones making the case for the collaborative art. So unless I am the sole contracted writer on the project, I believe it’s a collaboration, and every contracted writer deserves an end credit, right next to the Roach Wrangler and the Body Double.
Spec —
The standard I’m suggesting would be a term of employment in the MBA — it would be applicable to all employees of Company signatory to the MBA.
Which means that a director would know before he began a polish that if he intended to accept a “Directed by” credit, he would not receive end writing credit. Fully informed, he can then decide whether or not he will do the polish.
So it would never be a case of someone doing the work and then having to choose between end writing credit and another form of credit. Instead, it would be a matter of someone knowing going in that he will receive end writing credit only if he qualifies as a participating writer, and only if he receives no other form of credit on the movie.
If that makes him decide not to bother doing the polish, or to instead have the individual employed in the job of “screenwriter” do the polish, then good — because end writing crediting should not be an incentive for doing work on a screenplay that otherwise would not be done, or would otherwise be done by the person employed as to do it.
Elsewhere …
I had never noticed the hypocrisy of folks who, on the one hand, protest the possessive credit on the basis that no one person is responsible for making a movie, while on the other hand lobbying to pretend that only one person ever writes the screenplay.
Heh.
Spec:
Don’t despair. Our committee has absolutely nothing to do with end credits…or any of the credits guidelines for that matter.
BTW, what’s your real name? Makes it a bit easier to converse when we know each other a little better.
Ted —
Sorry, it’s still too exclusionary for me. I’m less worried about the gal from accounting or the director glomming onto the end credits than I am about writers having their work experience on a project eradicated.
If I’m the director, and I rewrote a lousy spec, but I lose arbitration, I’d want the end credit,too. And the director should have the end credit IMHO, because in my concept of Contracted Writers Credits, the credit lists who was contracted to write on the project — a simple, objective record.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I find the exclusion of contracted writers to be far more repugnant than the inclusion of contracted writers who abuse the system. A small price to pay for truth and accuracy.
Craig —
I stand corrected. I re-read your previous post and found that I remembered it wrong. Caught up in the heat of the moment, I imagine.
Spec —
Wouldn’t happen. The litmus for “participating writer” is that their work in at least some small way represents a contribution of literary material toward the movie. The standard I suggest for end writing credit would, then, include all writers who worked on the movie who do not receive any other credit for their work.
Ted —
Yeah, I get that, and I think it’s a poor standard, because it asks for another layer of arbitration, squabbling and writers denied credit for a job they were contracted for.
I believe that every writer who is contracted to work on a project should be credited on that project.
I suspect we disagree on that issue.
Splitting hairs, but for what it’s worth:
I think the word “credit” is one of the stumbling blocks in this conversation. We’re so used to using it one way — “Did you hear Bob got shared credit on DISASTER SQUAD?” — that it’s hard to wrap your head around the end-roll stuff we’re talking about.
When you see the catering truck driver’s name scroll past, you’d never say Teamster Phil “got credit.” It’s just an acknowledgement that he worked on the movie. And if I’m a writer who spent a month on a movie, I’d just like that acknowledgement. Nothing more.
John:
This is part of the issue that haunts us. Our credits are, by dint of what we do, inherently different than credits for, say, the crew.
Crew credits essentially mean one simple thing: the credited individual performed a job.
Our credits imply authorship…even when they are end credits that ought not imply authorship.
Have you received sole credit for a movie that had a lot of participating writers, some of whom were writers of note? If so, do you think listing all of those writers would have diminished your credit? Called your authorship into question?
I’m asking honestly. I’m just not sure. I do know that the press release that announced the commencement of writing on my last movie included Kevin Smith as a cowriter.
Kevin never wrote a single day on that project, so of course, he wasn’t a participating writer. Yet, many reviews of the movie credited him as a screenwriter, because the state of entertainment journalism is so piss poor. I worry if end credits will help or hurt that situation.
Craig —
Which is what a Contracted Writer end credit would do for the writers who were excluded from the arbitrated head credit.
Currently, all we have are arbitrated opening credits. They imply authorship. I believe we should go to great pains to distance any new end credits from any notion of authorship. That’s why I object to words like”contributing,” “participating” or “consulting.”
If you got sole “Written by” credit, I can imagine you being peeved by a list of a dozen writers that implied that they all “consulted” or “participated” in the script.
However, I can’t understand why you would object to the same writers being listed as WGA Contracted Writer. As you said, it means one simple thing: the credited individual performed a job.
If the end credits avoid any connotation of authorship, we can accurately list the writers who worked on the project without diminishing the authorship of the writer(s) who won the arbitrated credit.
Spec:
You’re right. A “contracted writer” end credit would credit writers for having a contract.
I’m just not interested in promoting that credit. The reason why is simple: the distinction between being employed and contributing authorship is a subtle one. I do not believe the credits will be interpreted properly. Simple as that.
Furthermore, I am honestly seeking a way to reward writers who have contributed significant amounts to the final script, but not enough to earn authorship (and the resulting residuals and separated rights that go along with that).
Craig,
”…the resulting residuals and separated rights that go along with that).
Then, it becomes a matter of a clear or possible co-writing credit(s) with divided (or seperated) authorship attached and by consequences, shared. However significant to the final shooting script?
Sylvain:
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t quite follow your question. Could you rephrase?
Craig:
You asked if I’ve gotten credit on a project that had other big-name writers. Absolutely: the first Charlie’s Angels, which is something of an urban legend in burning through screenwriters. Big names did work on it, many for a week or two during production. It was an insanely dysfunctional production, but I was the guy who took it from an initial meeting with Drew Barrymore through two test screenings and the premiere.
Would my ego have taken a blow if Susannah Grant or Zak Penn’s name had been listed in the end scroll? Not at all. Because a truthful listing of a half-dozen names would have been a hell of lot better than the “22 writers on Charlie’s Angels” myth I still face. There never was an arbitration, probably because the other writers involved (a) knew they were nowhere near the 50% (or 33%), and (b) thought the movie would bomb. But some of them definitely should have been acknowledged, because they wrote scenes that are in the movie.
John:
Here’s the phrase I’ll seize on:
I’m with you on this. “Some of them” and “scenes that are in the movie” are what I’m really after here.
Hey, I never heard that myth. I’ll be sure to spread the rumor, but I’ll notch it up to 30 writers just to add some new flavor.
Craig, Rephrasing. The split at 50% of co-writing is “significant” enough to be considered an equal share over residuals.
What makes a 45,20,15,15,5 any different than a clear 95 to 5% (or fifty/fifty) diluted or pre-owned once arbitrated against or for? Multiple authorship presumed. An End-Credit allocation could be a 5 or 20 (for example) in the above equation. “Separated” rights, fair & accurate.
That’s what i meant.
Craig —
Which means to me that you’re not interested in accurate, truthful and objective end credits.
More and more, it seems like you’re interested in an additional set of arbitrated credits, which can subjectively deny a writer an on-screen record of their job experience.
Great. So a second group of faceless sages can wipe our names from movies we worked on.
Feh.
John and Craig —
This is not my basis for advocating the WGA Contracted Writer end credit, but it bears mentioning anyway:
Every contracted writer contributes to the final movie, even if their work doesn’t appear in the script.
The WGA is the champion of the collaborative art form. In any art form, the mistakes and blind alleys are vital to the formation of the finished work. They are part of the process. So even if a writer wrote $800 worth of narration that was cut out, the decision to hire and then cut out the material was part of the process of creating the finished film.
This isn’t about authorship, it’s about being part of a process. If you contributed enough, you’d get an arbitrated credit. But every contracted writer was part of the process that led to the final product.
I suspect you both hold a different point of view; I just thought this deserved articulation.
I think what you mean is:
Every contracted writer creates literary material in a development process that may or may not result in a final movie, but since a final movie now exists due to the writers who contributed literary material actually used in this specific final movie, we will no longer consider the development process as a series of unpredictable antecedent states that may or may not have resulted in a final movie, let alone this specific final movie, but as a series of steps that could only have resulted in this specific final movie, and no other possible outcome.
Which does not contradict your position — without those specific unpredictable antecedent states, the specific final movie that does exist would not have existed — but only states it more accurately.
God does not play at dice — but even he cannot predict based on the fact he is making a roll now what will come up on his tenth roll … or even that there will be a tenth roll.
Spec:
Yeah, I do disagree. Having a contract is not, in and of itself, evidence of contribution.
If you honestly believe that narration that isn’t included in a film is still a contribution to the film, then you and I literally have no common philosophical ground.
Oh well. If it makes you feel any worse (and I think it will), I’m one of the most pro-subsequent writers you’ll ever meet. There are many in the WGA who would just as well see credit given only to the first writer, no matter what subsequent writers contribute.
We can certainly agree on one thing: I’m not interested in public hiring records. I think credits are more meaningful than that. Even end credits.
But I like “faceless sages”. You’re actually being too generous. :)
Ted —
No, I think that’s what you mean.
I didn’t specify antecedant states, because it opens the discussion to the definition of a state, and whether change is required to qualify as a state. Antecedant states, to be measureable or discernable, require a discontinuity of state as a demarcation of one antecedent state from another.
I specifically chose to approach the situation as a continuum, without requiring discreet states to function.
What’s the difference to writers?
If you depend on antecedent states, then if a writer is hired but their script is discarded without being read, an argument can be made that no state change has occurred, and the writer deserved no credit.
By defining the process as a continuum, then the same writer would get an end credit because they worked for the production company as contracted. Since development is viewed as a continuum in this case, there is no room to split hairs about their “contribution” “deserving” credit.
(And frankly, I think the conversation is sinking into the pseudo-scientific, in an effort to make the arguments seem much more intellectual and well considered.)
I believe that there should be an end credit to list every writer who was contracted by the production company. A credit that implies no authorship or contribution, but lists the workers contracted by the production company under the WGA. If the production company hires you, I think you should get your name on the picture, and in the public record.
I think you believe differently.
Ted —
That’s only true for your definition of God. There are many others, and some think that any definition of God is only a subsampling of Divine Truth based on the inadequate Human mind’s ability to comprehend the Transcendent.
Some would even argue that God can not only predict His tenth roll while making His first roll, He can do so without playing dice, with dice that simultaneously do and do not exist.
Let’s not bring God into this, even as a literary segue.
This probably explains why God is blacklisted at a number of casinos on the Strip.
LOL!
You should consider giving up punditry, and writing comedy professionally.
;-)
Spec —
The main reason I don’t like “any writer who has a contract with a Company” as the criteria for end writing credit is because it means the Company has the power to decide who will get end writing credit, and the power to give end writing credit to anyone they decide to give it.
Perhaps the solution here is something like this:
“All participating writers who do not receive any form of on-screen credit shall receive end writing credit, or any writer contracted under chain of title of the movie’s final script, but only as determined by the WGAw.”
Which keeps control of who receives end writing credit in the hands of writers — just like front credit — but allows the WGAw to go beyond “participating writer status” on a case-by-case basis, so as to include contracted writers who did not receive participating writer status to nonetheless receive end writing credit.
Ted —
The main reason I don’t like the “participating writers” standard for end credits you propose is that it allows writers who were hired onto the project to be subjectively excluded from the credits.
To split hairs, if the WGA decided to give all contracted writers an end credit, then the WGA is controlling who gets the credit — they set the standard. The Company decides who gets credit insofar as they always do — they decide who to hire. The Guild can’t arbitrate credit to a writer who wasn’t under contract, so this limitation applies to main credits as well.
It seems to me that you are primarily interested in protecting the end credits from “undeserving” writers. You seem to believe that it is better to exclude a writer from getting credit for a job they did than it is to give credit to a writer you feel doesn’t “deserve” it.
I believe that it is better to give Phil from accounting a vanity end credit if it will guarantee that no writers will be excluded from the end credits and the public record.
And, I fear, ne’er the twain shall meet.
I believe that it is better to give Phil from accounting a vanity end credit if it will guarantee that no writers will be excluded from the end credits and the public record.
So, phrased accurately, the standard you are proposing is:
“End credit for writers who worked on the movie shall be given to anyone the Company claims to have worked as a writer on the movie, regardless of whether they actually did work as a writer on the movie, or even worked on the movie at all.”
You know, I just don’t see the WGA membership ever voting to include something like that in an MBA pattern of demands.
-
Nope.
Try:
“All writers hired for the project under the auspices of the Writers Guild of America shall be entitled to an end credit on the finished movie.”
If the Company featherbeds a contract with the Guild, they are guilty of fraud, and the WGA should take measures to punish such abuse by sanctioning the Company.
BTW, I don’t believe the Membership is ever going to approve any of this, because of the Guild’s previous exhibitions of poor judgement. Just look at the election — is it any wonder the other Guilds think we’re a bunch of knuckleheads?
No, I’ve been writing about what should be, not what will be.
I’m not sure your comment about fraud is correct. If the company wants someone to write one line, they must pay them the lowest scale amount possible, which is the weekly minimum of four