Fixing Credit Administration Where It Begins

Couple of disagreements, Craig, with your basic assumptions:

“Ultimately, however, the studio MUST make a proposal that is within the limitations of the MBA, and those limitations are actually more strict than the ones the WGA arbiters have.”

Not so. If the studio makes a proposal outside those limitations — and I’ve been in one of these, a proposed three-way shared screenplay — the Guild doesn’t send it back to them and say, “You must follow the rules.” Instead, the Guild jumps to an automatic arbitration. So the studio can actually dump whatever slop it wants into a proposal, because they know it’s just the paperwork part of passing the buck.

“I’ll make a point that Ted is pretty adamant about, and I agree that it’s one worth making. While it sure seems that writers protesting credits are essentially attacking each other, the reality is that a writer is really challenging the STUDIO’S actions.”

I know Ted is adamant about this (and we’ve had this conversation before on WriterAction), but I find that approach, while perhaps legally accurate, practically unrealistic and even disingenuous. In most cases the studios don’t have a dog in the credit fight, and in fact are very happy that the Guild has the burden of making the credit determination. That’s exactly why they DO things like slap three names under “screenplay by” and pass it off to the Guild. And when it comes down to the actual turf battle of an arbitration process, however the statements might theoretically be phrased as protests of (or defenses of) the studio’s actions, it’s always writer vs. writer, one trumpeting the magnitude of his contribution while downplaying the other’s. Always. Even if the tactic used to downplay is to not even mention the other writer(s). Always.

As for your actual question, the only problem I can see at the very beginning of the process is with those rare but horrible instances in which a writer gets cut out of the chain by a studio, deliberately or accidentally (I’ve been in one of those too), and not notified.

But otherwise my own experience with the beginning of the credit process has been pretty good. One time I was the first writer on a project subsequently rewritten by the director, and I wasn’t listed on the tentative writing credits; I didn’t protest the credit, but I appreciated the two or three calls I got from the Credits Department to make sure that I wasn’t somehow being cowed into not arbitrating.

What happened to the movies where there are more than 3 credited writers? I know I’ve seen at least one. Did all those writers agree to that outside of arbitration?

Howard:

I phrased that bit about Ted’s point carefully. :) I think it’s a point worth making, but I tend to agree with you that it’s not necessarily a point upon which I’d bet the farm. It does feel a bit Sisyphean to me to try and convince writers that credit arbitrations are really about a writer-studio dispute.

Now as for your other point (and WordCooper, you bring this up too), this is a point of some concern to me, and one that I think our committee will be examining closely.

See, it’s my opinion that bad credits from the companies should be punished in some way (they are contract violations, after all). Furthermore, WordCooper is right that there are clear instances where our arbitrations have led us to award credits that also appear in violation of our contract.

I’ve got a call in to Cathy Reed on this right now, so hopefully I’ll have some clarity on this before long. The entire point of scrutinizing these procedures, btw, is not to be obsessive with the letter of the law, but rather to reinstill some faith in the process. You know, take the “arbitrary” of the abitrations.

From experience, I’ll say that abitrations needn’t feel like writer-against-writer. The secret: pick up the phone and call the other participating writers. People avoid doing this because it’s uncomfortable, but part of being a professional writer means being professional — including making awkward phone calls.

Each I’ve done this, I’ve been impressed by how honest and open the other writers have been. Let’s face it: we all worked on the same script, with the same producers and troublemakers. Often, you can avoid arbitration altogether. But even if you do arbitrate, you have a human voice to go along with “Writer B.”

With the second Charlie’s Angels, I never met the Wibberly’s until the premiere, but we’d talked on the phone during production and pre-arbitration. So we felt like colleagues rather than opposing writers. We even recorded a DVD commentary together. None of that would have been conceivable if we’d just faced off with dueling arbitration statements.

John:

That’s what I’m trying to advance. It’s our option in every non-automatic arbitration situation to get together and try and solve the credits between ourselves.

Scott Frank’s idea is to actually require the participants to get in a room and see if they can hammer it out. What do you think about that? Or is there any other way to help foster writer-solved arbitrations?

Craig:

Requiring writers to do anything is bound to provoke revolt, but yeah. I’d be in favor of it. Off the top of my head, I’d say..

1. Only writers could participate. No agents, managers, hand-holders.
2. Ideally, you’d like a trained, professional facilitator at the meeting. Not necessarily a mediator, per se, since that implies a dispute. What you’re really trying to do is keep the conversation moving, and have all the voices heard.
3. In the course of that meeting, or within a certain period of time thereafter, the writers involved would present what they thing the proper credits should be. What’s weird about the current system is that there’s no way of knowing whether a certain writer is protesting for story credit, screenplay credit or both.
4. In situations where a physical meeting is impossible, a conference call is at least a step in the right direction.

I think this system might result in more truthful credits, and less bad blood.

Question:

If the Screen Credits Manual requires any subsequent writer on a screenplay that meets the Screen Credits Manual’s definition for an “original screenplay” to contribute 50% of more to receive “screenplay by” credit, how can three writers receive “Screenplay by” credit on Screen Credits Manual-defined “original screenplay”?

Answer:

They aren’t so much rules as what you’d call guidelines.

As long the arbiters’ decision is within the limits of the MBA, it does not matter what the Screen Credits Manual says.

Since the MBA provides that in unusual cases, up to three writers may receive “Screenplay by” credit, that means that if the arbiters decide that a SCM-defined “original screenplay” is an unusual case where the 50% subsequent writers guideline does not apply, then they can award three writers “Screenplay by” credit.

Craig, let me fuse the two points, and say that perhaps the thing which bothered me most about the three-names-for-screenplay-on-the-proposed-credits is that it took away any possibility of the kind of conversation you’re advocating. That is, by proposing credits which would violate the MBA, the studio forced an automatic arbitration.

WordCooper, credits with more than three writers could also include teams. If so, they’re kosher. The following credit is okay…

Screenplay by Andy Adams & Betty Boop and Carol Carrot & Dave Doughnut.

The ampersand (the “&” for the unknowing, altho Coop will know this) designates a team. For most purposes a team of two writers is treated as one writer. In the above fictional credit, two separate teams worked on the script.

Per the MBA, a “team” may include either two or three writers.

So

“Screenplay by Andy Adams and Betty Boop and Carol Carrot & Dave Doughnut & Englebert Egalitarism

is also okay.

In fact, this credit would also be okay, based on the MBA has been interpreted in the past:

Screenplay by Andy Adams & Betty Boop & Carol Carrot and Dave Doughnut & Englebert Egalitarism & Farley Flapadoodle and Greta Galumph & Henrietta Hottentot & Isadora Illwind.

Believe it … or NOT!

Henrietta Hottentot’s a hack.

Thanks, Ted. I didn’t know a team could be three. You learn something new every day. I do remember when a studio proposed to give credit to a team of eight or so writers and that was not allowed.

John:

Scott also suggested a professional mediator.

I’m going to be proposing this to our committee, using exactly the guidelines you suggest (writers only plus one independent facilitator). The only twist I’d add is this: any participant can essentially waive their right to protest the credits that the other participants determine.

In the case of a project with 5 participants, two of whom were hired to polish dialogue on a scene, those two could just say, “Look, we don’t want credit, so whatever you other three decide, we’re cool with it.”

Anyone else into this idea?

Ted, is this something we could accomplish without a membership vote? My guess is that it isn’t, but jeez, I’d sure like to try.

Sounds great, especially with the right to waive credit and step out of the fight.

Anything that is within the limits of the MBA and does not alter the arbitration guidelines themselves is a policy matter.

Since the MBA provides for writers to reach a unanimous decision prior to arbitration, the policy you are suggesting sure seems to me to be within the limits of the MBA and would not alter the Screen Credits Manual.

The caveat: the writers must come to a decision that is also within the limits of the MBA.

I don’t know about the “everyone get into the room and meet” idea. We’ve been on a few projects where one of the arbitrating writers happened to have directed the film. While we maintained a strong relationship throughout the process… I would rather anonymously step on an ego than have it out (professionally) in a room with a mediator.

And… having gone through three arbitrations, it’s bullshit if you think the studio puts any time into whose names go on the submitted list. If the director worked on it at all, his/her name goes on it. The studio would much rather blame the guild when the director receives no credit.

Sure, I think a writer could waive his or her right to be at that meeting, and agree to abide by whatever’s decided.

On the subject of best practices, on arbitrations where I’m not seeking any credit, I’ll generally write a short (one page) statement explaining my history on the project. Having been an arbiter several times, I know it’s hard to piece together the chronology at times.

What you really want to avoid is situations like this:

WRITER A … WRITER B (you) … WRITER C …

Writer C shouldn’t get credit for things you did, even if you don’t think what you did is enough to merit any credit.

I’d wage in for option #2 with a slight precision also as mentioned by others. External mediation neutrality “help”, standing as a form of witness to the facts and final common decision as long as it is MBA proofed.

I think the idea of having the writers sit down is fantastic.

Would the sit down take place before or after the studio submits credits? Sometimes the studio credits make people feel slighted and that would lessen the possibility of a compromise.

Aline:

I’m gonna have to think about that one. It’s something I hadn’t considered. Interesting point.

Thanks. The point might be interesting but it seems to have brought this excellent thread to a screeching halt. Just a special talent of mine.

Aline:

No, no, that dumb silence is the sound of me trying to think. :)

Here’s my opinion: the studio would probably issue the credits first. The studio credits can be the source of rancor, but as Ted often points out, that reframes the debate as writer vs. studio as opposed to the more odious writer vs. writer.

I think the studio, however, can’t be completely cut out of the credits process. They’ve hired the writers, they’ve paid for the material, and they have agreed to let us determine the credits. That’s not our God-given right, however, so any plan that completely cut them out of the loop probably wouldn’t fly.