But What I Really Want To Do Is Produce...
Are these folks
the answer?It’s been a while since I’ve written about credits, so I thought I’d return to one of the great third rails of the WGA credits manual: the penalties levied against so-called “production executives”.
For the purposes of determining credits, production executives are defined as any participating writer who is also serving as either the director or in any capacity as a producer. If you’re a production executive, the rules skew mightily against you.
For starters, if you’re also the first writer of an original, you lose most of your protections (I’ve already written about how stupid that rule is here). Even if you’re a writer on an adaptation, you still get screwed. If you’re working solo, you must always show that you contributed at least 50% to the final script (whereas non-production executive writers need only show 33%) for screenplay credit.
Even worse, all other writers have no specific threshold anymore for credit. The arbiters can reward screenplay credit to the other writers for practically any level of contribution.
Ah, but that’s not all.
If you’re so unlucky as to have written as a team with a production executive, both you and the productive executive really get screwed: you must now show a 60% contribution for screenplay credit, and again, all other writers are subject to no standard for that very same credit.
So let’s review. You work on a screenplay as a team with the director. You and the director write just over half of the final script.
No credit for you.
The path to this particular hell is paved with intentions that are understandable, if not good. The theory is that directors and producers are in a position to glom on for credit. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to others. As such, the standards for directors and producers are made more stringent in the hopes that they will be deterred from taking advantage of opportunity and dabbling with the script just to get credit (and the residuals that go along with credit).
When it comes to directors, there’s not much one can do about this. The rule is what it is. But producers…well, that’s another story.
The problem is that the rules make no distinction between producers who are writing, and writers who are getting a producing credit.
Wouldn’t it be great if the stringent rules applied only to actual producers, and legitimate screenwriters weren’t punished simply for bargaining themselves an “above-and-beyond the call of screenwriting” credit like Co-Executive Producer or Associate Producer?
Until recently, no one really knew what the hell any of those credits actually meant, so it was impossible to imagine credits guidelines that used them as a basis of discrimination.
Enter The Producers Guild of America.
To be quite clear, the PGA isn’t a federally certified collective bargaining organization like the WGAw or the DGA or SAG. It’s an umbrella organization that represents some pretty big time movie producers who are pooling their resources to try and get some things done. One of their goals is to set some ground rules that define what all those producing credits mean, in order to preserve some legitimacy for the most important of producing credits…”Produced by”.
By defining the sub-producer credits, the PGA may have given us a road map we can use to better define who should be penalized in the WGA credits process for being a “production executive”. The fact is that Associate Producers have no real power to hire or fire writers or influence the writing of the screenplay in any way. “Co-Executive Producer” is often a vanity credit awarded to key studio executives, folks who were around when the project was set up, etc.
I believe that other than directors, the only people who should be penalized for being production executives are those who earn the credits “Produced by” and “Executive Produced by”. The other production credits should be available to legitimate writers to earn freely and without detriment.
Defending writers and their credits against predatory producers is a good thing. Limiting writers’ ability to earn additional recognition as filmmakers is a bad thing. A stupid thing. To date, the Guild hasn’t done a very good job of balancing the need of protection with the right of entrepreneurialism.
Until they do, many writers will continue to anonymously perform filmmaking duties above and beyond the call of screenwriting…because of the punitive policies of their own union.
Call it “counter-productive” in every sense of the word.
Color me VERY naive, but what exactly stands in the way of changing this? This rule seems so counter-intuitive… penalizing writers for trying to advance their career OR protect their work by taking/forcing a role as producer (no matter how limited or vanity driven the title MIGHT be) shouldn’t be the WGA’s intentions. I mean, does this sort of rule change get put to a vote? Brought up as a bill, legislative style? I’m not a WGA member, just a lurker who loves the site and decided to comment, so excuse my stupidity…
It just seems like a change everyone could get behind.
Thanks for the website, by the by!
In principal it sounds like a good idea, but you’re assuming the PGA producing credits are accurate. The PGA can’t use concrete facts when sorting this stuff out. The writers leave a paper trail.
David:
Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the article—you’re not stupid at all to ask.
A membership vote is exactly what is required to change the rules. You’ve accurately described what occurs; a “bill” of proposals is presented to them, and they vote.
And thanks for the kind words. :)
This is one of the best posts I’ve seen on this site. I think this should serve as a reminder to all the aspiring screenwriters on this site to sharpen up their knowledge of the intricies of the business side of things rather than just focusing on the actual craft.
Craig,
I’ve read many of your posts & you seem to have a very strong opinion on this & effective ways to address writing credits. Why not start a petition? There are several online forms available. & if you don’t want to take that route, for fear that a bunch of non-guild members will try to sign it also, you can always create a link to a form letter stating the same thing as a petition. Just make sure to include a place for guild members’ information for verification purposes.
Or is this too naive, too?
whoops, the last part didn’t come out very clearly.
I meant that the individual guild members would then print out the letter & mail it themselves.
TN:
I’m hoping to be on the upcoming WGA Credits Review Committee, which makes recommendations to the membership to approve (or disapprove).
Too bad it’s not like the House/Senate floor where a certain # of letters from citizens (guild members) would automatically require a discussion on that topic. I’m sure that more members would be heard if that were true. & they could set the # of letters pretty high to require that not a lot of the committee’s time was wasted. & if they were afraid of getting too much snail mail, they could set up an online process from their own website where members would have to login to send one.
Of course, pie in the sky & all that. I’m sure there’s too much red tape to change it.
There is a provision in our Constitution for members to gather signatures and propose amendments to the Constitution.
I don’t believe there’s any provision for a referendum on credits issues generated by petition.
How would you reconcile this with the TV world? Specifically, quoting from the WGA’s “Writing for Episodic TV”…
Page 24
“One of the expected duties of being a writer-producer, particularly a showrunner, is rewriting scripts as needed. Historically, an unspoken agreement developed among showrunners that they and their staffs would not take credit for scripts they had rewritten unless the original writer had given a bad faith effort. The rationale was that hiring writers, shaping stories, giving notes, and performing rewrites were all part of the showrunner’s job description, to do or to delegate. The economic impact on original writers was a factor in this understanding, considering that residuals are divided among the credited writers.”
Page 47
“Some showrunners have cited the standard that writing credits should accurately reflect “who did what” on a script. But a different standard has long applied to television writing, a standard of fairness based upon the power structure of episodic television. A showrunner is expected to rewrite. It comes with the job description, and, as the showrunner you are well compensated for it.”
Mark:
Television credits and screenwriting credits differ in one major way.
If you are a staff writer on a show, you’re going to get a credit, one way or another, sooner or later.
If you’re a showrunner, you’re going to get a credit on every single episode you show-run.
In theatrical credits, there’s one opportunity for credit, and that’s it. Forever. ‘Til the end of time.
As such, understandings and bargains between staff writers and showrunners come to pass. There can be no ongoing understandings between writers and producers on theatrical films.
Truth to tell, I’m not so worried about subsequent writers who are also producers or directors — the ones who are unnecessarily and unfairly screwed by this rule are the writers who are hired first (which I guess means the others are necessarily and fairly screwed …).
Rather than dragging in an outside reference that would be changeable without our input, how ‘bout this:
The production executive rules apply except in a case where the production executive writes, alone or as part of a team, the first full draft do the screenplay without having been assigned any source material or literary material, or having been assigned source material but not literary material.
Hm?
-
Ted:
What about in the case of a sequel? Say you didn’t write Pirates 1…or you did but shared credit (as was the case).
Now they want to give you a Co Exec producer credit on Pirates 2. Would you be excused as long as you wrote the first full draft?
C.
Craig —
I’m not quite following what difference it being a sequel would make. The screenplay of the first movie would be assigned literary material; it would be source material, wouldn’t it?
-
Ted:
That’s the thing. I’m not sure. Separation of rights issues and such…I know that the writers of the first movie (if it’s an original, unlike Pirates) do get certain rights in the sequel…so is the producer also protected in that situation?
I dunno. I might be too particular here.
C.