The Reality Organizing Campaign Is, Well, Dead
WGAw
Executive Director
David YoungAfter writing a bit about my migraines, it’s time I started doling some out to other people. I think I’ll start with Patric Verrone and David Young, who, as the leaders of my union, are chiefly responsible for conceiving, coordinating, and then ultimately killing the effort to organize reality television writers into the WGAw. No, you won’t see any official announcement from the guild that the effort to organize reality is dead. No funeral, no flowers.
But don’t mistake the Guild’s silence for a pulse.
This thing is dead. It’s over. It’s an ex-organizing campaign.
If you’re thinking, “Well, hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained,” I’m afraid to say that quite a bit was ventured…to the tune of seven figures of dues money…and not only was nothing gained, but we actually lost some yardage.
Yes, by my last count, our very expensive reality organizing campaign has managed to bring a net total of negative 12 writers into the WGAw.
What went wrong?
Well, just about everything.
Let’s roll back to the genesis of it all. Patric Verrone, the current President of the WGAw, has been banging the drum of organizing for a very long time, and for good reason. Organizing, which is the catch-all term for bringing new groups of employees into a union, is certainly a major part of union work. The fact that the WGAw lost an organizing battle with IATSE over animation writers, for instance, means that no one ever gets paid residuals on movies like Happy Feet or Shrek or Ice Age or…any of them.
This is bad.
As such, I believe in organizing.
However, where Patric and I differ is that I believe in organizing primarily as a moral imperative to improve the lives of non-unionized employees, while he believes in organizing primarily as a strategy to increase the bargaining power of already unionized writers.
See, I wanted reality writers to get covered by a WGA contract because it’s good for them. They would get minimums, pension and health, and decent working conditions.
Patric wanted reality writers in the WGA because he believed that would allow the rest of us to strike effectively and achieve the real goal, which is to improve our residuals formula. See, we all know that the companies use non-union reality as a wedge against our strike threat. If we strike, they can still keep running very popular reality shows, making our strike less harmful to them.
And Patric didn’t like this.
So he and David Young devised a strategy.
The Verrone-Young strategy goes a little something like this.
- In order to get a better residuals formula, you need to win a strike.
- In order win a strike, you need to have reality workers in your union, striking with you.
- In order to get reality workers in the union to create that effective strike threat, you need to get them all, not just some workers or some shows or some networks or some production companies.
- In order to get them all, you need to get the companies to agree to something they have never ever ever agreed to in Hollywood before, which is a union standards clause. This means that not only would the big companies agree to go union, but they would agree to only work with companies that also agreed to go union.
- In order to get the never-before-gotten union standards agreement, we would have to pressure the companies through a corporate campaign, which is an orchestrated effort to attack the companies in multiple small ways…a “death of a thousand paper cuts”…finally bringing them to their knees.
- Our corporate campaign included three phases. The first involved filing lawsuits alleging that the companies weren’t paying reality writers overtime.
- The second phase attacked the companies over the practice of product integration (the inclusion of advertising within plotlines, etc.), with the expectation that advertisers would freak out and pressure the networks to accede to our demands.
- The third phase was to attempt to create an industry-wide walkout by striking one show and hoping for the “match in the tinderbox” effect. That show was America’s Next Top Model.
You might think, like I did, that this was the most rickety, convoluted, pie-in-the-sky Rube Goldberg strategy you’ve ever encountered.
Or you might think it sounds great.
Either way, here’s what happened.
The overtime lawsuits were batted away like gnats. The companies will likely settle them quietly if they haven’t already. Meanwhile, I’ve been hearing anecdotally that reality writers are being paid overtime…but they’re being paid less per hour…so their overall pay hasn’t changed.
In short, the companies were not brought to their knees.
The effort against product integration included an incredibly clumsy, ham-fisted website called Subservient Donald, a ripoff of Burger King’s wildly successful viral marketing campaign “Subservient Chicken.” The Donald is a Donald Trump impersonator who responds to user questions by slamming various products that are advertised through product integration.
David Young believed that this would “go viral,” which is a phrase that should be outlawed. If you’re trying to “go viral,” you’re not going viral. The internet is rather good at ignoring forced messages.
Unsurprisingly, Subservient Donald was dead on arrival. All other efforts to attack product integration, including guerrilla street theater, picketing in front of advertising conferences and even a lobbying trip to Europe to attempt to influence legislators there against the practice…got nothing.
Zippo. Well, the companies were annoyed by the papercuts, but they weren’t dying or falling to their knees or even flinching.
And so, with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent and nothing to show for it, the WGAw took the writers of America’s Next Top Model out on strike.
There were twelve of them.
The theory, apparently, was that once the rest of the reality writers in town saw both the bravery of these twelve writers as well as the incredible show of support from the rest of the union, they would rush out on to their own picket lines in a chain reaction of labor solidarity. With a thousand reality writers on the street, Patric and David would finally bring the companies to their knees.
Ah.
Well.
As most of you know, it didn’t work like that. Instead, simple, obvious and oh-so-predictable human nature trumped Patric and David’s plan. Instead of rushing out to their own picket lines, the rest of the reality writers thought, “Hmmm, let’s see if these people make some progress or get squashed like bugs before we risk our jobs.”
The ANTM writers walked the line for many weeks. They were paid, in fact, by the WGAw. The picket line was catered (this is Hollywood, after all). WGAw members worked phone banks to get other members to walk the line with them in support (I made some of these calls myself).
Now, here’s what I said upon hearing of this strike, and I said it in the Board room.
“The CW would rather kill ANTM than give it to us now, and they would probably be compensated for it by the other companies.”
Why? Because the precedent of rewarding the WGAw for this kind of labor action would be unthinkable for them.
In the end, the ANTM writers were told that not only were they not getting WGAw deals, but all writing jobs on the show were being eliminated.
That’s right. ANTM said, “Hey, you know what, we can do this show with our editors. We don’t even need you, much less feel like giving you a union deal.”
And that’s how our millions in dues money got us the sum total of -12 writers organized into the WGAw.
Still, knowing full well that the ANTM writers were in the process of petitioning to try and get their jobs back anyway, the WGAw decided to light yet another bonfire of cash in a desperate attempt to save face.
They held a “unity” rally.
The entire staff suddenly focused on this event, as if it were ever going to make a damned bit of difference to the ANTM writers (one of whom told me that “if they ask me to speak at the rally, I’m going to tell everyone there not to listen to these people.”).
Hell, they even got Marc Cherry to record a phone message exhorting us all to show up, and then ran it on an autodialer out to all current WGAw members.
Hundreds of people showed up (estimates ran from 700 to 1,000 people), some of whom were non-members, but a good chunk of whom were members.
Patric and David spoke. They spoke about the need to fight. The need to bring the companies to their knees.
Everyone wore a red t-shirt. Then they marched past CBS as if to say, “Hey, CBS, don’t mess with us!”
Then they went home.
The ANTM writers are still looking for work. Some of us have been trying to help find them replacement jobs. The WGAw certainly isn’t.
Then again, I’m starting to wonder if the current leadership ever really gave a damn about these people. And now that this entire thing is dead and they’ve burned through the treasury and have nothing to show for it, all I can say is that I’m angry.
Writers have to earn nearly 67 million dollars to net the Guild a million dollars in dues.
I think they’ve probably spent more than a million on the reality organizing effort, which involved a major staff buildup, web expenditures, trips to Europe, trips to New York, research, production of a large number of useless presentations, catering, t-shirts, and flat-out stipends for strikers.
But let’s just say a million.
That gives me 67 million reasons to be angry.
That’s not all, though.
I have a friend. Good friend. I’ve known him for about six years now. I know his wife. I’ve known his kids since birth. He lives a few miles away from my house. I see him almost every week.
He’s been working in reality all that time.
He has no minimums, he has no pension and health, he gets no residuals, and he works ridiculous hours.
I came to Patric Verrone two years ago and said, “I believe we can organize his show if we take a vote of the staff, go through the NLRB process, keep it quiet, keep it out of the press, and in one year all of those writers will be in our union and have better lives.”
And he said, “So?”
See, that didn’t fit in Patric’s plan of everyone, so he rejected it.
My friend is still working non-union.
One last thought for you.
I had a conversation with a man who is currently on the Board and on the Organizing Committee as well. I put a hypothetical to him that clearly shows where the minds of our leadership are right now.
I said, “If the companies came to you tomorrow and said they’d give all reality writers a great collective bargaining agreement under the auspices of the WGAw, and it would guarantee them minimums and pension and health and great working conditions and even residuals, but the one condition was that it had to be separate from our agreement, so if we struck, they would have to keep working…would you take that deal?”
And he said, “No.”
That’s when I knew that my union, like Harold Crick, was living in a tragedy.
Craig, fantastic post.
The sad thing is that Verrone and co paid a proper slate organizer and their targeted money won them the election.
The vote totals for the Verrone slate were very similiar; that is organizing, the type he has not been able to achieve with reality writers.
The sad truth is that if you want these people out, and their strategy is a loser strategy, you, and I mean you plural, will have to do more than point out their failures on blog sites which the vast majority of WGAw membership don’t read.
The last election campaign bore that out. WA members were hugely in favour of Ted and thought his election a foregone conclusion.
If you want your Guild back and the threat of a strike removed, you will have to fight fire with fire. That means an organiser of your own, direct mail shots or however the Verrone slate did it.
Otherwise, you can expect more of the same. At least more until they finally lose it and do call a strike. Which will fail. At that point the membership will throw them out, but a lot of careers will have been damaged by then.
I think the other reason the WGAw plan went dead is because perhaps they shared the same viewpoint of Reality Writers as other unionized Writers. Which is:
Reality Writers aren’t really Writers at all.
I’ve had this argument ad nauseum with other writers and I got the distinct impression that this viewpoint was shared by the majority and not the minority.
Just to make it clear. I’m in the minority.
What is to stop this from happening now, with that place and elsewhere? Why can’t this still be won by doing this very thing?
It may be the simple fact that ANTM is still on the air without any writers — any attempt to organize another reality show could meet the same fate, even if it is low-key.
I have to agree with CW’s actions in this one. Parents simply cannot reward children for throwing a tantrum. And all of this talk of unions, legislation, and litigation makes me wonder why writers don’t go the capitalist route, which would be to form a production company of sorts that employs the writers directly and gives them health benefits. Then when a studio wants a writer, the producers simply retain the production company (similar to a consulting firm’s business model) with a standard contract that essentially requires residuals, etc. Thus, instead of talent agents and the sort, aspiring writers seek to be employed (rather than represented) by this production company.
Paul:
There’s too much bad blood now. Even if the WGAw wanted to go show by show in a reasonable way, without the threat of labor stoppages, lawsuits or NRLB complaints, I don’t think we’d get very far.
Part of the problem is that IATSE (the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees), which is the union with jurisdiction over editors, is now starting to swoop in and organize reality shows. They believe they have jurisdiction over all reality employees, so no matter what the WGAw does, they’ll have to deal with legal challenges before they can even begin.
What a boondoggle.
The sad truth is that if you want these people out, and their strategy is a loser strategy, you, and I mean you plural, will have to do more than point out their failures on blog sites which the vast majority of WGAw membership don’t read.
What effect do you think this debacle will have on the ‘07 contract negotiations?
Seduce:
I’m not sure that this truth (which is definitely a truth) is sad. Yes, I think we’ll have to do more. No, this blog isn’t about “getting them out.” It’s about editorializing, and nothing more.
Getting them out is a task for later.
Chesher:
Well, I think it certainly makes us look weak and ineffective, and that’s never good when heading into a negotiation.
Loved your post, Craig. Thank you for breaking down the issues at the heart of the losing proposition that was David Young and Patric Verrone’s attempt at organizing reality writers.
I am a reality show runner. I attended the last, most recent reality show runner’s organizing meeting at the WGA. It was on guild election day and David Young stopped by, looking very tired, but amped.
A big time TV drama show runner was there, too and spoke honestly about how it would benefit the guild and existing TV writers like him if they could organize us so the networks couldn’t use us against them come contract negotiation time. I liked his honesty. It was the last honest thing said in that room that night.
As the host of the evening (an elderly gentleman, don’t remember his name) rambled on about the beauty of fighting together for our rights, yada, yada… basic, logical questions formed in my head. I asked them.
Hem… haw… no answer. Not from David Young. Not from rambling but well-intentioned older gentleman host. Not from Patric Verrone who was sitting off to the side.
Wow. Everyone around the big conference table looked at me like I had just said the ‘N’ word. Like I was some imperialistic asshole wanting rights only for the super elite. And those faces looking at me were from Shopping Frenzy on TLC, History of Rodents on Animal Channel, Bride Smackdown on Lifetime… I mean, come on! David Young looked like he had just smelled a hot fart. He answered in a clipped way that that was not what they were interested in pusuing.
Oh sure, that’s a great idea, of course. We’ll put together a sheet. But the white paper never came. Why? Because there are no talking points. At least not up the ladder. There is begging. There is “be nicer to humanity and please give us portable pension and health”, but again, I believe that is called begging. We, the piddly reality show runners, have no power. We maybe could ask for P&H on our own behalfs but WGA wasn’t into that… and apparently wasn’t really into organizing us or they would have had a freakin’ sheet ready for us, given us some sort of tools… instead of dry roast beef and rhetoric.
And the kickers were:
I talked to the drama show runner afterwards because I am a huge fan and he had NO IDEA how our business worked. That the prodcos sell the shows. In his world, HE is the king. Our business model was complete news to him and he admitted he could see the difficulty in organizing us because we do not hold the power, as he does in his world.
As I walked out of the meeting, I felt a lot of anger. I walked in ready to be used as a pawn for the WGA TV writers to use against the networks and I would receive somehting in exchange. But I walked out feeling like the WGA organizers were inept and do not really understand my business nor care to tackle the complexity of it. Their “rah, rah unity” bullshit was supposed to sway me to risk my career without actual concrete tools and support based on a deep understanding of the reality TV process? And they were firm about organizing all or nothing? Hmm… seems they were destined for nothing. And I really, REALLY wanted something.
Lastly, as I was headed to the parking garage having a post mortum about the meeting with my friend who is also a reality show runner, she put the capper on it for me when she said, “I know just how you feel. I felt the same frustration when we had this meeting 18 months ago. The same meeting. The same people. The same questions. The same non-answers. Even the same roast beef.”
Damn.
Seduce was quoting me. Why, I am not sure.
Five Good Hours:
Yeah. I mean…yeah.
Yup.
Pretty depressing, huh?
This may make WGA board members’, etc., hair stand on end, and this may be too big of a newbie question for a comments section, but reading up on the union, the way it works, the recent failed strikes and the possbily upcoming-even-though-it-seems-like-no-one-wants-it-and-it-won’t-do-any-good strike continually makes me wonder on a grand scale why we have or need a union at all. Or at least this one.
I’m a non-union writer trying to break in and come from a family of non-union people, so there’s my biased disclaimer. But it seems to me the guild approaches writers very much as labor employees—that is, it’s modeled on the traditional union model of the 1930s in which exploited workers wanted a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. A model which definitely holds true for writers [I]except[/I] for that key sticking point of writers being creative types who don’t necessarily simply want to put in a fair day’s work and go home and nap. For me, (and I may be the minority since I’m all young and idealistic and shit) I care less about the strict “union benefits” of health care and pension and the nickel-and-dime of this or that polish then I do about being kept in the creative process and allowing the vision of the script to come together with all involved. Yes, of course I want to be paid what I’m worth, not just for the script but the DVD residuals, etc. But I pay for my own health care and retirement plan out of my own pocket now; I’m in another guild that offers it, but the cost/benefit doesn’t work for me.
The point of all this is that from what I read and observe, most writers want to work, want to contribute creatively, and want to be fairly compensated. These are their priorities. The union’s priorities seem to be making sure everyone is treated 100% equally, even if that equality means everyone is treated equally crappily. But Hollywood isn’t a steel mill—every production has different budgets and different needs. Honestly, I don’t see how this union, with the labor force model it follows, can ever effectively negotiate for the writers. They’re barking up two different trees and in the meantime, producers are starting to even wonder if they need pets. Enlighten me?
Our union does a lot of good. For instance, it administers credits (although somewhat oddly), and it collectively bargains for and distributes residuals.
In the end, though, the most important value to our union is simply this: being in a union prevents undercutting.
Because this is an industry with very few jobs and an enormous amount of people who want them, there will always be a downward pressure on wages.
Call it the “casting couch” syndrome. People are desperate to work in Hollywood. Many would work for free if that were an option, if only to chase the dream of some imagined riches.
If we didn’t have a union that set a basic minimum in compensation, the downward pressure on salaries would not only affect rookies, but veterans and all-stars as well.
So I do think the union is necessary, if only for that.
However, the union is terrible at “changing the industry.” Terrible. In fact, they never do. They can’t. It’s a small bureaucracy with an extremely limited set of tools, and the industry is the opposite.
What our union ought to be doing to improve the lives of its members is enforcing the agreements we already have.
See, while Patric and David are running around trying to impress hundreds or thousands of employees into the union, the people already in the union who pay dues aren’t being protected as well as they could be. Our Legal Department is notorious for its passivity, and the companies are notorious for breaking our agreements routinely.
In conclusion, we need a union, and we need it to work better for our members, and the guys running it now aren’t helping.
They’re hurting.
Craig, I’ve been reading and enjoying your blog for quite awhile, and I’ve especially admired your straight talk and level headedness regarding entertainment union issues. I’m the president of The Animation Guild, IATSE local 839 (TAG), so I come at these issues from a slightly different perspective, but we’re in almost complete agreement in how wrong-headed the current WGA leadership is.
I do have to correct some of your comments about animation writers. Local 839 began representing storymen (as they were then known) and animation writers well over 50 years ago, and long before anyone at the WGA took any notice of animation. There wasn’t really a battle over jurisdiction between the WGA and the local 839 (then known as the Motion Picture Screen Cartoonists) — local 839 covered EVERYONE in animation, except editors and camera operators, because no one else gave a damn.
When I first became president, we actually had meetings with WGA organizers about cooperative organizing. There has always been a fair amount of animation work, including writing, being done nonunion, and our attitude was that people should be protected by a collective bargaining agreement. If we weren’t being successful organizing a given company, we’d be happy to see the WGA succeed with that show’s writers. There were lots of people writing and making cartoons without decent health or pension benefits or residuals of any kind, and to us that was more important than differences between TAG and the WGA.
In the last couple of years, those overtures towards cooperation went sour, beginning when the WGA tried to raid TAG’s jurisdiction at DreamWorks (on “Father of the Pride”). And then things became stridently militant with the current WGA administration, when a kind of unilateral war was declared.
It never made sense to me for one entertainment union to pick fights with other entertainment unions, especially when the producers hold almost all the power, but that seems to be a pattern at the WGA (I’m thinking here also of the silly and counterproductive battles with the DGA).
Anyway, back to the issue of animation writers, and another clarification: writers under the TAG 839 contract DO get residuals, though not directly as under the SAG, WGA, and DGA deals. Our residuals go into a pool to support the health and individual pension plans. That formula was decided decades ago, for better or worse. As a result, the IATSE west coast locals have the best health and pension plans in the biz. Last year these locals received over $350 million in residuals.
Also, until recently, it wasn’t uncommon for animation writers under the 839 agreement to negotiate residuals that came into their very own pockets. This is unheard of today, for a very simple reason: the WGA has been too successful in emphasizing that ONLY WGA writers get residuals. It wasn’t true, but WGA leaders kept saying it, and now the animation producers believe it.
A few years ago an animation writer with such a deal stopped getting his residual checks. He called the TAG office, and they investigated. Turned out a studio exec, who was new to the job, had been reading some WGA press releases, and said, “Hey, this guy isn’t in the WGA, so we shouldn’t be paying him residuals.” Of course a quick grievance threat settled that matter, but the die was cast. The studios developed a hard line regarding allowing individual residuals for animation writers.
Oh, and that’s not just for writers under our contract. Think a WGA contract on an animated show always means residuals? Not from what I hear. You might ask your president about that.
You also mentioned that writers for “Happy Feet” and the “Ice Age” films don’t get residuals. You could also have mentioned all the Pixar films, among others. None of those films have been made under ANY collective bargaining agreement. There has been absolutely nothing keeping the WGA from organizing those writers. Yet it hasn’t happened. I think the WGA’s constant emphasis on turf battles with the IATSE and TAG 839 obscures the fact that the WGA, despite high-profile posturing about representing animation writers, has done an incredibly ineffective job of organizing in this area. The only exception is a small handful of FOX primetime shows.
Anyway, that’s all a foot note to your main premise, which is that the WGA is being lead to the edge of a cliff. And, unfortunately, just about every other worker in the entertainment industry might get pulled over that cliff, whether they like it or not.
“Seduce was quoting me. Why, I am not sure.”-Louise B
I think it may be a new form of spam. Bots blending in with actual posters. The link (which we probably shouldn’t follow if we want to discourage them) makes me picture Tom Cruise in Magnolia.
Kevin:
As a member of Local 839, I say welcome…and thanks for your very informative comment.
The story I heard about animation writers is a bit different than the one you’re telling. I was told that animation writers actually approached the WGAw in the 50’s and were turned down, so IATSE moved in.
That could be apocryphal, but your point holds. There really wasn’t a jurisdictional battle.
I do know that Patric was central to the Father of the Pride incident. I’ll be honest with you…I supported him on that one.
Even though I’m a member of 839, I know that if I write for animation under the WGAw, I get credit protection and I qualify for residuals that are paid directly to me above and beyond my P&H.
If I write under an 839 contract, I do not get credit protection and I will never get residuals as I’ve described above.
I support the right of writers to choose the union that offers them the best contract, although I’m also well aware that I don’t live in a vacuum. There is no doubt that the Father of the Pride contract started a war between IA and the WGA that clearly impacted the WGA’s efforts to organize reality.
As such, I think things could have maybe been handled a bit more carefully.
I agree that beating up on IA isn’t going to make life any better for the people who work under IA contracts.
Yes, it’s true that a WGAw contract in animation doesn’t always equal residuals, but it seem to more often than not, particularly on primetime animation.
And yes, it’s true that the films I mentioned were non-union. I never know which theatrical films are non-union and which are IA. I know that the animated film I was working on was an 839 shop, which is why I’m in your union.
And I agree that the WGAw has done a poor job of organizing animation, but there’s little doubt in my mind that Tommy Short wouldn’t stand by idly if the WGAw tried harder. I don’t think the war between IA and the WGAw is unilateral.
Frankly, I think our union should be concentrating on organizing work areas where our jurisdiction is unquestionable, like basic cable, before we start mucking around in work areas like animation, which seem destined for NLRB hearings.
Thanks again for commenting. Great to have the perspective of another union leader here, and I hope you continue to participate.
Thanks for the long response, Craig.
Actually, I don’t think the “Father of the Pride” thing is why Tom Short and the IA got so exercised on the reality TV thing. It was because (so I’ve been told by people who would know) the WGA was actively trying to represent editors as well as writers on those shows. The “Father of the Pride” thing wasn’t that big a deal, since we all knew from the start there was zero chance of that jurisdiction being lost, and I think was water under the bridge by the time the reality TV stuff hit a fever pitch.
As for Tom Short not standing idly by if the WGAw tried harder in animation … well, it really isn’t up to him. If the WGAw gets the rep cards, and goes to the NLRB, and wins the election, and successfully negotiates, nothing else matters. Tom Short can’t affect that process. As for why I keep hearing about times the WGAw has rep cards but won’t go to the NLRB, well, I don’t get it.
And the comment about the animation war being unilateral was serious. I know the IA is unhappy with the WGAw, and there may be bad blood between our parent union and the WGAw, but at the Animation Guild we really have no ax to grind. We have a fair number of members with dual cards (like you), and our vice president and business agent are both writers.
Anyway, I really have been enjoying the Artful Writer for a good long while, not just for the discussions of union stuff (and I’m sure you and I could do some serious commiserating about the “joys” of union leadership!), but for the thoughtful discussions of the writing process, and of whole crazy entertainment business.
By the way, can you say what animated film you were working on? Were you doing anything with DreamWorks while Ted and Terry were there?
The fact that the WGAw lost an organizing battle with IATSE over animation writers, for instance, means that no one ever gets paid residuals on movies like Happy Feet or Shrek or Ice Age…
Would the writers of ‘Happy Feet’ be covered by the WGA even if the WGA covered Animation?
It was an animated movie written by Australians, in Australia.
The producers were all Australians.
The animation was done by an Australian company, in Australia.
So why would the Writer’s Guild of AMERICA be involved? If the writers were forced to join the WGA, wouldn’t that mean they could never write for Australian film or TV again?
I appreciate the WGA pay scales are great, but if it prevents a writer from ever working again in the country where they live…is it worth it?
Steve:
George Miller is already a member of the WGA. So no, being a member of the WGA doesn’t mean you can’t work for Australian film or TV ever again. You have posed a problem that doesn’t exist.
Kevin:
I must admit, I don’t understand the whole rep cards thing either. If you have them…take a vote….
…unless, as I said, your object wasn’t to eventually get people into your union, but to get them into your union en masse, right now, with a larger goal in mind.
No, I’ve never worked for DreamWorks. I was working on Opus for Dimension Films.
I’m Kevin’s comrade-in-labor, the business representative for The Animation Guild. I started in the cartoon business 30 years ago as a story trainee at Disney. A few points:
As Kevin says, a good number of theatrical animated features aren’t covered by any union contract. Not the product of Blue Sky out of White Plains N.Y. (owned by Fox), not the features of Pixar (now owned by Disney), not a number of independent features (“Barnyard” comes to mind.) All of these films are up for grabs by whatever labor organization can organize them (and by organizing I mean successsfully negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.)
Here’s the reality: Few companies want to sign labor agreements with guilds or unions. Ever. They see themselves as having far more flexibility and control if they don’t. Also (as they perceive it) better cash flow and profit margins.
So, why does any company sign with a union or guild? Simple. The union or guild has leverage to make it happen. For the WGA(w), controlling the sitcom writer prime-time animation producers feel they’ve got to have to compete in that arena provides the leverage. And guess what? The WGA(w) has been relatively successful in prime-time.
But in daytime, that leverage isn’t there. The producers believe they can get along fine without WGA writers, so the WGA has few contracts. And when the WGA does have contracts, the agreements are usually concessionary (i.e., no residuals.)
Years back, I negotiated a term agreement with a negotiating committee composed mostly of writers. They (and I) negotiated with Disney, Fox, DreamWorks and the rest for nine months to achieve residual payments for writers. At the end, the writers got some contract improvements but no residuals. And they went away angry.
I hardly blamed them. They wanted only what other unionized writers have had for fifty years. “It’s only fair!” they kept saying in caucus. The problem is, fair has got nothing to do with it. There is only what unions and/or individuals have the power to achieve.
This, in a nutshell, is the WGA’s problem today. You don’t win an organizing drive by putting out press releases or giving speeches or holding rallies. You win only by using the leverage you actually have. And using it wisely and well.
Kevin,
“Reality Writers aren’t really Writers at all.
I’ve had this argument ad nauseum with other writers and I got the distinct impression that this viewpoint was shared by the majority and not the minority.”
That’s because they’re NOT writers, thank you very much. They’re all sorts of things, and you can even make the case that some of those things are creative, but they’re not writers. So, yeah, it makes it hard for some of us who actually ARE writers to get real worked up about bringing them into our guild. We might as well incorporate the editors of reality shows, since they do the majority of the “writing” on the damn things anyway.
Seriously - if I were an animation writer, I’d be fucking FURIOUS that I was being roped into the same group with reality writers. It’s a travesty that animation writers aren’t part of the guild. They’re no reasonable argument to be made that they don’t do the exact same thing we do.
But reality show writers? Nope. It’s a non-starter. You need to find a different argument. If it’s good for our Guild to include them, if that somehow empowers us, fine. Make that case. But as writers, it behooves us to use words properly, and the people who cobble together reality shows are not writers. To those of us who have worked our asses off for decades to become honest to god, motherfucking Class-A WRITERS, the whole thing is insulting as hell.
Part of the problem is that IATSE (the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees), which is the union with jurisdiction over editors, is now starting to swoop in and organize reality shows. They believe they have jurisdiction over all reality employees, so no matter what the WGAw does, they’ll have to deal with legal challenges before they can even begin.
Eighteen months ago, the WGA(w) and the Editors Guild held planning meetings to jointly organize reality shows. Not much happened. The WGA(w) told the editors they were going their own way. Shortly thereafter, the Guild announced that they were going to organize both editors and writers on reality shows by itself.
IA President Tom Short got mad. The Editors Guild got mad. Several reality producers took a look at the two labor organizations, and made internal calculations regarding which group would be, from their POV, the lesser of two evils.
And here we are, a year or two later, with the Editors Guild holding a number of reality show contracts and the Writers Guild holding (as far as I know) none.
Josh—I hope you’re sitting down, because Young and Verrone ARE attempting to organize reality editors.
I don’t know whether you spend any time reading WriterAction anymore, but if you do, you might find it interesting (actually, more like infuriating) to read some of the “WGA Business” threads from this summer, while the ANTM strike was going on.
The WGAw was unable to have the editors of ANTM walk with the writers because the editors were already members of IATSE. However, David Young and various BOD members have been very up-front about the fact that their ideal strike would be for writers and editors to walk out together, NOT because they honestly believe editors do a job that falls under legitimate WGAw jurisdiction but simply because that would almost certainly shut down production and give us a victory.
When asked whether this might not open up a can of worms down the road—for example, allowing for a future in which feature editors could claim writing credit—these concerns were dismissed with a wave of a hand and “oh, we’ll have a side letter,” or “well, they will be under a separate contract.” Of course, what Craig pointed out in his essay has been very clear to many of us for a while—there is no way in hell this WGAw administration would organize reality under a separate contract because that would fly in the face of their fantasy of being able to shut down all TV production (or, rather, just broadcast TV production, since cable and animation, as others have said, remain unorganized for the most part).
In addition to the ludicrously ill-considered strategy of including editors simply for the short-term potential gain of winning a strike, the definition of “writer” is fuzzy in reality, and the WGAw seems to be exploiting that for its own fuzzy ends rather than making it clear, to the companies or to us members, who, exactly, should be in the WGAw. Although after many discussions I am willing to believe that there is legitimate, WGA-worthy writing going on in at least some reality shows, Young and Verrone seem to be perfectly happy to define “writer” as “someone who will sign a card saying they want to be a WGAw member.”
The ANTM writers were thrown to the wolves by a WGAw leadership that feels bodies are more important than lives. In all honesty, given what I’ve heard about and directly from Young, Verrone and some BOD members who support this haphazard organizing campaign, I believe the absolute best result for the WGAw in the long term would be for them to fail utterly. Because if they succeed, the WGAw will include people who have not and do not desire to do anything like writing, yet they will be entitled to all rights and benefits of WGAw members who do write. And that includes writing credit.
I have yet to hear any arguments for possible benefits from the success of the Young-Verrone strategy, specifically of including reality editors, that outweigh the obvious detriments.
For the record, I do not hate Young or Verrone or anyone on the current BOD. (That seems to be a quick criticism lobbed at those of us who disagree with them.) I don’t doubt that they believe they could make the Guild stronger. However, I haven’t seen any evidence of them achieving that…and I don’t see how that would be a result, even if their plans succeed. It’s possible to have good intentions and be completely misguided, and the sooner more people in the WGAw wake up to THAT reality, the better our chances of getting through 2007 without a long, unwinnable strike.
Steve Hulett:
I agree entirely about the need to emphasize “what you can get” over “what you deserve.” The only time it’s worth fighting for “what you deserve” is if it’s something so critical, it’s not worth having a union without it. Pension and health care come to mind.
Frankly, credit protection is pretty damned close to that, and if I were you guys in IA, that’s what I would be fighting for the hardest on behalf of animation writers (and story artists).
Olson:
By and large, I agree. That is, I think that the definition of “professional writer” is “someone paid to create literary material.”
Some reality employees do this. For instance, on Blind Date, someone wrote the joke bubbles. That’s writing. On Survivor, someone writes the treatments for the various games and puzzles. That’s writing.
Many reality employees called “writers,” however, are paid to take pre-existing footage, and using the transcripts of that footage, rearrange the segments, lines and shots into an audio-visual narrative.
I call that “editing” or “producing” or “directing,” but not writing.
So yes, I think we agree that there’s a major problem in seeking to organize reality employees as writers if they’re not creating orginal literary material.
Steve Hulett again:
Correct. The WGAw attempted to organize reality editors, because they felt they needed a reality strike to get reality into the Guild, and they thought they couldn’t have a successful reality strike without the reality editors.
And correct, the companies took a look at the WGAw and the IA and chose the IA.
Now, a bit of criticism for IA…doesn’t it make you guys a wee bit uncomfortable to know that your deal is more attractive to the companies than ours? Isn’t there a decent possibility that negotiating for a better deal closer to the WGAw’s is possible, even if only by using the WGAw as a stalking horse?
In my opinion, the IA needs to bargain more aggressively on behalf of the minority percentage members it has who are authors. Olson’s right…there are honest-to-goodness authors in the IA like animation writers and story artists too (who do contribute literary material in addition to story art), and it’s not helping us or them if the IA presents a cheaper deal to the companies.
If I were running the guild, I would make better relations with IA a priority. We have to work together to solve the animation jurisdiction issue…and another pet peeve of mine: runaway production.
Denise:
Yup. All true. Actually, the entire argument to rationalize allowing editors into the WGAw isn’t so dangerous because it would open the door for feature film editors…it might…but because it would open the door for feature film directors to claim that they are “writing” on every movie they direct.
After all, once the cameras start rolling, they have all “storytelling” authority on the movie from that point foward until the premiere.
Craig,
“So yes, I think we agree that there’s a major problem in seeking to organize reality employees as writers if they’re not creating orginal literary material.”
In what sense were the ANTM writers doing that? Were the lines the girls said scripted?
Louise:
My understanding is the girls did not speak scripted lines. It’s possible that someone was writing dialogue for Tyra et al, but I’ve never heard that alleged.
Louise—
In the interview linked below, one of the then-striking ANTM writers described her function on the show. I remember being quite shocked when I heard her description. She said their job consisted of looking at some 200 hours of raw footage and then deciding how to edit it into a compelling one-hour episode. Absolutely no writing in the sense of creating a script intended for performance; she flat-out admitted that “it’s totally post-production, we’re not ever feeding lines to the girls.” As much as I believe those 12 people should have received the protections of a union, it’s hard to make a cogent argument for the WGAw being the appropriate union if we assume that the real power of the Writers Guild lies in the fact that its members create literary material.
The interview is available here.
Olson: By and large, I agree.
Holy Crow, Olson and Mazin agree!
Reality writers perform the same function as documentary screenwriters, who are recognized by the WGA. Should we kick them out as well?
Writing a script for reality TV is comparable to writing a nonfiction book — you’re dealing with events that have already happened, but you still have to shape them into a narrative structure, embellish with voiceover/host copy if necessary, take creative liberties for the sake of the story. It’s not editing, and it’s not producing. It isn’t the same process as writing for a “traditional” show, but that doesn’t mean it’s not writing.
That is undoubtedly true for some reality writers, and those writers should absolutely be organized by the WGAw.
The problem for me is that the current WGAw leadership is not bothering to focus on those writers. They are aggressively trying to organize people like the ANTM writers, who did NOT function like documentary writers (if you listened to that interview I linked to, the writer admitted they never fed anyone lines—so they apparently did not write any voiceover narration or the like, which certainly would be WGA-coverable writing). If the WGAw leadership were focusing not on “reality” but on “writers,” it would be harder to take issue with their methods—and their failures.
But documentary writers don’t ONLY write narration — they also write scripts that determine the dramatic structure of the film, before, during, and/or after filming. And that’s exactly what the ANTM writers did, too.
I would argue that if a documentary writer ONLY assembles historical footage, regardless of whether he or she actually writes a transcript that includes description of and dialogue from that footage, he or she should not receive WGA benefits for that work.
If, however, he or she does actual writing, which could include voiceover narration or historical recreations, etc., that should be covered.
The ANTM writers did the former, not the latter, as far as I can tell from their own testimony.
Your argument seems to be that because the ANTM writers do many things that are similar to what documentary writers do, they should be entitled to WGA representation and benefits. However, it is precisely because of the way their job description differs from that of a documentary writer that I believe they were not entitled to either.
This does NOT mean I believe that no reality writers belong in the WGA. Not at all. But as I’ve said and as others have said, repeatedly, the WGAw needs to define “writer” and then organize the people that fit that job description, rather than simply getting behind anyone who signs a card saying they’d like to be in the WGAw and/or who is willing to walk a picket line.
Josh:
When it comes to shows like The Girls Next Door, while they’re great for masturbation, I agree with you, there’s no writing there.
But I’m talking about Host based shows like ANTM and Survivor. While the contestant based portions are totally made in the editing, all of the extensive dialogue spoken by the hosts are scripted by writers. Much like Award Shows.
Well then the question would be:
How much do you have to write to be considered a Writer?
Is it one line? Two lines?
If someone gives Jerry Seinfeld a 4 line joke, can he be considered a Writer? I don’t think anyone has ever disputed that. So why is it so easy to reject someone giving Tyra Banks 2 pages of dialogue?
I think I know why. Content and Association.
I think it’s safe to say that although Reality Television continues to grow in viewership, most people you talk to about Reality Television will condemn it all to hell. It’s trash, it’s garbage, and I’ve heard about 3 different variations of someone taking a shit and making it into art and blah blah blah.
Fine.
To each his own. But just because we dislike the content of something doesn’t mean we should dismiss the obvious facts. If someone writes something for someone else…they’re a writer. Maybe they’re a good writer. Maybe they’re a shitty writer. Who knows? But they’re still writers. Let’s not forget that.
Again, I’m not talking about Reality Shows that rely 100% on editing.
Kevin, if the ANTM writers were in fact writing dialogue for Tyra, then of course they should be in the Guild.
However, if you listen to that interview I linked to in my comment above, the ANTM writer said absolutely NOTHING about writing dialogue for Tyra or anyone else. She said her entire job consisted of shaping preshot footage into episodes. She flat-out said she did not feed lines to the contestants, and if she contributed to lines for Tyra, then she neglected to mention it.
No doubt somebody is writing for Tyra, and those people should be in the WGAw. It’s not clear to me that any of those people were the ones who went on strike.
I’m not passing judgment on the shows reality writers work on. All I care about is whether they’re actually writing, i.e., creating literary material. If they are, they should be in the WGA. If they aren’t, then they shouldn’t be. It really isn’t very complicated, and it’s hard to see why anyone would consider that unreasonable.
Denise:
I have no clue who that woman is you’re talking about regarding ANTM. And if she doesn’t write any lines for Tyra or Jay Alexander she’s not a writer.
I’m talking about the person who does.
Kevin, the woman who gave that interview (which I linked to in my post at 2:53 p.m. of 12/5/06) is one of the ANTM story editors who went on strike for a WGAw contract.
Your earlier post, addressed in response to a quote you pulled from me, seemed to imply that you assumed I was passing judgment on the quality of the work rather than simply asking that the WGAw limit its organizing efforts to those who produce literary material.
I was not passing judgment in that regard. I hope you and others now understand that, and that, further, I wholeheartedly support bringing writers in every genre into the WGAw. My issue is that the current WGAw leadership is not clearly defining the term “writer” and is actively pursuing editors and others who do not create literary material.
In that respect, I totally agree with you. My response wasn’t really aimed at you, it was aimed at the big JO.
Then why are we still calling them the ANTM writers? Aren’t they in fact editors?
I’m not a big fan of the show but have seen it once or twice. At least a couple of the lines Tyra says do have to be written. For example when she boringly recites in every single show what the prize consists of. I assume somebody told her what to say.
But I would very much doubt that more than a single person would be needed to write that amount of dialogue. Editors do put stories together, but their function is distinct from that of writers (even in books, my editor has quite a bit of control over the direction and shape of the story, but would not describe herself as a co-author). Mazin points out accurately that if we redefine any storytelling function as writing, then directors and editors must be included and the already limited rights of screenwriters will recede.
There are 12 editors looking for work as a result of this strike, it would appear, not 12 writers.
Louise:
I’ve been mostly calling them “reality employees.”
Now, a bit of criticism for IA…doesn’t it make you guys a wee bit uncomfortable to know that your deal is more attractive to the companies than ours? Isn’t there a decent possibility that negotiating for a better deal closer to the WGAw’s is possible, even if only by using the WGAw as a stalking horse?
Good point. The IATSE, historically, has let other unions lead the way. And yeah, it makes me a little unhappy that IA wages and benefits often lag. But I understand many of the reasons:
1) There were decades —the forties through the sixties — where the IA was a fairly passive labor organization. (In the thirties and forties, it was more than passive, it was corrupt.) Although Short has made the IA more aggressive, it still has a long-time reputation of being “easier” to deal with than the WGA and SAG. (The DGA is in its own category.)
2)The IA reps a 100,000 film workers nation-wide, some of them highly skilled, others not. Large numbers of them are roped into a Basic Agreement that encompasses directors of photography, grips, best boys, make-up artists and you name it. Sadly, contracts that cover such a wide swath of workers tend to be — of necessity — a little on the skim milk side, so the IA ends up with less leverage than, say, a guild that has a lock on a smaller, in-demand, highly skilled group. (No need to mention names.)
3) The IATSE, like other unions, is saddled with the collective bargaining agreements that went before. Some of these earlier agreements, frankly, were lousy (I was around when some of them were negotiated), and now the IA reaps the consequences. But then, all unions get haunted by the ghosts of earlier CBAs. (Residuals on 20% of DVDs, anyone?)
Steve:
I just read about the latest war of words between Young and Short. Wow. Looks like this one’s turning into a hot war.
Not good for either union.
Kevin,
“I think it’s safe to say that although Reality Television continues to grow in viewership, most people you talk to about Reality Television will condemn it all to hell.”
So popularity equals quality. Commerce equals art. Editing equals writing. “And now, here’s Bob with the weather” equals “What a piece of work is a man.”
Thanks, but I’ll stick to having standards that aren’t affected by the transient whims of the lowest common denominator.
Coffee is for closers.
Just to be exquisitely and explicitly clear, someone has to be unreasonable about these things. Someone has to put intangible concepts like respect for craft above immediate and petty concerns like money.
There are plenty of people out there who you can’t make this argument about - what they do is inarguably really writing - and they’re not in the Guild. You write a screenplay and it’s put on film, you’re a writer, no matter whether or not the characters on that film are photographed or drawn.
Aside from that, there’s also a process - plenty of folks out there writing low budget, indie films, or straight to video junk. That process weeds people out - some drop by the wayside, and others keep at it until they get to a place where they’re working for Guild signatories. Theoretically, that’s a sign of progress on their part. Some poor schmuck “writes” for American Idol and fancies himself a “real” writer, let him do what everyone else before him had to do - let him write something good enough to get him in the door. Then we can welcome him into the Guild with open arms and no doubt as to the legitimacy of what he does.
I would argue, with a straight face, that writing narrative porn requires more real writing chops than coming up with ways to get idiots to eat worms on a reality show. But what would I know? Things never got so bad for me that I had to work in reality TV….
coffee is for closers.
Ah, Brother Olson, I’ve missed your voice on the boards here.
There may be someone writing dialogue for Tyra, but I doubt it takes 12 writers to do it.
The bulk of the work done to “create” a reality show is producing and mostly EDITING. Editing is a very creative and essential task in filmmaking. Editors can save movies. They can completely change the story. They can ruin them too.
But what editors do is covered under another guild, am I wrong?
Isn’t the definition of “writer” per our union pretty clearly defined as soemthing like “written material to be filmed or recorded” and not “assembling recorded material to form a story”?
If so, is this definition being changed? Wouldn’t it have to be to include reality editors? How legally are our union leaders including editors in our union?
And finally, for all you WGA members who paid the $1500 or $2500 membership fee to join the WGA (when you probably couldn’t afford it)… I hear that Patric has allowed/is allowing reality employees into our guild as associate members and is waiving their membership fee.
Not temporarily. Not until they become full-fledged members. They never have to pay it. Ever.
If this is true, I want my $2500 back. We all should demand it back.
Seriously.
Olson:
Of course, when it comes to union stuff, quality of writing is completely irrelevant…not by choice or philosophy, but by law.
If you write for a signatory to the MBA, you get into the union. Simple as that.
Craig,
Thank you for pointing out the painfully obvious. I assure you, I am well aware that we do not live in a world where I and I alone get to pick who is of stellar enough talent to be a member of our beloved Guild. I was simply taking Brother Arboot to task for veering perilously close to arguing that popularity is the same thing as quality, a view that has always been the death of any kind of creative expression.
You write for yourself, or you write for nobody. It’s that simple.
Perhaps I misread the post, but the underlying assumption seemed to be that because these crapfests are popular with the mouth-breathers, we should change the definition of writing to allow the poor saps who cobble them together to become members of our Guild.
Like I said, I prefer to hold on to my standards. Sure, some of our fellow members are responsible for some real crap, but they still had to go through the painful process of WRITING that crap, and, one assumes, learning how to write crap in the first place.
I can’t speak for Kevin, but my understanding of his post was not that we should redefine “writer” in order to accommodate a now-popular genre but rather that we should not assume that because it’s called “reality” and it is a genre that many (most?) scripted TV and film writers poo-poo that there is no legitimate, MBA-coverable writing going on or that the writing that is going on is not worthy of Guild coverage.
Unfortunately, I think the only people who are seriously pushing for a redefinition of “writer”—precisely because reality is a popular genre that is sucking up lots of airtime that used to belong to scripted series—are the people who are currently running the WGAw. That said, there seem to be many people who don’t understand that the Guild leadership is trying to bring in people who really, truly are NOT writers in any MBA-defined sense. However, because many of them are referred to as “writers” and because the Guild leadership has done a good job of framing the issue as a matter of giving poor, underappreciated artists basic benefits like healthcare and pension, a lot of WGAw members have thrown their support behind the organizing efforts because they feel that to question them or disagree with them is somehow a crime against humanity.
And in that regard, Olson, I agree with you: Nobody is being kept out of the WGAw. Anybody who sells a spec or gets a legitimate MBA assignment is welcome to join. You and I managed to do that, and we paid our $2500 initiation fees. The idea that some guy who has zero interest in writing anything and is making a living editing reality shows is not only being courted by the WGAw but told that if he goes on strike and wins, the WGAw will waive his initiation fee is beyond insulting to those of us who earned our way in via a different kind of risk, writing a spec script that actually got us work. The fact that allowing nonwriting editors into the WGAw could have other negative ramifications is just the bile icing on the vomit cake.
P.S.: Marianne: I’m with you. I want my $2500 back. In this current messed-up world, it feels like the only reason we’re even called the Writers Guild anymore is that the writers are the ones who are actually paying for everything.
Denise,
“we should not assume that because it’s called “reality” and it is a genre that many (most?) scripted TV and film writers poo-poo that there is no legitimate, MBA-coverable writing going on or that the writing that is going on is not worthy of Guild coverage.”
I agree. There are plenty of other reasons to assume there is no legitimate, MBA-coverable writing going on.
Josh, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but the attitude that organizing reality writers (and I mean just writers, not everyone as the current WGAw leadership is attempting) is a complete waste of resources because it is somehow lesser than writing a film or a scripted TV show only provides ammunition for the bleeding hearts who feel that we owe WGAw cards and benefits to fellow artists who work in the Hollywood equivalent of sweatshops simply because they’re making TV shows, without regard to whether they’re actually doing anything that justifies WGAw membership.
No doubt you know that those people make up a significant percentage of the WGAw membership. Enough to reelect the current leadership.
Being reasonable hasn’t exactly won the day in the WGAw lately, either. But for this particular political argument, it might be best to apply objective standards and save the quality judgments for awards season.
A couple comments:
1) With regards to reality writing. Jim Uhls wrote a brilliant rant about co-writing credits. Click here and scroll to the entry from 9/8/06 to read. But in short, he complains about how someone can come up with a good idea for a plot twist, or a couple snappy lines of dialog and in Hollywood make a case for co-writing credits. However, if someone gives an actor a good suggestion for how to do a scene, or a director a good suggestion for how to shoot something, they would get laughed out of town for trying to claim co-acting or co-directing credit. This town’s definition for “writer” has been so diluted at this point. Ironically, the worst offender is the Guild itself.
2) This is understandable if you look at what the WGA is trying to accomplish. The WGA is trying to boost numbers to increase leverage. It has assessed the situation from a strategic perspective, and determined that the biggest weakness in its threat to strike is alternative programming. So it has made a decision to go after reality talent. And at this point, it is clear that the WGA is putting STRATEGY over MISSION. Their goal is to win the proverbial battle, not the war. I see far more effort being put forth in strike strategy rather than defining our mission or enforcing our existing agreements. If the biggest goal is to gain grounds in participation of new media initiatives, shouldn’t we be hearing more about that? Shouldn’t we be spending the money there? Right now, all I’ve seen is the WGA putting itself out there to get more pressure, and forced to do more explaining. By taking such a hard stance, I feel like the spotlight has been put squarely on the guild, and very little pressure applied to the studios. Shouldn’t the WGA be the fiercest protector of the definition of a writer? I’m just sayin…
Does nobody see a difference between one person “writing” a two liner that introduces some couple eating worms… and a person WRITING a 60 to 120 page structured narrative with dialogue that tells a story?!?!?!
There should be a “written lines per minute screentime” rule in TV as to who is considered a writer, or rather who is eligible to join the Writer’s Guild, and who isn’t.
Kevin, Josh, and others —
Remember those overtime lawsuits that Craig mentioned?
In order to argue that the reality employees were not being paid overtime, the WGAw had to take the position that they were legally entitled to overtime.
The problem is, screen and television writers who work under the MBA, by the very definition of the job of “writer” in the MBA, are what’s called “professional employees,” and so exempt under overtime law. In other words, not legally entitled to overtime.
So while the WGAw was telling its membership (and the reality employees whose interests it ostensibly represents) that the reality employees do the same work that screen and television writers do, they should have the same rights and benefits as screen and television writers, that they should be covered under the same contract as screen and television writers …
… it had taken the legal position that, no, they don’t really do the same work that screen and television writers do, that they have fundamentally different professional interests from screen and television writers, and that the work they do is nothing like the work covered under the MBA.
So so while there may be something done in reality television that can be mistaken for writing, , the WGAw itself says that work is not “writing” as defined by the MBA — not creating stories, scenarios, scripts, dialogue or narration in literary form for use in the production of tv shows — and that none of the people who signed representation cards with the Guild are “writers.”
-
Denise,
I think my disdain for the crapfest that is reality TV is getting in the way of making my point. My point is not that those people aren’t writers because what they write is crap… my point is that those people aren’t writers because they don’t write.
Even if I felt America’s Top Mongoloid Garglers was the finest television show in history, the boys and girls who cut it together and write bridging narration would still not be writers.
Seems to me that if we start opening up the membership to people who aren’t writers, we might want to discuss changing the name of the guild, ya know?
Hey, I have an idea - let ‘em start their own union! It worked for writers, it might work for them.
Josh - I agree. If we follow the Guild’s logic to increase leverage regardless of charter, then why don’t we try to enlist actors, directors and producers as well? Or why don’t we just merge all the unions. Not a bad idea right? Studios would certainly pay attention at that point! But of course each party has specific needs that would not be covered under a unified agreement. However, it may not be a bad idea to separate certain key and universal points and negotiate those as a collective union, and then each union would reach agreement on trade specific issues. Focusing efforts on creating that framework makes a heck of a lot more sense than trying to jam reality employees into the WGA.
Josh, I totally agree with you that the WGA should not be opening its doors to nonwriters, such as the people who assembled “America’s Next Top Model.”
I do get the impression that there is some real writing going on in some “reality” shows, though—scenes that are written specifically to fill gaps in a story otherwise manufactured out of unscripted footage, for example. I think the people that do that work probably should be eligible for WGAw membership, though I also agree that at some point quantity needs to be considered. (And NO WAIVING OF INITIATION FEES.) However, I do believe the Guild has standards in place where people need to acquire a certain amount of points for full membership, so if, say, a two-line host intro is something a writer got paid for, maybe he gets, like, 1/2 point.
Anyway, it sounds like we do agree that WGA membership should be limited to writers. Which means that until the WGAw leadership frames its efforts around a valid (MBA-legal) definition of “writer,” I won’t support their organizing campaign.
Denise:
You can speak for me anytime. You do it even better than I do.
Josh:
You missed my point.
I’m agreeing with you when it comes to the people who “edit” together storylines and scenarios. They’re clearly not writers. I was actually pretty clear about that. I even put the sentence in its own little space.
And whey you say…
…I think anybody who’s ever read any of my posts knows for a FACT that I don’t believe that at all. Shit, even Joshua James would tell you that!
We shouldn’t allow editors into the WGAw. That would be retarded. But unfortunately you’re generalizing every single reality show on television. Yes, in addition to narrative film and episodic television, I produce reality television as well. I know you hate it. I know you think it’s pure crap (in most cases it is, I’m not trying to pretend that it’s not) but all reality television is not the same. Flavor of Love is one thing. Deadly Martial Arts that used to run on the Fitness Channel is another. The latter was a heavily scripted show that can be described as a smart and informative reality show; a documentary if you will. No one in the world can dispute the level of writing on that show (the quantity not the quality). That my friend is WRITING. Whether you like the show or not. A group of Writers put that show together.
See the difference?
Wait…let me guess. You’re gonna say NO.
I’m talking about the people who write. Who actually put words onto a blank piece of paper.
Good to know that unions of all shapes and sizes are pretty much absolutely useless. Unless someone in power is intelligent, thoughtful, and well-meaning.
Pfft. Who am I kidding?
I’m a member of the WGA who’s written for prime time comedy, drama, television movies and REALITY. And yes, I do mean WRITING REALITY. Writing narration and host copy is writing, creating comedic and dramatic story arcs out of raw footage is writing and coming up with competitions and situations to place reality contestants in, is writing. Often, the writers actually feed lines to the contestants in order for the story to work. And if it still doesn’t work, you can write your own quote for them and assemble it in the edit bay. Print actually does appear on paper. Actual scripts with act breaks are created. And ANTM is employing writers even now. They’ve just decided to call them “producers.” Any idiot who looks at a finished show can see that little if any REALITY has actually taken place. And thank God the WGA recognizes that.
Now, did they fumble the ball with the strike and strikers by not getting all the reality writers who signed authorization cards to walk off the job for even one day? Yes, they did. But I’m sick of you holier-than-thou auteurs telling me that reality shows aren’t written and that we don’t deserve the same protections you’ve been so privileged to receive because of the Guild.
TLPERL:
I’m with you on the holier-than-thou stuff. I really don’t like Josh Olson’s attitude about, well, anything. I’m an elitist about plenty of stuff in my life, but not about the basic requirements for joining the labor union known as the WGAw.
I agree that writing narration and host copy and competitions and situations and dialogue is writing. That’s all words-on-paper stuff.
I respectfully disagree that “creating comedic and dramatic story arcs out of raw footage” is writing. To me, that’s producing. It’s certainly what directors and producers do in features, and I simply don’t want to cede to producers and directors in features that what they are doing is writing, because it isn’t, IMO.
“I do get the impression that there is some real writing going on in some “reality” shows, though”
I’m sure there is. I can’t get real worked up about it, though. First of all, animation writers are still out in the cold, and you cannot even think about making an argument that that’s not real writing. Second, I’m sorry, but when did we start handing WGA cards to everyone who writes? I spent years writing low budget, straight to video crap in the non-union world, and while it would have been lovely to have reaped the benefits of WGA membership, it always seemed to me that I was working my way towards that. It never occurred to me to whine that I deserved to be let in. I did my time, I earned my card. Good system. I like it.
You do your time in the mines and earn your place at the big table. Just typing “Fade In” doesn’t do it, and I don’t see any reason why it should. Reality shows/straight to video/porn…. do the work. Log the hours. Work your way into it. Seemed fair to me then, seems fair to me now.
As for my “holier than thou” attitude, forgive me for thinking that writing is a rarified talent. But it is. Any writer who DOESN’T cop to a holier than thou attitude about his craft is almost certainly lying. This isn’t ditch digging. I’ve dug ditches. This is harder. Not everyone can do it. If they could, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
However, while Mazin is thoroughly and reprehensibly wrong on that point, he’s dead right on the other thing - if we allow that turning raw footage into a story is writing, we’re gonna have to let every member of the DGA into our Guild. I’ll burn my card when that happens. You can hold me to it.
I was simply taking Brother Arboot to task for veering perilously close to arguing that popularity is the same thing as quality, a view that has always been the death of any kind of creative expression.?
?I think anybody who?s ever read any of my posts knows for a FACT that I don?t believe that at all. Shit, even Joshua James would tell you that!
Uh, nope. With all due respect.
I believe the impression I have of your views on the matter is that quality is not objective, it’s strictly subjective. Therefore if something is popular, it has a version of quality, regardless of the views of those in the know in that field. That’s the impression I’ve gotten over the past year. Notice Olson isn’t saying that you BELIEVE popularity equals quality, just that you’re veering periously close to it.
And though I disagree, why objective to that characterization?
You believe quality to be strictly subjective (a position Craig holds as well) while I believe there to be an objective quality to craft (which, I believe, Brother Olson also believes).
I don’t want to tussle again on the quality issue, just wanted to clear up my position as that my name was invoked, I certainly don’t wish to flare up the objective quality versus the subjective quality debate we’ve enjoyed here yet again (fun as that was) … we can go back and revisit Craig’s original debate on the matter (History of the Debate, I believe it was) rather than interupt this very valuable exchange on the subject of union action, which is more important.
So please, guys, this may sound funny coming from someone as feisty as me, but let’s keep on the union thing and table the other battles for later … this is good stuff and I ain’t saying much during it because I’m busy listening …
And though I disagree, why objective to that characterization?
I meant to write, why object to that characterization … sigh. It’s early in the AM and I evidently have a ways to go as a writer yet.
I second every word in Olson’s last post. I’m in exactly that spot right now, writing produced material without being WGA. And you know what, that’s fine. Firstly all my contacts are non-MBA signatories so I might not be working if I were to join at this point. Secondly, I too believe in paying your dues. The longer it takes, the bigger the rewards. It’s called work-karma but I’m veering off point. The point is that I’ve written 3 produced animated features and am not even eligible to join the WGA, and the idea that some dude writes the little thought bubbles on ‘blind date’ and BANG he’s in irrates me, to put it lightly.
I have no problem with a union trying to increase its membership. more members, more power, I got it. But start with the right people.
Ted:
“So so while there may be something done in reality television that can be mistaken for writing, , the WGAw itself says that work is not “writing” as defined by the MBA — not creating stories, scenarios, scripts, dialogue or narration in literary form for use in the production of tv shows — and that none of the people who signed representation cards with the Guild are “writers.”
So what the heck are they doing in the WGA?!?!
Johnny:
Eligibility in the WGAw isn’t based on some fraternity rush where people reject you for not being cool enough. It’s a simple equation. Sell or be hired to write a screenplay under a WGAw contract, get into the union.
I think Olson’s sanctimony can cloud the truth of our union, which is that it’s not a very large Algonquin table of self-anointed geniuses, but a federally-regulated association of employees.
Laborers, in short.
The truth is that if you’re approached to write an animated feature for another company, you should at least ask if you can be hired under a WGAw animation agreement. If the company agrees, the gates will swing open for you, and you can become one of Olson’s Angels… :)
Can anyone think of a past labor situation analogous to this one? Meaning, a union with a healthy monopoly (TV writers) threatened by the emergence of a new, competing industry (reality TV)? It’s like airline pilots suddenly being confronted with hovercraft travel, and the hovercraft pilots are organized under a different union.
If this has happened before, there might be lessons to be drawn.
One last thought: if I was a reality writer, I’d take Olson’s advice and start my own union. IATSE is (wisely) looking out for its huge numbers of below-the-line workers… it’s never going to jeopardize production for the sake of reality writers/editors.
“The point is that I’ve written 3 produced animated features and am not even eligible to join the WGA, and the idea that some dude writes the little thought bubbles on ‘Blind Date’ and BANG he’s in irrates me, to put it lightly.”
Does it bother you when people don’t have to ‘pay dues’ by working for non-sigs, i.e. their first sale gets them in the Guild?
Or, for that matter, would it bother you if a member got in by, let’s say, writing questions for Jeopardy?
That’s not to say I don’t agree with your general point. Just curious about these particular parts.
Craig,
The Bombs asks you this: aren’t more and more reality shows becoming “outlined reality?” Aren’t reality shows that have pre-staged incidents, with participants who have instructions to carry the incident in a specific direction, getting very close to “Curb Your Enthusiasm” or “Borat?”
It seems to me that reality does not YET have “writers,” but it’s starting to head that way. At some point, a lot of these shows will have pre-arranged archs, and each episode will be tightly outlined…maybe. In fact, many of the shows i’m talking about: “Rob & Big”, “Flavor of Love” (which you know about), etc, aren’t really reality at all. They’re just shy of being scripted. Only the incidental shit by accident.
Thanks,
M.L.Bomb
Craig,
I understand the basic mechanics of the union. What I don’t understand is that an effort is being made to allow reality writers in, while real writers are not.
Ryan,
Does it bother me when people don’t have to ‘pay dues’ by working for non-sigs, i.e. their first sale gets them in the Guild?
Let me put it to you this way, if some bastard woke up one morning with an idea for a script, sat down at his computer, didn’t stop typing until he had 120 pages, pressed print and sold the thing for a million dollars the next day, I’d still think he’d “deserve” to be eligible to join the WGA because he wrote a story, not a thought bubble.
Would it bother me if a member got in by, let’s say, writing questions for Jeopardy?
Hell, yeah.
Though in that particular case (Jeopardy) we’re getting close to that “written lines per minute screentime” rule in TV I mentioned in an earlier post. I’m not advocating to substitude quantity for quality, but if a dude’s “writing” makes for, say, 30 minutes of a 60 minute program, than he should argubly be eligible to join the guild (whilst I grit my teeth and look the other way).
Those thought bubbles are actually pretty hard to write.
Johnny:
I agree. Animation and basic cable writers should be a priority over reality writers.
Tom:
I can think of one. The NFL faced a challenge from the USFL, which was non-union. The NFLPA organized the USFL players into their union.
Craig wrote: I respectfully disagree that “creating comedic and dramatic story arcs out of raw footage” is writing. To me, that’s producing. It’s certainly what directors and producers do in features, and I simply don’t want to cede to producers and directors in features that what they are doing is writing, because it isn’t, IMO.
Craig, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but just to muddle the issue a little, remember that this is largely what TV writers are doing on most days when they aren’t out on script (particularly on dramas where there often isn’t much actual words-on-page writing in the room)- coming up with story arcs, overseeing post-production, etc.
OneWhoKnows:
That’s why they’re paid as producers as well, often times at much higher rates than they are as writers.
That’s not a directly comparable situation. USFL players and NFL players both played the exact same game. Reality editors and writers (whether “reality” or other) are not doing the same job.
Just something to think about…
If a reality show “story editor” is cobbling together voiceovers almost word-by-word from raw footage, how granular does that have to be before it could be considered “writing?”
Aaron —
If someone is rearranging shot footage (or a copy of shot footage, like a transcript), then he’s editing.
If someone is instructing someone as to how to rearrange shot footage (or a copy of shot footage, as a transcript), then he’s producing or, typically in theatrical features, directing.
If someone is instructing a performer as to what to do or say in front of the cameras, then he’s directing or producing.
If someone is creating something in written form that is intended to be adapted or copied (ie, someone recites it, and the recitation is recorded) in an audio/visual medium, then he’s writing.
It’s really not a particularly difficult distinction to make.
-
Craig,
“I think Olson’s sanctimony can cloud the truth of our union, which is that it’s not a very large Algonquin table of self-anointed geniuses, but a federally-regulated association of employees.
Laborers, in short.”
Funny, cos I think YOUR lack of reverence for what it is that we do is clouding the issue, Craig. Laborers? Sure. But more specifically:
Writers.
And that - as I’ve stated from the get go - is the issue. My own respect for the art form we work in is irrelevant to the discussion.
It occurs to me, though, that the lack of respect many writers have for this particular job probably plays some part in this whole thing. If self-loathing wasn’t one of the more common ailments among screenwriters, I suspect we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Josh:
I agree that what writers do is specialized and difficult.
However, when I discuss labor issues, I stick to the terms as they apply in the world of management, labor, the NLRA, the DoL, etc.
Please don’t confuse my precision and compartmentalization with a lack of respect for my own vocation.
Craig,
I’m talking about it as a labor issue as well. We’re the WRITERS Guild. If you LABOR in the field of writing, this is the guild for you. If there’s an argument to be had about whether or not what these people can be considered writing, it should absolutely be tabled until we’ve accomodated animation writers, basic cable writers, and every other actual writer who fits the bill. If we’re still hungry for new members, we can start discussing whether or not people who don’t really write are writers. But we’re not there yet. This shouldn’t be an issue. It’s an insult to animation writers, for starters.
Bro, sentence 1. and sentence 2. are in direct conflict with each other. If I believe that quality is subjective, how in the world would you conclude that I think that if something is popular it has a version of quality? I’ve stated many, many, many times that just because a movie makes 100 million dollars doesn’t necessarily make it good and if another movie makes only 2 million dollars doesn’t necessarily make it bad.
Ok, just to make it clear.
I don’t believe Popularity has anything to do with Quality.
Okay?
Are we all clear on that issue? Moving on…
I think Craig is right on the money when he compares certain viewpoints to a Fraternity mentality. So it took one person 20 years to get into the union and it took someone else 2 days…um…so? Exactly what does that have to do with the business of writing?
You don’t need to be whacked on the ass with a cutting board 52 times or eat a cum coated cookie to get into the union. All you need to do is work for a company that is WGAw signatory. And if you write for a film or television show that you think should go signatory, do your best to make that happen.
If someone is smart enough to ask a company to hire you under a WGAw contract, good for them.
Josh:
I agree.
To work in a labor union, you need to first meet the requirements of the type of labor (which you and I agree ought to be tied directly to the provision of literary material), then you have to write as an employee rather than as an independent contractor (like a novelist or playwright), and lastly and most critically, you must be hired by an employer who is signatory to the union’s collective bargaining agreement.
As such, I think we only ought to be organizing people who meet criterion #1.
Cool So now we know and it’s cool for me, Kevin … as I said, it was only my overall impression … I’d much rather listen to the union talk than get into the essence of quality debate again …
It seems like the current leadership is extra special sauce unwilling to change their course.
Why?
Is it cuz guys like Craig and Ted gave them such a hard time, and now they’ve dug in their heels?
Could it possibly be because they know something we don’t? (which seems impossible cuz why wouldn’t they just tell us all what they know?)
I don’t get why these guys are so hard to deal with. A lot of guild members are very scared about the direction we’re heading. The ANTM debacle was a terrifying failure cuz it reflects possible retardation. People are getting angry. And when Le’Bombe’ becomes too angry…
…BOOOOMMMM!!!!!!
But seriously, why the hard heards by WU?
Is it too late to do anything?
As an editor, I want to suggest that both the WGA and MPEG need to get their own factionalism resolved before either can hope to move forward with a successful organizing campaign.
In MPEG, many dramatic editors look down on reality editors. I was at a table with a few editors when a board member said to us, “Well, when you work on higher profile projects, you’ll be covered by the union.” I said, “This guy here works non-union on ‘Survivor,’ and this guy works union on ‘Lovespring.’ Which is higher profile in your mind?”
One difference, it seems to me, between our guilds is that reality writers apparently accept their second-class status vis-a-vis their episodic counterparts. This is not the case with editors. Reality editors can earn 50% more than episodic editors and many reality editors believe that their jobs are more demanding than traditional narrative cutting. One reason so many reality editors signed up with the WGA is because David Young told them that he would secure residuals for them — and many reality editors feel they deserve profit participation of some kind. I found David Young’s claim implausible, but he was certainly telling reality editors what they wanted to hear.
Personally, I would like to see the internecine bickering come to an end. Reality editors and reality writers work hard, and both deserve basic union protections. Why argue about who’s where on the totem pole of creative expression? If you WGA members are so offended by the notion of reality writers joining your ranks as writers, why not devise a new labor category for them? Or, just let the IA represent them. While you’re arguing over what constitutes “writing,” another year passes with our colleagues uninsured medically and ill-prepared for retirement.
AutoDaFe,
The problem is not reality show writers (and by that I mean people who actually write material for reality shows) joining the WGA. The problem is that some people who are given the title “Writer” are not actually doing anything that a reasonable person would ever describe as “writing.”
If some show arbitrarily decided to refer to its producers (who are not editing) as “Editors,” would you want them joining your union?
Sixteen months ago, when the WGAw broadcast its intention to organize reality editors, I called one of the top-kicks at MPEG (Local 700) and said: “You’re going to be signing some new contracts with reality shows pretty soon.”
And whattayaknow? 700 has signed new contracts with reality shows.
Craig,
“As such, I think we only ought to be organizing people who meet criterion #1.”
Amazingly, we agree.
Joshua,
“I’d much rather listen to the union talk than get into the essence of quality debate again”
Especially here.
Steve:
I can assure you I was saying the same thing on our end.
And can either of us claim prescience? Not reallty. It was kind of obvious, right?
AutoDaFe:
I agree with you…it ought not be about what union you’re in, but about getting a good deal. David Young doesn’t see it that way as far as I can tell, which is why he lied through his teeth about getting editors residuals as part of a WGA deal. What lunacy!
If you read through this thread of comments, you’ll see that I and Steve and Kevin from IATSE seem to share a common vision. We all seem to agree on what’s right in terms of jurisdiction, and we all seem to share the same measured concern about IATSE contracts and we all seem to want them to improve.
Meanwhile, David Young and Tom Short continue their hot war in the press. It’s a shame. David and Tom should both shut up and let calmer voices who put workers first figure this all out. I’ve had it up to here with foolish cannon fodder strategies that use reality employees as pawns in some larger game.
Olson:
It’s not so amazing. I’ve spoken with Cormac Wibberley. He says you’re only an internet tough guy.
In real life, you’re a lamb. :)
Aaron:
We have so many different folks in local 700 it’s staggering. We just had an election for the board where a “Y16 Sound Technician” was running. No one I knew personally could tell me what a Y16 Sound Technician is. So no, I wouldn’t be offended if producers joined, assuming they were under a different classification than “picture editor.”
But let’s not argue the merits of your position. Let’s say I agree with you. Reality story producers are not writers. Fine. Why can’t the WGA rep them as “story producers?” That would be good for them personally, good for your guild in terms of cash-flow, and good for levelling the playing field between reality and episodic TV work.
Also, even if they’re not “writers,” why disparage their labor and needlessly alienate colleagues? I see this all the time in 700, and it makes me sick. You would agree, I assume, that someone can work hard and work well and still not be a writer? So honor their work! Maybe they don’t belong in the WGA — that’s not really my call — but there’s no reason to antagonize them.
Craig:
As for the merits of the IA contract, I would probably agree with you on all points. However, as crappy as it is, it’s better than nothing. I’m on the health plan now and am grateful every day for it. I would suggest that we concentrate on getting shows covered and workers involved first, and on improving the contracts second. I understand that we don’t want to set bad precedents, but right now, from my perspective in editorial, the IA Basic Agreement looks pretty good. I think we should focus on what is achievable, not what is ideal.
Thanks for reading, writers.
Craig:
Would you mind posting links to the Tom Short/David Young smackdown? I’d love to see what they’re saying.
Thanks.
As one of the many that works under the IATSE agreement, below the line, the direction all this goes will directly affect us, as shown by the ‘de facto’ strike that happend back in 2001. Things will get very busy, we’ll have to take in permits to fill all the work calls, then , next november, the industry will come to a screeching halt.
So, my question is, these guys (Verone/Young) better know what they’re doing. They do, right? Young will still be getting paid his salary, while we’re looking for side jobs, trying to keep our houses etc. What are his qualifications? what are his industry ties? how much does he make? what’s his ‘success’ rate in organizing? Before he was your Executive Director, he was the organizing director, right? What about the other new staff? What are their credentials?
Craig,
If I have no idea whatsoever who you are, and we’ve never met, and you walk up and introduce yourself in a friendly manner, I am, indeed, a lamb. Why would one be anything else?
Further comment, I’ll reserve, except to say, thanks for reminding me of one of the creepiest moments I’ve had all year.
Dear Mr. Olsen, etc., I would just like to say that I am a reality writer and I am a screenwriter. I’m so insulted and crushed that you would say that I am not a real writer. I work very hard every day to craft an arc for the characters, to make the script flow and have compelling act outs, to pitch the storyline, to write outlines, to write original narration, and to address notes, just like my husband, a WGA feature writer, does for his job. I think it’s sad that rather than work together for a common goal, writers have to tear each other down with this elitist outlook. Do I think “History of Violence” is lightyears better than say “According to Jim”? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean the folks who wrote those other two projects aren’t real writers like you and I. I am a real writer. I don’t see how it’s helpful in the least to bring quality into the argument, since that is such a subjective matter that has nothing to do with labor conditions and solidarity. I have writer friends who adore the reality show I work on, while I think it’s silly throwaway stuff. And even if you want to approach it from a selfish point of view, reality isn’t going away, so the better off our working conditions are, the better off you’ll be as well. Thank you.
Hi, there.
Back to the reality writing thread — I definitely agree with you, Craig, that animation writers and basic cable writers definitely deserve and ought to be covered, and I hope that Verrone and company will press that issue in the upcoming negotiations.
And you’re right, what reality writers are doing is producing, as the writer/producers in prime-time drama and comedy are doing and are being well-compensated for by minimums set by the Guild. So let’s stand tough, unify and get us all covered in the next contract! As we said on the ANTM picket line, “Writers united, will never be divided!”
Craig, Josh, someone, anyone….
“In real life, you’re a lamb. :)
Say it ain’t so, P L E A S E … say it ain’t so.
Auto Da Fe:
Here it is:
Josh,
Although our encounter was brief, I actually felt sorry for you because you seemed rather embarrassed and flustered when you were confronted in person about your internet bullying.
You were very sheepish, which is probably a very “creepy” feeling for you.
Marianne
Alison,
“I don’t see how it’s helpful in the least to bring quality into the argument”
I didn’t. The issue of quality is just a side discussion. The issue is this - in spite of the fact that what you do may very well actual writing (And for the purposes of argument, let’s agree that it is), many, many, many reality show “writers” don’t actually write. They’re editors. The fact that some of these people may do what we’d all agree is “writing” doesn’t change the fact that what many of them do isn’t.
Nobody has ever suggested that because reality TV isn’t very good, its “writers” shouldn’t be allowed into the Guild. The discussion has just allowed those of us who DON’T think it’s very good to hurl some happy invective in that direction, independent of the actual argument. Any chance to dump on America’s Top Offal Eaters, man….
The argument is simply this - much (if not most) of what is done by reality show writers isn’t actually writing. Ergo, some of us feel they shouldn’t be part of the WRITERS Guild. Not a qualitative discussion at all. I don’t think we should open the doors to cinematographers, either….
Anonymous,
The comment referenced an experience in which I met people I’d never met before, whose names meant nothing to me. They were nice and polite, I was nice and polite back. I had no idea who they were until after we went our seperate ways, and the whole thing was, in retrospect, very creepy. Nuff said on the subject, I hope. The subject is reality TV…
Josh,
I appreciate your quick response. I know from personal experience that most reality writers do as I do, and actually write, and while some of them may be more on the producer or editor angle, it tends to be more a product of the industry being so unregulated and rushed. Excluding those of us who do write in order to keep editors out of the WGA, which is a very unique version of editing, different from fictional or narrative editing, is self-destructive to us all, including you. But nevertheless, I suppose I respect your actually telling me to my internet face anyway, that I’m not a writer, even though it hurts me both emotionally and financially for people to say that. I feel that when I can’t afford to have a family, because I’m being excluded from the union. And I feel that now, as I go back to writing my script, and I’ll feel that when I cram work into my crowded weekend, as I try to be sure that my story is tracking, that the points are clear and interesting and as challenging as I cna make fit within the genre. I simply urge you to rethink your position and acknowledge that perhaps you haven’t been exposed enough to what it actually means to be a reality writer/Story Editor/Story Producer to be able to call any of not writers, even though some of us may be hyphenates. Thank you.
“Reality Writer?”
Sounds like an oxymoron, in a way. If it’s reality, how are you writing it?
Are you recording it, like journalists do, watching what happens and reporting on it?
Where is the writing?
I’m not being sarcastic, just curious. I can see how novelists are considered writers, comic book writers, playwrights, screenwriters, lyricists, I can see where the writing comes in regarding all those endevours, I can.
My understanding of reality shows, like COPS or REAL WORLD, is that someone with a camera follows someone around until they do something interesting, embarassing or humiliating and records it. They take that back to an editor who cuts out the boring parts and only keeps the “interesting” parts.
That’s my understanding of reality programming. If that’s not what reality programming is, how is it, then, a “reality” program? Is it a game show.
You yourself (Alison) call yourself a reality writer and a screenwriter - so in a way, you’re acknowleging the difference, right?
It’s cool you’re a screenwriter, no knock on that. I’m not even really knocking reality shows (though that’s easy, I confess that I am a fan of Ultimate Fighter) just trying to find out where the writing comes in regarding reality shows. If you’re not writing anything, only editing footage and deciding what makes a more interesting show, without writing anything, how can one call themselves a writer?
Get my point?
Auto deFe —
The reason the WGAw can’t cover “story producers” is because the WGAw Constitution is very clear:
All Guild (west) income is to be used to the purpose of promoting and protecting the professional and artistic rights of creators and adaptors of literary material (“writers”), negotiating and enforcing contracts on behalf of writers, organizing writers who are not represented by other unions, and so forth.
Since the wide net cast by the Reality Organizing Campaign ostensibly included at least some people who created and adapted literary material, the use of Guild income would benefit those people.
But when it came down to it, the WGAw could not have negotiated a contract on behalf of anyone who did not do that work, and none of those people could have become WGAw members.
Whereas IA is an industrial union (representing many different kinds of jobs), the Writers Guild is a craft union, representing a specific type of job (within IA, many of the locals are craft unions — Editors Guild, Animation Guild, etc.).
-
Joshua:
I’m not sure why you’d bring that up. The “Reality” in Reality Writer is merely a qualifier. Like Playwright or TV Writer. Of course there’s a difference. There different mediums…
Cops and The Real World is all about the editing. No dispute on that. But again, a reality show like Deadly Martial Arts is heavily scripted. All of the narration on that show is scripted BEFORE the host even goes out on location.
See the difference?
And just to be clear again, I don’t believe the Producers or Editors of a show like The Real World belong in the WGAw. There’s absolutely no writing there. But most reality shows with a host presence (i.e. Big Brother) is scripted.
Here’s some of the literary material used in the production of reality programs; whoever creates this literary material meets the Guild’s general definition of “writer” and much of this material is already covered under the MBA
Narration
Host intros (although literary material written by the on-air performer him/herself is not subject to the MBA)
An outline of a scene to be shot
A question that constitutes a unique expression of an idea (Like a “Jeopardy” question or a word clue that must be solved)(but NOT simple directions or instructions, like the ‘clues’ on The Amazing Race turned into after the first season)
And, yes, the pop-up jokes and captions on Blind Date
However, things like suggesting a way to re-phrase something someone said in an interview, or telling a camera man to shoot something specific, or copying shot footage as a transcript, or editing shot footage as a transcript, or “frankenbyting” already-existing sound recording … that’s not writing.
(In fact, most of things are specifically excluded as writing under the MBA — they’re called the A-H exceptions, and they were negotiated in order to protect writers from non-writer producers or directors or editors trying to claim writing credit).
-
Ted:
Thanks for that. Your explanation makes sense. Although would you then say that David Young et al ignored their own constitution when they attempted to organize all reality “storytellers?”
That was their pitch to us editors: you are “storytellers,” so you belong in the WGA. I pointed out that directors and producers are also “storytellers,” but Ninon Aprea thought I was just sassing her.
Anyway, if you are right, then your current Executive Director spent a lot of your money trying to organize workers who are ineligible to be organized by your guild. Where is the oversight at the WGAw? Where is the debate?
Do the majority of WGA members believe that reality “writers” should be repped by the WGA, or by the IA? Has there been an internal referendum on this?
There was a comment earlier asking about David Young’s qualifications. My understanding is that he’s been involved in labor organizing for many years. How he was able to parlay his expensive reality failure at the WGAw into an Executive Director post is beyond me. Does anyone out there understand how he pulled it off?
Thanks.
Dear Joshua,
Thank you very much for simply asking me what reality writing means. That sort of open-minded attitude is definitely needed on both sides of the discussion. Basically, what happens is they film the footage, sometimes the writers plot out games or even whole storylines (mine don’t, they mostly deal with story in post) before the filmmaking occurs. It comes back to us at the post house, and while this definitely varies show by show and company by company, the story department watches the footage and starts the process of culling through the footage to find the story within it. It’s sort of like adapting a screenplay from a novel. (I’m not saying it’s the same thing, but it’s similar approaches to storytelling.) I take the good stuff and craft it into a story. There is a lot of viewpoint and character arc work involved. From there, I develop a pitch, on cards, for my story supervisor. He gives me notes. I then write an outline, which gives the main story beats. From there, I write a detailed moment by moment script of how the show will be edited. Then I receive and address notes on what part of the story is weak, what should be emphasized more, that sort of thing. And then the editor and I work together on following through with that in the physical editing. I have a lot of respect for editors in general, but especially for reality editors, partly because I know more of them but mostly because I see them often times having to be much more writerly than editors for purely fictional programming. I hope that explains it satisfactorily, but feel free to ask follow-up questions. I never post on internet boards. My goal here is purely to educate and, honestly, to defend myself. But mostly, I believe we’re in dangerous territory in this industry, where we beat each other down with slight semantics in order to keep us all away from better working conditions, a fair wage, and respect.
To answer your question about my being a screenwriter and a reality writer, I only acknowledge the distinction in very specific terms, just like I would say screenwriter, television writer, novelist, game writer, that sort of thing. While it is an interesting creative challenge to deal with already existing material, so much of the same principles I learned with screenwriting extend to writing for reality.
Thank you.
Alison, et. al.
As someone who’s been on staff on scripted shows and also written/produced/whatever for reality shows, I have to say that the distinction Ted is drawing makes a lot of sense to me. I don’t mean to diminish the work I’ve done in reality, and certainly not anyone else’s, but I have to say that:
Being an effective writer on staff on an episodic tv show is in fact much more challenging than being an effective story producer (or writer or whatever) on a reality show. It takes more talent, more hard work, etc. —maybe not more hours, but more of one’s, uh, soul. And the work does feel qualitatively different.
So the general goodness of unionization aside, I don’t think it’s unfair that in general, reality producers get compensated less than the WGA MBA for writers. And Ted’s distinctions about what does or doesn’t constitute writing ring true for me.
I’d really like to see the WGA try to unionize reality staffers on shows like ‘Blind Date’ (well, that’s been canceled, but there are others like it) under a separate agreement, as Craig says he suggested to the Guild in the post that began this discussion. Such an agreement would, I think, have to take into account the economic realities of reality programming as opposed to scripted- in other words less syndication and repeat potential, etc. And I don’t think it would be in appropriate for the weekly minimum to be a bit lower than it is for scripted stuff.
Anyway, it’s a shame that, per Craig’s report, the WGA seems to be uninterested in this kind of effort.
Alison,
I’ll be dead honest with you… your job description confirms my prejudice towrad reality writing.
You’re prepping for the edit, excavating a story as opposed to creating one. Of course you write stuff down, the sheer volume of footage and complexity of your task makes it a necessity to pre-conceive what needs to be done in the editing room. Nevertheless, you’re a Story Editor, not a Writer. To put it in perspective, I often do extensive research before writing a treatment. That doesn’t make me a researcher. Research is part of my job as a writer.
Ultimately I’m fine with reality writers whose contributions to a show fit the WGA’s definition of Writer (as laid out by Ted in a post above) being eligible to join the Guild. The more the merrier. But I feel strongly that animation and cable scribes (as well as feature writers who have NOT worked for MBA signatories) should be considered first.
To be honest, from what Alison specifically posted, I wouldn’t call that writing. I’ve done the same thing on a dating show and it’s not writing. It’s producing. The process in which you described can even happen within the confines of a movie but it’s not writing. It’s producing.
I’d have to agree, Alison, while that sounds like a lot of work and, for that, it certainly should be respected, I don’t really consider that writing as I would define it.
A dramaturg made read a play and give notes on they play (as a producer may do for a screenplay) and they may write those notes down to be incorporated into the product, but that doesn’t mean they’re writing the product, you know what I mean?
I’ve been given story beat notes on writing jobs and even though those notes were written down, the person giving me those notes is not considered the writer, in my experience. They’re either the dramaturg, editor, producer or, sometimes, the star.
That doesn’t mean you’re not a writer, so I think you shouldn’t be offended regarding the conversation previous. It simply means that, to some, you’re not writing, as defined above by others, when you’re doing a reality show.
Hmm, this is the rub, isn’t it?
And can I add that I find it ironic that a reality show has to be plotted out? That means, in a sense, it’s not reality, now is it? It’s more like a game show, I guess.
Alison,
Not only didn’t I say you’re not a writer, I said that for the purposes of argument, I’d happily grant that you ARE. My point was that while some people who do reality TV might be writers, many others are not.
But then I read your post. I could go through it line by line, but I’ll settle for just this:
“they mostly deal with story in post”
Indeed. Those of us who are undeniably writers, however, deal with the story IN THE SCRIPT. We do that pretty simply - we write it.
To the question of how much I know about the subject, I have several friends who are editors on some of the biggest reality shows on TV. Their experience is wildly different from yours. Maybe you really are a writer, and have just done a less than stellar job of explaining your job… but the “writers” on their shows are not.
Lastly, as for starting a family, I respectfully and humbly submit that if you’re looking for economic security, you might want to get into another line of work in a different industry altogether. The WGA won’t give you that. You have to find and earn your own.
This all comes down to one of my primal issues, one that’s driven virtualy every post I’ve ever written here: Respect. As long as everyone and their mother thinks they can write, writers will have to struggle for respect. As long as someone who says “they mostly deal with story in post” thinks that what they do is writing, writers will have to struggle for respect.
I don’t doubt that what you do is hard work, that it takes tremendous wit and creativity, and that you could be paid better. But that doesn’t make it writing.
Auto -
Given that the Board of Directors has the sole authority to determine and interpret WGAw policy, and given that Board instituted a policy authorizing David Young to explore organizing writers in reality television, and given that the Board never even entertained, let alone enacted as policy, a motion that allowed the WGAw to organize any employees other than writers …
… I would say, yes, that when David Young, with the full knowledge and support of Patric Verrone, accepted representation cards on behalf of the WGAw from employees who did not meet the constitutional definition of ‘writer’ (including employees whose jobs duties clearly put them under IA’s traditional jurisdiction), he unconstitutionally instituted a WGAw policy, a policy that was in-and-of-itself unconstitutional, and as a result of which, WGAw income is being used unconstitutionally, and to unconstitutional purposes.
However, by the time the true makeup of the reality employees we were representing came to light (out of 800 who signed rep cards, it turned out that at least 500 of them did the job of “editor,” as that term is commonly used and understood), the slate of candidates that Patric ran with in ‘05 had been elected, and comprised the majority on the Board. Since what the constitution says contradicts what they believe, the phrase “But the constitution says this …” does not make for a compelling argument.
(What they believe:
According to one of them, writing literary material and editing audio/visual material are the same jobs, despite the fact that the DOL Occupational Index says they are substantially different jobs. His reasoning goes like this: part of what writers do is edit their work, and literary material is the same thing as audio/visual material, because both can be used to tell stories.
Another one of ‘em has an even simpler way of justifying it: writers and editors do the same work, because they both now use keyboards! (which means, of course that back when editing was done with scissors and glue, editors and a class of second graders making construction paper turkeys did the same work!)).
(Seriously. These are arguments made — and believed — by well-educated, articulate adults who’ve worked in the film and television industry for years).
(Also, to be fair: the WGAw’s outside counsel/ acting general counsel Tony Segall has no problem with these polices and actions, and believes that in the event of a legal challenge, he could make a reasonable argument in defense of them).
-
time for a coup d’etat… meet y’all on the corner of fairfax and third. bring torches!
Alison —
It’s not a matter of slight semantics.
A teleplay (or a screenplay) is a copyrighted work. When a television episode is shot from a teleplay, it is an exercise of the copyright in the teleplay. The shot footage is derived from the written work, as is the final assembly of that footage: the episode.
Shot footage, too, is copyrighted. When the shot footage is transcribed, it is an exercise of the copyright in the shot footage. Here, the written work is derived from the shot footage, and the final assembly of that footage is the same footage, arranged differently.
Additionally: In order to broadcast the episode shot from the teleplay, it means exercising the copyright in the underlying teleplay. In order to release the episode on DVD, it means exercising the copyright in the underlying teleplay.
But in the case where the shot footage exists first, no matter how much labor is put into the process of assembling the final episode, no matter who much written work is required to assemble the final episode, broadcasting the episode does not require exercising the copyright in any underlying teleplay, or transcript, or written work — because there is no underlying material.
However, as I mentioned before: if someone writes narration, and then the narration is recorded, and the recording is used in the final episode … then broadcasting the episode is an exercise of the copyright in the written narration that underlies the recording.
Finally: if you write a teleplay for a production company, what you are paid for is the teleplay itself — the product of your work. You are not paid for the time it took you to write it — your work process. If it took you five hours, or five days, or four weeks, it doesn’t matter: you receive the same fee.
However, if you do the work you describe as reality writing, you are paid for the time it takes you to do the work. If it takes you five hours to write an outline, you are paid for five hours. If it took you five days, you are paid for five days. And if, for some reason, you have no work to be done for five hours, or for five days … you are still paid for five hours or five days. Here, you are paid for your work process.
This is not a comparison of the quality of scripted television v reality television, or the relative difficulty of one job v the other, but this is also not semantics. This is simply pointing out that the work that is writing in scripted television (and theatrical) is fundamentally different from the work you describe as writing in reality television.
In scripted, the employer pays for the work product, and the copyright in the work product is and must be exercised when episode is produced, broadcast, transmitted or copied (as onto a DVD).
In reality, the employer pays for the work process; the shot footage pre-exists the written work produced by the work process; and the only copyright exercised when the episode is produced, broadcast, transmitted or copied is the copyright in the shot footage itself.
-
Josh:
I’m not trying to get into a credit pissing match with you, because god knows you’ve got it all over me.
But honestly, don’t you think it’s the tiniest bit bitchy to say “I would argue, with a straight face, that writing narrative porn requires more real writing chops than coming up with ways to get idiots to eat worms on a reality show. But what would I know? Things never got so bad for me that I had to work in reality TV….”
We all take jobs that are less than ideal, especially early in our careers.
And I think you picked an unfortunate example when you tried to diminish reality television - I’m not sure there’s a huge qualitative difference between people eating bugs, and bugs eating people.
Jeff,
“But honestly, don’t you think it’s the tiniest bit bitchy to say “I would argue, with a straight face, that writing narrative porn requires more real writing chops than coming up with ways to get idiots to eat worms on a reality show. But what would I know? Things never got so bad for me that I had to work in reality TV….”
The point was that while I have, indeed, written porn (of the soft core variety), I still never sunk THAT low. Joke, get it?
I could write a book on crappy, less than ideal writing gigs that we take at the beginning of our careers. I’ve talked and written at tremendous length about my years slogging through straight to video and infomercial and cheesy soft core crap. A lot of working writers pretend they never did any of that. I never got the point of lying about it. As a sharp director I once knew says, “We own all our children, even the ugly ones.”
And do you REALLY want to go on record saying you can’t tell the qualitative difference between horror films and reality TV?
Look, this may seem somewhat off the point, but it’s not. Some people are acting like it’s a moral imperative here - that anyone who does anything that we can possibly construe as writing for money deserves to be immediately made a member of our Guild, and offered all its protections and benefits.
Aside from the fact that it seems quite clear that the majority of reality show writers aren’t actually writing, there’s the “deserve” issue. Fuck entitlement. Do the work. And if you happen to have to spend a few years slaving away in the worlds of low budget, or porn, or infomercials, or Hungarian soap operas, that’s the way it is. You work your way through that until your work leads to getting hired by a signatory. I’m not high hat about it, it just never occurred to me that there was anything particularly wrong with that.
When I hear someone complaining that they have to be let into the Guild because they can’t afford to start a family, I’m hearing the same kind of sense of entitlement I hear from kids who graduate from film school and expect to be offered a gig directing a feature the next day.
I’m sorry, but did I miss the meeting where it was supposed to be easy?
That “Anonymous” post was me. Probably obvious….
“And do you REALLY want to go on record saying you can’t tell the qualitative difference between horror films and reality TV?”
Well, I guess I already am, so I might as well embrace it.
I would say that I believe “Survivor”, for example, is a higher quality product than many horror films I’ve seen. More entertaining, higher production values, better drama… pick your qualitative measure.
Unless you’re arguing that fiction is always qualitatively superior to documentary, which reality television is a bastardized form of.
I went to the ANTM picket line, I volunteered for the mentoring program to help them get jobs after they lost theirs… I’m pretty aware of what jobs they do. I believe some of them are writing; some aren’t.
I think the wga should have embraced a more realistic definition of writing, and tried to organize those people that are doing just that. We would have been after fewer people; we wouldn’t have had the power to shut down the show, but we would have provided health care and pension to writers working in this new field. I’m sure IATSE would have been happy to step in and organize the rest.
Jeff,
“I would say that I believe “Survivor”, for example, is a higher quality product than many horror films I’ve seen. More entertaining, higher production values, better drama… pick your qualitative measure.”
Okay. Rather than compare the best of one medium to the worst of another, I’ll pick an intellectually honest and viable measure. Frankenstein, Dracula, Freaks, Nosferatu, Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, Alien, Halloween…. Tell me, Jeff, which episode of Survivor will be thrilling and inspirining the next three generations? Which reality show has produced a James Whale, or a Polanski, or a Kubrick or Coppola?
“I think the wga should have embraced a more realistic definition of writing”
Then we disagree. Vehemently. Writers are under assault enough without our own guild dumbing down the definition of what we do.
I fully support the idea of reality show writers having their own union, and calling it whatever the hell they want. I do not support the idea of people who don’t actually write being embraced by my guild.
And, by the way, something I should have mentioned earlier - when I wrote and directed my own low budget horror film (Infested, being re-released next month at DVD stores everywhere at an extremely affordable price - End plug), it never once occurred to me that I “deserved” to be made a member of either the WGA or the DGA.
They’re existing guilds with perfectly good existing definitions of what it takes to become a member. I lived up to the terms of the WGA, and guess what? I became a member.
“Okay. Rather than compare the best of one medium to the worst of another, I’ll pick an intellectually honest and viable measure. Frankenstein, Dracula, Freaks, Nosferatu, Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, Alien, Halloween…. Tell me, Jeff, which episode of Survivor will be thrilling and inspirining the next three generations? Which reality show has produced a James Whale, or a Polanski, or a Kubrick or Coppola?”
So now your standard for entertainment is that it has to thrill three generations? Reality television is an event with an outcome - as much as I enjoyed the first season of Survivor, I wouldn’t watch it again, because I know the ending. That’s part of the thrill of non-fiction entertainment - how will it come out?
You know what was thrilling and inspiring to millions of people? The ‘91 Bulls v Lakers finals. As much as I enjoyed it, I wouldn’t watch those playoffs again - I know how they come out.
So by your standard, horror movies are qualitatively better entertainment than sports?
But no one writes sports, I can hear you saying. Fair enough.
What about the original 1951 production of “The King And I” on Broadway? Thrilling? Inspiring? Certainly. But is it qualitatively worse than Alien because it didn’t inspire or thrill anyone except that audience that saw it? That it can’t still inspire or thrill audiences today?
And as to your assertion that horror is qualitatively better than reality because of the people it produced… A lot of great writers and directors worked in advertising. Are you prepared to use that as an argument that advertising is a qualitatively better form of entertainment than reality television?
“Then we disagree. Vehemently. Writers are under assault enough without our own guild dumbing down the definition of what we do.”
I’m saying that there are people working in reality who are writing under the wga’s current definition of writing. Those writers should be organized. I don’t think the definition should be “dumbed down” or changed.
Anonymous,
Thanks for illustrating perfectly the ludicrousness and pointlessness of internet debate. A person makes one point. You address it. Another person comes in, makes your comment about something else entirely, and we’re off and running.
If you want to make a qualitative comparison between two groups, you have to compare similar items from each group. Comparing the best reality show to the worst horror film does not make the case that reality TV is “better” than horror films. It makes the case that you’ve never mastered basic logic or debate. And pretending not to understand that there are definite and agreed upon masterpieces in the realm of film only makes the argument more idiotic. I’m making a New Years Resolution - no more idiotic debates with people who pretend not to believe in artistic excellence.
Next:
“I’m saying that there are people working in reality who are writing under the wga’s current definition of writing. Those writers should be organized. I don’t think the definition should be “dumbed down” or changed.”
Then how do you suggest we differentiate between this group and the other “writers” of reality TV who DON’T fit that definition? And why worry about it, when there are large groups of people who undeniably DO write who aren’t covered yet?
Put it this way - there is no rational argument whatsoever to be made that animation writers don’t write. Why not take care of them before focussing on groups who might not actually fit the bill, for whom an argument can be made?
The way I understood the argument made was that whilst a show like “Survivor” may be of higher quality than a movie like “Infested”, once you compare apples with apples you find that an A level movie, like “Aliens”, is a higher achievement than an A level reality show, like “The Amazing Race”.
Because one is mindless entertainment (sorry Bill) and the other has meaning beyond its entertainment value.
oops, too slow, as i wrote my post the debate went on… didn’t mean to be repetitive.
Josh Olson wrote:
Then, um….
…why?
Josh Olson wrote:
They’re existing guilds with perfectly good existing definitions of what it takes to become a member. I lived up to the terms of the WGA, and guess what? I became a member.<./blockquote>
Josh —
It’s not a question of “deserving” membership. It’s a question of meeting the requirements to become a member of the WGAw is:
You achieved one employment as a writer, or one sale or option of previously unexploited literary material, under Guild jurisdiction.
You wrote Infested for a production company that was not signatory to a Guild collective bargaining agreement; the work you did was not under Guild jurisdiction.
However, had the production company been a Guild signatory, had you written the exact same script, the exact same quality of work done under Guild jurisdiction — you would have “lived up to the WGA.”
Membership in the WGA is not dependent upon the quality of the work someone does. Whether or not someone “deserives” it t is dependent upon the fact that someone has done work that is covered by a Guild contract.
-
Josh, I also forgot to put my name, just like you did earlier.
That anonymous poster that you think is ludicrous, pointless and idiotic, as well as someone who has never mastered basic logic or debate, is me.
Take care,
Jeff
“Membership in the WGA is not dependent upon the quality of the work someone does. It is dependent upon the fact that someone has done work that is covered by a Guild contract.”
And therein lies the dilemma… for shouldn’t you be considered to be eligible based on the work you have done, rather than who paid you?
Call me naive, but I don’t understand - or have yet to read - the WGA reasoning why a produced feature writer can not join the Guild whether he or she was paid by an MBA signatory or not!
(I do of course understand that once you join you shall only work for MBA sigs because, well, otherwise your Guild can’t protect you).
Just out of curiosity, has the WGA or anyone else studied what the financial impact on reality shows would be if (and I’m not on the side advocated this) reality producers were WGA members and had to get MBA tv weekly payments, plus all the other expenses signatory companies take on?
The interesting thing is, I think what would happen is that many reality shows would end up not being such an attractive economic programming alternative to scripted, and there might end up being a net increase in scripted employment. Not that that’s a legitamate reason for the guild to do something it shouldn’t, but still, I’d like to see that study.
Also, can I just say, I’m pretty surprised that nobody’s mentioned in this debate that the WGA already represents LOTS of newswriters. How do people feel about that? (Or am I wrong on this?)
Because that’s how labor unions work.
Don’t get thrown off by the word “guild,” as if we’re some kind of club that taps you on the shoulder when you’re “good” enough.
Here’s how a union works.
A union has a contract. Employers sign the contract. If someone not in the union works for an employer who has signed the contract, then they get into the union.
If they don’t, they don’t.
It’s not a choice or philosophy. It’s the law.
OneWhoKnows:
If reality employees got paid the way scripted WGAw members get paid, then yes, reality would cost more. But that was never even considered. No one ever believed that we could get reality writers residuals…regardless of the lies David Young told.
The WGAw represents very few newswriters. The WGAE represents a lot. Regardless, they work under a separate collective bargaining agreement, and they can’t sympathy strike with us (and vice-versa).
Craig,
thanks for clarifing that point. however, laws can be changed. maybe it’s time for that. imagine the increase in wga membership!
hmmm… members. (think homer - simpson, not the other).
Johnny:
To what end? If a union doesn’t represent work done under its own collective bargaining agreement, then what’s the point?
Johnny: If that law were changed the concept of a union would become meaningless.
Gentlemen,
I’m talking as a means to become eligible: writer #1 gets hired to write a screenplay and a film gets produced and distributed based on his work. six people see it. happy writer #1 joins the guild.
i.e. writer # 1 is not in or protected by the guild as he/she writes said script, but the produced title makes him/her eligible to join. or at least gives her/him units towards joining.
I don’t see how that’s so far fetched.
Because then work for a non-signatory employer has counted towards membership.
“Because then work for a non-signatory employer has counted towards membership.”
So?
Johnny:
Why would a union give union benefits to someone who hasn’t paid dues to the union, hasn’t abided by the union’s rules, possibly undercut union wages, etc.?
Doesn’t make sense at all.
Craig,
“Why would a union give union benefits to someone who hasn’t paid dues to the union…”
Because the moment that someone joins, he or she will pay $2500.
“…,hasn’t abided by the union’s rules, possibly undercut union wages, etc.?”
Eh, trust me when I say the non-union writer would love to get union wages! It’s the employer who doesn’t want to cough up the dough which is porbably the main reason why said company is what it is, a non-MBA sig.
So why is the writer being punished??
As Ted pointed out earlier: “…had you written the exact same script, the exact same quality of work done under Guild jurisdiction — you would have “lived up to the WGA.”
I’m putting the idea out there to make it easier to live up to the WGA. Why? Because the Guild, as well as writers in generall, would benefit.
Makes sense to me.
Thing about writing, as defined by the WGA?
If you’ve done it, then there’s evidence that you’ve done it.
Little thing called “literary material.”
Identify the literary material that is written in the employ of a reality production company for use in reality tv show episodes, and then identify the person or people who wrote it.
And, there’s your writers.
Anyone else, no matter what other call ‘em, no matter what job title they have, no matter how they identify themselves?
Not writers.
-
Johnny:
This is why your idea is ridiculous (aside from patently illegal).
If the WGAw allows anyone who works for a non-sig into the WGAw, then it’s an immediate race to the bottom in salaries. Why would ANY employer ever agree to become signatory to the WGAw at that point?
Why not spend $5,000 on an original screenplay instead of $100,000? Why not give writers zero residuals instead of signatory residuals? Why not give writers zero credit protection, zero pension and health…
…I hope you’re starting to see how silly your suggestion is.
Jeff,
I know you know better than your last few posts. Come on, man. You have a grasp of logic and reason. Your last couple of posts did not. I’m happy to be called on it when I fall down the same rabbit hole…
Ted,
“However, had the production company been a Guild signatory, had you written the exact same script, the exact same quality of work done under Guild jurisdiction — you would have “lived up to the WGA.”
Membership in the WGA is not dependent upon the quality of the work someone does. It is dependent upon the fact that someone has done work that is covered by a Guild contract.”
I guess I don’t much mind being patronized when I’m actually saying something ignorant, but it rankles when it’s something like this. Yeah, no kidding, Ted. I think it’s a safe assumption that nobody here thinks the Guild has some sort of qualitative litmus test; but on the off-chance some brain damaged Mongoloid accidentally stumbles across this site while looking for porn, I’m sure he’ll be thrilled to learn the basic admission policies of the WGA.
There is, however, a hierarchy in this biz. It’s generally easier to break into the world of non-Guild signatory writing work than Guild signatory work. Unless you’ve hidden some early credits, it’s conceivable you don’t know that. It’s easier to sell a script to Nu Image than it is to Paramount. It’s easier to get a gig writing for American World than for New Line. I know that because I’ve done all those things. People who work in that world perceive working for Guild signatories the way pretty much any writer does - it’s a goal to be worked towards. It’s more work. It’s harder work.
My point - for the final time, I pray - is that I, personally, can’t get too worked up about people working in the salt mines of porn, straight to video, or reality TV not being covered by the Guild. In time, if they keep at it, they’ll end up doing work that grabs the attention of a Guild signatory, and all their little dreams will come true. Nothing in that statement indicates that I’m so deluded I think the Guild has a quality assessment policy, but if it makes you feel good to think that about me, knock yourself out.
However, if you’re gonna criticize my posts, at least have the decency to comment on the existentialist themes that underlie them.
Johnny:
Never mention your union suggestions on a construction site. They’ll drop a girder on your head.
Josh:
You do see the difference between soft core porn, straight to DVD, and the #1 show for a network on Broadcast Television, don’t you?
And again, just to prempt another Olson tirade, I’m talking about the writers, not the editors.
Johnny —
Here’s a question:
How would it benefit me, Craig, Josh, Jeff and Marianne for you to be a WGA member?
-
Craig:
you’re making a great argument! For the employers. Not for writers. And you used to be on the board of the Writers Guild…hmm.
Ted:
more members (that are real writers) = stronger union. Plus we’d get to hang out in the fancy theater, sip lattes, talk shop. What a wonderful world it would be.
Let me ask you, you think an effort should be made to get reality writers into the Guild before an effort is made to allow non-MBA sig writers? And if not, do you think any effort should be made to get more members into the WGA or are the current requirements to join the guild working for you?
Kevin,
“You do see the difference between soft core porn, straight to DVD, and the #1 show for a network on Broadcast Television, don’t you?”
Sure. Soft core porn holds up to repeat viewings.
Here’s the thing, Kevin - assuming Survivor is the show in question (I dunno, but I’m guessing), then the difference is really simple - the people who write soft core porn and straight to DVD releases are undeniably writers. The people who put Survivor together…. well, it’s quite possible that they’re not.
Are you actually arguing that the show’s popularity has ANY bearing at all on whether or not those people are writers?
“And again, just to prempt another Olson tirade, I’m talking about the writers, not the editors.”
Assuming there ARE writers on the show. And that sort of brings us back to square one, no?
Johnny,
Not sure why you’re pushing the point. The Guild doesn’t purport to cover ALL writers EVERYWHERE. It’s a specific labor union with a specific mandate. The ultimate extension of your argument is that if you write a story on a napkin you should be made a member of the union.
Seriously, dude - spend a few minutes boning up on what labor unions are. Your arguments have no merit whatsoever.
Johnny:
No, I making the pro-union argument that every single union in this country has been making for the last 100 years, so you’re not only wrong, you’re starting to annoy me.
I am making an argument for a “closed shop” union.
You’re actually making the argument that the companies make, which is kind of sad, because you’re so ignorant of labor law and labor-management relations, you can’t even see which side you’re on.
I don’t mind debates, but you simply have no idea what you’re talking about on this one. I’d give an example of how your “solution” has been disastrous, but no one’s ever bothered trying it, because it’s insane.
Oh…and Johnny…
…thanks for bring Olson and I together on something. We apparently both believe with all our hearts that you’re completely out to lunch on this.
I’ll say this again. There is no denying that there is some writing happening in reality tv.
The quality of that writing shouldn’t be in question here (although I agree with Lowell in that reality tv is often superior entertainment to so many other movies and shows these days). Lots of crap is covered by the MBA, and lots of good stuff is not. All that matters is what is defined as screenwriting by our labor union…thank you, Ted.
Editing is not writing and should never be considered as such ever. It is an important part of our industry, but it is not something that the MBA should be rewritten to cover. There is another union for that.
So if you are actually writing for reality tv, should your job be covered by the WGA?
It’d be nice, sure. It’d be great if we could get the animation writers covered too. And I support the WGA’s efforts when it’s just about that and not about rewriting the MBA and opening up membership to editors solely to increase our numbers.
But this sense of entitlement? That all writers deserve to be covered by the WGA just because they are writing? If you feel strongly about this, then refuse to write anything for anyone who is not a WGA signatory. Because that is truly the only dividing line.
Josh:
“…The ultimate extension of your argument is that if you write a story on a napkin you should be made a member of the union.”
No, it ain’t. I was talking about writers who have produced credits from non-union work. Not ALL writers EVERYWHERE. I was quite specific about that.
I even refined my argument to say that non-union work could garner units towards membership. Not instant access.
Craig,
I’m sure there are many things I know more about than you do, labor law isn’t one of them. Which is why I’m here to ask questions, propose new ideas, think outside the box. Sorry that annoys you.
I actually agree with a “closed shop” policy, but not with a closed mind philosophy. I never called my idea a “solution”. I don’t even know what that means… solution to what? It was merely a suggestion on how to increase WGA membership and protect more writers out in the trenches.
Bottomline: I never said open the gates! I said make it easier to get in. If my idea how to make that happen turns out to be unfeasable due to iron laws that can not be amended, do you have a better suggestion?
It’s only annoying because I feel like I’m debating math with someone who doesn’t know that 1+1=2.
First of all, where did this “numbers equal strength” stuff come from anyway? Why does having 1,000,000 writers with little economic power somehow make a union stronger?
Getting the 20 people that write Pixar movies into the WGAw would make us vastly more powerful than getting in any random 1,000 people with “credits for non-signatories.”
I think he’s wrong, but I think I see the point Johnny was trying to make.
It seems like the talk about expanding membership always goes back to having more members of the Guild, as if there is strength in sheer numbers. If non-sig work qualified a person for the Guild, there would be more Guild members, ostensibly giving the Guild greater strength.
And I don’t think he’s saying scrap the Guild protections. He’s saying Guild members can still only work for sigs. He’s just proposing changing the qualifications for getting in to include non-sig work (and, once in, that writer can no longer work for non-sigs as it is presently).
However, I think the the Guild effort to get greater numbers isn’t a matter of just adding anyone to the Guild and that’s where this proposal falls apart, in my opinion (beyond what others have said). Even the Reality Show organizing effort is an effort to get certain people who can potentially help the Guild by, the organizers hope, shutting down television shows during a strike and, thereby, creating leverage for the Guild.
The Guild isn’t stronger by having me in it, for example. I’m a feature writer who’s not at all in demand. With or without me, the Guild is no stronger or weaker. I can’t be used as leverage to get a better deal for the WGA, even though I am already a member of the WGAw.
Presumably, it would be the same for those who have sales or even produced films to/for non-sig companies. In those cases, the Guild gains no strength by having those writers.
If that makes any sense at all.
Josh —
Please. Your argument throughout this thread is that people who work in reality television shouldn’t be WGA members because you think realty television is bad, and then you made the point that when you wrote Infested, you did not feel you “deserved” to be a WGA member, and only became one when you “lived up” to its requirements.
There is only one possibly way anyone could interpret this: that you think WGA membership is dependent upon the quality of work someone does.
Good to know that’s not what you think … but, you know, next time, try to make it a bit easier for a person, huh?
-
Johnny,
“No, it ain’t. I was talking about writers who have produced credits from non-union work. “
I had several hours of produced credits fron non-union work by the time I was 12. I transferred those old super 8’s to video a few years back, and you’ve just reminded me that I should bump them to DVD. (I’m still kinda embarrassed by them, because at least one of them starts with “A film by Josh Olson,” but then, that credit makes sense when you’re 12.)
Imagine how much prouder of me my mom would have been if my opus, The Six Hundred Dollar Man had gotten me into the WGA….
Ted,
“Your argument throughout this thread is that people who work in reality television shouldn’t be WGA members because you think realty television is bad,”
I’ve never once made that argument, here or anywhere else. The first time someone accused me of that, I corrected them. And the second. By the time you came along, I’d not only STILL never made that argument, I’d explained that I hadn’t made it at least twice.
” you made the point that when you wrote Infested, you did not feel you “deserved” to be a WGA member, and only became one when you “lived up” to its requirements.”
Those requirements being - writing for a Guild signatory. You’re the one injecting quality into that discussion. I didn’t earn guild membership off Infested because it wasn’t for a guild signatory. My point was you work in the salt mines until you crack the mainstream marketplace. It’s a simple process, easy enough to understand, and whining about it is a waste of time.
If you read my comments as some kind of critical barb aimed at Infested, you’re truly not reading my posts with both eyes. I’m tremendously proud of that film. It ain’t high Art, but it’s no Da Vinci Code, either.
I’ve apparently confused people by taking advantage of the specific discussion to lob a few non-sequitorious barbs at the odious world of reality TV. Sorry. I treat these things as informal, bar-type discussions: “No, the people they call writers on reality TV aren’t, as a rule, writers. And by the way, most of that stuff really sucks, doesn’t it?
Josh,
gimme some credit here, no pun intended, or at least read my posts. I made it very clear earlier that I’m talking about writers whose work has been produced and distributed. By that I didn’t mean five fuzzy minutes shown to grams at christmas. I trust you knew that, so why the dig?
Craig,
firstly, call me an idealist, but I feel a union should primarily empower its members, not the other way around.
secondly, I think it’s a tragic shame that the Pixar writers aren’t eligible to join the wga! it is also a sign that the system some of you are so vehemently defending is fucked up.
maybe you can teach me some math… follow me here: dude writes 50 films. all get produced. all get theatrical distribution. some make big money. two win an oscar for best (original) screenplay.
none were produced by MBA sigs.
dude’s not eligible to join WGA.
make sense to you?
Johnny,
“gimme some credit here, no pun intended, or at least read my posts. I made it very clear earlier that I’m talking about writers whose work has been produced and distributed. By that I didn’t mean five fuzzy minutes shown to grams at christmas. I trust you knew that, so why the dig?”
Because the lines you draw are so arbitrary.
By the way, nobody here has said the lack of coverage for animation writers was anything but scandalous.
Let’s boil it down:
Reality TV writers MIGHT actually be writers. (It’s debatable). Animation writers ARE writers. (It’s not debatable).
Personally, I think it’s offensive in the extreme that the Guild is focussing on reality show “writers” while animation writers are still out in the cold.
“dude writes 50 films. all get produced. all get theatrical distribution. some make big money. two win an oscar for best (original) screenplay.
none were produced by MBA sigs.
dude’s not eligible to join WGA.”
Um…. yeah, actually.
Johnny, why should the WGA lower the standards of membership so that it’s “easier to get in”? If it were easy to get in, who would value it?
As Marianne pointed out, if you want Guild membership, get hired by a Guild signatory. That’s what the rest of us have done.
Among the reasons your suggestion of handing out Guild membership to writers with non-WGA credits is silly is that once they’re in the Guild, they can only work for signatories (you yourself have pointed this out). If you can’t get Guild signatory work now, why do you think it would be easier just because you’ve gotten a WGA card for doing non-sig work? It’s hard for most WGA members not on the A-list to get covered work; it doesn’t necessarily get easier once you have a Guild card or even after you’ve done a few assignments that have been well received. And if you’re not getting Guild work, you’re not contributing dues and aren’t really adding any strength to the Guild as a whole.
So Ted’s question is relevant: How would giving Guild cards to writers with non-WGA credits help current WGA members any more than leaving the standards as they are and only giving someone a Guild card once they’ve been hired by a Guild signatory? At least then, that writer is not only paying the $2500 fee, he’s paying dues money on his income for that assignment.
Finally, you do understand that for the current WGAw leadership’s reality organizing campaign to be successful, it will turn the companies that produce those shows into WGA signatory companies, right? Despite the fact that the current WGAw administration seems to think it is legal to hand out Guild cards to anybody it pleases, it’s all pretty meaningless unless companies that are currently not signatory to the Guild become signatory. So that’s another reason why it’s ludicrous to assume that the WGA should concern itself with writers who work for non-signatory film production entities. On a gig of mine, a company became a WGA signatory for the sole purpose of hiring me to write a script. There is no reason you could not make a similar demand the next time you get an offer. If they refuse, then walk away.
Josh,
the lines seem arbitrary because I haven’t drawn any - yet.
also, while i agree with you on the subject, i’ve never made a strong case pro or non-pro animation writers. and while i have written animation, i wasn’t talking about me (i actually remember saying earlier that i probably wouldn’t join at this point in my career, even if I could).
lastly, seeing that my little scenario makes sense to you, does it seem RIGHT to you? I mean… poor dude, can’t even start a family!
The thing is, your scenario is absurd, precisely because of how the WGA and other unions operate. If this guy is good enough to write fifty movies and win Academy Awards, market forces are such that a signatory company, really many signatory companies, would offer him work. And why would these companies be signatories? Because by running a closed shop, the WGA has exerted enough power to incentivize those companies to adhere to the MBA.
Denise,
You make good points. Let me just clarify a few things…
I never advocated to make it “easy”, just EASIER.
I know getting into the union is not the real problem, it’s getting union work, before or after the fact. My next step would have been to suggest the WGA offer new incentives for production companies to become signatories. Because ultimately the grand goal should be that the majority of companies become signatories, and the majority of writers are protected by a union.
Ted’s question is releveant, and I answered it, unfortunately he never replied to my followup.
While everything you say is true, I don’t think it is LUDICROUS to assume that the WGA should concern itself with writers who work for non-signatory film production entities. As I said, I believe an effort should be made to get more companies to become signatories, while at the same time getting more writers into the union. The two go hand in hand. But after reading your comments I do realize that one might want to start with the employers, rather than the employees. Thanks.
Johnny:
You still have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Pixar writers are as eligible as anyone to join the WGAw. Some of them are in the WGAw. However, the work they do for Pixar isn’t covered by the WGAw. Why? Because of some problem with the WGAw?
No.
Because their employer didn’t sign the union contract.
And you know what?
That’s their right. They choose to sign union contracts.
I’m not defending any system.
Anyway, this is my last response to you, because you’re completely disinterested in meeting the basic minimum requirements of having an informed debate on this topic.
Johnny:
Regarding the union issues.
Stop.
Seriously.
I’m not trying to be a dick but you’re not making any sense. It’s as if you don’t understand how a union works.
Actually, I’d like to amend that. “SOME Reality TV writers MIGHT actually be writers.
Uh…no. I’m not saying that at all.
First of all, I’m not talking about Survivor. I was referring to ANTM. Secondly, a program that airs on a nationally broadcast television network which employs WRITERS should be signatory.
Period.
Fuck quality. Fuck taste.
Listen, we’re not kids here. Just because the genre is Reality Television doesn’t mean everything that happens is totally real. Depending on the show, it can be scripted.
Dr. Mazin,
I’d hate to say “what I meant was” but it’s bben a long day and I’m hungry and yes, I fumbled the ball by not being clear… Of course those individuals are eligible, but not through their work for Pixar. It doesn’t really make a big difference in this context, but my post was misphrased and I stand corrected. Now, is the company to blame for executing their right not to sign, or the union by failing to convince? Don’t answer that.
See, it’s strange, everybody’s bitchin’ and moaning about how the WGA operates, but nobody dares to make a proposal for the better. And those who do, get lynched. Humans…
Johnny —
The equation “More members (who are real writers) = stronger union” is false.
It is of zero benefit to any WGA member to pad the membership roles with people who have never achieved employment, sale or option as a writer to a signatory company, or to a company that has been willing to become signatory in order to employ, acquire or option the work he does as writer.
-
And Johnny again —
The way the WGA operates is not the same as the purpose the WGA serves.
Right now, it is being operated in such a way as to betray the purpose it was created to serve (well, WGA west, at least; no offense to East members).
What you are proposing is a different way it could operate that would also betray the purpose it was created to serve.
-
Ted,
I see that now, but thanks for a non-hostile explanation. First latte’s on me…
Josh -
Just to call you out on poor logic: I agree you can’t compare the best reality TV show against an average horror film. But to follow your logic, you shouldn’t even compare Frankenstein to Survivor. You can’t compare the great feature writers to the great reality shows. You just can’t compare a feature film to reality TV. You have to compare TV to TV. According to Jim vs. Deal or No Deal. Entourage vs. Amazing Race. Television is completely different, and rarely ever aspires to be life changing or to impact future generations. It’s just what’s on when you want to unwind from work.
That said, I understand you’re not making an argument of quality, but you can hardly go through a post without a disparaging remark about the medium. We get it already. You Don’t Like Reality Television. But by making some snide comment about it every single post, it’s hard to see past your disdain and debate the real issue.
NOW, the fact of the matter is that whether any of us likes it or not, reality TV is compelling programming as evidenced by the consistent ratings, and has become a viable option to networks in the event of a strike. Perhaps the problem is that the WGA covers both film and television, so while a work stoppage could significantly hurt the film industry, the TV industry could conceivably stay afloat, and therefore this weakens the WGA’s negotiating power. However, by relaxing the definition on what “writing” is, the WGA makes it easier for other people to claim co-writing credit, and therefore exposing the very people it is chartered to protect.
Again, I think the WGA has focused on winning the battle on not the war. For those that fit the definition of “writer” as Ted defined (such as writers on shows like Deadly Martial Arts), let’s bring em into the Guild. Otherwise, it’s probably time that those who are editors or producers for reality programming form their own union, or to join the WGA and be negotiated under a separate contract.
I really don’t understand why Josh Olson insists on comparing reality shows to movies and reality show writers to screenwriters.
Reality shows may not be particularly real but they’re still about reality. Or purport to be. I think audiences find the characters real enough, if they didn’t these shows wouldn’t have any appeal at all.
I’ve watched a few eps of ANTM and Project Runway but that’s it, I find reality shows unbelievably tedious and am not a fan. My impression of the genre is that it’s a kind of docutainment-gameshow hybrid thing but it just may defy easy categorization. But one thing is for certain, reality shows are a type of documentary programming, they are definitely not teleplays or fiction or drama (not as these words are normally understood).
Are reality show writers pretending to be screenwriters? I don’t know but I don’t think so.
It seems to me that reality shows — though much more elaborate constructs — are made in much the same way TV documentaries are made (American ones, at any rate). TV documentaries start out with some sort of concept/outline (they’ve got to, it would be very costly not to), they tell stories and have a dramatic structure (the kind of formulaic structure TV requires).
So if writers of, say, wildlife documentaries can join the WGA reality show writers should be able to join as well (provided they work for signature companies and all that).
Mike:
Don’t dwell too much on Josh’s demeanor.
To briefly break the 4th wall, this forum isn’t exactly representative of his personality.
It’s more like…Reality Blogging, if you will.:)
Anna, Mike,
In fairness to Olson, I don’t believe he began the comparision game - it was begun by another and he called the person on it, if I recall.
Olson’s position is that if no one is “writing” then they are not “writers”, only editors, etc … a position others have echoed.
If there is no writing involved, why should the producers of such be allowed into the writers union? That’s the question, not whether or not “reality” shows are of high quality or are entertaining.
No doubt documentaries and “reality” do qualify as entertainment of a kind. So do sports events and the holiday showing of a burning Yule log. Again, the issue is, did someone write that or did someone film it and edit it into a story.
And hey, on a side note, if we are going to play the comparison game, consider this site the equivalent to a writer’s room, which is full of smart aleck quips, so mayhap you could stop marveling at how easily the disparaging remarks roll off the tongue. I make disparaging remarks all the time, most writers I know do and this whole comment string began with a post Craig wrote “disparaging” the work of his union officcial.
So yes, Olson makes disparaging remarks about the business.
Who doesn’t?
The whole debate whether reality tv employees should be allowed into the writer’s guild is getting kind of redundant, seeing that The Reality Organizing Campaign Is, Well, Dead.
Joshua,
Jesus. Thank you. Sometimes I wonder if I’ve wandered into some kind of alternate universe, where nobody can handle more than one thought at the same time. And demeanors must always be dour…
I have made only one point from the get go, and that is this: Writing is writing. Cobbling together footage, coming up with questions, banging out a little VO, and designing challenges for game players is NOT writing.
I didn’t introduce the question of quality. That was another poster, who brought up the issue of popularity, as though somehow that was relevant, and the inane discussion of the quality of this genre was off and running.
From here on out, I’ll refrain from discussing the quality of reality TV, as it seems to confuse the hell out of some folks, and what the heck - we all know it blows, anyway, right?
Anna,
“I really don’t understand why Josh Olson insists on comparing reality shows to movies and reality show writers to screenwriters.”
I haven’t done that.
I’ve compared writing to not-writing.
I apologize for adding flourish, craft and wit to my comments, as I gather the whole notion of actually writing on a forum about writing confuses some people.
Josh O:
Whoever comes up with the following types of literary material meets the WGA’s definition of ÒwriterÓ: Narration; host intros; an outline of a scene to be shot; a question that constitutes a unique expression of an idea; pop-up jokes and captions.
Or so Craig has stated. I wouldn’t know. I’m not in the WGA ( in fact until only a few days ago I thought the WGA was exclusively for screenwriters, i.e. fiction/drama writers).
So basically you just disagree with your union’s definition of “writer”. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t neccessarily disagree with you, I’m just not sure what YOUR definition of writer is.
Josh Olson said:
I would agree on “cobbling together footage” (although I’m pretty sure most editors wouldn’t like their work being refered to as “cobbling”). I would agree on designing challenges for game players (as that sounds a lot like producing).
Technically if “banging out a little VO” and “coming up with questions” resulted in the creation of literary material that was then read or performed, then the person IS writing for an audio-visual medium.
Brother Olson,
It’s my pleasure, truly.
I mean, I don’t really hear much about this union stuff anywhere else and I really appreciate the dialogue between you and Craig and Ted and everyone else involved about this issue - so thanks for talking about all this stuff.
Interestingly enough, I’ve noted that Craig and Olson have not only agreed once, but twice on separate issues. That’s pretty fascinating in and of itself, for longtime fans of Artful Writer.
Anna said,
I don’t neccessarily disagree with you, I’m just not sure what YOUR definition of writer is.
Anna, it’s very clear, just read through the comments again. He’s stated it many a time.
Olson wrote:
Fascinating.
Yes, that’s one possible explanation. Another possible explanation is that everyone is confused by what you write because you explain your own opinions poorly, and everyone’s demeanor is dour because your attitude is rather unpleasant.
Then again, you love being the villain.
Which is cool. Just don’t complain about it.
Keith,
Technically if “banging out a little VO” and “coming up with questions” resulted in the creation of literary material that was then read or performed, then the person IS writing for an audio-visual medium.”
Fair enough. And I apologize - I’m just getting exasperated at having to repeat the exact same thing over and over and over, and there’s always someone going, “Why don’t you like reality TV?”
Craig,
A couple things:
A) It ain’t everyone, Craig. Some folks seem to have no problem whatsoever grasping what I’m posting.
B) I have no problem being the villain here. What I have a problem with is having to repeat the same simple concept a dozen times.
And I think I’ll just refrain from commenting on your assessment of my verbal skills. Much as I’d like to…
Josh:
Why refrain? Get it off your chest. If you’d like to, and you would, then do so. You can be as uncivil as you’d like, even. I’m interested!
Kevin wrote to Mike:
“Don’t dwell too much on Josh’s demeanor. To briefly break the 4th wall, this forum isn’t exactly representative of his personality. It’s more like…Reality Blogging, if you will.:)”
Is this supposed to be funny, how do you know about his personality? You don’t seem to actually be friends nor friendly?
Y
Brother Olson,
I thought it was the height of irony that someone complained about your particular disparaging remarks when the point of Craig’s post is to disparage the union leadership. Didn’t care about that, but dump on Survivor, son, an’ we’re gonna have words!
Very silly, and something else I noticed is that few seem to have stood up for what’s his name, the guy in the picture at the top of the post. Maybe tat’s not possible.
You communicate just fine, in my opinion, and your views here are invaluable to me because they represent an important yet differing view of the biz from Craig (who also represents a valuable POV).
A few of the folk that flock here don’t read well, as we all know, and they see the salty remarks and react to that rather than what’s being really said … some folks is jest too sensitive, really. They’re more focused on whether or not an Oscar-nominated screenwriter thinks reality shows are crap.
Of course you probably do and of course, that’s more interesting than a long discussion about union stuff most of the tyro’s here don’t understand (and I’m struggling to, as I’ve mentioned).
Survivor, that’s easy. Union and signatory companys? Huh? Come again?
But the guy that wrote HOV getting lathered about Survivor, that’s a conflict I can understand. Saddle up, pardners, we got us a convoy!
That’s where the drama is, you know? That’s all.
We’re dramatists, it comes easy for some (and as a veteran of a few of verbal skirmishs here, it is easy for me to launch a few disparaging remarks) to dive into and fun, too.
I’m a dramatist, I do that, that’s what my lady always tells me, I can stop a room with a well-placed quip - a lot of us here are dramatists that’s what happens when we play with words and ideas, we gets folks all “woiked” up and in a lather when the subject is discussed with anything less than the reverence it’s felt they deserve, especially when you talk about their entertainments …
Hell, I’m as guilty about it as anyone … I have strong feelings about certain movies and shows I revere (HEROES, FIGHT CLUB and HARD TIMES) and strong feelings about movies and shows I absolutely hate (list too long to be revealed here but most reality shows would be on it) … arguing about those things, movies and shows and videogames, that’s some of the most fun I’ve had in my life with my geeky friends … I also believe baseball to be boring as hell and that one thing we don’t need in New York is yet another production of a Shakespeare play. That’s me. Oh, and the Knicks should fire Isiah Thomas post-haste.
There are people who would take issue with some of what I’ve stated above and mayhap even invite me outside to discuss it. First part is understandable. Second is silly (and maybe foolish) but it’s been known to happen.
But that’s the territory, right? As long as we don’t get arrested for drunk-driving and start slagging on the race wars, a person can do whatever they want. Hell, even after that.
I guess I’m saying, Brother Olson, that you have a strong POV and that garners strong reactions, sometimes even when you don’t deserve it.
A POV is a dramatist’s defining characteristic.
Without it, we are only but typists.
But hell, I appreciate your feedback (and Craig’s. And Ted’s. and hell, Kevin’s, too) even if I do or don’t agree with whatever is being discussed.
Where else can I sit witness the discussions of guys operating at yoru level and, more importantly, hear your POINT OF VIEW about the biz?
You are dead to me.
“You are dead to me.”
LOL! I thought that happened a long time ago …
Joshua,
“HEROES, FIGHT CLUB and HARD TIMES”
Heroes is one of the very few network shows I watch avidly. It’s fucking terrific, and I have the happy sense that they actually know where they’re going, and aren’t just winging it.
Hard Times is, of course, an all time manly man classic.
But really, dude….
Fight Club?
We’re gonna have words, bitch.
Craig,
It’s called the home court advantage. You can say, “You suck, your writing sucks, your mother sucks, and your little dog, too” with, pretty much, impunity. One responds with, “Gee, I think you’re being a bit of a knob,” then one must prepare to have diarrhetic feces flung at one with wild, monkey-like abandon.
Perhaps tomorrow, when the trickling brown stuff I attracted by suggesting that Survivor wasn’t quite as much the lasting classic as Seven Samurai has been washed off….
As that great master of verbal expression, Kid Rock says, it ain’t bragging, motherfucker, if you back it up.
Words?
First rule of Fight Club is you don’t talk about Fight Club!
So let’s go, Olson, I’m ready … I heard you pro scribes fight right to the burger …
Anonymous:
I don’t know Josh personally at all.
But trust me when I tell you that his demeanor here isn’t really representative of him as a person.
Full Disclosure: Josh may or may not remember but we had very kind words way back when I was an Agent and he was casting Infested.
Joshua:
The thing that’s truly scary as hell as that we all basically agree that those who are producing reality television have no business in the union. All the other stuff is just fanciful nonsense in the cyber world.
By the way, Heroes rocks the shit. Love that show. But I’m sitting here anxiously awaiting 24.
Offtopic… no, wait, back ontopic! (Heh!)
I’d agree that Verrone & Young’s tactics sucked hard. But their goal might be correct. Reality defangs the WGA’s strike threat, which is the only true leverage a union has, in any negotiation. (I’m disregarding features, but then the Guild’s mostly TV folk.)
If reality got organized — by someone, anyone, since now it clearly won’t be the WGA — would the expense of producing it begin to approximate the expense of producing scripted fare? I wonder. And, is there any incentive or means for the WGA to push reality to get organized on their own, or perhaps by IA? Heresy, maybe, but desperate times & whatnot.
And what kind of man doesn’t like Fight Club?
Olson:
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I expected. You seem to think screenwriting skills apply to non-fictional essay writing, or general correspondence writing.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. I like your screenwriting. Not a big fan of your writing in here, which leans as heavily on scatological reference as my screenwriting does.
I just found this site a week ago, so I’ve been reading current and older posts and I just wanted to mention that I love the site Craig and it’s awesome you’re putting the time in because I’m learning so much!
I wanted to add that I just read this thread straight through and to come to Olson’s defense it’s all completely coherent. I read some old threads where I thought he seemed like a jerk, but everything on this one makes sense and I, like him, believe that the people who keep bringing up these ridiculous counter-arguments aren’t actually reading the thread.
Also, I don’t want to be dead to you, but baseball is boring. I understand the strategic aspect of the game, but nothing ever happens. It’s like soccer or hockey: great to play, boring to watch. Oh, but as a maybe redeeming factor I loved your article in Moviemaker(what brought me to find this site)…Hope you write some more.
Andrew:
Thanks! Glad you liked it, welcome to The Artful Writer, and, of course, you are DEAD to me. :)
“If reality got organized — by someone, anyone, since now it clearly won’t be the WGA — would the expense of producing it begin to approximate the expense of producing scripted fare?”
Probably not in most cases.
“I’d agree that Verrone & Young’s tactics sucked hard. But their goal might be correct. Reality defangs the WGA’s strike threat, which is the only true leverage a union has, in any negotiation.”
The ANTM situation seemed to prove that even if these shows have people the WGA leadership considers writers, the shows can get by without them if they have to. The strike didn’t seem to caus even a hiccup on ANTM.
And that was one show. Even if the strike had been successful and those 12 workers would’ve come under a WGA contract, how likely would it have been that the WGA would not only have gotten all the other reality shows but the reality shows that don’t currently exist but which will be brought into being to fill schedule slots in the event of a strike?
And to make any difference in terms of a strike, it really has to be a situation in which the show can’t go on without the people working under a WGA contract.
Personally, it doesn’t seem like something that was possible to achieve within the time period in which it needed to be achieved if that was, in fact, the goal of the effort.
But hey, I’m a Guild newbie, I admit I could be wrong.
Kevin.
“And what kind of man doesn’t like Fight Club?”
The kind who thinks you can make a movie just as good and still pay hommage to narrative sense.
As for my demeanor on Infested…. must have been an off day.
Either that, or maybe I AM a sweetheart, except when confronted by belligerent, arrogant ignorance and dull-wittedness.
Jesus, the notion that anybody behaves the same way all the time in every situation is just fucking weird….
Due to the nature of Craig’s perspective on most things, it’s hardly surprising that when I pop up here, I’m confrontational. John Roberts has a web page. John Roberts is a brilliant motherfucker, and I don’t post on his page, because about all I’d have to contribute is: “Dude, you’re so right!”
And since he knows he is, and he knows I agree with him on most things, there’s not much point. Here, I like to think I provide a much-needed scatological counterpoint.
And hilariously and ironically - on this particular subject, it would seem Mazin and I pretty much agree.
I’m passionate about writing. I think the fight for respect is one we all have to join in on, and I see a lot of stuff here that, while it may be well-intentioned, is also real fucking bad for writers. So I say so.
And no, I don’t think “Start your own web page” is a valid response to that. I don’t care to. I don’t have the time or the energy, or the interest. I also, apparently, don’t have the verbal skills neccessary.
A last comment on that last comment - Craig, darling pie, shnooky lumps… think what you will about my posts, but they’re radically more entertaining than yours.
Josh:
You’re certainly in no short supply of ego, which probably means you’re in a very short supply of ego.
Personally, I used to be entertained by your posts, but you’re getting a little tired. After the thousandth comment about how hard it is to deal with stupid people, one starts to wonder if you’re either protesting too much or just not that interesting.
But hey, maybe other people enjoy you. Me? I think it’s sweet you like to come here and read what I write.
Craig, Olson - you guys do realize that, as far as the topic of this post is concerned, you DO agree, right?
Just wanna to be sure, but far be it from me to get in the middle of another Mazin / Olson flame festival or even halt it - it’s high drama, HIGH DRAMA, and quite the spectacle, right up there with Ali / Frazer … you guy’s can decide which one gets to be Smoking Joe … hey, I bet you can settle this thing via Xbox 360 Live!
You know, it would be interesting to see if JO’s tantrums could be monatized. Craig, how does traffic change when JO fully engages?
Opens up interesting possiblities….
JO as a “reality” internet character?
Would the WGA have jurisdiction, or the actor’s guild?
Very confusing times we live in.
Probably the funniest innuendo I’ve ever read.
Omarosa meet Josh. Josh meet Omarosa.
That’ll make no sense to you, Josh. But for the belligerent, ignorant, dull witted masses…priceless
By the way, the more you trash Fight Club, the closer you bring Joshua and I. And together, Joshua and I will rule the world.
Craig,
I’ll let it slide that, once again, you’re the one trying to make it personal. I’ll say this, though - I hope one day you evolve to the point where you realize that acknowledging your own strengths is as positive a character trait as acknowledging your own flaws. I know what I do well, I know most of what I do poorly. I revel in the first, I work at the second. Anyone who’s offended by that, or who feels the need to take cheap personal shots at me because of that has their own ego issues to deal with.
If I came here and posted, “I’m kinda dumb, and not much of a writer,” there’d be a pity party in full effect. I acknowledge that I’m smarter than the average bear, and an extremely good writer, and I’m an egomaniac. Welcome to the truly sad world we live in.
It’s an interesting situation - you say something clearly and precisely, and it’s understood by people. But then a couple of folks come along, and misread you radically. So you restate yourself, and clarify for them. They misread you the same way again, while other folks (folks you know to be reasonable and intelligent) continue to understand you.
At a certain point, it becomes crystal clear that you’re dealing with a certain level of fuzzy-headedness. At a certain point, you have to acknowledge that you’ve more than adequately fulfilled the requirements of clear expression, and that the fault lies within those who cannot grasp the simple concept you’re expressing.
Faced with such a situation, you would, I suppose, shuck and jive and apologize for not making yourself clear, and pretend the fault likes within you. I, on the other hand, being of supremely weak ego, don’t really give too much of a fuck about the approbation of morons, so I go the honest route. At a certain point, I have no problem acknowledging that the fault lies within those who cannot read.
In short, I’ll leave pretenses of humility and bare adequacy to you. You’re vastly better at them than I.
For obvious reasons.
Yours sincerely,
Harrison Bergeron
You lost me at “you’re the one trying to make it personal” and “I hope one day you evolve to the point.’
Seriously. Didn’t read past that.
Oh, and Kevin and the Other Josh…I love Fight Club.
If you don’t love Fight Club, you’re dead to me!
Craig,
Fair enough. You lost ME when you made it personal.
Until next time, O Passive Aggressive one.
Tom wrote:
Except this union — or, more specifically, except for people who do the work that is covered under the MBA. Because of the way that contract is structured, we have something better than a strike threat.
Here is an entirely possible scenario for writers in the film and television industry:
A writer completes any outstanding contractual commitments, and, even though he’s got some opportunities for employment from AMPTP Companies, or he can make his own opportunities through pitches, he does not accept another assignment — not on a theatrical movie, not on a television staff, nothing.
Instead, he decides, know what? I’m going to write something on spec.
Something written on spec is of at least equal value to the AMPT as that same thing written on assignment. The downside for the writer: he can’t spend the money until after he’s actually done the work.
The downside for the AMPTP Companies, though?
None can depend upon that something ever existing. None can depend upon that writer’s literary material being in the production pipeline, or even the development pipeline. And, of course, they none of them have any recourse if that literary material never enters the pipeline.
The writer — and only the writer — has complete and absolute control over the raw material that this industry depends upon to keep the machine doing what is must do in order to generate revenue: producing motion pictures for exhibition and duplication - theatrical exhibition, television exhibition, internet exhibition, DVD duplication, internet duplication …
Now: extend that to ten writers. Ten writers that the AMPTP Companies want to work for them, who decide: Nah. I’m working on spec.
Now, twenty.
Now, thirty.
Now, all WGA members.
What happens?
The writers don’t control the means of production, that’s for sure. The writers don’t have the ability to stage a slowdown, or a walkout, or a work stoppage. The writers do not have available to them any of the traditional leverage of labor unions.
What they do have, however, is absolute control over the raw material that this industry depends upon to function: literary material.
The writers do not have any strike threat whatsoever.
They have better.
They have the threat of embargo.
And this is the real leverage that this union — and only this union — has had since the demise of the studio system. It’s not a coincidence that the period when the WGA had the greatest success in negotiations was when television was primarily a freelancer’s market, when there wasn’t a staff of producers, consulting producers and story editors on every show who thought of themselves as a writing staff because the majority of ‘em got into the industry as writers.
Freelancers are not legally bound to deliver X number of stories and teleplays per season; people on staff are.
The idea of making the entire industry dependent upon spec work — theatrical and television, both … now, that is something that chills studio execs to the bone.
Writers can think of themselves as employees, dependent upon the AMPTP Companies for income, health insurance, pensions — the benefits of employment.
Or writers can think of themselves as authors who have agreed to provide a steady supply of copyrightable literary material to the AMPTP Companies, dependent upon the AMPTP Companies providing compensation and benefits appropriate to the value of the copyrights in our work.
If the former, then, yeah, our strike threat is the only true leverage we have.
If the latter, though …
Who has more leverage in a a negotiation with the U.S. oil companies?
The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union?
Or OPEC?
-
I’m not a WGA member (as of yet, anyway) — just an interested outsider, so please forgive me if I’m asking an obvious question.
Why are writers who are members of the WGA allowed to do non-Guild work for Pixar? I thought that once you get that card, you’re only going to work for signatories. If Pixar doesn’t need to sign the MBA in order to hire WGA members, then doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the MBA?
Is it that the work those particular folks are doing for Pixar isn’t actually writing? Say, editing or storyboarding or whatnot? Or is it simply that “animation writing” doesn’t count as writing as far as the Guild constitution is concerned, and therefore is as irrelevant to Guild-defined “writing” as pouring concrete for a sidewalk?
Ted,
to make “all WGA members” stop writing needs a grand scale effort, one only feasable to be executed by, say, a union. Unless you want to start by bulk emailing your peers…
The union asking its members to halt - or hold back - all work unless certain demands are met is, in effect, calling for a strike, is it not?
The eternal battle is fought between this concept and the aforementioned assumption that “anyone and his mother” can crank out words on a page.
Ted, from the perspective of one who doesn’t know much about the details of the union, your posts in this thread have been extraordinarily informative. You oughta condense ‘em into a single page that people can go read.
Think of it this way — a strike of construction workers would be analogous if those workers were the ones who actually made the concrete and steel girders from scratch, as opposed to just combining them into buildings.
A WGA work stoppage would deprive employers of both labor and raw materials. So you can think of it as both a strike (labor stoppage) and an embargo (materials cutoff).
I thought Josh’s meaning was pretty clear. In my defense, though, I enjoyed Fight Club (only saw it once, so that’s as deep as I’m going with it), and I come from a very long line of Red Sox fans.
So hopefully I’m no worse than comatose to Craig.
Does Dateline’s “To Catch A Predator” count?
“A WGA work stoppage would deprive employers of both labor and raw materials. So you can think of it as both a strike (labor stoppage) and an embargo (materials cutoff).”
Gotcha, but does that mean that in the past wga writers would still sell specs during an ongoing strike???
I mean, to make the embargo effective it would have to commence before the strike, thereby “depleting the companies of all resources before shutting down the mines”.
An embargo without a strike seems ineffective.
Ted:
Are you really suggesting this kind of movement? That writers should band together and agree to only work on spec? Which means that TV writing staffs would essentially dissolve themselves (and forego the massively larger amounts of money that even lower level staff writers make compared to freelance script fees)? That writers in early stages of their careers who can’t necessarily afford to write on spec (with, of course, no guarantee of a sale) forego the sure money of a pitch or assignment?
I mean the thing about the comparison with oil companies is that oil has actual (if fluctuating) monetary value. Material written on spec does not. Not to mention that were WGA members all to declare this embargo, it wouldn’t be that hard for employers to find people on ther verge of breaking in who would jump at the chances for their first assignments and, in many cases, do decent jobs.
I’m just asking you to explain your thinking a little more. It’s an interesting idea but the ramifications are kind of large and complex.
Josh, don’t leave. This has become my favorite Telenovella ever.
Who still uses the word “mongoloid?” In my house, it’s generally considered bad form to compare a mentally-handicapped person to an entire Asian ethnicity. I would recommend avoiding it in the script for “Infested II: At Least It’s Better Than Reality TV.”
Craig, Josh, I’d like to option the dialog in this comments section and cast Rainn Wilson (Dwight from the Office) as Olson. I’m sorry, I just can’t help it, every time I read your comments Josh, I can only picture Dwight.
You are only allowed to work for signatories in “covered work areas,” which include primetime television and live-action theatrical films. Not animation.
No, this is forbidden during a strike.
Craig,
Two questions, firstly re:
“No, this (spec sales) is forbidden during a strike”
Makes total sense, but then what exactly is Ted suggesting that is not already in place?
Secondly,
“You are only allowed to work for signatories in “covered work areas,” which include primetime television and live-action theatrical films. Not animation.”
Not to rehash, but with all due respect, then I was right when I said “Pixar writers aren’t eligible to join the WGA”. How did this prompt you to lash out, stating I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about?
Johnny Hartmann wrote:
The Guild actually couldn’t ask its members to refuse open assignments; it can only issue a restraining order that prohibits its members from doing MBA-covered work for the Companies, and then, only between contract cycles.
However, the Guild could be using some small portion of the income its been using to try to transform itself into an industrial/trade union — theoretically, because that’s the only way we’ll ever be able to negotiate a “good” contract — to remind and educate the membership why writers, who have never had the means to shut down production, have a contract that equivalent in value to directors and actors, who do — and of greater value that than of editors, dps, grips, gaffers, drivers … unions that, if they strike, have an immediate impact on production.
And, of course, now that the AMPTP has started talking about stockpiling, the WGA could be informing the membership that the AMPTP doesn’t stockpile by slowing down production or distribution of motion pictures — it stockpiles by increasing the number of assignments for literary material it gives to WGA members … by increasing the number of legal claims it can make to literary material yet to be written, that must be delivered before the MBA expires.
The way to stymie the AMPTP’s stockpiling strategy?
Work on spec, of course — because that gives (yep, you got it) writers absolute control over the very thing the AMPTP needs in order to stockpile.
As to your other point — the “grand scale effort” needed to get all WGA members to stop accepting assignments: you’re right. That is exactly what happens in the event of a strike.
Which can only occur if WGA members voluntarily agree to stop accepting assignments, and signal that willingness with a vote.
In the WGA, strike votes turn out the largest percentage of members, particularly working members, and for a strike threat to have any real teeth, about 70% to 80% of the voting membership must vote “Yes.”
If 70% to 80% of the working membership would be willing to voluntarily stop accepting assignments — in fact, would be willing to cease receiving any non-residual income from the AMPTP Companies — when a contract has expired, is such a stretch to imagine the would be willing to simply cease receiving income from work-yet-to-be-written only?
And, the fact is: it would not even require 70-80% of the WGA membership to do so. Contrary to popular self-defeating belief, the AMPTP Companies do not consider writers to be interchangeable cogs. If they did, then all writers would receive the same pay for the same work.
Do you imagine that if Disney wanted a Pirates 4 (if), and Terry and I turned down that assignment, it would mean that every single writer, professional and aspiring, would be in the running for that assignment? Or even just every single WGA member?
Nope. Disney would have a very specific set of requirements for the literary material they required —- including, the time it would take to have in hand literary material that met those requirements — and that means that the pool of literary-material producers (ie, writers) they would look to would be fairly limited in number.
Same thing with the literary material required to produce a television series — a series of individual motion pictures, each requiring literary material to be produced by a determined airdate. The studio’s pecific requirements for literary material + limited time to meet those requirements = limited pool of writers the studio would trust to deliver that literary material used in production.
So for writers to flex the “embargo threat” muscle against the AMPTP — which is more potent than a strike threat — require the commitment of a smaller percentage of the WGA membership than it takes to flex the “strike threat” muscle.
(NOTE: Whether someone is or is not in this limited pool is not a judgment of the artistic quality or content of any writer’s work, or even a judgment of whether or not a writer is capable of being in that pool. It means only this: There are studio-imposed constraints over the group “ALL WRITERS” that gives us the sub-group “WGA MEMBER WRITERS”; further constraints imposed on the “WGA MEMBER WRITERS” yields the sub-group “WGA MEMBER WRITERS STUDIOS TRUST TO DELIVER LITERARY MATERIAL USED IN PRODUCTION.” The identities of the writers in that group change over time, and that group does not denote all the WGA members — or even all writers — that are capable of delivering the literary material required by the studios. It’s a quantitative label, not a qualitative one: a number, not a subjective critical assessment. Okay?)
Ted — that’s a very interesting thought.
But what you’re proposing doesn’t sound like an embargo —we’d still sell specs to the companies, so they’d still have raw material, though of a limited selection.
Here’s a possible embargo, paralleling OPEC’s: what if writers refused to work for or sell to say, Paramount, but continued to work for and sell to New Line? Any leverage possibilities there?
Embargoes are generally dependent on there being other buyers for the sellers to turn to — in ‘73, OPEC could cut off the U.S. and others because they continued to make money by selling to other countries.
Yes, any individual writer could turn purely to spec work. (Hi, Zach Helm.) But it’s hard to envision the WGA doing it as a group — how many writers are good enough to pass up assignments and still eat?
Just catching up on this thread.
I’m going to stand apart from several of my friends (and, apparently, most of my fellow WGA members and full-time writers), and say that I think that the reality work Alison described above is indeed “writing.” The work of creating Aristotelian structure out of an amorphous mass of footage so that it becomes a watchable story requires every bit as much writerly talent as do some (please note that I’m saying SOME) scripts which we not only cover, but even laud.
Most people here aren’t on WriterAction, I assume. This is a slightly edited version of a post I put up there after reading a number of threads like this one. I know my friend/hosts here disagree, as will most of you, but I thought it might be worth hearing one professional screenwriter, who’s no apologist for the current Guild leadership, weigh in from the other side:
I?ve mostly stayed out of these discussions regarding the wisdom behind our strategy of organizing reality. While recognizing this as a radical transformation, more radical than leadership has seemed willing to admit, I?ve withheld judgment as to whether or not that radical transformation is a good thing.
After reading the arguments on WA, and listening to David Young and our leaders at the Town Hall they held this fall, I think I come out more supportive of such a transformation than most here, certainly more supportive than a number of people with whom I generally agree.
Specifically, I?m not as troubled, in the end, by the prospect of erring on the side of allowing too many people into the Guild, even if their work does not square with our traditional notions of what constitutes ?writing.?
Reality television is a fact of the TV landscape now. We may look down our noses at these shows, but many of the top-rated prime time series of this decade have been non-scripted. As these shows have crowded comedy off the schedule, they?ve cost us literally hundreds of jobs. And those who dismiss the networks? threat to stay afloat through a strike by filling more hours with reality do so at their own peril, as were those who thought this form just a passing fad back in 2000-2001. Reality is here to stay.
And some people must be shaping these shows into stories: creating premises, selecting conflicts to highlight, choosing which few of a given person?s myriad actions and speeches will reveal him or her as an interesting character.
Does that square with the romantic notion of a writer battling the blank page, creating from the whole cloth of his own imagination, inventing characters and their stories and their dialogue, and ultimately finding the perfect words to commit to paper as a guide to directors and actors who might someday bring those characters to life? Of course not.
But in truth, an awful lot of what we do, of what we?re credited and compensated for under WGA contracts, doesn?t match that romantic notion either. Kenneth Branagh isn?t doing that kind of work when he gets a writing credit for HENRY V, nor is Ernest Lehman when he gets the same for WHO?S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF. Nor are Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy when they outline improv scenarios for their gifted rep company. Nor is that sitcom staffer, constitutionally unable to sit alone in a room and battle a blank screen, who nonetheless gets a few shared credits a year on a show which is entirely room-written. Nor am I, even, when I?m hired to do a fairly faithful screen adaptation of a novel.
But we make room for all such writers anyhow, as we should. We?re stronger for them. And for welcoming newswriters, too, even though they are doing something fundamentally quite different from the rest of us.
I was persuaded at that Town Hall by David Young?s argument that we can create and codify separate standards for reality writers, ones which won?t bleed over and compromise our protections from the claims of actors or directors or executives in scripted work that their looser contributions represent actual ?writing.?
Admittedly, the much-discussed gray areas mean that we run the risk of over-inclusion. But I think that?s less a danger, on the whole, than under-inclusion.
Do reality writers belong under our MBA, or under their own, like the newswriters? Ours, if possible, for all the obvious strategic reasons. But they should have their own, if that?s the only way we can start getting them the benefits and protections they deserve. And if we do manage to get them covered under ours, there will be plenty to work out, to differentiate what they do, and to create specific provisions which protect them, and which protect the rest of us.
All this said, I?m still no fan of the corporate campaigns, and ANTM is sure starting to look like an unfortunate choice for a first battle. And I am concerned about the financial implications, not only the costs of these dubious tactics but even more the long-term and much under-discussed impact on our health fund of an influx of a thousand relatively low-paid members.
Most of all, I?m profoundly unsettled by the ?means to an end? regard for these writers which some of our leaders shamelessly trumpet. It?s cynical, it?s irresponsible, and it’s not worthy of this great Guild.
But setting aside those concerns, and focusing only on the question of whether we?re better and stronger for having these reality storytellers in our union… I?m convinced.
Ted, very interesting post about the embargo idea. I’m still processing it. ANd you’re right- certainly this kind of leverage could prevent studios from making movies like ‘Priates 4’ and other big tentpole/franchise movies.
But, thought experiment: let’s say that this kind of embargo began right now, thus preventing pre-strike stockpiling. Don’t most studios have enough of a back-catalog of scripts that they could shoot to feed the pipeline if they had to? Wouldn’t we just end up seeing, you know, MANDRAKE finally going into production and so forth? I’m a TV guy, not a features guy, so I could be wrong, but my sense is that most studios own a fair number of projects that they more or less could make if they wanted to. (And of course, without further development and production rewrites, a lot of them would turn out really poorly, but still, the pipeline would be adequately filled except for tentpole sequels and so forth)
Ted,
so what you’re basically saying is ‘stop taking assigments and use the downtime to write a spec’ because… the lack of assigned projects that must legally be delievred before a strike takes effect increases the leverage of the union and its members in said strike. So the threat of an embargo is still only viable with the looming threat of a strike, no? Or is the idea to drain the comapnies’ of producable scripts so they make amends before a strike becomes neccessary?
Bonus question: what happens to a NON-WGA writer who takes an assignment from an MBA signatory duing a strike? Is he eligible to join after the strike? Or will I, I meant HE! burn in hell for all eternity?
OneWhoKnows —
See my response to Johnny Hartmann for a few answers to your questions, but just to reiterate:
In order for the WGA to have a strike threat, it requires that at least 70%-80% of the membership be willing to forego all MBA-covered income — which includes assignments and spec script sales; plus, that strike threat can exist only between contract cycles — which makes it very easy for the AMPTP to anticipate possible interruptions to the literary material supply and figure them into their business plan, doesn’t it?
The embargo threat requires a far smaller percentage of the membership to be willing to forego MBA-covered income derived from assignments, and it could occur at any time.
OneWhoKnows wrote:
Oil has an actual (if fluctuating) monetary value because there is a market for oil.
As long as there is a market for literary material to be used in the production of motion pictures — and, doomsayers aside, that’s not going to change any time soon, if only for simple economics* — then material written on spec has an actual (if fluctuating) monetary value.
Ted,
your answers to OneWhoKnows clarified my last inquiry, but one last thing…
Would it be fair to inofficially call your proposal an “A list embargo”?
“Bonus question: what happens to a NON-WGA writer who takes an assignment from an MBA signatory duing a strike? Is he eligible to join after the strike?”
Not based on that sale. No.
The paperwork a writer gets from the WGA upon achieving the proper level of employment to join the Guild has a sheet listing the dates of previous strikes and asking the writer if he worked during any of these time periods. The feel of the questionaire is that they wouldn’t deny membership to a person who had scabbed during a pervious strike.
But I don’t think it’s an automatic disqualification to membership.
Tom wrote:
See how simply being introduced to the idea has caused you to start thinking differently about the leverage writers have in negotiations, and how to use it?
Yes, what you suggest would be possible, but it would have to be done without any WGA involvement whatsoever. A union can’t institute any policies that would cause employees to discriminate against employers (for anything other than violations of the collective bargaining agreement, that is; ie, strike/unfair lists).
In fact Ron Bass did something along these lines, in reverse, a few years back: he led a group of writers who negotiated with Sony an above-minimum deal for all writers who met a certain set of criteria — making Sony more attractive to writers in general, and writers who met that criteria in particular.
Of course, there were also a lot of writers who did not meet the criteria — and, I guess, believed they never, ever possibly could meet that criteria, since it was based on having written literary material that was actually produced — who thought it was incredibly unfair.
-
Well, collectively, spec material has monetary value in the same sense as oil. But an individual spec may not. But this is really just a footnote to your larger point.
Ted,
I actually love the embargo idea, at least as a grand theory. I fear the problem would be a recurrance of what happened during the last strike - the town was glutted with crappy buddy specs.
So if the WGA can’t legally be involved in this kind of embargo, how can it really be an effective bargaining tool? Since, as it stands, the guild hasn’t even said what it’s going to ask for in the contract negotiations (and won’t do so until August or September, right?) are you suggesting that members try to organize this kind of embargo preemptively (since an embargo beginning in August or September would be too late to prevent stockpiling)? Even though we don’t even know what the actually quantitative differences between the WGA and AMPAS will be on the contract?
Ted’s strategy is the first coherent view I’ve seen on how to leverage the WGA’s position in the movie supply-chain (yes, supply-chain; look there for other industry analogs to the conflict).
Economic leverage is won by witholding/controlling supply. OPEC analogy is spot on. The WGA would do well to listen to such a ‘reframing’ of the dynamic in order to win the ‘respect’ (and god forbid, a bigger cut of the $$$ pie) it has been looking for.
lt
Johnny Hartmann, since I suspect Craig and Ted have given up explaining WGA rules to you, let me note that the comment you made a ways back (“Not to rehash, but with all due respect, then I was right when I said �Pixar writers aren�t eligible to join the WGA�. How did this prompt you to lash out, stating I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about?”) is still incorrect. Pixar writers ARE elgible for WGA membership. The trick is that Pixar has to be organized by the WGA.
On a broader note, this is an amazing discussion.
I’m reading this, and i’m wondering…am I crazy? Olson seems like he’s being very clear, making very simple, very good points. Why are people not getting it?
Are we letting snarkiness get in the way of logic, cuz if so, that’s not a world i want to live in. To me, some things are opinion and some are common sense. Let’s not ignore common sense just to get in a shitty comment.
ps.
I know dozens of “lurkers” who’ve sent me emails saying the same thing, so I thought I’d just put out there.
Kevin,
that clairifies it. See, some come here to get an ego boost by bashing heads with oscar nominated and a-list screenwriters, while others come here to actually learn shit. I had started my ‘uninformed proposal’ by stating “Call me naive but I don’t understand…”, making it blatantly obvious that I was seeking answers, not arguments. So thanks!
Willing,
“I’m reading this, and i’m wondering…am I crazy? Olson seems like he’s being very clear, making very simple, very good points. Why are people not getting it?”
What you fail to grasp, fool, is that you’re just very adept at comprehending really bad writing.
Sorry. I try. I really do. But Craig Mazin criticizing my writing chops is still blowing my mind.
Kevin,
I hope you’re reading this while waiting for playblasts to render! Just kidding, it’s good to see you here. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts on the thread.
Josh,
I’ve found your posts on this thread very easy to understand. However, I also think your posts on this thread have shown a trend that you don’t think reality writers are “writers”, even if they have created literary material that is performed on a show, although you did apologize for stating that.
To be honest, I think this is a gray area, as there clearly has to be some thresshold of quantity, not quality, before you’re considered a writer. Is someone a writer (according to WGA definitions) on a reality show if they write a three sentence speech for the presenter to deliver (prior to principle photography)? What if that person spends the majority of their working time doing non-writing work? What if that person is a director or producer? At what point is a person a Writer as opposed to a producer, editor, or director that has to generate a certain amount of literary material in the course of their main job?
Okay, I’ll emerge from the shadows, too. This has been a very informative dicussion. Josh Olson has been crystal clear.
And I agree with him - especially on the point that animation-writers deserve entry into the union. I’m amazed they’ve been ignored.
Not that I’m knocking reality writers. However, I’m an aspiring screenwriter who writes advertising copy for a living, including TV and radio spots, and I don’t think this qualifies me for membership either.
Keith,
“To be honest, I think this is a gray area”
Sure. Which is why I think we should be dealing with writers who DON’T inhabit the gray area before worrying about people who, at best, MIGHT be writers.
Josh,
“Which is why I think we should be dealing with writers who DON’T inhabit the gray area before worrying about people who, at best, MIGHT be writers.”
The gray area I was talking about refers to some reality writers, but not all reality writers. Some employees on reality shows clearly are Writers (with no gray area). Does that mean those writers should be dealt with now?
Josh:
Just come out and say it. You know you want to!
Keith,
“The gray area I was talking about refers to some reality writers, but not all reality writers. Some employees on reality shows clearly are Writers (with no gray area). Does that mean those writers should be dealt with now?”
Animation writers first. That’s all I’m saying.
Craig,
“Just come out and say it. You know you want to!”
I’m genuinely curious, Craig. What is it you think I want to say that I haven’t already? What is it that you think I’m holding back?
You’re “genuinely” adorable, Josh!
Anonymous wrote:
The WGA could not advocate that writers embargo a specific studio while continuing to sell to others, which was what Tom was asking about.
The WGA could advise its membership that an embargo against accepting assignments from any and all AMPTP Companies would be an effective countermeasure to the AMPTP’s threat of stockpiling in anticipation of a strike.
Jesus, Olson, that was frackin’ hilarious!
I don’t know if anyone else got that (besides Craig, and evidently I’m dead to him) but I wanted you to know that I did and I’m still chuckling.
Let know no one ever say you are not capable of great subtilty and sature when need be - LOL!
THE ARTFUL WRITER starring:
Rainn Wilson as Josh Olson
Stephen Colbert as Craig Mazin
C3PO as Ted Elliott
Somebody write this…please.
Not C3PO as Ted, no-no. Think bigger!
William Peterson as Ted Elliot.
That’s casting.
As who gets to play me, I can only think of Timothy Olyphant. He rules.
Kevin, Wesley’s having IRS problems now and big Willie seems committed to doing family films - so how do you feel about Chris Rock?
Wait a minute. Maybe I want Chris Rock to play me. He’s too cool for school.
Susan C wrote:
Someone “deserves” to be in the WGA by dint of being in one of the bargaining units represented by the WGA. This is what is referred by the term “Guild jurisdiction.”
For instance: The Fox Television Animation bargaining unit is represented by the Guild, under a separate agreement from the MBA. Fox primetime is under Guild jurisdiction, and anyone who works as a writer on any of the Fox primetime animation shows is a WGA member.
However, the AMPTP bargaining unit (ie, writers who work under the MBA) does not include any animation writers, because there is language in the MBA, dating back decades, that specifically excludes animation from MBA coverage. Because of this, even discussing brining animation under the MBA requires agreement from the AMPTP — and the AMPTP simply is not willing to do so. They say “Jurisdiction is not a mandatory topic for negotiation, next!” and that’s that.
Additionally: there are a number of bargaining units in animation that include writers and story artists, animators, layout artists, etc., that are represented by the Animation Guild. So let’s say the WGA tries to organize a non-union animation production company; if the company sees unionization as inevitable, but does not want to negotiate with the Guild, then it can sign a contract with the Animation Guild instead. This is what happened at Nickelodeon: a lot of people in the Guild worked very hard to bring all writers on Nickelodeon animation programming under WGA jurisdiction, with jurisdiction over the rest of the unit going to the Animation Guild (not the least of these people was Patric Verrone, who, as a writer on The Simpsons, was instrumental in bring Fox Animation under Guild jurisdiction). At the last minute, Nickelodeon signed a contract with the Animation Guild covering the entire bargaining unit, and the WGA was aced out.
The idea that animation writers should be in the WGA is not exactly a revolutionary concept; in fact, it is blatantly obvious, inarguable and something that the WGA has been working to accomplish for years. Just because the WGA does not cover animation is not because animation writers are being “ignored”; it’s because actually bringing animation under Guild jurisdiction is a lot more difficult than simply saying “Animation writers should be in the Guild.”
-
I don’t have time to go into detail, but I just want to say that Craig’s statement “At the last minute, Nickelodeon signed a contract with the Animation Guild” is wrong. The Animation Guild’s organizing of Nick didn’t start until WGA organizers had informed our business agent that the WGA was walking away from the Nick organizing.
It would have been illegal, and easily challenged, if one union had swooped in (as implied) while another union was organizing a studio.
I need to clear something up here - I’m told Craig thinks I want to diss his writing. The only writing of his I know is what I read here. I’ve never seen any of the Scary Movies, or the others he’s credited with, so I cannot comment, and I certainly wouldn’t, even if I had, unless I thought they were absolutely brilliant.
My comments about his writing, and about his criticism of my own, were related to what we all read here. I’m sorry, but while I find his posts perfectly capably written, I’ve never heard a real voice, although he’s extremely adept at the subtle, passive aggressive assault.
I’ve been at this idiotic crap long enough to know I have a voice, and to know what I write here has a style and a pizazz that, at least based on the evidence here, is not within Mazin’s skillset. (I also know that saying such things so openly and unapologetically always pisses off a segment of the crowd here. Happily, that segment is one I truly enjoy annoying, so it works out for everyone. I don’t try to play to the cheap seats.)
So, sorry, Craig. You’re not hearing what you want to hear. The truth is, I haven’t seen the films. And it’s nothing personal - the truth is, I find the overwhelming majority of contemporary horror films to be so utterly bereft of wit, style, or - most importantly - scares, that I don’t go to them very often. Going to your flicks would remind me of those months when the new Mad would show up and they were parodying some movie I hadn’t seen. I’m sure I’d enjoy them, but the majority of gags would be wasted on me.
That said, and completely off the subject, I think The Descent will be out on DVD soon, and it’s the best goddam horror movie I’ve seen in years. If you yearn for the days when horror was actually scary, check it out.
So where were we? Did we finally all agree that reality TV is the devil’s tool to keep the American public docile and stupid, or is Arbouet still holding out?
Kevin —
That wasn’t Craig, it was me. And this is the version of events I’ve heard from members of the WGAw Organizing Committee I’m presuming it was a member of the Organizing staff that told your business agent the WGA was walking away. Do you know who it was, by any chance?
I’m waiting for the Reality Show entitled, Docile and Stupid, starring The WGA as “Docile” and The DGA as “Stupid”. I’d watch every episode, ignore my girlfriend, and let my son play inside of the microwave.
Then and only then will I be complete.
I enjoyed The Descent. But I’m still partial to Dawn of the Dead. A great horror movie made for grownups, with brilliant acting, direction, cinematography, and dialogue. You should watch Pulse. Hands down, the shittiest thing on a big screen.
Josh:
The person who told you that has led you astray.
You do have a “voice” in here, but it’s starting to bore me, though, because I don’t think it’s honest. I think you’re a poseur, Josh, and a bit of a one-trick pony.
I don’t mind if you don’t like the way I write my posts. My purpose here is not to entertain, but to communicate information and theories.
Oh, thanks for the tip on The Descent, but we only parody films that are very, very popular.
This may seem out in left field, but I think it is a central issue. I thought someone else would have brought this up by now.
Reality TV - the first “Survivor” - was specifically created by the studios as a device to end-run around a looming writer’s strike at that time.
The studios have a vested interest in ensuring Reality TV remains “writer-less” because it IS their deliberate tool to take the teeth out of the WGA and make them impotent on many levels (i.e. going after DVD residuals being the secret nest egg they are protecting).
All this infighting just plays right into their hands. If you don’t think media executives have the Machiavellian chops to create and take advantage of the situation, you’re not paying attention.
I don’t mean that to be a flame; I’m just amazed no one has picked up on this by now.
Karen:
Not only is this true, but it’s so true that the studios have told us this point blank.
They have told us that they will never let us organize reality because it’s their wedge against a strike.
Verrone seems to believe this statement supports what he’s doing. That’s where I sort of shake my head slowly…
Not true.
Survivor is based on the wildly popular Swedish show, Family Robinson.
Kevin,
what you’re saying does not suspend that the incentive to produce such a show came with the backstory Karen laid out and Craig confirmed.
Ted, sorry for the misattribution. I’m usually pretty good about reading signatures. I’m writing this during a playblast (not nearly as much fun as it sounds, but such is the life of an animator), so I’ll ask Steve Hulett to post details of TAG’s Nick organizing actions.
I will say that TAG fully supported the WGA’s Nick campaign, including some of us walking the WGA picket line in front of the studio (I still have the t-shirt and hat). Our attitude was that Nick had been a long-time sinner, and more power to the WGA if they succeeded.
Josh O. -
Good to be reading your voice again; you’ve been missed…but I can’t believe no one’s called you on this:
Earlier, you said something like “John Roberts is a brilliant motherfucker” with whom you totally agree about everything on his web page.
You mean John “Kung Fu Monkey” ROGERS, don’t you?
As opposed to John “Chief Justice” Roberts?
Hate to be nitpicky, but you scared me for a second there…And wouldn’t you hate for years from now, someone to Google “John Roberts brilliant motherfucker” and come across THAT?
Craig,
“Oh, thanks for the tip on The Descent, but we only parody films that are very, very popular.”
Sorry. I assumed you might have some affection for the genre and would want to see a good horror flick from time to time. I don’t see much point in directing you towards shitty horror movies worthy of parodying, as they’re pretty easy to find these days. And I don’t envy the fact that you have to sit through that crap for work. Seriously. It would make me crazy.
PS: the recommendation was for everyone.
And yeah, when it comes to you, I AM a bit of a one trick pony. You say something passive aggressive that grants you plausible deniability, and I call you on it. It can get boring, which is why I wander off from time to time.
Nonetheless, my posts are still better written than yours.
Neener neener.
Arthur,
Yes. The Kung Fu Monkey. Who would, actually, make a great supreme court justice, now that you mention it….
Ted — finally starting to grasp the evil genius of the embargo, thanks for explaining. Makes perfect sense for features, as a way to prevent studios from stockpiling… how would it (or something similar) work in TV, do you think?
So, um, all this time spent posting comments instead of writing scripts (on assignment OR spec)…would this be considered a de facto strike or a de facto embargo?
Olson:
Actually, I have zero affection for the genre. I don’t like horror movies (except a handful…like The Exorcist).
My affection is for the parody genre.
Alas, while shitty horror movies definitely are a dime a dozen, horror movies that cross the line into mass cultural consciousness are not a dime a dozen. That’s why we found ourselves parodying War Of The Worlds, which wasn’t really a horror movie at all.
And nanny nanny poo poo to you.
Just out of curiosity, what did you think of (assuming you saw it) The Exorcism Of Emily Rose, which was a bizarre combination of horror and courtroom drama?
I’m not much of a horror fan either, but I liked it. I thought they were pretty clever about what they asked the audience to buy into.
I was the person who was told the WGAw was “walking away” from the organizing. I was told this by the WGAw’s lead organizer at the time. (Some five or six years ago).
Here’s the timeline to the whole deal (firsthand):
The WGAw was approached by writers and board artists to organize in the Guild. Guild started a campaign. Quickly got tied up in litigation with Viacom/Nick.
Months later, the WGAw organizer called me to see if the Animation Guild wanted to jointly organize — us organize the designers, background artists, storyboard cleanup, timing directors, etc. TheWGAw organize board artists and writers. I said “Sure, why not?” (We — TAG — had worked to organize Nick in ‘97-‘98 and gotten nowhere, but why not try again?)
So we leaflet at the studio with the WGAw, picket with the WGAw, and as before get pretty much nowhere. I move on to other studios we’re trying to organize and my usual biz-rep workweek.
Sometime later, the WGAw holds a vote outside the studio, animation Earl Kress is one of the witnesses. Publicity. Ads. Time passes. No cnotract, no NLRB vote because of ongoing litigation.
More time passes and the lead WGAw organizer tells me: “You know, we’re not getting anywhere with this. We’re going to walk away.”
Eight more months go by. The Animation Guild organizes a small studio called “Frederator” owned by Fred Seibert, former head of Hanna-Barbera. When we organize them, they are located on Ventura Boulevard, but a month or two after the contract is signed, they relocate to inside Nick’s studio in Burbank, where Bred Seibert has a production deal.
I start visiting the union studio inside the non-union studio. (Weird, but there it is.) I start collecting rep cards for the larger studio. When I’m halfway through this process, I call the IA and report what I’m doing to President Tom Short. I tell him I’m going to call the lead organizer at the WGAw and tell him what I’m doing. Tom Short says: You’re not calling anybody at the WGAw.” So I don’t call.
Weeks later, the WGAw’s lead organizer angrily calls me and lambastes me for stabbing him and the Guild in the back. I remind him that he had informed me nine months previously that the WGA was “walking away” from the organizing attempt because the Guild was going nowhere. I ask: “When does the statute of limitations run out?” He rejoins that the WGA still had some things they were working on, and I should have told him, and how can I live with myself? I tell him I was ordered by the IA President not to call him. This doesn’t mollify him. (And I totally understand his position.)
Some weeks after that phone call, the Animation Guild had a majority of cards at Nick and signed a contract with the studio.
Craig,
Do you think Tim Talbott has any awesome insight to all of this?
I do.
Tim is so excellent it’s crazy. To me it’s crazy. In my opinion, sanity goes out the window when trying to discuss the excellence of Tim Talbott.
Do you find that interesting, Craig?
You should.
Are you sure you’re not confusing Survivor with COPS?
And as long as I’m posting, are all of you WGA members sure that keying on the production of literary material is in your best interest? I realize it’s called the Writers Guild, not the Story Creators Guild, but it seems to me that by placing a higher value on the physical act of writing, as opposed to the creative act of structuring a story, you run the risk of becoming glorified stenographers.
What if someone gave you 1,000 pages filled with random scenes, and you mustered all your craft to assemble 120 of those pages into a coherent story. But you didn’t re-type anything or otherwise make any written notations.—say you just looked over your assistant’s shoulder as he (re)typed the pages according to your verbal instructions.—Would you really feel like you did not deserve “Story by” credit? And would you really feel like your assistant deserved “Written by” credit?
If the answer is “no”, then I wonder what the difference is between a writer structuring a story from 1,000 pages of random scenes and an editor structuring a story from 1,000 minutes of random footage.* They are both crafting a story, are they not?
What, then, would the objection be to the person who structured the story being given “Story by” credit? (Or perhaps “Screenstory by” or “Television story by” credit, which might then necessitate a “From footage produced by” credit or somesuch.)
Mark
I was disappointed by “Emily Rose” because it had been hyped up as being as good as The Exorcist, which it wasn’t by a long shot. The theology was iffy too, which, in the Exorcist, it wasn’t.
Both cases are so different I’m shocked that I’m beating Olson to the punch.
The first case is called Adapting a Story.
The second case is called Editing.
That’s the beauty of working with a company that’s signatory. And anyone who would describe the physical act of writing as a glorified stenographer is either operating from the back of van or…my parents.
Steve Hulett —
Thanks for that chronology. Genuinely, I did not know that nine months had elapsed between the rally and when Nick signed a contract with the AG — the way I’ve always heard it makes it sound like you guys were inside making a deal while the rally was going on outside. There’s a few other elements regarding WGAw internal politics that just became clearer, as well.
-
No, I’m not confused. Perhaps my post was confused (it sounds like it).
When “Survivor” was launched, it was deliberately tooled and intended to succeed as a lever against actors (too expensive) and writers (beginning to feel their oats).
It did succeed (almost). Survivor was wildly successful, for the most part, at luring a group of people to fill in for paid actors with the promise of ONE of them getting a payoff and doing it without a pesky script and union writers…EXCEPT, almost immediately it became apparent that the on-screen talent needed some “help” with content through manipulation and feeding lines, etc.
The studios have and will continue to do everything possible to make sure these “helpers” don’t ever become recognized as writers or eligible for rights as writers.
I am not denying the existence of COPS or of Robinson Crusoe — what I am saying (that is important) is that the moguls are deliberately playing an strategically competitive game with the intention to win.
Again, I don’t mean to flame, but it seems writers are still wondering which pawn to open with and haven’t realized they are way past opening moves and deep into an endgame they are losing.
While quibbling over which was the first reality-show or what was the inspiration for “Survivor,” you are completely missing my point. A point which is going to cost you.
The point is: Reality TV, in it’s current incarnation, is a deliberate weapon - deadly and effective - designed to bring down writers by “proving” that writers are not necessary.
That proof is not valid, and there is a big shell game going on to keep everyone fooled.
Gar, I have a lot more to say, but mostly I just wonder if this is falling on deaf ears, so why bother?
I realize my last post was rather strong, and one might ask, “who am I to say such things?” Knowing I’m an undiscovered spec writer, that’s a fair question.
My day job is as a resume writer and career coach in Northern California. Although NoCal isn’t Hollywood, I get a fair amount of exposure to the industry through my clients. From that perspective, I’ve been watching this situation unfold for a number of years.
Karen, I think you’re seeing ghosts in your soup, so to speak.
Reality TV, which has been around for decades has nothing to do with proving writers are not necessary. Reality Television exists because it’s cheap to produce and brings in a ton of advertising revenue.
Period.
Television isn’t based on proving or disproving anything. It’s based on money and profit. Karen, this is a business. It’s not high school. Why exactly do you think game shows last for half a century? Why exactly do you think that television shows like Arrested Development, a fucking brilliant show, gets canceled and The War at Home thrives?
Here’s a hint. Ratings, essentially, don’t mean jack shit. It’s all about how much advertising revenue the show brings in. Remember that Ted Danson show, Becker? That show was always in the top ten and CBS tried to torpedo it as much as they possibly could. At one point it was moved like 4 times around the schedule.
So why would CBS do something like that?
Because the demo for that show was like 55 year old men & women and that’s just death to an advertiser. So CBS self destructed the show.
Television has always been and always be about money. If you happen to get a kick ass show like 24 then that’s a big plus. But never forget that when you watch Friends that it’s really just a 22 minute teaser for Budweiser.
Kevin:
It would be great if you’re right and I’m just plagued with haunted soup. :)
Maestro wrote:
“The production of literary material” means: the creation of intellectual property in written form where, due to U.S. work-made-for-hire law, initial copyright ownership vests in a party other than the writer/author. It’s this — the fact that screen and television writers create intellectual property in written form — that is the basis for our compensation, our merchandising rights, our publication rights, our stage rights, our reacquisition rights, our credit rights, our residuals … pretty much every right we have in the MBA, save health and pension (but, even there, contributions are made on the fees we receive for, yep, creating intellectual property in written form). And, since no other country on earth recognizes anyone other than the writer of literary material as the initial copyright owner in that material, this fact becomes more and more important as the global market develops. Also: if you compare the MBA to any other collective bargaining agreement of any other union in the industry — or in any industry, for that matter — I think you’ll see that the AMPTP places a pretty high value on the creation of intellectual property in written form. So, yes, I think it is in our best interests to continue “keying on the production of literary material” as the defining quality of “writers.” Don’t you?
No one is placing higher value on the physical act of writing than the intellectual act of creating. Both are required in order to create intellectual property in written form. Although stenography requires the physical act of writing, since it actually precludes the intellectual act of creating, no, there’s no risk in writers becoming “glorified stenographers.” Now, if for some reason, people who should know better — like the leadership and staff of the WGAw — started insisting that people who transcribe what they hear or see — exactly what stenographers do — are “writers,” well, then, at least as far as those people are concerned, writers are “glorified stenographers.”
If the final assembly did not require the creation of any content that did not exist in the 1,000 pages of random scenes, then nothing I or my assistant did deserves any form of writing credit. That’s because what I did was editing, and what he did was take dictation. Neither of which constitutes “writing,” as that term is generally understood and as that term is specifically used in the context of the MBA … or, until last year, in the context of the Writers Guild.
Maybe you should make some effort to learn what writing credit means before you start making suggestions as to how to change it so it can be given for editing, hm?
-
Karen Baird-Eaton —
It’s only “deadly and effective” if you accept the common wisdom that the WGA’s only leverage in negotiations with the MBA is the threat of negatively impacting the advertising revenue of the networks by decreasing the number of viewer eyeballs they can deliver because the quality of programming has diminished.
Which, you know … kind of a Rube Goldbergian strategy in-and-of-itself.
-
Thanks for the replies. If I may clarify…
It was not my intention to say that non-writers should get writing credit. I was saying that from my perspective creativity and craft are more valuable than the physical act of writing. I mean, if a producer hires Craig instead of me, I think it would have less to do with the fact that Craig can type 10 times faster than I can, and more to do with the fact that Craig can structure a story ten times better than I can.
Is it that the AMPTP values intellectual property in written form only? Or do they value any intellectual property they can exploit? (read: compelling story they can make money from) If it’s the case that producers value a compelling story, and that producers believe that someone who has demonstrated a high level of story craft and creativity in the past is more likely to deliver a compelling story, then I think it would behoove the story creators to focus on the leverage that their high level of craft and creativity gives them.
Further, if the story creators focus on creativity and craft, regardless of the means by which the resulting story is conveyed, then the producers wouldn’t be able to play one group of story creators (writers) against another group of story creators (non-writers).
Again, I’m not saying that the non-writing story creators should get writing credit; I agree that writing credit should be exclusive to writers. But I think that, if all story creators—writers, (some) editors, (some) animators, (some) computer game designers, etc.—got together (whether under the WGA, or by forming the Screen Story Creators Guild, or whatever), it would be better for them all in the long run.
Yes, in some cases writers could find themselves sharing “Story by” credit… strike that; make it “credit for creating the story”, however that credit might end up being worded… with non-writers. But in return, when all the story creators went out on strike, all the story creators would go on strike together.
Mark
Mark -
Here’s the thing:
In order for you to do your work, the production company provide you with copyrighted material that has already been created (the raw footage) and your work does not result in the creation of any new copyrighted material.
Whereas what screen and television writers are paid to do, what they receive screen credit for doing, what they receive residuals for doing, what they have won every single form of compensation, benefits and rights in the MBA for doing … is to create new copyrighted material.
And that its the distinction that I draw — not whether or not someone does the “physical act of writing” in order to do their jobs, and not whether or not someone uses creativity and craft to do their jobs — but, rather:
Is it their job to create new copyrighted material?
Because that is really what screen and television writers do.
-
Personally and tangentially to the issue, going back to the editing 1,000 pages of random scenes into a screenplay hypothetical, I think it’s disappointing that you wouldn’t be able to copyright the product of your craft and creativity. But given that that’s the reality of the situation, I understand and agree with the distinction you draw.
And if I make take a moment to thank you, Ted, for all the time you spend both here and on Wordplayer educating newbies like me.
Mahalo - Mark
Mark —
A 120-page script assembled from 1,000 pages of scenes is subject to copyright, but since the work has been transformed, it does not include any new copyrighted work that did not exist in the 1,000 pages.
And, you’re welcome : )
-
I find it hilarious that someone would accuse Olson of being an off-line puppy dog based on some brief interaction with a stranger.
Did you honestly believe he spends the entirety of his waking hours screaming obscenities and stabbing hobos?
Full disclosure: I’ve witnessed a few Olson diatribes and can assure you he’s just as passionate about his opinions off-line as he is on. He also speaks in the language of adults when his audience consists of adults, as it does here. I suppose such frank talk comes off as overly abrasive to mollycoddles, bubble-boys, the Bay Area; the sort of folk frightened by loud noises and sharp objects. If you must cower under a blanket of stuffed animals that’s fine, but don’t confuse his cohesiveness with churlishness.
As to what’s “real” writing. In scripted television, there are many “writers” who sit on their ass in a room and pitch jokes and possible story arcs that some assistant jots down. Sometimes they never put pen to paper. Doesn’t the WGA consider this writing? How is this different from the story editors’ room of a reality show where people sit on their asses and pitch episode arcs, season arcs and situations and scenarios (the way Borat was written)? It seems that in Mr. Olson (and company’s) narrow definition, the collective writing that goes on in a TV writers’ room isn’t really writing. What about all the writers on scripted shows who never put pen to paper, but nonetheless are instrumental in the storytelling?
No.
This obviously puts a crimp in your argument.
Writers often work under a weekly employment schedule in television, but it’s understood that they will actually write scripts. Granted, they often pitch in at the table, but this is why so many writers in television are also producers and are compensated as such (with no coverage by the Guild or dues to the Guild for said production work). Furthermore, only the writers of literary material qualify for residuals, credit and separated rights.
You happened to pick a bad example here, made a bit more egregious by your unnecessary use of the phrase “sit on their ass,” which implies that professional television writers are somehow lazy because they’re sitting.
Try it for a few weeks, if you happen to have the opportunity, and let me know if you feel relaxed when it’s over. :)