A Call For Propaganda

Jeesh. I’m all for individualism and even the occasional dissent, but c’mon Craig— some guys make a goofy web site with Comic Life, and you take it as an opportunity to profess your agnosticism (I’m an athiest BTW, so do I win?) and accuse them of working for Joseph Goebbels.

Are you just short on stuff to write today? If you don’t like the site, it’s easy enough to ignore without slamming it. If the comics DO insult actors (eyeroll), what’s the point of giving it a wider audience? (And no, I’ve nothing to do with the site and never even heard of it until you brought it to my attention.) More interesting, I thought, was Nikki Fink’s site, which I had totally forgotten about, but was mentioned in the previous thread.

AYAAW

You say “I don’t march”, but the strike orders claim you’re going to have to be available to picket. I’m not a marcher myself, so hopefully there are alternatives to standing outside in the sun with a sign all day…?

I don’t think that site is insulting to actors. It’s actually really insulting to writers.

It kind of reads like it’s from the notebook of a 13 year old who’s mad at his math teacher.

It’s kind of lame but it does seem that despite your protestations to the contrary you’re going out of your way to have a dig at the WGA at every opportunity.

Yeah, it’s really not funny. And definitely not effective in its intent.

So why bring it up at all?

Because otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have heard about it.

But now I have.

So…thanks.

Waitaminute…what was that about propaganda again?

Yeah, this whole “Craig hates the WGA” meme is adorable, but you guys aren’t even bothering to read what I write any more.

And the debate gets Godwinned on post #1, no less!

Go knee-jerk somewhere else. “Are you just short on stuff to write today?”

Short on stuff?

Look, get this through yer heads. I’m not here to freakin’ entertain you. I write what I feel like, how I feel like and when I feel like…on my own schedule, according to my own whim.

So AYAAW, here’s some advice for you from a genius I know.

If you don�t like the site, it�s easy enough to ignore without slamming it.

Now, here’s how I conclude…so read it again.

I guess what I�m saying is�it�s not that we need less propaganda at a time like this.

We just need better propaganda at a time like this.

Dig?

I don’t mind propaganda in service of a good cause, as long as it’s effective, not embarrassing, and not creepily religious. I want the Guild to provide gripping, inspiring propaganda. And when the Guild does well (as I wrote about at length here and here), then I praise them.

Forgive me for caring enough to critique. Better to damn the Guild with faint praise, huh? The tyranny of low expectations married with blind obedience and deference will certainly carry the day.

Funny how so few of you have the courage to put your names to your opinions. I may have a lot of issues with the way Josh Olson comports himself, but at least he owns what he writes.

While we’re on the subject of Nikki Finke, I have to say I don’t find her reporting particularly reliable on this issue, which is too bad, because she’s clearly on the side of the WGA. But she lost me when she described the 90.3% SAV authorization as ‘overwhelming’ and a surprise to the AMPTP, when everyone I know in the Guild thinks 90.3% is solid but hardly overwhelming, and I really cant imagine the AMPTP was caught off-guard by the results (though clearly they were by the vote itself).

Finke’s agenda is, as always, to point out that she thinks executives and moguls are usually morons and I think that colored her reporting on the SAV issue. As for her latest report about the moguls not caring about the strike, who knows? But it’s clear people are trying to spin her and that she is spinnable.

Oops, I meant to post that on the other thread, sorry.

Okay Craig- a response, if I may.

I was going to conclude my post with “oh, and please don’t Godwin the thread” (in slightly harsher terms) but optimist that I am, figured maybe, just maybe it wouldn’t be necessary. I’m disappointed. I mean, aren’t you going to credit me for not saying “First Post!” while you critique Internet cliches?

Second, talk about knee-jerk— where in my post did you read “Craig hates the WGA”? I in no way suggest you hate the WGA nor do I believe that.

You might mention to your genius friend that “we need better propaganda than this” is slammming the site, as I said. Words can hurt, Craig. Pens and swords and all that.

Forgive me for caring enough to critique. Better to damn the Guild with faint praise, huh?

Is there any reason to think this lame comic site is officially endorsed by the WGA? If not, why do you think I’m assuming you’re attacking the Guild and not the poor shlubs that puked up the comic site? Any nut writer can put up a web site these days.

I was only daring to critique your critique, man. Because I care too.

Oh, but seriously— I love ya, Craig and I’m a fan of this site, but you must have been getting a lot of shit about all the press lately because you’re being a little paranoid…

AYAAW

(anonymous, because I can. You have my IP, so figure it out)

BTW, the site is registered to Jackie Zabel and her production company, Stellar Productions. I have no idea if she’s affiliated or not with the WGA leadership, but just thought I’d pass along some research before we flame any further.

CRAIG -

I think it goes without saying, most of us enjoy the blog. Not only for your view point, but for the larger conversation it inspires by others.

Just as you strongly, sometimes emotionally, publically criticize others, be willing to take it without being so defensive. (that’s why you have a comments section, right? To have a dialogue?)

Frankly, I wouldn’t read if it weren’t for the comments. I like to hear from you and others. For someone who throws such vehement opnions out, you seem a tad too sensitive when the tide comes back your way.

The suggestion that you may be short-sighted in one approach to your fellow writers (your abstaining vote, which I found to be spiteful and ultimately not constructive), doesn’t mean you are unloyal, AMPTP shill, bla blah blah. And it doesn’t mean other writers who disagree on ONE POINT are lesser members, either.

Questioning the effectiveness of ONE of your actions is not the same as a sweeping indictment of your entire person. I wish you wouldn’t take it as such.

cheers.

AYAAW:

I was actually aiming my vitriol at the other anon mostly…if you read his/her comment, you’ll probably see why I reacted…but I certainly see how you might have thought it was all targeted at you, and I apologize for that.

I do get emotional when I’m accused of turncoatism or traitorous behavior, etc.

Not Godwin again.

I feel it’s our right as writers to evoke the lowest common denominator. Appeal to the big fat middle.

Can’t you just see Hitler now, searching the interweb from his comfortable abode in Argentina (or Brazil), for mentions of his name and then, if it’s a negative usage, typing “G-O-D-W-I-N S-U-C-K-A!!!!”?

The Godwin Rule is a tool of the Nazis and was created by Hitler himself. If you invoke said rule you are a Nazi sympathizer. I’ve said it. So there.

Craig,

No worries :)

AYAAW

The co-writer of Scary Movie 3 & 4 is complaining that someone else’s comical writings aren’t funny.

Isn’t that sort of like Charles Manson accusing someone of being crazy?

Anon WGA:

Well said, and I take that to heart. You’re right. Generally, I’m pretty thick-skinned, but these are emotional times, and I probably am too sensitive when it comes to people questioning my loyalty.

It’s a bit of a burden, but it’s one I can’t complain about. It’s the price of public opinions.

I’ll try and keep your comment in mind.

Dave H,

Don’t be an ass. Attack the content not the person. Craig did not search those propagandists out. They came to him. They asked him for his opinion. No one asked you.

BTW:

Comments attacking my credits and suggesting I’m the Charles Manson of comedy do not offend me.

Funny, the things that drive me nuts.

Funny to me, I mean.

The Charles Manson of comedy.

SML::

Actually, I got the link through a friend. These guys didn’t seek me out. My criticism is unsolicited.

Love,

The CMoC

In case you haven’t seen it, here is a link to TV Week and an interview with Patrick Verrone:

http://www.tvweek.com/

Great Craig,

Now I feel like Heinrich Himmler.

I really do hate seeing you take suffering so many slings and arrows the way you have lately.

If anyone here hasn’t been inside the Forum, let me just say that the Pros within it -

including Craig - regularly dispsense incredibly helpful, first-rate advice to wanna-be writers.

And we have Craig (and Ted) to thank for that, and it gains them absolutely nothing.

But I think you invite some of the criticism when you (along with some other writers) act like a…

like a…

a DEMOCRAT!

Take that! :-)

and you seem to (in recent posts) go after your own Union harder than you do “The Bad Guy” -

and say “Strike to Death” followed by “I’m offended and abstaining” and “Strike to Death” followed by “I don’t march: I don’t like groups”.

Um…

I mean, Hell, everyone’s entitled to change their minds, and we’re all entitled to a hissy fit once in a while (especially when we’re sick, tired, and cranky from criticism), but….

I think Craig needs a hug…

Dear Craig,

Nobody who knows you in the real world would ever accuse you of being a WGAw turncoat or a shill for the AMPTP — though I think the CMoC is a hoot and you should put it on your business cards. (Though real writers know that no self-respecting scribe carries a business card.)

You’ve given a lot to our union as a BOD member — and to WriterAction when you were a fellow Admin — and by those alone no one can seriously question your dedication to the cause of the professional entertainment writer.

Why don’t you just pull the ghetto gates closed on TAW until you’re done directing your movie. Not enough frustration on the set? ;^)

Sending love and kisses your way…

C…

Not to take this post too seriously, but this is what gets freaky about WGA negotiations — the idea that the writer in Hollywood is not “respected” and that a labor strike is the way to right the wrong. Being “respected” in anyway that is non-fiduciary is hogwash.

Which brings me to the second point — this interview with Verrone in TVweek, in which he claims that there have been no proposals involving “internet residuals…animation…reality…” I am a lower-middle class working writer, part of the true WGA rank-and-file, and let me say, if Verrone has a big boner for animation (he was an animation writer) and is serious about reality getting dealt with in this bargaining situation…I just got very, very scared.

This should be about download residuals. Period. Not respect, reality, animation, whatever.

Travis:

I grant you that I’m complicated.

Anonster:

That interview freaked me out as well. It’s the embodiment of everything I came to find frustrating about Patric. Non-answers and the substitution of stubbornness for strategy.

Craig,

Agnosticism is atheism for wimps.

See, I can stir up shit too!

What was so revolting about the Verrone interview was the smugness, the certainty, the belligerence. I don’t think it would be imprudent (though I know you might not like the comparison, Craig) to compare him to our president — the self-righteousness, the my-way-or-the-highway mentality, the preference of aggression over deliberation…and yes, we just rubber-stamped this guy to go to war for us. Even if you find my comparison revolting, it’s not the first of its kind you’ll hear in the coming weeks.

we just rubber-stamped this guy to go to war for us. Even if you find my comparison revolting,

A strike isn’t a war. In a war you pour gasoline on the other guy, then light a match.

In a strike you pour gasoline on you and the other guy, then light a match.

ANONSTER Wrote: What was so revolting about the Verrone interview was the smugness, the certainty, the belligerence. I don’t think it would be imprudent (though I know you might not like the comparison, Craig) to compare him to our president — the self-righteousness, the my-way-or-the-highway mentality, the preference of aggression over deliberation…

Dear Anonster,

You read “smugness, certainty, and belligerence” in the Verrone article and I read backbone. The “certainty” I read in Patric’s statement wasn’t a pejorative variety, it was the truth and steadiness of his position.

This is a negotiation and finally, after a very long time, my union’s elected and paid leadership is showing the kind of skills which put us on a nearer-to-equal bargaining position with our employers. He who sets the agenda sets the results. Finally, a leadership who understands that. The AMPTP sure as hell does.

It’s starting to dawn on me that maybe what Patric meant by his vilified-by-a-few-here “strike or cave” philosophy was exactly this: Let’s. Win. The. Fucking. Negotiations. (Sorry for stealing your favorite style sheet, Craig.) See? No caving, no striking. Winning.

As to your reference to Patric reminding you of President Bush in that smarmy, self-satisfied way you’re clearly projecting it from some other place. For what motives, I know not.

Best,

C…

Yes. I’d like to win the negotiations. What worries me is the potential that we will keep pushing past the point where we can win and end up spending time on strike with no added benefit.

I know there’s no way for the President of the Guild to say “Well, we’re asking for coverage in animation and reality, but it’s not that important to us.”, so I give the “all or nothing”-type comments a pass.

But if it really is true that we’ll never accept any contract that doesn’t include coverage for animation and reality, as well as an acceptable rate for Internet-related stuff AND an increase in DVD residuals, then I suspect we’re going to be on strike for a very long time.

Anonster wrote: “This should be about download residuals. Period. Not respect, reality, animation, whatever.” Amen to that.

Clifford — I think it’s to early to say if we’re in an equal position with the AMPTP. You’re displaying the same sort of antagonistic, retributative way of thinking that is getting us further into this mess — the people who believe that leading our union to the brink of a strike is some sign of victory. The fact of the matter is that the longer we strike for, the greater the concessions of the AMPTP must be to ensure some sort of success. In a strike, there really is no “winning,” at least in a personal sense — the money I see from internet download residuals over the course of this contract won’t near what this strike will cost me in immediate losses. I’m willing to make the sacrifice, but I have to admit, I find all of this bloodthirst coursing through the veins of most writers to be misguided and potentially dangerous.

Paula: Thank you. Let’s hope that this is bluster — the equivalent of the AMPTP’s preposterous residuals bluff, because I can say that organizing reality will never, ever, ever happen. Reality shows are notorious for constantly getting shut down by the IATSE, etc — they thrive by going non-union crew-wise and not getting caught. So organizing for the WGA is actually part of a much larger labor problem in reality television. It didn’t seem like Verrone realized that last year, and it doesn’t give me much confidence in his negotiating tactics now.

I also didnt think Verrone sounded smug, just strong.

On the one hand Ive heard smart negotiating means having a lot of points so you have bargaining chips.

On the other hand, strong opinions say skip all that shit and only go for the item you care about - DVDs. But by saying you dont care about the other shit perhaps makes you weaker on the one thing you do.

I dont know. Im not in that room, none of us are.

But Verrone is not neg’ing alone; theres a committee, multpiple voices and other voices to answer to. So I think the hysteria is a little unwarranted. And, if so, making blanket assumptions of what other people want (“Verrone absolutely wants a strike”) without having any evidence to back it up (a smoking gun email/ recording of him saying so) is conspiracy theory. One I dont find helpful.

I cant imagine the victory in striking for strikes sake. Who would want that - all ive heard from the last one is how awful it was (grown men crying, losing homes etc).

Even if Verrone was strike happy, he cant make it happen alone, right?

My guess is this is like Y2K - everyones running for cover, imagining the world ending, stuffing cash under the mattress, then come Nov 1, the strike doesnt happen and you have 30 jugs of water in your kitchen.

I hope.

Oh, and I would happily sign my name to my post, but as a female whos had to deal with a creepy internet stalker (from something totally innocent), Im very careful. It’s not cowardice.

In a strike, there really is no “winning,” at least in a personal sense — the money I see from internet download residuals over the course of this contract won’t near what this strike will cost me in immediate losses.

This is an interesting point— one way of looking at this strike is as an act of selflessness. We suffer now so that those that come after us will gain, much in the way that those who came before us suffered for our benefit.

We’re standing up to our knees in gasoline along with our enemy, holding a match, but let’s not forget our kids are sitting on our shoulders.

(Whoa- WTF was that metaphor?! Wow, it’s a good thing I’m anonymous.)

AYAAW

Craig said re the Writers Bloc website: “My reaction is more one of embarrassment.”

From the person behind “Scary Movie 4”? Yeesh!

Dear Anonymous:

See post #14.

Try and show up on time, okay?

—The CMoC

Craig also said: “Look, get this through yer heads. I’m not here to freakin’ entertain you.”

Oh, so it’s like your movies.

Craig said:

#36

Dear Anonymous:

See post #14.

Try and show up on time, okay?

—The CMoC

Craig — i LIKED Scary Movie 3 — just not 4.

peace wga brutha!

“It’s starting to dawn on me that maybe what Patric meant by his vilified-by-a-few-here “strike or cave” philosophy was exactly this: Let’s. Win. The. Fucking. Negotiations. (Sorry for stealing your favorite style sheet, Craig.) See? No caving, no striking. Winning.”

So, Clifford, if we strike than we can put you down for viewing Patric/David’s strategy as a failure. I’m with you.

In #29 above, the poster talks about the “negotiating skills” of our paid and elected leadership. I’m not sure what he has seen that the rest of us have missed. He seems to be confusing rhetoric with skill. In fact, the very absence of those negotiating skills has been worrying me for some time now. I may be smart, but that doesn’t make me a good poker player. We see that issue all the time. In TV, writers are often asked to be showrunners even though it requires a completely different set of skills. Same with directing and writing —just because you can do one is no reason to think you can do the other. We have some terrific writers and showrunners and human beings and political campaigners on our negotiating committee, but I have no reason to think any of them is an effective negotiator. Our paid leadership has virtually no experience in negotiating collective bargaining agreements, and none at all in our industry. The AMPTP people negotiate all year round with a dozen unions, and have been doing so for years. So have their bosses — that’s what they do. We may have passion and credits and Ivy League degrees on our side, but I worry we may be overmatched in the game itself.

Two words: Arnold Schwarzenegger…

anyone know if they will be able to make independent movies during the strike? Indepenendent companys that sign waivers that say they’ll abide by any neogtiated settlement the guild agrees on. I think they may have done that in 84, or I heard that. any truth to that? That they’ll be able to make indy films during a strike. Seems a good way to stick it to the studios and get the writers and directors and actors working….

Any thoughts?

Goofy.

“Seems a good way to stick it to the studios and get the writers and directors and actors working….”

Great way! And who do you think is going to buy your movie for distribution?

(in a snooty British accent)
Dear Craigery, I do believe that this topic is dreadfully limited. (sips his tea) I do hope you’ll be back to snuff. One doesn’t want to be a flash in the pep pep, does one? (stands up. He has horses legs)

I think “strike or cave” meant that Patric a/k/a P’Busy felt like we would have to “strike”: in order to get what we want, or “cave”: in order to not.

That’s what I think.

I also think his attitude dictated the reality that now we are going to have to strike…unless the AMPTP has been doing all this stockpiling to throw us off the trail of their true intention: giving us a last minute great deal.

It’s brilliant. They spend all this money getting projects to greenlight, then they say, just kidding: here’s a great deal.

Well, it’s strike or cave now.

Funny, he said it and it is so.

John, As a card carrying atheist I’m with you on Craig’s agnosticism. Speaks volumes about his stance on the strike. It’s the same thought process that results in all of this hand wringing and fence sitting “I-guess-I’ll-support-the-strike-but-it’s-going to be-very-painful-to-me” line of thinking. Of course it’s going to be painful. Ask those who came before. That’s the point of a union. Stop whining and hedging.

I’d rather be in the trenches with a true-believer.

Or maybe agnosticism is just a way of keeping an open mind?

As a card-carrying agnostic, I feel more comfortable with people who are open to the possibility of changing their minds than with people who are so sure in their belief that they can’t even entertain the notion they could ever be wrong. ;)

I see both sides of the argument here about the negoatiating committee. They have professionals. We don’t. That’s a point of view that has merit.

The complaints about Verrone may or may not be founded. I think time will tell on that one. When I talked to him a couple of weeks ago, I didn’t think he was smug or belligerent. I thought he was tired. He seemed to me like a smart guy doing what he was elected to do. I didn’t vote for him, but I’m giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Now, as far as John Bowman goes, he’s the man. After speaking to him and watching him in action at the Sportsmen’s Lodge meeting (a crowd that included many hostile and/or freaked out writers,)John came across as professional, hard-nosed, smart… and tired. But, I have to say, I thought to myself that I’m in good hands with John. I trust him to hang tough, but not do anything foolish, and, quite the opposite, to do things smartly.

I’m sure this will reassure no one, but Craig allows opinions that are different than his, so take it for what you will.

Lucious Jackson:

No, that’s not right.

Patric and his slate ran under a platform in 2005 that argued they were the alternative to “strike or cave.”

They believed they had a strategy that would force a good deal for us (so no caving) without having to walk a picket line (so no striking).

If we strike, then Patric has failed to deliver the central promise of his presidency.

How do we know when we’ve won, by the way?

What are the criteria for a winning deal?

“If we strike, then Patric has failed to deliver the central promise of his presidency.”

Classic Mazin. Keep digging.

Not fair, Anon. Patric promised a good deal for writers without striking or caving. Patric also promised some other things on which he has failed to deliver. Why slam Craig for pointing that out? Or is it unfair to ask why we’re in Iraq four years after “Mission Accomplished?” There’s a lot at stake. Let’s focus on the message and not the messenger.

If that’s your definition of a ‘slam’ then grow some new balls. The fact is Mazin is using every means possible to undermine the WGA position.

He gets an email reminding him to vote and tries to turn it into an issue. At least it gave him the excuse he was seeking not to vote. Talk about looking for a reason to throw your dummy from the cot.

Next up he unearths some comic strip. Most people would have been sent that link thought it was lame and moved on. Craig chose to make an issue of it.

Now Patric has reneged on the central plank of his manifesto because 90% plus of WGA members voted as they did. Of course Patric should have been so brilliant earlier on that the studios caved before we got to this point. What a schill he’s proved to be.

Anon, so the SAV happened spontaneously? You make it seem like Patric had a plan, but then, out of nowhere was an SAV and decided to shelve his plan.

And, seriously, posting on a blog is “using every means possible to undermine the WGA position(?)” You may be missing a few means there.

But, hey, way to contribute to the conversation.

Anon (post # 53): I’m not following your argument (or counter-argument, I guess it is). Didn’t Verrone WANT the SVA to pass? Also, if I recall correctly, the voter turnout wasn’t 90% plus; but of those who did vote, 90% plus voted “yes.”

I’m not in the guild, and have followed all this only sporadically, so maybe I missed something.

Thanks for the info Craig. I’m new to the city (11 months) and am the first looking to get cut from my job when the strike happens, so in looking for info I came across your site. As for the nay sayers of your blog, I would recommend not commenting at all as they want some type of response from you. That being said, I personally can’t take my own advice and constantly end up yelling. I think it’s because I still think I can change the world, and make a person who doesn’t listen to hear me.

I nominate Anon to replace John Bowman as chairman of the negotiating committee. This is a thoughtful guy who knows how to get things done. He’ll whip those management guys into shape in no time. Anyone else want to sign my petition?

Anon:

Every means possible?

Like urging WGA members to vote yes on the SAV?

Like calling out the AMPTP for being the bad guys?

For praising John Bowman?

For praising the Guild’s success organizing Comedy Central shows?

If you’re looking for a place to “megaditto” people who think in lockstep, this website is going to get very frustrating, very quickly.

Dear Craig (and whichever ANON asked me above) —

No, I don’t think if we’re forced out on strike that Patric has failed in his campaign promise to battle the “Strike or Cave” pattern. What gets me is that all some people here seem to be looking for is a “Gottcha!” against Patric and the Guild.

This is the real world, boys and girls, and labor/management issues aren’t solved in tidy bundles or by the exact match of results to promises. As someone said so eloquently either here or on www.WriterAction.com, “A fair deal is one in which both sides walk away feeling like they’ve lost.”

Look at the big picture, Craig — you know that’s all that really matters. That’s when we’ll see if the “Strike or Cave” pattern of WGA bargaining has been broken.

Best,

C…

Things a cookin’…

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

Clifford: You don’t like the “Gotcha” tone of some of the posts. We don’t like the jingoistic tone of yours, that Patric and David can do no wrong when in the past two years so much of what they’ve done has been wrong. We are all writers and we all want these negotiations to produce good results for writers. That is an entirely separate issue from whether Patric and WU have misled the membership or behaved like demagogues. “An alternative to strike or cave,” makes it sound like every contract since 1988 has been a cave. In fact, Clifford, you have fallen into that same trap, talking about the “strike or cave pattern of bargaining.” How can we take seriously anyone who says that? You really think every contract in the last 19 years has been a cave? As you say, only time will tell if the new contract is indeed “a new way” — which, if you’re honest, will no doubt look very much like the old way you keep railing against on your postings.

Clifford:

Do you have something on the line here? Or are you one of those very vocal very unemployed writers who’s agitating to put working writers out of work?

Better not working because of a strike than not working because one can’t get a job, I suppose. Easier on the pride.

From the Deadline Hollywood report and other sources, it sounds like key members of the negotiating committee and other power hitters who are either showrunners or screenwriters trying to meet deadlines before the 31st haven’t been attending these sessions.

I suppose that says it all. It’s more important for those top tier people to get their scripts in under the wire so they can be produced versus averting a strike for the rest of us rabble.

I don’t like the gotcha tone either and I’m not out of work. I’ve got 4 features right now, two of which I suddenly have to get turned in by the 31st so I can get paid. And a kid on the way. I wish I had more time! I definitely DON’T want a strike.

But I want to understand FACTS against Verrone et al, which I’m not hearing. Call me jingoistic; I think of it as being open-minded.

However, when I read “the heavy hitters” of the negotiationg cmtee haven’t even been at the table, I seriously wander WTF?! Or, being new to understanding union negotiating, is this standard?

Let’s not beat up Clifford. I obviously don’t agree with his main thesis at all, which is that Patric shouldn’t be entirely accountable to his campaign platform and main political strategy/philosophy, but I’m uncomfortable with people baiting each other in here about work, their relative level of employment, etc.

There are better ways to make a point.

Why are there 40 members on the NegCom? That seems like a lot of rabble, don’t it?

How many members on the AMPTP side? Do they show up to all the meetings?

“From the Deadline Hollywood report and other sources, it sounds like key members of the negotiating committee and other power hitters who are either showrunners or screenwriters trying to meet deadlines before the 31st haven?t been attending these sessions.”

This may be a shocker but: don’t believe everything Nikke Finke writes.

The “power hitters” have been very active and very in attendance throughout negotiations.

Monday’s session was a “sidebar” session which was intentionally limited to a few reps from each side. Sometimes these sorts of sessions can be more productive than the full sessions, which typically have 70, 80 or more people in the room.

Small groups tend to be more productive; the big groups better for posturing.

Nikki Finke also wrote that the new GET SMART movie isn’t funny, so her batting average isn’t all that bad.

Previous reports have stated that key members on our side have had difficulty making negotiating sessions due to their work schedules. That’s been cited in both trades.

The SML kid is cute. I remember when I was young and looking to argue everything. Now, I’m content to wait for the spoils of war.

Craig,

Current events alter the focus. I know you feel embattled sometimes, so I apologize for maybe adding to that. But there are a lot of questions raised here that you shrug off as though it’s a given they’re silly, and at a time like this, they’re really not.

I think you don’t realize how much it would benefit your readers to get straight answers to these questions, because your integrity is questioned a lot, and you act as though we all know you personally, when we don’t.

Many of your posts can be seen as damaging of the Guild, and overly critical. This latest is an amusing example, because it begs the question of why you’d even bother?

Personally, I find some of your analysis cogent, even when I disagree with you. But I don’t find the criticisms some people level at you to be irrational, so I wonder if you’d be willing to address them in a substantial way.

People have accused you of being in league with the studios, and this angers you. I know it would me. But if you realize how you appear to those of us who only know you from here, it’s not so crazy.

You’ve written about your unique deal with your studio, and the incredibly good treatment they give you.

You’ve told us you make well over seven figures for a script.

You’re part of a group of top list writers who just made a landmark deal with Fox.

But here’s the problem to someone who is not intimately familiar with you: there’s nothing on your resume that warrants any of those things.

Please don’t be insulted. I’m not addressing the quality of the work you do. I’m saying in terms of your professional station, you don’t fit in with the rest of that group, and sharing credit on a pair of Scary Movies isn’t the sort of thing that warrants a million dollar plus fee usually, especially on such specialized types of films. One does not look at Scary Movie 3 and immediately leap to the conclusion that one of the several credited writers is the only person in town who can adapt the latest Ludlum project for Joel Silver.

I’d really appreciate it if you could explain to us out here how you’ve come to be considered in the same professional league with your fellows on the Fox deal, or other writers who make seven figures for a script, because when you laugh questions like this off, it doesn’t change the fact that they’re valid.

Is there work you’ve done that your readers don’t know about that warrants your fee? Are there large spec sales, or big, unproduced projects that are considered A quality around town?

Because when people accuse you of doing the work of the studios here, it does make a reader wonder how you’ve gotten where you say you are without having made the usual steps other writers have. And if you could answer these questions, it would put an end to that wondering, at least for me.

Thank you in advance.

Craig,

Can you please prove a negative?

Oh, yeah, while you’re at it, can you justify your existence?

Thank you in advance.

The Charles Manson of comedy.

If Craig is the Charles Manson of Comedy, but also an agnostic, what shall his followers carve into their foreheads?

If Craig is the Charles Manson of Comedy, but also an agnostic, what shall his followers carve into their foreheads?

Wait, I thought Charles Manson was the Charles Manson of comedy, or haven’t you seen his stand up?

Anyway, I suppose agnostic followers could carve question marks into their foreheads, while atheists just leave their foreheads blank (?) Atheists make terrible cult members.

AYAAW

Dear Craig,

Thank you for pointing out the ill manners of some of your posters. But I can’t take it seriously since nobody here knows what I’m working on as I don’t dress up my IMDb profile with a bunch of development gossamer. Oh, but they so cut me to the quick…

And once again, how can I take anything seriously from people who refuse to sign their names which makes them suspect as even being fellow professional writers with a stake in this?

Also, “ANON” — whichever one is you — I find it amusing that you wrote “We don’t like the jingoistic tone of yours, that Patric and David can do no wrong…” “We”? Do you really speak for this entire board? For an organized subset of people here? Do you hold meetings somewhere on Facebook?

Don’t worry, Craig, but thanks for the comment.

All my best,

Facebook? That is so a month and a half ago.

We have a whole other board where we do nothing but take votes to gauge “Official Board Opinion”.

Not to be a told-you-so, but thank heavens:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974582.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

[Monday�s session was a �sidebar� session which was intentionally limited to a few reps from each side. Sometimes these sorts of sessions can be more productive than the full sessions, which typically have 70, 80 or more people in the room.]

Absolutely nothing happens in a room of 70-80 people.

It all happens in sidebar.

4-6 people, carving the deal.

I know this to be true.

But wasn’t the alternative to “strike or cave” predicated on organizing “reality”? Without that lynchpin…

RE: Variety article

Sweetness. I feel warm on my inside parts.

Sorry, Anonymous — I don’t always agree with Craig, but I’m going to go out on a limb and defend him here. Craig is a huge creative force behind Dimension’s only successful franchise — so much so that he can command seven figures a script and direct their new installment. What are you implying — that just because you don’t like those movies he somehow can’t be an A-List writer? Look at the Wibberleys, Tim Herlihy, basically anyone on that list besides John August and Michael Arndt — these are all huge, blockbuster writers, and just because you don’t think the Scary Movies are comedically spectacular doesn’t mean that they haven’t essentially kept the Weinsteins afloat for a long, long time, rendering Craig a valuable commodity.

Craig will also be the first to tell you that he profits from his high visibility, his friendship with Ted, his reputation as being studio-friendly. But guess what? So does every A-List writer in town. The implication that he is some kind of studio shill, paid seven figures for shitty scripts in return for some criticism leveled at Patric Verrone…that is absolutely bizarre.

It’s ironic that so many of you bashing Craig have probably bashed President Bush for calling Iraq dissenters un-patriotic. Calling out Patric Verrone on essentially reversing his campaign promises, questioning what — if any — actual goals this Negotiating Committee has, pointing out that a strike should never be the goal of a union…these things hardly makes someone a studio shill. I don’t know Craig from Adam, but I will say that trying to drag his credits through the mud as a way of devaluing his opinion is not only preposterous, it’s unfair — aren’t we supposed to be writers, dedicated to the inscription of controversial thought?

As far as messages 70 and 80, in a recent exchange with another scribe, Craig called an Academy Award nominated writer “a fraud” and didn’t seem to mean it in affectionate fun. My guess is his philosophy must therefore be that if he can dish it out, he can also take it. Is that how it works around here?

CLIFFORD J. GREEN: “And once again, how can I take anything seriously from people who refuse to sign their names which makes them suspect as even being fellow professional writers with a stake in this?”

Hey, Cliff, who gives a crap what you take seriously? Y’know what, I don’t use my real name, so the hell what? I wrote a film that aired on cable in June about age discrimination against writers in Hollywood. A subject that not only do studios avoid with a vengeance, but so does our own WGA, who have caucuses for every minority group including one-eyed, left-handed Martians. Senior writers, however: No caucus. And my name, and only my name was on the credits of that film.

So spare us your Braveheart anti-anonymous pontification, o.k? Posting a real name or a nickname or an anonymous is a choice. Which is something to which we are all entitled.

Once again, I forgot to attach my handle to the previous post.

No, Abandoned, Guild sources tell me that the Variety article is not accurate. It’s a fabrication. Reality remains on the table.

McNary was spoon fed that story by Nick Counter.

Don’t buy it.

Okay, if so, my sincere apologies to all. Especially if I was now played for a stooge a la Craig. (No offense, Craig.) I hope the Guild’s answer to that article then is to refuse to bargain for a week. (Man, I’m a sucker.)

Abandoned,

I do care. I care so much that I check this blog every time I check my email. I have OCD. Seriously. I take pills.

Please note: I’m only being sarcastic when and only when I use the word fuzzy in regards to my inside parts. For example, “I feel warm and FUZZY on my inside parts.” No fuzzy in last post = sincerity.

Oh, btw, you spelled “pepole” wrong.

SML: “pepole” was a typo, but i guess it was pretty careless of me to expose myself to such mockery.

ABANDONED: Grammatically, your I as in “…i guess it was pretty careless of me…” should be in CAPS.

Have a nice sleep!

:)

Hmmm. The article says:

“Despite its rhetoric to the contrary, the WGA is quietly pulling the plug on the notion of getting reality shows under its jurisdiction.”

and then

“Officially, jurisdiction over reality remains part of the demands at the stalled contract negotiations … And guild execs insist there remains an active effort to organize the sector.

and

“And though the WGA has yet to formally take any of its 26 demands off the table, it’s expected that the guild’s demand for jurisdiction over reality will be one of the first it folds on if and when negotiations get moving.

The language (“it is expected”, “it appears” etc.) suggests (to me anyway) that the reporter has some sort of access to a RUMOR that WGA negotiators are internally discussing jettisoning the reality jurisdiction proposal first or maybe don’t think it’s realistic, but certainly this is not an announcement that it’s “off the table” one as was the AMPTP’s last week…

The rest of the article appears to be background and reaction to “what if” the rumor were true.

I suppose there will be a clarification one way or another tomorrow.

AYAAW

Oh, SMS- what are these “pills” you speak of, and where can I get some?

Er, I meant “SML”. I’m not text messaging anyone.

AYAAW

AYAAW,

His name is Amos and he comes from the Yukon. He says, “It’s all natural.” It’s important that drugs come to me naturally. It makes me less paranoid of them.

Re: propaganda, I’m working on some Negotiating Committee Meeting slash fan fic.

Sorry Anonymous wrote:

You’ve told us you make well over seven figures for a script. You’re part of a group of top list writers who just made a landmark deal with Fox. But here’s the problem to someone who is not intimately familiar with you: there’s nothing on your resume that warrants any of those things.

SA, check out Box Office Mojo’s list of the most profitable spoof movies of the last three decades. Two of the top five were written by Mike Meyers; one was written by the Wayans brothers; and two were written (or co-written) by Craig Mazin.

Then go and look at the production budgets of those movies and note that they’re relatively cheap, compared to the lifetime gross they make.

Also, if not how quickly the grosses drop as you move down the list from—say— #5 to #15.

The logical conclusion is: —Writing a successful spoof movie is a specialized skill possessed by a very small number of people. —Successful spoof movies make huge profits. —If you possess a rare and specialized skill that stands to make more than a hundred million dollars for somebody else, and you cannot convert that into at least a million dollars for yourself, you really need to fire your agent.

Also, if not how quickly the grosses drop as you move down the list from�say� #5 to #15.

Sorry, that should have been “Also, note how quickly…”

Jacob: State for the record that you find the Scary Movies to be funny. Go ahead. Let’s test your public honesty. I’m waiting.

Please. Who gives a shit, Anonymous? The two Scary Movies I did grossed over 400 million dollars theatrically worldwide. Obviously someone thinks they’re funny, so please, let it go.

It’s so irrelevant.

I stipulate that you think I’m not funny. Happily, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker and Jim Abrahams do think I’m funny. That’s enough for me. I sleep well.

What the hell does any of that have to do with this?

Do you think I’m wrong? Do you think the propaganda I linked to is of a high quality?

Does anyone?

If so, I’ll happily respect your opinion, and we can agree to disagree.

Chill, Craig. Humor, though maybe not your specialty, is a taste issue — no right or wrong… You may find the message anti-actor. I find it pro writer… Who’s right/write? D.

Yes. Yes, of course.

I’m confused about the Variety article. Is it real or bogus? Someone above said the story is bullshit. But Variety is real journalism right? Is someone really saying they’re on the take? To me, Variety isn’t a house organ. Sounds though like that Tony Seagal quote was at best off point and at worst, old, or given for a different story. Is this yellow journalism from Variety? What is going on?

Reporters generally write the story that they want to write, whether or not it perfectly fits the facts. Heck, even I’ve been misquoted in a major newspaper (and that was even after the reporter phrased a question “would you say that…”).

BTW, I thought Scary Movie 3 was hysterical. Now Craig will get an extra 7 minutes of REM tonight.

Brian,

I didn’t ask Craig to prove a negative. I asked him to explain some things for the people here who don’t know. I didn’t ask him to prove he’s not working for the studios, as many people are alleging. I’ve asked him to recognize that there are questions raised and to an outsider looking in, there’s validity to them.

I work in the business. I have for quite some time. I know the difference between being the writer on a big hit and being one of several writers on a specialty comedy film. I believe Craig gets a lot of money for doing those Zucker style movies, but I can’t imagine that those fees translate to projects outside that genre, and that genre is VERY specific and limited.

I also think it’s interesting that a man who’s directing a movie can find time to run this site. I can’t imagine his producers or his studio being happy that he’s got so much spare time. But such an observation COULD lead you to wonder what his relationship with the studio is.

Anyway, it’s clear he’s not willing to address these concerns, which can also be read many different ways. But just taking offense at the suggestions doesn’t make the concerns go away, and there aren’t just one or two people wondering about this.

Sorry, Anonymous:

I am the sole writer of Superhero!

And yeah, the fees translate to other movies, your poverty of imagination notwithstanding.

And my producers are happy. They’re also aware that I sleep 8 hours a night, and I occasionally find time to pee.

Maybe I’m just more productive than you are? I do write fast.

So, there, have I addressed them enough?

No?

Okay.

Every allegation you make or imply or suggest is reasonable is, in fact, a total pile of horseshit that I categorically deny.

Now?

We good?

C.

PS: Wrote this in one minute while they tweak a lighting setup for a mini-master. Try multitasking, S, A. You can get more done in a day than you think!

Sorry, Anonymous:

An outsider COULD further surmise that by asking these questions while Craig is shooting his movie, you hope to distract him for a crucial extra minute, which will allow the lighting on his set to burn a tiny bit hotter than it would have otherwise, raising the temperature just enough to inflate a secretly-placed balloon whose expansion will cause an attached candle to rise two inches and burn through a string that will cause a suspended bowling ball to fall several feet onto a pressure plate, springing open a cage door that will release a specially-trained mouse to crawl into the walls of WGAw headquarters and gnaw through the wiring, causing the lights in the conference room to fail just as writers and management were preparing to sign a far-reaching agreement that would ratify every last one of the WGA’s demands for the next thirty years and throw in a free massage per week to anyone who owned a copy of Final Draft, this giving the producers precious seconds, under cover of darkness, to regroup and formulate a devastating counter-strategy that would force all writers to perform their work for free and also require them to pay the studios for parking every day, even if they worked at home, and that possibility certainly leads one to speculate about what your true intentions might be.

I’m not saying that this is definitely the case. I’m just saying that the question could be raised, and by continually failing to address it, you lend credence to all those who might believe it to be true.

No offense. I’m just a reasonable guy asking reasonable questions, after all.