Dear AMPTP: Here's How You Avoid A Strike

Bravo Craig. This is smart. There are many people involved on both sides of this issue - appealing to reason will certainly be more effective in reaching a compromise rather than emotional communications. Communication is a two-way street and the foundation of any negotiation. Oh well, who am I fooling? Let’s hug it out…

Ah. There it is. What I’ve been waiting for.

Great post, Craig.

Thanks, Craig, for your continuous updates on the negotiations. I appreciate your appeal to each side to see reason, but I still think the strike is gonna happen. I don’t think it’ll be of long duration (less than 2 weeks), but both sides have so much to prove (the WGA, that they’re deadly serious; and the AMPTP, that they won’t cave first). I’m not in the WGA, but I plan to be, and the outcome has far reaching ramifications even to us newbies, so…fingers crossed for a legitimate compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling

Craig,

“There is no revenge so complete as forgiveness.” But who will forgive first?

Anon #4,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole

Craig—

I know for you there is only one issue, ie “the only one that matters”, but is that perception reflective of the membership as a whole? ie, when you say “and let’s face it…the result won’t be any different either” regarding DVD residual changes, it seems you’re kind of playing it out like if there’s a strike, both sides will winnow out everything they’ve got on the table until it winds down to that one point.

I’m not entirely convinced though that everything but Internet Internet Internet is just window dressing and posturing. Because a protracted strike could really change the rules, the whole model, whether in our favor— or against it. Historically, strikes can fizzle out, but they CAN and have lead to radical changes/models/paradigms.

You seem to be saying, “let’s cut all this other crap and just deal with the one real thing on the table” but I’m wondering if some of the other issues (maybe even on both sides) may have built up enough momentum over the years that the status quo actually might actually shift from a strike. Not saying it’ll turn out the way we want, but I kinda get the feeling this strike is the accumulation of 20 years of resentment with the Internet issue only being the cherry on top.

Then again, I could be wrong.

AYAAetc

AYAAW,

Dude, the DVD boat has sailed. Even if we didn’t already cave on this issue years and years ago, DVD sales are going down and will play second fiddle to New Media (I’m not arguing DVDs will disappear btw, I’m saying let go).

Internet is a new… water vessel. So when it casts off, like DVDs did, this time around we’re… sailing.

It’s true that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, but it’s equally true that those who live in the past forget about the future and vice versa.

The sea, being Hollywood, may be full of sharks, but the water is calm, being the audience, and our boat, being us, is skookum. Why do we insist on sinking the boat and troubling the water? Why do I insist on convoluting my point?

Anon #4,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skookum

SML-

no doubt you’re right that the heydey for DVD is peaking/peaked, but don’t you think there’re a few good years left in it? I was talking this over w/a friend… like, okay so VHS is dead. It had a run from the late 70s/early 80s or so to a couple years ago when DVDs pretty much obsoleted it. So what percent of the US has broadband now? Am I reading this right that it’s at about 50 million currently out of a 300 million population? I’m probably misreading, but it’s surely nothing compared to DVD player saturation— and unfortunately not growing like in other countries for various political and technical reasons. Broadband/streaming can be done via cable too as well as satellite, but regardless, I suspect DVDs are still going to be around for long enough where it’s worthwhile to try to sweeten the old deal— or at the very least use a concession in bettering the DVD formula to better the streaming one. You’re right- I have no statistical projections and hard numbers here, but c’mon, DVDs (including BlueRay and HD-DVD which are just now being introduced) have to have at least 5 or 6 more years where they’re gonna matter, albeit less each year as streaming takes over and the Internet market grows. I think I bought my first DVD in ‘95. So they’ve been mainstream for about 12 years. Six more years is about a 1/3d of my completely spitballed estimate of DVD’s relevance in the market. Even if it’s the latter third of the bell-curve, that’s still gotta represent billions, don’tcha think?

AYAAW

Ayaaw,

Look, we bent to Wasserman and his plumber analogy long ago. We have to give it up. They beat us. And they’re going to keep beating us (and themselves) if we’re not careful.

Sure, it would be great to double our DVD resids and for 5-6 years live fat (not as fat as you might think btw). But if we strike for more than three months our bread and butter, America, will move onto halo 4 or, as I’ve said before, porno. We’re already losing them. HEROES is tanking. LOST tanked last year. People have a short attention span and will stop supporting our careers. Not because they’re mean or stupid, but because they’re addicts and will find a new, entertainment teat to suck.

We’re fighting to stay relevant and a strike fucks that up. So, we better be sure that what we’re fighting for is worth it. DVDs ain’t worth it, my friend. Those egotistical fuckers on the AMPTP side will say, “Fuck you” and put their money behind that new teat America is suckling.

If we can trim the fat, avoid a strike or, at least, strike for something worthy of our effort, we’ll buy ourselves time to develop new formulas, to stay relevant.

I’m being over dramatic, I hope, and I’m not arguing this system is not fucked up the wazoo. We need to learn from our mistakes, not let them drag us down, and we need to stop being afraid.

Here’s a rule. Never mention Lost and Heroes in the same sentence, let alone the same paragraph. That’s like mentioning Michael Jordan and some guy benching on the special ed high school team (if there were such a thing).

And Craig:

Fucking nice. The majority of the WGA is behind you on this one.

Yeah, LOST rules. Definitely. Yeah.

Hmm. If you’re right that writers are as irrelevant or at least as vulnerable in this brave new world marketplace as you say, then the game is already lost, strike or not. It would be as hopeless and desperate for writers to try to maintain their position in the entertainment industry as the MPAA/RIAA has been trying to preserve their pre-digital business models in the face of new technologies. (DRM, cough)

And I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong about that. The world may be changing so fast, technologically, economically (via the rise of mega-conglomerate entertainments companies, world markets, etc.), and in terms of viewer taste (reality & porn over film and narrative TV) that striking over something other than Internet residuals represents nothing more than an outdated profession in total denial of their growing irrelevance.

But if this is the case, whether we strike or not probably won’t make much difference one way or another. We’re screwed either way. It’s an adapt-or-die scenario you’re talking about, and not-striking might only delay the inevitable heat death of our profession.

And on that note…I seriously need a nap.

AYAAW

SML, you and I are on the same page 101% of the time. But I’ll ignore the issue at hand, ignore the strike, and tell you to go fuck yourself if you’re being sarcastic about my comment. Heroes is, and will always be, the dumbest version of Lost imaginable. Lost isn’t always perfect, and at times can be a mess, but it will never be the retarded mess that Heroes is at the moment.

I said I was being over dramatic ?

I think our profession, as we know it, is dying. And if not dying, evolving.

There will always be people who watch movies just like there will always be people who read books, but, like books, film/tv may not be the cash cow they once were.

A better example of near extinction: short stories. They were pushed to the fringes by the introduction of a new technology – TV/Film. Hemmingway, Fitzgerald, Chandler, Faulkner… these boys refined their style and put a roof over their heads at the same time just by writing short stories. Then it dried up, and the only way for them to survive was to play to their public image or write for Hollywood or both. And, even then, they couldn’t survive it. Hemmingway, Fitzgerald, Chandler, Faulkner… all of them icons, heroes, couldn’t survive the evolution to new entertainment.

Eh, I’m just fear mongering. We’ll be fine.

Have a good sleep.

How likely is it that the WGA would actually use such a gesture as a sign that a deal is possible? Isn’t it just as likely that they will continue to use a strike in order to force the issue on the one important point that would remain?

I’m sure the AMPTP would love to swap take those things off the table in exhange for the WGA taking the strike off the table, but where would that leave the writers? Do they have anything other then the strike to bargin with?

LOST rules. It really does. I actually think, even though they won’t admit it, this stream of consciousness style is genius. Really.

I think LOST tanked because it lost that stream of consciousness vibe… for a while. They had all their pigeons in a row and it became redundant and boring… until the last finale.

Heroes is insulting, although I am intrigued by the filmmaker driven episodes coming from their Origin series. Another reason not to strike, thank you very much.

Sometimes I feel like this guy:

http://thetravisty.com/KidsInTheHall/wmv/LonelySarcastic_Guy.html

The link didn’t work, but trust me when I say, “Super hilarious and relevant.”

Sleep, sleep time.

P.S. Lief, not sure Craig was saying we should pull the strike off the table. I think he was saying we might push the strike back if the AMPTP was willing to dump its bullshit.

The question with DVDs isn’t whether we’re morally in the right or not; it isn’t whether the format will survive for two years or ten years or thirty years; it’s whether we’re going to convince the membership of the AMPTP to raise the rate or not. And we’re not. We’re just not. I have never heard them any more sincere than when they have said, repeatedly, “That is never going to happen.” (And they say plenty of things that are purest, finest bullshit. This just happens not to be one of them.)

DVD is the place where their bread is currently buttered. They understand it (unlike Internet). They have profit projections based on it—projections which they actually believe in, and are relying upon to meet their current and mid-range goals (again, unlike Internet). Prices of DVDs are more or less fixed at this point as well, so they can’t pass along any increases in their costs to the consumer. It is, as they say, a mature business model.

And the cold reality is that giving us what we want would fuck with the near-term-future profit margins that they’ve sold to their corporate parents, their stockholders, everyone in the world that they actually do care about—not so much because paying writers a higher rate would be prohibitively expensive, but because the directors and actors will also be waiting in the wings the moment they do it. (And it’s worth remembering that not every member of the AMPTP is owned by G.E. or Sony. There are companies in that collective that are essentially making their money from nothing but this at the moment, and the thought of tinkering with the underlying formula they’ve come to rely on is about as appealing to them as redefining the meaning of “residuals” was to us.)

It’s a nice thought, and it’s a just thought, but it’s not going to happen.

Whereas the thing about the internet is…they really don’t know where it’s going. They really don’t know exactly where the money is yet. On that much, we can take them at their word. But because of that, they have far less to lose—within the kinds of time frames that investor/shareholder-driven companies typically care about—by acceding to a better deal with us on the online front than we’re currently getting with DVDs. If we get a decent payment structure in place now, then by the time the money begins to shift in that direction in any significant quantities, it’ll just be part of the landscape, and whatever business models do grow up and succeed online will have factored in the reality of needing to pay us (and the directors, and the actors) as an inherent cost of doing business from the outset. And given the massively lower costs of distribution, they’ll do just fine anyway, and so will we. Which is presumably what we’re all hoping for in the end.

Believe them when they say they’ll fight to the death over DVD increases. They will.

When they say the same thing about the internet…that’s bullshit. None of them have enough riding on it this year to make it worth what a strike would cost them this year. And stockholders are not known for being long-term thinkers; they don’t give a shit how much money your massive loss this year might end up earning for you half a decade down the road. And if you’re the executive in charge at the time of that massive short-term loss, you’re highly unlikely to still be employed by the time those future gains come rolling in, so you don’t have any good reason to give a shit about them either.

Businesses always protect the existing, profitable model at the expense of the new, unproven model. Always. We’re in a position to exploit that, because collectively, we have such a small stake in the existing model that we can afford (with great public hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, if need be) to let it stand exactly as it is in exchange for a real piece of the new model.

Internet is the battle that matters because it’s the battle we can win.

The moral righteousness of the things we can’t win is irrelevant. Especially if pursuing them cuts into the one we can.

And Craig,

Allow me to second the “Bravo” that opened these comments. Out of the park, sir. Into the next park. Wouldn’t change a word.

(And would all the people [only one so far in this thread, but the day is still young…] who keep questioning the guy’s motives or sincerity or concern for other writers kindly just shut the fuck up now? Thanks.)

Craig: Gotta disagree with you on this one. There’s a reason negotiators don’t start off with their bottom line, whether it’s buying a house or working out a union contract. Both sides have to get worn down and drawn in to a search for common ground. If the AMPTP were bargaining with you, Craig, then the negotiations would have proceeded far differently to this point. But look what happened when they pulled the residuals proposal off the table two weeks ago: many writers, and apparently the negotiating team, took it as a sign that their strategy was working! They congratulated themselves and became emboldened and even more intransigent in their combative approach. Removing the separated rights proposal — which, I agree, we shouldn’t have to live with — would just reinforce the intransigence. Your post two weeks ago was the right one: it’s now up to the Guild to make a gesture that shows it wants a deal. I thought that taking reality jurisdiction off the table, as reported in Variety, would be the move, but that’s not so clear now. Anyhow, if objectivity is possible here, the next move is still up to the Guild. One final thing. You talk about “hurting Patric” vs. “hurting the working writers,” and say management needs to separate the two. But the fact is, the Guild has made Patric and David our bargaining representatives. They may be amateurs at this game, but they’re the ones out on the field, and I don’t see how you can expect the AMPTP to pretend otherwise.

Everyone knows the final deal will look exactly like what you’ve outlined.

Once the punitive proposals are off the table the only things that the WGA membership actually care about are DVDs and downloads.

I think you are exactly right that the AMPTP will not cave on DVDs. Can anyone actually imagine walking out of the negotiations with an increase? Give me a break. That ship sailed when the rate was first negotiated. You don’t get do-overs,.

So, yeah, let’s fucking cut to the chase. Status quo but an equitable deal on downloads. As I say, everybody knows that’s how it’s going to shake out in the end.

If Verrone and Young play this hand much longer they are going to end up with a bunch of fi-core members IMHO.

Whoever said the movie industry is fading… are you serious? What possible drug could you have been taking to come up with that nonsensical, ridiculous notion?

If you’re seriously worried about Halo 4 through Halo Infinity (and videogames in general) replacing film, I think you need to stop lookinig over your shoulder all the time and quit checking your phone for bugs. Jesus Christ.

Craig —

I have to say that usually I agree with you, but this time… I’m not so sure.

I think that taking the resiudual roll back off the table was an empty gesture. No one took it seriously. It was a negotiation tactic… and taking it away was one, too. We don’t owe the producers a grand gesture in response.

Also — I’m not certain that the internet is the ONLY real issue, as you suggest. What about getting more networks and production companies to become guild affiliates? And I’m not talking covering reality shows. I’m talking about shows on MTV, Discovery et al that use writers to write … and pay them a paltry sum and don’t provide them health care and pension contributions? What about creating a mechanism to better enforce the rules we already have in place and an ability to exact punative damages when those previoulsy agreed upon arangements aren’t upheld?

Also, I’m not so sure Patrick is nuts for playing hardball. We’re never going to get anything from the producers unless they think we’re serious about going on strike. Plus, the producers are never going to just give us anything… we’re going to have to take it… we’re going to have to claw for every nickel…. and the way to make that happen is to be resiliant and defiant. And then, when necessary, practical.

And let’s not forget that someone wrote Halo.

Nice post Craig. You’re doing a great job. By the way, could you eat less asparagus?

Question:

When was the DVD rate first negotiated and agreed upon? It’s at 4c now and the WGA wants 8c — and manufacturing costs have gone down. Why not a rate increase based at the very least on inflation/cost of living?

Is it really so unfair or unreasonable what the writers are asking for?

Would the WGA be willing to make a compromise? Would the AMPTP be willing to budge even a cent?

I don’t disagree with those saying it’s a done deal so let’s move on. I just don’t get why they can’t meet somewhere in the middle and move on.

No, it’s not unfair or unreasonable to ask for increased Home Video residuals; however, we’ve asked for them in many negotiations over the past nearly 30 years and come up short. There’s little reason to believe that we will do better now, especially since we have another rate that needs to be negotiated as high as possible.

The thing about negotiations is that we don’t get everything we want, and we actually have to give up some things that are perfectly fair to get a deal we can live with.

Everything is connected. The AMPTP might well be willing to increase the DVD rate, but it’s likely to come at the expense of something else (most likely the Internet rate).

So the question becomes, “Are we willing to take a lower Internet rate than we might otherwise be able to get in order to get a higher DVD rate?”

Also: “Why not a rate increase based at the very least on inflation/cost of living?”

Since it’s a percentage (well, a percentage of a percentage) rather than a flat 4-cents, inflation is already built in (though the decreases in the costs associated with manufacture are not. The AMPTP would claim that their other costs have increased, so they still need the rate to remain the same to offset other costs, even though the specific manufacturing costs have gone down).

Hi Doug,

I think Anonymous P (#18) hit the nail on the head with regard to your question. It’s not as simple as “the ship has sailed” and they’re too stubborn to bend, the companies have already forecast these profits. It’s already built into the stock price. The companies are accountable to their investors like any other public corporation and DVD is a reliable stream of revenue in an unreliable industry.

From what I read in Nikki Finke’s LA Weekly article, it sounds like the AMPTP is going to come back with a proposal to lock in a residual rate on new media, but defer payment for X years in order to grow the market. (Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I read it.) Obviously a rate would still have to be negotiated, but this sounds completely reasonable to me. Writers are entitled to residuals for reuse and the companies should be given the opportunity to grow a new market with as little overhead as possible. (In the long run, it’s to our benefit.) As long as compensation is retroactive, I think this would be a perfect win-win scenario.

SML- LOST did not tank. It was a top 10 show in the key 18-49 demographic. Once it moved to 10 pm it was the #1 10 pm show on any network in the key demographic. It was also voted the second best show of the season by the critics after the Sopranos. It was never redundant and boring. The first 6 episodes were kinda weak but it really picked up in the final 16 episodes.

Sorry to go offtopic.

Never posted on this site before. Read it regularly. Can’t believe my livelyhood is in the hands of those whose hands it is in. I simply cannot hear “respect” “get what we deserve” “sick of them sticking it to us” any more time. Stop being pussies. If you want respect go talk to your mommy and daddy. This is life. This is business. Shut up and be thankful we get paid what we do for playing make-believe all day. Who cares if the big companies get rich? Hedge your bets then, buy stock in them. Just shut up already.

Craig, you’re dead-on. Maybe you’re the white-knight.

I believe Craig may be the first black-knight.

You’re on the money, Craig. The shit we’ gotta get, we’ GOT to get. So they might as well get to it.

Craig, Right on.

Here’s the downfall of DVDs. High Def. With the format war going on, no one is committing to one product or the other. However, High Def channels are broadcasting High Def movies now. I’ve stopped buying DVDs. I’ll record a HD movie on my DVR and watch at my leisure. On Demand HD movies are also killing the market.

Look at the music industry. People held onto cassettes when CDs came around. I’m sure some people still have CDs now, but most have MP3s on their ipod.

Good point, Brian. I haven’t bought a CD in years, yet I’ve purchased more music (through legal downloads) in the past few years than I have since college. I’ve thrown away all my cassettes and have dumped all of my CDs onto my computers so I can get rid of the clutter. As hard drive space continues to expand, I expect to do the same with my DVDs.

Just to keep it interesting: Craig doesn’t speak for everyone in the Guild. Though this forum gives him a loud voice. And that’s fine ‘cause he built this baby up himself (with Ted) and deserves to reap the rewards. Hell, it may be his real calling.

BUT, speaking as another WGAw writer, I don’t know if I’d want Craig negotiating for me. I don’t know if his tactics would work any better. As I said, in another post, I found John Bowman to be smart, deligent, inscrutable (good for a negotiator,) not emotional, and the man I’d want on the frontlines of this thing. He wouldn’t do anything foolish.

I also don’t have the same impression Craig has of Patric. But I didn’t get to talk to Patric very much. Craig knows him better.

Sometimes, I think Craig would be too much like me when negoatiating. Too emotional and not flexible enough. Anyway, there you have it. A dissenting point of view and, maybe, a post that gets bashed by the man himself. Don’t bash too hard. I account for a lot of your hits during the day.

Sometimes, I think Craig would be too much like me when negoatiating. Too emotional and not flexible enough.

I thought the argument against Craig was that he too flexible and not Bravehearty enough.

This is a first.

By the way I’m not in the camp that DVD’s will be a thing of the past in the near future. My own made up statistics tell me that people tend to keep their work space separate from their entertainment area. So even if their computer is hooked to their main television set, it’s not likely that you’re gonna kick everyone off the television so you can do some writing.

There’s a difference between the “Watch Instantly” section of Netflix and the pure joy of owning a DVD like, Not Just The Best Of The Larry Sanders Show (which is probably the best DVD to come out in over a decade).

There’s a big difference between the audio experience which is all about making things smaller and more compact and the visual experience which is all about making things bigger and more grand.

Bigger in sense of the screen. But are you seriously suggesting that you wouldn’t rather scroll through options on a menu then pull out a hard copy? A person can own without having to deal with shelving. Plus, the better picture right now is On Demand unless you’re willing to shell out mucho dineros on one or both HD formats.

Bigger in sense of the screen. But are you seriously suggesting that you wouldn’t rather scroll through options on a menu then pull out a hard copy?

Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. Maybe my point of view is rather narrow because I’m a cinephile but when I buy a DVD, the special features are a huge part of that purchase. I also kind of like the artwork that goes into a DVD. Hell, they might upload entire books onto a computer one day but I happen to like my shelves of books (and comic books).

There are definitely still billions of dollars that will be earned by selling DVDs over the next several years, so if there was a way to get an increased residual rate on DVDs, it would be financially worth it. It’s not like getting a deal on DIVX discs in 2001 or anything like that.

The problem to me remains what we’d probably have to give up to get an increased DVD rate at a time when it will likely take just about everything we have just to get an Internet rate.

If we want to go after the DVDs, then we probably need to go with the AMPTP-proposed study and fight over the rate three years from now.

I just don’t see any possible way that we can get both in this negotiation.

But maybe that’s just me.

Kevin,

You sound like a record collector in 1991. Which isn’t an insult at all. It just means you are part of a small minority.

Really. You think DVDs in 2007 are like vinyl records were in 1991?

Vinyl records started to disappear around about 1983. Are we really already eight years past the DVD? Are DVD buyers/watchers really a small minority when compared to Internet-based digital solutions.

I’m posting anonymously, despite the fact that those who run this site can probably see the IP I share with a bunch of people where I work, because I don’t want to prompt another phone call like this one:

Last night, I got a call from my strike captain. He introduced himself and offered to give me an update on the negotiations that took place yesterday, but I told him I’d read there weren’t any scheduled until today. He fumbled a bit, then told me he’d have to get back to me on that.

Then, he explained that he’s been having trouble reaching other members in my particular zip code and asked whether I knew any of them personally, actually rattling off a few last names and streets without revealing specific addresses. This pissed me off and I told him so.

His abrupt last words were: “You’ll hear from me again if there’s a strike.”

Does this sound dubious to anybody or am I overreacting?

With all the strife this state is facing, I hope this strike can be averted. The timing would be as bad as having a movie in release called “Things We Lost In A Fire” playing in Malibu right now.

Kevin -

Doesn’t emphasizing the preference for dvds over downloads play into the hands of the amptp’s attempts to downplay the importance of new media?

Studio shill!

Ryan,

No, but they will be.

Anon P. #18 breaks it down nicely.

As someone talked about on a previous thread, the studios are starting to make some films only available as downloads. That could change the balance between DVDs and internet if they keep doing that.

I know they will be, which is why it’s important to lock in a good Internet rate now. I just disagree with the idea that DVDs are currently eight years over. That 1999 was the year DVDs started disappearing and are all but completely gone now.

And Post #18 also contradicts the idea that a person who buys a DVD in 2007 is a small minority and like a person who bought vinyl albums in 1991.

I wouldn’t give up the future to get a better DVD rate today, but I also think it silly to pretend that only a small minority buys DVDs today.

“As someone talked about on a previous thread, the studios are starting to make some films only available as downloads. That could change the balance between DVDs and internet if they keep doing that.”

And they will keep doing it, but it will take time for that to become the dominant form of home video distribution.

It certainly didn’t happen eight years ago.

Mark me as another one agreeing with Anonymous P at #18 — use a small sacrifice on a medium with an expiration date to leverage a larger gain on a medium that will likely be around indefinitely.

It may not even become the dominant form, but a viable alternative for lesser product that’s not worth duplication and marketing costs, as someone else brought up.

The producers will claim that the internet has yet to reap profits for them, but it already has. Some older TV shows from two major studios have been available for free on various sites that generate advertising revenue for them.

The internet might eventually become the new syndication. And we all know how valuable syndication was and is.

Steve,

Not indefinitely. Jim Uhls’ blog has some ideas on tub-less bath tubs and eye lid projection you might want to check out.

Craig-

Hey bud. Long time. Your comments on how to resolve the strike seem a lot like….well….Patrick Verrone. I’m not sure why you’re so hard on this guy. I think he’s doing a great job and there are a lot of writers— although very few on this blog— who think he’s handling it all very well.

“Really. You think DVDs in 2007 are like vinyl records were in 1991?”

Granted, it’s not a literal comparison. But the idea that liner notes, artwork and extras are going to save the DVD distribution medium is ludicrous. And that is what vinyl collectors were saying back in the day.

And right now you can download almost any popular movie you want from the internet. It will be illegal to do so. But a whole lot of people around the world see movies for the first time by downloading it off the internet.

Internet movie downloads are already here. It’s just that the studios haven’t figured out a way to deal with the piracy yet.

Jonas,

Agreed. I think Craig is too hard on Patric et al. I expressed that opinion a few posts above just to let the non-WGAw writers who read this blog know that some of the Guild writers think that things are going okay or, at a minimum, are willing to see how it plays it out.

Thanks for stepping up and posting and I commend you for not being anonymous. Maybe, I’ll change my tune, though Craig probably knows who I am already, since he seems to have figured out who some of the other Guild anonymous posters are.

“The producers will claim that the internet has yet to reap profits for them”

And one of the reasons we’re stuck with the home video rate we have is because we fell for that argument 30 years ago.

The point is, we’re not going to get both an acceptable Internet rate and an increase in the DVD rate. If we absolutely must have an increase in the DVD rate, it’s going to be a very long and drawn out battle. So, if we really are going for that (and we’ve not backed off it yet, so I have to assume there’s a chance that’s something the NegCom and Leadership are going to continue to push for), it would be in our best interests to then put off the Internet battle for three years because there’s no way we’re going to get both.

My point about it being silly to claim that DVD buyers are a small minority isn’t to say we should fight for a higher rate but just to say that it’s silly to claim the DVDs are long past done as was done in this very thread (post #41).

Hey Jonas, good to hear from you!

I think the big difference between me and Patric is that I’m willing to say right now…let’s take reality off the table, let’s take animation off the table, let’s take DVD’s off the table…let’s take everything off the table except internet.

And if they don’t give us a good deal on internet, then let’s strike, because it’s worth the battle.

Unfortunately, Patric can’t seem to let go of the bluff cards, so I’m reduced to asking the AMPTP to let go of theirs.

Which they probably won’t.

Meaning a strike before even a minute of actual, substantive negotiations about internet downloads ever occurs.

“And right now you can download almost any popular movie you want from the internet.”

A person can buy almost any song or record legally on the Internet, but those sales are still currently dwarfed by CD sales (Legal online music sales made up 10% of the market last year). And while that number will likely to continue to grow over time, I think it would be silly to claim that a person who buys CDs today is part of a small minority and is like a person who still worked hard to seek out vinyl nearly a decade after it was largely removed from stores, etc.

And honestly, I don’t remember anybody claiming anything was going to save vinyl in 1991, a time when it was already almost impossible to find vinyl to buy.

Ryan:

But then you’re fighting in the past. You can insure that this very scenario doesn’t happen on downloads for the future, now. The mistake that happened 30 years ago was in not thinking ahead.

Think of it this way, three years ago would you have thought we would be doing the things with our phones that we are currently doing with our phones. Technology is moving fast. The guild can keep playing catch up or it can get ahead of the curve.

I agree with #55, Ryan. SML got into a debate with another poster about profitability being irrelevant, but that’s the reason the producers will opt to have a longterm study while they reap unknown rewards, conversely while paying us a pittance on an existing formula that doesn’t reflect the money being generated.

The younger demographic literally doesn’t watch actual broadcasts anymore, seeing episodes for the first time on DVRs or the internet. Viewing habits are changing as we speak which means advertising is adapting to take advantage. Just look at how many commercials you are forced to watch if you ever gander at video streams over at www.tmz.com Those buying ads are getting full value.

Unlike a DVR where you can skip commercials, the internet holds your eyeballs captive like a droog in “Clockwork Orange”.

It’s a bonanza.

Craig-

I hear you, I just think either by luck or intention, the Verrone-led WGA did catch the AMPTP flat-footed by bringing a strike to the fore when EVERYONE was sure it wouldn’t go until June—

So on that front he’s either lucky or good. And if he’s good— then like any good bluffer, he’s gonna hold his bluff cards until the last possible instant. So maybe he’s a half-cocked cowboy, maybe he’s a genius….all I’m arguing for is give the guy the benefit of the doubt because so far so good.

Jonas

BTW— had a blast at Reunions this year. 15th! can you believe it….

Brian,

I think you’re confusing technology with commerce.

Eventually, DVD’s replaced VHS not only because it was better technology but because it was much cheaper to produce. It was great for the consumer and studio alike.

DVD’s are different. Right now, a new DVD has an average price point of $19.99. Television DVD’s can go as high as $79.99.

Downloading a movie or Movies on Demand are about $4.99.

The market for DVD’s is amazing for studios. There’s no way in the world that they will cut their profit margin for a film (in most cases, movies are only profitable on DVD), in order to make it easier for a consumer to get a film. Plus, do you really think people will pay $19.99 to download a film? And what about when you go on vacation? Do you take your whole computer with you?

The reason why DVD’s will never be obsolete is the same reason electric cars are pretty much extinct. It’s all about money and profit.

Jonas:

Agreed. He caught them flat-footed.

But what’s the upside to that?

If we do go on strike, I’d argue that he hoisted us all by his own petard.

So like you said, it’s a wait-and-see on that one.

Meanwhile, he blew millions of dollars in dues money on a reality campaign that was doomed from the start, mostly because it was an ill-conceived Rube Goldberg strategy.

So I blame him for that.

I also blame him for a certain cultural sea change in the Guild that has seen a large amount of turnover in staff, as well as the loss of some of our best and brightest, the most serious of which was Grace Reiner…who was and still is the foremost expert on the MBA (who doesn’t work for the AMPTP).

Patric pretty much isolated her and pushed her out.

I blame him for that one as well.

Since I served on the Board with Patric for two years, I’ve come to respect his intelligence but rue his inability to get around his own religious thinking about union issues…particulary when his failures come with real costs for us all.

PS: Sorry I missed the 15th reunion. I was prepping. I guess I’ll have to go back in…Jesus…2012??? That’s like a science fiction date. Christ, we’re old.

PPS: Drop me a line, lemme know what you and your brother are doing these days.

Ryan and Greg,

Profitability is relevant just not to the discussion of our percentage/take of first dollar revenues generated from our content (thanks Ted and Anon P.).

Ryan,

DVD was relevant… 20+ years ago, but we caved. The DVD talk is acid to the AMPTP just like the rollbacks is acid to us. They will not touch it even if we took New Media off the table.

The hold off and study scenario for internet is the exact same scenario that put us in such a pickle with DVD in the first place.

Kevin,

No, you’ll take your iPod with you. Or its equivalent.

Okay, not you. But one will take one’s iPod, etc.

The music industry didn’t start shifting from CDs to downloads because it was a great deal for them (it wasn’t); they did it because a significant part of their market wanted to consume their music in that form, and the companies could either sell it to them online or watch them steal it online.

The only thing currently preventing the same thing happening with movies and TV is the lack of a convenient technological “bridge” between the computer you store your movies on and the big-screen TV you want to watch them on. The moment it’s possible—without having to get up from your comfy TV-watchin’ chair and go back over to the computer—to see all the movies you own and select one (or better yet, see all the movies Amazon or somebody has for sale and buy one), all with ass never breaking contact with seat cushion, the world is going to fall out of love with shiny discs in a hurry.

(And given how many techy genius types know that there’s a fortune awaiting the first company to get that “bridge” thingy invented, one of them will inevitably figure it out….)

The other part of the equation is just demographic, I think. I know people of voting age, if not yet drinking age, who have never purchased a CD, and never will. If they get one as a gift, they bring it directly to a computer, pull the music off immediately into a format that they actually care to interact with, and never think about the disc again. They have no relationship with it; they have no nostalgic attachment to it; they don’t care that it comes with a cool little booklet and a picture on the back. The whole package is as cumbersome, to their minds, as a car you have to stand in front of and crank in order to start it.

And the moment it becomes as convenient to schlepp your movies and TV shows around to the places where you want to watch them as it currently is to schlepp your songs around to the places where you want to listen to them, people will begin to feel exactly the same way about DVDs. I agree that it’ll be a long, slow, quite profitable death, but it’ll start to happen first among the group of people who, statistically speaking, have the most shit yet to buy over the remainder of their lifetimes (let alone ours).

Children are our future, ya know? All else being equal, we ought to be fighting for a piece of the thing that they’ll be spending their money on.

Anon P.,

You’re wicked cool. I agree with you.

Why aren’t Anon P. and Craig on the NegCom? How do you get on the NegCom? Is it a democratic process or are you appointed?

Who is on the NegCom besides Patric Verrone and Terry George?

Inquisitive minds want to know.

Anon P,

But you can agree that there’s a very big difference between CD’s and DVD’s. I mean, with music you’re talking about sound and sound quality. No one I know wants to watch movies or television on an IPod as their 1st choice of entertainment.

And the music industry hasn’t shifted from CD’s to downloads. It’s made downloads a very convenient supplemental choice. Which is what’s going on with DVD’s and On Demand movies right now.

My question to you is: Would you pay $19.99 to download a movie or watch it On Demand? Do you really think studios (because it’s up to them, not technology) to give up all that extra money? And do you think it benefits writers or directors to completely eliminate DVDs?

Yes, CDs are dead. I haven’t been to a record store in over a year. I hear a song I like, I look it up and download it.

Secondly, you are missing the point on On Demand. High Def. I have to believe you haven’t watched one yet.

And On Demand isn’t just pay per view. You can watch HD movies for free over satellite and cable. It’s part of the monthly fee for the service.

As far as portability goes, you can download a recorded program from your DVR to a flash drive, plug it in to the DVR wherever you are and watch on your big screen television.

Quick update: Variety’s update and also the official statement on today’s delivered proposal from the AMPTP’s website

Brian,

I have the HD channels with my Optimum Online. Which means that I can watch really shitty martial art movies in the very best of quality!! (just kidding…but seriously, some of those movies Chinese Connection II???!!)

But my point is, I think people believe that technology runs industry. It doesn’t. If it did, no one would be using gasoline for their cars. I don’t see how eliminating DVD’s would put more money in the pockets of studios. Because let’s face it, if it doesn’t make them even more money, there’s no way in the world they’d do it.

And my other question is still out there: Do you think eliminating DVD’s is good for writers and directors?

It’s becoming harder to find stores to buy CDs in, as I refuse to shop at Walmart and my nearby Tower closed. I either download music or order it from Amazon. I buy DVDs online as well. If Internet downloads offer supplemental content and I can burn them to disc, I might eschew purchasing discs.

Does Nikki Finke’s latest story, saying today’s talks were tense and that a strike seems inevitable, sound kosher to anybody?

Wellll, if you’re gonna watch bad movies…

And, of course, I do think technology runs THIS industry. So, that may be where we disagree most. I don’t know what the pricing on downloads will be. No one does. But the manfacturing of disk, box, liner notes and the shipping costs all go out the window. Whatever the price will be, a profit for studios will be had.

As to you final question, I don’t think it matters. It’s out of the hands of writers and directors.

Here are the two things that are going to determine the future of discs. 1. format war on HD ends with one winner. 2. someone doesn’t come up with a way to make downloads easier.

Brian,

And, of course, I do think technology runs THIS industry.

That’s definitely where we disagree most.

Just look at your specific industry as an agent/manager. Even with the advent of Breakdown Express, a lot of casting directors still want a cumbersome package of 8x10’s (by the way, I used to work with Todd a thousand years ago when I was a manager). Even though there’s a better way to do things on your end, it’s still rather antiquated.

DVD’s aren’t going anywhere. And what makes you think downloads are difficult? And who’s this someone?

I meant transferring from computer to television. Don’t know who the someone is.

I can count on one hand the casting people that don’t take electronic submissions. Most everything I do is electronic these days.

I can count on one hand the casting people that don’t take electronic submissions. Most everything I do is electronic these days.

Unfortunately there a ton of managers that don’t even know how to scan a picture into their computer. Plus, just look at the websites of management companies. They look like a page from Jukt Micronics (does anyone get the Shattered Glass reference…?)

You trying to get me in trouble with managers?

Heh, heh.

How is old Todd, by the way?

How do you get on the NegCom? Is it a democratic process or are you appointed?

Members of the NC are selected by the WGAw Board of Directors and the WGAe Council.

Nikki Fink’s new update:

Sighed my WGA source, “Without a real shift in the next six days, a strike appears inevitable.”

AYAAW

From Ray Richmond:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/pulse/e3ia9a39f26ada8cf16c9939fe12749952e

It’s so nice when the so-called journalists can’t even get the story right. Has there been an announcement in either trade that was even remotely accurate?

The Hollywood Reporter story made Nikki Finke reporting look good.

Richmond’s piece was awful, and I know the guy. (I love how he threw in the ageism comment to boot.) As Yoko Ono said: “Writers are the __ of the world.”

Just spoke to someone who works with the AMPTP who said the mood is poisonous in the negotiating room and we’re heading for disaster. While we’re always going to be hearing that, hearing Craig’s description of a “religious” fervor from Varrone makes me feel like he’s using Spartacus’ playbook.

AMPTP,

In case you are, in fact, reading this, I’m a guild writer, just like Craig, no better and no worse. And I want you to know that Craig Mazin does not speak for me.

Patric Verrone (and the other members of the negotiating team across from whom you’ve been sitting these past few weeks) speaks for me. That’s as I wanted it. That’s why I voted for Patric Verrone (and his slate) in 2005, along with 68% of my fellow writers who voted, soundly and handily defeating Craig’s blogging partner, Ted Elliot.

Despite the fact that Craig, above, refers to the WGA as “my union,” it is, in fact, “our union,” and it belongs to the entire membership… the vast majority of which voted (not once, but twice) for the officers and board members you’re negotiating with today.

For whatever it’s worth,

Patrick Meighan “Family Guy” writer

I think they’re reading it.

Patrick, I don’t know why, but I was very moved by your post.

“Ryan:

But then you’re fighting in the past. You can insure that this very scenario doesn’t happen on downloads for the future, now. The mistake that happened 30 years ago was in not thinking ahead.

Think of it this way, three years ago would you have thought we would be doing the things with our phones that we are currently doing with our phones. Technology is moving fast. The guild can keep playing catch up or it can get ahead of the curve.”

I agree with this totally. I think DVD residuals are a dead issue, but people (including, at this point, Guild leadership, though they have to have a bunch of issues, some of which will go away as negotiations continue) continue to bring it up as if it’s something that needs to be addressed in these negotiations, and I say that because we have a limited amount of fight, we can either choose to fight for the future (Internet) or fight for the past (DVDs). We can’t do both.

There’s still a lot of money in DVDs and there probably will still be three or four years from now when this next deal expires. And if it was at all possible to get a better rate without sacrificing our Internet rate, I’d be all for it. It’s just not something that’s possible.

Nice post Patrick. You too, Jonas.

Another WGAw writer…

Anon BIO,

Poisonous. That’s disheartening. Maybe the AMPTP are insincere in their multiple attempts at communication, but they’re trying.

Verrone’s crazy-man-look-at-me-I-have-gun-look-at-me-I’m-putting-the-gun-to-our-collective-heads-look-at-me-I’m-gonna-pull-the-trigger act, admittedly, has worked. Well actually.

He’s got people running scared shitless. But he’s making me wonder if it is just an ACT.

I read over the new AMPTP proposal and I have no fucking clue what it means. But what I see is this; “We’ll take a, b, c, d, e, f, g off the table if you take 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 off.”

Of course, what those elements are is vague to me and are potentially meaningless, but it does prove malleability on the AMPTP’s part.

So if they’re willing to move, why don’t we, the WGA, push and see how far they’ll go?

It seems to me we might be able to avoid a strike. So why not, in the least, seem to try? Why, oh, why?

Drive by,

That is also disheartening. Thank you.

Patrick,

So if Verrone speaks for you and Craig does not, why are you speaking now? Paradox? Yes.

AMPTP,

if you are reading this: stick it up your ass! Stick it up your ASS!!

“Patrick, So if Verrone speaks for you and Craig does not, why are you speaking now? Paradox? Yes.”

Touche, SML. Well played.

Patrick Meighan

SML, what disturbed me most by what this person who works for the AMPTP said is how personal things seem to be in that room.

Having not sat in on any union negotiating sessions, I assumed perhaps they always feel that way, but not according to this individual who said she (doesn’t reveal anything) has never seen anything like this before. (And, for what it’s worth, she claims it’s our side that’s refusing to move. This person is admittedly biased.)

I think Craig’s declaration about being adults is correct. Negotiations have to take place and truly haven’t yet, if all this is accurate.

If the AMPTP thinks they can keep us at the status quo, they’re dead wrong. I just hope this doesn’t turn into the creative industry’s version of Iraq without a decent exit strategy.

From John Bowman’s statement today, now up at wga.org:

Our employers are growing and dominate the global entertainment industry. Yet their opening offer would have rolled back our compensation by 50%. Now they decrease the rollbacks to 45% and proclaim that they are truly bargaining

Okay, I’ve been impresed by Bowman when I’ve heard him speak, but does anyone else find this statement disingenuous? It’s not as if the AMPTP proposal would literally halve all, or even many, or any, writers’ total earnings.

I assume Bowman’s referencing the raising of the low bargain threshold, which I agree is one of the more pernicious stealth points in the AMPTP proposal. But Bowman’s making it sound like the AMPTP proposal would cut all our quotes in half, which obviously it isn’t.

I guess this is a minor point, but it drives me nuts when my side tries to spin in a clumsy and non-honest way.

Patrick,

Paradox is my middle to last and first name.

Mike,

Damn it. I say we impeach. You with me? Meet you at Swingers near Fairfax. You bring the peaches…

For real: I feel queasy and I agree with you.

Craig,

Are you also hearing this rumor that studio heads are currently battling over whether to fire Nick Counter because of the way he left things without enough time to reach a deal even with supposedly “not unproductive” back channels? Supposed concern is that he has fumbled the p.r. battle so far. I keep waiting for Finke or McNary to weigh in on this but so far nothing.

“And, for what it’s worth, she claims it’s our side that’s refusing to move.”

I’ve not yet seen us move on anything yet, so I think that would be an accurate assessment.

Now, the question is whether it’s in our best interests to move.

That, I can’t answer.

“If the AMPTP thinks they can keep us at the status quo, they’re dead wrong.”

I’d much rather have the status quo than this latest offer.

Dear Anonymous #43,

Maybe your strike captain wants to sound like a know-it-all in order to make himself seem like more of an authority to you. And maybe he was fishing for phone numbers from you for those other writers?

There is a chance that some strike captains took that “meet people” thing too seriously.

Susan

Craig please do the right thing and give SML a job or be his mentor or direct one of his movies because otherwise he will have done some Grade A ass-licking for nothing.

Craig’s attempts to portray Patric V as a strike-happy loose cannon are absurd and the nearly 70% of writers who voted for PV and the 90% who voted to authorize a strike agree. Hell, that’s 160% right there!

Craig seems resentful of PV and is operating under the delusion that the board is the same disorganized mess that he and Ted E served on. It’s not. Just ask Craig’s friend, John McLean, who the AMPTP loved because he was notorious for caving to Nick Counter.

McLean’s gone and Counter’s is facing a united, focused effort by the WGA. His usual posturing is getting him nowhere. He came to the table with two non-starters, hoping the WGA would back off of the real issues like they usually do. He was totally unprepared when they didn’t. Now, the producers are pissed because they know he’s mismanaged things. His tirade today about the chairs only shows how impotent he’s become.

MMB #98,

I was aiming my licking towards Nick Counter actually. Either way, it all tastes the same to me.

(Note: You’re better off attacking my compulsive need to respond to anonymous posters. That cuts deeper.)

Remove all the AMPTP rollbacks, give us 50 percent of every single thing that we asked for, and that would NOT have meant a lot of money to the AMPTP, even when they give it to DGA and SAG too. Certainly would have cost them MUCH less than the strike will.

Do not think that the honchos behind Mr. Counter don’t know this. Mr. Counter himself is now a bargaining chip, to be tossed aside by the honchos when we strike. Honchos have gone this far with Mr. Counter so they’re not going to abandon him in October. November is a different story. His firing will be a cost-free concession by the honchos that will make the WGA feel victorious at no added expesnse to the studios. That is why they are still keeping him around — he is worth more in November than now.

From Nikki Finke’s column:

“For awhile there was an impasse, and then the exec from Paramount entered the fray and started yelling at guild members. Finally, several negotiating committee members went out and got chairs for the extra AMPTP’ers. “Not a great start,” one source commented to me. Then it continued with Counter’s vitriolic rant regarding the WGA’s conduct during the process. “He seems frustrated by this guild leadership that’s not caving at the sight of him,” an WGA insider told me. “Counter is being a little bitch.”

This is the first time during negotiations I’ve heard Counter called a “bitch,” especially a little one.

I’d love to know who the Paramount executive is and have my guess. What was he yelling? “We don’t need scripts at Paramount! Look at ‘Transformers’ a-holes! Show me a three act structure! ‘An Inconvenient Truth 2’ is in the works right now!”

I guess something should be said for getting the other side this rattled, but it feels like the collective WGA are being treated as a slave revolt.

It’s time for the studio chiefs to decide: Machismo or Financial Responsiblity. It’s obvious now they can’t have both.

I think they will set their testosterone aside and choose responsibly. And if they don’t, Wall Street will.

Were we really such big pussies for two decades that Nick Counter thinks a winning strategy is to simply bring more people than he said he would and pick a fight over chairs?

VIVA LA VERRONE!!!

Oh come on, Craig. People no more want to hear your plan to prevent a strike than John Kerry’s plan to win in Iraq.

Were we really such big pussies for two decades that Nick Counter thinks a winning strategy is to simply bring more people than he said he would and pick a fight over chairs?

David Young has played chair games himself in the past. When the Board met with the Reality Organizing Steering Committee, David had them sit at the Board table so as to isolate Board members from each other (as well as to displace Board members from places they were accustom to sitting at). It’s a pretty standard type of intimidation tactic: control the room, make the other side feel like interlopers. That’s why it took eight months to agree on the shape of the table in the Vietnam War Peace Talks.

So, here, according to Finke, the AMPTP shows up with more people then the Guild expected, and David Young refused to bring in more chairs then Counter and Young got into a “yes, you did / no, you didn’t / I’ve got witnesses” debate that had the subtle dynamics of a kindegarten recess and then another of the producers yelled and then, finally, someone went and got more chairs.

Why not just get more chairs when it became apparent that there weren’t enough chairs?

See you all on the picket lines. I’ll be wearing the look of disgust.

• Ted

I am late to the party, but I - too - say “A-men” to Monsieur Mazin. It’s fun to watch teen girls on Melrose drop $47.50 on Che t-shirts. It’s another thing to watch your leadership put them on, knowing they’re mentally hoping their faces are immortalized in a “Written By” article thirty years from now praising their “brilliance” as a substitute for the Oscar speech they’ve been practicing since they were 12.

Ted — re: #106,

Chances are, the AMPTP brought more people than they said they would as a purposeful intimidation tactic. As you wrote yourself, techniques like that are a staple of labor-management battles.

If management tries to intimidate our negotiators, is the correct response to accommodate them, or to push back and set a precedent that we’re not going to back down?

We’ve actually moved into David Young’s area of professional expertise (finally!). At this point, I’d be quicker to criticize the AMPTP’s maneuver rather than Young’s response to it.

Craig, Ted, thanks again for running this site.

I too have heard the rumors about Nick Counter, that the studios think he’s botched this bigtime and he’s gone — it’s just a matter of when.

The thing about Counter is that he has always acted this way. In 2003, he was saying all the same things. Difference is, now the negotiating committee is simply ignoring him until they receive a proposal they think is serious and little Nicky can’t handle it. He’s doing far more harm than good right now — for his own side.

Can someone explain what the new AMPTP proposal says about new media residuals? I haven’t seen a concise explanation in the trades and when I try to read the actual proposal I hear my mother’s voice in my head telling me to go to law school and it’s just too painful to continue.

Mike S,

It basically says “Suck it” on New Media residuals.

I don’t know how everything is going to end up, nor do I know the AMPTP strategy, but from the outside, it does appear that the AMPTP has, at the very least, negotiated somewhat strangely.

The proposals they keep putting on the table are doing nothing but angering and uniting writers. Even many people who don’t necessarily care for the tactics the Guild has used over the past several years are still largely willing to line-up and strike against the proposals that have been put forth.

I mean, we can argue over what’s an acceptable Internet rate, but I don’t think there are many WGA members who think “Zero” is the appropriate amount. And all the rollback provisions (in the previous offer and in the current one) are strike-worthy for a lot of members, as well.

If there was something offered, even a relatively low-ball offer, from the AMPTP on the issues, there would be some internal pressure from members to take the deal, increasing as each deal got better.

Instead, the AMPTP is putting forward offers that set the bar so low that even people who are generally against Mr. Verrone and Mr. Young are instead being forced to line-up behind them. Virtually nobody from inside the Guild is going to pressure leadership to take this deal.

All that would probably be okay if there were still a month or so to go before the expiration, but with the strike vote in hand and less than a week before expiration, offering these deals virtually guarantees a strike.

Maybe the AMPTP members don’t care about a strike. They figure they’ll go on their timeline and it’ll be done when it gets done. Maybe they want a strike to clean house. Maybe they don’t want to negotiate with the WGA at all and are instead making offers they know we won’t accept just to bide time until they can go to the table with the DGA.

I don’t know the strategy, but it seems to be the opposite of what the AMPTP would want.

But hey, what do I know?

Listen guys, if you read the proposals, they’re still mostly rollbacks. So the AMPTP are the guys who still aren’t serious. Those are the facts.

Even though some of the rollback sare hard to understand and some deal with vanity (first class tickets vs coach,) some are clearly rollbacks that the WGAw isn’t going to go along with.

Just one of the many examples. Minimum payments for a low budget feature. Something Craig and Ted don’t have to worry about, but that many writers in the Guild are affected and those of you who hope to enter the Guild.

They want a low budget film to be considered 25 mil, instead of 5 mil. In the real world, here is how that works. You sell something and the the financier is too cheap to pay high budget scale, even though he knows the film is going to cost more than 5 mil, so he pays you the low budget scale for now, and will be on the hook for the rest should the movie ever move forward.

This tactic doesn’t work when you or your agent or manager can clearly say come on, no way is this a low budget movie ( big special effects, action, etc.)

But now, with this higher number, if we should accept, all those projects sold in a non-competitive situation (which is how most films are sold) will get low budget scale because it’s much easier to play the under 25 mil game, than the under 5 mil game.

There are other examples of clear rollbacks, but I leave up to someone else to do the math for you.

This is standard negotiating practice. Can’t really criticize David on this, Ted. I mean you can if you want, but David handled it “correctly” as far as the kind of criticism being leveled at him on this blog for his every move.

Let me get this straight — the AMPTP showed up with more people than expected, which was perhaps a slight provocation, or perhaps a simple misunderstanding. This gave the WGA the option of immediately making an absolutely meaningless concession: “No problem, guys, we’ll just grab some more chairs, or move to a larger room. See how much we writers want to made a deal.”

The message would have been clear. The WGA would have sent the message that they aren’t about posturing and grandstanding and useless gestures, and that they had their eyes on the ball. Instead, it became yet another embarrassing little pissing contest.

And now some of the posters here are fantasizing about how wonderful things might be if Nick Counter gets canned. As if the AMPTP is a bunch of toothless old men whose resolve and backbone comes from Nick Counter, and that once he’s gone the AMPTP will suddenly compromise.

Or is that not even the hope? Is it that we all know a long strike is inevitable, and that the WGA will eventually get it’s hat handed to it, but that there will be at least a tiny emotional victory if the lead negotiator for the other side gets screwed along with the rest of working Hollywood.

There’s too much at stake to be proud of negotiators, on either side, who can be distracted by anything trivial as the number of chairs in the room. I’m more depressed than ever.

Nikki Finke’s update is pretty interesting, adding more details to the proceedings while including a bit about Marc Cherry’s act of self sacrifice.

Re: the chairs. The whole purpose of agreeing to meet with a smaller number of people is to get down to serious negotiations. When Nick Counter agreed to do this, he was saying, Okay, enough bullshit, let’s talk. But then when he showed up with his full armada vs the smaller number that D. Young had agreed to bring, it was clearly a Fuck You Steamroll on Counter’s part.

It wasn’t a matter of who was going to go out and get chairs. It was D Young saying, “Do you want to get serious or not?” To which Counter was clearly saying, “No, I’m going to A. lie to you and B. try to intimidate you.”

Bravo D. Young.

It seems to me that the AMPTP’s actions over the last weeks point to one conclusion: They want the WGA to go on strike.

And that would be consistent with what few executive types have told me over the past few weeks. The studios are hoping the WGA goes out.

AMPTP’s actions are not the actions of an experienced and smart bunch of people trying to avoid a labor walk out. These are the actions of experienced and smart people HOPING for a labor walk out.

When Counter showed up deep, Young & Co. should have stood behind them during the negotiation. That would have freaked them out.

Chances are, the AMPTP brought more people than they said they would as a purposeful intimidation tactic. As you wrote yourself, techniques like that are a staple of labor-management battles.

No, chances are equal that the AMPTP brought more people than they said they would as an intimidation tactic and that the Guild supplied fewer chairs then they knew were required in attempt to provoke the AMPTP into an argument about chairs that the WGA could make public. I’d love to reject out-of-hand the possibility that this was orchestrated by the Guild, but, like I said above: there’s evidence of the current leadership and staff past attempts to do exactly that.

Here’s the question:

Why did the AMPTP inform the Guild that they would be bringing their entire negotiating team, and request that the Guild’s entire negotiating team to be present as well, including all East representatives?

There’s only two formal sessions in a negotiation when its both expected and guaranteed that all representatives on both sides will be in the room: the first session … and the last session.

There’s been reports, including some from WGA sources, of internal disagreement and fracture in the AMPTP. There’s conservaties, and there’s hawks.

And, yet, here three months after the first session, all the representatives of the AMPTP are in the room at the same time in a session where the AMPTP puts a new proposal on the table to all the represenatives of the Guid.

Why did the AMPTP bring all its representatives to the session, and why did they request all Guild reps to be there?

The message being sent should be crystal clear to anyone, particularly writers.

If management tries to intimidate our negotiators, is the correct response to accommodate them, or to push back and set a precedent that we’re not going to back down?

I reject the premise that the only possible paradigm in labor-management relationships is “Strike or Cave” — I mean, “Push Back or Accomodate.” Sorry.

But at least we’re in agreement that there is symbolism in the way both sides choose to conduct themselves in negotiations.

• Ted

Young should have insisted that Counter sit on his lap.

More questions:

First of all, what would be the upside for the studios if the writers strike for any period of time? Do they really want to clean house — or get “do-overs” on their fall schedule like Nikki Finke suggests?

Second, regarding the “rollbacks”:

How is this a successful negotiating tactic? The WGA is saying “We want more than what’s in our current contract” and the AMPTP is saying “You’ll take less than what you’ve already got — and like it.” Do they really think the writers would go for this?

Seems to me that the WGA’s correct and only response to these kind of rollbacks is to ignore them and refuse to negotiate until they’re off the table — which is exactly what they’ve done.

Any re-negotiation should start at the “status quo” and go forward — not backward — from there.

Forgive my naivete — but is there something I’m not getting here?

Doug -

The studios long term upside will be the dollars they must eventually pay out when this settles. If they need us to strike - even long enough to settle for their numbers - they analyze the cost-benefit of that.

re-negotiations often take into account changing markets and economies and can be regressive in certain areas to keep an industry healthy. This is not the situation we have here, but it’s the position the studios are taking out of a sense of monopolistic strength.

I agree with Doug. I just don’t get what the AMPTP is doing. They seem to be forcing a strike by offering proposal after proposal that are worse than what we have now. Are they just stalling? Angry that Verrone and company are standing up to them and therefore acting irrationally? Not that it really matters, but public-relations wise, they’ve done nothing they can sell as a remotely fair proposal.

I’m a WGA member. I don’t think the studio execs are hoping for a strike. I still think that, despite what the current leadership has done the last month, the studios still think we are soft and when push comes to shove will not strike. They sat across the table from 20 years of cowering weakness and producers-in-writers’-clothing and so i can’t really blame them for thinking this way. They will need to see us actually call the strike before they believe we have the guts to do it. Once we are on strike, I assume they will wait a week or two to see if dissension builds within the Guild. I don’t think that will happen in a short period of time and so after a few weeks they will, finally, start to bargain seriously.

If they wanted a long walkout they could have had one very easily by leaving the residual rollback on the table. That they removed it, making Counter look half-supported in the process, speaks to dissension among the poobahs who will in the end decide this.

While I like to hear what Craig and Ted have to say, and am not one who thinks they should shut up for the greater good, it is probably necessarily to point out once again that they got their asses kicked in the 2005 election and didn’t even do as well as Dukakis or Mondale. No one wanted them to lead us. Then Verrone & Co. was elected again with such little opposition that they had to manufacture the opposition. Much like in Myanmar, stuff can build up for 20 years till you finally can’t take it anymore and have to strike back. That’s why 90 percent are supporting the leadership with a strike authorization. That’s an astounding show of support, no matter how Craig chooses to spin it. Craig you strike me as undoubtedly smart and a force of nature, but you also come off as megalomaniacal and whiny and, to steal a recent description, “a little bitch.” That said, you have HUGE balls for running this website and sticking your neck out with your opinions, and deserve even more credit as a free speech advocate for letting cowards like myself post anonymously. You are fearless, and I am not, and I admire you for that.

When we walk out next week, I hope I get a chance to meet you on the picket line. I’ll be the one who tells you that I read your site all the time, but have never posted.

“the AMPTP showed up with more people than expected”

This is confusing to me. Isn’t there a certain number of people on both negotiating committees and these are the people who come to negotiate? Are other people allowed to come and help? Huh? If the two committees combined are say twenty people, don’t they expect twenty people and if only ten show up for some reason well then alright I guess, but how could say thirty people show up?

Also, re: cleaning house of writer deals, shows execs, etc… do these contracts really allow for people to be tossed out if there is a strike? A strike is not an act of god, per se. If studios are allowed to actually do this, how long does the strike have to go on in order to exercise this clause? Is this a standard line item? Is there a “standard” set amount of time?

From what I’ve been told a strike is indeed a force majeure

Just Another Writer:

I get what you’re saying about cost/benefit analysis. If the AMPTP makes a “bad deal” or too many concessions, they lose money over the long term.

But don’t they also stand to lose a lot more money in the event of a strike? I’m thinking more about TV advertising dollars and stock prices (though I’m not sure how big a hit the big conglomerates would take).

Obviously, the other side has “run the numbers” — but how can they know how long a strike will last? Again, it’s a calculated risk they’re taking: short-term loss vs. long-term gain — which is what the WGA is doing (or should be doing) too.

I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t think the AMPTP wants a strike. (And I don’t think the writers do, either.) But both sides will play hardball for as long as they possibly can — and time is running out…

That’s just my gut feeling, but obviously the situation is far more complex than that.

Does anyone here really think that the WGA or the AMPTP actually wants a strike if one can be avoided?

Um — what’s the trend with calling men “little bitches”? Hey, you name callers — YOU sound misogynist AND homophobic. Score!

Real shocking that there’s no female driven movies of late —

Um � what’s the trend with calling men “little bitches”? Hey, you name callers � YOU sound misogynist AND homophobic. Score!

I have a strong suspicion that if all the people in charge of negotiating this were women that we’d already have a reasonable agreement.

A strike is indeed a force majeure.

Steven, that’s just your intuition.

Big committee, little committee. Sort of irrelevant.

The way it works in negotiations I’ve participated in is: When it finally gets serious, most of the non-crucial players are playing cards and generally cooling their heels in the big room as the smaller sidebar committee gets down to brass tacks with its counterpart in a little room down the hall.

It seems like a lot of people might be too eager to see cracks and fissures in the AMPTP. Where, exactly, is the evidence that the AMPTP is softening? That they keep offering deals that aren’t even as good as the one that they offered way back on day one?

We all know there are some huge egos on the AMPTP side, and that resentments and clashes among the producers are the norm. But extending internal nattering among the AMPTP to the idea that the producers are just this close to folding seems a stretch.

Is there anything in the way corporate leaders across the country have behaved in recent years, especially regarding concessions to unions, that leads anyone to believe that now, in 2007, the producers are going to be weaker than they’ve been in the past? Is there anyone here who’s actually dealt with management on labor issues who doesn’t know with certainty that management intransegence and hostility towards labor is at an all time high (and that the general public doesn’t really give a damn about those whiny unions)?

I think there may be more at stake here than some realize. Reading many of the comments, and the way the WGA neg comm has been handling things, I find myself reminded of an earlier strike, which didn’t turn out to yield a choice between “strike or cave.” I’m thinking of the PATCO strike.

Ponder that a minute. Is it a crazy comparison? Probably, but I’m not sure it’s so far-fetched that, with the current WGA strategy, the union could be permanently crippled when this whole process has played out.

PATCO workers were fired because IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THEM TO STRIKE.

Not a crazy comparion at all, just a stupid one.

Craig,

I’m a writer who works in TV. On my best year, I make a tiny portion of the amount you say you make for a single script. Normally, there’s a lot that’s thought provoking on your site, even when I disagree, but lately I’ve gone from being concerned to being outraged.

The issue of where your loyalties lie is a distraction from the real issue, I think. And that is this: you’re using this situation to your own advantage. You’re politicking in the middle of heated negotiations, and attacking the current Guild administration to build up your own support for the future.

I’m struggling here, Craig. Because of the threat of a strike, the TV business has been hobbled for months now, and it’s obvious negotiations aren’t going well. Having you hammering constantly at the leadership while they try to get through this without a strike isn’t helping.

I know how the Guild works. I know that the majority of people who benefit from membership are people like me, not you. All I see are you rich guys going back and forth about issues that only affect you in principle. It’s hard enough working in this business without all of this going on, and it’s hard enough getting through all of this without opportunists using the situation to empower themselves. You’re not helping the situation, and you might be hurting it. But whatever you’re doing, you’re not helping me put food on my table.

I voted for the current board, and I don’t think they’re above criticism, even now. But you’re hitting them whenever and wherever you can, and it’s obvious you’re not trying to help. For the sake of people who don’t have huge savings accounts and business managers, maybe you could steer clear of attacking the negotiators or the Guild until we’ve gotten through this.

Your attack on that miniscule cartoon site went over the line, and made it clear that you’re looking for any excuse you can find to smear the Guild. Some of us don’t appreciate it, and excuse the animosity, but when a writer whose name appears on two of the worst reviewed comedies of all time is criticizing people for not being funny, I smell an agenda.

Show us that you’re not the Quisling some have accused you of being, and do something positive to help working writers.

James:

Craig has posted twice in this entire 136 post thread. What exactly has he done recently to deserve an attack?

Show us that you’re not the Quisling some have accused you of being, and do something positive to help working writers.

I think this particular post you’ve responded to is Craig’s big push in this direction. He’s laying out for the AMPTP what they could and need to do to avoid a strike and get a new contract: drop the rollbacks, leave the DVD rate as it was, and settle on a digital download rate (at I’m not sure, but maybe 1.2%).

I think that this post is a sort of back-channel—an explanation of what Craig thinks would satisfy the moderates in the WGA and satisfy the AMPTP.

Brian,

He’s been attacking the Guild now for weeks and months. A lot of writers feel like this. But we don’t attack Craig for it because he has a right to run his blog and write what he wants.

I don’t approve of attacking him using his credits. That’s why I choose to write anonymously. This debate has nothing to do with Craig’s credits or my credits or anyone’s credits. If you’re a Guild member than you have an opinion that goes to the negotiations and I want to hear it.

But, unfortunately, I’m disappointed in Craig, too. I wouldn’t mind if he stopped using this situation to his advantage (his blog’s advantage,) but it’s his right. Minus, the personal critism, I agree with post #136. Many Guild writers do. But I’m sure Craig is just thinking, tough shit! And that’s his right.

BTW, I voted for Craig, but now I think I voted for the wrong guy.

PATCO had already staged a successful strike in 1968. Between then and 1981, several other unions representing federal workers had gone on strike, without being summarily fired.

The only stupidity is not learning from the past. The air traffic controllers thought they were so unique, and supplied a service so irreplaceable, that they could behave like spoiled children. They destroyed their union, and their careers, because they reacted with their egos.

Negotiations are about what you can get with the leverage you have. They’re not about what you deserve, or what’s right, or redressing old slights, or earning respect. Looking in from the outside, I think the WGA leadership overestimates their leverage, and underestimates the resolve of the other side.

Looking at it from the inside, I think that the WGAw is looking for a fair deal and has chosen tactics they believe will end up with that fair deal. Let’s see what happens, but a vast majority of the writers support the leaders on this, right now.

Craig’s already said he doesn’t care about animation writers or those non-union folks being fucked over by “reality.”

If Craig actually cared about “his” union, he’d be posting on Writer Action, a private forum open to all WGA members and not here in public where he does whatever he can to undercut the board who was voted into office by 90% of the rest of us.

With regard to my supporting the position that Craig has a right to say whatever he wants, but, also that he’s been attacking the leadership unfairly, I want to add that Ted, on the other hand has been most constructive.

His posts on the WA have restored my respect for him. He is being helpful and not just critical. So though I regret my vote for Craig, I don’t regret my vote for Ted. I support the leadership we have now, but I also believe Ted is helping the WGAw writers with his analysis. I don’t always agree with his concluding opinions, but I appreciate his effort to educate and reason.

Here’s the fundamental problem with these contract negotiations:

Executives plaster their walls with posters they produced. Guess what, geniuses, somebody wrote that movie before it became a poster! Most of them know this. Especially the powerful ones. So why not give writers their fair-fucking-share..? One word:

GREED

What did Counter say in Variety again?

“(the members of the WGA negcom) continue to pursue numerous financial proposals that would result in astronomical increases in our costs.”

Astronomical increases!

Wait a sec…

So if, for example, bumping residuals from 1.2 to 2.5 percent results in astronomical increases in costs… what about the other 97.5 percent of the money the studios still pocket?? We must be talking beyond astronomical here to the power of 10, well, 4, but who’s counting… Point is, with that quote he unintentionally emphasized that the studios are making mega fortunes.

2.5 % of what they’re earning is astronomical! Wow.

The same goes for New Media. You don’t know how profitable it will be in the future? Fine, give writers a fair percentage (not that 2.5 is fair, it’s still waaay below what the true creators of content in this industry SHOULD get, but let’s keep things real), so, give writers a “fair” percentage of whatever you make and move on. Let’s say you make a billion dollars… You just made a thousand million!! Give us 25. Big whoop. We’re talking bread crumbs here.

So, let’s break bread…

You get two halves of the loaf.

We’ll happily take the crumbs.

Criticizing Guild policies or the representatives — elected, appointed or employed — responsible for instituting and administering those polices is not “attacking the Guild.”

• Ted

One Smart Writer says:

“So if, for example, bumping residuals from 1.2 to 2.5 percent results in astronomical increases in costs… what about the other 97.5 percent of the money the studios still pocket?? We must be talking beyond astronomical here to the power of 10, well, 4, but who’s counting… Point is, with that quote he unintentionally emphasized that the studios are making mega fortunes.”

Since you’re so smart, you would know that the DGA gets what we get in residuals, and SAG gets three times what we get to split among the actors on a movie. So that 2.5 percent is really saying that they’d pay out 12.5 percent in residuals.

That seems a bit steep, considering that it doesn’t take into account any other profit participants, of which there are many.

Anonymous #139:

I have been reading regularly. I asked the question because James begins his post with:

“Normally, there’s a lot that’s thought provoking on your site, even when I disagree, but lately I’ve gone from being concerned to being outraged.”

I just hadn’t seen anything recently to see a change from concerned to outrage.

“Criticizing Guild policies or the representatives � elected, appointed or employed � responsible for instituting and administering those polices is not �attacking the Guild.�

Ted”

Doing it in a public forum certainly can be. That’s what Writer Action and WGA members meetings are for.

Craig’s pot-shots at Patric are petty at best. Not to mention his tantrum about being asked to actually vote. And don’t give me that shit about secrecy. Every time I go to vote in a local election, some old lady from my neighborhood is there to take down my name. And I don’t worry about getting on her “bad” list.

Oh, and let’s not forget like “The turnout was higher than most turnouts, but lower than ideal.” As if it would have been better had Craig were still in office (and running off after every meeting to post all the details on Writer Action.)

Indeed, I was making a case for writers, not for the studios. Glad you’re smart enough to pick up on it.

But to humor your point…

12.5 percent still leaves the studios with 87.5, which, to stick to the example, translates into 875 million dollars! Minus costs of production, marketing, distribution and a few more crumbs they throw at other people who were essential in the creation of their product. Leaving them with roughly half a billion dollars.

Not a bad profit margin.

Unless of course, you’re greedy…

Doing it in a public forum certainly can be. That’s what Writer Action and WGA members meetings are for.

Okay, so you don’t think that Craig’s criticisms of Guild policies and representatives in-and-of-themselves constitute “attacking the Guild.” Rather, it’s the fact that Craig exercises his first amendment rights in a way of which you don’t approve that’s the issue.

You’re not the only person whose made this argument, but, genuinely, its not an argument I understand. So if you (or anyone) could explain:

How does the way in which you exercise your first amendment rights transform criticism of Guild policies and representatives into an action that imperils the existence of the Guild itself?

• Ted

Re post #140

Interested: You couldn’t be more wrong about Patco. Obviously you’ve gone to Wikipedia for some facts but you lack the historical context. It is not against the law for the WGA to strike. That is their right. There was a federal law prohibiting the PATCO workers from striking. Ronald Regan was the new president and since you don’t seem too well versed in history: he was a conservative.

Reagan told the PATCO workers they would be fired if they struck. They struck. They were fired.

It’s more relevant that Reagan was a former SAG president than to compare the WGA to PATCO. You make yourself look like a retard. Don’t do it again.

(crickets)

The fact that the WGA felt obliged to get into a dick measuring contest about chairs just shows that the WGA has no intention of honestly negotiating with AMPTP. I’m not on AMPTP’s side but for fuck’s sake! They showed up enmass to intimidate and, instead of playing the right hand (getting more chairs and making it clear that the WGA is hear to negotiate), the WGA twats played right into the AMPTP’s hands by instead getting into a dick measuring contest. Over chairs! Chairs, people! How absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing. It’s shit like this which is why public opinion is more on AMPTP’s side than the WGA’s. And they wonder why!

Okay, so in your hypothetical example, a movie that costs $275 million to produce and market and distribute generates $1 billion in DVD and BO receipts. That’s nice. In the real world, where this contract is being negotiated, how many movies does this very favorable cost/profit ratio apply to? Half of all movies, or more, never recoup, and often lose a lot of money (even putting shifty accounting aside) and the ones that do recoup rarely generate 400% profit margins.

Never mind that in television, something like eighty percent of scripted shows fail to syndicate, which, since they are funded via deficit financing, means de facto that they lose money for the studios to the tune of, oh, 300K per episode, give or take. (That’s a really rough estimate— sometimes it’s a lot more. Occasionally a little less. But the network is almost always paying less than the production costs in licensing fees.)

I’m not trying to argue for profit-based residuals, but I think it’s dumb to tell this story as a simple function of greedy studios vs. underpaid writers.

So I think you are being One Simplistic Writer, not One Smart Writer.

“Okay, so you don’t think that Craig’s criticisms of Guild policies and representatives in-and-of-themselves constitute “attacking the Guild.” Rather, it’s the fact that Craig exercises his first amendment rights in a way of which you don’t approve that’s the issue.

You’re not the only person whose made this argument, but, genuinely, its not an argument I understand. So if you (or anyone) could explain:

How does the way in which you exercise your first amendment rights transform criticism of Guild policies and representatives into an action that imperils the existence of the Guild itself?

Ted”

Good question. i didn’t say it imperils the guild. Only that it undermines the Guild’s efforts.

There is no equivalent producer’s blog in which one of the AMPTP members takes pot-shots at Nick Counter and his strategy. Why do you think that is?

It’s certainly not because they’re in 100% agreement with the positions he’s put for or his tactics. But they have the good sense not to harp on their divisions in public.

Mike,

I wasnt’ talking about ONE movie.

But I agree, things get muddled when you start throwing guesstimates around. My point remains:

The reason why writers want an increase in residuals and a percentage of new media is to get a fair share, while the reason why studios refuse to give in to those demands is GREED.

WE’RE NOT ASKING FOR MUCH!

(relative to the amount of monies our contributions help procure).

What a pile of crap.

Amen,

Democracy = the right to undermine your leaders.

Although the wording may be different, that’s exactly what the first amendment says.

If speaking out for what you believe in is so offensive to you, plug your ears and take a dose of your own advice.

<< How does the way in which you exercise your first amendment rights transform criticism of Guild policies and representatives into an action that imperils the existence of the Guild itself? >>

I for one never said that. Most of us who disagree with Craig are just stating that we disagree with him. Period. I’ve said that he has the right to say what he wants and then commented on what he said that I disagreed with.

He doesn’t imperil the Guild, but it can certainly be argued that he ain’t very supportive of the current leadership and their tactics. Again, he has the right not to be supportive and I’m not saying he doesn’t have that right.

Just some of us are questioning his wisdom and his timing BUT WE’RE NOT QUESTIONING HIS RIGHT TO DO AND SAY WHAT HE WANTS WHEN HE WANTS. We think he’s not helpful. So what? That doesn’t make us crazy.

And some people are taking his Guild criticism more personally than others, but I have to go with David Young said at the meeting. It doesn’t have any bearing on the negotiations.

IMHO, it just annoys a lot of Guild members who see him as a big mouth who’s taking advantage of this situation. But as someone said somewhere up there in the comments. That’s the nature of the blog world and Craig’s blog is getting a hell of lot more traffic. And, maybe, that’s Craig’s true calling. It’s working right now.

“Democracy = the right to undermine your leaders.

Although the wording may be different, that’s exactly what the first amendment says.”

Man, SML, you really are mini-Craig.

I don’t really agree much with SML, but SML’s point is well taken this time.

Let Craig criticize all he wants and let him take the criticism about his criticism.

I, for one, am glad that this site is more balanced now that those who disagree with Craig are posting. I’ve been able to post half a dozen times now without getting bashed.

Anonymous #151,

My mother worked for the FAA as a Flight Service Specialist at the time of the PATCO strike. I remember it, and the historical context, very well. Yes, what PATCO did was illegal, but they had done it before, as had several other unions for federal employees, and no one had followed through on the threats of firings. And PATCO had supported Ronnie for president, so they thought they understood him. No one, both within the FAA and within PATCO, imagined that Regan would fire them all. The hotheads at PATCO bit off more than they could chew, and they screwed themselves by overestimating their power and importance.

The can brush me off with ad hominem attacks, but the parallels are there. The AMPTP has been saying for years that, if you want any kind of deal, come to the table early and negotiate. They’ve vowed for years that any strike will result in a worse contract than they originally offered. They proved it to SAG in 2000 in the strike over commercials. And now, in 2007, the producers have never been less in danger of a protracted WGA strike. They’ve seen this coming for several years. The WGA response? Playing games with chairs.

But hey, keep up the name calling. Since that seems to be the WGA’s only real strategy in this negotiation, I hope their negotiating committee is better at it than you are.

Interested: You’re a big poo-poo head!

And a big coward, too. Though I suspect that the real truth is that you’re an AMPTP shill trying to scare us all into taking your crappy offer.

P.S. I know you are but what am I?

Anonymous, any of you… please, please label yourselves with something other than anonymous. Anonymous has 9 characters! That’s hard to type in a flurry of tears. Please limit your nicks to three characters in the future. For example… Kit as in the car… or Car for that matter.

A simpler name = quick response time. So instead of a request to shorten your nicks you would’ve received something like this, “Kit, suck on my Hasselhof-sized balls.” Or “Car, stick it up your muffler.”

For the future of forum entertainment, please heed my advice,

Yours,

SML

. i didn’t say it imperils the guild. Only that it undermines the Guild’s efforts.

Well, if the Guild’s efforts are aimed at discouraging Guild members from exercising their right to express any views, opinions or arguments save in ways that meet your approval, I could see how a public criticism of the Guild’s policies and leadership would underime those efforts.

But allowing that is not the goal toward which the Guild is making effort … how does criticism of Guild policies and leadership undermine the Guild’s efforts to represent the membership for the purposes of collective bargaining with the AMPTP?

There is no equivalent producer’s blog in which one of the AMPTP members takes pot-shots at Nick Counter and his strategy. Why do you think that is? It’s certainly not because they’re in 100% agreement with the positions he’s put for or his tactics.

In fact, it is. Internal dissention and disagreement is confined to within the ranks because all AMPTP members have absolute blackball authority over the strategy, proposals and agreements that Nick Counter implements, makes and negotiates.

Do you think the Guild could function at all if any individual member could prevent the Guild from acting in acordance with the will of all other members?

The fundamental principle of a democracy is majority rule … and the fundamental price of a democracy is dissent by the minority.

If you want to eliminate the latter, first thing you gotta do is eliminate the former.

• Ted

Hey Ted:

You know that writing assignment you just signed on to do a week before the strike is supposed to start?

The one that hit the trades today?

You don’t intend to be working on that doing the strike do you?

Cause that’d make you a big old SCAB.

Tell me you and your writing partner and going to be doing a seven figure writing assignment during a strike, Ted.

“One Smart Writer,”

Your underlying point is entirely correct, but you sound so dumb in the way you make it that people may be inclined to think otherwise. Which is too bad, because I agree with you.

The fact that management is greedy is irrelevant. Capitalizing that fact and putting it in boldface won’t change it. And if you think we’re going to shame them into giving us a better deal, then you’re living in a different (albeit probably much nicer) world than the rest of us.

And we’re greedy too. Why pretend otherwise? Most of us decided to go into this business, versus any other, because a) from time to time, people get stinking rich doing it, and b) even for those of us not playing in that stratosphere, the paychecks still tend to be a lot bigger, a lot of the time, than the ones you get for steaming lattes. I’m not saying money is the only factor, but if all that drove us was the love of a good story well told, we’d be writing books, where there are about 900 fewer middlemen to contend with, you can see your story realized more or less exactly as you envisioned it, and the pay (generally speaking) sucks.

So studios are greedy. Fine. So are companies that build bulldozers or sell underwear. Their investors like them that way.

And frankly, I’m perfectly happy to be an enabler of their greed, so long as they reciprocate by enabling mine. I want the studios to make ungodly amounts of money—ideally on a movie I wrote, and in whose success I’m a fully-vested participant. And I want my fellow writers to have the same opportunity and reap the same rewards. That’s what these discussions are all about. That’s what this strike will be about, if and when it comes.

But having said that, let me add this: I think management is being collossally stupid—forget greedy, just plain fucking stupid—to insist on viewing us as a cost that they should be minimizing, rather than as a source of potentially-lucrative material that they should be maximizing. Most parts of the business world realized years ago that the people whose ideas and skills are fundamental to their having anything to sell in the first place tend to use those skills more diligently and come up with those ideas more frequently when they are treated as valued partners, rather than as marks to be fleeced or as victims to be mugged—and especially when they share personally in the rewards that their creations make possible. But Hollywood, which tends to be a decade or two behind the rest of the universe in catching on to all such trends, is predictably having to be dragged kicking and screaming to this one, too.

To the AMPTP, in light of your latest still-not-grasping-this-basic-fucking-point proposal, I would simply say: Yes, your investors are short-sighted, and compel you to be the same to a certain extent, but being short-sighted to this degree, where we’re concerned, is just asinine. It’s shooting your hand off so you won’t have to pay for mittens. There is shit floating around in our brains that, collectively, is worth billions to you. And you’re about to send us all out on the sidewalks because you’re unwilling to make even the miniscule sacrifices that would give us a keen incentive to provide you with more of it.

Stupid. Small-minded, small-scheming, can’t-see-the-big-picture-over-next-month’s-balance-sheet stupid is what you are being.

But hey, enjoy sitting in our chairs while we’re away.

Oh, and SML—

As long as we’re discussing the Topics That Truly Matter here, “KITT” had four letters.

Jealousy, thy name is Anonymous.

“If Craig actually cared about �his� union, he�d be posting on Writer Action, a private forum open to all WGA members and not here in public where he does whatever he can to undercut the board who was voted into office by 90% of the rest of us.”

Anyone who thinks WA is not read by the AMPTP and the trades hasn’t really been paying close attention.

Anon P. #167,

I want to be mini-you.

Anon P. #168,

Not any more!!

SML,

Damn, so close….

We’re still waiting to hear about how you’re going to complete that Lone Ranger writing assignment that you just got while there’s a strike, Ted.

http://www.cinecon.com/news/1048/jerry-bruckheimer-revives-the-lone-ranger/

Jerry Bruckheimer revives “The Lone Ranger”

POSTED 10/24/2007 AT 1:15 PM ET

EW has learned that “Pirates of the Caribbean” screenwriters Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot are reuniting with Jerry Bruckheimer for a new film based on “The Lone Ranger.”

“The Lone Ranger” was originally a radio show in the 1930s and then was turned into a live-action television show in the 1950s. The series told of a Texas Ranger in the Old West with a Native American sidekick, Tonto.

Anon P:

“Your underlying point is entirely correct, but you sound so dumb in the way you make it that people may be inclined to think otherwise. Which is too bad, because I agree with you.”

Wow, now we even insult people whom we agree with.

“The fact that management is greedy is irrelevant.”

True. But in the context of “they are greedy - vs - we want a fair share” it is VERY relevant.

I’m skipping the part that tells screenwriters they are primarily motivated by money for otherwise they’d write novels and go straight to:

“And we’re greedy too.”

I disagree. 2.5% is hardly greedy. Especially when you deserve at least 10%. Fuck, agents get a ten percent cut for sending scripts out! We should get at least that for creating one!!

“Why pretend otherwise? Most of us decided to go into this business, versus any other, because a) from time to time, people get stinking rich doing it, and b) even for those of us not playing in that stratosphere, the paychecks still tend to be a lot bigger, a lot of the time, than the ones you get for steaming lattes.”

Maybe. But some of us - arguably the talented ones - actually went into this business because we love making movies by writing movies. GASP! I know.

“So studios are greedy. Fine. So are companies that build bulldozers or sell underwear. Their investors like them that way.”

And I’m the dumb one, huh?

“I think management is being collossally stupid—forget greedy, just plain fucking stupid—to insist on viewing us as a cost that they should be minimizing, rather than as a source of potentially-lucrative material that they should be maximizing.”

They DO realize that, sherlock. Guess why they don’t act upon it? Because they are G-R-E-E-D-Y”.

“Most parts of the business world realized years ago that the people whose ideas and skills are fundamental to their having anything to sell in the first place tend to use those skills more diligently and come up with those ideas more frequently when they are treated as valued partners, rather than as marks to be fleeced or as victims to be mugged—and especially when they share personally in the rewards that their creations make possible.”

That’s beautiful. You’re so eloquent when you’re angry.

“But Hollywood, which tends to be a decade or two behind the rest of the universe in catching on to all such trends, is predictably having to be dragged kicking and screaming to this one, too.”

I thought Hollywood sets the trends… hmm.

“To the AMPTP, in light of your latest still-not-grasping-this-basic-fucking-point proposal, I would simply say: Yes, your investors are short-sighted, and compel you to be the same to a certain extent, but being short-sighted to this degree, where we’re concerned, is just asinine.”

GREAT POINT! Suck, but don’t suck when it concerns me. You my friend are dancing circles around their logic.

“It’s shooting your hand off so you won’t have to pay for mittens. There is shit floating around in our brains that, collectively, is worth billions to you.”

Oh there’s shit floating awright…

“And you’re about to send us all out on the sidewalks because you’re unwilling to make even the miniscule sacrifices that would give us a keen incentive to provide you with more of it.”

Whoa, what are you saying? That they’re greedy?!

“Stupid. Small-minded, small-scheming, can’t-see-the-big-picture-over-next-month’s-balance-sheet stupid is what you are being.”

Insults will DEFINETLY make them budge. Well argued!

“But hey, enjoy sitting in our chairs while we’re away.”

That right, studio system! You have to sit in your herman-millers!! How’s that for dealing with the consequences? HAH!!

OSW,

Your use of exclamation and question marks is truly impressive.

Isn’t it being a scab if you’re a WGA writer doing a writing assignment for a WGA signatory?

Isn’t it being a scab if you’re a WGA writer doing a writing assignment for a WGA signatory during a strike?

Hearing from the same source I cited earlier that the WGA is not expected to go out before the 15th.

SML:

You want to be mini-anon P.? One more inane, uninformed and unfunny post and you’re there. Really, I’ve been keeping count. He’s got one up on you. But I’m sure you’ll get there. Good luck!

Craig, I apologize. I just found out that WA is not a private forum. I mean, technically it is, but in reality it’s not. I just found out that posts on WA are often posted in the press and have been for years.

And, Craig, this made me think, “if I could be so wrong about that, what else might I be wrong about?” Well, you can guess where I’m going with this: I realized that I’d done nothing to help our guild…ever, yet you spent time on the board working hard for writers. I found out that you took time out of your life to help the ANTM “writers.” Still, I’d done absolutly nothing for anyone in the WGA besides myself.

And then, Craig, I logged onto your site and saw that you and all your rich friends have spent the last year diligently answering questions for aspiring writers. Again, i’ve never bothered to do help a fellow writer so I am humbled.

Now Craig, I disagree with the way you handle things, but I now realize your intentions are above reproach. Because me and the other people who don’t like your style have given no energy in service of fellow writers.

I’ll still point out what I think YOU could be doing better—since I’m not going to do anything, but I’ll no longer make insane accusations against you or your rich friends.

Hey, #178: Anonymous ‘Cause Offered —

What else did your mole say? Thought she was on AMPTP side, then how would she know when WGA may call strike? Pls explain and give any other updates from your source.

Btw, Nikki F just posted a small update —

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

Thanks —

A federal moderator… what’s that and is it a good thing?

Amen to Patrick

You’re a sell out. Can’t you see that you’ve been brainwashed by facts? You fool!! Did you NOT just see me accuse Ted of scabbing?

Does my accusation mean nothing to you?

How can you stop slinging lies when Ted and Terry are going to scab and not be caught by the guild? Don’t you see that I JUST read about Ted and Terry scabbing in the trades? I’m an experienced writer who has been in the trades myself, so I know—I mean, I KNOW FOR A FACT— that the trades post deals right after they happen and not weeks if not months later. Amen to Patrick, I’ve got them on the ropes because that Lone Ranger deal isn’t months old!!! Without us, Amen to Patrick, Ted and Terry are gonna use their low profiles to do scab work—that is posted in the trades—under the radar!

Anonymous in #166, 172, 173…

Are you just green or do you have a point to make?

Why would Ted or any other working writer stop working, before it becomes necessary per the union?

Though that raises a legitimate question… if Ted (or anyone else) sits alone or with partner, in the confines and privacy of their home office or what-have-you, and writes on a pre-existing assignment but does NOT takes meetings, phone calls, notes, emails, morse code, semaphor or anything else from management re: the project during strike time…

…is that still scabbing in the eyes of the Guild strike guidelines?

Is EW a trade? I thought it was a more respectable version of US weekly. Or is US weekly also a trade?

Either way, both excellent toilet reading.

A federal moderator… what’s that and is it a good thing?

My guess- it’s like calling in a justice of the peace when there’s gonna be a wedding.

Or maybe a priest to deliver last rites is a better analogy…

AYAAW

Anonomous 183,

Wait a minute. Wait just one minute. You mean to tell me that our guild is so inept that they wouldn’t be able to catch Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio scabbing? That’s scary. That’s Scary Movie. That’s Scary Movie 3 and 4.

I was hopiing that the Lone Ranger deal was old news. Because, you know, most deals you see announced in the trades are old. And by most, I mean all. But this one isn’t. And that means some high powered scabbing is going on.

Luckily J.F.’s got the feds all over this.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is anyone out there NOT going to work on specs or pitches during the strike so that when it’s over we can all go back to getting work? That just seems lazy and short-sighted. Maybe I truly am wrong, but as long as you don’t turn in any work, updates, etc. or get paid during the strike, how is that scabbing?

“Anonymous” of post #166:

You know that writing assignment you just signed on to do a week before the strike is supposed to start? The one that hit the trades today?

Just because old media reported the story today, it doesn’t mean its not old news. Blue Sky Disney broke the story five months ago (scroll to the bottom of the page).

Wanna maybe rethink the rest of your inane post?

• Ted

Edited to add:

We’re still waiting to hear about how you’re going to complete that Lone Ranger writing assignment that you just got while theres a strike, Ted.

Sorry, make that inane posts, plural.

-

As long as we’re discussing the Topics That Truly Matter here, “KITT” had four letters.

So did “KARR.”

“GOLIATH” had seven letters and a goatee.

• Ted

My KNIGHT RIDER knowledge is shameful.

I did sit in KITT at Disney Land though. When I was 7. He said he was my friend. And you know what, that counts for something.

KITT,

If you’re reading this, get in touch. I miss you.

I can’t tell you anything more about my source with the AMPTP, but I don’t consider this person a “mole,” more like a concerned citizen who is looking at the big picture. As I said, this person does have a bias.

She just said that the rumors of an immediate walk out have dissipated. Now, the strike date being floated around is the 15th. Maybe it’s just conjecture from their side.

The mediator is interesting, because I was told that both sides had made overtures for our Governor and Mayor to step in. Because of the wildfires, the politicians’ priorities are elsewhere at the moment.

While the Governor is a SAG member, he’s not known for being labor friendly. Our Mayor, who’s dealing with his personal issues as much as nagging civic duties, is a former union organizer who is closely allied with the AFL-CIO. As Ted can attest since he knows more about our Guild history than I do, the WGA has never really been involved with the AFL-CIO, if at all. Isn’t that true, Ted?

I had a meeting at a studio today and the mood was downcast. One of the executives asked me near the end where I would be taking my “vacation.”

Hope this helps answer the questions I was asked.

When the Top Model story department went out on strike, they received generous strike benefits from the WGA. Is that not standard procedure? Won’t all WGA members be eligible for strike benefits? I’m not privy to WA, and haven’t seen anything about how the benefits will be paid out in the mainstream media.

SML,

24 of the 192 posts so far in this thread are yours. That’s 12.5%

Just FYI.

The WGAw is not affliated w/ the AFL-CIO (at least as of last year) nor the Calif Federation of Labor.

The Governor is actually more that ‘not none as labor friendly’- I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say he’s been actively unfriendly with Labor. Personally I’d chance it on the line before saddling up w/ Arnold.

But that’s just me, and I’m below the line.

SML,

You do know you don’t residuals for posting here right?

I’m Anonomous of post #166,

I now see how retarded I am. I’ve also exposed myself as someone who’s never been in the trades.

But mostly I’m retarded.

Ted, I was just jealous.

I’m sorry.

Geez, Ted, don’t you realize that when you start doing that, it’s like seeing Yoda fart? And then blow it toward Luke, and laugh about it?

…On second thought, it would’ve been awesome if Yoda had done that. And having my dormant memories of GOLIATH resurrected just made this otherwise forgettable day entirely worthwhile.

My vote for next thread: a detailed examination of the AMPTP’s low-budget-thresholds proposal and its probable long-term impact upon the industry, plus an analysis of the helicopter-dogfighting tactics and counter-tactics employed on “Airwolf”….

You sound like my wife.

And FYI: I refuse to watch IN THE LAND OF WOMEN again even though, I agree, Adam Brody’s lack of muscle mass is moderately attractive. So stop bothering me already and go cook.

Could someone explain — or point me to an explanation — of the whole issue of separated rights? This seems like a really core issue, but a really murky one at the same time.

I’m not a WGA member, but I sure hope to be.

Post 199 not directed at you anonymous, directed at the other anonymous.

SML post count: 26

Tim,

From Craig:

http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2005/03/theskinnyon_s.html

Tim,

On second thought google: Seperated Rights WGA

Correction: Separated rights WGA.

Damn. This is going to hurt.

Thanks, SML. Your link to Craig’s archives didn’t actually work, but it showed me where to look.

As far as signatories are concerned, a WGA strike automatically SUSPENDS writer’s contracts, and if the suspension interferes with a production, then the signatory can use force majeure to shut the production down.

The contract is automatically suspended, as to service and compensation, and the writer is insulated from liability for breach.

Re: #193

When you talk about “strike benefits”, do you mean loans to WGA members from the strike fund?

As I understand it— and I know someone will correct me if I’m wrong, the WGA constitution was amended in the early 90s to change the 1% dues paid as a percentage of gross income to the WGA to 1.5% with the additional .5% used to contribute to a strike fund.

According to Article VIII, Section 2.c, subpart c, the strike fund and a “Good and Welfare Fund” is established and I guess could be used to give low or no interest loans to WGA members who can demonstrate severe economic hardship resulting from the strike. Or as the constitution says “assist Guild members experiencing acute financial distress in emergency situations”.

I seem to remember there being about 8 mil or so in the strike fund.. but I could be misremembering. Not sure what more is in the good and welfare fund. Something was mailed to all WGA members recently about the priorities given for strike fund loans— you really have to be in dire straights and be able to prove it. And I think priority may be given to writers who have worked more recently.. Damn, I can’t remember…

Anyway, not sure that strike “benefits” is the right word to use here. The strike fund exists to help keep people from losing their homes and that sort of thing, and I am almost positive it’s money that’s to be paid back after the strike.

AYAAW

This was posted on WGA’s website today:

�This morning, we responded to the package presented yesterday by the AMPTP. We agreed to several of their proposals and withdrew or modified a number of our own proposals in order to narrow the areas in dispute. We also proposed a smaller working group to address several enforcement proposals made by both sides. The AMPTP caucused for more than four hours and returned with a package that included new rollbacks related to our pension and health funds. They rejected our modified proposals and ignored our working group offer. They then informed us that they are not comfortable meeting at the WGA and insisted that negotiations return to the AMPTP. They declined to meet again until Tuesday. This means only two days remain to resolve the substantive issues of this negotiation before Wednesday night’s contract deadline.�

Sounds to me like the negotiating committee has been willing to bend, and that it’s AMPTP that is taking a hard line.

I don’t think it’s fair, Craig, to suggest that all issues other than new media are just fodder.

You can say “the ship has sailed” or you could say “change is long over due.” Just depends upon your perspective.

The WGA brought 27 proposals to the table, which I’m told is fewer than they’ve ever brought to a negotiation. I expect that they brought the proposals they believed in. Sounds like a reasonable way to do business.

In return the AMPTP has brought us nothing but rollbacks — and today, on pension and health — when our healthcare has already been greatly diminished over the years. That’s bad faith negotiating. But it’s a great way to mobilize a union to solidarity. And (despite what an outsider might think viewing this blog), there’s already more solidarity in the WGA than I’ve seen in nearly twenty years.

you people are all fucking idiots.

I think it was actually Garth Knight that had the goatee (that’s how you knew he was evil), rather than the truck.

From Kat #207: I don’t think it’s fair, Craig, to suggest that all issues other than new media are just fodder.

From Nikki Finke’s latest: At the start of today’s negotiations, WGA Lead Negotiator David Young gave this opening statement. Boiled down, Young made clear what the overriding issue is for the writers side: New Media and Internet.

Sounds like David Young, despite all the posturing, and Craig, see things the same way.

Cue Olive Oyl singing…

If I were president…

Okay, maybe not. But if I were on some committee or other, or even a plain old member of the WGA, I might do the following:

I might reach out to websites like YouTube and Funnyordie and ask for statements of support in the form of pop ups or banner ads.

I’d have a myspace account and work like hell to get as many ‘friends’ as possible so that I could send my messages out to the masses, not just WGA members or the mainstream press.

I’d have WGA members, not the high-priced ones but the struggling, anonymous ones write op ed pieces to their local papers back home telling folks why the WGA is striking and how it affects the lowly, struggling writer.

And maybe I’d have all of these folks sign petitions or write letter of support so that the big, bad, mean networks and studios would know that John and Jane Public sympathize with the underdogs.

In other words, I’d be working the everyperson angle from the ground up instead of from the network advertisers down b/c most people have no idea what writers go through. Tell them.

While I’m probably on record as having little sympathy for big bucks writers like Craig and Ted, I do have great respect for them for posting openly about their views. Like it or not, they’re being heard. It would be great if more barely-making it writers were heard, too. Because in the court of public opinion, you people might just come off as being the greedy ones and denying the public their movies and television shows…and they’d take their loyalty dollars with them.

Susan p.s., this type of campaign may already be in the works, and if so, good for you.

Ted,

Your attempts to make this a first amendment issue are specious. You’re saying, in essence, that criticism is a violation of the First Amendment, and I’m pretty sure you don’t actually believe that. For the record - I believe every word I post here. I won’t resort to pretending to misunderstand a position to make an argument.

You have the right to chew with your mouth open. When your mother told you you shouldn’t, she was not advocating that your right to do so be revoked, just that you improve your behavior of your own volition.

And let me ask - remember that scene in that movie you wrote? The one where you guys just kicked it out of the park, delivered like motherfucking Ben Hecht and Paddy Chayefsky on their best day, and then the dumbass director or producer came in and fucked it all up to hell, and it’s still the scene you can’t bear to watch?

When they interviewed you for the DVD, did you talk about the ineptitude that led to that great scene getting fucked up? If you didn’t, did the US Constitution enter into your reasoning at all?

Craig is absolutely within his rights - OBVIOUSLY - to post whatever he wants about anything he wants. People are equally within their rights to question his reasoning and - more importantly, these days - his motivations. When you try to make it out that critics of Craig’s are enemies of the Constitution and, thus, America, you make it even easier to jump to conclusions that you guys just don’t want people jumping to. Well, shit - if they have to LIE to defend themselves, what, exactly, are they really defending?

I think it’s important, however, for people to judge the messenger along with the message. The question of Craig’s true loyalties will probably never be answered, but what’s important to remember is the function of this page. It’s an extension of his ego, a testimony to the wonder that is Craig. The posts invariably trumpet Craig as an independent thinker, a guy who doesn’t fit the usual mold, a guy who uses the unpopularity of his views as a sign of his maverick nature (except when he’s taking the popular view), a guy who does what he does because, hey, “that’s how I roll,” and for whom “they don’t throw parades.”

All well and good, but at a time like this, it’s worth remembering these things, because what’s motivating Craig to post is not selfless love for the Guild and all writers, but personal ambition and self-aggrandizement. Every one of these slams on the Guild is a pumping up of self at the expense of his political opponents. Which is, again, just fine, but don’t call it something it’s not. If you’re gonna watch Fox News, keep in mind it’s not actually news. If you watch Fox and think it’s actually news, you’re in trouble. Same if you read this blog and think you’re actually getting real analysis untainted by fevered personal ambition.

And let’s be clear - we’re ALL driven by ego, especially in this business. It’s important to you to be perceived as this sort of professorial type who can recite chapter and verse any legal precedent that’s pertinent (a self edumacated attorney! Such a mind!) and it’s important to me to be perceived as a monkey who sits on the sidelines and flings shit at windbags and egomaniacs (which is its own egomania, obviously.) But in these presentations, neither of us is being disingenuous about what we’re really doing. You DO come online and post chapter and verse, and I DO come online and fling monkey shit. But Craig’s building a base here, one he’ll eventually try to use to take another run at our board. And that, too, is fine, but it would be nice if he’d be upfront about it. This is a political forum. Craig is a politician. And he’s exploiting this situation for his own gain.

I’ll be honest - I’ll survive a strike. I’ll be okay. So will you, and so will Craig. But there are a lot of people who are in real danger because of this, and I’d think the idea of a fellow writer hammering on the guild over every goddam thing he can think of - resorting to attacking some stupid, low profile cartoons when it’s a slow news day - at a time when things are this precarious…. Well, it ain’t sitting right with some folks, Ted. And being labelled an opponent of free speech for suggesting this doesn’t make it any easier to swallow.

Anonymous,

All over town, people have been struggling to get deals closed before the impending strike date. From the writer’s point of view the reasoning is this - aside from getting one last payment before the strike, the studios are going to be using the strike as an excuse to clean house, getting rid of moldy producers and projects they’re tired of. Getting them to put some skin in the game is a way of ensuring your project survives.

From the studio’s point of view, if it’s a project they’re psyched about (and I’d guess Lone Ranger is that sort of project), commencing the writer before the strike is a way of ensuring that maybe they get a script before hand, but at least, if they don’t, there’s no way the writer’s not thinking about it during the strike.

Add to that that if it was in the trades today, as Ted said, it’s old news already. I’ve read stories about how I “just” closed a deal to write a script I’ve already finished, so it’s not as though the lead time is real tight on those things.

Josh, You said it better than I. See post #159 and you said it without the invisibility cloak that I use. Nice job. I voted for Craig and I have to say I made a mistake. Also, I don’t think he’s building a base. I think he might be losing supporters. The guy can do what he wants, but he’s alienating people who respected him in the Guild. Maybe, he’s building a base outside the Guild since that’s where most of his support on this board comes from.

I thought Mr. Elliott’s point regarding the First Amendment was not in response to those who criticize, but in response to those who say Mr. Mazin shouldn’t post his thoughts out in the open where everyone can see but rather keep them to private (or supposed to be private) forums.

Is it to late to nominate “skin in the game” for your “clam” column, Craig?

Two things —

1. Based on their most recent proposal, the AMPTP is completely ignoring Craig’s advice on “how to avoid a strike.”

2. I have talked to or read posts by a depressing number of writers, many of them with enough money to survive a decade long strike, who are obviously basing many of their opinions on the negotiations simply by how a strike would effect their immediate career. It makes sense and I get it— hey, it’s human nature — but I would expect it more from the rank and file members, the low-end writers with no savings, than the ones with seven figure quotes. It’s just… well, like I said, depressing.

Oh, Josh,

Although you did a better job making my point (see post # 159), I don’t want you to think I support your behavior offline. You’ve done and said questionable things to other writers. Don’t ever forget that when you are with peers, you make it a point to disparage other writers. I know that for a fact.

RE: #216: Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see it (#2) like that. I think it more of a thought that if we’d handled some things differently, we’d end up with the same deal we’re going to get anyway but without a strike in the middle to cause all sorts of problems.

It’s not being against the idea of dealing with some short-term pain in exchange for long-term gains. It’s the idea that we could’ve gotten the same number we’re going to get had we done things differently, so a strike only gets us the short-term pain part of the equation.

I don’t know enough about how these things work to say whether that’s actually true or not (and I don’t think even the most knowledgeable person could say for certain), but that’s the gist I get from the argument.

I’m an outsider here. I don’t know all the names and I don’t know all the history and I don’t know all the baggage. But let me ask you guys:

1) Is there anybody here that agrees with the AMPTP rollbacks?

2) Is there anybody here who thinks that writers SHOULDN’T be getting more money for their work and more control over how that work is used by producers, whatever the distribution platform?

3) Is there anybody here who, if the Guild DOES strike, wouldn’t go out with their fellow writers and stay out till the end, whatever their personal feelings about Patric Verrone or Nick Counter or Joseph Goebbels or Marie of Rumania?

If you guys are all united on those issues, then I’d say the Guild is strong and all the rest is just dick-swinging.

But that’s from the outside looking in.

Tim, You are correct. I’m a working writer who really doesn’t have the financial resources to weather a strike. But, I support the Guild and I see the AMPTP proposals as rollbacks. Period. This is also in response to the other poster who wanted to hear from rank and file.

I don’t think it’ll change my opinion of Craig (or my vote should he run, again,) but it may change how I respond to Josh’s criticism of Craig. My criticism has not been as harsh. Just saying mostly that Craig doesn’t represent the view of the vast majority of the Guild and is kind of a loud mouth capitalizing on all of this, but that it’s his right.

OCT 27

Couldn’t have expressed it any other way but being honest.

Thanks you.

Really now…be honest…the WGA could’ve been dealt with respectfully years ago..and the studios, etc., chose not to.

All because of greed. It’s that basic, simply and honest. Just look at the facts of the bottom line.

Anyone against giving something to the WGA is doing so out of simple reasons of wanting to be in control; keeping all the money for themselves, etc.

Their ego thing again.

It’s the foundation for how this country was truly and honestly built on.

Economics…and a very broken view of it, because of all the greed involved.

I don’t have any ill feelings or bad thoughts about production compnaies, studios and the multi national corps which own them.

They’ve been blatantly annd basically stealing from writers — which isn’t necessarily everone with a WGA card — for too long of time.

Thanks again.

MARK

Going way back to post 150-something, as far as I know Ted, the AMPTP doesn’t work on majority per se. They work in the sense that if one company out of the seven doesn’t agree, they all don’t agree. It’s not majority in the democratic sense. And it’s perhaps why you don’t see the public divisions from their side.

Tim,

I agree we are united. I actually think open dissent of the wga, of the Craig, shows unity. Although, it’s worrisome the number of people who have to dissent in the shadows because they think there may be retribution…

That makes me feel sad actually…

Josh,

Dishonesty is also a right (appendix a of amendment 1). And if Craig’s caught in a lie, he has a reasonable excuse for his actions… all of American History and Politics…

But, then again, honesty, like history and politics, is subjective.

When the time comes for Craig to openly politic, this site will help his cause and hinder it in equal measure. Ying and yang is the thang.

Who’s ready to rumble…

The WGA finally on Friday, thank the lord, expressed interest in negotiating and the AMPTP, with this three-day wait, is basically saying, “Fuck you.”

We should walk on Wednesday and be happy for it.

SML post count: Over 30 (and still the champion…)

Josh -

Ryan Paige is spot-on. How Craig, or anyone, publishes or otherwise expresses an opinion, is an exercise of First Amendment rights. An argument that how someone expresses an opinion is in some way wrong or suspect or malicious is an argument that someone has exercised their First Amendment rights in a way the person making the argument doesn’t like.

People are certainly free to say they don’t like the fact that Craig publishes his opinions on a website with unlimited public access … but to pretend that it is anything other a condemnation of Craig’s exercise of his First Amendment rights — that’s specious.

And let me ask - remember that scene in that movie you wrote? The one where you guys just kicked it out of the park, delivered like motherfucking Ben Hecht and Paddy Chayefsky on their best day, and then the dumbass director or producer came in and fucked it all up to hell, and it’s still the scene you can’t bear to watch?

This is so far from how I actually think, your use of the second person is borderline offensive. But, for the sake of argument, yes, there are times I believed the story and screenplay were poorly realized in the movie, and I have talked about some of those instances in DVD commentary of the movies.

When they interviewed you for the DVD, did you talk about the ineptitude that led to that great scene getting fucked up?

Not unless I know for a fact that ineptitude played a part. And I know this is likely weird and alien to you, but I don’t presume that differences in subjective aesthetic standards are the result of ineptitude on the part of others. Nor do I believe that having gotten it right on the page, my responsiblity for getting it right in the movie ends with handing the screenplay to someone else and hoping they don’t fuck it up. That’s the full extent of the responsibility writers are limited to in the Hollywod system, but since that’s nowhere near the extent of the responsiblity writers should have, it means writers must take that responsbility.

So, to answer your question: No. I have no problem with talking about the differences between our intent in writing a scene, and the way in which that scene was realized in the movie. But I will not absolve myself of the authorial responsiblity for the movie itself; that requires someone else prying it away from me (which has happened, but Terry and I haven’t done DVD commentariies in regards to those movies).

If you didn’t, did the US Constitution enter into your reasoning at all?

Whether I did or not, the U.S. Constitution is why I can. See, in pretty much the rest of the world, authorial moral rights are recognized by law. One of those rights is the right to protest the alteration or modification of one’s work of authorship.

U.S. law does not recognize the moral rights of authorship. But hose rights are nonetheless guranteed, proteced or enforceable through a combination of other laws — and the moral right of protest is guaranteed by, ta-da! the First Amendment.

Although the First Amendment does not give me the right to force the publisher of the DVD to include my protest on the DVD, it does guarantee me the right to publish or otherwise express my protest — or any other opinion I have — how I want to.

Even if there’s a bunch of other writers standing around going “Tsk, tsk, that’s soooooooo unacceptable, don’t you know that’s not how its done in polite society, it’s just bad manners, is what it is! Aren’t you worried about offending others? Undermining the efforts of others? Why, it’s tantamount to an attack!!”

You wonder what Craig’s motives are for running this blog? In your opinion, he’s made some “anti-screenwriter” comments, and that makes all of his opinions, and his motive for publishing those opinions in a forum with unlimited pulbic access, suspect?

In my opinion, Craig’s consistent position going all the way back to the earliest days on WriterAction, is the same as mine: “anti-screenwriter-as-victim.” That you perceived some of his comments, or his entire attitude, as “anti-screenwriter” is … well, interesting, but not accurate.

Craig’s motives for publishing this blog, the specific content of this blog, is the same as mine, and it goes back to what I wrote earlier:

The institutionalized system limits the authorial responsiblity for the movie that writers have to little more than “Here’s the screenplay, don’t fuck it up?” Which means that if writers want the authorical responsiblity for the story and dramatization and the movie to which we are entitled, but have been stripped from us by the work-made-for-hire law, we are going to have take that responsiblity.

And that means, first, understanding how and why the system as it exists actually works the way it does, and, second, figuring out practical ways to work the system as it exists in order to achieve that goal.

Where Craig and I differ on this is, I argue that writers should take those authorial respsonsibilites in their capacity as “writer” (what Terry and I have worked toward through our entire careers), whereas Craig argues that writers should take those authorial responsibilites as they can, including by assuming additional capacities other than “writer.” Craig’s is a more pragmatic approach, but the goal for both of us is the same:

Taking back the authorial responsibilities — and, so, authorial rights — that are rightfully due to creators of literary and motion picture works of authorship, but have been denied to us by the work-made-for-hire law.

Given that your position is that there are no individual authorial repsonsibilities or rights in a motion picture work of authorship, and your belief that the auteur theory is somehow related to the principle of authorship, obviously, you are going to perceive any opinion or statement that motion pictures have individual authors, just like screenplays, as an elevation of motion pictures and a diminishment of screenplays, and so be at once “pro-not-the-screenwriter” and “anti-screenwriter.”’

But your perception of Craig’s posts or my posts on this topic is wrong.

As for “slamming the Guild,” again: criticizing the current leadership and staff of the Guild is not “slamming the Guild,” it slamming the people who are the current caretakers of the Guild. I realize that Craig and I are in the minority in thinking that they have been poor caretakers, but the argument that the only possible reason someone would express a minority opinion is because they are trying to sabotage the Guild or are aligned with the AMPTP or both is, no kidding here, fucked up beyond beleif and incredible.

There is a such a thing as the “loyal opposition,” you know.

• Ted

P.S. I did notice and appreciate your comments regarding the anonymous “a trade paper announcement of a writing deal is all the evidence I need to accuse Ted and Terry of being scabs” smear nonsense.

-

Apparently no one reads the internet, as there was a story about up about Ted and Terry writing this thing over six months ago. I just wrote three drafts of a script for a studio and it hasn’t hit the trades and won’t until we officially have a lead or a director. That’s a really stupid thing to assume and it makes those people seem like they’ve never worked a day in the industry.

What’s really strange and incredibly narrow minded is that the same people who criticize Craig for publishing his opinion about the Guild and its leaders, somehow don’t realize the sheer irony—considering that’s exactly what Republicans do to Democrats and Liberals alike. AMPTP Shill sounds a whole lot like Traitor, doesn’t it?

I’ve heard this bullshit way of thinking before. Kinda like “criticizing Bush undermines the war in Iraq”. I didn’t believe that horseshit when Ann Coulter said it and I don’t believe it now when Anonymous number…—who gives a fuck— said it.

It’s one thing to flat out disagree with him and his politics (for the record, I disagree on some of his points), it’s another to bash the man simply because he’s saying what he believes—in a public forum. Shit, his own public forum.

Should we all discuss what Fascism really is?

To unnecessarily echo others— yeah, when I read about some deal in the trades, I pretty much assume “okay, this happened 3-6 months ago”.

AYAAW

Ted,

“An argument that how someone expresses an opinion is in some way wrong or suspect or malicious is an argument that someone has exercised their First Amendment rights in a way the person making the argument doesn’t like.”

Exactly right. So is an argument that begins, “Britney Spears’ new album sucks ass.” I’ll cop to it right now. I don’t like how Britney Spears exercises her First Amendment rights. I also don’t like the way the American Nazi Party, NAMBLA, and Henry Jaglom exercise THEIR First Amendment rights. You got me there. I’ll go a step further - when you try to spin criticism as an attack on the First Amendment… I don’t like how YOU exercise your First Amendment rights. And you clearly don’t like how I exercise mine. None of which has diddly fucking squat to do with any of this. The fact remains - not one single person has even hinted that they think Craig (or you, or me, or NAMBLA) shouldn’t have the right to do so. See, there’s a difference between criticizing how someone exercises their rights and stating that they shouldn’t have those rights.

This thing you do when you pretend not to get that difference… it’s fascinating, because it means you’re either pretending not to understand, or you actually don’t. And if you don’t, it reminds me of that great line from A Fish Called Wanda, in which Kevin Kline yells at John Cleese, “A monkey can’t read Nietszche,” and Cleese responds with, “Yes it can. It just doesn’t understand it.”

Many, many people perceive that Craig is trying to do damage to the Guild for his own gain. It is our right to believe that, and it is our right to express that belief. It is also your right to try to make out that such criticisms are an attack on the First Amendment, but it’s a tactic that’s on par with the Bushies who accuse critics of Bush of hating America. It’s your right, but it do go to character, your honor….

“Not unless I know for a fact that ineptitude played a part. And I know this is likely weird and alien to you, but I don’t presume that differences in subjective aesthetic standards are the result of ineptitude on the part of others. Nor do I believe that having gotten it right on the page, my responsiblity for getting it right in the movie ends with handing the screenplay to someone else and hoping they don’t fuck it. That’s the full extent of the responsibility writers are limited to in the Hollywod system, but that’s since that not near the extent of the responsiblity writers should have, it means writers must take that responsbility.”

I’d never argue with that last point. I’ll even ignore the cheap, personal shot buried in all that, and just say this - that you do not perceive ineptitude to exist doesn’t mean it doesn’t, and as I suspect you know - one can take all the responsibility one can, and if a bad director is intent on fucking up the work, a bad director will fuck up the work. Bad director usually trumps good writer.

And if you want to turn this into a discussion about whether or not a director (or writer) can ever really be termed “good” or “bad,” I’ll opt out of that one. That’s the sort of discussion Craig loves, and the sort of discussion that sent me screaming from college.

Kevin,

“Should we all discuss what Fascism really is?”

Sure. But it would help if you actually knew.

Sure. But it would help if you actually knew.

Surely you can do better than that. That read like a line from Saved By the Bell. Sorry…I usually don’t give notes on insults hurled at me that was pretty weak.

Can you find a different way to call me an idiot? Maybe include a catch phrase or something?

Josh,

This forum is full of fascists. Or in the least is being read by fascists. Why do people post anonymously if not to protect themselves from fascists?

Do you really want to defend the fearful’s right to the first amendment? It’s not like Craig and Ted are beating people with bamboo sticks.

(And for future use, Ted’s argument becomes gray the moment Craig deletes the posts he finds uncivil).

SML,

“Do you really want to defend the fearful’s right to the first amendment? “

Do you really want to attack it?

If you give one single flying fuck about free speech, you almost NEVER get to defend the rights of people you agree with, support, sympathize with, respect, or like.

So whether or not I WANT to defend the rights of folks to post here anonymously, I do.

And honestly, just to reiterate - I know Ted likes to play word games, likes to prove A actually means B, but his attempt to paint Craig’s critics as being opposed to free speech is absolutely bizarre. I sometimes wonder if Ted isn’t on a one man mission to render the meaning of every word in the dictionary absolutely meaningless. Beats stamp collecting, I guess. (Aside to Ted: I support your right to eradicate all meaning from words, and I also support your right to collect stamps.)

But back to the subject - while this forum is full of many things, fascists is not one of them. If you want to be metaphorical about it, then the AMPTP would be the state, I guess, which would make the people who criticize Craig anonymously out of fear anti-fascists, but I dunno…. that’s a stretch. (That said, some of Craig’s political views verge on pro-fascist, but that’s generally the nature of the modern pseudo-conservative.)

Kevin,

My comment reflected the fact that your leaps in reasoning did not reflect even a rudimentary knowledge of what fascism is. I apologize if that’s simplistic, but you’re not giving me much to work with. Voicing the suspicion that Craig is working a political agenda here does not equate with Fascism. Sorry.

Well now Josh, here’s a couple of things. Number one, if you notice, I did not specifically address you. I was addressing the comment that Craig’s postings undermine the Guild—it had NOTHING to do with a political agenda, an assertion that you, yourself has put forth.

And yes, wanting Craig to shut up because it somehow undermines the Guild is fascism. Look it up.

But don’t use Wikipedia. According to them Sinbad is dead.

Josh,

“Do you really want to attack it?”

I do actually. Obviously, you’re correct. One of the first quotes I put in my handy quote book was, “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.”

But in these digital times, who is it that we are willing to give our lives for? There are no identities attached to these posts. They are non-existent and yet their criticisms of those with identities are equally heard and defended.

If you defend the fearful, you defend a class of people that cannot be equally criticized. They become powerful in their anonymity. And then the ying and yang of “all men are created equal,” the ying and yang of freedom of speech falls in their favor.

They are already protected by their lack of identity, they don’t need people with balls to stand up for them.

Sinbad is dead?!

Shit.

The voicing of suspicions about Craig weren’t based on his criticism of the Guild. They started when he took a small, inconsequential event from his own life, gave it the maximum negative spin, then posted it on this page, where it was predictably picked up immediately by the AMPTP and used to negatively spin the vote.

People who have asked Craig to explain the unique nature of his studio deals have been belittled. People who questioned his actions have been accused of opposing free speech, and labelled fascists.

We are all within our rights to wonder what’s really going on here.

I figured out why the AMPTP won’t bend on internet. It’s because they realize that when they force us to strike, they’re going to lose the few remaining TV viewers to the internet.

This ongoing, undying belief among presumably-plural-or-even-many posters that Craig’s studio deals are somehow a reward for, or inducement to, his “undermining the Guild” in his blog is truly one of the goofiest opinions I’ve ever seen presented with a straight face.

Honestly, you believe the studios are paying someone millions of dollars, and making the movies he’s writing in exchange for those millions, because they want a friendly voice in a blog? (A “friendly voice,” I might add, who encouraged a “yes” vote for a strike against the studios, wrote a lengthy post about them under the title “The Bad Guy,” and wrote another lengthy post attempting to convince them that the best way out of a strike was to give up their entire existing set of proposals and make the deal with us on New Media that they rank second only to giving us higher DVD resids on the Big List of Things They Really Don’t Want to Do — and that was just this month.)

When did the meeting to work out the details of this sinister conspiracy take place? Given the timing of Craig’s deals, it would have had to be months and months ago, ages before anyone had any idea that we’d be threatening to strike this November, so these must have been some truly brilliant, prescient and forward-looking studio execs he was dealing with. (But of course, those qualities are common among all studio execs, right? We writers mention that fact just about every time their names ever come up. So it does make sense.)

“Support our positions at all times, but make it subtle,” they must have whispered to Craig in that darkened chamber, accessible only by secret subterranean elevator. “So subtle, in fact, that anyone with half a brain wouldn’t even be able to see you doing it at all. Subliminal, is what we’re saying. Oh, and is there any way you could get the new draft of that superhero thing, I can’t remember what we’re calling it, but you know, that thing about the superhero or whatever he is, back to us this month instead of next? It’s going to be an integral part of our cover story for you.”

“I hear and obey, my masters,” Craig intoned, backing prostrate from the room.

And they’ve certainly been getting their money’s worth ever since then by buying access to Craig’s profound personal influence over the behavior of the Guild’s membership. Witness Jeff Kleeman’s landslide come-from-behind victory following Craig’s endorsement of him here, and the nail-biting, hair’s-breadth margin by which our leadership was re-elected after Craig’s public criticism of them. The AMPTP’s purchase of Craig has been a strategic and tactical masterstroke. It would have been a bargain for them at ten times the price (which they are no doubt already plotting to pay him next year, under the guise of producing Scary Movie 5).

Honestly, you sincerely believe things like this and don’t feel like, well, a bit of a moron? Even a little bit? What an interesting life, chock-full of high drama, hidden dangers and breathtaking reversals, you must lead.

…Or maybe you suffer from the same affliction as the people who keep claiming that Olson didn’t really deserve his Oscar nomination, because really Cronenberg somehow swooped in and rescued that critically-acclaimed movie in spite of Josh’s determined efforts to fuck it up. Which is to say, perhaps you suffer a particular brand of bitchy jealousy which simply cannot abide the idea that a person you view as less talented or less deserving or less special than yourselves is somehow managing to reap rewards that you yourself are not, and therefore must assume that there is some underlying, secret reason for why it has happened, rather than the fairly obvious reasons that are readily apparent to everybody else.

Then again, Craig’s probably paying me to say this (including the defense of Olson, because, again, throwing in shit like that here and there makes it all the more subtle and hard to prove what my real agenda is). I’ll take it in fifties and hundreds, Craig. Meet me tomorrow in the usual place.

—And don’t forget to tune in for next week’s exciting adventure, “Ted Elliott: Secret Scab”! See you then.

So let me get this straight: Craig volunteers his own time and money to start a blog expressing his opinions and advice about the industry. Let’s ignore the helpful forum stuff. Let’s even assume (though it’s not my belief) that he does it for his own political future gain. He states updates on industry negotiations that cut through a lot of the crap, or at least get people talking and giving them a venue to formulate their own opinions. And the comments devolve into personal attacks, accusations, and endless endless whining about who has the right to say what and how much Craig sucks. This board is an absolute microcosm of the problem with politics and American culture in general.

If so many people disagree with Craig’s assessment, if you think this is a political endgame, start your own damn blog! Get your own voice heard so that there’s more than one side of the argument being heard! As much as you may criticize Fox News, it exists because there were a tremendous number of people out there who felt their take on the issues wasn’t being presented. And if you think CNN or the Today show or whatever else is news either, it’s simply because you agree with them. It’s like the idiot on the bus: if you don’t see him, it’s you. There’s no such thing as impartial journalism.

I’m confused. I’ve always understood that Artful Writer was first and foremost a political blog, geared towards Craig and Ted making another run for the Guild at some point in the future. This is their forum in which to express their politics. They are speaking to Guild members primarily. It says so right in the masthead. For the “PROFESSIONAL television and film writer.”

Are we pretending now that it’s not a forum to futher Craig and Ted’s Guild ambitions?

How annoying. When did that start happening?

Anonymous P:

Damn, reading your post was like the first time I saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind—wishing I wrote it my f’in self. Bravo.

And if I had to guess, most of these people are probably Democrat/Liberals but they sure do act like retarded Republicans. But it doesn’t get any dumber than the notion that studios are buying off Craig.

This board is an absolute microcosm of the problem with politics and American culture in general

Exactly. We’re fucking doomed.

Anon P.

Why are you anonymous? Seriously. You seem well reasoned, fair minded, and articulate… to me anyway :)

Why not identify with your words, for better or worse?

Anonymous #241:

No, it’s not a blog to further my or Ted’s “Guild ambitions.”

It’s a blog for (and let’s all scroll to the top…) information, theory and debate for the professional television and film writer.

I can’t speak for Ted, but I have zero plans to run for Guild office again. Of course, the first time I ran, I didn’t have this blog…and I won…so the theory that I need this blog as some sort of platform for Guild domination is a bit cock-eyed.

I definitely don’t want to be the President of the WGAw. I’ve heard enough about what that entails from John Wells and Dan Petrie, Jr. to know that it’s not for me. My Guild service is pretty much quiet and out of the spotlight (most notably through the Credit Review Committee, which is sadly on hiatus until this negotiation stuff is finally resolved).

I also serve as an arbiter twice a year or so for credit arbitrations. That’s the ultimate in quiet and spotlightless service to the Guild. Full disclosure—the staff usually sends me a bag of M&M’s when I agree to do those.

Somewhere along the line, some idiot must have spread a rumor that Guild service is fun or financially rewarding or gratifying to one’s ego. It’s not. It’s hard work, it’s long work, it’s incredibly boring work 90% of the time, it’s thankless, it doesn’t pay a cent, it mostly gets people pissed off at you, and it’s the worst possible target for ambition.

My ambitions are far more pedestrian. I want to write and direct more films. Produce some too. That’s what I enjoy.

Craig and Ted,

First, I want to thank both of you guys for taking the time and effort to put information out there for us neophytes. Incredibly helpful. So, I have a basic question that I’m hoping you can answer.

From what I know, you guys are powerful writers… at least, in the top echelon. Triple A, or whatever the label is. So why is that you don’t leverage that to produce more often?

It would seem to me that you could, but I don’t know. There must be a variety of reasons why you’re not producing more often. Or it could be that IMDB.COM is not the Bible after all… but it’s the only source I know of for this sort of information.

And, if you were producers on your projects, wouldn’t you have more influence both creatively and in negotiating your deal for the script/final product?

Thanks,

Regular Joe

Whoever wrote my name on post #176: don’t impersonate me: it’s very uncool.

I was working at the Screenwriting Expo all day yesterday and today, and wasn’t online.

(This is yet another reason why anon posting blow-oh-so-blows.)

Enough with the dick waving. Everyone who is not me is a fascist and I think we can all agree on that. Also, Hitler is bad. Now, that we’ve got that out of the way…

What’s with this federal mediator? Anybody knowledgable have any idea how that might impact things?

It seems strange to have them involved to me, on the other hand, the housing market is teetering on a cliff, and a prolonged strike would certainly wreak havoc on what’s left of it.

Also, and perhaps this is burying the lead, I was at a party tonight and a producer told me the AMPTP has no interest in negotiating. They don’t give a shit about what the WGA brings to the table or how many chairs there are. They are going to lock us out Nov 1, wait things out and declare force majeur on hundreds of millions of dollars of unwanted deals for projects, producer, etc. Of course, he may have just been echoing Nikki Finke’s blog, but she’s been on the money about quite a bit lately.

Any of you fascists have any thoughts?

Regular Joe:

I turned down an Executive Producer credit on Scary Movie 3 because it would have led to an automatic arbitration, and that would have literally screwed up the release date.

I produced Scary Movie 4.

I have an Executive Producer credit on School For Scoundrels.

I have a “Produced by” credit on Superhero.

I’m not sure how much more I’m supposed to be producing.

Craig, you could be the first to produce a Timothy Miller comedy. Think of the future prestige! Your children would be so proud of you. If you don’t have children, we could find some for you.

Plus, it would be a politically adroit move.

. So is an argument that begins, “Britney Spears’ new album sucks ass.” I’ll cop to it right now. I don’t like how Britney Spears exercises her First Amendment rights.

Commercial recordings aren’t protected by the First Amendment, Josh, save in narrow exceptions where an expression or opinion made public in the recording is protected.

And that’s because what someone chooses to express is not an exercise of First Amendment rights. The First Amendment guarantees the right make that expression public.

You know, as in publication?

As in, an opinion published on Artful Writer is an attempt to undermine the Guild, whereas the same opinion published on WriterAction isn’t?

And, need I remind you, we’ve already been ‘round this particular mulberry bush, in regards to an opinion you agreed* with?

A is A, Josh, no spin necessary. Criticism that is based on where Craig publishes his opinion is criticism of how Craig exercises his First Amendment rights.

• Ted

SML:

(And for future use, Ted’s argument becomes gray the moment Craig deletes the posts he finds uncivil).

No, it doesn’t. When you post a comment, it’s akin to writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper or magazine. You aren’t exercising your First Amendment rights — Craig is exercising his to publish your comments. Or not. His right, his choice.

• Ted

Fuck yeah I’m Anonymous:

The voicing of suspicions about Craig weren’t based on his criticism of the Guild.

Really? So you were cool with his criticism of the Guild giving members information on who hadn’t yet voted, and instructions to call them and tell them to vote?

They started when he took a small, inconsequential event from his own life, gave it the maximum negative spin, then posted it on this page, where it was predictably picked up immediately by the AMPTP and used to negatively spin the vote.

Oh, you mean, they started when Craig criiticized the Guild for giving members information on who hadn’t yet voted, and instructions to call them and tell them to vote, and the AMPTP spun this as members questioning the validity of the vote.

Well, the way I see it is, you’ve taken a small, inconsequential event in your own life, gave it maximum spin, and posted it on this page, in hopes that other Guild members will pick up on it to negatively spin Craig’s anger and disgust at the Guild violating his privacy.

Because you can’t possibly really believe what you just wrote, right? There’s no way you can possibly be a person of integrity whose different point of view from mine is borne of conviction.

What’s your real angle here, Fuck yeah?

The fact is, it was the AMPTP’s spinning Craig’s post to mean something other than what Craig wrote that was inconsequential.

Except, of course, as “evidence” that Craig’s post was so consequential, he shouldn’t post anything people who disagree with him don’t want him to post.

Which none of them really believe anyway, since it’s different from what I believe, and so can’t be sincere.

• Ted

. I’ve always understood that Artful Writer was first and foremost a political blog, geared towards Craig and Ted making another run for the Guild at some point in the future.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Nope.

• Ted

Regular Joe:

From what I know, you guys are powerful writers, at least, in the top echelon. Triple A, or whatever the label is. So why is that you don’t leverage that to produce more often?

Do you mean, why don’t Terry and I work on more movies soley in the capacity of producer?

Or do you mean, why don’t Terry and I get producer credit more often on our own movies?

• Ted

Ted,

I meant the latter. I am unaware, fully, of how writers get producer credit and more importantly, how a writer leaps into producer-ship (if it’s such a word.)

But I guess the big question is: why don’t more writers become producers on their own projects? Is there a barrier to it? Or is it that most projects are production co/studio generated? And therefore writers are limited to just being writers?

Craig, I apologize. I should have posted this more specifically to Ted.

Regular Joe

Ted,

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but your argument is most definitely gray and I’ll tell you why:

You say, “it’s akin to writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper or magazine.”

It’s not.

This site’s founding principle is not only to inform, but also to debate. It welcomes and advertises the fact in its heading. Newspapers, as far as I know, do not share this principle (although maybe they should).

This place is more akin to a town hall. Although we physically write, our words take on the feel of actual, real time dialogue/debate (for the most part) as apposed to formal opining. And this is the wonder of the interweb: real time communication with people we might never speak to otherwise…

…it’s more like a conference call rather than a letter…

Yes, Craig and You run and sponsor this site. Yes, Craig and You have the right to do whatever you want to it.

But remember the Voltaire quote I threw at Josh earlier, “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.” When people choose to express their first amendment right, I hold them to this standard. Craig allowing us to post does not ratify his freedoms, it ratifies ours. To do otherwise creates hypocrisy or, in the least, an area in which all is gray.

SML,

I take the anonymous route because, quite frankly, I’m a small fish doing sporadic work in a small town, and when I meet someone I’m hoping to do business with for the first time, I prefer that it be for the first time—that they form their opinion of me based on a) whatever piece of writing, past or present, got me in the door, b) the good word of whoever brought me and my work to their attention in the first place, and c) whatever impression I make in the room or on the phone, when I’m doing my level best to make a good one. As opposed to d) some ill-considered comment I made online once in a fleeting moment of passion, anger, or just being a dick in public, which Google would happily serve up to any interested party for the remainder of my life if it had my name attached to it.

I might feel differently if work were chasing me, rather than vice versa, but every contact is still golden at this point, and I’d rather they start off seeing nothing but my winning smile, my carefully-nurtured reputation for not being a dick, and whatever needless-to-say-completely-brilliant thing it is that I’ve come to sell them that day.

I figure this way, what happens in Vegas gets to stay in Vegas, and real life is its own thing, which I can finesse more readily in my favor if people are only seeing the parts of me that I’ve chosen to show them. Which is maybe not the most noble philosophy in all creation, but it’s worked out okay for me so far.

…And now to take mild issue with your post above: This place is not like a town hall. If it were, we’d all be kicking in a few bucks every year to keep it running. It’s more like a bar. Complete with that little sign just inside the door that begins, “Management reserves the right…”

You know—one of those bars where they don’t serve drinks, and the owner never gets paid? And people get into lengthy discussions about copyright law? Okay, fine, I don’t know what it’s like either, exactly, but I’m pretty sure that the correct analogy, whatever it is, does include some notion of being on private property somewhere in its definition.

Ted said: When you post a comment, it’s akin to writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper or magazine.

That’s not so. Newspapers are magazines are limited in the number of letters they can publish. An L.A.Times may receive hundreds of responses to a provocative story and print three. Here on Artful Writer, the principle seems to be that the comment — which is in effect self-published — gets to remain unless it is uncivil. And to Craig’s credit, even some uncivil posts get to stay if, I assume, he feels they have some relevance to the substance or tone of the debate.

I guess my point is: I agree with SML? That’s fucked up!

It seems to me that, four days away, the nature of the posts has shifted to minutia and meta stuff.

Maybe that’s because there’s no new info over the weekend (and maybe not until Tuesday night) but maybe it’s because we’re all assuming at this point that “I’ll see you on the picket line on Thursday.”

With that in mind, are people hearing from their strike captains yet? Are strike captains not supposed to start their e-mail chain going, or however they’re going to communicate with us, until the strike is actually called? Is that a matter of labor law or something? Because frankly, I feel more than a little uninformed, as far as hearing from my union in a way other than a two sentence quote for the trades now and then.

Anon P:

Nothing you say or do here has anything to do with whether you get a gig or don’t get a gig.

Do you really think a studio head will read your spec script, get ready to buy it, and then stop and say, “What a minute…didn’t (insert real name) say something dickish to (famous screenwriter) once?”

As great and powerful this blog seems to be, it won’t affect your career one iota.

Unless you threaten to beat someone up who’s 3000 miles away from you. That’s a definite career booster.

Anon P.,

Thank you for answering my earlier question. Your reasons are valid. H-wood is a small town. Smaller and more hickish than I first imagined. But you have little to worry about. Ask Josh.

As for your response to my second post (256):

So you agree, it’s a gray zone? Or are you saying first amendment rights can only be carried out and supported if you pay taxes or buy a beer?

Consider yourself not hired. I like emoticons (and so can you) :)

(Yes, I just plagiarized Stephen Colbert)

Civil,

You’ve always agreed with me, you just didn’t know it until now.

Kevin,

Unless of course it’s revealed he’s a member of NAMBLA and he’s up for a remake titled: FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY. Zing…!

Ted,

“A is A, Josh, no spin necessary. Criticism that is based on where Craig publishes his opinion is criticism of how Craig exercises his First Amendment rights.”

You raise pedantry to its highest depths, Ted.

I’d take the time to respond to this one so you could spin my next response ad infinitum, but we both know that criticizing how and where and why someone says something is NOT an attack on their First Amendment rights. Never has been. Never will be.

What I will NEVER understand is why someone would take a position they know to be false in an attempt to win an argument.

SML,

It’s a privately run blog. Craig can do whatever the hell he wants with the posts. Ethically, I’m with you. If you’re going to run a place like this, I think you’re duty bound to run the good with the bad, but legally, he can whatever he wants.

Ted, however, will take that argument, do his little dance, and by the time it’s done, he’ll have shown I shot JFK.

Josh:

Why on earth don’t you just start your own blog? They’re free. You could have the platform and attention you crave instead of piggybacking on Ted and Craig’s. I’m sure Artful Writer would be happy to link to it.

Or are you the type who hangs out on RedState, trolling it because it’s your responsibility to speak truth to power?

Josh, Ted, were one of you guys hired to page-one rewrite the other? Jesus, this is a tong war.

SML: If “Zing!” means “Funny!” then we’re no longer in agreement.

This has nothing to do with the strike… but I did feel strongly about it.

It’s to those of you who are spending time debating the 1st amendment. The only one here who is exercising his first amendment rights is Craig. This is his blog. He can write nearly anything he wants. I think the only thing he wouldn’t be permitted to do is intentionally lie - for instance, he couldn’t say “Paris Hilton is a whore” — unless it were true. And even then, he might be able to — if he could prove it was parody.

That being said — the rest of us who post here are living in a benevolent dictatorship. Craig (and to a lesser extent, Ted, it seems) are the dictators who allow the rest of us to post our opinions regarless of what Craig or Ted think of them.

If they suddenly decided to erase or redact people’s posts — no one will have have their rights violated. None of us are entitled to post our opinions here — we are entitled to post opinons somewhere elese — perhaps on blogs of our own — but Craig is under no obligation to post attacks on his motivation, credibility, etc… That he does so, at least to me, shows great courage (not courage like a soldier who fights in a war. But, wouldn’t it be great if there was a word like courage, but didn’t conjure up what soldiers do in a war) Craig is “corageous” because in a town where your reputation is really the only thing you have — and going along and getting along with people is the best capital you can have (other than talent, I suppose) Craig puts his reputation on the line every time he posts.

Some of his posts might make people angry. Some might paint him in a negative light. And both of those things could have a detrimental effect on his future prospects for work. So for that alone, I would say that makes him corageous.

But, if it’s the constitution you want to debate, be thankful for the 8th amendment — “no cruel and unusual punishment” (at least for those of you who don’t see the irony in attacking Craig in a forum he created… where he allows you to do so)

PS.

Perhaps we can get back to the real discussion… On Wednesday its possible our union leaders will call a strike… and the lives of many writers may be irreparably harmed.

Captain Tivo,

I think the word you’re looking for is “balls.” As in, “Craig has great balls.”

I don’t know. “Great balls” implies a kind of aesthetic judgement I’d rather not have to make. Even “big balls” evokes a kind of physical measurement, maybe with calipers, maybe using displacement of water.

Why not just say he has balls? Or if that’s not superlative enough, say, “Craig got some huevos, dude!”

Everything sounds more impressive when you go bilingual.

“I had hoped that my union would have acted smartly by now and responded to last week’s signal from the AMPTP. The removal of their regressive residuals proposal wasn’t just an empty gesture. Think of it as the equivalent of Senator Craig tapping his foot under that bathroom stall.

It was a question.

“Wanna negotiate?”

The WGA’s silence has been deafening and no doubt has confirmed for the AMPTP that we do not want to negotiate, but are instead hell bent on a strike.”

Yup, the WGA are hell bent on a strike. They don’t want to negotiate.

What great insight you have into the AMPTP strategy. Removing the rollback on residuals is a clear sign that they want to play fair. Why don’t the WGA just settle after that concession and be done?

I don’t quite get the notion that writers careers will be ruined by a strike. Their saving accounts, maybe. But their careers?

I had deals fall through due to the strike vote. Meetings cancelled. Calls unreturned. So yes, a strike can affect a writer’s career - even if he’s not in the union by the way! But I don’t see how it can ruin it. It’s not like a writing hiatus will rob me of my talent. Or my contacts for that matter.

Doesn’t everybody just towel off, get a tan, and jump back into the pool?

Any insights?

Posted by: chardkerm at October 28, 2007 9:42 AM Josh, Ted, were one of you guys hired to page-one rewrite the other? Jesus, this is a tong war.

No, Josh is a self admitted on-line… what was the word you used when I met you Josh? Oh, it was “asshole.” According to Josh, his size made it impossible for him to physically accost people in high school, so now he’s taking his revenge out on people on-line. Again, Josh’s words. Not mine. I wish these wars were on topic and relevant to the discussion at hand instead of self indulgent male member measuring contests, but alas, the safety of on-line commenting is a double edged sword born of the double edged sword of free speech. You gotta tolerate the self described assholes. And the non self described ones too.

Regular Joe:

why don’t more writers become producers on their own projects? Is there a barrier to it? Or is it that most projects are production co/studio generated? And therefore writers are limited to just being writers?

I can’t speak for other writers, including Terry, but I don’t want a producer credit unless I have fulfilled some responsibility to producing the movie that I do not consider to be rightfully the responsibility of writer since Terry and I have an AMPTP-like “if one says no, all say no” arrangement in our partnership, unless and until Terry mounts a persusive argument to the contrary, my standards apply).

And, as I mentioned upthread, I consider those repsonsibilities to be far greater than the ones that are accorded to writers as minimum terms of employment. Basically, anything that directly affects the story and dramatization in the motion picture, from initial development all the way through pre-production, production and post-production, up ‘til the reels are locked and prints are being struck.

Where Terry and I would require a producer credit are in instances where we bring a property to the attention of the studio that it opts to develop into a motion picture, or contribute story elements prior to being contracted as writers (whereas, if we just suggest ideas without being contracted at all, we consider it just that: here’s some ideas).

A lot of the time, writers are contracted to provide literary material for use in the motion picture that fits criteria already determined by others — the studio, the producer, the director, etc. I think that makes it more difficult for individual writers to negotiate a producer credit (also, personally, I don’t see the need to get a producer credit in those instances, but I don’t expect everyone else to subscribe to my thinking on the issue).

• Ted

SML:

This site’s founding principle is not only to inform, but also to debate. It welcomes and advertises the fact in its heading.

That’s an editorial policy, an institutionalization of a principle, determined by the publisher, who also has the sole authority to determine what content constitutes “debate.”

Newspapers, as far as I know, do not share this principle (although maybe they should).

If the publishers of newspapers insituted that principle as an editorial policy, they would.

• Ted

Advised to Remain Anon —

Here’s just a few ways writer’s careers will be ruined.

1. Writer “X” has a wife and two kids. He works on a sitcom — it’s his first job. He’s the sole bread winner in his family. Four months into a strike, he’s out of money and his health insurance is up and turns to advertising for work. When the strike is over, his sitcom is cancelled. He stays in advertising because the risk is too much to quit.

2. During the strike, the networks realize (as they did during the previous strike) that reality is cheaper than scripted programming. Post strike, several “fill in” reality shows become hits. Post strike, fewer scripted shows return to air… meaning fewer jobs for writers. Then, see #1 above.

3. Post strike, several new sitcoms and dramas that premiered in 2007 are not renewed — because they had terrible #s. Those staffs are let go — and perhaps the young writer on staff isn’t friends with the show runner of the show they put on in place of the show he worked on. Then, see #1.

That’s three very real scenarios. I hope it’s enough.

josh:

I’d take the time to respond to this one so you could spin my next response ad infinitum, but we both know that criticizing how and where and why someone says something is NOT an attack on their First Amendment rights. Never has been. Never will be.

You’re the one who keeps equating criticism of how Craig exercises his First Amendment rights with an attack on the First Amendment. That’s not an argument I’ve made. If anyone were arguing that Craig should not publish his dissenting opinions in any forum, that would be an attack on the First Amendment.

The distinction that’s being drawn is between Craig publishing a dissenting opinion on The Artful Writer, and publishing the same dissenting opinion on WriterAction. This distinction has been made in instances where the person drawing the distinction both disagrees and agrees with the dissenting opinion. In other words, the issue is not about dissent — it’s abotu Craig choosing to exercise his First Amendment rights to make public his dissenting opinion, rather than relying on the WA admins to exercise their First Amendment rights to make his dissenting opinion public.

(and although WriterAction restricts those who can contribute content to the site, any restrictions on who can access that content are unenforceable. The press, the AMPTP and the Guild staff have all demonstrated in the past that they have access to Writer Action).

It is a distinction that seems to make no real difference. But, clearly, it’s a distinction that seems to make a difference to the people who draw that distinction. And, yet, none seem capable of actually articulating what that difference is.

But it is interesting that at least one person who has drawn that distinction — you — perceives no difference between drawing that distinction and attacking the First Amendment.

Which, again: not an argument I’ve made.

• Ted

Kevin,

“Do you really think a studio head will read your spec script, get ready to buy it, and then stop and say, ‘What a minute…didn’t (insert real name) say something dickish to (famous screenwriter) once?’”

Yes.

Except for the part where a studio head has read a script. That’s just crazy talk.

Oh, and the part where they’re upset about anything I might have said to, or about, another writer.

The conversation I’m worried about goes more like this:

Studio Head: “So, judging from that witty online comment you made back on…October 28th, 2007, you don’t think I can read, huh?”

Me: “Oh, no, no, I didn’t say you can’t read. In fact, that comment was intended purely as a winking, good-natured nod to the fact that people in your position often don’t have time to—”

Studio Head: “Shut up! You’re not even here yet! You’re waiting out in my front room for an extra ten minutes while I Google your name before our meeting so I can pretend to be a big fan of your work when you get in here. Or at least that was Plan A. It ain’t gonna happen now, smart boy, ‘cause without the benefit of that timely and helpful contextualizing clarification that you weren’t here to deliver, I’m gonna interpret your gratuitous little insult any way I damn please!”

Me: “Well…as long as you can’t hear me, my comment wasn’t really intended to be winking and good-natured, either. I just said that because I thought it might help the meeting go better. Also, I don’t think you actually know the word ‘contextualizing.’”

Studio Head: “Got me there.”

-

…Except that the chain of good impressions I have to make before I get a gig starts a bit below “studio head.” And may well include people whose earlier work I’ve insulted viciously in some online forum somewhere. You’re only about two degrees of separation away from anybody in this business (including Kevin Bacon, by virtue of the fact that I’m talking to you here, right?), so you just never know.

And I freely admit, I might just be superstitious and paranoid. But luckily, no one I meet in real life will ever learn that fact about me by reading it here.

Craig (and to a lesser extent, Ted, it seems) are the dictators who allow the rest of us to post our opinions regarless of what Craig or Ted think of them.

Craig’s the editor of comments related to his entrites. I’ll occassionally delete duplicate posts, but not content.

• Ted

Will a strike ruin careers? I think the answer is that the strong survive. So, maybe to have to sell cars for while. It’s no fun but it’s not quite starting over. You still have your resume and what ever got you hired plus that first gig. Downward mobility is no fun. You have to give up the cable, maybe the cell phones, maybe even find a cheap apartment or move in with someone. But it doesn’t have to end a career.

I think the biggest setback is psychological. It’s very distasteful to go back two steps and the drudgery of demeaning yourself to pimp specs, send out queries, enter contests, whatever it took the first time around. It’s a blow to the ego but it doesn’t have to be fatal. Swallow your pride and start over again. This is the one downside about the WGA. You have to deal with this.

Craig has created a forum for debate here. That’s his choice. Read it or don’t. Take part or don’t. It’s there. And anyone who gets their knickers in a twist about free speech is barking up the wrong tree. Do that when your posts are censored.

As far as I can see they aren’t. Despite some rabid comments on both sides.

Captain Tivo:

Perhaps we can get back to the real discussion … On Wednesday its possible our union leaders will call a strike … and the lives of many writers may be irreparably harmed.

I think Guild members are resigned to there being a strike, and I think a lot of them believe it will be short and result in the AMPTP agreeing to our demands.

• Ted

I see. So I suppose the strike can deliver a blow to your career. Some survive that blow. Some choose not to. It seems to me that those who don’t weren’t on the right career path in the first place. If you can only get one gig, or sell one spec, maybe writing is not for you afterall.

So in a way the strike can sort the wheat from the chaff. Not to sound harsh or anything. But the amptp should be aware that all writers - not just powerful a-listers - are lock’n loaded to stand up (and suffer!) for their rights. Asses and elbows, people!.

Wheat from chaff? Quite a meaningless metaphor as most are when applied to reality. One person’s chaff is another’s wheat. What distinguishes them? Market potential? No. I understand half of WGA writers aren’t working or at least are making a living at it. When you have nothing you have nothing to lose. What else? Quality versus crap? Hell no. Strong versus weak? Maybe. But it’s no feat to go on strike if you’re not working to begin with. Meaningless metaphors.

Ted,

You described what Craig does as “exercising his First Amendment rights,” rather than “writing his opinion on a blog.”

You chose that description so as to suggest an equation between Craig’s critics and enemies of free speech. It’s a dreary rhetorical gag that allows you, now, to claim you did no such thing, and to sidetrack any criticism of Craig.

I have no axe to grind here either for against the strike. I make my living as a writer. WGGB not WGA. But I have some of the same beefs. I’m sick and tired of people making big bucks off my work while I get peanuts.

Because writers don’t by and large fit into the corporate mold of wealth producing widgits we are marginalised, denigrated and and under appreciated. Yet our imaginations and our talent and our sacrifice. Yes, sacrifice. Because only a writer knows what it takes to be a writer, is largely what makes this entire industry happen in the first place.

And for all you producers, actors and directors out there thinking you do it, well here’s a few blank pages. Shoot them.

A just reward is all writers are looking for. So don’t be pricks or you’ll end up killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Ted (275),

Do editors in newspapers really have free speech? Or are they dictated to by the Rupert Murdochs and the Conrad Blacks of the world? Are you saying that only these men, because they can afford to publish, have the right to free speech?

Don’t you think that’s what’s wrong with modern journalism? That men and women create seeming forums of free speech and then, if they don’t like something, come out and say, “Actually this is ours, so if you want free speech go yell in a park.”

The idea of ownership of someone else’s words, and that’s what you’re saying Craig has over ours, is ludicrous… albeit potentially lawful… which is even more ludicrous.

What you’re telling me sounds right and legal, but what you’re telling me is that only those who can afford it have the right to free speech.

Shouldn’t those who can afford it have the right not only to support their own free speech, but that of others? You don’t pay for the right to free speech with dollars; you pay by supporting its principles. That’s what makes it free.

To repeat, ” Craig allowing us to post does not ratify his freedoms, it ratifies ours.” This is a good thing. You two are doing a good thing. Why argue in the opposite direction?

There’s one restriction to free speech that I know of and it’s you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre. Besides that, it seems to me, you can say whatever the hell you want without the fear of an usher shoving a gag in your mouth. And that’s the way it should be.

John Raymond,

I agree with you. The strong of mind will survive and maybe a few others will realize why they got into this in the first place - to write. And to write, all you need is a pen.

But I don’t have mouths to feed, so that’s easy for me to say.

Josh, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

Ano 284:

It’s a figure of speech, not a metaphor. If you, a writer I assume, don’t know what it means, well…

A nicely timed attack by the DGA… on us:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974904.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

The article says there are negotiations tomorrow. What up with that?

SML, don’t forget the words of A.J. Liebling:

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

SML — pls give out title of article. I get Variety but for some reason couldn’t link up, and didn’t see on home page. Tnx.

Advised 290,

A metaphor is a figure of speech.

Tim,

It’s going in my handy quote book. Thank you.

Jen G,

The title is “DGA cries foul on WGA strike rules: Writers to resume talks with AMPTP tomorrow”

But… it’s gone. I tried to get back to it and it wouldn’t let me. Now it’s off the front page entirely.

Weird.

Basically, it said the DGA is disputing strike rules specifically in regards to showrunners and hyphenates. It said that showrunners would have to pick a guild. It listed four or five showrunners on our NegCom. Also, it said hyphenates should be allowed to write on movies in production. Same for showrunners.

I wish I read it more carefully. I apologize for my shoddy summary.

You described what Craig does as “exercising his First Amendment rights,” rather than “writing his opinion on a blog.”

Craig didn’t write his opinion on a blog. He wrote an opinion and published it on a blog. That is what you said was the “real issue” — not his writing the opinion, not the opinion itself, not the topic of the opinion, but the fact that it Craig published on The Artful Writer..

Are you now saying that was not the “real issue?”

You chose that description so as to suggest an equation between Craig’s critics and enemies of free speech.

No, you’ve drawn that equation. As I have made clear, I do not equate critics of how Craig exercises his First Amendment rights with enemies of free speech (or a free press, for that matter). And, as you made it just as clear, you equate your own criticisms of Craig’s decision to publish his opinions on The Artful Writer with enimity of free speech.

Hey, did you see this LA Weekly article?

• Ted

Interesting that the article got pulled…

Good reporting though, tnx SML.

Ed wrote: “And for all you producers, actors and directors out there thinking you do it, well here’s a few blank pages. Shoot them.”

Ed, once you’ve filled those blank pages with your carefully chosen words, I’d like to bring your pages to a cinema and see how many people buy a ticket to READ them.

Please, we all know that writers are not valued or appreciated as much as they should, but you’re doing youself - and your fellow writers - no favour trotting out this tired cliche`

Yes, you cannot shoot blank pages, but neither can you get people to watch a script. So get off your high horse, and realize that you need the people who turn your words into moving pictures as much as they need your beautifully printed pearls of wisdom.

Not exactly, Mariano, not from where I’m sitting, anyway. What Ed has in his hand is a story, and people are always hungry for good stories.

What do directors, producers, actors, and cinematographers have without a story?

Home movies.

SML:

Do editors in newspapers really have free speech? Or are they dictated to by the Rupert Murdochs and the Conrad Blacks of the world? Are you saying that only these men, because they can afford to publish, have the right to free speech?

No. The First Amendment guarantees publishers the right to determine what they will or will not publish, ie, the editorial policy of the publication. So, the publisher of a newspaper has the right to determine what will or will not be pubished in the newspaper. The publisher of a blog has the right to determine what will or will not be published on the blog. Etc.

• Ted

Jen G,

What’s your conspiracy theory? Does the DGA file press releases on the weekend? Or is it possible the DGA fed this info via the AMPTP to Variety early and an intern accidentally published it? This revelation basically says, “the DGA and the AMPTP are already friends, kiddos, so settle this or we will.”

Thoughts?

And on the positive side…

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974743.html?categoryid=1349&cs=1

The thing that struck me was that everyone’s reporting that both sides aren’t neg tomorrow, and yet this article said they were. I just thought that maybe this was off-record info and the reporter may have accidentally reported it — or something else was included and pulled when was double checked. I’ve seen this before on the weekends with the trades, articles getting posted & pulled, and always wonder if the editors are just glancing over the articles for approval — anyway, that’s my three cents.

SML (288), it’s not easy for me to say either, because I’ve been there and have mouths to feed and it was a few months of hell on more than one occasion for my family too. But perseverance and a few good friends got us through, just by the skim of our teeth. So while it’s not easy to say or do, it’s what has to be dealt with, and it can be, but it takes a special modest courage. People can be resilient when they want to be.

Ted,

You’re a pain in the butt…

Here is a sampling of questions I asked after my opening paragraph… without my ethical rhetoric, when possible:

“Don’t you think that’s what’s wrong with modern journalism?

“…what you’re telling me is that only those who can afford it have the right to free speech.

“[Don’t] those who can afford [free speech] not only have the [obligation] to support their own… but that of others?

“You two are doing a good thing. Why argue in the opposite direction?”

And the only question I would truly like you to answer: Doesn’t pondering the above list of questions form a GRAY fog in your mind?

Jon,

You’re right.

”Ed, once you’ve filled those blank pages with your carefully chosen words, I’d like to bring your pages to a cinema and see how many people buy a ticket to READ them.’

Tim kinda said it for me. But as any writer knows, one can hire any number of technically qualified people to film something. The true value is in whether that thing is worth filming or not.

Anonymous P:

Somehow I don’t see any of that ever happening but it was entertaining none the less. Besides, I like your postings.

Beth Schacter:

Will you marry me?

Ed and Tim,

We are talking about SCREENwriting, right? You can have the best story in the world but until that story becomes a movie that story is not available to an audience and stays a beautiful story in the writer’s drawer (or hard drive or notebook or…) hence the need for all those people capable of turning the story (written for the SCREEN) into a movie.

Granted if you are a director/producer/actor/performing dog you NEED a script, and if you are a screenwriter you NEED the people who turn that script into a movie.

Or do you genuinely think an audience is going to pay for you to READ the script to them?

“What do directors, producers, actors, and cinematographers have without a story?

Home movies.”

And what do screenwriters have when a script is only fixed on paper and doesn’t get turned into a movie?

Toilet paper. :)

Actually, Mariano, I’m talking storytelling. Last I heard, there were still other methods available to tell a story than by filming it. If I’ve got a great story I can turn it into a novel or a short story and sell it. I can turn it into a play and stage it. I can put it online or turn it into a podcast. At the very worst, I can sit around in bars and tell my stories and get free drinks and maybe even toothesome babes out of the deal. Meanwhile, at the other end of the bar, there’s a guy in a baseball cap and sunglasses who keeps yelling “Cut!” every few minutes. People are starting to edge away from him.

mariano you seem to have this READ thing in your head? A good script is one that comes from someone’s heart. That might not sit well with you and your audience ‘reading’ it mentality. But that’s how writers work, with an audience viewing it mentality.

You may not be a writer. And that’s okay. The more we can come together and understand each other the better.

No matter how much you don’t get it.

Question:

Does anybody think that there’s this much analogical dissent within the AMPTP? Somehow I don’t think so.

We’re all starting to sound like fucking cartoon characters. Like Cobra or something.

(Guess who’s Destro?)

Ed and Tim, maybe doing a bit more outreach, and cutting back a bit on the smug ‘we’re better than you’ shtick might actually help you gain some below the line support.

Mariano’s right, with out us, you’ve got nothing but an unpublished manuscript. Doesn’t matter what the intent of the story, or from how deep in one’s heart it came, it’s not a movie. If you want to tell storys, then try the radio, or maybe a podcast. If you want to make movies, then learn how to negotiate w/ the movie making industry- including us. Can you imagine (I know you can, because you’re ‘writers’) how short any WGA strike would be if you actually had the support of the IATSE or the DGA? Support as in us NOT crossing your picketlines?

My guess is about 45 minutes.

Tim, If there are so many other venues for your prose, why fight the AMPTP? wouldn’t it make more sense just to feed the other markets, and let hollywood starve a bit? Perhaps then they’d be more willing to pay you what you’re worth.

Truth is, you want to be a part of the movie making process. Until you can do it all yourself, you’re probably gonna need a few friends.

Below the line — No question whatever I want to make movies. And no question that’s a collaborative effort. EVERYBODY who works on a movie is the “author” of the movie. But the movie starts with a story. The heart of that movie is story. Audiences respond to story. And the story, more often than not, starts with a writer. The question isn’t one of whether the writer is “better than” or “superior to” a director, a grip, or a teamster. That’s a ridiculous question to ask. The question I have is why do producers often treat writers as if they weren’t as important as teamsters or grips? How often do teamsters get fired from a movie? How many grips aren’t allowed on the set? And why do writers often start to believe that they’re the lowest rung on the ladder? We’re not. We’re where it starts. I don’t know what kind of work you do in films, Below the line, but I’m new to Hollywood and looking for work — so whatever you’re doing, you’ve got a big leg up on ME in the industry. I can’t even join a picket line.

Ted said:

“I think Guild members are resigned to there being a strike, and I think a lot of them believe it will be short and result in the AMPTP agreeing to our demands.”

Ted: Are you in with the “lot of them” in your comment? If your prediction is different, can you please explain how? Thanks.

The Variety DGA article is back…

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974904.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

I’m a writer. And guys like Tim and Ed really make me hate writers.

What came first the Napoleon complex or the lack of respect given to writers?

And really, there are a finite number of stories in the ether, and producer can hire just about any moderately proficient screenwriter, give it The Rock and starting counting the money.

One thing there is no dearth of in Los Angeles are moderately competent screenwriters.

Napoleon complex? How did you find out about my plans to invade Russia this winter? Seriously, Anon, I’m not here to fling insults, even when they’re as funny as that one. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and hate me. It’s better than kicking puppies into oncoming traffic.

Although we all read Variety online, it is still primarily a print publication. As such, you are reading Monday’s paper Sunday night. Thus, the “Writers to resume talks with AMPTP tomorrow” construction. When read on Monday, tomorrow = Tuesday. It’s that simple, folks, and the body of the story even talks about the three-day break, as in, “The decision to take a three-day break will underline the town’s growing certainty that the WGA plans to take the talks down to the wire.” As opposed to what? Taking a shitty deal full of rollbacks that they know we would never take? I’m surprised that Bart has thrown aside his standards to side with the AMPTP like this. I always thought he was a journalist first. Trust none of what you hear, and less of what you see. This is what will be.

Tim Miller.

How could I hate you? I don’t know who you are. I’ve never heard of you. Nor has anyone else ever heard of you.

Craig and Ted,

Thanks for this site. You two care about our union and actually make me give a shit too.

Beth,

You, me, tequila…and whatever happens happens.

Marianne,

No, no, no. I staked a claim for Beth already. You and Cormac can watch if you want…

New Nick Counter interview “TV Week.”

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/10/qacounteronthestrike.php

Like many WGA members, I reside somewhere on the C-list and typically struggle to find work. I’ve always found it odd to belong to a union that offers no job security and provides health insurance only when one is making enough money to buy it privately anyway. (I always love the double whammy of getting my insurance cut off at the precise moment that I can’t get more work). So I’ve been told by other writers to “tighten my belt” in case of a strike, by buying a Toyota instead of a Mercedes. Uh, I can’t really afford a Toyota, either. I drive a Chevy (does that even qualify for the C-list?) So as we head toward a strike, forgive my smirk when I hear high-minded talk of “solidarity.”

Like many WGA members, I reside somewhere on the C-list and typically struggle to find work. I’ve always found it odd to belong to a union that offers no job security and provides health insurance only when one is making enough money to buy it privately anyway. (I always love the double whammy of getting my insurance cut off at the precise moment that I can’t get more work). So I’ve been told by other writers to “tighten my belt” in case of a strike, by buying a Toyota instead of a Mercedes. Uh, I can’t really afford a Toyota, either. I drive a Chevy (does that even qualify me for the C-list?) So as we head toward a strike, forgive my smirk when I hear high-minded talk of “solidarity.”

Kevin,

I agree, that particular scenario is unlikely. But change the studio head to some guy at a low-level production company, change the spec script he wants to buy from me into some project of his that I’m trying to squirrel my way onto, assume he’s talked to a couple of other writers he also liked, including one who sported some really cool-looking facial hair and had actually slept in his clothes, as opposed to just throwing the ones he’d worn the previous day back on when he woke up that morning, and now this guy’s got to sit down and decide which one of us he wants to live with for the next however-long.

I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that he might type our names into the leading search engine, just to get some vague sense of what we might be like when we’re not at a job interview. And if my online diary about my last project consisted mostly of long rants about how the asshole producer and the clueless director were gradually gutting every good idea, line, moment or image from beginning to end of the thing and demanding thundering mediocrity in its place (full disclosure: it might have read a little like that, if I’d kept one), he just might think, “You know, this guy sounds like a real fucking pain in the ass to be around. I’m picking that friendly fellow with the handsome goatee.”

Likely? Probably not. Conceivable? Well, I conceived of it, so therefore clearly yes. And it costs me essentially nothing to cross it off my list of shit to worry about, which is plenty long enough without it, so what the hell.

It may be there’s some corresponding benefit that I’m also missing out on by not signing my name to my deathless prose here, but if so, I can’t think what it is. Other than perhaps integrity, but hey, see all of the above on that point.

That’s right, Anonymous. No one’s ever heard of me. Your work, on the other hand, has been published in countless anthologies. I especially like that poem you did about the cuccu, the one that starts “Sumer is icumen in…”

I always felt that one could be box-office gold if you padded it a little.

Kevin,

I’m cool with watching. As Steve Martin said in The Jerk, “I’d just be happy to be in there somewhere.”

Marianne,

Now you up and mentioned Steve Martin and made me think of him in that movie with Claire Danes where he played that rich, creepy older dude who doesn’t crack jokes or do anything funny…ugh, it just ruined everything.

I’m useless to everyone now.

Anonymous P,

It’s okay, I get it. But if any of that were true, none of us would be working. I mean, have you read the shit that we say to each other?? I think we’re all two insults away from starting a Fight Club. Either way you sound like one of the few sensible, moderate, and open minded people in here so keep posting.

As if I have any say in the matter.

We’re going on strike in four days and everyone’s joking about lesbians? Should I commend you or condemn you?

Is everyone but me and Dan so rich that they’re viewing this as a nice vacation and a chance to catch up on that pile of magazines by the fireplace?

You people aren’t going to work for a year? Do you not care? Or are you planning to cross the line?

This is for real. WAKE TF UP!

Civil Writer -

If we go out now, the first two months of our strike will coincide with the seasonal slowdown that happens every year, so the absence of writers will not even be felt ‘til January. With careful managing, the networks could run original programming for the next two to three months. Theatrical won’t start to feel the pinch until March or so, when they’ll need to get projects developed for shooting in the summer and release in the fall/winter.

So I’m expecting at least four months. To be fair, though, it could be that a lot of members consider four months to be a short strike.

And I also don’t expect the AMPTP to meet all our demands. That’s the part of the optimism that’s just beyond me to understand.

• Ted

Josh 263,

Missed it the first time around.

First, thanks.

Second, of course this is Craig and Ted’s blog. They own it. They can do what they want with it. And, I’m not sure you’ll agree with me, but they do a pretty good job. I would even go as far as to say, and have already, that they, for the most part, support their participants’ rights to free speech.

But I’m not debating legalities here. I’m debating Craig and Ted’s ethical responsibility to the participants they’ve invited here (or that have been drawn here).

There’s a hypocrisy or a gray zone one falls into when they fight for their own freedom of speech in one breath and claim the right to censor other’s in the next (even if they don’t act on it).

I don’t really care about the black and the white of it. The gray is what interests me.

And I think it’s an important philosophical question to debate and define here. Especially in the context of a new digital horizon (ex. this blog). Especially since we are attempting to define other such horizons to the AMPTP. And especially since we are writers whose job it is to ponder such things…

(Okay, that wasn’t all directed at you… thanks for the springboard)

Anon 318,

“One thing there is no dearth of in Los Angeles are moderately competent screenwriters.”

And if only Hollywood could find them amongst the surfeit of people who call themselves screenwriters.

The world would be a better place.

Kevin’s right,

He and I have said MANY a dickish thing to each other (and to a whole lotta mo’ on this blog) and our careers are going great guns, thankyouverymuch.

Well, at least until Wednesday, anyway. Then I may have to write a graphic novel for fun, heh-heh.

Anon 332,

“We’re going on strike in four days and everyone’s joking about lesbians?”

To be fair, only a couple of us are joking about lesbians. Others here have in fact been joking about a whole range of topics, from conspiracy theories to Knight Rider. So please give us credit for our dedication to humor of all stripes.

Also: you seem to be a bit late to the party. You may have rolled out of bed sometime earlier this afternoon and gone, “Holy shit! I guess we’re about to go on strike or something! Fuck, man, that’s serious,” but quite a few of us have been discussing this here since the SAV was first announced—analyzing, complaining, informing, commiserating, trying to get a better understanding of what’s at stake, trying to work out what kinds of outcomes we hope for and what kinds we might be willing to settle for, discussing which issues we should bend or give up on and which ones are worth a fight to the death, trying to work out the kind of future we want to live in and—to your great surprise, I’m sure—encouraging each other to stand strong so we can get there. We’ve been doing this for four weeks now. Where the fuck were you?

I’m sorry we weren’t still hard at it tonight when you finally saw fit to wander in and declare yourself displeased with our lack of fervor and seriousness, but the news spigot has gone dry, it won’t start up again until sometime late Tuesday, and frankly, we’ve already talked through most of what substance there was to discuss in the meantime, several times over. So now we’ve moved on to just entertaining each other in the downtime, and maybe taking some solace in the company of others who are in the same boat.

“Do you not care? Or are you planning to cross the line?”

To both of these questions, I say in all seriousness, from the heart: Fuck you.

There, is that awake enough for you?

Anon P.,

I’m a fan, so I’m going to give you some unsolicited advice. If you’re good, and you definitely get me going, it doesn’t matter if you fornicated with your mother and bragged about it to Variety, Hollywood will still sleep with you until you’re loose as a goose.

They will cook you while you’re still partially conscious, eat you while maintaining that consciousness, and leave you on the side of the road with a shotgun in one hand and a bottle of Fiji in the other. They’ll squeeze all the green out of you, if you’re worth it. This is a guaranteed end (usually after 5 years I believe), but how you get there is your choosing.

I get this sinking feeling that when the mask of anonymity goes away, you edit yourself so as not to offend, to maintain the status quo, and your writing suffers for it. I hope that’s not the case.

But you could be Paddy Chayefsky resurrected for all I know and the jokes on me.

What was this blog about again?

Anon P. 337,

You spank with such eloquence.

For everyone else, an email from Verrone via Finke:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/strike-countdown-wga-forsees-many-rumors-lies-even-threats-predicts-low-ball-11th-hour-offer-by-amptp/

Syd,

An Oscar Wilde quote for you:

“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”

SML:

I have the same First Amendment rights you have. You have the same First Amendment rights I have.

What you’re arguing is that, because I (and Craig, but let’s say “I”) … because I choose to exercise my First Amendment rights to publish my opinion, I must exercise them so as to allow you to express your opinion publicly as well.

In other words, because I choose to exerice my First Amendment rights, my rights are now subordinate to yours.

Which means, of course, that I no longer have the same First Amendment rights you have. And — because your First Amendment rights are now superior to mine — you no longer have the same First Amendment rights I have.

Further: if my having exercised my right to publish a blog that allows you to post comments means I am obligated to ensure you can exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion publicly … then it also means that I can never cease publishing the blog, because doing so would violate your First Amendment rights.

Again, my First Amendment rights are subordinate to your own. Not the same. Unequal.

The mistake you are making is in thinking that if exercise my right to determine that the editorial content of my publication will be different from what you want it to be, it is “censorship.”

If you submit a short story to a magazine, and the magazine sends you a rejection notice because the story does suit their current editorial needs … do you think you have been censorerd?

I (and Craig) prefer the editorial content of The Artful Writer to include lively debate among and with readers … but, notice, the editorial content does not include a word about migratory habits of the Cassin’s Auklet … which ornothologists might consider censorship, or a violation of their First Amendment rights.

But they’d be wrong.

• Ted

SMI, don’t you mean foolish consistency?

Oh sorry, that was Emerson. I guess great writers don’t think alike.

Anonymous P (#337):

Bravo.

Ted,

My comments are in bold:

“SML:

“I have the same First Amendment rights you have. You have the same First Amendment rights I have.”

Agreed.

“What you’re arguing is that, because I (and Craig, but let’s say “I”) … because I choose to exercise my First Amendment rights to publish my opinion, I must exercise them so as to allow you to express your opinion publicly as well.”

Not necessarily. I think you welcome and advertise open debate. And while a forum for open debate exists on your site, I believe it is your responsibility to support our rights to expression within it.

“In other words, because I choose to exerice my First Amendment rights, my rights are now subordinate to yours.

“Which means, of course, that I no longer have the same First Amendment rights you have. And — because your First Amendment rights are now superior to mine — you no longer have the same First Amendment rights I have.”

I’m not arguing it’s your duty when exercising your First amendment rights to provide a place for others to exercise their First amendment rights. I’m saying it becomes your responsibility to protect those rights when you DO provide such a place for open expression.

“Further: if my having exercised my right to publish a blog that allows you to post comments means I am obligated to ensure you can exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion publicly … then it also means that I can never cease publishing the blog, because doing so would violate your First Amendment rights.”

Just because you close a forum that allows me to express my first amendment rights doesn’t mean you’re violating my rights. You violate them when you ask me to express and then claim ownership to those expressions.

“Again, my First Amendment rights are subordinate to your own. Not the same. Unequal.”

But the opposite is also true. By providing a forum for expression and then claiming that all expression therein is under your authority, you subordinate my rights to express. In fact, you say I have no rights under yours.

“The mistake you are making is in thinking that if exercise my right to determine that the editorial content of my publication will be different from what you want it to be, it is “censorship.””

I think it’s your mistake to assume these forums are your editorial content.

“If you submit a short story to a magazine, and the magazine sends you a rejection notice because the story does suit their current editorial needs … do you think you have been censored?”

It’s a magazine when it suits your argument. It’s a conference call when it suits mine. And yet the internet is an animal with limitless possibilities. It’s a space that has no hard definitions except the ones we create. It’s an unknown horizon. It’s GRAY.

“I (and Craig) prefer the editorial content of The Artful Writer to include lively debate among and with readers … but, notice, the editorial content does not include a word about migratory habits of the Cassin’s Auklet … which ornothologists might consider censorship, or a violation of their First Amendment rights. But they’d be wrong.”

Ornithologists would be mistaken to post here because most likely we would choose not to listen. However, since you provide a place for expression, you would be wrong to censor them.

There’s a paradox created when you claim lively debate as an editorial choice. It’s pure chance that debate will be lively. Or even that it will occur. Because you are reliant on the choice of free thinkers to participate. Don’t you think you should respect that choice by ensuring their freedoms?

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” Oscar Wilde

Tim wrote: “But the movie starts with a story.” Having been at this a fairly long time, I’d say that “the movie” starts with someone putting together the finances (including the money to pay for those wonderful 120 pages) which enable “the movie” to exist.

“Audiences respond to story.” I’d say the way that story is told has a lot to do with how audiences respond to it. And, as we are talking about screenwriting, “told” means how your wonderful words are translated into a movie by all those other people without whom all you’d have is a pile of paper.

“The question isn’t one of whether the writer is better thanor superior to a director, a grip, or a teamster. That’s a ridiculous question to ask.” And yet, you are the one reducing directors to “a guy in a baseball cap yelling “Cut!” As if that’s all a director does while the great writer does all the work.

“The question I have is why do producers often treat writers as if they weren’t as important as teamsters or grips?” The fact is that, once the movie starts principal photography, grips and teamsters are the wheels which make the juggernaut roll. And nobody wants, or can afford, to stop the juggernaut and waste millions of dollars. It’s a simple question of economics and the way the film INDUSTRY works.

“How often do teamsters get fired from a movie?” I don’t know, but nobody wants to be stuck without any means of transportation during principal photography (see “wasted millions”) so everybody is extra careful not to piss off the teamsters. :)

“How many grips aren’t allowed on the set?” Grips are necessary on set, otherwise the film cannot get made. I absolutely think that writers are necessary on set as well, BUT a short-sighted producer can argue the writer has already provided the script so, from a purely practical point of view, the writer is not as “necessary” as the grip to get the movie-making machine chugging along once the film is shooting.

“Actually, Mariano, I’m talking storytelling. Last I heard, there were still other methods available to tell a story than by filming it.” Yes, even if you address me with the condescending tone afforded someone you consider a true idiot, I am well aware that there are other ways of telling a story. Forgive me for thinking that we were specifically discussing screenwriting. If we are not, then all the cries of “directors don’t respect us, blah, blah…” don’t apply, do they? There’s no directors involved when you write a novel. Even I, with my semi-developed simian brain, can see that.

So, if what you are discussing is “storytelling” as some sort of pure ideal, why even mention the other people involved in the making of a MOVIE?

“If I’ve got a great story I can turn it into a novel or a short story and sell it. I can turn it into a play and stage it. I can put it online or turn it into a podcast.” And all those examples are relevant to a discussion about how writers are not respected by other people involved in the making of a movie how?!

“At the very worst, I can sit around in bars and tell my stories and get free drinks and maybe even toothesome babes out of the deal.” So that was you last night! That toothsome babe who was crying at your sob story is looking for you. You wrote down your number… but she can’t read your handwriting! :)

Ed, you wrote: “mariano you seem to have this READ thing in your head? A good script is one that comes from someone’s heart. That might not sit well with you and your audience reading it mentality. But that’s how writers work, with an audience viewing it mentality.” Well done, you’re arguing my point! If you work with an “audience viewing it mentality” (and you should specify screenwriter, lest someone starts thinking that I don’t know that novels which people actually read exist) then the way the audience will experience your story is by “viewing it” and not “reading it”. Thus, you need your words to be turned into a movie or the audience will have nothing to “view”.

“You may not be a writer. And that’s okay. The more we can come together and understand each other the better.” Why do you think I may not be a writer? Don’t you think another “writer” could see things differently from you? I make most of my income from being a “screenwriter” and writing scripts that other people turn into movies (with the other part of my income coming from donning a baseball cap and shouting “Cut” like the true idiot I really am… especially when I get all upset at the realization that I have to shout “Action” first!)

“No matter how much you don’t get it.” I seem to get IT all the time, thank you for asking! ;)

Greg,

Thanks for pointing that out.

Syd,

It appears great minds do think alike.

It hasn’t been publicly announced that I know of, but the Los Angeles Teamsters Local 399 held a meeting on Sunday, in which they instructed their members to honor the picket lines. This may have an immediate impact on many film and television shoots.

It’s pretty clear that the only thing barring an immediate strike is if the Federal Mediator calls for a “cooling off” period.

It should also be noted that a WGA strike that runs 4 months will certainly run longer, as the television season would effectively be over by that point, and the networks would have no incentive as the WGA would already have pressed the red button on that one.

**#318 I’m a writer. And guys like Tim and Ed really make me hate writers.

What came first the Napoleon complex or the lack of respect given to writers?

And really, there are a finite number of stories in the ether, and producer can hire just about any moderately proficient screenwriter, give it The Rock and starting counting the money.

One thing there is no dearth of in Los Angeles are moderately competent screenwriters.**

**#325 Like many WGA members, I reside somewhere on the C-list and typically struggle to find work. I’ve always found it odd to belong to a union that offers no job security and provides health insurance only when one is making enough money to buy it privately anyway. (I always love the double whammy of getting my insurance cut off at the precise moment that I can’t get more work). So I’ve been told by other writers to “tighten my belt” in case of a strike, by buying a Toyota instead of a Mercedes. Uh, I can’t really afford a Toyota, either. I drive a Chevy (does that even qualify for the C-list?) So as we head toward a strike, forgive my smirk when I hear high-minded talk of “solidarity.”

Posted by: Dan at October 28, 2007 9:54 PM**

You can’t get work cause you suck.

P for Putz.

Ted,

“I think Guild members are resigned to there being a strike, and I think a lot of them believe it will be short and result in the AMPTP agreeing to our demands.”

Stepping outside our usual dog and pony show, I just want to say that among the screenwriters I know, the assumption is virtually the opposite. The expectation is that it will be very long, and will result in minimal progress for us.

For a change, I’d say William Goldman’s oft-quoted line is correct, nobody knows anything.

SML,

Ted don’t do grey.

Mariano,

“Ed, once you’ve filled those blank pages with your carefully chosen words, I’d like to bring your pages to a cinema and see how many people buy a ticket to READ them.”

Last time I checked, my local bookstore was crammed with screenplays one could buy, take home, and read. Which has little to do with anything, but there are some truths so simple that one’s kinda duty bound to stand up for them when they’re being assaulted.

A writer without a director is a writer. A director without a screenplay is…. unemployed. (For the love of god, please let’s not get even further sidetracked as you list the handful of exceptions to that rule. And Koyaanisqaatsi had a script.)

Beth,

I have no recollection of meeting you, but thanks for reminding me of how annoying it is to be misquoted. Thank you also for reminding me that I must never, ever, ever assume an active sense of humor on the part of strangers.

Kevin,

“Does anybody think that there’s this much analogical dissent within the AMPTP?”

Well, no. But that’s probably because they know what “analogical” means. Whoever taught you that word lied.

Marianne,

Ick. Looking forward to seeing you kids on the line, though….

Josh, you’re one of a kind. You have no recollection of your conversation with Beth, but are sure that you were misquoted. That is some rigorous logic. ;)

And although I didn’t hear the conversation, I can vouch for Beth’s sense of humor. I’ve seen ample evidence of it.

Much like Cormac’s veracity and courage.

Josh wrote: “Last time I checked, my local bookstore was crammed with screenplays one could buy, take home, and read.”

Last time I checked those screenplays one could buy were screenplays which had already been produced as movies. Unless you live in an alternative reality where the bookshops are crammed with unproduced screenplays and people (civilans, NOT other screenwriters or film students) line up to buy those unproduced screenplays and read them at home.

Which has little to do with anything, but there are some truths so simple that one�s kinda duty bound to stand up for them when they�re being assaulted! ;)

if a director without a script is unemployed what does that make a screenwriter without a movie? You all keep very carefully avoiding the term “screenwriter” and keep to the more generic “writer” in an attempt to confuse the issue. Yes, you can be a writer in your own home. Yes you can write novels. Yes you can write shopping lists. Which has nothing to do with the discussion about how other people involved in the making of a movie don’t seem to respect the screenwriter. Or with the unassailable truth that a screenplay needs a movie as much as a movie needs a screenplay.

Mariano,

Read this from Jim Uhls blog (scroll down to #9 titled WHO IS THE REAL ENEMY):

http://www.thedialogueseries.com/blog/index.php?ano=2006&mes=9

Jeff,

“You have no recollection of your conversation with Beth, but are sure that you were misquoted. That is some rigorous logic.”

Indeed. And if you weren’t hell-bent on sniping at me at every opportunity, you’d get it. Try this - it’s a comment I’ve made many times before, to many people. She got it wrong. Simple.

“Much like Cormac’s veracity and courage.”

Gee, coming from you, that’s an unimpeachable assessment.

Next time I find myself in a room with those odious twits, I’ll be sure to be on the lookout for these traits. They were notably lacking in our last encounter.

Josh,

You’re still here?

I know one story that wasn’t misquoted.

Cuz I was there.

Anyone wanna ask me about it?

It’s the one where bad-ass ‘can’t let anything go’ bumped into a pair of writers whose work he’d slammed on WA. The writers were the Wibberleys. The bad-ass was Olson.

Now, it’s not like blows were thrown, but the remarkable thing about the story is that when confronted with the shit he talked on-line (about the Wibbs), Olson stammered and didn’t stand by his harsh words.

He was sheepish.

It could be that everyone is an asshole except for Josh. It could be that Beth misquoted him, and I can’t believe my own lying eyes. Maybe he got kicked off of WA for being righteous. Or, it could be that the truth is piling up.

Internet tyrant is running out of places to act tough.

Jeff,

I will not assume to understand in the slightest what you’re accusing Josh of, but it seems to me you’re attacking Josh for defending himself… which is kind of mean.

My only experience of Beth is this:

“I wish these wars were on topic and relevant to the discussion at hand instead of self indulgent male member measuring contests, but alas, the safety of on-line commenting is a double edged sword born of the double edged sword of free speech. You gotta tolerate the self described assholes. And the non self described ones too.”

She pretty clearly penetrates the conversation with her own member and uses Josh (and Ted, I assume by accident,) as her pincushion. She basically flopped her member down and asked Josh to do the same. You stepping in, albeit chivalrous, is quite chauvinistic. Maybe you should leave Josh and Beth to scratch it out for themselves. Or instead of using Beth as a springboard just tell Josh you want to see his member. I’m sure he’ll flop it out for you too.

(And yes, that sound, that dull thud you just heard, was my member entering the contest)

Yes, screenplays are sold in stores.

To schmucks.

If you want to know the true value of screenplays in and of themselves, check and see what they’re charging for them at Drew’s Script-o-Rama.

Even more telling is that the same companies that vigorously defend their copyrights for audio-visual material on YouTube don’t even raise a finger to defend their copyrights at Drew’s Script-o-Rama.

And why?

What are the damages?

Pretty much nothing.

A script for a produced film is financially worthless.

Hey,

What happened to Jeff’s 261 comment?

Malcolm,

Last name? E mail address?

Generally, if you’re going to post lies about someone, it’s proper etiquette to give your full name.

If you’re the other guy who was there, you were just as friendly as they were.

And just as unknown to me.

Craig,

“A script for a produced film is financially worthless.”

True, but they were fighting over the value of unproduced screenplays. Mariano believes they’re worthless without a director, Josh does not.

Craig,

“A script for a produced film is financially worthless.”

Well, you’re wrong. And what’s your point?

Yes, it’s true that the people who publish the Coen Brothers’ screenplays don’t make as much money as, say, the folks who finance their films, but the fact remains - people buy screenplays.

I suppose questioning their character and intelligence is one way to go, but is that really a door you want to open?

Personally, in a weird way, I’m kinda with you. As a writer, I’ve learned precious little from reading screenplays. It’s not a fruitful endeavor for me. But it is for some folks. And the fact remains - you can, actually, sell a screenplay without a movie. Much harder to sell a movie without a screenplay.

So I ask again - what’s the point? The original comment was an off the cuff remark to the effect that writers are primary and essential. You’re arguing this?

Well, there are clearly two theories that can explain this.

1. Everyone who meets Josh in person then lies about the encounter, painting him in the same light.

2. …

I find this internet fighting shit silly but I felt obliged to speak up.

I’m gonna send you an email now.

SML, a script is written with the express purpose of getting that script made into a movie, is it not? A script, it doesn’t matter how well written, is not an end in itself but the means to an end (a movie).

The remark that started this whole thread was the old, odiously arrogant cliche` “here’s 100 blank pages, work your magic on that, Mr. Director!”

If we take a script as one of the steps (even if you want to call it the bigger step) towards the realization of a movie, then it works the other way, too. If those pages are not turned into a movie, can you really say that they fulfilled the purpose for which they were created?

a script comes into existence with a very clear goal. A novel is complete the moment you type the words “the end”. Those pages contain everything your readers need to enjoy your story. If you’re a screenwriter, you’re writing for the screen, right? A script needs to become a movie before the audience can enjoy it.

I never called the script “worhtless.” I was pointing out the interdipendence of all the elements that make up “a movie.” A script needs people to turn that script into a movie and a movie needs a script that all those people can turn into something the audience can watch… Unless, once again, you can point me in the direction of a theater (or even a tv set) where people line up and buy tickets to read scripts.

First, I think this is a crap time for people to be getting sucked into this ego bullshit. The strike should trump this.

Second, I think it’s fine if you want to criticize people and attack what they say, or the way they present themselves, but the constant attempts by a small and nasty group of people to damage the personal reputation of someone they don’t agree with is slimy and disgusting, irregardless of whether or not the events actually happened or not.

I don’t see Josh posting stories about people. I see him offering strong arguments and some times he goes over board, but these are obviously just opinions. I don’t blame him for responding when someone attacks him personally, but can’t you all just set this aside until the larger issue has passed?

One other thing - if integrity gives us National Treasure and cowardice gives us History of Violence, give me cowardice any day.

SML:

This is really the meat of the issue:

I’m not arguing it’s your duty when exercising your First amendment rights to provide a place for others to exercise their First amendment rights. I’m saying it becomes your responsibility to protect those rights when you DO provide such a place for open expression.

When you post a comment on The Artful Writer, you are not exercising your First Amendment rights. This means your First Amendment rights cannot possibly be in jeopardy, and so do not require being protected.

Your First Amendment rights are the right to free speech — which has been interpreted to mean a live expression in some way , a demonstration if you will — and the right to free press — which has been interpreted to mean distributing copies of your expression to the public, made by any technological process capable of making copies.

When you’re writing a comment for The Artful Writer, you are not exercising either of those rights. When you hit the “post” button, you still are not exercising either of those rights. Rather, I am exercising my right to distribute copies of my expression publicly so as to be inclusive of your expression …

… but it’s still my expression, and if your expresion is something I don’t want to expresss … I have no respsonbility, duty or obligation to exrpess it.

You can’t make me say what you want me to say, you can’t make me publish what you want me to publish.

And I can’t do that to you, either. If you make a speech, I can’t make you say something you don’t want to say. If you publish a blog, I can’t make you publish something you don’t want to publish. No one can make you do that, and, explicitly in the Bill of Rights, the government can’t make you do that.

If I choose not to publish a comment you wrote on The Artful Writer (an exercise of my First Amendment rights) I am not preventing you from publishing that comment yourself (an exercise of your First Amendment right).

I do understand what you’re saying about those with the means to provide a platform for others’ self-expression have an obligation to ensure others’ self-expression is not misrepresented or altered so as to express something different from what is intended, and I agree with it.

But, by the same token, those who avail themselves of platforms for self-expression provided by others have an obligation not to abuse that — and I use this word intentionally - privilege.

• Ted

Josh;

Stepping outside our usual dog and pony show, I just want to say that among the screenwriters I know, the assumption is virtually the opposite. The expectation is that it will be very long, and will result in minimal progress for us.

Screenwriters, yes. The “short strike/big win” sentiment seems to be fairly common among writers working in television, though.

• Ted

Mariano,

“The remark that started this whole thread was the old, odiously arrogant cliche` “here’s 100 blank pages, work your magic on that, Mr. Director!”

It’s neither arrogant, nor a cliche.

“If we take a script as one of the steps (even if you want to call it the bigger step) towards the realization of a movie, then it works the other way, too. “

Except it doesn’t.

“If those pages are not turned into a movie, can you really say that they fulfilled the purpose for which they were created?”

That’s quite different. A screenwriter is not dependent on a director to be able to CREATE something.

” Unless, once again, you can point me in the direction of a theater (or even a tv set) where people line up and buy tickets to read scripts.”

A silly point that’s already been knocked down. People don’t like up and buy tickets to read books in theaters, either.

People DO buy scripts. People DO read scripts for entertainment. A screenplay is a finished work.

KC,

Um…. Thanks. I think.

“Irregardless” isn’t a word.

Just for the record.

Although it’s a wacky double negative, “irregardless” is indeed, a word.

It’s just one of the stupid ones.

And National Treasure made me like Nicolas Cage again. But then I saw Ghost Rider so I’m back at square one.

“People DO buy scripts. People DO read scripts for entertainment. A screenplay is a finished work.”

Okay, that confirms to me that you do live in an alternative universe.

Oh, Josh, I forgot… the “silly point” about people not lining up to read a screenplay has not been knocked out. Of course people do not line up to read books in theatres. Nor do they line at bookstores to read screenplays.

Books are designed to be read by an audience, scripts are not. There’s no further step with a novel. A novel IS a finished work. It can be enjoyed by its readership as a work of literature. A screenplay is designed to be read… by the people who are going to turn it into a movie!

“According to Josh, his size made it impossible for him to physically accost people in high school, so now he’s taking his revenge out on people on-line. Again, Josh’s words. Not mine.”

I’m sorry, how does that make any sense?

“I know one story that wasn’t misquoted. Cuz I was there.”

Yeah, uh… for anyone interested, I happen to know one person who did IN FACT witness the Infamous Wibberley Incident. Since you were there Malcolm, you probably know to whom I refer. And you probably also know that this person would have had zero interest in internet mudslinging between a bunch of word dorks. Amazingly, his account of the I.W.I. was nothing like the Mexican stand-off Cormac would like the internet to believe. In fact, he was genuinely surprised that the “incident” — an unremarkable exchange of pleasantries — was a topic worthy of discussion.

He said/she said/who cares. And even if the Cormac version of the story were true, what’s the point? Did he honestly expect Josh to rip out his throat with a Bowie knife?

Granted, I would’ve. But I don’t have Olson’s trademark restraint.

“Unless, once again, you can point me in the direction of a theater (or even a tv set) where people line up and buy tickets to read scripts.”

Regardless (or irregardless if you prefer) of whether or not anyone pays to read it, a script is a stand-alone work of art. It COULD be published. It might even find an audience. Many stage plays have had such success. There was this guy named Shakespeare for instance, wrote a few plays, and apparently there are some people who like to read them as-written, even though they aren’t being FULLY REALIZED as works of art via a stage director and actors.

Just as you COULD make a film without a script. No narrative, no dialog, just a montage of interesting images and some crazy sounds… see the works of Kenneth Anger. Very hot.

What you could NOT do is make say, NATIONAL TREASURE, without the script for NATIONAL TREASURE. And though the script may be not be THE final product, it is A final product. The actors standing around on an empty set doing nothing, though beautifully shot and edited… not so much.

As a matter of fact, there have been novels written (and published) in screenplay format. Michael Turner’s “American Whisky Bar” for instance. I heard about another one recently, but for the life of me can’t remember what it was.

Mariano:

The point is not that a script is the biggest step in the production of a mojor picture. It’s that it’s the FIRST step. The urknall. The genesis. No story, no movie. Ya dig?

no script = no movie

no director = still a script

(i.e. a product that can be sold, read, and - as you suggest - be used to wipe your ass with).

Kevin,

“Although it’s a wacky double negative, “irregardless” is indeed, a word.”

Holy mother of God.

This is the second time today I’ve felt compelled to buy you a dictionary.

It is a word in the same sense that “potrezbie” is a word. However, in the sense that is improper usage and, in fact, means the exact same thing as “regardless,” and is only in the dictionary as an example of mis-usage, it is not a word.

Mariano,

“Of course people do not line up to read books in theatres. Nor do they line at bookstores to read screenplays.”

Ah, so now the argument only works if screenplays are topping the best seller charts. People aren’t lining up in bookstores to read poetry, but poetry is, indeed, published.

Screenplays are published. They are sold in bookstores. Some are unproduced. Undirected movies do not, as a rule play anywhere. These are facts. Feel free to deny them, but once you do, you become so utterly ridiculous it’s impossible to take anything else you say seriously.

As for the world I live in, I suspect my CV gives me enough credibility that when I say I know what a screenplay is, it carries a teeny bit of weight.

“Books are designed to be read by an audience, scripts are not.”

Perhaps your scripts are not written to be read by an audience, but mine sure as hell are. It helps get them made, and keeps me in work.

Ted,

“… but it’s still my expression, and if your expresion is something I don’t want to expresss … I have no respsonbility, duty or obligation to exrpess it.”

You say your site is akin to a newspaper and I can see that, but here’s the sticky problem: it’s a LIVE newspaper. Meaning, it’s an animal we’ve never seen before with new rules and definitions. You choose to be a LIVE newspaper and with that choice comes responsibility (Spiderman or is it Batman). You can’t have the benefits of this new form and, then, when it suits you, fall back on archaic publishing methods as precedent.

You DO NOT have an obligation to publish my free speech. But you’ve created a place for me to publish mine without submitting to the formalities of moderation or physically mailing you a letter. So you owe it to us, if you want to have a place of live discussion, to support our voices in your forum.

You can take away that forum or adjust your policies where we would have to SUBMIT to your first amendment rights. But instead you’ve given us a place with a POST button. You’re given us free speech. You should be proud.

Josh,

Wow.

You can’t be this dumb. Seriously, you’re putting on an act, right?

You just said that “Irregardless” isn’t a word even though it’s in the dictionary because it’s a double negative?

So it’s in the dictionary because the authors felt compelled to tell people, “Hey, don’t use this word. It doesn’t exist. Even though you’re reading it in the fucking dictionary.”

Are you insane?

Just because a word is used incorrectly, doesn’t negate its existence.

Josh, just because you have the Oscar nomination, doesn’t necessarily mean that your opinion is infallible.

So your opinion “carries some weight”. Good for you. It must be lovely to have the “do you know who I am?” card up your sleeve.

Unproduced scripts are published now? Can you give me an example of an unproduced script published and available for sale as a work of literature? I’m genuinely curious. Maybe I’ll discover there’s a whole subculture I was totally unaware of.

Hard to have a blow to your career, Jon Raymond, if you don’t HAVE a career. LOL!

Mariona:

You can read, no? Look to comment #379 to the answers to all your questions.

Neil Gaiman’s “A Screenplay” is another example, and not even the one I was thinking of but couldn’t remember.

“Just because a word is used incorrectly, doesn’t negate its existence.”

Kevin, with irregardlessness to your last post: there’s a new website called Google. I’ve found it useful for keeping my foot out of my mouth.

Travis, I feel for you.

Marriano, if you are a writer then my apologies for suggesting you might not be. I just find it odd that someone purporting to be a writer comes on a writing message board and essentially denigrates the value of writers.

The unavoidable truth of the matter is that many more spec screenplays are sold than movies are made. Often for considerable sums. Ergo, a screenplay obviously has a stand alone value.

Equally obviously, many other factors are required to turn that screenplay into a movie. But it is an extreamly fatueous argument to suggest that the most important part is the person who buys the screenplay rather than the screenplay itself. Or the director. or the actor. or the DP. Or the grip. Or the countless others who toil to get it to the screen. It’s like a jockey arguing that the most import part of a horse is the saddle.

Imom,

Maybe you should read the entire page…

Kevin,

“Just because a word is used incorrectly, doesn’t negate its existence.”

There is no correct way to use the word. Ergo…. Do the math.

Is this an analogical debate?

Mariano,

“Josh, just because you have the Oscar nomination, doesn’t necessarily mean that your opinion is infallible.”

I never thought it did, nor did I bring it up. But thanks for clarifying where YOU’RE coming from. I’ve been writing screenplays professionally for about a decade. Of the few things that allows me authority on, I can safely say I do know what a screenplay is. Your own credibility on the subject, however, becomes more questionable by the minute.

“Unproduced scripts are published now?”

They have been for DECADES. You clearly have access to the internet. Use it. It will take you less than thirty seconds to find a list of several, and access to their purchase.

Now that we’ve officially established you literally do not know what you’re talking about, what say you just stop this?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Damn those odious twits at Merriam-Webster! Glad to know you think you’re smarter than them as well. Can you fly as well?

Keep it sexy, Cobra Commander!

Josh,

You might want to look this one up as well:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogical

(I’m suddenly reminded of that director you know that’s illiterate…) Peh, what do I know? I don’t live on the west coast so I must be a fucking idiot!

Another novel written in screenplay form is The Interceptor Pilot.

Mariano, I don’t know if you’re just trolling at this point, but the idea is not that the other creative elements of a film should be denigrated relative to the screenplay, but that the screenplay should not be denigrated relative to the other elements.

Which, in practice, it is. The idea that the actual story is worth only an infinitessimal percentage of the total cost of a film is absurd at best.

A studio may think that $20 million is worth the number of butts that Vince Vaughn will put in seats, and that’s fine, but those butts won’t be there without a script, A-list star or no.

Kevin,

Truly bizarre. The dictionary link you provided clearly explains that “irregardless” is improper usage, ending with “Use regardless instead.” So thanks for making my point for me, but I’d already kinda made it.

You follow that with a proper definition of the word “analogical,” which shows quite clearly that your previous usage of it was, at best, a very strange choice, as none of the arguments you referred to were analogical in nature.

I’m coming to the conclusion that maybe I know TWO directors who are illiterate.

Thanks for the yoks, though.

Josh,

Maybe you are clearly insane. Or you just skipped over this sentence from the link:

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however.”

I can’t wait to hear your excuse on this one…

There is, however, no circumstance in which its use is proper. Much like “potrzebie.” As I said, ergo….

Ergo my ass.

You said it wasn’t a word. It is. You’re just not man enough to admit you were clearly wrong.

End of story.

Kevin,

Use “irregardless” properly in a sentence.

As for man enough to admit to being wrong… I somehow missed the post a while back where you apologized to me for getting the whole David C thing wrong. Last I saw, you just disappeared. Maybe that was a different Kevin Arbouet.

Josh,

Use “irregardless” properly in a sentence.

Okay.

“Although Josh Olson is totally wrong, irregardless is a word.”

How’s that?

Regarding the David C thing, you’re right, I got confused between you and Johnny. He was the one arguing with him, not you.

Your turn.

Edit:

The sentence was supposed to say:

“Although Josh Olson was totally wrong, he still wouldn’t admit that irregardless is a word.”

Kevin,

If you tried that in an 8th grade English class, you’d get an F.

You didn’t use it properly.

Because you can’t.

“Regarding the David C thing, you’re right, I got confused between you and Johnny. He was the one arguing with him, not you.”

See how easy that was? So what would that make the guy who called me a moron for arguing with David C?

Josh,

If you tried that in an 8th grade English class, you’d get an F.

What grade do you have to be in to read the dictionary?

It’d be nice just admit that you’re wrong because I’d rather not feel sorry for you…which is what you’re making me do.

Either way, it’s cool to see what kind of man you really are in front of everyone.

Psst…unfortunately for you, you can’t deny this story.

Oh, dear lord, Kevin. I’m not only not denying it, I’ve sent links to friends who don’t believe the kind of insane shit you pull here. It’s delightful. It’s beautiful. Because, see, sometimes one forgets that this kind of willful ignorance actually exists.

Now, I don’t know if you’re genuinely as sub-literate as you come across, or if you’re just willing to pretend to be so for the sake of convincing yourself you won an argument. But either way, it’s fascinating.

I’d say you should talk to an English teacher or a grammarian about this, but then, you’d come back and lie about whether or not you had.

Regardless, you can’t use “irregardless” properly in a sentence, nor can you even admit that you can’t. Which is genuinely fascinating to me.

And I’m supposed to believe you have actual friends? Now I know you’re lying.

The fact that you think you’re smarter than the actual dictionary is absolutely amazing. I bet you also believe that you can bend spoons.

If you want an example of how to irregardless in a sentence why don’t you read the one that was provided in the dictionary.

Christ Kevin, give it up! Josh asked you to use a word in a sentence and you didn’t.

Goobledickdax is not a word!

And the above sentence doesn’t make it one.

Even the dictionary link YOU provided emphasizes that irregardless in not commonly used in writing and suggests one should use regardless instead. You being a writer should aim to use words PROPERLY!

See, using big words only makes you look smart if you actually know what they mean!

Kevin,

“The fact that you think you’re smarter than the actual dictionary is absolutely amazing”

I was truly going to leave this behind, but then you go ahead and say this.

I think the fact that you DON’T think you’re smarter than an inanimate object is something far more than amazing.

“If you want an example of how to irregardless in a sentence why don’t you read the one that was provided in the dictionary.”

Well…. the one you provided didn’t contain one.

Gah! Must stop. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

As in slow fish…in a small barrel…wielding two uzis.

Josh,

Ok, it’s official.

I now feel bad for you.

What about irregard? Is that a word? It should be. It’s pretty. Like a Nordic ship captain.

Josh,

Shame on you.

What you’re doing to Kevin is cruel, mean-sprited, obvious and beneath you.

But damn, man. It’s funny as hell.

Aaron, you’re absolutely right when you say that without a script there wouldn’t be any movie for an audience to enjoy. All I have been saying is that the script must be, at some point, turned into a movie before an audience can have a chance to park their bums on those cinema seats. So no script = no movie but no movie = no audience for that script.

And yes, Josh, you are right in that some unproduced scripts are published. I stand corrected. But I think the term “unproduced” tells its own story. those scripts were not written to be published, they were destined for production… and weren’t produced. It still points out to something which has not fulfilled its intended purpose. I believe a script is a step in the creation of a movie; a means to an end and not an end in itself. That’s all.

IMDB Glossary of Terms defines screenplay as: “A script written to be produced as a movie.” and a screenwriter as: “A writer who either adapts an existing work for production as a movie, or creates a new screenplay.” Wikipedia: “A screenplay or script is a blueprint, written by a screenwriter, for a film or television program. Screenplays can be original works or adaptations from existing works such as novels.” Merriam-Webster’s definition: “the script and often shooting directions of a story prepared for motion-picture production .” Oxford Dictionary’s definition: “the script of a film …” etc. etc.

So, obviously I am not the only one who thinks that screenplay are created for the express purpose of being turned into movies and not as works of literature in their own right.

The fact that Josh maybe writes his scripts with a mastery of the language that would turn Stephen King green with envy, still doesn’t negate the fact that those wonderful words are written “for motion picture production.”

Mariano,

Don’t bother. Josh doesn’t believe in the dictionary.

“As a matter of fact, there have been novels written (and published) in screenplay format. Michael Turner’s “American Whisky Bar” for instance. I heard about another one recently, but for the life of me can’t remember what it was.”

TC Boyle wrote a hilarious short story in the form of a screenplay TREATMENT. “Heart Of A Champion.” In it, Lassie abandons little Timmy for a randy coyote.

Mariano,

All well and fine, but you’re now changing the point. Your initial statement was, “Yes, you cannot shoot blank pages, but neither can you get people to watch a script.”

In response to this, it was pointed out that people do, actually, pay money to read screenplays, an idea you balked at.

The essence of your argument was that a screenplay without a movie was as useless as a director without a screenplay (in the world of fictional, narrative-based film, obviously.)

It has since been shown to you that, in fact, a screenplay without a movie IS an existing, finished piece of work, and one that actually has value. Yes, it has not fulfilled its ultimate function, but it still serves more of a useful function than a director without a screenplay.

The point, in the end, is that the screenwriter’s craft results in a piece of work that provides a solid, aesthetic experience. A director, on the other hand, is dependent on someone (perhaps him/herself) first providing that complete experience.

A screenwriter without a movie is still a writer. A director without a screenplay is that guy at the coffee shop who keeps asking if your script’s done yet.

“The fact that Josh maybe writes his scripts with a mastery of the language that would turn Stephen King green with envy”

Don’t know what your screenwriting experience is, or your experience with screenwriters, but that is one of the goals. It is writing, ya know. Mastering the language is an essential part of that process, IRREGARDLESS of the fact that some folks who practice it seem to be functionally illiterate. (Shout out to my pal, K.A.!)

Father Frank,

I know. I can’t help myself. Arrogant ignorance draws me in like a moth to a flame, and Kev is the king.

My favorite still being the last go-round when he kept insisting I’d written something here that I hadn’t, when all he had to do - ALL HE HAD TO DO!!! - was scroll up the page a few lines to double check. Hilarious.

My favorite still being the last go-round when he kept insisting I’d written something here that I hadn’t, when all he had to do - ALL HE HAD TO DO!!! - was scroll up the page a few lines to double check. Hilarious.

My favorite was the part where Olson said that irregardless wasn’t a word and when the dictionary said it was, he still tried to argue the point! Too bad it wasn’t hilarious, it was just sad…

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however.”

Yikes.

Kevin -

“Irregardless” is a redundancy. It is an improper form of the correct word, “regardless.” If you say, “irregardless,” you are using a double-negative. Either the prefix “ir” negates the suffix “less” or the “less” negates the “ir,” which makes it illogical.

People use this word all the time, but they are dumb people.

Anonymous:

I wasn’t advocating the use of irregardless. I was merely pointing out its existence.

I keep waiting for someone to challange the other to meet them behind the cafeteria after 5th period.