The Bad Guy

Hey Craig, Just wanted to be first! But bravo on your post.

Now to finish that post. I may disagree with you on a few issues, like directing during the strike should there be one (regardless of contractual obligations, like how NBC still owes me money contractually but I haven’t been able to get it!) but your post summed up the sentiment that we all feel. We (WGAw writers) may disagree about many things and we may battle it out among ourselves, but when it comes to negotiating with the AMPTP we are standing together and, at least, for myself, trying to convince others to stand with us. I think anyone who may have doubted where you stand can no longer question that’s it firmly behind this strike should it happen.

Umm…

…no.

I’m not firmly behind “this strike” should it happen.

I’m firmly behind a strike against these proposals.

If the AMPTP gets off this mark and starts bargaining on internet, then I might be against a strike.

And again, seriously, I don’t think any director walked off a set mid-production in 1988. So stop saying that stuff like it has any relation to reality.

Very, very well-said.

Great Essay!

I’m another moderate and I’d love not to strike. But if they keep their BS on the table and won’t negotiate reasonably then I’ll walk right beside you, picket sign held high.

Excellent article. Cuts right through all of the prattling nonsense and puts the focus where it needs to be: Bargain in good faith. Bravo!

Craig,

I assume you believe, as I do, that the doubling of DVD resids is a lost cause or, more rightly, a cause already dealt with. Based on that assumption, is it weakness on the WGA’s part to pull it from the table first?

I agree that the AMPTP’s points are insulting and I’m all for STRIKING TO THE DEATH!!!!, but shouldn’t we, in the least, show that we can be reasonable before the death chants start?

I’m a baby to this world, and especially to the logic of Hollywood negotiation, so it’s possible the WGA is being more than reasonable, but I don’t see it.

Of course AMPTP are bullies and there is a certain pleasure in just saying, “Fuck you.” We should show that we’re bigger than that first. Put away the blanks (DVD resides) and then, when AMPTP are still being dicks, pull out the real guns and start shooting (the strike).

Thanks,

Seth M. Lochhead

I think I finally got the residual are not a reward premise. A

ctually, I’m sure I don’t but here’s me giving it a shot: the two words you and Ted use a lot are “business agreement.” For whatever reason, reading your post may have cleared the clouds. So here it goes…

The guilds are these places that have specialized parts that can be used to make movies. If the studios wanna use them, the deal is we get a %.

Because they’re reusable. They can keep making new money over and over again. Basically they’re cash machines. Some are trickier and more expensive to make, some just don’t print fast enough to make back the money they cost to build (although over time, even the slowest cash machine might be able to print 100mill), so the studios get to keep a bigger percent cuz they’re taking the financial risk.

So we’ve all agreed that win or lose, they get bigger %. We just want our small % and we’re cool.

I bet I’m kinda off, but it’s making more sense to me.

SML:

Yes, we should be reasonable as well.

I think the two sides are “wedge issue”-ing themselves to death. They’re so petrified of giving up any ground on the playing field that matters, they won’t even come out of the locker rooms.

Craig (8),

Thanks.

I beg to differ (a little) with SML and Craig. A bit of patience might be in order here.

First, the vote does still need to come back to make this whole thing really, truly, point-of-no-return official. I think the vote’s going to be overwhelmingly in favor, myself, and I believe we have the AMPTP and the unbridled prickery of their proposals to thank for that; they finally found that magic combination of “unreasonable” and “offensive” that would make even fairly moderate sorts exclaim “Over my dead body, motherfucker!” (So thanks, fellas.) But there may be a few folks out there on both sides still holding out hope that we’ll blink.

Second, I think the deadline needs to draw a bit nearer. Management, I suspect, is still desperate to believe that they’ll be able to stockpile enough hastily-commissioned stuff in the next couple weeks to keep this from hurting them as much as it’s going to. Ever watched a bunch of people try to get way too much work done in way too little time? They tend to stay optimistic a bit longer than they really should; only when the deadline begins to loom immediately ahead (or overhead) do they finally accept that not everything’s going to get finished the way they’d hoped. And that’s when the smarter ones among them start looking for a different way out.

We writers, I think, are already resigned to this, by and large. We’ve made what preparations we can make. There’s very little else most of can do from this point forward but ride it out.

Management still thinks they can beat it. But as we come up on the wire at the end of the month, I think we’ll see that view shift, quite hard. Maybe even hard enough to start them negotiating for real.

I have no idea whether the decision to call the strike-authorization right when we did was a long-planned piece of strategy, or a last-minute desperation move once it became clear that the DGA intended to negotiate this round out from under us, but it looks (at least to me) like a masterstroke of timing. It gave all concerned just enough time to crap their pants as they realized we were serious, but not enough time to really change anything (since everyone else’s master plans had us waiting till sometime next year before we even thought about doing this). I continue to hope that the former explanation is the correct one, just because it bodes better for the next phase, but I’m in no position to make the call.

Counterintuitive as it may seem, though, I think time is on our side over the next couple weeks. We’ve got nothing left to lose at this point. Management still does. And the closer the day comes, the more they’ll realize it.

In my humble opinion.

Craig, remember what you wrote about “investing faith in the hitherto unreliable”? Now’s the time, man.

Patience.

We’ll all know soon enough whether it was justified.

Forgive my board-speak… it’s a bit casual, anyway: I’m a writer, not in the union, but have been trying to get in and am really close to acceptance. And so, I’ve been out here for a while hustling my ass off trying to make things happen and believe it or not things have finally come together. I have a script setup at a studio plus a lot of buzz and meetings with the big dogs round town. So, when this strike talk got for real-real, I was damn bummed. Here I am, about to actually bust some shit loose and blam a freeze is about to happen. So I mired in that caca until I met up with a student of mine down at a mission on skid row, where I volunteer. During class this student, who is getting his BA from a great school in LA just found out that he needs a liver transplant. He’s got no money. Barely shelter and he needs a miracle to save his life. And yet he was more positive about his future than most bloggers are here… that includes myself. Then I kinda felt like a selfish douche. So, I think putting some perspective on this really helps and gives strength to know what to fight for and what to let go… because it’s a short time to be here and a long time to be gone… smoke that jerry.

Anon P (11).,

That’s logical. If it succeeds we’re peachy. But what if it’s less than stellar? Then where do we sit?

The unknown outcome of the vote is a negotiating advantage and our committee is sitting on it waiting for it to succeed… or fail. If it fails we’ll have to give up more than DVD resids.

Anom Boom,

I have no legs. Please go to your mission and feed that boy some soup.

SML,

I agree. I just trust that the vast majority of us, regardless of whether they like this strategy, regardless of whose fault they think it is that we’ve come to this point, are smart enough to see that, too, now that we’re here. I could be wrong. But when the choice is between “risk losing everything” and “just lose everything,” I think people will tend to see the benefit in taking the risk.

And votes made while holding noses count the same, in the end, as votes cast with an enthusiastic flourish. At least where the view from the other side of the table is concerned.

For me, the thing that really requires a leap of blind faith (with nothing other than hope to support it, quite honestly) is believing that the people on our side of the table, deep down, get it. That despite the things they profess publicly as part of their bargaining posture, they secretly agree with me (and Craig, and lots of others) that internet is the only show that really matters this time around.

I hope the DVD residuals issue is just a bargaining chip, to be traded for a few of theirs in due course. As Dennis Miller (or somebody) once said, “Two of shit is still shit.” Even if we did manage to double that rate, it wouldn’t exactly change a lot of lives. Righting a historic wrong is nice in principle, but we’ve all survived this long without doing so.

The thought that truly makes me sit up and worry is the possibility that some people at the bargaining table might feel that their names have become so synonymous with—oh, let’s say, hypothetically—organizing reality TV, or some such issue, that they just won’t be able to bring themselves to let it die when the proper time comes. (Which it should, this time around.) If our leadership’s incentives and goals are truly out of step with those of the membership at large, then yeah, it’s gonna be a long winter and a dismal spring, with no great reward at the far end.

So I just try to take heart in the fact that there are other voices at the table, too, and hope that they’re sufficiently persuasive when the time comes.

(But in any case, as you say, the long-term consequences of voting “no” would still be worse.)

Anon p. (15),

The realist and, to be honest, the scared-y cat in me agrees with you.

But the idealist in me says we shouldn’t be forced and we shouldn’t be bullied into a vote by our own guild. I think it’s wrong for anybody, including the Guild and AMPTP, to use emotion as a tactic.

Logic and reason should come first… and then, when that doesn’t work, fear and anger. Thoughts?

Anon p (16).,

It’s a huge leap of faith. HUGE. Because, to my mind, they’ve been as stubborn as the AMPTP. And, in the long run, that stubborness could hurt us just as much as a low vote.

The idea that Craig should not direct his film in case the writers’ strike happens is ludicrous.

It has no legal, contractual or otherwise ex officio basis.

Fuckit, it doesn’t even have a moral basis!

It’s just batshit crazy.

Of course he’s not allowed to change any of the dialogue though…

i’ve got a dead horse behind the barn, anybody want a shot at it?

i’m not downplaying the importance here, but another 500mil plus lost by the studios? it will be plus, that was from 1988. Vote to strike. make a stand. deal gets done. win win sometimes it really is that simple

i have to say this though we will get screwed, like always takin that .3% to the bank everyday

hell i change my mind… strike to the Death

Writers shouting ‘Strike!’ at times like this, dicks wagging in the wind, reminds me of the drunk loudmouth at the bar who wants to take on half the bar. You know what you get when there’s a fight between Conglomerates and a bunch of whiny writers? You get a new recipe for writer squash.

As in

a Phyrric victory

for any

potential

gains.

Am I saying we shouldn’t put up a fight? No. But speaking as someone who has sacrificed as much as a human being can to try and break into this business, I want everyone to avoid giving undue attention to the shouts from the leaders on both sides at times like this and listen instead to the murmurs — the voices of reason and the gurgling sound of hunger in the stomachs of some of the writers (currently in the guild and those soon to be).

Writers have to protect their rights and fight if necessary but let us fight to build new bridges instead of the useless saber rattling and death cries.

Well said, Craig.

Craig, SML, Anonymous P., etc. —

You know, just becuase the Negotiating Committee is talking about the VHS/DVD rate, it doesn’t mean they’re actually talking about the VHS/DVD rate. At one time, the AMPTP’s position on internet downloads/sales was that the residual rate should be the same as the VHS/DVD rate. That’s clearly unacceptble … and what better way to make that point then by making it clear that, as far as we’re concerned, the VHS/DVD rate is unacceptable for VHS/DVD? Let alone for a technology that incurs no additional manufacturing costs for the distributor — the primary reason the AMPTP used (and continues to use) to justify the arbitrary 80% take-away in the VHS/DVD formula?

If the WGA had a theme song for negotiations on internet/new media, it should be The Who’s Won’t Get Fooled Again.

• Ted

Kudos, Craig and Ted.

I have a question:

Let’s say the WGA strikes -

And during the strike, an unknown writer

(a lowly wage slave who writes specs when he can)

gets his best script sharp, gets an agent, and gets a sweet offer for his script.

What would you like to see that writer do?

<< And again, seriously, I don’t think any director walked off a set mid-production in 1988. So stop saying that stuff like it has any relation to reality.>>

I don’t get you. Do you always respond with inflammatory language because this is a blog? Anyway, the reality of the situation is that some directors and actors may honor the strike regardless of contracts, etc. I’m not saying it’s going to happen. I’m saying it might. There is certainly an effort being made in that direction (excuse the bad pun.)

And as you said yourself, it also depends on where we are and what the strike is eventually about.

Anyway, I’ll read your posts more carefully so I don’t misinterpret what you support and what you don’t.

“Of course he’s not allowed to change any of the dialogue though…”

Come on. We all know that actors make up all their dialogue on the spot.

Wow, Craig, you’re starting to sound like me.

Ted, I noticed that also. Internet is nearly free distribution. I guess they could say that the overhead for the server is extreme - in a creative accounting sort of way. Even marketing is down with the Internet as just MySpace has millions of unique visitors every month though you only need one ad - and it’s just a file.

As a writer working on that elusive 24 points, I have to say, I’m behind you if you go out and if you don’t. But as I said, I don’t see this coming together by the 31st. Fortunately, the projects I’m currently working on are for non-signatories so I can keep writing and polishing.

And quoth the Mazin;

Strike. To. The. Death.

The Internet is like two gold mines. The studios know it.

Craig and Ted,

It’s good to know that we have guys like you that understand what’s at stake and can articulate it so clearly.

To anyone here who is not convinced about the internet download issue, you have to stop thinking about the immediate term. Everyone agrees that internet downloads are not there now. That is guaranteed to change. It is indisputable. Internet speed will get to the point where you’ll be able to download full-length, HD-quality movies or TV shows near instantaneously. This, along with lower cost of business created by competition, will surely eliminate the barriers people have to making the switch.

When? Much sooner than you think. Technology companies are investing hundreds of billions to make this happen. There is a war out there over this. Stock prices for the companies that stand to profit have been soaring. Read the WSJ, Business Week, or Fortune, et al. Now, as others have already pointed out, the way people watch their content will be seamless. We’re talking about the transmission method for content. What will be the fastest, cheapest, and most convenient method for consumers to access their content in the future? When you watch cable right now, are you “downloading” your shows? Most people would not think of it that way. The word “download” used today usually implies using a PC or Mac, selecting some file, and waiting, waiting, waiting to finally get what you want. In the future, we’ll turn on our flat panels, select our shows from a library with every conceivable show or film. There will be no detectable delays and the interface will conceal the fact that the internet is used to transmit all of this. Or we’ll go to the theater, and they will digitally project a movie that’s streamed from the internet with clarity of picture and sound that no one has ever yet seen.

The fact that the AMPTP is also holding ground on this issue should tell us something. If it wasn’t so important, then why would they go through this as well?

Travis —

What I’d like to see, is for aspiring writers to stop thinking of a WGA strike as a possible career opportunity, and start thinking of it as what it is:

A boycott of studios and prodcos by writers collectively in order to advance the rights of writers collectively.

Aspiring or not, Guild member or not, if you’re a writer, then you should participate in that boycott.

Some other points:

• If you’ve written a screenplay a studio wants to buy during a strike, then a studio will want to buy it after a strike. However, if you’ve written a screenplay a studio wants to buy only because there’s a strike, then it means zero for your chances of sustaining a professional career when there isn’t a strike.

• Studios won’t be looking to buy anything during a writer’s strike, because they will not have access to the WGA membership. Like it or not, the fact that studios can contract multiple writers to contribute literary material to the same motion picture is one the primary reasons why the AMPTP values the WGA membership enough to endure a strike as part of the negotiating process. Or, to put in more bluntly, the AMPTP pays writers collectively for writing, and writing is rewriting.

• if any studios are looking to buy screenplay during a strike, then it means they’ve decided to break the union. If they’ve decided to break the union, they wouldn’t waste money by giving it to non-union writers, because that won’t break the union. Offering to give money to union members is how you break a union.

So, summing up: if you’re writer, regardless of anything else, you should participate in the WGA’s boycott of the AMPTP Companies becuase its about your future rights, and the rights of all future WGA members.

But even if you don’t give a crap about anything except what you can get for yourself right now, what you can get for youself right now during a strike is no different from what you could get for youself right now before a strike, and has no bearing on what you’ll be able to get for youself right now after a strike.

Maybe that comes across in print a bit harsher then I intend, but, you know … the truth is not always soft billowy clouds and fluffy bunnies.

• Ted

The internet almost feels like the industry’s dirty little secret. There’s so much money being poured into certain websites by advertisers it’s incredible.

What makes the most sense is that writers get a piece of the advertising revenue when it comes to streaming television shows and a percentage of each pay-per-download for movies.

“What makes the most sense is that writers get a piece of the advertising revenue when it comes to streaming television shows and a percentage of each pay-per-download for movies.”

And that’s exactly what the Guild DID propose.

Ted:

You’re right on all counts, but you are ignoring the fact that the spec market is dead right now because the strike is about to happen, and after the strike a large chunk of WGA writers are going to appear out of nowhere with specs to sell or set up. It’s not going to be the best time to put your stuff out there. I’m not in the position of the writer that asked you the original question, as I’m already working and doing my thing, but I think it’s worth mentioning. It doesn’t mean he should attempt to do anything like he implied, but the more interesting question is whether or not non-WGA writers should be discouraged from selling to non signatories during the strike.

Kevin (32),

There’s a new article in Variety that supports the AMPTP position that internet is not as profitable as everyone thinks… it makes an interesting argument, but concludes that the AMPTP is reasonable in requesting time (3 yrs) to “analyze” the financial viability of internet.

It’s a mistake on our part to say and prove that internet is profitable at this point in time. It shouldn’t matter. We’re not asking for a dollar sum. Or back pay. We’re asking for a percent. And 2.5% of 0 is 0, right?

If the market is flooded with specs post-strike, then only the best ones will survive. That is a good thing. As Ted pointed out, if you want to be a successful career writer then keep the long-term picture in mind. If a strike happens, why not spend more time mastering the craft? Polishing your specs, writing something new? Why not try writing a novel or comic book? Why not write and shoot some short films for experience? Hey, you could even spend more time with friends and family. Read good books, watch great films. Meet with other writers and learn from them, or just take a break. Relax your mind and get reacquainted with the important things in life. This may give you new insight for your writing.

If you need some money, then learn javascript, HTML, FLASH, and AJAX and do some freelance programming. Works for me.

I think most voting members of the Guild are well aware of the importance of getting a good residual rate on Internet stuff. Everybody thinks the Home Video rate is crappy, and I think everybody knows that once a rate is agreed to, that rate is very difficult to change.

Ted or Craig,

Are we asking for a percent on profit when it comes to internet or a percent on reuse or both?

If I buy a machine, I can use that machine as often as I want during its lifetime without paying anything additional to the manufacturer beyond what I forked out when I bought it. When I plunked down my 49 cents in 1967 to buy Incense and Peppermints, that was all I had to pay. I didn’t have to cough up more pennies each time I played the record or lent it to friends for dance parties.

Why should writers be compensated every time the movie or TV show plays again? Didn’t the studios BUY the screenplay/teleplay?

The MBA half of my brain is battling the story-teller side and I need a referee here.

Thanks.

Thanks for your detailed answer, Ted.

I’m not offended by your reply, and I hope you’re not offended by my question - I just thought I’d put it to you, since surely some other wanna-bes are wondering the same thing.

I hope it’s obvious that if my motives were malicious and duplicitious, I’d be hiding behind anonymity and pretending I was purer than the driven snow. I’m not. I’m idealistic and willing to make sacrifices (and have) for what I believe in, but at a certain point you begin to ask yourself when idealism becomes masochism.

So f course, I asked because I have considered whether or not I’d be stupid to try not to sell at long last.

I do have an interesting spec I’d like to try to sell after 1-3 more drafts - but have never yet made a serious effort to do so. It’s just never been tight enough, and it’s taken me longer for my writing to mature than I anticipated.

But I’d like to try selling soon - and with my laptops stolen last month, and a car just purchased, it might be til next month before I can rewrite it. At which point the strike may well be going on.

Of course, there’s no law that says I can’t rewrite it on paper and try to pitch it right before the deadline.

I’ll be volunteering at the Expo for fun, so maybe I’ll learn something by watching other people pitch.

My brief experiences with unions are these:

I honored a picket line when I wrote that spec’s first draft - that Grocery Store strike in 2003 - I lived next door to a Ralphs in NoHo and nearly starved to death coz I was writing so obsessively I couldn’t ‘normalize’ enough to regularly
shop further afield. (Nuts, I know.)

Once upon a time in San Francisco, I raised funds for charities for a spin-off of the United Way - and helped negotiate a union contract from the side of the employees: I had a salary, but was just an AVP, not a VP or above.

And I joined SAG whilst in LA.

You probably don’t remember, but I’m the guy who got his SAG card working on the 1st POTC - you and Terry signed it for me recently at the screening Creative Screenwriting did.

It’s sort of a good luck charm for me :-)

Thanks again for your reply.

“If you need some money, then learn javascript, HTML, FLASH, and AJAX and do some freelance programming.”

And then you could come hang out with all the out-of-work programmers who live around me in the “Telecommunications Corridor” :-)

Pat,

I think a painting would be a more reasonable comparison. A painter paints and sells his painting.

I don’t think, and I could be wrong, that the patron has to pay the painter every time he shows it to his friends. But I wonder if that patron might have to pay for its reuse in a potentially profitable situation.

I don’t know the answer. Maybe someone can enlighten us.

Travis:

One might think it is easy for an established writer with a comfortable savings to say to someone trying to break into the business - “support the strike, don’t be a scab” - so take it from me, instead. I’m not an established writer with a comfortable savings. I’m an aspiring scriptwriter just like you, an aspiring scriptwriter with a spec script I would just LOVE for someone to pick up — but if there’s a strike on, this baby isn’t for sale. (Lord, that hurts to type, but it is true.)

As I see it, without the WGAw, history has shown that the industry won’t deal fairly with writers as individuals. The games that are being played now are just indicative of how much worse it could be if there were no union at all.

Support your future allies now. You’ve made it this far, don’t sell out for a short term gain.

my opinion, fwiw.

Pat,

“Why should writers be compensated every time the movie or TV show plays again?”

Only in the case where money changes hands, directly or indirectly.

If I buy a machine, I can use that machine as often as I want during its lifetime without paying anything additional to the manufacturer beyond what I forked out when I bought it. When I plunked down my 49 cents in 1967 to buy Incense and Peppermints, that was all I had to pay. I didn’t have to cough up more pennies each time I played the record or lent it to friends for dance parties.

I’ll be just a bit snarky here. (Don’t say I didn’t warn you.)

When you were getting your MBA, were you sick the day they covered market research?

You use the example of a musical recording, a pop single. The relevant comparision is NOT listening to the record at home, or playing it at parties. The relevant comparison is commercial radio stations who play the recording in question. They use the music to make money, so they have to pay the rights holders a fee.

You can play “Incense and Peppermint,” as often as you like at home. Use it to make money and you owe the rights holders some money in return.

Karen,

I’m in the same boat and I’m with you.

Just make sure you agree with your allies before you step into the fray. The a-list writers we look up to and admire are our generals and, in all great wars, generals tend to sit in their tents drinking tea while the foot soldier gets shot. Sometimes they get shot because they are freeing the world from tyranny, but, mostly, they get shot because their generals have an interest in financial gain or ratifying their own egos.

I’m all about dying for a noble cause. But I’m not totally convinced this cause is noble.

Al,

Do the same rules apply to paintings? Someone should unionize painters :)

From Joe Carnahan on the strike:

“I think the WGA is going to go out in another two weeks and it’s gonna be so ugly and potentially protracted that it’s gong to scare off SAG and the DGA and they’re going to come to an agreement before the June 30th drop dead date. I really think this is where it’s headed.

I’ve talked to friends of mine, writers and directors and agents and everybody has this bunker mentality…this strike is happening and people are going to be destroyed overnight. Careers are going to be crushed and an industry torpedoed. The respective parties as so far apart right now, the notion that in two weeks, there will be this miraculous stick save and all will be resolved, is insane…”

I feel queasy…

To Snarky Smitty (#45) -

Let’s go back to the machine analogy for a moment. I buy the machine (the studio buys the script) and make a product (the studio makes a movie). I decide that I can make the same product many times over and sell every damned one of them (the studio sells repeated viewings of said movie/TV show).

Why should the writer be paid every time the movie/TV show is viewed when the manufacturer of the machine doesn’t have to be paid every time I sell a product made with his machine?

I’m trying to understand the reasoning behind the argument without any snarkiness intended.

I’m finishing up my spec now, that another professional writer helped me develop. With the strike coming next summer it seemed safe to finish a first-draft in November and have a couple of months to fine-tune and then get it out. Now with the November strike, it looks like I might have to sit on it for a while.

It’s not looking at the strike as an opportunity, it’s the inevitable fact that aspiring writers break in constantly, and sometimes the timing of events in life can suck.

I support a fair deal for writers(one that I will hopefully work under fairly soon). I hate the concept of a strike, but I understand that they are sometimes a necessary evil to achieve a fair deal. And like all other aspiring writers, I appreciate the sacrifice that Guild-members are prepared to make to ensure that the future of writers is better.

Thanks Craig for this site and thanks Ted for Wordplayer. I’ve learned a tremendous amount from both. I hope the cool heads in this prevail and that an equitable agreement can be reached before too long.

This reminds me of the discussion about the guy that created Chicken McNuggets on the first season of The Wire. If you’re a fan, I’m only on season two now so don’t spoil the show in your replies.

Let’s go back to the machine analogy for a moment. I buy the machine (the studio buys the script) and make a product (the studio makes a movie). I decide that I can make the same product many times over and sell every damned one of them (the studio sells repeated viewings of said movie/TV show). Why should the writer be paid every time the movie/TV show is viewed when the manufacturer of the machine doesn?t have to be paid every time I sell a product made with his machine?

A script is a creative work, not a machine. A better analogy would be to compare the script to the blueprint for the products you’re making, not to the tool you use to build them.

Your analogy is more like suggesting that the manufacturer of the cameras or editing machines used on a film, or the pencil used to write a script, should get residuals.

Pat -

Buying a script doesn’t mean what you think it means. Technically studios buy THE RIGHT to use the script for the production of a motion picture. Residuals are payments for the re-use of that copyright.

To all -

who compare scripts to music, blueprints and bubble gum machines…

Why do you need to make these analogies? It’s like saying a dinosaur is like a dog. Only much bigger. And without fur. And… you get the point. I hope.

Craig or Ted (or anyone else in the know):

As a WGA member, the way I’m planning to bridge the strike, for both artistic and financial reasons, is to direct one of my specs.

Am I correct in saying that to do so would be in full compliance with my union so long as i do not make any transactions with guild-signatory studios during the strike? i.e. As long as the film is made independently, i’m honoring the WGA?

What would I NOT be allowed to do?

I appreciate the feedback.

All media, including print and television, will be digital within 10 years, says Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, in his opening keynote at the Association of National Advertisers’ conference. “Everything will be delivered digitally. All media and all advertising will have to take that into account.”

http://adverteasement.blogspot.com/

Or how about noting this. When a producer buys a script, he pays upfront for the right to use that script to make a movie and exhibit it in domestic theaters. In addition, the purchase contract requires the producer to pay additional amounts for other things, including putting the movie on home video and whatnot.

In a way, residuals keep costs down for producers. In theory, it lowers their upfront payments and allows them to not have to pay upfront for use in other, “ancillary” markets.

SML(#35):

I’m not sure where Variety got its information but they’re dead wrong. For the most of my career I’ve been operating on a very low rung of the industry scale and not until I made the silly Obama Girl internet video was I signed by UTA, got a network deal, and had the website bought out (article in THR on Wed).

For a major trade magazine to say that the internet isn’t really profitable is really disingenious. Or they’re just flat out misinformed.

Pat(#49),

What you’re suggesting is to rewrite the laws on copyright, which the AMPTP isn’t even proposing. I’m not even sure this is a real question…

Ryan(#56),

In a way, residuals keep costs down for producers. In theory, it lowers their upfront payments and allows them to not have to pay upfront for use in other, “ancillary” markets.

Purchasing an option and residuals have nothing to do with one another. A producer could purchase an option or script for 30 million dollars but it still has nothing to do with the residuals the writer will receive. Nor should it.

What KA said.

I didn’t start w/ the pop song analogy, Pat did.

I pointed out that royalties per use on pop songs have been an established part of intellectual property law for a long, long time.

Anyone who has any familiarity with the entertainment industry knows this. Hence the crack about market research.

This isn’t the time or place to get into a philosophical debate about the necessity for copyright, royalties, etc. It’s an established principle in Western law and has been for decades.

The trades (and other studio supported entities) have been quite biased in their reporting of negotiation talks. They know where their bread is buttered. However, I don’t think any reasonably minded person is swallowing what they’re dishing out.

Folks, I promise I’m not a AMPTP shill, and I support the WGA negotiating position on online residuals, but it’s important to be aware that the transition to digital distribution, while inevitable and certainly profitable, really isn’t particularly smooth. First of all, there are costs, and online marketing is far from free, as someone suggested above, when you’re talking about marketing a movie or TV show. Fifteen (or whatever) years from now, when nobody is buying DVDs, movie downloads will be marketed the same way movies are now— that means billboards, print ads, etc. And even internet advertising, when you want to reach millions of people, is not free. Even with the Fox/MySpace, MySpace doesn’t give its incredibly valuable ad space over to the movie division for free.

Meanwhile, as reported in THR the other day, right now total industry-wide receipts for paid movie downloads is $20 million. Plus, nobody’s figured out what do do about piracy, which is a huge problem now, and which will become huger than huge once online distribution is the norm. Meanwhile there really is a near-crisis in the TV advertising business which makes scripted programming hard to support, and it’s going to be a long time before revenue from online TV shows (be it via downloading or in-show advertising or whatnot) makes up for that.

I’m not really making a particular argument here, and I’m not trying to justify some kind of amorphous AMPTP ‘study.’ I’m just saying the large-scale economics of the digital entertainment future— viral successes like Obama Girl notwithstanding— are challenging and not-yet determined, and we need to be aware of that. It’s not as simple as the signatories just hiding money and preparing for a ridiculously profitable future.

From #53 -

“Buying a script doesn’t mean what you think it means. Technically studios buy THE RIGHT to use the script for the production of a motion picture. Residuals are payments for the re-use of that copyright.”

Licensing is something I understand (which is what you’ve described above). I’ve functioned under the impression (apparently incorrectly) that screenwriters sold their works. Thanks for the clarification.

**Al,

Do the same rules apply to paintings? Someone should unionize painters :)**

Use a copy of a Wyeth painting in an advertisement, or on the cover of your book, and you’ll be sued for copyright violation. Unless you negotiated prior approval and payment to the satisfaction of the rights holders.

As someone above pointed out, this is only very loosely related to the issue of residuals.

To #61 — So we should study it? All the while our cable box becomes an internet box because it will be easier to negotiate a deal in the future? No, no, no…we get jurisdiction of our net content and then we can all happily study it together. Make no mistake, the internet is an endless well of money. And the AMPTP knows it.

Kev, no, as I said in the post, we shouldn’t ‘study’ it, and I support the WGA negotiating position. Re-read my post if you missed that. I’m just pointing out that some of the discussion I’ve seen here and elsewhere about how the studios will be minting money from the internet could use a little more nuance.

Mike S(#61),

I don’t think anyone has ever argued that marketing on the internet is free, I think the argument is that, what does the cost of doing business have to do with writers?

If a studio wants to pay 120 million of P&A and the movie flops, writers should still be getting their fair share of residuals. What bothers me the most is the mystification of a fair economic breakdown for downloads. It’s simple. If a company charges $2 per download, the writer should a percentage of that (what like 3% or something?)

Kevin A (57),

There’s money there. I believe it. And I believe what we are fighting for will pay off hugely. There’s potential for this to be the main/only entertainment stream and people will always pay to be entertained.

My point is that it’s a non-starter. It shouldn’t matter if there’s money there or that money will be there, it should only matter that we see a cut when our product is reused. I’m stating the obvious, but it seems we’re getting caught up in the now, which I would argue the AMPTP wants. It’s an argument they can win. But it’s not an argument for us to even acknowledge.

P.S. That variety article was highly biased in favor of AMPTP. The only number we should be worried about is 2.5%.

And I agree with your position about the download residuals, except that if (and I’m thinking mostly about episodic TV here) ad-supported downloads are offered for free, which they are right now at nbc.com, that formula will come back to haunt/screw us. And I think that ad-supported downloads for TV could end up being the norm.

Good post, Craig.

So of course I want to amend some of it: “…residuals are deferred compensation tied to deferred income for the reuse of the fruits of our authorship….”

The base of our individual residuals was negotiated by our union, based on minimums for labor costs and events in the income producing life of projects. They come in as W-2 income, rather than as a form of royalty on form 1099. That’s minor. Where you got it most right is that residuals exist because of authorship and our ineluctable relationship to authorship.

Having been around for a few, I’ve come to believe that management wants a strike. It has avoided the waiver process in the MBA to sort out emerging business models in new media. It has come at us in separated rights. It hasn’t gotten around to asking us to do valet parking for development execs, but stick around. The most important matter to me is the attack on the rights of authorship. We’re fighting one battle o one front for all creators of intellectual property. The media congloms want everything from novels to haiku to be work for hire. So we’re speeking for more writers than those who hold Guild cards in this negotiation

I think for a lot of us who’ve been around a while, until the AMPTP proposals came in, we figured to not get involved in the debates, not be the old war horses at Guild meetings, and sort of look at it as not really having a dog in this fight.

AMPTP managed to piss everyone off, and if that’s because of arrogance breeding stupidity while they’re drunk on cupidity, maybe. Or maybe it was done by sober decision.

So for those of you thinking about striking to the death, here are a couple of parameters.

First, heroes are created by bad generals. Listen to the people propounding strategies, and get rid of the ones who want to look moral by martyring their own.

Second, when it comes to “Strike to the Death,” you want the other side to die, not your own.

Third, look ahead to the kind of peace you want, and articulate that to as many people who will here you.

Fourth, a crisis will be an opportunity for a lot of people who want not just cash but power. That could be agencies trying to broker a deal to other labor formations looking to fold us in.

Keep your eyes and minds open. There will be some strange times coming.

“Purchasing an option and residuals have nothing to do with one another. A producer could purchase an option or script for 30 million dollars but it still has nothing to do with the residuals the writer will receive. Nor should it.”

I meant “upfront payment” in terms of the sale or employment. I didn’t say word one about options, which don’t even grant producers the initial things I mentioned.

The sale gives the producers certain rights. There’s nothing other than the MBA that says producers couldn’t also buy the the rest of the rights and never pay residuals. But to do so would require, in theory, making a larger upfront payment than would otherwise be required to buy up all those rights.

It is a payment for re-use, but it’s a payment that could legally, if not for the agreement between the WGA and the studios, be made upfront. Therefore, by not having to pay those monies upfront, it makes the overall upfront payments for the producer smaller.

And your response to Post #49 is wrong, as well. It would not take a rewriting of the copyright laws to eliminate residuals. The only reason we get them at all is because it’s in our collective bargaining agreement. And there are non-signatory companies that do purchase scripts outright and pay no residuals.

“Where you got it most right is that residuals exist because of authorship and our ineluctable relationship to authorship.”

And those bastard DGA and SAG people just hitched a ride on our coattails.

Karen: thanks.

My support means little since I’m not WGA and can thus only offer written and verbal support.

(And ask questions designed to provoke responses.)

Ted’s response was so good that this analogy may seem moot, but pros, imagine this:

The DGA goes on strike -

And at that time, you, a Pro writer who felt he could have been so much more than just a Writer, finally get offered the chance to Direct - and not just Direct - Co-Produce a film.

You’re guaranteed more than TEN TIMES what you’ve ever made before this, and let’s not forget, you’ll have far more prestige than before.

STARS will looking to you for guidance on this.

In Hollywood, at least, you’re going to be famous.

And all you have to do is not give a crap about a union that doesn’t officially give a crap about you anyway, because you’re not yet a member.

Will that offer still be there when the DGA returns from their strike? Maybe…maybe not.

That’s what it’s going to feel like to some wanna-be Pro writer out there, when he/she gets offered a chance to write during a strike.

It’s going to sound like an offer only an insane person would turn down.

And in an ideal world, we’d have Ted there to explain to the writer why, in fact, they should.

Mike S(#68),

Yeah, I just hope they come to a realistic formula.

That’s why I think that writers & directors should get a percentage of that ad revenue on these sites like NBC.com. Obviously Chrysler doesn’t spend anywhere near the same rates for broadcast television but the percentage should still be the same. They could even keep the same formula of 2.5% of the gross ad revenue.

Mike S. Yep, yep, yep. Big apology. Missed it! Not feeling too nuanced today, truly sorry…

Kevin: I agree in principle, but honestly, I don’t know how that would actually get implemented, since online ad revenue comes in so many different forms with different payment schedules, some of which are determined by click-throughs, etc. Not to mention that, say there’s a banner ad at nbc.com, which is shown over whichever of a hundred episodes a used happens to be watching— how do you divvy that up? I’m sure the Negotiating Committee is thinking about this stuff, but really, it’s going to be complicated to implement. Probably will entiail a whole new online residuals department at the Guild to keep up with it, for starters…

“Fourth offense—a proposal that would eliminate the requirement to include the writers’ names in advertising, even in situations where the director or producer is included.”

Okay, sure, it’s a lesser issue, but I just…I gotta know what the hell this is doing in there. How does this benefit them? What does their putting this forth accomplish beyond alienating us? Is it just a bargaining chip, something they hope we’ll go, “Okay, we’ll settle for only FIVE cents per DVD, but we keep our names in the advertising?” Is there some hidden profit to eliminating our names from the ads that I’m just not seeing? Or do they just really hate us that much?

What’s it all about, Alfie?

Mike S(#75),

Hmm, good point. I didn’t think about it in terms of the entire network site. However, on Fox’s website they have advertisements during the specific television show’s stream, i.e. Prison Break.

Ryan (#70)

When you mentioned Producer, it made me think of an individual person and not a studio so that’s why I spoke of the “option”.

And regarding Residuals, I just did some slight, lazy research and it would seem that you’re right. Which means I was wrong.

Which isn’t fair. Not fair at all.

Forget the potential strike… I wasn’t aware that “our” Kevin Arbouet is responsible for the Obama Girl. Veddy nice.

Ronson!

I have news for you, dudarino - email me if you want it.

Ronson (#78),

Thanks!

If only every gig could involve super hot chicks.

Travis —

Do you honestly believe that you aren’t good enough to make it as a real writer? That you can’t make it on the same terms as the rest of us? That you can only win the race when all the other competitors are on the sidelines?

I can’t imagine what that must feel like.

SML:

In regards to your comment that 2.5% of nothing is nothing. True, but if nothing is all that is expected, why is AMPTP fighting to keep it?

George Lucas is hiring writers to go to Skywalker Ranch and writer the first 13 episodes of his Star Wars live action show this winter. Those guys may have an awkward time dealing with other writers after that.

Every fellow writer I’ve talked to truly believes THE ISSUE is new media (though many feel a lot for the Reality writers, etc).

The guild POV seems so simple - we dont make money if the studios dont make money on new media, right? So, where’s the risk on their part - other than just greed?

I dont want to strike (and believe there wont be one, or it will be short b/c network TV has too much to lose), but I am grateful for the WGA for what it provides me… I owe it to future writers to do what those in the past did to me.

Although the sudden pressure to get all my studio assigns turned in by Oct 31 is INSANE - anyone else feeling sat on?

And a littl advice to new writers, working away on that spec: forget the strike. When it’s good it will sell, and it ALMOST NEVER times out the way you planned and everything takes much longer. This bis isn’t a sprint; it’s a war of attrition.

Fuck the strike, just write something good. That’s ALL you should focus on. Cheers.

Brian (82),

You’re right. There’s money to be made, but trying to prove it exists now is a non-issue. Whether there’s money there or not, we want 2.5% of future reuse on our product (which could be nothing or a whole lot of something). And once that is dealt with, then, and only then, should we be debating profits and losses.

I think we’re on the same side, I’m just confusing/simplifying the issue with a faulty understanding/interpretation of our demands and their ramifications. My apologies.

P.S. One more thought. You say, “True, but if nothing is all that is expected, why is AMPTP fighting to keep it?” Not only is the AMPTP fighting to keep it, they’re claiming there’s nothing to be made. They want it both ways. Insane. This Q should be directed towards our committee and it’s an important issue that will not be dealt with for what seems like a long time.

WGA WRITER,

Well put. I’m with you.

David (#81)… where does Travis indicate that he can’t compete with union writers?

And was that “real writers” bit intentional? Do you believe that union screenwriters are the only “real” screenwriters?

Just curious… I’m not saying this applies to you, but that would be kind of humorous, if the same WGA members who want non-union writers to support the WGA were to think of those writers as not being “real” writers.

Dang it… that was me, above on #87.

SML:

Couldn’t disagree more. Fight for the future now. Last time the guilds waited on home video. You see the result of that today. If it was fought for on the last contract, we wouldn’t be where we are today. AMPTP would have conceded because they didn’t think there was a future in the new media. Go back and read some of the studio exec’s interviews if you don’t believe me.

WGA Writer,

That’s fantastic advice. And I agree in theory, except I can’t help but pay attention because I’m a masochist. You sound so much like my mentor I almost feel compelled to make a phone call and question if that wasn’t directed at me. :) But, yeah, to sort of steal an analogy from When Harry Met Sally:

You decide what you want to do with the rest of your life. So, you rush to the Christmas party. And then you get there and you realize that Meg Ryan hopped on a plane to Paris and she’ll be back in three months.

So, yeah, I got some time to write and improve my spec, work on others. But, I really wanted to start now. And that’s life and I get it. But sometimes it sucks. That’s all I’m saying.

Also, as far as non-WGA writers not being real writers I think Ted said it better, but every working, famous, Oscar-winning, or seven-figure writer was, at one point, unsold. So, you know, everybody starts somewhere.

Enough chit chat. Back to writing.

Brian,

You misunderstand. We should fight. But I think fighting to prove new media is profitable is ridiculous. We should be fighting for our 2.5%…

I suppose there is an argument that to get our 2.5 we have to prove there’s money in new media first, but I don’t believe this to be the case. I believe it’s a way for the AMPTP to pull us into an argument they can control and win.

You’re right on all counts, but you are ignoring the fact that the spec market is dead right now because the strike is about to happen,

The specter of a strike is not the reason the spec market is dead; it’s been dead for quite some time. Over the last decade in particular, studios have worked at minimizing the amount of development money they spend on scripts that never get used in a movie. Movies generate revenue; unproduced literary material doesn’t — the money spent is just more overhead. And corporations hate overhead (which is why corporations tend to cut research & development to the bone). This “decrease development costs/overhead” is responsible for other things — a lot more one-step deals than two-step deals, “free rewrites,” etc.

I don’t expect that to change after a strike. There might be a mini-spec sale boom, but nothing like the one that happened in the wake of the ‘88 strike. I could be wrong, but the way its been working for the awhile now, unless a studio is sure they can get a director and actors attached to a spec after, at most, one or two revisions, they pass.

… and after the strike a large chunk of WGA writers are going to appear out of nowhere with specs to sell or set up.

But, you know … at any given time (except during a strike, of course), any spec screenplay is competing for the same development money as a, say, Steve Zallian script, whether written on assignment or on spec. It really comes down to this: the corporate ideal for development is identical to the writer’s idea: one writer, one draft, its a movie. Zallian has consistently proved himself closer to that ideal then just about any other writer in the industry; for writers not yet in the industry, that’s the ideal they have to aim for, too. Strike or not.

• Ted

Ted,

“The specter of a strike is not the reason the spec market is dead; it’s been dead for quite some time.”

Actually, the specter of a strike is EXACTLY the reason the market is dead. Three weeks ago, buyers were looking and buying. No, not the way they did back in the heyday, or even when I broke in, but agents were still going out with specs, and people were still buying them. Within an hour of the strike authorization e mail we all got two weeks ago, that stopped cold. Nobody’s buying nothing now.

And then there’s this, which I haven’t seen discussed here (although I admit, I’ve skimmed a LOT of this stuff):

Under the newly issued strike rules, it’s virtually impossible for a writer/director to direct a film. Has nothing to do with crossing picket lines, everything to do with the WGA restricting what’s allowable for hyphenates. If you’re not wrapped post by the time the strike hits, you are well and truly screwed.

Josh:

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about the spec market in general. I’m talking about the last few weeks and where we’re heading in the next two weeks. I understand Ted’s whole arugment here, but I am saying that the desire for specs and the willingness to fork up a significent amount of cash is contingent upon the buying atmosphere at that exact moment in time. The same goes for pitches.

When we get back in the swing of things, it’s going to be an awkward time for specs in general.

I agree with Brian. The things that the studios have put on the table - the rollbacks on residuals and separate rights, etc. - are transparent attempts to create a lowball negotiating position. It’s a distraction, red herring, whatever you want to call it — from the real issue of the internet. The studios knew they couldn’t just come out and refuse to give anything on the internet so they created all of these other bs positions. Their arrogance is astounding, though I guess, not surprising.

Arthur (#76),

The business rationale for eliminating the name of the writer(s) from advertising, I would guess, is that writing credits are subject to arbitration fairly late in the process, and therefore the names in those credits may change after the studio has printed up one-sheets, billboards, etc. (In a few cases, I believe, even after prints of the film have been made, but maybe someone who knows the history of this better could confirm or correct that….) Makes life easier for the marketing people if they can just ignore the fact that the film had any writers, and stick with the credits they’re certain about.

But yes, realistically, knowing how warmly we were likely to greet that proposal, I can’t imagine they intend it as anything but a bargaining chip. (With a little ritual dick-waving thrown in for good measure.)

Josh,

Agreed. Studios aren’t buying specs right now. Nor are they taking pitches. My spec is on hold and that’s fine because if we strike, I’m behind it, even it will hurt financially. But the reality is no financier is buying until this all shakes out.

Ted’s argument goes to the general trend over the last fifteen years of less spec purchases. But what’s happening right now is different.

Also, I agree that Writer/Directors in the WGAw can’t really direct because they’re not allowed to change a line of the script, according to the strike rules. And a lot more than a line changes in production.

Experimental Scenario: We tell management that we will drop the DVD increase demand plus drop for the time being, animation and reality writers entry into the WGA, if…they drop the residual rollback b.s., drop the removal of writer’s credit from ads b.s., and guarantee us a % on present and future technology.

Show of hands on what youse guys think their response will be.

My guess is that they’d continue to show their true colors and still be intractable.

Travis seems to be indicating that he feels like he’s not a real writer. He seems to think that he can’t compete as a writer unless all the WGA writers are taken out of the game.

I’ve heard a number of people voice the fantasy that a strike will cause studios to “lower the bar” to the point where they might be able to sell scripts on a scab basis. The fantasy is an empty one. Here’s why:

The studios don’t need shitty scripts. They own warehouses full of shitty scripts, and mediocre scripts, and even good-but-flawed scripts, many of them written by million-dollar writers. If, after a yearlong strike, they became so desperate for material that they suddenly lowered their standards, they still wouldn’t buy your inferior scripts. They’d go back and dust off one of their own.

The answer, my friends, is not to hope that the studios lower the bar. The answer is to aim higher. It’s a sign of desperately low self-esteem as a writer to think that anyone would need to lower the bar to buy your stuff. I doubt that anyone with such an attitude would have much of a future as a writer.

There are plenty of shitty writers in the WGA. And presumably there are some truly great ones out there, still waiting to be discovered, who are not yet in the WGA. But those great ones won’t want or need the bar to be lowered for them. They will raise the bar for the rest of us.

As for the rest of you would-be scabs — scab away, if that’s the best you can ever hope for. You might be humiliated to find that you can’t even make it as a scab.

You should name yourself. Be proud of what you said or nobody will swallow it. But I agree with you.

Craig -

Great post, well said. I just wanted to add my non-anonymous name in support. I hope people read and pay attention because it reflects rationality from the middle, the place where we get together and try to make the business work, not merely posture from ego, ignorance, greed or love of power.

Latest Variety article mentions that the AMPTP has thoughtfully posted a FAQ with regards to the potential WGA strike:

http://www.amptp.org/wgastrikefaq.html

The last FAQ on the page begins

If I am not a WGA member and write during a strike, am I banned from working in the WGA jurisdiction forever? WGA may deny, in the future, full membership to non-members who work during a strike. However, they may not deny financial core membership.

Am I reading that right?

Because the AMPTP is making it sound as if someone who scabs during a WGA strike could still join afterward as a fi-core non-member.

Are they intentionally misleading or they are revealing a previously hidden loophole of sorts for potential scabs?

Pretty devious, either way.

Anonymous,

“Also, I agree that Writer/Directors in the WGAw can’t really direct because they’re not allowed to change a line of the script, according to the strike rules. And a lot more than a line changes in production.”

Indeed. Much of what falls under “a through h services” is essential to not just the writer, but the director. When I spoke to a Guild rep about this, pointing out that this would actually push studios to fire writer/directors and replace them with writers, she said - with a straight face - “No director who ever wants to be in the WGA would do that.”

So I’d be really interested - and not just for academic purposes - to hear how Craig (or anyone else, for that matter) intends to write and direct a feature without violating the strike.

SML:

Are we asking for a percent on profit when it comes to internet or a percent on reuse or both?

The way the MBA works, it defines “primary markets” —

(the market for which the motion picture is produced; a motion picture produced for theatrical exhibition, the primary market is theatrical exhibition (including in-flight movies); a motion picture produced for television exhibition — like an episode of Heroes — the primary market is network broadcast; etc)

— and “supplementary markets”

(all other markets in which the motion picture is used other than the primary market).

Residuals are calculated as a percentage of revenue generated by the licensing of the work for use in supplementary markets (with one exception).

So, in regards to internet exhibition, we’re asking for a percentage of the revenue for the (re-)use of the work in that supplementary market.

(The exception is network broadcast re-runs, where residuals are calculated as a decreasing percentage of the applicable minimum (which is itself covered either by the licensing fee paid by the network to the production company, or the production company’s financing for the production of the episode/MOW/etc))

• Ted

Ted,

Thanks. That helps.

to #98 - no way jose - we should not give up $ we have earned or people who are deserving of better benefits in return for producers agreeing not to renege on paying us money and credits they owe, as well as ceding a share of revenue we’re entitled to anyways. please…

and to be clear chardkerm - I know I’m not actually answering the question you asked. Because you posit those tradeoffs as if they would be fair, when imho, you’ve made terrible concessions and sold yourself and your fellow writers way short.

Why should writers be compensated every time the movie or TV show plays again? Didn’t the studios BUY the screenplay/teleplay?

No, they acquired the copyright in the screenplay/teleplay for use in the production of motion picture under a work-made-for-hire agreement with the author (writer) of the screenplay/teleplay. It’s intellectual property, not real property, as in the case of the machine you used in your example.

Initial compensation covers only the acquisition of the copyright and the exploitation of the copyright in the market for which the motion picture was produced. Exploitation of the copyright in additional markets requires additional compensation be paid to the author.

The MBA studiously avoids using the word “author,” at the AMPTP’s demand, save in one place: on-screen credit recognizes the true authorship of the literary material used in the motion picture. Which is why residuals are tied to screen credit.

• Ted

shepherd1234

Am I correct in saying that to do so would be in full compliance with my union so long as i do not make any transactions with guild-signatory studios during the strike? i.e. As long as the film is made independently, i’m honoring the WGA?

If you’re boycotting the AMPTP Companies as a writer, then you’re honoring the strike. If you’re working as a director for a production company that’s independent of any AMPTP Companies, then its not even an issue.

However, if you’re planning to do any revisions of your spec in the course of production, you should check into the Guild’s Independent Film Contract.

• Ted

Travis —

I wasn’t offended by the question. Like I said, my response may seem harsher in print then I actually intend it to be. This question came up a lot over on Wordplay during the 2001 Negotiations, and I understand why its asked … but I also understand that the way the industry works, it make the question not much more than a hypothetical.

• Ted

I think everyone is going to get what they are asking for, only some won’t like it. Suggest you all watch All Quiet on the Western Front, the old one with Lew Ayres…

“Fourth offense: a proposal that would eliminate the requirement to include the writers’ names in advertising, even in situations where the director or producer is included.” Okay, sure, it’s a lesser issue, but I just … I gotta know what the hell this is doing in there.

Look at the overall effect of the proposals:

The residuals reaming means individual writers will no longer receive payments from reuse in supplementary markets as a union minimum — just as is the case with IATSE unions members.

The separated rights and “all minimum compensation charged against above-minimum compensation” grande combo means individual writers will no see benefits, economic or otherwise, from the concept of separated rights as a union minimum — just as in the case with IATSE union members.

Seems like the “no individual writers will be credited in advertising and marketing as a union minimum” falls right in line with that pattern, no?

How does this benefit them?

Well, I bet it gives them a good laugh. But you mean economically? It means that if individual writers want to actually have rights appropriate to being above-the-line employees and factual authors of the literary material and the motion picture … then they are going to have to negotiate to get them, at some cost in their overall compensation. Not a huge savings for the studios, but every little bit can’t hurt.

What does their putting this forth accomplish beyond alienating us?

I’m not going to dissect again the inherent contradictions of the Guild simultaneously claiming that reality employees do the same work as writers subject to the MBA while suing for overtime wages on their behalf, but, suffice to say, it actually agrees with the demand the Guild has been making for the last two years … but not the way we intended.

Which just proves the old adage, “You can get what you want … and still not be happy.”

• Ted

Ted —

It seems that any marginal cost benefit of the advertising proposal would be far outweighed by its propaganda value for the WGA. Of all the proposals on the table, this is the most gratuitous and the most insulting to writers. The AMPTP is flatly stating that writers should be treated as second-class citizens. Its very mention seemed to galvanize support for the SAV and the WGA leadership at the meeting I went to. And when I mention it to studio execs, they seem surprised and a little ashamed. It gives the lie to the whole notion that the WGA is the unreasonable party in this negotiation.

Honestly, I think that if the WGA were smart, it would take out full-page ads in Variety every day spelling out the AMPTP’s proposals — particularly this one.

The only explanation I can think of is that the AMPTP wants a strike, and a long one. Because this proposal will be remembered long after it’s taken off the table.

OFF TOPIC…

I’ve been reading all the press clippings I could get my hands on and it seems to me like our guild has caused a dazzling smoke screen. Retroactive demands, STRIKE RULES, and public bickering are blinding us, them, and the media from the true issue, new media.

This may be a brilliant tactic from the WGA, but it makes sick. We’re going to strike over the smoke when we should be putting out the fire at our feet.

People’s lives are on the line. Before we slit their throats, don’t you think our cause should be explicit? Don’t you think the leadership should show us they care?

DWS,

And why do you think the AMPTP wants a strike?

Both sides have ludicrous proposals. Yes, AMPTP insulted us. They’re cocky idiots, but that doesn’t empower our guild to stoop to their level.

Take the emotions out of it.

Craig has quite conveniently listed reasons to strike above. If AMPTP’s demands are real then we STRIKE TO THE DEATH.

But I would argue the opposite is also true.

If all of the WGA’s demands are real then the AMPTP will strike to the death. That’s logical, right?

Showing good faith is a valid negotiating tactic and should be used. And then when the AMPTP are still being cocks, the previous good faith will act to temper and unify a frightened guild.

Ted:

Thanks for your response. Am I also correct in saying that directing my spec for a non-AMPTP signatory is the ONLY way for me to proceed in order to be in good faith with my union, because in order to work as a director on my spec for an AMPTP sig, they would need to buy my script?

In other words - and forgive me if i sound like a simpleton, i haven’t been in this business for very long - an AMPTP sig isn’t going to fund what they don’t own, and i’m not going to sell if there’s a strike on, so directing with independent backing is the only union-honoring route open to me during a strike.

Does that sound right?

Thanks very much for your time and thoughts.

JIM ADLER: I threw that scenario out there just to gauge if anyone really thinks that management would concede on the internet issue no matter what we gave up. As I said, IMO, they won’t. This leads me to believe that because of the b.s. they have on the table concerning rollback of existing residuals plus removal of writer’s credit from ads, their M.O. all along is to insult us enough where we do strike. Why? Unless they’re trying to break the union, I don’t have a clue.

I don’t think a writer-director could expect to reasonably take on a feature directing project during a writers strike.

At least, I wouldn’t.

As it is, I have four weeks of production scheduled for November. If we strike on November 1, it will certain make my life difficult, although they’re the last four weeks, so the script is mostly locked in position at this point.

If I needed incidental bridging dialogue, I guess I’d ask the actors or my one non-WGA producer to come up with it. Not sure how else to manage that one. To be honest, I’m planning on crossing that bridge when I get there. Too much else to worry about as it is.

Times article…

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-residuals16oct16,0,5232592.story?coll=la-home-center

Huh, strange bit of serendipity. Vic Polizos, who is quoted extensively in the article you link to, is on my set today.

I shall thank him for his comments in person.

This was in today (10/16)’s Variety:

And, in a move akin to pouring gasoline on a fire, the AMPTP also posted extensive guidance Monday on its website as to how WGA members can file for “financial core” status — under which members resign their WGA membership and withhold the dues spent by the guild on political activities but can still work on union jobs.

I’ve heard some people describe “financial core” as a way to peel off the A-list from the rest of the guild, however that may affect things. Any thoughts?

And speaking of the AMPTP and their thoughtful list of FAQ for any WGA writers who have the desire to be educated by management…

…did anyone else see that last question?

The AMPTP seems to be under the impression that a non-pro could scab during the strike (if they could find a signatory to hire them) and the WGA would still have to grant them, if not full membership status, at least financial core status.

Is the AMPTP purposefully misleading union members, or is this akin to a dirty little secret?

Craig,

“If I needed incidental bridging dialogue, I guess I’d ask the actors or my one non-WGA producer to come up with it. Not sure how else to manage that one. To be honest, I’m planning on crossing that bridge when I get there. Too much else to worry about as it is”

It just strikes me as odd that as part of the strike rules, our guild is making it HARDER for writers to empower themselves. If you’re about to direct a studio film you’ve written, the studio would be insane to keep you on. Makes much more sense to dump the hyphenate and replace him with another director.

The restrictions on hyphenates during the last strike were nowhere near this stringent.

The AMPTP makes the argument that primary markets no longer cover the costs of production and marketing so it’s not fair to pay out residuals on supplemental markets when the production is still in the red.

When the public hears this argument it is very compelling which makes it hard to get them on our side. What’s the reasoning to reject this argument? I understand that they use creative accounting to make everything appear in the red and that writers don’t have input into the financial decisions that affect profitability. But is there a way to get this across in the media, to win the public over on this issue? Or is it too complicated to expect people to understand? Or does it matter if the public takes sides in all this? I’ve heard this debated on movie fan’s sites and they tend to favor the AMPTP’s line of reasoning.

The WGA, or someone, should draw up a list of prominent properties that studios claim are still in the red, so as to show the public the vagaries of entertainment accounting.

Mike S,

Newline and the battle with Peter Jackson is a perfect example. Newline lied about their accounting and was recently ordered by the courts to provide documentation they’d been claiming they didn’t have on the matter.

SML—

You’re suggesting some sort of moral equivalence between the AMPTP’s proposals and ours. Did you not read the proposals?

What is “ludicrous” about our proposals? Residuals, which we’ve gotten for 40 years? Separation of rights, which we’ve had longer than Ted Elliott can remember? A higher DVD rate, which they promised us 20 years ago and never delivered? Coverage of all writers in cable? Coverage of all writers in animation?

Which of these proposals is intended to denigrate and insult studio executives? Is there some proposal I missed whereby we state that studio executives should lose their titles, their expense accounts, their stock options, their Gulfstream jets, their company cars, their parking spaces, their expensively redecorated offices, and wear a janitor’s uniform every day? Is there some proposal where we declare studio executives to be inferior to other kinds of executives?

Shane —

All WGA writers used to be non-WGA writers. I used to live on $10,000 a year, with no health insurance, no car insurance, hell, no car.

There were people back then who thought I wasn’t a “real” writer. But I was no less real then than I am now. Being a real writer has nothing to do with how much money you make, and everything to do with the pride you take in your work.

If you aspire to scabdom, knock yourself out. Nobody’s afraid of you. There are indeed new writers coming up behind us who will replace us, but they take more pride in their work than that.

“Is there some proposal where we declare studio executives to be inferior to other kinds of executives?”

I think the AMPTP’s own proposal has pretty well taken care of that.

(“Gee, let’s propose something so pointlessly offensive that we trigger a strike months before we’re ready to withstand it!” I can’t help thinking that other kinds of executives in other industries are feeling at least a tiny bit superior, this month….)

Josh:

Actually, the specter of a strike is EXACTLY the reason the market is dead. Three weeks ago, buyers were looking and buying.

The strike spectre is a temporary circumstance. Studios have also stopped contracting writers for assignments, something that is not the case absent the possibility the strike. I was talking about the overriding conditions that have existed in the industry for at least the last ten years preceding this moment right now, and will still exist after a strike concludes. Those conditions have greatly reduced the possibility of selling a spec screenplay.

Interestingly, though, according to Chad Oman at Bruckheimer Films — who sees pretty much every spec screenplay sent out by agents — the number of spec screenplays on the market has also decreased dramatically from about five years ago.

Under the newly issued strike rules, it’s virtually impossible for a writer/director to direct a film. Has nothing to do with crossing picket lines, everything to do with the WGA restricting what’s allowable for hyphenates. If you’re not wrapped post by the time the strike hits, you are well and truly screwed.

“Writer-director” in this context means, someone who is simultaneously employed as a director and has an open writing contract at the time of the strike. If you were hired to both write a screenplay and direct a movie using that screenplay, and you have completed all steps required by the writing contract (signified by the Company’s having paid you in full), then you are no longer — in the context of the strike rules — a writer-director. You’re a director only. As such, you can perform the writing services set forth as the A-H exceptions under the MBA (but only those services; nothing more). Same thing in regards to a writer-producer.

So, whether you’re screwed or not depends on how extensively you anticipate having to rewrite on-set. If the screenplay is locked, requiring only minor, superficial adjustments necessitated by production or editing … then, no screwosity.

If there’s a physical picket line in front of your workplace, though, you shouldn’t cross it. It would cost you part of the shooting day, but, then, so would a lot of other things.

• Ted

After today’s Variety, it really seems like the other side wants a strike? Why?

What’s weird is that all the producers I’m working with, financers, etc. hate this, are pretty writer supportive (so they say, but I believe them) and just want to get on with movie making.

I still don’t get the removal of credit on advertising. It’s just a super fuck you.

Publicly, everything I read focuses pretty heavily on the new media with Verrone always repeating “if they get paid, we get paid” - pretty reasonable to me. I can’t think of a simpler way of putting it.

I think the bigger issue is the public’s misunderstanding that everyone in hollywood is rich, spoiled while serving up crappy remakes. It’s impossible to understand how hard it can be to build and sustain a carreer. When you get big paydays you’re getting paid back for all the jobs you didn’t get or busted ass on and didn’t get made. Which is fine - but it means you should be protected. And we live in a crazy expensive city and get taxed at crazy rates that don’t really reflect the feast/ famine of our industry.

It’s just too compilicated to ever explain to someone who’s not in it.

And Shane, I’ve olnly been WGA a few years, but I happily root for other writers to get in. More writers means a stronger union. I just think the business is weirder and more unpredicatble than anyone can iimagine and I see writers shoot themselves in the foot a lot trying to hustle work that is not ready b/c they think “timing is right.”

Shane,

You are so totally wrong about Brooklyn.

Wrong.

It’s just Shane O’Malley, still anchored with guilt for his great grandfather’s moving the Dodgers from Brooklyn.

Ted,

“I was talking about the overriding conditions that have existed in the industry for at least the last ten years preceding this moment right now, and will still exist after a strike concludes. Those conditions have greatly reduced the possibility of selling a spec screenplay”

Nobody’s arguing that. What you said was, “The specter of a strike is not the reason the spec market is dead; it’s been dead for quite some time.”

“Dead” means “dead.” Until two weeks ago, the spec market was anemic compared to what it was back in its heyday. That has nothing at all to do with the subject of the strike. Since the strike authorization e-mail went out, the spec market is DEAD. People who bought scripts in September are not buying scripts today. Agents who were going to market with specs in September are not going to market today.

The subject of how the spec market has dwindled is completely irrelevant to the topic being addressed here. The post you were responding to was commenting on the fact that as a direct result of the strike, the spec market is dead. You corrected the poster, and I was, simply, correcting you. As a direct result of the strike, the spec market IS dead. That is was once livelier than it was last month has no bearing on the subject.

“Interestingly, though, according to Chad Oman at Bruckheimer Films — who sees pretty much every spec screenplay sent out by agents — the number of spec screenplays on the market has also decreased dramatically from about five years ago.”

That’s fascinating. But it doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that RIGHT NOW, as a result of the strike, the spec market is… um… have I mentioned this already?…. DEAD.

““Writer-director” in this context means, someone who is simultaneously employed as a director and has an open writing contract at the time of the strike. If you were hired to both write a screenplay and direct a movie using that screenplay, and you have completed all steps required by the writing contract (signified by the Company’s having paid you in full), then you are no longer — in the context of the strike rules — a writer-director. You’re a director only.”

Uh…. Respectfully…. No. That’s not at all what the rules say.

“As such, you can perform the writing services set forth as the A-H exceptions under the MBA”

Absolutely wrong. The rules specifically state that you can NOT perform the A-H exceptions under a strike. Based on these two comments, I’ve got to assume you haven’t seen the new strike rules. Check ‘em out - they’re on the WGA web page, available for everyone to see, and there’s not a lot of room for varied interpretation. I believe they went up last Thursday.

My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding is the other movie that should be the poster child for studios as serial liars.

I’m curious — since detailed accounts of all income and expenses connected to a project would be required if there was a shift to profit-based residuals, would it be possible to finesse the AMPTP and accede to this demand, but actually come out with better residuals?

My little (fruitless) option agreements generally include a 5% of Net Profits clause, but I think there’s some expectation that you might not really see much from that, given mystery accounting.

I’m not sure if TV writing includes a similar clause — but if we actually did have full transparency in accounting, it seems that we might pick up more money off these other parts.

I’m sure it would require other forms of transparency as well, and limits — such as capping the advertising expenses for ads shown on NBC by Universal, since I imagine that’s one way the studios have of making a movie/TV show look far less profitable than it actually is.

Everyone knows not to go out after dark in Park Slope. All those non-English speaking yuppie couples with their non-English speaking babies eating their non-English Frozen Gelato. Scary!

shane -

you remind me of billy bob thornton’s character in robert duvall’s “the apostle” when he comes to bulldoze duvall’s church but winds up sobbing in his arms because he really just wants to be a part of.

as a brooklyn-born wga member i promise that as soon as you’re ready to come over the williamsburg bridge i’ll be the first one to greet you with a big, warm, bear hug.

Last time I was in Brooklyn I got mugged by Heath Ledger right outside his townhouse.

Reading Ryan’s comment and the response, I feel a need to ask for clarification.

During the strike it’s not okay for a writer to work on a D2DVD project with a non-sig?

I may be mis-reading some things.

Also: I’m currently closing in on a web/DVD based mini-series that I’m writing/producing/directing myself. I’m not opening myself up to getting screwed down the line if I make the jump over to feature writing with a Guild membership, am I? Totally Indy stuff is fine, right? I’ve been thinking yes but I want to be perfectly clear in my understanding.

Being the bad guy isn’t the issue. Being ignorant is… C’mon, think about what you just wrote… Give up on DVD’s and coverage issues for animation and reality? Maybe you haven’t learned the lessons of the past, but I have. All of these issues are important to the guild, whether or not they are important to YOU.

God forbid the guild should ever start a discourse over current proposal by AMPTP. However, if they ever made that mistake, a demand for control of the purse strings, I think, would get the proposal off the table. If profitability is the trigger for residuals, then it makes sense that the guild would want as much guarantee of profitability as possible. You think the producers/studios would like the guilds telling what they can spend money on or not?

The Anonymous writer of post 94:

When we get back in the swing of things, it’s going to be an awkward time for specs in general.

Well, there will be more specs then usual on the market — but there will also more opportunity to sell specs. The two pretty much negate each other. But the opportunity will be driven by the studios’ need for literary material they can produce with a minium of development time … which translates to developmetn costs.

So the overriding conditions will still be in place: studios looking to buy spec screenplay they judge as being one or two revisions away from pre-production. What development money they don’t spend there will go to assignments.

• Ted

Being the bad guy isn’t the issue. Being ignorant is… C’mon, think about what you just wrote… Give up on DVD’s and coverage issues for animation and reality? Maybe you haven’t learned the lessons of the past, but I have. All of these issues are important to the guild, whether or not they are important to YOU.

David G., this is the lament of the idealist.

Yes, you’re right. These issues are important to the guild. No, you’re wrong, these issues are not unimportant to me. They are important to me.

Where you and I differ is in our view of what is achievable. The idealist spurns the good in his desire for the perfect. What can we get? What can we reasonably expect to achieve? What is pie-in-the-sky and what is strike-worthy?

These questions must be asked by responsible parties.

Only zealots believe that prioritization is capitulation.

C.

Craig’s blog worked — management took their draconian residuals formula off the table. Pretty astonishing, when you think about it. This morning’s article in the LA Times was just a coincidence. I think they saw that the best way to unite the Guild, all the guilds, was to threaten our residuals. The next move is up to us. Craig, any chance of working your magic again?

Variety update, Studios nix residual revamp:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974133.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Is this really a show of good faith or just a publicity move?

The residual revamp was bogus to begin with. All they did is take a two-headed squirrel off the table. It shouldn’t’ve been on the table in the first place!

Smells like a strategic move they planned months ago…

Now they can say “look, we took this really important issue off the table, now, for the love of god, follow our good example and give in on this diddly internet thing.”

B.S.

very clever, mr. counter. a day before the strike authorization meeting the very reasonable, eager to keep the town working companies remove a proposal they never intended seriously and force the guild leadership to look like bellicose strikemongers if they don’t immediately follow suit and remove these crazy, outlandish new media proposals. what’s the move?

DWS:

It seems that any marginal cost benefit of the advertising proposal would be far outweighed by its propaganda value for the WGA. Of all the proposals on the table, this is the most gratuitous and the most insulting to writers. The AMPTP is flatly stating that writers should be treated as second-class citizens

No, they are implicitly stating that writers are below-the-line employees. Not the same thing.

And, that is exactly what the Guild has been arguing is the case in the reality organizing campaign.

The nature of the work subject to the MBA makes MBA writers exempt from state overtime regulations. We don’t get paid overtime, we are not legally entitled to overtime.

The Guild has been arguing that the reality story producers and story editors are writers who do work of the same nature that is subject to the MBA. If that is the case, that would make them exempt employees, as well; not legally entitled to overtime.

The Guild has helped file lawsuits on behalf of reality story producers and story editors claiming they have not been paid overtime as required by state law. Overtime wages to which they are legally entitled.

Either the Guild believes story producers and story editors are not legally entitled to overtime wages, like MBA writers, and have filed the overtime lawsuits in bad faith; or

The Guild believe the nature of the work writers do under the MBA makes them non-exempt employees, entitled to overtime under state law.

In this industry, below-the-line employees are non-exempt, and legally entitled to overtime; if they work under a collective bargaining agreement, the law requires it must include provisions covering overtime wages.

Presuming good faith on the part of the Guild in filing the overtime lawsuits, the Guild believes that writers, like editors or assistant directors, are below-the-line employees.

That is the argument that the WGAw has spent two years and considerable resources making loudly, insistently, and militantly to this industry, conducting pickets, disrupting conferences, leafletting network executives’ homes, and, oh, yeah, filing overtime lawsuits.

And, on top of that, in our pattern of demands are two proposals concerning reality jurisdiction. One seeks to clarify that Appendix A — which covers game shows, comedy/variety shows and non-dramatic programming — covers reality. The other seeks to give the Companies the right to give writers who work under the MBA, under Appendix A, the on-screen credit of “story producer.” But there is nothing that would make it possible to cover any reality employees who actually are story producers. So, again, assuming good faith on the part of the Guild, it means we actually believe writers under the MBA are the equivalent of non-exempt, below-the-line employees.

The AMPTP Companies do not make payments for use in supplementary markets to individual non-exempt, below-the-line employees as union minimums. Check.

Non-exempt, below-the-line employees do not enjoy the benefits, economic or otherwise, of separated authorial rights in literary material. Check.

Non-exemt, below-the-line employees are not credited in advertising and marketing materials, even where the producer or director is so credited. Check.

If you’re appalled at the suggestion that creating and adapting literary material for use in the production of motion pictures is a below-the-line job, then you should be appalled at that suggestion no matter where it comes from, whether the AMPTP … or our own Guild.

• Ted

P.S. The attempt to organize Temptation was the only instance where we tried to organize people in reality who actually do work that is subject to the MBA — and, note, please: no overtime lawsuits were filed on their behalf.

Could the OT lawsuits simply be a pressure tactic? “Either pay these folks the overtime they’re entitled to as non-union employees or accept that they belong under the CBA?”

Re: #102 and #122

Ted or Craig,

I’m going to address this straight to one of you fellas, in the hopes of some clarification.

A non-union writer who works for a signatory company during a WGA strike must still be allowed to join the WGA after the strike as a finanacial core non-member… true or false?

I have no personal interest in scabbing and I kinda doubt you’d find any sig prodco willing to put their company in jeopardy with a union, but I don’t like the idea that either the AMPTP is putting false info out there or the possibility that the WGA is purposefully keeping this quiet.

The truth, the whole truth and nuttin’ but the truth, por favor.

To those of you inclined to dismiss this latest management move as “removing something they weren’t serious about anyway,” think again. If you’ve ever talked with anyone from the management side, you know that they hate the current residual formula almost as much as we do. They grouse all the time at having to pay out residual money on box-office bombs — to them it’s throwing good money after bombs. They were genuinely hoping to change that in these negotiations, and the fact that they took it off the table is a huge move on their part. Negotiations is all about sending signals, and with this one they are signalling that they are serious about making a deal. Do they still have some onerous proposals on the table? Of course they do. But we would be foolish, make that irresponsible, to dismiss what happened today. If we are serious about reaching a deal, it’s now up to us to show it — not by rolling over, but by making a similar concession. Otherwise they can say we aren’t really interested in genuine negotiations, and I’m afraid every other union in town, and many of our members, would have to agree.

WGA WRITER:

If I am not a WGA member and write during a strike, am I banned from working in the WGA jurisdiction forever? WGA may deny, in the future, full membership to non-members who work during a strike. However, they may not deny financial core membership. Am I reading that right? Because the AMPTP is making it sound as if someone who scabs during a WGA strike could still join afterward as a fi-core non-member.

Where the Guild strike rules say you will be barred from membership, they are talking about constitutional membership in either the WGAE or the WGAw. Meaning, you will not be permitted to become voluntarily subject to either the East constitution or the West constitution. So you don’t enjoy the rights of constitutional membership (voting in elections and on contracts and on strikes), but neither can you be disciplined for failing to abide by the constitution, working rules, strike rules, internal policies other than policies that set procedures for administering and enforcing a Guild contract, etc.

However, the Guild (the WGAE and WGAE, jointly) cannot bar you from membership in a bargaining unit represented by the Guild. That type of membership is a function of employment in a job subject to a Guild contract — and employers (ie, the Companies) have the sole authority to determine who they hire (or not) into a Guild job.

However (the sequel), Guild contracts like the MBA have what’s called a union security agreement — an agreement between the Guild and the Companies that require membership in the Guild as a condition of employment. However, part III, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the context of a union security agreement, membership is defined as the payment of fees and dues uniformly required by a union’s constitution for membership — a union can compel employees under its jurisdiction to pay dues and fees, but whether or not an employee is subject to the union’s constitution and disciplinary procedures is strictly voluntary.

(That case is referred to as Pattern Makers — and, if you wondered why Terry Gilliam, who pretty publicly went fi-core someitme back, is credited as a “Dress Pattern Maker” on The Brothers Grimm … its kind of a big “fuck you” to the Guild).

In a later case, the Supreme Court ruled that a union security agreemeent can compel payment of the only the fees and dues used to finance the core services of a union — negotiating, administering and enforcing collective bargaining agreements, etc. Hence, the term “Fi-core” to mean someone who is employed under union jurisdiction, but is not voluntarily subject to the union’s constitution.

But, personaly, I think circumventing a Guild strike is a stupid reason to go fi-core. Gilliam did it in protest of the Guild credit arbitration, which at least makes some sense. But, given that fi-core members are working under contractual terms that a lot of writers over a period of decades made real sacrifices to win … like I said: Guild member or not, if writers collectively boycott the AMPTP Companies, and you’re a writer, then honor the boycott — if only to honor the writers who, back in 1960, gave up claim to 12 years of residuals in order to win us our health plan.

• Ted

Well, I’m not too surprised the two people who assumed I must have no confidence in my abilities and have only the worst motives for posing my questions aren’t giving their full names.

I think it’s ridiculous to assume I’d like to be a scab, if you look at all of my posts.

I suggest that, instead of looking for opportunities to conjure up fantasies with which to libel people, you learn to judge people by what really matters: Reality.

1. What they Actually Do.
2. What they Say - in Writing - that they’ll Do.
3. What they Say they’ll Do.
4. What they Say they Might Do
5. What they Say they’re Thinking About.

and lastly -

1. What You Think they Might Do, Say, or Think.

So please, save your mudslinging until you actually see me cross a picket line: that would be my last choice, not my first.

Josh —

Okay, got it. You are aware of only a single meaning of the word “dead,” and if someone uses it in a sense you’re not familiar with, instead of having enough intellectual curiousity to look it up in the event there might be something you don’t already know, you just declare the other person wrong and start in with the bombast.

Same kind of definitional myopism in regards to the strike rules. The Guild is using a term — writer-director — which most members understand as either a statement of personal identity — “I’m a writer-director, even though I’m working at Wal-Mart at the moment” — or as an indiviudal who both contributed literary material used in a motion picture, and directed the motion pictures — “he’s the writer-director of Another Brick in the Wal-Mart.”

Whereas, in the context of an employee labor union issuing strike rules governing the conduct of employee-members during an employee-initatied work stoppage, “writer-director” is a statement of facts of employment. If you are currently engaged under contract of employment as a “writer” on a motion picture, and currently engaged under a contract of employment as a “director” on the same motion picture, then you are a “writer-director.” If you have been engaged under contract of employment as a “writer” on a motion picture, but have fulfilled your contractual oblgiations, and are currently engaged as a director on a the same motion picture, then you are, at present, a “director,” but not a “writer.

The fact that its on the same motion picture is irrelevant. It’s no different then if you were engaged as a writer on a motion picture a year ago, and are now engaged as a director on a different motion picture now. You may identify yourself as a writer-director, but, right now, you are a director. No hyphen.

• Ted

so if I go fi-core do I get to keep my Written By subscription?

Aaron Silverman:

Could the OT lawsuits simply be a pressure tactic? “Either pay these folks the overtime they’re entitled to as non-union employees or accept that they belong under the CBA?”

It’s a pressure tactic, yes, but not quite the way you’re thinking.

As I mentioned, if non-exempt employees are covered by a union contract, the law requires the contract include terms providing for minimum overtime wages.

But the law does not require union contract minimum overtime wages to be the equal or better of the minimum overtime wages required by law. They can be worse.

Typically, unions improve on government-mandated minimums. But if the goal is to get a first union contract, one organizing tactic is to sue an employer for overtime wages due under law, making a union contract with lesser requirements a more attractive alternative.

• Ted

The logic “AMPTP pulled something off the table, so we must pull something off the table as a quid pro quo” is fallacious. The quid pro from the Guild is to propose the formulae and numbers which will give a fair profit to the companies and fair compensation to the writers for so-called “new media,” which are actually sort of semi-new distribution technologies.

I would not like to see the SAV vote rescinded till the removal of separated rights demands are pulled off the table as well. Then it’s just finding numbers and formulae to do, and work might as well continue without a contract during that process.

Ted,

Being as this is about the only web resource available to everyone in which the potential strike is being discussed by pros and knowledgeable folks, it’s pretty important that the information being disseminated BY those pros be reasonably accurate.

The implication of your comment was clearly that the potential strike hasn’t had a massive impact on the spec market. It has. It has killed it for the time being. Dead as a fucking doornail. That’s valid and valuable information to someone who doesn’t have the benefits of top notch agents, a Variety subscription, or a major foot in the door to the industry.

I don’t know if you were unaware of that, or were deliberately trying to shift the focus away from that VERY salient fact, but the point remains - your response was to dismiss that fact as irrelevant. It isn’t. Now you engage in personal insults to deflect the fact that what you posted was, at best, off topic, at worst, misleading.

Play all the word games you want, but before the e-mail went out, specs were being sold. Today, they are not. Dunno what definition of “dead” you want to hide behind, but mine involves things being … you know… DEAD. Like, say, the spec market in this current pre-strike environment. Or your own ability to set your ego aside when you’re wrong. You can look the word up in your dictionary of smug, but I’d wager it says the same thing.

More importantly, your comment on hyphenates is genuinely one of the most bizarre and eccentric interpretations of a clearly phrased document I’ve ever seen.

I highly doubt that any Guild member who’s about to direct something they’ve written would take your post as the final authority before committing, however, so the fact that you’re woefully inaccurate on this one probably doesn’t matter. But you are absolutely, one hundred percent dead wrong. Anyone else who wants to see the words for themselves can go and download ‘em:

wga.org/contract_07/StrikeRules.pdf

Particularly Strike Rule #12.

Keep making it personal, if you want. I kinda think this stuff’s too important for the usual Romper Room hijinks we get up to here.

And, for the record, if you write and direct a movie, you are - Ta Dah! - a hyphenate. Even if Ted Elliot doesn’t think so.

Josh:

You’re misunderstanding.

Just because you’ve provided services as a writer at some point on a project, if you’re not under contract to write, you can sign a new contract to direct or produce. The WGA rules are not gospel or legal. Quoting them constantly doesn’t make you right. They’re a negotiating tool. (Those of us currently producing or directing movies in production have had these conversations with our lawyers.)

BTW, your friendly concern about Craig being in violation is not at all transparent. Do you already have your letter drawn up where you’re going to report him to the guild, or are you going to dash it off at the last moment?

Anonymous,

” The WGA rules are not gospel or legal. Quoting them constantly doesn’t make you right. “

The issue of whether or not they’re binding or have teeth is a seperate one from what they explicitly state. Ted’s assertion that someone who writes and directs the same movie isn’t a hyphenate remains absurd. Your post doesn’t change that.

“Those of us currently producing or directing movies in production have had these conversations with our lawyers.”

So have those of us prepping movies, Mr. Patronizing Dick. It may shock you to find that when I look for real answers to questions like this, I, too, consult my lawyer and my agent. No idea who you are or who your reps are, as you haven’t the fortitude to sign your snipes, but mine are among the best in the business, and their reading of the rules is the same as my own. Which is why I brought it up here, because it’s a subject I hadn’t seen discussed.

“BTW, your friendly concern about Craig being in violation is not at all transparent. Do you already have your letter drawn up where you’re going to report him to the guild, or are you going to dash it off at the last moment?”

I’ll leave the cheap personal shots to anonymous cowards like you. I’m not remotely concerned with Craig’s personal or professional issues, but I AM interested in hearing how someone who’s directing a feature is managing to address the strike rules, even if - shocking, again - I don’t like the guy personally.

Unlike you and Ted, see, I recognize that this stuff is bigger than the petty bullshit we normally get into here, which is why my posts have been straight forward, except when poked by hostile assholes, like you or Ted.

Try signing your posts next time. It’ll make it easier to take you seriously.

Meanwhile, the fact remains - the Guild’s strike rules are more stringent than they’ve ever been, and the clearcut intent is to make it impossible to direct a movie during the strike, if you’re a Guild member. I remain interested in hearing how people who are affected by this are reacting to it, even if you’d rather make this about your or Ted’s personal animosity towards me. Buy a ticket. Get in line. You fail to inform or even entertain.

Josh:

I’ve read Rule #12 several times now, and the salient—and clearly phrased—line I keep reading states “Under applicable law, however, the Guild may not discipline a hyphenate for performing non-writing services. This legal restriction only extends to services that are clearly not writing services.”

How does this contradict what Ted has described? It seems clear that any hyphenate could continue directing without fear of WGA discipline, provided they not engage in the (a) through (h) services.

Excellent point, Mike K.

Surprising that Josh’s “best in the business” crack team didn’t uncover that nugget cleverly hidden in plain sight in the strike rules.

Mike,

“It seems clear that any hyphenate could continue directing without fear of WGA discipline, provided they not engage in the (a) through (h) services.”

Uh… yeah. Now read (a) through (h) services. Imagine trying to direct a film while avoiding doing any of those things. It’s virtually impossible. Tell a director he can’t cut a scene for time some time, for instance. Or give one actor’s line to another.

During the last strike, hyphenates were allowed to engage in (a) through (h) services.

This doesn’t contradict what Ted has said, because what Ted has said has nothing to do with this. Ted has tried to re-define “hyphenate,” and essentially ignored the fact that all over town, writer/directors are realizing their productions are in serious danger as a result of these rules.

Anonymous, it’s pretty clear your facade is pure fiction. If you were actually a Guild member who was about to direct a movie, your counsel would be competent enough to recognize the problems created by these rules, and you’d have already discussed this issue with them. Whoever you are, I assure you, there are much bigger filmmakers than you who are dealing with this, and unlike you, I’ve spoken to a couple of them. But hey, go ahead and spread misinformation. That is, after all, why the internet was invented.

Ted,

It’s a fucking shame you’ve let your ego get in the way of all this. For better or worse, this is the only game in town in terms of public boards where the potential strike is being seriously discussed, and you’ve developed a reputation as someone with real quality insight into these issues. For you to dismiss the fact that the spec market is dead, and that the strike rules are causing real problems for hyphenates all over town simply because you can’t bear to admit you don’t know everything is petty in the extreme.

For all your loathing of me, I remain if not an A list writer, an A minus one whose work demands I be familiar with both the spec market and the issues faced by writer/directors. Believe it or not, even though a few internet freaks think I’m an asshole, I still have access to top level representation, who actually know what they’re doing.

Sorry.

For what it’s worth, I had an offer on a spec I wrote come in last Friday.

Ted,

Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t know that about OT rules for union contracts. Interesting.

So the issue is whether a person who has been contracted as both a writer and a director on a project is defined as a “hyphenate” under the strike rules when that person has already satisfied or completed his/her duties under the writing contract (or writing portion of their contract). Right?

Or to put it another way, if a writer-director has completed his/her duties under the writing portion of the agreement, is that person still employed in a “dual capacity”?

I would tend to think not, but in lieu of a more complete definition of “hyphenate” handed down by some authority, it’s just an opinion.

Josh:

Just to make sure I’m following all this, you’re saying that Craig would be bound by the WGAw strike rules to shoot the script as it stands, at the time of any strike, scene-for-scene, word-for-word? He would not be allowed to NOT shoot scene 45, (pardon the double-neg) for example, or to move the location of a shot from point A to point B in the “unforseen” event that point A were suddenly lost to an earthquake?

And all because he also wrote the script from which he as working as a director?

Does that seem a reasonable interpretation of the strike rules?

Olson’s right on both points. I’m repped at one of the top agencies. My agents declined to go out with my last spec because the market is dead since the strike memos went out. Everyone in town knows this. I don’t understand why you’re pretending otherwise here.

And if you actually read the strike rules, they’re explicit. Getting lost in the question of what a hyphenate really is is irrelevant.

To continue my thoughts from above:

If the script were shot scene-for-scene, word-for-word, how would the guild respond to changes that were made in post? Could a hyphenated director be held responsible for scenes or lines not appearing in a finished product if editing occured during a strike?

If I say “The housing market is dead right now because of the holidays,” would you understand that to mean that no one will buy a house between now and January 2008?

Or would you understand that to mean there where will be so little activity in the housing market until January 2008, its unlikely a new listing will sell?

And, of course, it’s not even true that the studios are buying no spec screenplays (see Jeff Lowell’s post) or contracting writers to assignments.

But it is true that the spectre of a strike makes it unlikely that any specific individual will sell a spec or get an assignment.

I guess my mistake was failing to understand the the term “the spec market is dead right now because of the strike” to mean “no one will buy my spec screenplay right now because of the strike.”

As to strike rules:

If you are not employed under Guild jurisdiction when a strike is called, and you do not accept employment under Guild jurisdiction during a strike, then the Guild cannot discipline you for continuing or accepting employment with a struck Company. This was decided by the Suprme Court in 1978 in American Broadcasting Cos. v Writers Guild, and is an oft-cited precedent in cases involving union strike rules.

So, someone who is employed as a director or producer by a struck Company may perform writing services covered under the A-H exceptions, even if he/she was formerly employed by the same Company on the same motion picture as a “writer.”

It should be pointed out, though: any literary material that is the product of writing services performed by a director or producer under the A-H exceptions cannot be submitted for the purpose of credit determination or in a credit arbitration.

• Ted

Josh:

You have a shitty temper. Ted poked you in the ribs and you punched him in the face. You’re not crazy, but you sure are sensitive. It’s an emotional time and you’re not alone. Dissent is allowed. On both sides. There’s no reason to be violent.

Mike,

“Just to make sure I’m following all this, you’re saying that Craig would be bound by the WGAw strike rules to shoot the script as it stands, at the time of any strike, scene-for-scene, word-for-word? He would not be allowed to NOT shoot scene 45, (pardon the double-neg) for example, or to move the location of a shot from point A to point B in the “unforseen” event that point A were suddenly lost to an earthquake?

And all because he also wrote the script from which he as working as a director?

Does that seem a reasonable interpretation of the strike rules?”

Pretty much. I’ve spoken to several Guild reps who’ve been quite upfront about it - the purpose of those rules is to keep anyone from doing work for the studios.

And by the way - this isn’t about Craig. It’s about all of us who have projects in the works to direct.

“If the script were shot scene-for-scene, word-for-word, how would the guild respond to changes that were made in post? Could a hyphenated director be held responsible for scenes or lines not appearing in a finished product if editing occured during a strike?”

Directing doesn’t end when shooting ends. It’s reasonable to interpret “Cutting for time” to apply to post production as well as production. As written, the rules are clear - if there’s a strike in effect, and I say to my first AD, “Let’s cut scene 12 because it slows everything down,” I’m in violation of the strike rules.

Working Member,

“And if you actually read the strike rules, they’re explicit. Getting lost in the question of what a hyphenate really is is irrelevant.”

Worse. It’s a major distraction from the issues at hand. As are the cheap personal snipes being bandied about, which is why I’m doing my pathetic best not to get caught up in them. Failing, I know. But trying.

Ted,

Let’s sidestep all the prevarication and distractions. State in plain English whether or not you concur with the statement that the current spec market is dead because of the potential strike. The clearcut implication of your first post was that you DON’T agree with that. Everything you’ve written since then has been designed to cloud the waters on that issue.

As for the strike rules, why would the Guild go to the effort of specifying that we can’t do (a) through (h) contributions when, in fact, we can’t provide ANY writing services during a strike?

Mookie,

“You have a shitty temper. Ted poked you in the ribs and you punched him in the face. You’re not crazy, but you sure are sensitive. It’s an emotional time and you’re not alone. Dissent is allowed. On both sides. There’s no reason to be violent.”

Ted’s posting very eccentric interpretations of the facts as though they’re gospel. When confronted with that, he’s getting pissy and personal, rather than addressing the facts. Unlike the usual back and forth on this board, this isn’t theoretical twaddle. These are issues that directly affect a lot of people. I guarantee you that right now, Craig is having tough conversations with his lawyer and agents about these regulations, and is NOT relying on Ted’s interpretation of them.

If Craig has come to a place where it’s possible to direct a movie during this strike, I’d be very interested in hearing how that’ll work. Not because I’m a cynical bastard who thinks he’s a dick, mind you, but because I’m gearing up to direct a movie. And so are many other people. So yeah, I punched Ted in the face, cos he’s being a petty, petulant twit, and his petty, petulant twittiness is interfering with people’s ability to grasp the details of what’s going on out there.

At the end of the day, however, anyone who looks to a screenwriter for valid legal advice is a goddamn fool, no matter how much effort said screenwriter has invested in creating the illiusion that he’s a legal authority. Now excuse me, cos I have to call my lawyer and ask him how to solve this third act reversal problem.

Josh:

Who said Ted’s words were gospel? He’s providing the guppies, who do not have access to the best agents and lawyers around, with a little info. You are the grain of salt, my man. There’s no need to for vinegar.

“Directing doesn’t end when shooting ends. It’s reasonable to interpret “Cutting for time” to apply to post production as well as production. As written, the rules are clear - if there’s a strike in effect, and I say to my first AD, “Let’s cut scene 12 because it slows everything down,” I’m in violation of the strike rules.”

So shoot a line reading for that scene on mini-dv. With finger puppets. The rules don’t say it has to be GOOD.

No need to thank me. R.

Mookie,

” He’s providing the guppies, who do not have access to the best agents and lawyers around, with a little info. “

Exactly my point. See, folks like me, we have good agents, good lawyers, and we live in the world we work in. We don’t need Ted Elliot to explain the meaning of this stuff to us, thankfully. But there are plenty of folks coming up who don’t have access, who don’t have much in the way of valid resources, so they come to a place like this looking for the input of people who know what they’re talking about. And they see, “Gosh, a big time, A list Hollywood screenwriter who knows everything about the minute workings of these deals,” and they buy it.

As someone who was once one of those folks, outside looking in, I have a problem when someone uses their position of privelige and power to willfully misinform them, whether it’s about ego, or something more nefarious.

As for the vinegar, I’ll just say this, at the risk of reducing this even further into the schoolyard - take two minutes and go back to the beginning of this sidebar. My initial posts were completely polite, strictly on target. Ted made it insulting with his sarky comments about my inability to understand the meaning of words, and I - my weakness, I admit it - responded with some vitriol. But if you’re gonna sling accusations at folks, get your facts straight. I was talking factual matters. Ted made it a personal slugfest. You wanna chastise someone, aim it at Captain Superior.

Josh:

You write:

“…the purpose of those [strike] rules is to keep anyone from doing work for the studios.”

And by “anyone” you mean anyone over whom the guild has leverage (i.e., WGA members, or those who one day hope to be members)? Stipulated: the guild would prefer that NO ONE work for the studios in the event of a strike.

“And by the way - this isn’t about Craig. It’s about all of us who have projects in the works to direct.”

Agreed. I used Craig as the w-d hyphenate example for, hopefully, obvious reasons. But, I’d like to make sure I’m clear—it’s not about anyone with projects in the works to direct—the hyphenate issue is ONLY about those WGA members (or wannabe’s) who are also directing their own script.

Woody Allen could do all the nasty things listed in (a) through (h) if he wanted to direct a version of MY script, but NOT if he wanted to continue directing a script of his own?

Is that right?

First, I post this admitting that these are not my own thoughts. I could have neither developed, nor expressed, these ideas so clearly and effectively. Neither could I have so generalized the sentiment without diluting the incredibly powerful words as I have. I fully admit to taking license with the thoughts and words of a greater man than myself in an attempt to provide a lens with which to view the current situation (and, indeed, many others with which we are faced with in life). It was my intention to clearly identify those areas where I omitted or substituted words or phrases in an attempt to mask the author’s initial audience. I promise that I will divulge the true author at the end of the post.

Second, I beg forgiveness for co-opting the following words for the purposes of the current labor issues. They were intended for a much more important cause—one for which I hope they are never forgotten. I couldn’t help, however, seeing the similarities in tone and presentation, to the situation at hand. I have no delusions that I have accurately conveyed either the message intended by the original author, or the issues at hand.

I’m certain I don’t need to grant permission to shoot holes in what is to follow. I would hope, however, that readers instead focus on the words and how they might be used to elevate us all.

I feel I should state that I have no agenda in posting this, other than to productively add to the conversation, and to generate thought.

Here goes:

================

I came across your recent statement calling my present activities [not well thought out]. …If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, [I] would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I am [here] because injustice is here.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by …and not be concerned about what happens [elsewhere]. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations…but your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes.

These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions…leaders sought to negotiate…but…consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then, last [timeframe] came the opportunity to talk with leaders of [the] community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants…As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why [strike]? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. [A strike] seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work…may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved [Union] been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken…is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn’t you give [them] time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that [they] must be prodded…before [they] will act.

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain…without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr [who?] has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant ‘Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

================

The preceding was a bastardization of a letter written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from his jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama. I encourage everyone to find and read a copy of the original. It is available many places online.

Finally, in collusion with the mea culpa’s from the beginning of the post I offer one of Dr. King’s closing statements:

“If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Josh:

Ted makes a worthy point. “Writer-director” is a term of industry, but a very sloppy term when dealing with labor issues.

During a strike writers are forbidden to submit literary material to struck companies, and apparently they are also forbidden to provide A-H services (which are designated as “non-writing” by the MBA).

However, if you are a writer-director who is no longer operating under a writing contract, then I do believe as a director with a directing contract but no operative writing contract, you would be able to provide A-H services.

Nonetheless, A-H services are minimal. Paltry at best. That’s why they’re excepted.

So the problem remains. How do you deal with it?

My answer to you?

I have no fucking idea. Honestly. I just don’t know. The worst part is that a studio can go hire a scab to write material or rewrite material, and ultimately I don’t have the authority to not shoot it. I can hold my breath and throw a tantrum, but to what end?

In my case, I’m actually in fairly decent shape. When November 1st arrives, the majority of the shoot will be in the can, and I’ve done quite a bit of work on the pages that are yet to shoot. This script has been developed since January. I don’t intend any major rewrites. Nor does the studio. So then there’s minor concerns. Or A-H concerns.

I’m sort of whistling past the graveyard on this one. If the strike happens while I’m still shooting, it seems likely the movie will suffer for it.

“Unlike the usual back and forth on this board, this isn’t theoretical twaddle.”

Absolutely. Because we’re on strike.

Oh wait. We’re not. Which makes arguing about A-H exceptions…. let me get out my dictionary…. theoretical.

But please, Josh, continue lecturing us about the proper way to approach this non-theoretical issue.

I can’t believe Ted dared say you don’t comprehend words.

Okay — I read the interchange between Ted and Craig and Josh regarding the “directing” problem.

For me, it comes down to either supporting the strike or not, should there be one. That’s why I come down on the side of Josh. WGAw writers should not be out there directing during the strike and, therefore, supporting the studios. Even if they’re not physically crossing the picket line, they’re certainly helping production continue.

Allowing for no writing at all (no A-H writing) is just a way of saying that the Guild leadership doesn’t want its members undercutting the strike. I agree (should there be a strike.)

As was posted earlier, there are already directors who have told the Guild they will honor the strike should there be one. Good for them. I hope Craig joins them. But, as Josh said, it’s not about Craig. It’s about all the WGAw members directing.

Okay, fire away. If anyone is still reading this thread.

Craig -

When you say:

”(…)I do believe as a director with a directing contract but no operative writing contract, you would be able to provide A-H services.”

You mean the director can act as a writer? I mean, A-H services are writing services. No? I guess a hyphenate is wearing two hats, but it’s still one head. Isn’t it true that were there no strike the writer would be on set to handle at least some of the tasks described in A-H? It seems tricky to argue that director-joe, NOT writer-joe, wrote this line of dialogue to bridge a cut shot. To me the strike rules read that hyphenates are not allowed to perform a-h services. PERIOD. Were does it say that they’re not allowed to perform such services UNLESS they put on their director’s hat?

Technically, A-H exceptions aren’t writing. However, the WGA can bar writers from performing this non-writing during a strike (apparently).

They can’t, however, bar not-writers from doing them during a strike (I believe).

“Writer” and “not-writer” are not defined by guild membership, but rather by the existence of employment as a writer.

In other words, I’m only a hyphenate if I’m employed as a writer and director at the same time.

But again…it’s sophistry, given the realities of the situation. A-H exceptions don’t really cover what I do as a director, much less as a writer.

Hmmm… murky waters.

Though the WGA’s stand on this is crystal clear as the rules also state that “The Guild strongly believes that no member should (…) enter the premises of a struck company for any purpose.”

No meeting your wife the grip for coffee. No asking the guard for meter change. No directing a movie.

Yeah, well, “Strongly believes” means “We can’t stop you.”

And I disagree with what “the Guild” strongly believes. Those words really mean “What the CURRENT LEADERSHIP of the Guild believes.”

And if the Guild now believes that its members should violate legal and enforceable contracts, they need to think twice.

Mike,

“Woody Allen could do all the nasty things listed in (a) through (h) if he wanted to direct a version of MY script, but NOT if he wanted to continue directing a script of his own? Is that right?”

That was my reading, initially. One of the Guild reps I spoke to, however, interpreted it differently. She said it applied to any Guild member who was directing, even if they hadn’t written it. She also commented that any director who one day wanted to be in the Guild shouldn’t do those things, or they’d never make it in. It struck me that her interpretation of it was not based on what’s on the page.

Craig,

“Ted makes a worthy point. “Writer-director” is a term of industry, but a very sloppy term when dealing with labor issues.”

That may be the case, however, as regards these strike rules, the meaning of the word is crystal clear.

“However, if you are a writer-director who is no longer operating under a writing contract, then I do believe as a director with a directing contract but no operative writing contract, you would be able to provide A-H services.”

And yet, the strike rules specifically prohibit them. As I said to Ted, in that writers are prohibited from providing ANY services under the strike, why on Earth would the Guild make a point of outlawing specific services? As a writer, it’s a given you can’t provide any of those services already.

“Nonetheless, A-H services are minimal. Paltry at best.”

Paltry they may be, but good luck directing a movie without providing them. These are basic, day to day actions of a director. Cut that scene, give Thug #1 Thug #2’s line. Don’t pick up the rock, pick up the hammer.

“In my case, I’m actually in fairly decent shape. When November 1st arrives, the majority of the shoot will be in the can, and I’ve done quite a bit of work on the pages that are yet to shoot.”

Yup. And then you’re in the editing room, and the movie’s five minutes too long, and all of a sudden, your option is violate strike rules, or fuck your own movie.

Which brings me to the point I was TRYING to make earlier this week, before this got derailed by Ted and this whole “that depends on what your definition of is is.”

This particular rule puts the studios in a position where it would be absolutely insane to go ahead with a writer/director’s film. They should, reasonably, fire the hyphenate and replace him/her with a straight up director.

If that hasn’t happened already, I promise you it will.

And that raises the question - to me, at least - shouldn’t the WRITERS Guild be making it easier for studios to hire WRITER/Directors rather than harder?

“Technically, A-H exceptions aren’t writing.”

Exactly. When a project goes into arbitration, the director doesn’t get points for cutting a scene to save time, for instance. He can’t claim to have written it because he switched lines. I don’t have a problem with the Guild telling me I can’t write during a strike. I get that part. I’m a smart kid. It’s this thing where they define certain actions as not writing, then define them as writing that kinda confuses me.

“And if the Guild now believes that its members should violate legal and enforceable contracts, they need to think twice.”

Yeah, but this is where you fall down on the job. Honoring a strike will very often compell you to do just that. That’s the nature of a strike.

Anonymous,

“For me, it comes down to either supporting the strike or not, should there be one. That’s why I come down on the side of Josh. WGAw writers should not be out there directing during the strike and, therefore, supporting the studios. Even if they’re not physically crossing the picket line, they’re certainly helping production continue.”

Um…. I’m not endorsing these rules. Specifically, I think this one (as well as the ban on doing internet projects) are lame-brained in the extreme. If there’s a strike, I’ll support it completely, and abide by its rules. But I think a couple of these new ones are ridiculous, and it’s frustrating to feel like my own guild is undercutting me.

Here’s my issue - I’ve always been firmly in the camp that believes power is more important than money. I believe firmly in the issues the Guild is threatening to strike over, but I believe even MORE firmly that we need to be more focussed than ever on issues of power and control.

So I’m not as cut and dried on this directing-during-a-strike question as you might think. I can’t condemn Craig or any other hyphenate for going ahead and directing their movies during a strike. If anything, I’d like to see the strike rules make it MORE attractive for the studios to hire hyphenates, rather than less. Make it clear that the ONLY way you’re gonna get anything remotely resembling writing services during a strike is to let us make our own movies. Give us final cut, what the hell. (As long as I’m living in my dream world, why not go all the way?)

Anonymous #112,

“Oh wait. We’re not. Which makes arguing about A-H exceptions…. let me get out my dictionary…. theoretical. But please, Josh, continue lecturing us about the proper way to approach this non-theoretical issue.”

Except it’s not, genius. It’s VERY real. Because the threat of a strike is an issue in every meeting room and on every set in this town, and it’s affecting how business is done TODAY. Decisions are being made whether or not to go ahead with productions next month, and those decisions are being made based on things like, oh, say, these new strike rules.

I understand that to some creep who lurks around screenwriting message boards looking for tips on how to break in and posting anonymously, ALL of this is theoretical. But to those of us who work here, this shit is taking up a great deal of our working day. So if you don’t have anything of any actual value to contribute, why don’t you go play on the NAMBLA boards? They miss you.

Josh, Got it. I see your point and I agree with it. I just jumped to the conclusion that you didn’t want hyphenates directing during the strike because I don’t. But what does it matter what I think? I’m just a goddamn writer. Which is exactly your point. Somehow writers have to get more power or else they’ll remain at the bottom of the food chain.

Seems ridiculous and borderline illegal.

If the Guild wanted to prohibit members/future members from performing ANY services for the studios, that verbiage would be easy to write (and understand).

I would urge all out-of-work writers that, when you’re bridging the strike behind the counter at Starbuck’s, you be careful not to serve that double-moacha half-caff latte to anyone who works over at Universal.

Jeez.

“Josh, Got it. I see your point and I agree with it. I just jumped to the conclusion that you didn’t want hyphenates directing during the strike because I don’t. But what does it matter what I think? I’m just a goddamn writer. Which is exactly your point. Somehow writers have to get more power or else they’ll remain at the bottom of the food chain.”

Yeah, but while I’ve directed and plan on doing it again, I don’t think it’s reasonable to state that that’s the only way to empower writers. Some writers - I like to think of them as REAL writers - don’t have the disposition or inclination to direct, and it’s inane to insist they get over that.

And let me clarify - I’m not sure HOW I feel about hyphenates working during the strike. I get both arguments, and admit upfront that I have skin in the game on one side of the argument. (It would, however, be enjoyable to be able to throw turds at Craig and call him a scab or a strike breaker, so I think that evens out my other inclination, taking me back to a place of even-handed honesty.) But even if I decide that it’s not right to direct during the strike, I can’t imagine I’ll be so adamant about it that I’ll be prepared to hurl shit at anyone who does.

On the one hand, we shouldn’t be providing the studios with material, on the other, we ought to be taking any opportunity we can to empower writers.

Or we could just argue over what “hyphenate” means…

Mike,

“I would urge all out-of-work writers that, when you’re bridging the strike behind the counter at Starbuck’s, you be careful not to serve that double-moacha half-caff latte to anyone who works over at Universal.”

Also, be careful not to write down any orders, and certainly don’t write the name of the customer on their cup. Nor should you direct any other Starbucks employees to write anything down.

Good point. Thanks, I hadn’t thought about that.

Have you ever tried to make a grocery list into something that McKee would be proud of?

I tried last night, but I’m having real problems with the second act…

Josh, very funny about throwing turds at Craig balancing out the argument!

I DO see both sides of the argument, but I still think united we stand, disunited we fall. Hey, I didn’t want this strike, but should it happen, I’d like it to be effective.

Mike K., I get your point. And it’s totally valid. I just have a different opinion. But thanks for stating yours with humor. It’s amazing how many people on this board who aren’t WGAw members, yet want to become working writers within the Hollywood system, are hostile to union writers who might not share their opinion.

Sometimes, where you stand, depends on where you sit. Once they see this, not only will they be less hostile, but they’ll become better writers.

“Here’s my issue - I’ve always been firmly in the camp that believes power is more important than money. I believe firmly in the issues the Guild is threatening to strike over, but I believe even MORE firmly that we need to be more focussed than ever on issues of power and control.”

Yeah but everyone knows that in this country first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the woman.

“So if you don’t have anything of any actual value to contribute, why don’t you go play on the NAMBLA boards?”

What’s NAMBLA? I’ve never heard of it. Tell me more.

OMG! maybe i can get a studio to read my script now!! its all about a guy with no talent who can hardly spell who comes to hollywood and there’s a writer’s strike on so they read his script and buy it and give him more money than he’d ever see in his lifetime working at the bookstore and he spends it all on blow and hookers. but that’s only the first act. in the second act he realizes it’s not all about drugs and sex and money. no, it’s about art, too. so he writes another script, but this time its not an action movie. it’s a serius movie and it’s really good and it wins 10 academy awards. then, in the final act he realizes that the studios aren’t paying him enough for his talent (he can only afford 5 cars, and not one of them is a lambrogini) so he organizes a strike and gets all the other new writers to go along with it. then, in the suprise twist, a new guy with no talent who can hardly spell comes along and replaces him and the whole cycle starts all over again. circle of life, bitches!! :D

Ruiari said: “Yeah but everyone knows that in this country first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the woman.”

You talk like a fifteen year old boy who’s never had sex but has seen The Godfather approximately 46-78 times.

“You talk like a fifteen year old boy who’s never had sex but has seen The Godfather approximately 46-78 times.”

I think he sounds more like a New York cab driver myself.

JOKE TIME!!!

Jewish kid’s doing his science homework for school and he comes across a term he’s unfamilar with so he looks over at his grandpa and asks, “Grandpa, what’s a vaccum?” Grandpa puts down his kosher deli sandwhich long enough to say, “Simple, son — a vaccum is a void.” Kid gets really agitated, almost screams back: “I know, but vat’s dat void mean?!?”

lol