When Ellen DeGeneres announced that she was going to continue filming her show despite the writers’ walkout, the WGA responded in the strongest possible terms, excoriating her and calling for boycotts and pickets.
Now David Letterman, Jay Leno, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert–none of whom happen to be gay women–have announced that they will be returning to work.
Thus far the WGA has been remarkably quiet on the announcement. Letterman’s World Wide Pants is endeavoring to cut a separate deal with the WGA, but there’s nothing definite, and Letterman will likely be returning regardless of whether he has a writing staff or not.
I find that curious, this sudden silence. Is the WGA really standing on principle? Or was Ellen simply seen as an easier target?
PAD
• 
I don’t think Ellen’s personal life had anything to do with the WGA’s initial response.
I think when those other four shows you mention made similar announcements in a relatively short span(all featuring celebrity hosts with similar or greater clout than Ellen), the WGA got very nervous. Their shot over the bow against Ellen apparently did not have its intended effect, and there now appears to be uncertainty as what to do next.
Face it — if the ratings for these shows that go back on the air start to rise again without a staff of writers, the WGA could lose more and more of its initial leverage with each passing week.
Then again, I could be wrong.
I don’t think it has anything with her gender or sexuality. There are two big differences:
— Conan, Dave, Jay, etc. all waited two months before going back to work, sometimes at huge personal expense, while Ellen skipped just one day’s work. (Obviously, the WGA can’t be happy about all the talk show hosts going back on the air, but they did take a stand, and held their ground, at least for a little while. Ellen never even tried.)
— Ellen doesn’t seem to have changed her show, while all the nighttime TV hosts have pretty much vowed to avoid doing the parts of their programs that would require “writing.” Let’s hope they stick to this promise.
Isn’t that a bit of a stretch? I suspect the different treatment has less to do with Ellen being a gay woman, and more to do with the fact that she returned to work after one day.
I’m a longtime lurker and generally find your posts interesting and informative. This, though, smacks of conspiracy theory. Really, is that the best you can come up with?
I don’t recall seeing, and I can’t find now, any official excoriation or press releases denouncing DeGeneres. Plenty of anger and disappointment over her decision to return back to work so quickly…but then, I’ve seen plenty of disappointment and anger over the possible return of all those other talk show hosts before the strike is over. Lots of mixed feelings about it, actually. Maybe we’re just reading different weblogs and news reports. This is the only thing official I could find, straight from the Guild, and it’s about Carson Daly, who isn’t a member of the WGA at all.
I think the circumstances are more than a little different, and I don’t think Ellen’s sexuality or gender has much, if anything, to do with it.
Nah, her gender and sexual preference likely had zip all to do with it. As the others have pointed out before me; it’s far more likely that the timing of her crossing the line VS their doing so and the clout possessed by that group of guys played far, far more into the different reactions by the WGA then who Ellen likes to slip between the sheets with.
Well there is precedent for the late shows to be returning after 8 weeks. Carson went back on the air in the 80’s after 8 weeks. For the late shows they have at least shown solidarity for the writers and will probably avoid those parts of the show that require them.
Ellen on the other hand, never left the air, I wasn’t even aware of one day as other posts have claimed. She showed no solidarity and acted as if nothing happened, really. I haven’t seen any real change in her show.
And I’m sure the late shows will get picketed and I wouldn’t be surprised to see an audience interruption occur in all of them as the writers make their feelings known.
But really considering how many writers are gay, I think your line of thought is off the mark. This is about someone not even making an attempt to support their co workers, not someone’s life style.
I have to agree with the other posters, PAD. I think you jumped for the ulterior motives a little too soon.
I believe comments have been made indicating that Jay, Dave, Conan, et al. are contractually obligated to go back to work, at least for the non-writing aspect of their jobs.
To go along with someone else’s comments, I wish them luck with the balancing act they face, trying to do their jobs and yet not really write; and I hope they are successful in doing so.
I don’t really think that a Tonight Show or Late Show consisting of nothing be interview segments is necessarily what the regular viewers are looking for – I know that on those occasions where I happen upon either show, I stick around through the monologue and the bits, and almost always bail when the first guest comes out.
RD Francis
If the WGA is picking on anyone it’s poor Carson Daly, with some of the striking writers actually disrupting an interview during one of his shows.(http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/carson-dalys-taping-disrupted-by-writers/)
I’m all for the writers and if the guy was doing a skit or something it would be one thing but he was only interviewing Jerry Rice!
Of course, he had to cross a picket line to do it. presumably, so will Jay and Dave and the rest. I suspect those guys will get less grief than either Ellen or Carson did–all of them have sacrificed a few weeks and, more importantly, it will be a good thing for the WGA to have them bìŧçhìņg at the studio guys. You’d think Leno would be brutal, since he’s leavingthe show anyway, under what seem to be less than happy circumstances.
Ellen walked Day 2 of the strike. You gots to make noise about that. It’s day frickin’ two. Now that it’s dragging, making noise would seem, I dunno, petty. There was a story recently of WGA members showing up at a Carson Dally taping, and they caused somewhat of a ruckus, and it didn’t make the WGA seem like the heroic underdog of the story. It just made them seem kinda douche-y.
I can see the regular chat shows ala Conan / Letterman / Leno comming back because they aren’t primiarily scripted. Colbert and Stewart? I don’t buy it. That show thrives on it’s writers to fill the gap in before the interviews.
I was just going to say what everybody else here said. I really don’t see a bunch of writers getting upset about her gender or her sexuality. And don’t forget, both Leno and Letterman (don’t know about Stewart or Colbert) have supported the WGA (hëll, I remember seeing a photo of Leno passing out doughnuts at a picket line…mmmmmm, dooooughnuts)and paid at least some of the non-writing staff out of their own pockets.
When it comes to that, the WGA probably understands what a pain in the tuchus this thing has been for viewers and a pain in the pocketbook it’s been for camera operators, stagehands, and other people like that who are affected by–but not directly involved in–the strike. Giving Letterman, Leno and others a pass is good for their PR.
tardisrider/Roger Gray
Ooops! Sorry for the double post.
It is my understanding that the NETWORKS have ordered the shows back on the air, presumably because of the non-writers guild employees, or so the PR goes.
But I still wish the whole situation could have been solved without a strike, although let’s face it, the writers are getting the short end of the stick over the Internet and other electronic uses of the material they created.
After all, when networks post whole episodes of programs on their own websites, isn’t that a “broadcast”?
Now I may be wrong about this, but wasn’t Ellen threatened by the network almost immediately?
I have to disagree with most of the other posters and say PAD is probably right about this. I don’t know that it was DeGeneres’s gender and sexuality per se, but it does seem to have a great deal to do with her relative lack of power. If the WGA slammed Leno and Letterman and they both refused to back down they would retain large audiences who thought the WGA was impotent and silly; Attacking Ellen DeGeneres does not appear to have carried that downside. The Writer’s Guild is wise to avoid a situation which would demean it.
I’m wondering if Stewart and Colbert will do a segment about the WGA strike in their first new episodes.
I think another serious problem for the WGA with Ellen is that she’s very likely a member of the SAG. The fact that the DGA and SAG are also set to strike in a few months, this does give the appearance of Ellen crossing the picket line, thus undermining everybody’s position with the AMPTP.
I see a couple of things…first off, if anything, I’d say the WGA should be more vocal in their opposition to line-crosses now, months into the strike, than they were over someone who from the very beginning indicated they were going to continue to work. Ellen’s action was at the very early stages, indicating her moral support, but unwillingness to show solidarity. On the other hand, the late shows are crossing lines when the WGA needs solidarity the most. February is a critical Sweeps period, and the networks need something to raise ratings in order to set next year’s advertising rates. If the networks really are forcing the late shows back to work, the WGA needs to be most vocal now.
I don’t know if Ellen’s sexual orientation plays into it at all, but clearly her sex does. Although it’s also her show…a morning/afternoon talk show, as opposed to the heavy hitters of the late shows. But again, that’s really just more reason for the WGA to speak out against this. Ellen’s acts really don’t sway the industry one way or another, but Leno and Letterman are trend setters…others may follow them.
I sort of wonder if the WGA isn’t holding off because, in theory, the late night shows are doing this because it protects the other employees of the show; it was my understanding that the networks were going to fire all the other employees of the show if they didn’t go back on the air.
If (and I’ll admit its a big if) the WGA is recognizing that other people have to eat, too, then I’ll respect them more. If its that they are scared of the late night show’s power or they hate Ellen or something, well, I’ll respect them less.
Well I think the difference is that Stewart, Letterman and Leno have made it abundantly clear that they support the WGA and are only going back to work to keep from their other employees from being laid off.
But I’m certain is has nothing to do with DeGeneres being a minority.
Stooge: Ellen doesn’t seem to have changed her show, while all the nighttime TV hosts have pretty much vowed to avoid doing the parts of their programs that would require “writing.” Let’s hope they stick to this promise.
Luigi Novi: Ellen is bound by a no-strike clause in her AFTRA contract, but indeed, has chosen not to do a monologue (ie: a bit written by WGA writers) for her show.
Source: http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/advisory-i-have-ellens-response/
lalys: I’m a longtime lurker and generally find your posts interesting and informative. This, though, smacks of conspiracy theory.
Luigi Novi: He’s questioning whether the WGA’s difference in its responses indicates a discriminatory attitude. That has nothing to do with “conspiracy theories”.
Fred: I don’t recall seeing, and I can’t find now, any official excoriation or press releases denouncing DeGeneres.
Luigi Novi: Right here: http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/wga-east-says-ellen-not-welcome-in-ny/
I don’t think it has anything to do with gender or sexual preference. It probably has more to do with who’s the easier target.
Leno & Letterman are far more powerful than Ellen. If they did what she did right away, there’s no way the WGA would have jumped all over them. The writers know where the big bucks come from and they won’t do anything to cause animosity there.
One final thing: The longer this strike goes on, the more I’m leaning away from the WGA. Granted, I have not read every single article that concerns the strike, but what I have read keeps showing the WGA as being unreasonable. (And now I await someone to produce an article to refute my statement.) In the beginning, I was behind them all the way. But not now.
If there has been discrimination, I don’t think it’s been on the part of the WGA, but has rather been industry-wide. Ellen is the only female talk show host of any real consequence and influence who’s also a member of the Guild. (As near as I can tell, Oprah, who probably holds more sway than any of them, isn’t a WGA member, nor are any of her writers.) That’s hardly the Writers Guild’s fault, and they can’t be blamed for the fact that Ellen was the first to cross the picket line. That’s just the reality of the situation.
Luigi Novi, thanks for pointing out that official WGAe release, but I still think it’s wrong to see this as a discriminatory act — to suggest that they “went after” Ellen because she’s a woman and gay and therefore an easy mark. I think it’s wrong to suggest that her straight and male counterparts are getting a free ride from the Guild, or that the circumstances (timing, network pressure, individual deals being worked out, etc.) aren’t different enough to maybe warrant a different response.
The fact remains that Ellen DeGeneres broke the picket line almost immediately, and she has shown little support for the strike since then. Whereas the late night hosts (like Leno, Letterman, Stewart, Colbert) have shown a great deal of support, often joining the picket lines or brining out food, etc. Their return seems a lot more reluctant, so naturally the Guild’s response is going to be different.
// One final thing: The longer this strike goes on, the more I’m leaning away from the WGA. Granted, I have not read every single article that concerns the strike, but what I have read keeps showing the WGA as being unreasonable. (And now I await someone to produce an article to refute my statement.) In the beginning, I was behind them all the way. But not now. //
Gee, everything I’ve read shows the producers as being unreasonable, it is not the WGA who is walking from the table, it’s the producers who are going “we’re not going to talk until you completly drop things we don’t want to talk about”. That’s not the way bargining is supposed to work in labor disputes. The way it’s supposed to work is the union says “we want A, B and C” and management goes “well we can’t do A, but B we could give you and there might be some wiggle room on C but we’d like you to consider giving back X, Y and Z first”, and then everyone negiotiates and haggles and agues and finally compromises, (Very rarly does anyone get everything they want in a labor dispute).
What’s going on here is the union is coming in going “we want A, B and C” and management is going “We’re not going to talk to you until you take A, B and C off the table” That’s the very definition of unreasonable. As for reading things that show the WGA as being reasonable, you might want to check out Mark Eviener’s daily blog http://WWW.NEWSFROMME.COM, there’s tons of articals and commentary there.
And remember, most of what you read in the mainstream press is controlled by the folks who don’t want to give the people the WGA is striking against, it’s to thier advantage to slant the stories to thier point of view and show the WGA as being unreasonable.
One final thing: The longer this strike goes on, the more I’m leaning away from the WGA.
I agree with this, but not because I think the writers demands are unreasonable – in fact, I think they’re quite a bit more reasonable than they should be, and as Darren points out, it’s the AMPTP who’re refusing to negotiate. (There’s a great conspiracy story about NBC floating around, which notes they pulled back all their dramatic actors 6 weeks early for filming, citing as the reason that most of their shows ended filming early due to numerous pregnancies. End result? NBC has more original content for their long-running shows than anyone else, and is using it as leverage to gain ratings/advertising money, and blocking AMPTP negotiations until their new material runs out.)
However, I think WGA has shot themselves in the foot for public goodwill by refusing to allow the People’s Choice Awards, Golden Globes, and Oscars to have writers, run old show/movie footage, etc. The WGA needs to do something in a good faith move – they need to either negotiate a “we’ll honour” contract with late night TV hosts to allow some writers to work, grant people (Stewart et al) permission to work on the Oscars, and so forth, or they’re going to lose public support rapidly as the public loses the awards shows.
It’s not that the awards shows are mega-ratings gatherers, but instead that all the entertainment (and likely regular) media will be focusing on the shows not having writers and how badly it affects them, and how in the past during strikes, exemptions have been granted. They’re going against past precedence, and I think it’s going to play badly – and that’s unfortunate, because the WGA needs public support.
The WGA has had numerous chances to show good-faith with late night hosts, awards shows, etc, and could have spun it in a “see, we’re being flexible and trying to keep things as normal as possible for the people who need to eat, for the audience, etc – we just want X, Y, and Z, and aren’t being all that unreasonable! It’s the AMPTP who’s refusing to do anything” etc and so forth. Instead, it’s going to be spun to make the WGA look ugly and petty. Which is a pity.
Oh, and also, PAD – the press releases I read for the late night host returns were slamming the studios for threatening the hosts jobs (and the jobs of the other support staff), and essentially forcing the shows back on the air. I think the difference is, Ellen didn’t have to be put back on the air by force – she never left the air.
The WGA is still adamantly against things like Stewart hosting the Oscars, and has very clearly refused to grant him or any writers permission to do so – and have been sort of nasty about it. So, I think the nastiness is there for everyone, it’s just that in the particular case you mention, it’s a matter of perceived strongarming versus zero support.
Thank you for the correction, Luigi Novi.
Here’s a question: Would the strike keep the talk-show hosts — Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jay Leno, David Letterman — from creating their own material for the shows? A few weeks ago, a radio called observed that these people are former stand-up comics who earn millions, but when the writers went on strike they pretty much went silent. Is this out of courtesy to their programs’ writers, or from the difficulty of coming up with their own material on a daily basis? (The documentary COMEDIAN showed that it can be a grueling and time-taking process to come up with 10 or 20 minutes of solid material.)
James, I believe that the hosts are all members of the WGA and thus are precluded from any writing of new material.
I wonder, if Leno and Letterman are members of the WGA, can they do improvisational monologues, or will they be just going straight to the guests? To me, an improvisational monologue beyond “Welcome to the show. Here’s who showed up tonight. . .” is writing.
Nah, writing is a process. A writer writes, reviews what he’s written, rewrites, throws stuff out and adds new stuff, then rewrites a dozen more times. Improv is a conversation with the audience almost as much as interviews are a conversation with the guest. Even if you have a few topic for improv planned out ahead of time, that’s no worse than writing out the questions for the guest ahead of time.
The Wiki entry on Ellen’s show provides a couple of interesting things, assuming they’re accurate. Ellen’s membership in another union prevents her from going on strike, and her show competes against other morning talk-shows that are also not on strike, such as Regis and Dr. Phil. Were Ellen to stop production, her show would risk breach of contract, and lost ratings/viewers that could result in her losing her time slot or cancel the show altogether. She has eliminated the opening monologue, which presumably required a WGA writer, and she can’t write her own because she’s a member of the WGA, and that work would be considered struck work.
Seems to me that Ellen had immediate and serious issues that required her to continue working.
On the other hand, the WGA have made good faith moves during these negotiations. Just prior to the big breakdown of talks, the AMPTP told the WGA negotiators that if the WGA would stop asking for an increase in DVD residuals, the AMPTP would make some concessions on streaming residuals. The WGA agreed, and the AMPTP laughed in their faces (figuratively). So if the WGA seems unwilling to make any concessions now, it’s because the AMPTP have been unprofessional dìçkš about this.
// One final thing: The longer this strike goes on, the more I’m leaning away from the WGA.
I agree with this, but not because I think the writers demands are unreasonable – in fact, I think they’re quite a bit more reasonable than they should be, and as Darren points out, it’s the AMPTP who’re refusing to negotiate. (There’s a great conspiracy story about NBC floating around, which notes they pulled back all their dramatic actors 6 weeks early for filming, citing as the reason that most of their shows ended filming early due to numerous pregnancies. End result? NBC has more original content for their long-running shows than anyone else, and is using it as leverage to gain ratings/advertising money, and blocking AMPTP negotiations until their new material runs out.)
However, I think WGA has shot themselves in the foot for public goodwill by refusing to allow the People’s Choice Awards, Golden Globes, and Oscars to have writers, run old show/movie footage, etc. The WGA needs to do something in a good faith move – they need to either negotiate a “we’ll honour” contract with late night TV hosts to allow some writers to work, grant people (Stewart et al) permission to work on the Oscars, and so forth, or they’re going to lose public support rapidly as the public loses the awards shows.
It’s not that the awards shows are mega-ratings gatherers, but instead that all the entertainment (and likely regular) media will be focusing on the shows not having writers and how badly it affects them, and how in the past during strikes, exemptions have been granted. They’re going against past precedence, and I think it’s going to play badly – and that’s unfortunate, because the WGA needs public support.
The WGA has had numerous chances to show good-faith with late night hosts, awards shows, etc, and could have spun it in a “see, we’re being flexible and trying to keep things as normal as possible for the people who need to eat, for the audience, etc – we just want X, Y, and Z, and aren’t being all that unreasonable! It’s the AMPTP who’s refusing to do anything” etc and so forth. Instead, it’s going to be spun to make the WGA look ugly and petty. Which is a pity. //
The WGA has shown NOTHING but good faith. They are not the ones who are walking away from the table. By allowing talk shows, award shows, ect to go on would just give the producers/networks/studios/ect more reason not to go back to the table.
From the producers standpoint why go back to the table when if they just wait another 8 weeks the WGA may allow more shows to go on the air, in “good faith” or to avoid “bad publicity”. The producers/studios/ect can afford to “tough it out”, when you have billions of dollars losing a few million is nothing. To suggest otherwise is silly.
If the WGA allowed some work to go on while talks were resuming that would be one thing, you could argue that is in “good faith”, but that’s not whats happening here.
What you’re suggesting as “good faith” is exactly what management wants, basically for shows to go on without having to deal with the unions. That’s part of the producers tatics, “let’s refuse to talk and maybe they’ll start to panic and go back to work eventually and we won’t have to pay them a dime”.
Once a union (any union, not just the WGA) starts playing that game of chicken by managments rules they might as well throw in the towel, pull down thier pants, bend over and ask managment “may we have another sir?”
Bobb Alfred: The Wiki entry on Ellen’s show provides a couple of interesting things, assuming they’re accurate. Ellen’s membership in another union prevents her from going on strike, and her show competes against other morning talk-shows that are also not on strike, such as Regis and Dr. Phil. Were Ellen to stop production, her show would risk breach of contract, and lost ratings/viewers that could result in her losing her time slot or cancel the show altogether. She has eliminated the opening monologue, which presumably required a WGA writer, and she can’t write her own because she’s a member of the WGA, and that work would be considered struck work.
Luigi Novi: I should disclaim that it was I who added most of the info in that article, partially using sources I found when making my previous posts in this thread, and partially from sources already given for material in the article for the strike itself. (I also added that material to the article on Ellen herself.)
// Nah, writing is a process. A writer writes, reviews what he’s written, rewrites, throws stuff out and adds new stuff, then rewrites a dozen more times. Improv is a conversation with the audience almost as much as interviews are a conversation with the guest. Even if you have a few topic for improv planned out ahead of time, that’s no worse than writing out the questions for the guest ahead of time. //
The area is greyer than you think, there are a lot of professional writers out there who consider improv a part of the writing process and use it to work out an idea before a word is even put on paper.
There are scenes in many movies and TV shows that were initially improved with the writer or writers acting as basically editors, taking the best lines, refining a few words, adding a line or two for clarity and then puting it all back down on paper. It’s my understanding that shows like the Office are done that way and many skits on SNL come about this way. Hëll according to some sorces Stan Lee and Jack Kirby worked in way very simular to that way when doing the FF.
So as I said it’s a lot greyer then you think. You could argue that it’s the refining that makes it writing and that’s valid but I could find you 10 guys who would probably disagree with you.
Ellen’s membership in another union prevents her from going on strike
One would assume she’s in the SAG, which has a “no strike” clause, ie, just because the WGA strikes doesn’t mean the SAG members strike.
Although, some SAG members have done exactly that. Again, solidarity.
Cut them all loose and only hire non-union workers. THis silliness has gone on long enough.
“Although, some SAG members have done exactly that. Again, solidarity.”
I think there’s a semantic difference…under current agreements, Ellen can’t strike. it’s not the SAG, but the TV performers union, that has that requirement. I don’t know if the SAG current contract prohibits them from striking, but I haven’t seen any SAG members coming out and saying they’re also on strike. Many have supported the WGA in word and deed, but are any really not working in support of the strike? It strikes me (sorry) that if they aren’t working, it’s because production has shut down for lack of a writer. Just about every show I’ve read about continued to finish production with completed scripts.
So, there’s solidarity, and then there’s just not being able to work because there’s no new material to work with.
“Cut them all loose and only hire non-union workers. THis silliness has gone on long enough.”
What’s gone on even longer is how the AMPTP refuses to share in the bounty that is the profits made from this business. Their claim that streaming media generates no revenue is ludicrous. If it didn’t, why is every network and studio falling all over itself in order to make material available on-line? The WGA has accepted a lower DVD residual rate far longer than it should have, because they allowed the AMPTP to claim that it was an unproven media, and they needed the breathing room in order to get it off the ground. Not only is it off the ground, the DVD market is generating new productions…see Serenity and direct to video productions.
Any time a labor force is being cut off from large profits, I’m all for giving them as much time as they need to make management come around. And while I was less supportive of the WGA in the beginning, seeing how the AMPTP has acted like a group of rich, spoiled jerks that don’t want to pay the people responsible for their success has won me over to the WGA side.
That, and we just got HBO free for a year, so we’ve got access to catching up on tons of movies now.
Actually, I think there’s only one answer to this problem.
Jack Bauer: Union Buster
I would say that Ellen got all the flak because she was *first* to do it, and because she was alone. If Jay had gone back two weeks in, and none of the others had, he would have had gotten some of the same reaction she did, but less. Now, two months in, the righteous ire over Ellen has faded and several others are doing the same thing, which further lessens the hit any individual would have to take.
The WGA agreed, and the AMPTP laughed in their faces (figuratively). So if the WGA seems unwilling to make any concessions now, it’s because the AMPTP have been unprofessional dìçkš about this.
Oh, no…no, I think you’re doing the AMPTP a disservice. I’d say they’ve been totally professional dìçkš.
PAD
PAD,
Speaking of the strike, in your latest “But I Digress” column, you write about how writers should demand a change to that provision of copyright law that designates the studio as the “author” of a film (and of a T.V. series?). What would it take for such a thing to actually happen? Would the WGA have to decide that yes, it should be that way, and then negotiate such changes next time around? Or, could those writers who have some degree of clout (presumably those who are also superstar actors and/or directors, since I doubt “just writers and nothing else” writers have any clout in Hollywood) be able to force the issue (and thus pretty much guarantee it’d eventually end up as something the WGA would have to demand), by adding language to their contracts stating, essentially, “I, Joe Smith, am the owner of this motion picture, because I wrote the dámņëd thing.”?
I don’t have my copy of CBG handy, so I apologize if you actually addressed the specifics of how such a change in ownership of a movie would have to come about.
Rick
P.S. For the record, I agree that the writer(s) of a film should hold the copyright, not the studio. Or if having the studio as the “author” somehow provides the best copyright protection, then the writer(s) and the studio should share the copyright (and the profits).
P.P.S. I think I can pretty much guarantee that nothing I write will ever become a film or TV series (not that I have any expectations such a thing would happen), because I’d demand 100 percent control, and they’d never give me that.
Unless, of course, this idea of yours takes off and leads to even more power for writers in Hollywood.
James Lynch: Would the strike keep the talk-show hosts — Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jay Leno, David Letterman — from creating their own material for the shows?…Is this out of courtesy to their programs’ writers, or from the difficulty of coming up with their own material on a daily basis?
Luigi Novi: While doing it on their own would obviously be more difficult, they could certainly create some material on their own. The reason they don’t, as I understand it, is that it would be considered scab work, just as if they hired non-union writers.
Regarding Corporate Copyright vs Writer Copyright, Craig Mazin, Former WGA west board member, wrote an article about the benefits of the current system here.
I remember Letterman returning to the air during the last writer’s strike in the 80s. (That wast the only talk show I was watching then, so I don’t recall if the others did the same.) So it was really no surprise to me that history repeated itself.
In relation to the talk-show folks and show hosts doing their own material, I’m reminded of a stand-up comic (whose name I forget, sorry) who had a grudge when his routine on LETTERMAN was cut for political reasons. He said that a talk show is “about as spontaneous as a space shuttle launch” and the guests know exactly what questions will be asked, and the host has a pretty good idea what will be said. Further, I doubt the hosts themselves are sititng with the writers for hours on end, pitching ideas and fine-tuning the jokes. So I don’t know if they *could* do their own shows writing everything themselves.
If the WGA allowed some work to go on while talks were resuming that would be one thing, you could argue that is in “good faith”, but that’s not whats happening here.
What you’re suggesting as “good faith” is exactly what management wants, basically for shows to go on without having to deal with the unions. That’s part of the producers tatics, “let’s refuse to talk and maybe they’ll start to panic and go back to work eventually and we won’t have to pay them a dime”.
And this is where we disagree. I’m not arguing that writers should just pack up and go back to work while waiting for the AMPTP – but I do think the WGA needs to negotiate the same sort of contracts they did the last strike ’round, with specific studios and production companies (what Letterman just did), and I think they need to allow for some leeway when it comes to specific things like awards shows which will affect how the public views them.
For better or for worse, the WGA needs the public support in this. Picketing the Oscars, preventing them from being written, forbidding movie clips in any awards show? This is not going to be great for engineering public support. It should be considered a PR nightmare by anyone with any knowledge of how it’s gonna play out.
Further, I doubt the hosts themselves are sititng with the writers for hours on end, pitching ideas and fine-tuning the jokes. So I don’t know if they *could* do their own shows writing everything themselves.
Depends on the host, JamesLynch. Colbert and Stewart are writers on their shows, and put in the same long hours as the rest of the writing staff. Same for Letterman and Ferguson – don’t know about Leno or O’Brien, though.
P.P.S. I think I can pretty much guarantee that nothing I write will ever become a film or TV series (not that I have any expectations such a thing would happen), because I’d demand 100 percent control, and they’d never give me that.
I was under the impresion that authors (other than certain very powerful, popular authors) don’t generally have any control over the sales of the movie rights; that its something that the publishing houses insist on reserving, because its one more potential way to get a return on their investment in a new or newish author. This is one reason so many bad movies get made out of novels.
I could be wrong, but if its true, I’m not sure you can even get a book published if you want control over the movie…
John,
I wasn’t talking about the sale of movie rights, per se. I was talking about how if a studio were to buy the rights to make a movie based on a book or short story I’d written, I’d want 100 percent control over the making of the film. I’d want final say on the actors and director, and most importantly, on the script.
Again, they’d never allow that.
But then I don’t really believe anyone’s ever going to make a movie of something I’ve written; but if they were to do so, I would demand they adhere to my vision, and not, for example, decide to “improve” it because the producer’s brother-in-law’s boss’ wife’s psychiatrist has this “great idea.”
Rick
P.S. Dustin, Westfall, your link doesn’t work. In fact, there is no link. When I put the cursor over the word “here”, it just highlights the word, nothing more.