Looks like no Golden Globes or Oscars this year

Cafe Society
101

[QUOTE=Equipoise]
The public can get as mad as they want, and grumble all they want, but none of that matters to the writers and it won’t affect them at all. All the grumbling public wants is to be entertained (your Oscar party, for instance), and if they’re not entertained, they can drift off and go do other things, such as, indeed, read books, or go to movies in theaters or watch DVDs. Either way, public ire or public apathy, it doesn’t affect the writers. It would, I assume and hope, affect the production companies. That’s why the writers should hold firm to get what they want.
[/quote]

What an incredibly blinkered point of view. One of the worst possible eventualities from the writers’ POV is – or should be – exactly what you theorize: That the public drifts off and finds other things to do and discovers that, “Hey, I don’t need to watch so much TV anyway.” Or “Hey, it ends up all these reality shows are just as entertaining [or un-] as scripted TV.” Fewer viewers = less advertising revenue = fewer shows = fewer jobs. The chief pressure point for the writers is that the public is going to get aggravated at the lack of new entertainment and effectively pressure management to start cranking it out again, which of course would require settling with the writers. And the writers should be concerned that thus far, the majority of the public doesn’t give a damn about the strike. Just as with baseball, the worst possible outcome for both sides is that the public stops buying their product. I frankly find it amazing that you think that the end-consumer is irrelevant to the outcome of this or any strike occuring in any consumer-based field.

If your consumers can get by just fine without your product, who becomes irrelevant: Them, or you and the product you’re selling?

102

i’m surpised that writers can so simply disregard the final consumer of their products. Even if, technically, it’s the studios who buy them, we watch them.

People may sympathise with writers because we all want fair treatment and everything, but if you start to be too annoying, then, when/if the studios get replacements (from Canada o Nigeria) of gets some writers to cross picket line, we won’t fell they are traitors or anything.

If you take my (insert show here) for too long…then I’ll find something else to do. Te writers need the public to pressure the studios.
The last thing the WAG need is MORE people finding alternatives.

…and thank you for biting the hand that feeds you, it’s our money you get paid with (even if the studios take 99.9999999%, that 3 cents you get, is our money.

103

[QUOTE=Equipoise]
A lesser show, the Broadcast Film Critics Association (BFCA, more commonly known as the “Critics Choice Awards”) is also in trouble.

From The Carpetbagger (I don’t have a link):

[/quote]
Perhaps not.

104

[QUOTE=Jodi]
What an incredibly blinkered point of view. One of the worst possible eventualities from the writers’ POV is – or should be – exactly what you theorize: That the public drifts off and finds other things to do and discovers that, “Hey, I don’t need to watch so much TV anyway.” Or “Hey, it ends up all these reality shows are just as entertaining [or un-] as scripted TV.” Fewer viewers = less advertising revenue = fewer shows = fewer jobs. The chief pressure point for the writers is that the public is going to get aggravated at the lack of new entertainment and effectively pressure management to start cranking it out again, which of course would require settling with the writers. And the writers should be concerned that thus far, the majority of the public doesn’t give a damn about the strike. Just as with baseball, the worst possible outcome for both sides is that the public stops buying their product. I frankly find it amazing that you think that the end-consumer is irrelevant to the outcome of this or any strike occuring in any consumer-based field.

If your consumers can get by just fine without your product, who becomes irrelevant: Them, or you and the product you’re selling?
[/QUOTE]

In a previous post, you said I think I’ll continue to support books as I always have, that being my chief definition of “written” entertainment. Let me know when my access to books is under threat. I am perfectly happy to watch re-runs and old movies, as little television and movies as I actually watch.

So–you aren’t a very big consumer of filmed & broadcast writing, after all. Perhaps you should start a book club, for the sake of your social life. Or throw parties devoted to watching your favorite Reality TV! (Hmmm…Jane Austen or * Survivor*?)

Quite a few “consumers” have looked into the issue &* do* support the writers. I’m one of them.

105

Well, most actors support the writers’ strike. Their contracts are up for renegotiation soon too. If they go on strike, should they also assume that the public will drift away and not want to see them any more? Considering how much people still care about Lindsey Lohan, that would be a tough argument to make.

Megan Mullally was on Conan a couple of nights ago talking about being on Broadway in the musical adaptation of “Young Frankenstein,” and she said that she knew she would never have been there without the wonderful writers who created her character on “Will and Grace.”

Actors are also a dime a dozen, right? The studios should just shitcan actors who cause them problems because there are plenty to take their places, right? That’s why Robert Downey, Jr. doesn’t get work any more, and why Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson have fallen by the wayside - because there are so many talented people ready to take their places, right? RIGHT?

106

[QUOTE=Hamadryad]
Actors are also a dime a dozen, right? The studios should just shitcan actors who cause them problems because there are plenty to take their places, right? That’s why Robert Downey, Jr. doesn’t get work any more, and why Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson have fallen by the wayside - because there are so many talented people ready to take their places, right? RIGHT?
[/QUOTE]

Every time Robert Downey Jr. has a relapse he disappears from anything major for a year or more at a time.

Tom Cruise has not been the same since the Oprah meltdown and Mission Impossible 3 performed way below expectations and Lions For Lambs is a complete bomb.

Mel Gibson is effectively retired from acting and has not announced any plans for future directing gigs.

Just saying is all.

107

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
So–you aren’t a very big consumer of filmed & broadcast writing, after all. Perhaps you should start a book club, for the sake of your social life.
[/quote]

My social life is fine, thanks, perhaps as a result of watching so little TV. And I already have a book club.

I haven’t said whether I support the writers or not. But arrogant “who cares about the public?” comments like those in this thread don’t nudge me in the writers’ direction. In fact, the only thing that doesn’t make me jump in the other direction is the realization that the arrogance and santimony are not coming from any writers but from those raising a counter-productive “defense” that boils down to “to hell with the fans.” That and the fact that I happen to think some (although not all) of the writers’ demands are meritorious.

108

[QUOTE=Hamadryad]
Well, most actors support the writers’ strike. Their contracts are up for renegotiation soon too. If they go on strike, should they also assume that the public will drift away and not want to see them any more? Considering how much people still care about Lindsey Lohan, that would be a tough argument to make.
[/quote]

Which argument are you ascribing to me, exactly? That the public is relevant, or that they are irrelevant? What I was responding to was “The public can get as mad as they want, and grumble all they want, but none of that matters to the writers and it won’t affect them at all.” That’s BS, IMO, as it should be to anyone thinking about where entertainment dollars come from. And it (“the inconvenienced public can go fuck themselves”) certainly is NOT a stance the WGA has adopted, because they’re not that stupid.

I never said this, or anything like this, about actors OR writers, and I don’t bother defending things I never said.

Interesting that you would pick as exemplars three people who have been fairly successful in shooting themselves in the career by making themselves unpopular with measurable segments of the public. They may not be “by the wayside” but they’re not out in the swim at the moment either. And yet other actors have stepped up and filled the void, right? RIGHT? RIGHT?!?

109

Yeah, I chose pretty poor examples. Downey always comes to mind because he started frying his brain back in the late '80s, and just kept on having roles waiting for him as soon as he got out of his latest stint of rehab/prison time. Cruise and Gibson… well, Cruise is really more of a celebrity than an entertainer these days. I can tell you who’s ahead in the polls in New Hampshire, but I totally don’t follow movies closely lately. I think Gibson had his fall and “redemption,” and now is probably laying low to spend more time infecting his family with crazy.

Like I said - yup, I admit, damned poor examples.

I think the attitude I’m seeing a lot, though, is that the writers should be grateful that the actors and producers and directors and studios are WILLING to LET them work for them. Writing’s not that easy. I can kick the hell out of an essay, but I doubt I could write an episode of Dora the freaking Explorer, let alone a minimum of five good one-liners a week IN plot, IN character, INoffensive enough that they didn’t piss off advertisers in your average crappy-but-popular sitcom.

The reason people are in the Guild is that they have already proven themselves to have saleable talent (SAG requires screen time, so I assume WGA does too). If those 20,000 people who are madly, brilliantly talented are waiting in the wings, there are, from what I can tell, loads of non-union jobs they can take to get paid and accredited. For some strange reason, people in broadcast writing don’t seem eager to stay in those positions once they have the opportunity to get a WGA benefit-protected job.

Also, if there is so much out there screaming to be produced, why HAVEN’T the studios hired all-new, non-union writers? There are surely more than enough to fill the slots of the striking writers, right?

When the SAG goes on strike, why don’t the big studios just hire non-union actors for their TV shows and movies? I know there are loads of incredibly talented people out there who would love those jobs, too…

110

There are two things the general public could do to hurt the writers:

  1. Hurt their feelings. If the public is against you, that’s demoralizing, and the WGA would probably break down/back down earlier than they would without the additional pressure.

  2. Boycott companies like Worldwide Pants and United Artists for making separate deals with the WGA.

The WGA is insulted against 1 by, well, being insulated. Their friends and family and colleagues all support them, so they can brush off the public for a good long time unless they get really nasty.

2 just seems unlikely. Does anyone really care enough to turn down good entertainment that they’d otherwise watch? In favor of the reality shows? I doubt it.

Souring people to TV and movies in general, well, it ain’t gonna happen. And it hurts the guys they’re striking against too, so it’s not really pertinent to this conflict.

I agree that individual actors can tarnish their public image enough to lose work. But writers don’t *have *public images. As individuals, they’re anonymous. As a group, their work is too ubiquitous for American culture to do without.

111

[QUOTE=Hamadryad]
I think the attitude I’m seeing a lot, though, is that the writers should be grateful that the actors and producers and directors and studios are WILLING to LET them work for them. Writing’s not that easy. I can kick the hell out of an essay, but I doubt I could write an episode of Dora the freaking Explorer, let alone a minimum of five good one-liners a week IN plot, IN character, INoffensive enough that they didn’t piss off advertisers in your average crappy-but-popular sitcom.
[/quote]

Well the attitude I’m seeing is the sort of “you’re either with us or against us,” “there’s no middle ground” stridency that IME all too often is the default attitude of people supporting union actions. It’s not like I’m against the writers; I’m a writer myself both professionally and as a (published) recreational creative writer. But I am philosophically opposed to the idea of closed union shops (compulsory union membership) and I’m bothered by the damage the action is doing to all the other people thrown out of work while the writers fight for their rights. And the arrogance of the “who cares what the public thinks?” attitude is off-putting, to say the least. It would be nice to be able to recognize the complexity of the issues and some ambivalence about the action without being condescended to, but maybe that’s too much to ask.

112

[QUOTE=Jodi]
What an incredibly blinkered point of view. One of the worst possible eventualities from the writers’ POV is – or should be – exactly what you theorize: That the public drifts off and finds other things to do and discovers that, “Hey, I don’t need to watch so much TV anyway.”
[/QUOTE]

They’ll come right back when the new shows start.

And shouldn’t the STUDIOS be just as worried? This is a business dispute; why are you blaming one side more than the other?

113

All the networks have to do is deliver an audience to watch the commercials. There are plenty of ways to do that without scripted shows. Bum fighting or softcore porn (no dialogue necessary) will draw the same amount of eyeballs to the Doritos commercials as a Two and a Half Men epsiode. The networks will be fine. They can survive indefinitely without scripted programming.

114

[QUOTE=Jodi]
It would be nice to be able to recognize the complexity of the issues and some ambivalence about the action without being condescended to, but maybe that’s too much to ask.
[/QUOTE]

Judging from the reactions people who are “against” the writers get, I think it might be.

As Jodi said, the “you owe us” attitude of some of the writers is tiring. I’m not anti-writers (I am, however, anti-union), I just don’t think they realize how arrogant they come across to some people.

115

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
All the networks have to do is deliver an audience to watch the commercials. There are plenty of ways to do that without scripted shows. Bum fighting or softcore porn (no dialogue necessary) will draw the same amount of eyeballs to the Doritos commercials as a Two and a Half Men epsiode. The networks will be fine. They can survive indefinitely without scripted programming.
[/QUOTE]

And the film industry? They’re striking the movies too.

You’re wrong, btw. TV *needs *scripted programming to give deliver to the sponsors anything near what they’re accustomed to getting. Or else the studios would have already caught on and given us even more reality programming than we have. For every American Idol, there’s a CSI: Miami, and you can’t get the latter without writers.

And no, not anyone can write for CSI: Miami, it takes a certain amount of skill even to turn out that mediocre product.

116

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
All the networks have to do is deliver an audience to watch the commercials. There are plenty of ways to do that without scripted shows. Bum fighting or softcore porn (no dialogue necessary) will draw the same amount of eyeballs to the Doritos commercials as a Two and a Half Men epsiode. The networks will be fine. They can survive indefinitely without scripted programming.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I have to ask; did a screenwriter kill your Dad? Run over your dog? You’ve proven writing screenplays isn’t easy; why do you continue to pretend it’s of no value?

If the networks didn’t need scripted programming they would never have used it.

117

[QUOTE=RickJay]
And shouldn’t the STUDIOS be just as worried? This is a business dispute; why are you blaming one side more than the other?
[/QUOTE]

(a) Sure. (b) Because one side stopped work and the other didn’t. One side is preventing others from working, and the other isn’t.

118

[QUOTE=RickJay]
They’ll come right back when the new shows start.

And shouldn’t the STUDIOS be just as worried? This is a business dispute; why are you blaming one side more than the other?
[/QUOTE]

Because the WGA is one of them Evil Unions. Some people prefer the Bosses.

119

Looks like the Golden Globe winners will be announced via a press conference.

Golden Globes Ceremony, Parties Canceled

Regarding the three-hour gala mentioned, they were going to have a pre-press conference special on the Golden Globes, then an hour-long press conference announcing the winners, then post-press conference parties with stars, switching back and forth between several parties, to get reactions. That smelled too much like the Golden Globes themselves, which after all is an excuse for one big party, then lots of other parties afterwards. I would imagine that the WGA and SAG said “Oh yeah, wanna bet?” with SAG actors not showing up at any parties where network cameras were positioned, and so now we just have an hour-long press conference announcing the winners. I don’t know what they’re going to do for a whole hour though. They can’t show clips from nominated films because the WGA has to sign off on them. So, what, an announcement of a winner, then talking heads talking about it, then another announcement, then more talking heads and so on? The Globes do have a lot of nominees, movie and TV (here’s a list of the nominees) so maybe, with commercials, it will take an hour even without the talking heads.

It’ll be interesting. I do feel bad for the HFPA and the nominees though. The HFPA are stuck in the middle, and first-time nominees won’t get their chance to enjoy it all. It’s a damn shame. The Globes are usually much more fun than the Oscars because people have been drinking in a laid-back atmosphere, so it can be a hoot. (Emma Thompson’s creative and funny speech as Jane Austin for winning the screenwriting award for Sense and Sensibility is a classic. She won the Oscar too, but gave a normal Thank You speech.)

120

[QUOTE=Elenfair]
… and then, people ask me: “Do you sometimes base characters on people you come across in real life? Do people like this really exist?” It’s usually because their minds are totally boggled by some dude we’ve created – more often than not, it’s a variation on the theme of the “Intellectual masturbator with an over-inflated sense of self-importance who, no matter what you say or how you say it, will come back and try to show you how he, in his great wisdom, is simply the superior being.”

And on these words, this little Sea Cucumber (a bottom feeder, of course),writer of drivel that has consistently done really well in ratings this year until the strike, needs to go to bed. Tomorrow, there’s a meeting with Fans4Writers. You know, those who will drop us like a ton of bricks after the big National campaign they plan to launch in a few weeks. Then there are actions to plan, meetings to organize, things to do, people to corrupt, animation writers to set on fire… You know. The usual nasty union things.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek,

Pond Scum and Friends.
[/QUOTE]
Elenfair, I’ve appreciated your contribution to this topic and, as someone employed in the film industry in a non-union capacity, I’m behind the WGA 100%.

But I was wondering what you thought of this that appeared in the L.A. Times yesterday…