I didn’t mean that the only way I know if they’re writing is because I’m seeing that there is no script in front of them. I know people who work there who have told me they are not writing. So unless they’re all lying about it, then I must believe they are not writing. I mentioned the scripts and prompters to point out that even if I didn’t know anyone, there is no evidence that they ARE writing and lots of evidence that they’re not.
I think the best “evidence” we have is that it’s so rarely done, and so hard to do. We’re amazed that they can come up with all those words and be funny on the spot, and bring the show in vaguely on time doing it. I’ve done “improv” theater, and the worst-kept secret about improv is that it’s very rarely improvised. That is, we discuss and plan and try lots of things in rehearsal, including extensive bits of dialogue that don’t change, so while the show is different every night, and we think on our feet and incorporate details the audience provides, the fact is that we’re usually not just making stuff up on the spot. We know what will work and what won’t, and if we dig ourselves into a hole, we’ve got rehearsed material to help us get back out.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to be that witty and funny and go in cold or nearly cold, just that my esteem for the men in question would go up tenfold if that were indeed the case. But my experience (in theater, mind, not in television) tells me that there’s a wide range between truly extemporaneous theater and reciting memorized monologues, and what I’m curious about is where in that continuum these guys are working.
I guess maybe it’s more like radio; I don’t know how much of the morning radio talk is scripted and how much is extemporaneous, but it seems like more than in theater.
Do any of you have any insight (personal or otherwise) as to how the WGA feels about Stewart and Colbert bringing their shows back?
I get the sense that Jon agrees with the writers’ position (he’s pointed out the absurdity of not rewarding them residuals from the internet), but I also assume he’s trying to save himself and his non-writer staff from a prolonged work stoppage.
Do you suppose this is creating any bad blood, or is he getting a pass on being considered a scab?
I don’t understand one thing. I would think that many of the off-air staff are members of a theatrical union such as IATSE. Are they? If so, aren’t they crossing a picket line by working on the show?
And as for this, Samantha Bee’s piece yesterday was a field piece done at the US Capitol. It was about a change in the rules governing lobbyists. Currently, they often pay someone to stand in line on their behalf to get a seat in the audience during a Congressional hearing. A senator or a representative (can’t remember which) proposed a change that would prohibit them from hiring someone else to stand in line for them.
I don’t believe you.
You’d have to be a child to watch Stewart or Colbert go through the first segment of their show, something that lasts around ten minutes, without a single fluff, um, pause, muffed line, or dropped cue and believe for an instant that they are making it up as they go along from a few previous decided upon notes.
It’s not possible. Nobody has ever done that in the history of television. Anyone who is the tiniest bit familiar with performing, public speaking, or even improvisation could tell you that they are working off of scripts.
What about the Colbert routine with Lou Dobbs, in which he brought back Spanish Steven? Are you seriously trying to tell me that someone who obviously doesn’t know a word of Spanish beyond adiós is improvising his lines? Nobody in the universe could think he was doing anything other than laboriously reading phonetic Spanish off a prompt.
I’m a professional writer who has spent many years on the subject of the rights of writers, and has dealt with contracts from both sides. I’ll match my credentials against yours any day.
As a professional writer, I’m telling you in so many words that they are working off of scripts. I’ll go further. They’re reading off of cue cards or a TelePrompTer for the entirety of their bits, and not just the one I mentioned earlier. Watch any late night show host when they’re sitting at their desks and just talking and compare that to when they’re doing a bit. The differences are gigantic.
I don’t believe you are even watching the shows. If you did you couldn’t possibly make the case you’re trying to sell us.
As I posted earlier, my analysis of the situation is that the WGA is not saying anything because they already lost the PR battle when they took on Leno, not because Stewart and Colbert are “breaking the rules,” at least the rules as the WGA sees them.
Somebody is writing. To tell you the truth, it looks to me like more than one someone is writing. I’d certainly be impressed if I could be assured that either Stewart or Colbert could put together their shows daily by writing the segments by themselves. But I won’t believe for any length of time that they’re making it up as they go along.
Writers are telling you this? So? That’s like saying, “I heard it on the internet so it must be true.” If they’re anything like the ones who comment on Nikki Finke’s blog, half of them are illiterate or insane. (Which is true of most of the so called pros I’ve met over 30 years.) So I’ll be blunt. Who are you going to believe? Them or your own eyes?
Yeah, I must have missed all the other strike-related threads. Thanks for clearing some of that up, guys.
But still, I did not realize that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were members of the WGA. Why the hell aren’t they on strike with the rest of them?
I’m not union lover, but I’m no union hater either. It seems to me you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either Jon and Stephen (and whoever else this applies to) is a member of the union, in which case they should go on strike; or else they are not and are free to write whatever the hell they please. By doing this, they are effectively saying “Look how much we can get done without the writers!”. But I’m no expert so maybe somebody could explain it to me better.
It’s like (for example) a school janitor’s union going on strike. You can’t keep janitors in the school and say “well, as long as they don’t mop, they are fine. But they can clean the floors with a sponge, because the school still needs to be clean.”
It seems ridiculous at first glance. I’m just not sure if there’s more to the story or not.
The writers’ strike is hard for people outside the industry to understand because the situations don’t correspond well to factories or offices or the usual models that most people work in or encounter.
The late night hosts - along with many other people in television - are both labor and management. They hold several titles, with several responsibilities.
The hosts are all, to my knowledge, executive producers of their shows. That puts them at the top of the hierarchy. These titles are not just symbolic. The shows are run by production companies and they own part of the production companies. That makes them management by any normal definition. They are responsible to the other owners, to the networks that they contract with, to the people who work for them.
That’s why Letterman could make a separate deal. His production company, Worldwide Pants, owns his show and Craig Ferguson’s.
The rest of the shows are owned by the networks, whom the WGA will not cut deals with. You can think of the production companies as being subcontractors of the networks. They do the day-to-day business and are completely responsible for what happens, but are not the ultimate boss.
In an auto factory, the head of the union wouldn’t also be part of management. But in the world of television, all the show runners, as they are called, including the late night hosts, are part of the WGA while at the same time they run the plant. Stewart and Colbert and Leno and Conan and many other names whose names you might not recognize have two absolute contractual obligations that directly conflict with one another. (Why is this allowed? History and tradition.)
It’s been made clear to them that if they were to personally stay on strike, their entire staffs would be out of work. The studios aren’t making idle threats. More than 65 deals with writers have been eliminated since Friday. They’re management, responsible collectively for over 500 jobs. What do they do?
I’ve said before that it’s a moral dilemma I’m glad I don’t have to face. In any case, it’s nowhere near as simple as: they’re union, they should be on strike. (Although many WGA members see the situation in exactly those terms. For the rest of us, it’s a different world.)
To be fair, as pointed out above, if Jon and Stephen stay off the air a lot of people down the food chain go out of work and (as far as I’m aware) don’t get any unemployment benefits. So I can see them wanting to go back for the sake of the production staff.
“Look how much we can get done with the writers!” is a good point, though.
I’m confused. Whenever I skim through these strike threads I keep hearing “if Stewart, Colbert, Letterman, etc didn’t do this that or the other thing then 50, 100, or 500 people would be out of work.” I’m thinking, “duh, isn’t the that the point of a strike?” It just seems to me if you’re committed to going on strike then you’re committed to screwing up people’s livelihoods and if you’re not committed to doing that then maybe you shouldn’t be on strike, nor be pro-strike.
It’s the point of the strike for the strikers. It’s the opposite of the point for management. Show runners are union and management. So as I keep saying, it’s not that simple and it can’t be compared to other strikes.
So what’s the attitude of the rest of the striking unioners when they wear their management hat and go back to work?
Is there any secrete disgust/dissillusionment with them for breaking union lines?
I’m going to correct this before someone attacks me.
Obviously, Dobbs wasn’t responding to the Spanish and his part was edited in. However, I didn’t realize that his interview was from a year ago, as mentioned in this Huffington Post article. Technically, this would mean that Colbert was merely reading a Spanish translation of pre-strike written words.
So that’s OK, you say. Not exactly. Not only can’t the hosts use new non-union material not written by themselves, they also can’t use any running bits that had been developed by union writers prior to the strike. Doesn’t this make Esteban Colberto off-limits? Wouldn’t Colbert have had to invent the character and all the words to make them his?
Despite the technicality, I don’t think this changes my contention that they’re skating to the edge and beyond in what they’re doing.
Secret? Disillusionment? Over at Nikki Finke’s blog they’re talking about icepicks through the head.