“Wow”, indeed. I don’t want to prolong the silly bickering part of this discussion, but I do note that you chose to completely ignore the two different credible cites I provided which support the fact that writers are not typically present on film sets. But admittedly that’s for film, not conventional TV, a difference I didn’t fully appreciate at the time. There are some substantive issues here that need addressing, and firstly I need to acknowledge this mistake and walk it back, and to get back on track, I’ll also reiterate my main point which remains unchanged, but has now probably been lost in all the snark.
FWIW, it seems quite likely that the producers of Evil did normally have writers on set. My understanding is that Evil production uses the writers room process, which generally implies a TV style of production with ongoing script revisions and writers often on set. So my original assumption here was probably wrong. But it’s a moot point during the writers strike. And with production literally days from completion, not much script revision would have been happening at that point even with writers on the job .
Robert King has been a strong supporter of the WGA for years and has even been a WGA negotiator himself (I gather he was much involved and affected by the 2007-08 WGA strike) so it’s a pretty good bet that the Kings’ production company wasn’t doing any writing after the strike was called, regardless of what their normal procedure might have been. They undoubtedly followed the same protocols as the filming of Billions, which was also hit by WGA pickets at about the same time, and which stated at the time that “no writers are on set as the show continues filming”. Five days later, they, too, were indefinitely shut down by picketers. Pretty much the identical scenario.
Nothing that’s been presented here changes the factual truth of the original argument that the WGA shut down a production in which writers were no longer involved. Whether this is a legitimate union action or not is a question on which views may differ. TIME magazine has a good article on precisely this issue, where Variety announced that House of the Dragon Season 2 would continue filming without writers, just like Billions. Clearly, the Kings felt that continuing production after the WGA strike was called was not inconsistent with their support for the WGA, and clearly, the union and their supporters felt otherwise.
How much freedom would actors and writers have to continue producing content, but do so in a way that doesn’t benefit the studios? I think a valid complaint by the striking workers is that even if people like Maher aren’t violating union rules, their shows will generate revenue for the studios. The studios will continue to gain revenue and will be able to hold out longer compared to the striking workers who aren’t working at all. But if Maher made his show and put it on YouTube, the studio wouldn’t benefit from added revenue. Could Maher make a show called “Tube Time with Bill Maher” and put it on YouTube? Could Drew make a show called “Gabbing with Drew” on YouTube that’s basically the same thing as her network show?
FWIW, full credit for walking back the very wrong information about writers on set. The fact that your point now rests on “a pretty good bet” indicates that it doesn’t rest on supported facts.
That is, indeed, a very key ethical question. The essence of the question, restated, is just how far should a union be able to go in disrupting the business of its employers. Is a total scorched-earth policy always morally justifiable? I think the answer depends on the circumstances.
The more I read about this strike, quite frankly, the more sympathetic I feel to the issues at stake for the writers. The TIME article would be one example. I also saw a chart showing the dramatically lower percentages over the years of writers in the higher echelons of the writers room hierarchy, and that’s not even the major issue.
I’m still on the fence about shows like Maher coming back. The show has a lot of other crew affected who also need to feed their families. Strikes are literally war, and they create casualties that one should try to mitigate.
I hope you won’t take it as too much of a digression here that I’ve always supported the use of “literally” as an intensifier in creating an appropriate metaphor, a point I must have made on at least three or four separate occasions now. Just not as a meaningless blanket intensifier.
Seriously? I’m sorry, but this bothers me, and I’ve tried to avoid any snarky response. Are you now going to hang your argumentative hat on the supposition that Robert King – who has been a dedicated advocate of the WGA his entire career, and was a former WGA negotiator – was employing scabs in the last days of production? Is that really your idea of advancing a serious discussion?
Can we not just accept the fact that there were almost certainly no writers working (in that capacity) when WGA strikers shut down production of Evil, and deal with the justification of union acton in those terms?
…nah. I went to film school (in NZ) in my late 40’s. Wrote a few (bad) scripts that nobody has read, made a few (bad) short films in school that I’m too embarrassed to show. Considered trying to make more of it, but real life, covid, and old age intervened. But have been following along on the strikes because a lot of my heroes are out there on the picket lines. And I’ve been radicalised by world events over the last few years. I used to be on the fence in regard to unions and stuff like this. But I’ve come to the realization that we can’t be on the sidelines any more.
I’m still working on my magnum opus though My time-travel-world-bending-movie-script will get finished…one day!
Fortunately, no, your understanding of my belief is, uh, faulty.
“Scabs” are generally people who cross picket lines. Once the line formed, his folks didn’t cross it. So no, that’s the opposite of what happened.
Meanwhile, I believe your argument rests on the supposition that the Kings (not just the dude, why would you just focus on him?)–who have been dedicated advocates of the WGA their entire careers, and who have plenty of experience with WGA negotiations and activism–somehow let a WGA strike derail their show even though their production was outside the scope of the WGA strike and shouldn’t have been picketed. During the many hours of the picket, do you believe the showrunners never thought to pick up the phone and call folks at strike HQ to explain why their show should be in the clear and unaffected by the strike?
I can’t see how your theory can avoid this bizarre supposition.
If their show were outside the strike’s purview, they had all the expertise and connections they’d need to make things right and to get WGA to call off the picket. The fact that they didn’t do so is very strong evidence that they agreed that their production was subject to picketing.
Edit: and in looking back on the discussion, this is worth addressing:
“Some daytime glurge” is a way to describe a genre of shows typically aimed at women, but it’s not a particularly great way to describe the genre, for reasons I hope are obvious.
Meanwhile, while it’s a bit apples-and-oranges given their parent companies, Maher’s averaging 800,000 viewers per episode (cite), compared to Barrymore’s 1.21 million (cite). While of course HBO’s got a smaller distribution channel, there’s no way Maher’s a bigger deal than Barrymore.
Let’s hope Maher thinks twice as well, but I’m not holding out hope: unlike Barrymore, he’s kind of a pompous schmuck who doesn’t really listen to feedback.
The operative part of my statement is that it was a show I’d never even heard of, let alone what it was about or who it was aimed at. Your implication that I have some nefarious reason for disparaging shows aimed at women is completely unfounded. The fact that we’ve had some disagreements in this thread is no reason for fabricating this kind of hostile innuendo.
As for viewership numbers, they’re a very unreliable measure of a show’s impact. Whatever one may think of Bill Maher, he’s managed to attract an impressive list of major politicians and insightful authors and commentators to his interviews and panel segments, and conducted informative in-depth discussions. What Drew Barrymore does I have no idea.
Since this topic has been revived again, let me clear up this bit, because you’re either misunderstanding the point or evading it. You took exception to this statement, claiming that “The fact that your point now rests on ‘a pretty good bet’ indicates that it doesn’t rest on supported facts.”
Robert King has been a strong supporter of the WGA for years and has even been a WGA negotiator himself (I gather he was much involved and affected by the 2007-08 WGA strike) so it’s a pretty good bet that the Kings’ production company wasn’t doing any writing after the strike was called, regardless of what their normal procedure might have been.
This is not a complicated proposition. If my statement is not factually correct, then it logically follows that the Kings’ production was still employing writers while the strike was in progress. (Those would correctly be called “scabs”.) Given Robert King’s history of strong support for the WGA, I find that possibility vanishingly improbable. That is all.
So we can safely assume that no writers were on set when picketers closed down the production, just like all those other shows that explicitly said they had no writers on set, and were also closed down by picketers.
…perhaps stop referring to shows aimed at women as “daytime glurge” then. If you didn’t intend to be disparaging, then perhaps don’t use disparaging terms.
The fact that Bill Maher has managed to attract an “impressive” list of major politicians and “insightful” authors and commentators to his interviews and panel segments, and conducted “informative” “in-depth” discussions, is not a reliable measure of a show’s impact. Because for starters, “impressive”, “insightful”, “informative” and “in-depth” are all relatively subjective.
Especially considering you are comparing it to a person and a show that you freely admit you literally know nothing about.
Not, this doesn’t “logically follow.” Because:
Because the writers are still on the picket lines now. They are still standing outside the studios, protesting, even though there are explicitly no writers on set any more.
Your entire line of logic is faulty here. It doesn’t matter if writers were on set when those three “activist jerks” picketed out front of the production or not. Unless you are arguing that those three “activist jerks” had no right to protest unless writers were on set, then this has no relevance to what we are discussing at all.
Right? There are a ton of plausible reasons why the show might have continued until it got picketed, even with WGA showrunners:
The studio threatened some sort of penalty (contractual or otherwise) if they shut down the show themselves.
The WGA strike rules might have some ambiguity in them, and the Kings (not just Robert, @wolfpup is mistaken in his repeated references only to the male showrunner and not the female showrunner) might have interpreted them differently until the picket happened. This is especially possible, given their emotional involvement in the strike.
If they’re in crunch time, maybe they weren’t paying enough attention to the strike rules and just assumed it didn’t apply to them. This would be sloppy, but mistakes happen.
Their emotional involvement could’ve driven them temporarily insane, in a “goddammit we’re just gonna finish this season” way, until the picket brought them to their senses. This would be unethical, but people passionate about a project sometimes make bad choices.
For all we know, maybe they called the picketers themselves, thinking that the dispute with the studio needed to be forced but they couldn’t be the ones to force it.
and I’m sure there are other scenarios that could explain why enthusiastic and experienced WGA members would continue a production that violated WGA strike rules.
What I haven’t been able to think of is a scenario under which enthusiastic and experienced WGA members would allow their production to be shut down if it didn’t actually violate WGA strike rules. The Kings’ years of activism and intimate involvement in WGA issues, coupled with their deep involvement with this very specific show, means it’s tremendously unlikely they’d sit back while a picket that violated strike rules shut things down.
And, of course, this happened four months ago. If the picket had violated strike rules, surely someone with more knowledge than any of us would have explained how.
…and a reminder that the reason why the production wrapped early (according to the Deadline sources) was “due to a personal family matter involving one of the actors on the show”.
Claims that the shut-down was the result of the picket are based off a tweet, and that “the timing was suspect”, nothing more than that.
You’re engaging in the same fake argument and begging the question, in the classical meaning of the term. I never said anything about “shows aimed at women”. To me, the concept of daytime TV brings to mind soap operas, game shows, kids’ TV, and talk shows that are generally of lower quality than their evening counterparts (remember Jerry Springer?). To turn this around into an accusation of misogyny is baseless and malicious.
21 Emmy nominations over a 21-season run (so far) does, however, reflect a pretty broad consensus about the show’s value.
Quite true. I was extrapolating from what I know of daytime television. When I hear the term “daytime TV”, it brings to mind soap operas, game shows, kids’ TV, and talk shows that are generally of lower quality than their evening counterparts (remember Jerry Springer?).
But you’re right, I knew nothing of the specific show at the time. But now I know a little more. IMDb describes The Drew Barrymore Show as “human-interest stories, celebrity guests, lifestyle segments and field pieces”. So, basically light entertainment that isn’t going to shed any light on the consequential issues of the day. Not serious television. “Daytime glurge” is not a bad description. Any attempt to equate this assessment with misogyny is just downright malicious.
That was precisely my initial argument, which was derailed by you by describing how TV productions typically did have writers on set. You were right, they usually do, but not during a strike. The producers of Evil almost certainly would not, given their WGA affiliations. I’m just trying to have a fact-based discussion, so that we can argue for or against whether a strike is justified when a production involves no writers, instead of muddying the waters about whether it did nor not.
…You’re engaging in the same fake argument and begging the question. I never accused you of misogyny. Claiming that I did is baseless and malicious.
Nah. The show is garbage. Talkshow glurge.
I’m sorry, but what even are you doing right now?
You are comparing a show that you know plenty about to a show you know nothing about, and are making value judgements based on the IMDB description. That’s all I’m saying. And you don’t appear to be disagreeing with me.
How is that an accusation of misogyny?
Its a bad argument.
The thread was derailed because you spent an extraordinary amount of time arguing that TV productions didn’t typically have writers on set. That’s not on me.
Yes. A strike is justified when a production involves no writers. Because that’s what a strike is.
If you are talking about picket lines? Then yes, that is justified as well. It’s always been the case. They are on the picket lines, right now, outside the studios, even though there are no writers or actors on set any more. If you think that pickets should have different rules, either set by the union or by the law, that’s something that would probably be more relevant to discuss in the other union thread. Because those “activist jerks” didn’t do anything wrong either by the rules, or the law.
I agree, and all of those are possibilities. But FTR, none of this has anything to do with my original point, which was solely that writers almost certainly were not on the set of Evil when it was shut down. That argument then got digressed seven ways to Sunday, but that was the sole point I was making in that context.
Depends what you mean by “the studio”. King Size Productions, owned by Michelle and Robert King, is the studio. But they may have had binding contractual obligations to Paramount-Plus, or were driven by other financial considerations.
Again, FTR, I’ve referenced Robert King because I know a little about his background and his position with respect to the WGA. I know virtually nothing about Michelle beyond the fact that she’s a co-writer and co-producer, despite trying to find more information. There is nothing more to it than that.
.
My time-travel-world-bending-movie-script will get finished…one day!