Yes, that was the argument. As I said earlier, after learning more about the issues at stake for the writers, I’m no longer sure I fully support the proposition that the WGA was overreaching in shutting down the production, and it’s certainly not the hill I’m willing to die on here. But that, finally, is an honest representation of what the argument indeed was.
…when most of us are referring to “the studios” here, we are referring to the AMPTP. NBC Universal, Paramount, Sony, Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Warner Bros. Discovery are the “Class A” members of the AMPTP.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Both myself and others in this thread have been engaging you in good faith. There is no “finally” about it. Every post I’ve made to you here have been direct responses to things you have said.
The WGA didn’t shut down this production.
The sole point? If that’s all you’re saying now, okay, but this is how it all started:
“perniciously malicious.”
“activist jerks.”
“hooligans with no legitimate business.”
“that’s not right.”
Your original point didn’t even mention writers’ presence on the set (probably because you didn’t realize how writers work on television, which, neither did I). Your original point was very different.
If the “sole point” you’re making now is that you don’t think writers were on the set when it was shut down–if you’re no longer making a point about malicious behavior by jerk hooligans engaged in illegitimate business–I appreciate the clarification.
Because I’ve been arguing against a completely different point–the one you started with.
Edit: Not that it makes a material difference, but now I’m curious. During the picket, do we know where the Kings were?
The fact that you didn’t quote it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. To wit,
I don’t see how anyone can read that initial post that started all the kerfuffle and come to any different conclusion than what I’m now describing, that I was objecting to the WGA shutting down production because there were no writers involved at that point.
It turns out, as we now all know, that I was almost certainly correct about “no writers involved” but for the wrong reasons. Writers quite probably would have been on set under normal circumstances, but they weren’t because they were all on strike. It amounts to the same thing: writers weren’t there, and production was carrying on without them, in much the same manner as a business will sometimes carry on despite a strike by having management partially substitute for absent workers.
What you mainly seem to dislike, judging by your quotes, is the provocative language I used. In retrospect, that was a poor choice and probably helped to contribute to the rancor of the subsequent discussion, and I’m sorry for that. Hey, I never claimed to be a diplomat (I’d be really lousy at the job!). In becoming more informed about the underlying factors behind the strike, I’m not even sure I fully support my original position, either, and I acknowledged that earlier. I still can’t shake the feeling that there’s something of a scorched-earth policy there, though: “shut the bastards down, shut everything down, whether it has anything to do with our workers or not”. But at any rate, I hope that provides some clarity and puts us more or less on the same page here.
I sure don’t. Robert has done a prolific amount of Twittering, but has been rather curiously silent about the Evil production shutdown. He also directed remotely (from home) for a time, but that was when he had COVID, which I think was a while ago.
Say what now? Go back and look at the bit that I quoted.
And part of why I asked about where the Kings were is because they were the writers and showrunners. If they were on set, then writers were on set. And as @Banquet_Bear has explained, the writers’ job isn’t a one-off thing.
I mean, I dislike your raising a wrong point to criticize a union that I support, but also the highly insulting language is problematic. The sort of language you used about this union has been used for centuries now to denigrate workers and attack their organizing efforts. If you’ll do better at avoiding that sort of highly insulting language, it will definitely make it easier to discuss the ways that your point is incorrect.
… the WGA didn’t shut down the production.
OK. So what I think happened was the following sequence of events:
- Production was ongoing.
- WGA pickets showed up.
- Production paused during the picketing.
- Pickets didn’t go away.
- Production was abandoned.
- One of the picketers, Starlee Kine, announced the following on Twitter: “WE WON. Evil (the show) shut down around 1 am. A handful of us walking in a tiny circle cost them the day’s shoot. We were told the producers were pissed They kept the crew there for hours, sitting on the sidewalk. We felt the solidarity. We’ll win this whole thing together.”
What part of this is incorrect?
…the part where you are claiming that the WGA shut down production. The only statement we have on the record is that production wrapped early “due to a personal family matter involving one of the actors on the show”.
Did members of the WGA picket at the set of Evil? Sure. Did members of the IATSE choose not to cross the line? Sure. Thats literally what happens on a strike. But the WGA didn’t shut down production. That is something that they don’t have the power to do.
Maher has backed down.
Translation: Drew chickened out and now I don’t have anyone to blame my assholishness on
I wonder if his writers will even come back after what he said about them. Which is basically they are not entitled to a living wage.
If my boss told me that I would quit that same day and never look back.
What did he say that makes you think that? I can’t see anything in his words that suggest as much.
He did say that by by putting his show on without the need for writers he could ensure that other non-writer staff would get paid. That doesn’t seem like the act of someone opposed to people making a living wage.
I don’t remember where I saw the quote from. But it went something like this:
“These writers seem to think they are entitled to a living wage. They aren’t.”
Maybe he said it on his podcast? IDK.
I think it would be important to know actually what was said and in what context.
You’re free to disregard my post if you like. I’m just trying to have a casual conversation here.
Standard practice is that if you claim someone holds a specific opinion then it is perfectly fair to be challenged on that.
Especially when it seems like a very surprising opinion. What you claim he said seems very much at odds with what he’s said elsewhere so I’m interested to know if that is what he actually said.
If you are no longer claiming he said it then I’ll happily disregard your claim.
The quote and context:
In the latest episode of his podcast Club Random, host Bill Maher objects to the ethos behind the Writers Guild of America strike.
“What I find objectionable about the philosophy of the strike [is] it seems to be, they have really morphed a long way from 2007’s strike, where they kind of believe that you’re owed a living as a writer—and you’re not,” said Maher about the WGA’s terms sent forth to the Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers. He added, “This is show business. This is the make-or-miss league.”
He seems to say they’re not owed a living as a writer, not that they’re not owed a living wage. To me that seems a subtle but relevant difference.
Thank you for the link. Yes, I think that difference is very relevant and it is important that we hold people to what they actually say.
And I agree with him, no-one has a right to make a living as a writer.
Of course, if they are employed as a writer then they very much do have a right to a living wage (but that was not was Maher was saying, nor could I ever imagine him seriously suggesting it)
For the record, when I searched for it, I found MANY places misquoting him as saying the writers aren’t owed a living wage.
People in the media purposefully or merely lazily or reflexively misrepresenting or misquoting what their perceived opponent has said in order to score points or paint them in a negative way!!!
Say it ain’t so. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
It’s a very silly thing for him to say, regardless. Of course they’re not “owed a living as a writer.” They’re not suggesting they are.
What they ARE claiming is that if studios want writers, they’re gonna have to ensure the writers are paid appropriately. And they’re also claiming that if studios want writers now, they’re gonna have to ensure that AI built on the work of said writers isn’t used in the future as a cheap replacement for actual writers.