View Full Version : "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" to return sans writers
LoadStar
12-20-2007, 10:57 PM
Both "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are scheduled to return to Comedy Central on January 7 - but without their respective writing staffs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/business/media/21strike.html?hp
I'm sorry, but this will be a train wreck, worse than even the late night shows... at least those can pack them full of musical acts and interview segments. The Daily Show and Colbert Report rarely have more than two interview segments, each lasting 4-5 minutes at the most. What do they do for the rest of the show?
alyssa
12-20-2007, 11:01 PM
omg...
yeah, train wreck comes to mind
but both steve & john are members of the wga--how's that gonna work?
eta; ok read the article
In a statement, the two hosts said they would prefer to return to work with their writers. “If we cannot, we would like to express our ambivalence, but without our writers we are unable to express something as nuanced as ambivalence,” they stated.
LoadStar
12-20-2007, 11:18 PM
but both steve & john are members of the wga--how's that gonna work?
They can be on the air - but can't write anything. They'll have to improvise everything.
jsmeeker
12-20-2007, 11:45 PM
They can be on the air - but can't write anything. They'll have to improvise everything.
does somebody from the union show up to monitor this somehow?
seriously.. How do they know he's not going over things in his head ahead of time.. maybe jotting stuff down as he watches the news, surfs the net, reads the paper, etc. How can you catch an infraction?
TreborPugly
12-21-2007, 12:15 AM
does somebody from the union show up to monitor this somehow?
seriously.. How do they know he's not going over things in his head ahead of time.. maybe jotting stuff down as he watches the news, surfs the net, reads the paper, etc. How can you catch an infraction?
If it's funny, they'll know he cheated... ;)
marksman
12-21-2007, 12:23 AM
Yeah this is just a really bad idea.
As for quality, guess we'll just have to see how it goes.
I'm not sure if the talk shows will have it any easier -- will they be able to get enough celebs lined up that will cross the picket line? Maybe these days they wont care -- if they have a movie to plug they want the box office and will worry about consequences down the road.
Cearbhaill
12-21-2007, 11:47 AM
I'm not sure if the talk shows will have it any easier -- will they be able to get enough celebs lined up that will cross the picket line? Maybe these days they wont care -- if they have a movie to plug they want the box office and will worry about consequences down the road.
Aren't most of these pimping appearances mandated by their contract with whomever produced the movie? I wonder exactly how much leeway a celebrity has in whether or not to show up?
DevdogAZ
12-21-2007, 12:01 PM
It will really be interesting to see how funny these guys (as well as Leno, Dave, etc.) are on their own. If they have to do everything off the cuff, some of them might really be exposed.
I wonder what the definition of "writing" is. Can they come up with anything they want as long as it's not on paper? Can it be scribbled on paper as long as it's not officially printed on a script, cue card or TelePrompTer?
Maybe these shows will have a "viewer's send in jokes" type of thing. They'll post an e-mail address and anyone can send them jokes, as long as they agree to allow the jokes to be used on the air. It would be interesting to see how that would work.
pdhenry
12-21-2007, 12:06 PM
IIRC Dave Letterman did some shows during the last writers strike (it was pre-Leno). I don't specifically recall them but the discussion was that much was made about not having anything to do or say because there were no writers.
Peter000
12-21-2007, 12:20 PM
I'm guessing they'll get some "under the table" non-union help.
Rickvz
12-21-2007, 01:13 PM
It will really be interesting to see how funny these guys (as well as Leno, Dave, etc.) are on their own. If they have to do everything off the cuff, some of them might really be exposed.
I went to a taping of both Jon Stewart and Dave Letterman this summer. Jon's interaction with the audience before the show started was pretty funny. Letterman was obviously sick and was only in front of the audience before taping for a minute or two.
Luke M
12-21-2007, 01:46 PM
These are news shows - why can't they just hire funny opinion journalists? Journalists aren't a party to the strike.
Anyway, I'm glad they're coming back. If the "writers" won't work, then to hell with them.
MickeS
12-21-2007, 01:51 PM
They could just wing it and do a call-in show or something.
Fassade
12-21-2007, 02:08 PM
Colbert was with Second City before The Daily Show, so presumably he has some solid improv chops. Leno and Stewart were successful standups, so they probably are at least pretty good at ad-libbing. Of course, there is a big difference between responding to an occasional heckler and improvising 4 hours of content every week. I do not know what the definition of writing is in this case, but, even if it is spelled out in contracts, I would expect there to be a lot of shouting back and forth on the topic. Bits like "Today's Word" seem to out, because it would be impossible to improvise, unless of course you have really, really fast typists on the graphics machines :)
Bananfish
12-21-2007, 02:13 PM
As hosts of the show, my understanding is that during the strike Stewart and Colbert are permitted to write as much of the show as they did when the writers weren't on strike. I have no idea how much that is, but I suspect it's enough that they won't have to ad-lib the entire show.
I suspect they'll end up doing a lot of bits where comic performers who write their own material are "interviewed," and a lot more delving into politics (especially the 2008 presidential race) with a non-comedic intent. The opening segments will probably be more "free-range" - i.e., Stewart and/or Colbert telling stories more off the cuff rather than scripted, and probably the Daily Show interviews will go longer.
The segments which are probably toast include any pre-recorded material (e.g., pre-recorded reports by Samantha Bee), "back-and-forth" segments with "news correspondents," and The Word.
My guess: the Daily Show will not be much below it's full writer level (albeit a little less comic and a little more serious), but the Colbert Report will be a vastly different show.
sieglinde
12-21-2007, 02:13 PM
I always figured that sometime in the past both Colbert and Stewart were stand up comedians and wrote their own stuff. Since I actually use the Daily show as a news source and people have commented about the journalism on the show in a positive way, I wonder if Steward just needs a staff of researchers.
Hmmm, I am a reference librarian, hmmm.
Fassade
12-21-2007, 03:05 PM
Here is the relevant section of the "Strike Rules" in a notice the WGA sent to all shows before the Strike began.
The Strike Rules, among other provisions, prohibit Guild members from performing any writing services during a strike for any and all struck companies. This prohibition includes all writing by any Guild member that would be performed on-air by that member (including monologues, characters, and featured appearances) if any portion of that written material is customarily written by striking writers.
I assume this means that even Leno, Colbert and Stewart, if they are WGA members, cannot write their own stuff beforehand without running afoul of their union. How this sort of thing would be measured or verified (except for obvious bits like Today's Word) is anybody's guess...
bareyb
12-21-2007, 05:34 PM
Aren't most of these pimping appearances mandated by their contract with whomever produced the movie? I wonder exactly how much leeway a celebrity has in whether or not to show up?
That's a good question... I'd guess they are not "supposed" to breach their contracts and with big names like these not supporting the strike they more than likely won't. I'm sure many actors don't want to get involved and simply want to go to work and do their jobs (and get paid).
The only way they might support this strike is if public opinion forced them into it. It just takes one or two high profile celebrities to fold and the whole thing could go down. Letterman put the first hole in the damn. I am beginning to feel like the writers may be in trouble if their "unprecedented support" is already crumbling. I'm not seeing much negative response to what's happening so I guess "ambivalence" is exactly what's happening. All that talk of "unprecedented support" is probably hype or wishful thinking.
bareyb
12-21-2007, 05:49 PM
Did they really say "ambivalence"? They don't care? I can't believe they admitted that. Why aren't the writers jumpin up and down and raising hell? :eek:
In a statement, the two hosts said they would prefer to return to work with their writers. “If we cannot, we would like to express our ambivalence, but without our writers we are unable to express something as nuanced as ambivalence,” they stated.
MickeS
12-21-2007, 06:04 PM
Did they really say "ambivalence"? They don't care? I can't believe they admitted that.
They admitted they were ambivalent. They did not say they don't care. :p
bareyb
12-21-2007, 06:12 PM
They admitted they were ambivalent. They did not say they don't care. :p
Well okay then, they have "mixed feelings" which is really just a nice way of saying "they don't care one way or the other". At least not enough to get involved and lose money over it.
davidmin
12-21-2007, 06:21 PM
The Fox News coverage is hilarious, they were feigning outrage that Stewart and Colbert were "scabs." Stewart just has to show clips, some things need no comment.
David
pdhenry
12-21-2007, 06:22 PM
Well okay then, they have "mixed feelings" which is really just a nice way of saying "they don't care one way or the other".I hope you get a dictionary for Christmas.
Ambivalence doesn't mean the person doesn't care one way or the other - it means they're conflicted. They care both ways simultaneously.
bareyb
12-21-2007, 06:29 PM
I hope you get a dictionary for Christmas.
Ambivalence doesn't mean the person doesn't care one way or the other - it means they're conflicted. They care both ways simultaneously.
I already looked it up. It means mixed feelings. But thanks. :)
ambivalent |amˈbivələnt|
adjective
having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone
Well okay then, they have "mixed feelings" which is really just a nice way of saying "they don't care one way or the other". At least not enough to get involved and lose money over it.
The subtext of my position is that they don't care about the writers. They care about their shows staying on the air. What they are doing is not supportive of the writers strike. So I don't see them as all that conflicted. Just looking to get paid. Ambivalent is just a nicer sounding word.
rondotcom
12-21-2007, 06:34 PM
Well okay then, they have "mixed feelings" which is really just a nice way of saying "they don't care one way or the other". At least not enough to get involved and lose money over it.
As I read that the ambivalence is toward coming back... good to put below the line people back to work, but bad because they working without their brothers.
bareyb
12-21-2007, 06:37 PM
As I read that the ambivalence is toward coming back... good to put below the line people back to work, but bad because they working without their brothers.
Well that's certainly a nicer take on it, but it doesn't change the reality. I'm sure the strikers would have preferred they walked off the job and shut down the show. It would have shown more support.
mattack
12-21-2007, 10:47 PM
Letterman was funny without writers. Some of that was because it was funny seeing how they would fill the time (i.e. "Network Time Killers").
marksman
12-22-2007, 12:23 AM
Funny I read it as a joke by a couple of funny guys who were trying to make their writers chuckle when they read it.
I don't think it meant anything more than that.
It was a joke.
MickeS
12-22-2007, 01:06 AM
Well okay then, they have "mixed feelings" which is really just a nice way of saying "they don't care one way or the other".
First time I've ever heard someone say that "mixed feelings" means "don't care one way or the other". You're trying to make something out of nothing here.
As I read that the ambivalence is toward coming back... good to put below the line people back to work, but bad because they working without their brothers.
Exactly.
I already looked it up. It means mixed feelings. But thanks. :)
The subtext of my position is that they don't care about the writers. They care about their shows staying on the air. What they are doing is not supportive of the writers strike. So I don't see them as all that conflicted. Just looking to get paid. Ambivalent is just a nicer sounding word.
That's pretty funny. I hear Colbert & Stewart are looking for writers.
-smak-
bareyb
12-22-2007, 05:33 AM
That's pretty funny. I hear Colbert & Stewart are looking for writers.
-smak-
:p
Hunter Green
12-22-2007, 11:09 AM
Funny stuff. Without writers, they can't express something as nuanced as ambivalence, and here in this very thread you can see proof of that! Presumably if they had writers they could have chosen a word no one would misunderstand with such obstinacy. No, wait, maybe I mean determination. Damn, I wish I could hire a writer.
madscientist
12-22-2007, 12:37 PM
I'm very happy they're back. My stepfather is having a book published in the early spring and I think it would be perfect for The Daily Show. I've been considering trying to figure out how to get him on there.
I'm very happy they're back. My stepfather is having a book published in the early spring and I think it would be perfect for The Daily Show. I've been considering trying to figure out how to get him on there.
Talk to his publisher. They have a publicity department that handles media appearances. The Daily Show isn't an easy slot to get, though.
ElJay
12-22-2007, 11:37 PM
I have to wonder about the long term ratings if these shows come back and flounder for months without their writing staff. I'm not saying Jon and Stephen are unfunny guys, but I'm assuming they have writers for a reason. Viacom may be annoyed by the lack of people tuning in for the reruns, but I have to wonder if they might be shooting themselves in the foot by being impatient with what's going on. I guess we'll have to see what the shows come up with. Like others, I fear "The Colbert Report" will not look like the show we've been enjoying before the strike.
cheesesteak
12-24-2007, 10:51 AM
Yay!
getreal
12-24-2007, 02:49 PM
Leno could do an hour of JayWalking. The people on the street are so stupid that the show would write itself. Then there are the musical acts, comedians, interviews. You'd mostly be cutting out the monologues. Hasn't Ellen been doing that for a while now? She must make it look easy.
And The Daily Show could just show news clips back & forth with all the foot-in-mouth stuff polticians say on a daily basis.
Letterman could feature "Will it Float", street interviews with Rupert G, musical acts, Stupid Pet Tricks, Stupid Human Tricks, etc.
After reading that bit from the Guild about not performing as characters previously written by writers, wouldn't that severely limit Colbert's character?
Of course, there's lots of funny Canadian writers who are not part of the WGA.
I, however, have compassion for the writers' dilemma and their cause. Having the shows go back on air without writers serves the networks and seems to betray the writers' cause.
BurnBaby
12-24-2007, 10:13 PM
I do support the writers but I'd be willing to watch because there are other people who work on these shows whose jobs are on the line if the shows don't come back. I'm actually looking forwad to longer interviews, the interviews on the Daily Show are rarely more than 5 minutes long. I'm going through Daily Show & Colber withdrawal.
John Stewart, Colbert, Conan, Jay and Dave are in a tough position. They need to go back on the air b/c otherwise, they'll have to lay off staff.
bareyb
12-25-2007, 03:14 AM
I do support the writers but I'd be willing to watch because there are other people who work on these shows whose jobs are on the line if the shows don't come back.
John Stewart, Colbert, Conan, Jay and Dave are in a tough position. They need to go back on the air b/c otherwise, they'll have to lay off staff.
Isn't that kind of the point of the strike? So that people won't go back to work and so shows will be hurt by the strike? You are kind of saying you are on both sides here. Either you support the writers or you support the owners of those shows and don't want to see their shows and the accompanying staff get hurt.
If you really support the writers then you should boycott these shows. If not, it's all just lip service. The first chance you get to symbolically cross the picket line you do it? Sounds to me like you don't REALLY support the writers, you just like the "idea" of supporting the writers. Which I suspect applies to many of the folks around here. How many other of you "writer supporters" plan on watching these shows when they re-air? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? Discuss... :) :D
Peter000
12-25-2007, 11:22 AM
I don't think our watching the Tonight Show is going to have one iota to do with the strike or it's outcome. Especially since most if not all of us here don't have a Nielson box. Frankly, I don't think those shows WOULD come back if they didn't have some tacit, under-the-table nod from the WGA.
sieglinde
12-25-2007, 12:19 PM
The local (Los Angeles Times) newspaper coverage essentially says that the studios don't give a rats patootee about the writers or the union or negotiations so until the advertisers are hurt the strike will continue. In the case of a basic cable show such as the Daily Show, the audience is so limited compared to the Tonight Show that supporting or not supporting the show may have little impact.
BurnBaby
12-25-2007, 11:32 PM
Isn't that kind of the point of the strike? So that people won't go back to work and so shows will be hurt by the strike? You are kind of saying you are on both sides here. Either you support the writers or you support the owners of those shows and don't want to see their shows and the accompanying staff get hurt.
If you really support the writers then you should boycott these shows. If not, it's all just lip service. The first chance you get to symbolically cross the picket line you do it? Sounds to me like you don't REALLY support the writers, you just like the "idea" of supporting the writers. Which I suspect applies to many of the folks around here. How many other of you "writer supporters" plan on watching these shows when they re-air? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? Discuss... :) :D
I don't see it that way, but it's fine if you do.
I'm on the side of the workers, both writers and staff. I don't think that the point of the strike is that the writers want people to lose their jobs. That's a pretty cynical way of looking at unions and strikers. The point of the writer's strike is that they want royalties for online episodes & DVDs - that's the real point! The point of the strike is that the networks have refused over and over again to negotiate and this is the only power they have to do so. The point of any strike is to use collective power to get more rights from a company or an employer. And in this day of coporate greed where the disparity of pay between execs and workers is very vast, strike power is a tool in trying to level the playing field. In the last tv writers strike, talk shows like the late shows went back to work eventually. I don't think it's that they were trying to have it both ways, it's just that people gotta eat you know. The real opponent of the strikers are the networks not their fellow workers.
Conan O'Brien held out for as long as he could, the show fronted the money for the staff for many weeks. John Stewart is himself a writer and he's coming back. Are those two also trying to have it both ways? I don't think so. They're trying to make sure that other people aren't laid off. That's not cynical.
Honestly, I'm not saying any of this to change your mind as to what the point of the strike is or about me supposedly being hypocritical, b/c well people believe what they believe. I'm just clarifying my point of view. I understand the issues involved in strikes believe me and as in most situations, where you have to make tough decisions, there's no absolutely right answer. That's not having it both ways, that's just reality.
Isn't that kind of the point of the strike? So that people won't go back to work and so shows will be hurt by the strike? You are kind of saying you are on both sides here. Either you support the writers or you support the owners of those shows and don't want to see their shows and the accompanying staff get hurt.
If you really support the writers then you should boycott these shows. If not, it's all just lip service. The first chance you get to symbolically cross the picket line you do it? Sounds to me like you don't REALLY support the writers, you just like the "idea" of supporting the writers. Which I suspect applies to many of the folks around here. How many other of you "writer supporters" plan on watching these shows when they re-air? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? Discuss... :) :D
Do the shows being mentioned, Colbert, Stewart, Leno, Letterman have ad supported full reruns being shown on the internet?
I don't think they do. Their writers are on strike in solidarity with the writers of the other shows, but don't stand to gain in their current gigs from the strike.
If the writers of all those shows were given waivers to go back to work, it really wouldn't effect anything either way.
-smak-
marksman
12-27-2007, 12:19 AM
The local (Los Angeles Times) newspaper coverage essentially says that the studios don't give a rats patootee about the writers or the union or negotiations so until the advertisers are hurt the strike will continue. In the case of a basic cable show such as the Daily Show, the audience is so limited compared to the Tonight Show that supporting or not supporting the show may have little impact.
If they are waiting for the advertisers to be hurt, they may be waiting forever.
Some businesses, I am convinced waste money on TV advertising, and with no real good metric to measuring successful TV campaigns, in a lot of cases, it is easy for companies to spend money they shouldn't be spending.
So this strike may last forever.
MickeS
12-27-2007, 12:26 AM
If they are waiting for the advertisers to be hurt, they may be waiting forever.
Some businesses, I am convinced waste money on TV advertising, and with no real good metric to measuring successful TV campaigns, in a lot of cases, it is easy for companies to spend money they shouldn't be spending.
So this strike may last forever.
Especially when websites are already getting more of the ad dollars, and is probably better for targeting desired demographics.
MickeS
12-27-2007, 12:28 AM
Do the shows being mentioned, Colbert, Stewart, Leno, Letterman have ad supported full reruns being shown on the internet?
I know The Tonight Show is shown in full on nbc.com
BurnBaby
12-27-2007, 02:01 AM
Eek - I think I officially had my first internet rant yesterday. :o
If they are waiting for the advertisers to be hurt, they may be waiting forever.
Do the advertisers get regular network viewership reports or is that only during sweeps?
Do the shows being mentioned, Colbert, Stewart, Leno, Letterman have ad supported full reruns being shown on the internet?
I don't think they do. Their writers are on strike in solidarity with the writers of the other shows, but don't stand to gain in their current gigs from the strike.
If the writers of all those shows were given waivers to go back to work, it really wouldn't effect anything either way.
-smak-
Very interesting smak.
Colbert, Stewart and Letterman don't, but the Daily Show and I think Colbert Report too is available on itunes. I hadn't thought about the itunes thing till just now. Letterman had also announced that he wanted to negotiate separately with the writers so that he could go back on the air. Does anyone know if his is the only production co to do this?
Their really should be 3 types of writing contracts for TV, daytime, primetime & nightime.
Daytime & nighttime are usually daily shows, with little to no ancillary income, whereas primetime is weekly and can have a lot of ancillary income.
-smak-
f0gax
12-28-2007, 02:07 PM
Isn't that kind of the point of the strike? So that people won't go back to work and so shows will be hurt by the strike? You are kind of saying you are on both sides here. Either you support the writers or you support the owners of those shows and don't want to see their shows and the accompanying staff get hurt.
If you really support the writers then you should boycott these shows. If not, it's all just lip service. The first chance you get to symbolically cross the picket line you do it? Sounds to me like you don't REALLY support the writers, you just like the "idea" of supporting the writers. Which I suspect applies to many of the folks around here. How many other of you "writer supporters" plan on watching these shows when they re-air? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? Discuss... :) :D
I would take the position of "who is really losing in this strike?" Given these numbers (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5789713#post5789713) here, I would say it's not the writers. The real losers here are the people who are making "normal" wages; the grips, electricians, and other behind-the-camera people.
We can discuss the "get their fair share" issue if you'd like. But, I think that the point of the post you quoted was that other people are being hurt in real ways by this strike. People who will receive some kind of relief when these shows return to air. Is a WGA writer actually being harmed because they aren't getting residuals from DVD or online sales? Probably not. Should they be compensated, yes they should.
My bet is that this strike will end when a large number of the lower paid writers reach a point where even if they get everything they're asking for, they'll still be in the red for the year. That is to say, the increased compensation will not offset the losses from not working. And I'm guessing we'll reach that point much sooner than later.
TAsunder
12-28-2007, 03:37 PM
My bet is that this strike will end when a large number of the lower paid writers reach a point where even if they get everything they're asking for, they'll still be in the red for the year. That is to say, the increased compensation will not offset the losses from not working. And I'm guessing we'll reach that point much sooner than later.
I doubt they really care about this year. If they get what they want, they'll be better of next year, and even better off the year after that, compared to where they might have been if they never went on strike in the first place.
pdhenry
12-28-2007, 06:43 PM
Letterman's Worldwide Pants has settled with the union.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071228/people_nm/screenwriters_strike_dc
sieglinde
12-31-2007, 02:31 PM
I will be interested in the quality of the Colbert Report and the Daily Show. I only watch the Daily Show. I suspect we will get some really crappy stuff on the shows. Some of the late night talk shows are talking about doing man on the street interviews and other crap.
Steveknj
01-02-2008, 03:04 PM
I don't see it that way, but it's fine if you do.
I'm on the side of the workers, both writers and staff. I don't think that the point of the strike is that the writers want people to lose their jobs. That's a pretty cynical way of looking at unions and strikers. The point of the writer's strike is that they want royalties for online episodes & DVDs - that's the real point! The point of the strike is that the networks have refused over and over again to negotiate and this is the only power they have to do so. The point of any strike is to use collective power to get more rights from a company or an employer. And in this day of coporate greed where the disparity of pay between execs and workers is very vast, strike power is a tool in trying to level the playing field. In the last tv writers strike, talk shows like the late shows went back to work eventually. I don't think it's that they were trying to have it both ways, it's just that people gotta eat you know. The real opponent of the strikers are the networks not their fellow workers.
Conan O'Brien held out for as long as he could, the show fronted the money for the staff for many weeks. John Stewart is himself a writer and he's coming back. Are those two also trying to have it both ways? I don't think so. They're trying to make sure that other people aren't laid off. That's not cynical.
Honestly, I'm not saying any of this to change your mind as to what the point of the strike is or about me supposedly being hypocritical, b/c well people believe what they believe. I'm just clarifying my point of view. I understand the issues involved in strikes believe me and as in most situations, where you have to make tough decisions, there's no absolutely right answer. That's not having it both ways, that's just reality.
Couldn't have said it better myself!!
My other thought about this is that I don't think Stewart and Colbert want to go too deep into election season without having fresh shows. After all, this is their bread and butter. Imagine if this strike goes on well into the spring, when it's possible that the nominees for both parties are already decided. That would kill quite a bit of their material. Plus, having this many candidates that are viable out there will give them TONS of material to work with.
sieglinde
01-02-2008, 05:02 PM
Shucks not in time for Iowa.
Mikkel_Knight
01-02-2008, 07:41 PM
I'm on the side of the workers, both writers and staff. I don't think that the point of the strike is that the writers want people to lose their jobs. That's a pretty cynical way of looking at unions and strikers. The point of the writer's strike is that they want royalties for online episodes & DVDs - that's the real point!
That's great and fine and dandy, but when their stubborness (as well as the network's) affects thousands upon thousands of other people (gaffs, PA's, camera operators, production staff, adminstration, etc.), then their actions need to be judged as harshly as those of the Networks. It's not JUST the networks fault. The writers aren't the only ones being selfish here.
With Letterman and Leno and Stewart coming back to help out the crew ('cause honestly, not a single one of them needs any money at this point) and staff, the writers better figure out real quick that television will go on just fine without them... and that they as a union/guild have FAR more to lose than the networks. Is it right? Nope... but when did I miss the memo saying that life had to be fair...
At this point, people aren't upset at the networks, they're upset at the writers... and I don't see people getting upset at the networks over the writers any time soon (if ever at all)...
The writers made their point... they can strike and 'cause all kinds of trouble for television... BFD. Get back to work and deal with it, or, someone else will replace you... It's not like the Writers Guild is equivilent to Air Traffic Control or Transportation... They seem to be thinking WAAAAAY to highly of themselves and they'll be the ones with the black eye when all is said and done...
Again, is it right that they are getting absolutely nothing for DVD sales and internet viewings? I don't think so... but that just doesn't matter... They aren't near as important as they think they are...
That's great and fine and dandy, but when their stubborness (as well as the network's) affects thousands upon thousands of other people (gaffs, PA's, camera operators, production staff, adminstration, etc.),
When did you miss the memo that said life has to be fair?
At this point, people aren't upset at the networks, they're upset at the writers... and I don't see people getting upset at the networks over the writers any time soon (if ever at all)...
There is 0 evidence of this. And huge evidence to the exact contrary.
The writers better figure out real quick that television will go on just fine without them...
It's possible that there might not be new written series until 2009, and television will go on fine without them?
Doesn't seem like it.
-smak-
busyba
01-02-2008, 09:36 PM
At this point, people aren't upset at the networks, they're upset at the writers... and I don't see people getting upset at the networks over the writers any time soon (if ever at all)...
I guess I don't count as "people" then. :(
Peter000
01-02-2008, 10:03 PM
Again, is it right that they are getting absolutely nothing for DVD sales and internet viewings? I don't think so... but that just doesn't matter... They aren't near as important as they think they are...We'll see how important the really are. If that many people's jobs depend on them going back to work, they ARE pretty damn important, don't you think?
Mikkel_Knight
01-03-2008, 10:17 AM
We'll see how important the really are. If that many people's jobs depend on them going back to work, they ARE pretty damn important, don't you think?
which is worse? A couple thousand writers not getting internet revenues or causing several thousand to be put into financial hardship by losing their jobs and needing to go find different work.
IMO, so what if a thousand people aren't getting paid dividends on internet viewings if those thousand people are causing three to five times as many to not have any jobs.
The writers themselves are the ones getting the black eye here... not the networks...
It's the writers that are causing thousands of people to be unemployeed and experience financial hardship. That's selfish - not important... HUGE difference...
LoadStar
01-03-2008, 11:13 AM
The writers themselves are the ones getting the black eye here... not the networks...
It might hurt the writers more in the short run... but right now, ratings are down across the board, dramatically. Networks are having to go and give money back to advertisers, because ratings aren't even close to what they promised the advertisers they'd be. This is hurting the networks too.
Worse yet: in th strike of 1988, something like 10% of the audience disappeared at the beginning of the strike - and NEVER RETURNED. That's a long term black eye for the networks. It's very likely that this will happen again, if it hasn't already happened.
MickeS
01-03-2008, 11:41 AM
I guess I don't count as "people" then. :(
Same here. I have no problem at all with what the writers are doing.
MickeS
01-03-2008, 11:50 AM
which is worse? A couple thousand writers not getting internet revenues or causing several thousand to be put into financial hardship by losing their jobs and needing to go find different work.
Apparently, you and the networks think it's worth causing several thousand to be put into financial hardship, rather than pay a couple of thousand writers internet revenues.
It's easy to twist everything if you want.
For example: "IMO, so what if a thousand people are getting paid dividends on internet viewings if those thousand people are causing three to five times as many to have jobs."
No?
Both sides have the right to do what they're doing IMO - I just wish the networks would resume negotiations.
Mikkel_Knight
01-03-2008, 11:53 AM
Apparently, you and the networks think it's worth causing several thousand to be put into financial hardship, rather than pay a couple of thousand writers internet revenues.
It's easy to twist everything if you want.
For example: "IMO, so what if a thousand people are getting paid dividends on internet viewings if those thousand people are causing three to five times as many to have jobs."
No?
The writers are the ones that walked out, the networks didn't walk out on the writers...
I think that they should get dividends for internet viewings and DVD sales, I absolutely despise the way they are going about doing that.
'Course, I don't have much use for any unions period regardless of profession (in this day and age), so that's where I'm coming from...
Mikkel_Knight
01-03-2008, 11:54 AM
I guess I don't count as "people" then. :(
Same here.
Nope - you're not "people" :rolleyes:
MickeS
01-03-2008, 11:55 AM
'Course, I don't have much use for any unions period regardless of profession (in this day and age), so that's where I'm coming from...
I'm shocked. ;)
Mikkel_Knight
01-03-2008, 12:03 PM
It's possible that there might not be new written series until 2009, and television will go on fine without them?
Doesn't seem like it.
-smak-
Actually, I think it would and will... Sure, people will be upset, but networks will continue to churn out gameshows and reality programming. Networks like Showtime and HBO will find themselves in a bigger crunch I think. There will be a larger swell, but like Loadstar said - the networks are going to lose viewers, but the blame can't be laid at their feet solely. The writers (IMO) have more to do with people leaving than the networks not paying the writers. In general, Id'be willing to bet that the public doesn't give a rats ass who gets paid for what so long as their given their entertainment...
Mikkel_Knight
01-03-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm shocked. ;)
say it ain't so Joe! :D
LoadStar
01-03-2008, 12:25 PM
The writers are the ones that walked out, the networks didn't walk out on the writers...
The writer's contract expired, and the studios failed to negotiate a new contract in time. Worse yet, the studios walked away from the negotiations in early December and have yet to return. The WGA is ready and eager to negotiate, but thus far, the AMPTP is refusing the negotiate in good faith.
I think that they should get dividends for internet viewings and DVD sales, I absolutely despise the way they are going about doing that.
They wouldn't get it any other way. It has to be in their contract. And the only way to change the contract is to negotiate it when the term of the contract expires.
Case in point: the Battlestar Galactica mini-episodes produced for the web. The writers wrote them in exactly the same manner that they would write a television episode, yet the studios said "stuff on the web is promotional material, not an episode. We're not paying you anything." Because there wasn't a clear clause in the WGA contract that defined new media (web download and/or web streaming), the studios felt they were allowed to do that.
busyba
01-03-2008, 01:22 PM
Case in point: the Battlestar Galactica mini-episodes produced for the web. The writers wrote them in exactly the same manner that they would write a television episode, yet the studios said "stuff on the web is promotional material, not an episode. We're not paying you anything." Because there wasn't a clear clause in the WGA contract that defined new media (web download and/or web streaming), the studios felt they were allowed to do that.
Same thing with the webisodes for The Office.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.