So when we ask the burning question “Is there anything John August is incapable of doing?”, we can now go ahead and scratch another possibility off the list.

Yes, he can write WordPress plugins.

(Ed. Note: John had help.  Special thanks to Nima Yousefi, Will Carlough and Andy Maloney for their work on the plugin. Commenter Tim W. managed to uncover a bug, Nima showed up and commented immediately…and just a short while later, he generated an update to the plugin to kill the bug. Thanks, Nima!)

Geez.

Imagine John and I taking middle school shop class together. I’m the kid with glue in his hair who has staple-gunned his shirt to a hacked off piece of wood. John’s the A student staining his perfectly constructed Chippendale-quality birdfeeder a lovely chestnut brown.

Happily, we’re all the beneficiaries of his latest bit of WP geekery: Scrippets.

Since I started this blog, I’ve always wanted to be able to drop in bits of screenplay, but the formatting is obviously an issue.  I typically resort to something horrible like:

---

INT. CHURCH - DAY

The REVEREND stands at the altar.

REVEREND: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today–

GROOM: (hyperventilating) Uhhh…I don’t think I can do this…

---

As you can see, that’s just awful.

Now, here’s the same bit with the Scrippets plug-in.

See?

Happily, it’s very easy to use.  Here’s how I wrote the above:

Go ahead, try it out in comments.  I think it works there as well. Just follow the basic line spacing pattern as shown above.  Note that this plugin doesn’t auto-capitalize, so you need to all-caps your slug lines and character names.

Up next, John writes a plugin that turns Sparkletts into a nice chablis.

13 »

By now, most of you have probably received your voting materials for the upcoming WGAw Board election. If not, it’s on its way.

I’d like to call your attention to Howard Michael Gould.

For those of you who don’t know anything about Howard, I’ll give you the Cliff’s Notes version. Howard has worked for years in both television and screen and stage.  He’s been a rookie and a showrunner on hit sitcoms, and he’s been a rookie and an accomplished screenwriter on his own. In that sense, whatever your experience has been as a professional writer, he probably shares it in one way or another.

Howard was also on the 2007 Negotiating Committee, and it was his service on that committee that brought him to a lot of people’s attention.

If you’re thinking, “Oh, if this is a guy Mazin supports, then he must be some kind of anti-strike sellout”, I suggest you watch this video of Howard speaking at the big Convention Center meeting prior to the strike.

It was that speech that brought writers to their feet in a standing ovation, and it was that speech that made people consider that it wasn’t only radicals and strike-happy militants who backed the strike.

Now Howard is running for the Board, and I think it’s critical that we elect him.

Howard and I don’t agree on everything (what a shocker). But there’s one thing we definitely agree on, and that’s that WGA’s current lockstep leadership has become monolithic, lazy and disturbingly unrigorous.

Howard has a great post about that here, but I’ll quote just a bit to give you the idea.

The current monochromatic Board simply doesn’t disagree. 96% of the votes they did take were unanimous or near-unanimous. 96%. And because the Board already knows it won’t disagree, it doesn’t even insist on its deliberative role. It’s apparently content to let the president set policy (consulting, presumably, with paid staff more than with the Board itself).

Howard’s argument is pretty elegant: during the wartime period of the strike, the Verrone Board (in which every single person was endorsed by Patric…even the Board member who ran against him for President) voted far fewer times than the prior Board, of which I was a member. Not only did they not argue about stuff…they didn’t even decide as much as other Boards.

Of course, if Howard’s only point were that someone ought to be disagreeing a bit in the deliberation room, he wouldn’t be much of a candidate.

Here are some major issues that I think Howard is right about. Remember, if he is not elected, the following points of view will not be heard in the Board room.  Will not. At all.

(Ed Note: Well, almost. MARK GUNN, an incumbent, is running for reelection, and he’s backing these positions as well.  I recommend voting for Mark as well)

Enforcement, Enforcement, Enforcement

Howard believes that all of the struggles and sacrifices to get a better contract for writers aren’t worth much if we don’t have the capacity or will to ENFORCE the gains we win.

Ask any writer who has trouble collecting residuals from the companies how they feel about the WGAw’s ability to enforce our MBA.  Currently, it’s awful. If the WGAw determines it’s going to bother doing anything at all, companies request arbitration, and the cases can languish for years.

YEARS. When I was on the Board in 2006, there were open enforcement cases dating back to the nineties. The prior DECADE. And why?

Because the bureaucracy simply isn’t designed to KILL.  They are designed to slowly grind out compromises or stalemates over time. Compare the WGAw’s ability to enforce against late payments or demands for spec work (aka free rewrites) or violations of creative rights with the DGA’s pitbull-like interest in the wellfare of its members.

When I directed, I was visited on the set on my first day of shooting. I was a rookie.  You know what the WGAw gives rookies? A call demanding the initiation fee, and that’s it.

Editors get more enforcement protection from frickin’ IATSE than writers do from the WGAw. Our track record here is dismal. We need to reshape our Legal Dept. into a zero-tolerance gang of legal thugs willing to hold the AMPTP’s feet to the fire over every single violation, no matter how small. We should be throwing haymakers and going for knockouts, not lightly jabbing in a quest for a 15th round split decision.

We should be aggressively enforcing against the smaller companies, who are often the most egregious violators. The Board doesn’t even GET a report on those cases…just the ones open with the major studios, and our track record there is depressing.

There is no excuse. Our Guild has shown a willingness to spend money on all sorts of adventures. Well, here’s something well worth it. Howard is the ONLY candidate who is making enforcement a centerpiece of his campaign, and I think he’s the only one who can start this critical transformation within the union.

Reality

Like most writers, including me, Howard wants reality writers to be represented by the WGAw. However, he doesn’t share the current lockstep leadership’s obsession with the failed strategy of shaming the companies into “giving” us reality, nor does he wish to broaden the definition of “writer” to “editor” or “P.A.”

Patric Verrone wants reality under our MBA because he thinks that will strengthen our strike threat, and that’s exactly why the companies have completely refused and will completely refuse until the sun goes nova and we’re all consumed in fire.

But Howard’s observation is that we did pretty darned well without reality in our last strike, despite Verrone’s statement that without it we’d be a “toothless dog.”

Verrone was wrong, and we’ve all been participant in and witness to that fact.

Howard wants to stop martyring reality writers on the pyre of “strengthening our strike threat” and start working on getting them under a separate MBA…just as we have PBS writers under a separate MBA and newswriters under a separate MBA. There’s no sense in adhering to the old strategy.  It’s been an expensive loser for nearly four years now. Does anyone honestly think we’re going to get American Idol because the WGAw is putting on silly shows outside the auditions?

Of course not. It’s beyond quixotic.

But we’re not the only ones paying for this expensive failure. The reality writers themselves are stuck working unfair hours under unfair conditions for unfair pay because the lockstep leadership is unchallenged.

The DGA

There are a few things inevitable in this life. And just like death and taxes, you can complain about the DGA all you want…but it’s not going anywhere.

Time to start dealing with them.

The fact is, our inability to deal with the DGA leading up to the strike has made things even worse. Why?

When the companies went around us to make a deal with the directors, they locked in expirations dates such that the DGA’s contract now expires before ours.

And it will continue to expire before ours not only three years from now or six years from now…but FOREVER. They will ALWAYS go first.

(Ed. Note: Our contract expires two months before the DGA deal. However, because the DGA traditionally negotiates well in advance of their expiration, often six months prior…or even earlier, the two month window means that, in effect, we’re behind the DGA.  When their contract was expiring a year after ours, we had a shot at being first.  Now?  No chance at all…unless we do something very un-WGA-like and negotiate really really early ourselves.  I doubt that will happen, and I doubt the AMPTP will want to settle with us if they know they have the choice of dealing with the DGA instead.  Thus, while I was technically wrong here, my point is still valid–we have ceded the first bite at the apple to the DGA, and thus we must figure out a way to get them to listen to us.)

Communication between the lockstep leadership and the DGA was dismal in 2007, and it remains dismal now. Yes, it takes two to tango. No, the DGA is not the union perfected. Yes, often times when we fight with the DGA, we’re right and they’re wrong.

Congrats. Let’s all enjoy our frickin’ trophy while they get set to negotiate a deal in 2011 ahead of us…and remember my simple rule: once the AMPTP closes a deal with one union, they can never ever ever allow another union to do better.

Howard understands the need for detente with the DGA. It’s more critical now than ever. Without him in the room, you’ve got a monolith saluting the “screw the DGA, they’re assholes” philosophy…and so we continue to cut off our noses.

With Howard in the room, we’ve got a chance at ending the cold war and maybe…just maybe…working with the DGA in such a way that they can leverage us and we can leverage them into a good deal that doesn’t require striking.

As someone who has served on the Board and served under two very different Presidents, I can tell you that not everyone in the room matters.  The President matters. One or two outspoken and long-serving Board members certainly matter. Three or four passionate, argumentative, challenging and critical voices will matter.

Most of the rest of the people fill seats and vote the way their political godfather demands.

I fear the balance has shifted waaay in favor of the seat fillers. And I strongly fear that we are missing those critical, challenging, passionate voices who would prefer to call bullshit and make a case for change than simply get along to go along.

Howard is one of those guys. And that’s why so many members of the Negotiating Committee are endorsing him–writers like Neil Baer and Carlton Cuse and Bill Condon and Ron Bass and Carol Mendelsohn and Ed Solomon and Larry Wilmore…

No pushovers there. These are tough writers who fought the companies tooth and nail.

Watch the above video, read his statement carefully, and then strongly consider granting Howard your vote.

22 »

It’s been a while since the last half-baked theory. My standard disclaimer applies: these are just thoughts I have about writing, I have no more absolute validity than the next guy. Use it if you like it…ball it up and chuck it if you don’t.

This one occurred to me in the shower, though. That should be worth something.

I think we all have lots of theories and internal rules we follow when writing, but we’re probably only aware of a few of them, if any.

Still, when you’re dissatisfied with what you’re writing–not a clear dissatisfaction, but that awful, vague sense that something’s just wrong–it could be that either your unrealized rule is wrong…or perhaps you’re missing a rule where you need one.

I had a moment like this a few weeks ago.

Without going into the specifics, let’s just say that my problem was that I felt it was important to write a scene in which the main character had a minor success…because he had failed in two prior scenes, and it just didn’t feel like he was “growing” enough.

This was a terrible reason to write a scene.

It’s a natural enough instinct.  You’re writing a romantic comedy, and two characters meet. They hate each other at first. But in their second meeting, you don’t want to repeat things, so you move the ball forward.

Or perhaps they hit it off instantly, but next, it’s time to put the breaks on in order to create some drama.

You introduce your action hero kicking ass…he’s seemingly unstoppable.  Well, that’s not necessarily interesting enough, so let’s avoid that by writing a subsequent scene where he’s challenged by a tougher opponent.

You decide your story requires the presence of a mobster. But you don’t want to write the same old mobster, so you decide you’ll make your mobster really erudite and Ivy-educated.

How you ever heard yourself say “I wrote this scene in this way because I was concerned that…”?

You’re not writing toward something as much as you’re writing away from something else.

Is this a subtle distinction? I don’t think so. Writing something because you don’t want the scene or character to be something else is, unfortunately, substitutive. It’s placeholding. It’s also depriving you of an opportunity to write something…you know…good.

Once I realized that I was writing my scene in such a way as to avoid something, I asked myself the much tougher and smarter question: why should the scene be this way? Why would I want it this way barring any concerns? Why did it need to be this way, regardless of the costs of it not being this way?

And just like that, the scene sort of unlocked itself. Instead of writing so that my main character had a minor success in an endeavor in order to avoid failing again (my initial “write away from” instinct), I wrote the scene so that my character needed to have a minor success in order to feel better about himself…because I needed to then deflate that character’s sense of success in the subsequent moment…because I needed to tweak his competitive nature.  And I needed to tweak his competitive nature because the internal conflict between his pride and his cowardice was the stuff that would make it so that I would need to…

…until I found myself writing “The End.”

Simply asking myself to write toward a positive instead of away from a negative opened the whole thing up. I wasn’t solving problems any more. I was creating.  Much more fun.  And now that scene is integral and about character, instead of formula.

Yeah, good old formula.

There’s nothing wrong with formula per se. In fact, there’s often a lot right with it. Groundhog Day is a pretty formulaic film. Really formulaic, even. It’s a wonderful formula. And this is a source of frustration, no doubt, for screenwriters both pro and amateur. You write something, and you’re told “The problem is that this script is formulaic.”

Oh, is that the problem?

No.

There is a problem, however, when your script is nothing but formulaic.

When you’re writing toward something…be it a thematic revelation, a narrative reversal, or ideally some moment of character growth…that’s what the reader will take away. The script is leading them to a concept or a moment or an emotion.

When you’re writing away from something, then often the only thing reader will take away is the fact that your script is achieving some sense of appropriate, but empty, story-telling.

They’ll call that “formula.” It’s easier to say than “Traditional narrative without a sense of compelling forward motion, earned moments or anything actually interesting happening.” And to be sure, many of the people who comment on scripts aren’t really aware of why they feel what they feel anyway, so they just say shit like “it’s too formulaic.”

If one person says it, who cares? If a lot of people say it, then maybe they’re on to something.

And maybe this is why.

3 »

Been working on getting a draft done. Deadlines and so forth.

Well, it’s done…and I’ve got a decent backlog of stuff to talk about, so expect an entry every three days or so for about…umm….six days or something.

Believe it or not, the next post is about screenwriting.

I know.

4 »

This email was just sent out…

 

---

To Our Fellow Members: 

We’re pleased to inform you that ballots have been tabulated, and members of the Writers Guilds, East and West have overwhelmingly approved all three proposed amendments to the Screen Credits Manual. A total of 1,619 ballots were cast with the following results: 

Proposal #1 – Arbiter Teleconference – 90% in favor of adopting the amendment (1,455 yes; 154 no).

Proposal #2 – Elimination of Relaxed Standard – Percentage Requirements to Receive Screenplay Credit – 86% in favor of adopting the amendment (1,387 yes; 219 no). 

Proposal #3 – Rules for Production Executive Teams – Elimination of 60% Rule – 83% in favor of adopting the amendment (1,344 yes; 268 no). 

The amendments are effective immediately, and will apply to any project for which a Notice of Tentative Writing Credits is submitted on or after August 1, 2008. The text of the amendments may be found on each Guild’s website at www.wgaeast.org and www.wga.org. 

Thanks to all of you who participated in this important referendum, yet another indication of our continued, growing solidarity. Special thanks to the members of the Credits Review Committee for their patience, commitment and hard work. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Winship  President, WGAE 

Patric M. Verrone  President, WGAW 

---

Those numbers are very high for credit proposals, so it’s a resounding success.  And now that we know we can agree on credit changes…we know we can agree on credit changes.

Sounds silly, but that was part of the point.

A big thanks to Patric and Michael for backing these proposals.  We couldn’t have gotten these numbers without their support.  In the West, we were aided by Tony Segall, Leslie Mackey McCambridge, Sally Burmester, Jennifer Burt and many others.  Thanks to the East staff as well.

And of course, a big thanks to the committee itself, which figured out a way to find consensus in even this, our most contentious of subjects.

The Committee will be going back to work in a month or so.  The next round will likely be a bit more radical, but ultimately, the approval rests with the membership.

Lastly, I’d like to acknowledge that despite my strident criticism of much of what WGAw leadership has been doing, Patric and the Board have been gracious enough to allow me to continue serving as co-chair of the CRC (no sarcasm…it is very gracious, for the committee serves at the pleasure of the Board).  For all our disagreements, they are not personal, and I appreciate that there have been absolutely no repercussions sent my way.  I care deeply about our credits guidelines and procedures.  It’s an honor to have served, and it is an honor to continue to serve.

2 »

I’ve been very reluctant to talk at length about the SAG situation.  I’m not in SAG (despite my virtuosic turns as both the voice of a puppet and a frightened janitor), and unlike many people on the intertubes, I have this little quirk about not banging a drum about unions to which I do not belong.

Throw in some laziness, and you’ve got the bulk of the reason for my silence.  SAG’s situation is complicated.  You’ve got the AFTRA issue, which goes back many years, you have the fractured nature of SAG’s governance, which is seriously divided both geographically and philosophically, you have the the relationship between SAG President Alan Rosenberg and WGAw President Patric Verrone, and you have the ongoing stalemate between the AMPTP and SAG.

I have thought about all of that stuff, but it’s far better that you hear from people with more skin in that game.

To that end, a group of actors is running for the SAG Board under the name Unite For Strength.¹

Now, I don’t think it’s as simple as saying that one group is the militant crazies and one group is the reasonable thinkers…or one group is the aggressive fighters and one group is the craven cavers.  That’s how the extremists see things, and that’s not me.  However, I admire Unite For Strength for being willing to take on the majority leadership in their union at a difficult time, and I particularly admire them for doing it in the face of some odious (and familiar) rhetoric.

The Unite For Strength candidates are a pretty credible group of actors, many of whom we all know:  Adam Arkin, Amy Brenneman, Marcia Wallace² and others.

Oh, and they’re supported by Sally Field.

Norma Rae herself!

They’re running for a number reasons, but it appears the main one is to help get SAG back on a more productive negotiations course for its membership.

This requires, of course, criticizing SAG leadership.

And that, apparently, is as popular with SAG leadership as I am with WGA leadership.

You can listen to a KPCC interview on their site where one of their candidates, Ned Vaughn, talks candidly about why they’re running.  He doesn’t make personal attacks, he doesn’t sink to ad hominem critiques.  He criticizes the substance of the majority’s philosophy and the facts of their results.

In response, Alan Rosenberg pays some brief lip service to democracy, and then in a bit of a stunner, announces that this isn’t really the time for criticism, and criticizing him and the SAG NegCom during negotiations is shameful.

Look, I get it.  This is a very hard thing for anyone to do, it’s really hard when things aren’t going well, it must be triply hard to get criticized for it while you’re trying so hard, but folks…people in power…listen up.

This is the price you pay for the authority you wield.  You must be accountable to the people whose lives you are impacting on a daily basis.  You must be.  You MUST be open to criticism. Welcome it. Don’t tar it as shameful or dangerous or traitorous. It’s almost cliche to fall into that trap, right?

Yes, I’m sure leaders would prefer if their citizens would kindly keep their mouths shut during a time of war.  It would certainly make democracy a lot easier for them.

But that’s not much of a democracy.  And, frankly, it’s not much of a strategy for success either.

Yes, it’s tempting to think that if everyone shuts the hell up and pretends that the charge of the light brigade will work…it will actually work!  But that’s not reality.  That’s the fiction that we’re so good at writing and the actors are so good at bringing to life.

In reality, a poor strategy is a poor strategy no matter how quiet and obedient the masses are.  At that point, it is your duty as a member of a movement to stand up and say “I think this is a bad idea.” You can do it quietly if you want.  You can do it when it doesn’t matter.  Or you can just tell people that you know agree.

But it’s better to yell it as loudly as you damned can when the stakes are at their highest.

Guess what?

If you’re wrong, then no one listens.

If you’re right, then everyone will coalesce around a new strategy.  A better strategy.

If you’re maybe right, then leadership will be forced to respond, answer questions and be accountable.  That’s a good thing.

Alan Rosenberg may have all the answers for SAG.  He may not.  Unite For Strength may be the saviors.  They may not.

But there is no shame in dissent, and damn anyone who dares say there is.

Yours truly took a massive quantity of shit during the strike.  Why?  Because I went fi-core?  No.  Because I scabbed?  No (although there was an attempt to accuse me of that, followed by a meek apology, but that’s a story for another day, I suppose).  Because I broke strike rules?  No.

Because I dared to disagree.  I disagreed with much of what our leaders did and said, and I still do.  I dared to disagree publicly, which some people still think was akin to driving a knife into our collective hearts.

Didn’t happen.  Shocker.

What’s fascinating, though, is that since then, other people have disagreed.  People who fit the “good soldier” mold far better than I…and they’ve still gotten the “you’re a traitorous weasel!” treatment.

More and more, writers in my union are realizing that when you’re criticized for dissent, it’s not because you’ve done something wrong.

It’s because the world will always contain a certain amount of zealous, self-righteous prigs across every part of the political spectrum who fearfully believe that certain kinds of thought and speech are dangerous.

And those people will use war, strikes, campaigns, negotiations, natural disasters, a cloudy day or a fly in their soup as an excuse to intimidate you into shutting up.

To the actors of Unite For Strength, all I can offer you is this:  run hard, speak your minds, feel no shame, and do whatever you feel is best to help your fellow actors.  If that’s your motivation, and I suspect it is, you have all the reason you need to hold your heads high.

To the current leaders of SAG, all I can offer you is this:  you can’t be hurt by dissent, only by your own efforts to quash it.  Let the other voices in, and let the voters speak their minds.  Who knows?  You might learn something and stay in power.

Either way, I wish all of SAG’s leadership, staff and membership the best of luck in the coming weeks ahead.  I’m pulling for you guys.  We all are.  Here’s hoping the resolution is a happy one.

1. These names are common practice in union politics.  They’re all interchangeable, and they’re usually awful.  In my short time observing this stuff, I’ve seen Membership First, Change To Win, Restoring Respect, Stronger Guild, Writers United, Common Sense…but everyone’s pretty much in favor of unity, winning, respect, strength, membership and common sense…so it’s just branding, i.e. empty rhetoric but useful to quickly discriminate between groups of candidates. [↩]
2. ”HA!” says Mrs. Krabappel… [↩]

16 »

Just a remind to vote YES, please, on all three proposals.  All the cool kids are doing it.  Do it today!

»

So I was talking today with someone who’s pretty active in Guild stuff, and she had a question for me.  “Ummm, is it true that you’re some crazy right-wing out there Republican?”

And maybe some of you have wondered the same.

Because, and I’m just going on anecdotal evidence here, it appears that some people are talking about it.  Let’s consider this an insignificant ripple in the big Lake of Rumors this town drinks from, but since there are certain people in my own union who do enjoy insinuating certain things about a certain me that aren’t certainly true, I figured I’d use my bully pulpit to set the record straight.

This way, if you’re inclined to dislike me you can do so with complete accuracy.

Unlike the great majority of writers, actors, directors, agents, and members of the AMPTP, I am, indeed, a registered Republican.

My conversion to the conservative side of the political spectrum is fairly recent.  I voted for Gore and Kerry, for instance.  And as far as Republicans go, I’m a moderate.

The short summary is that I used to be slightly left of center, and now I’m slightly right of center, although mostly I’m a libertarian, I think.

So, for those of you who’ve heard that Mazin is some kind of kooky right wing nut, I’ll lay it all out for you.

1. I think government spending is out of control and very often thoroughly ineffective.

2. I think everyone’s taxes are too high, and yes, that includes the wealthy.

3. I’m an atheist.  I believe in the division of church and state and I am against school prayer.

4. I support an individual’s right to bear arms.

5. I am pro-choice.

6. I am a foreign policy hawk, and yes, I think sometimes War Is The Answer.

7. I am pro gay marriage.

8. I am pro school vouchers.

9. I am against affirmative action.

10. I am pro legalization of marijuana, although my personal drug of choice is the occasional single malt, or in my weaker moments, Doritos.

11. I am pro death penalty.

So, there you have it.  Now if you hear the rumor, you can set people straight.  I’m a God-hating, joint-smoking, baby-killing friend of the gays.  Or a racist, neo-con, prisoner-killing gun nut.

Whatever floats your boat.

53 »

And then reload the page. That should clear up any format problems.

»

For once, I thought it would be good news and nothing but good news.

The writers of Sit Down Shut Up are going back to work. Well, most of them, at least.

Nine of the eleven writers who walked agreed to a compromise deal with Sony. First, I’m going to talk about the deal they got and why their actions and achievements here are courageous and deserving of all of our applause.

And then I’m going to talk about how disgusting the latest WGAw press release is, as well as the irrational dogma behind it.

First, a quick sum-up. Sit Down Shut Up is an animated show produced by Sony. The writing staff wanted to work under a WGA contract, but Sony’s television animation arm is signatory to The Animation Guild Local 839 (IATSE). The IATSE contract is inferior to the WGA contract, so the writers walked.

When they did, I saluted them for their stand, and I wished them the best of luck, but I also pointed out that the legal ramifications of Sony’s deal with IATSE were such that it seemed nearly impossible that the show could even go WGA if Sony agreed. My hope was that the writers would get an IATSE deal on par with WGA standards.

After many weeks, 9 of the 11 are going back to work…yes, under an IA deal, but a vastly improved one.

The key concession from Sony?

Sony will pay them residuals as if it were a WGA show. They will not miss out on any residuals from reruns, New Media, DVD or any other form of applicable reuse.

Oh, wait. Sorry. Did I say that was the key concession? I was wrong.

This is.

Sony agreed to extend that offer to all WGA writers who come along to work for their television animation company.

(Correction:  It’s actually better.  They agreed to extend this offer to all writers who work for this particular show, and they essentially promised that all future Sony primetime animation would be under a WGA signatory company)

You see what these writers did?

They put their asses out on the line and made personal sacrifices, and they got something real and important not just for themselves, but for writers. All of us. If you get a job writing television animation for Sony next year, you’ll have them to thank. Each and every one of them.

They also worked out a deal where they would receive P&H through the WGA. Here’s how they did it: rather than get paid everything under the IA deal, they would receive less under IA, but then get that money back (and then some) via a blind script deal covered by the WGA. Pretty ingenious, actually.

Now, to be even more laudatory, it’s not like these writers were rookies at this sort of thing. These are decorated soldiers of the Jurisdiction Wars.

Two of the 11 walked off The Sarah Silverman Show on Comedy Central in order to win union coverage…and they did.

Another two walked off a former UPN show entitled Mission Hill, and they won as well.

Another one was one of the founders and principal editors of United Hollywood, the blog that did such a fantastic job selling our position to the public and the membership during the strike.

Two of them were the writers of the famous (or infamous, if you’re Nick Counter) AMPTP parody.

But wait!

There’s more!

Back when the writers of The Father of the Pride walked out for only three days under a similar circumstance, only to return under an IA deal that’s not as good as this one, the WGA, under the leadership of Patric Verrone, granted those writers the Meltzer Award for “extraordinary courage shown in their efforts to advance animation organizing.”

So if these long-time organizing warriors put themselves on the line for five weeks at considerable personal risk, survived threats of legal retaliation and the very real chance that their show and salaries would disappear, and then extracted an excellent deal from Sony that locked in full WGA residuals for ALL writers that follow them, you’d think the WGAw would throw them a parade, right?

WRONG.

See, this is the new WGAw, where the motto is “Give me perfection or give me death.” The America’s Next Top Model writers got a good taste of it (and their jobs died), and now these courageous writers…heroes, frankly…are getting their bitter spoonful too.

Here’s the press release from the WGAw.

The fundamental issue here was WGA jurisdiction. Every primetime animated show currently on the air has been done under WGA jurisdiction with terms enforced by the WGA. Every single one. In the case of Sit Down, Shut Up! Sony insisted on hiring WGA writers, and Sony execs repeatedly assured them the show would be WGA. When the writers were told it would not be WGA, they walked out and demanded WGA coverage. For five weeks, they faced continuous ultimatums and illegal threats from Sony, while at the same time Sony offered enhanced economic terms. Finally, when Sony offered to pay ‘WGA equivalent residuals’ and to give each writer up to $200,000 in additional compensation through a blind script deal, most of the writers decided to accept. We understand why they did so but wish they hadn’t. Had they stuck together we believe that they would have won WGA coverage for Sit Down, Shut Up! Two WGA members refused the deal, and we and their fellow writers applaud them.

Well. Let’s go through this, shall we?

The fundamental issue here was WGA jurisdiction. Every primetime animated show currently on the air has been done under WGA jurisdiction with terms enforced by the WGA. Every single one.

True. And irrelevant. All of those shows are produced by Fox. This is produced by Sony. The WGAw knows full well that this is apples and oranges, and simply saying that we deserve jurisdiction isn’t going to make it happen, especially when another union came in to that shop ten years ago, ran an election and won jurisdiction fair and square.

So that’s stretched truth #1.

In the case of Sit Down, Shut Up! Sony insisted on hiring WGA writers, and Sony execs repeatedly assured them the show would be WGA.

Here’s the thing. We’re not “WGA writers.” They don’t own us. I’m a WGA writer and an 839 writer. Depends on who hires me. So let’s dispose of that bit. Yes, Sony completely screwed up. And again, Sony screwing up doesn’t eliminate IATSE’s jurisdiction. If I promise to rent you an apartment I’ve already rented to someone else, you can be angry at me and you can sue me if you’d like…but the one thing you can’t do is kick the current occupants out.

When the writers were told it would not be WGA, they walked out and demanded WGA coverage. For five weeks, they faced continuous ultimatums and illegal threats from Sony, while at the same time Sony offered enhanced economic terms.

The WGA apparently brought the NLRB in on this question of legality involving the breach letters, so that’s far from resolved. We’ll find out soon enough. However, it’s definitely true that for five weeks, the writers struggled under serious hardships in order to stand up for what they believed was right.

Finally, when Sony offered to pay ‘WGA equivalent residuals’ and to give each writer up to $200,000 in additional compensation through a blind script deal, most of the writers decided to accept.

Welcome to the smear.

The WGAw makes it sound like these writers got $200K added to their compensation.

They did not.

That money was in lieu of some IA compensation, and not every writer will get that much.

The WGAw makes it sound like these writers decided to go back to work because Sony threw some cash at them, and they greedily caved.

They did not.

The $200K portion of the offer had been made weeks earlier, and the writers still remained out because what they wanted was WGA residuals for themselves and future writers. They expressly did not agree to go back to work because of the $200K. The WGAw is spinning that one 180 degrees.

The WGAw puts quotes around WGA equivalent residuals as if to imply that they’re somehow less than.

They are not.

Smear, smear, smear.

We understand why they did so but wish they hadn’t. Had they stuck together we believe that they would have won WGA coverage for Sit Down, Shut Up! Two WGA members refused the deal, and we and their fellow writers applaud them.

And what’s the basis for this belief that they would have wrestled coverage away from the union that had clear precedent and obvious law on their side?

No basis other than religious faith, apparently.

Yes, two WGA members refused the deal. According to the WGA, they are the only writers deserving of our applause.

Horseshit.

By the way, I have no problem with those two members not going back. They sacrificed, and they deserve equal credit for the compromise that got hammered out. And after all, it’s their career, it’s their lives, it’s their moral code, and they have every right to live by it. Deciding to go down swinging rather than compromise is a legitimate choice one can make for one’s self. In fact, one of the writers staying out is the partner of one of the writers going back. Goes to show you that even birds of a feather made different choices here.

But I’ll be damned if refusing compromise is the only choice we’re somehow authorized to applaud.

The WGAw needs to take a long look in the mirror. Our leadership loves to fight, no matter what the odds. And that’s nice if you’re a character in a movie. But when these quixotic battles use human beings as pawns, it’s time to stand up as members of this union and say “enough.”

Smearing writers who elected to go ficore apparently wasn’t a vulgar enough display of jingoism.

Now my union is spending dues money to smear full members…members who have made personal sacrifices for the rest of us…simply because they didn’t sacrifice to Patric Verrone and David Young’s liking.

And thus, if you wrote on Father of the Pride and Patric approves your return to work, you get a medal.

If you write on Sit Down Shut Up and Patric doesn‘t approve your return to work, then you get shit on in a Guild press release, beaten like a pinata on Nikki Finke’s site and falsely accused of petty greed.

That’s religious orthodoxy for ya.

But here’s the funny thing.

What the writers of Sit Down Shut Up (including the two who remain out) achieved for all animation writers–current and yet to come–is far more than Patric Verrone has achieved for animation writers since taking office.

So, apologies Patric, but I’m going to applaud them all.

Thank you Josh Weinstein, Bill Oakley, Rich Rinaldi, Aisha Muharrar, Alex Herschlag, Ken Keeler, Laura Gutin, Dan Fybel, Aaron Ehasz, Michael Colton and John Aboud.

You deserve better from your Guild. Maybe they’ll wake the hell up and give all of you guys the award you deserve.

40 »