Below is a letter just sent around by WGA East president Michael Winship addressing the very questions I raised earlier. This is getting interesting.
To Our Fellow Members,
We are writing to let you know that have reached a contract with David Letterman's Worldwide Pants production company that puts his show and The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson back on the air with Guild writers. This agreement is a positive step forward in our effort to reach an industry-wide contract. While we know that these deals put only a small number of writers back to work, three strategic imperatives have led us to conclude that this deal, and similar potential deals, are beneficial to our overall negotiating efforts.
First, the AMPTP has not yet been a productive avenue for an agreement. As a result, we are seeking deals with individual signatories. The Worldwide Pants deal is the first. We hope it will encourage other companies, especially large employers, to seek and reach agreements with us. Companies who have a WGA deal and Guild writers will have a clear advantage. Companies that do not will increasingly find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Indeed, such a disadvantage could cost competing networks tens of millions in refunds to advertisers.
Second, this is a full and binding agreement. Worldwide Pants is agreeing to the full MBA, including the new media proposals we have been unable to make progress on at the big bargaining table. This demonstrates the integrity and affordability of our proposals. There are no shortcuts in this deal. Worldwide Pants has accepted the very same proposals that the Guild was prepared to present to the media conglomerates when they walked out of negotiations on December 7.
Finally, while our preference is an industry-wide deal, we will take partial steps if those will lead to the complete deal. We regret that all of us cannot yet return to work. We especially regret that other late night writers cannot return to work along with the Worldwide Pants employees. But the conclusion of your leadership is that getting some writers back to work under the Guild’s proposed terms speeds up the return to work of all writers.
Side-by-side with this agreement, and any others that we reach, are our ongoing strike strategies. In the case of late-night shows, our strike pressure will be intense and essential in directing political and SAG-member guests to Letterman and Ferguson rather than to struck talk shows. At this time, picket lines at venues such as NBC (both Burbank and Rockefeller Center), The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and the Golden Globes are essential. Outreach to advertisers and investors will intensify in the days ahead and writers will continue to develop new media content itself to advance our position.
We must continue to push on all fronts to remind the conglomerates each and every day that we are committed to a fair deal for writers and the industry.
Posted by Peter David at December 29, 2007 12:01 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingTerrific news; we can only hope Viacom follows suit so we can get decent Daily Shows and Colberts again. Not holding my breath, but hey, it's a new year...
So, are they planning to step up the protests against the Daily Show and the Colbert report compared to previously, or are they just saying that they will maintain what they had before?
I like it.
Just like I want to see more and more musicians bypassing the "middle men", the major labels, and putting out their own music, I'm hoping that the WGA can get the same with their writers and the actual companies behind the shows, rather than having to suffer from studio bigwigs.
If Letterman beats Leno in the ratings, something he has seldom been able to do, this will be huge. It'll be very interesting to see if the big names stay off of all but the Worldwide Pants shows.
Also, I love a press release that has to be serious while using the words "wouldwide pants" repeatedly.
I'd like to see the details of the Worldwide Pants contract deal, whether it limits them to the two shows that they have on now. Remember, WP has produced prime-time fiction shows before, including the highly successful Everybody Loves Raymond. They don't have anything on the schedule at the moment, if I recall correctly... but if they're the only folks able to make pilots now, they could be in quite a sweet position.
I just love saying "Worldwide Pants," so I'm really glad this happened.
The only non-WGA-okayed late night returning show (Leno, Conan, Colbert, Stewart) that I can see getting by without the writers is Conan just because half of his show is just him rambling off the top of his head anyway. The rest are going to be ugly. Here's hoping NBC comes to their senses and does an individual deal for their late night chat shows.
Winship's comments make fine sense - except for one matter: Why was the WGA unwilling to even consider reaching an agreement with the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards? The WGA's thinking at the time that was suggested seemed to be treatment of all producers as one enemy entity. I wonder, if the strike were to continue long enough, would writers be approached to leave the WGA and accept non-union writing employment. The ideological and practical arguments against that are obvious, but I suspect any major studio could find a legal solution. Perhaps they could set themselves up as legal entities withing a "right-to-work" state such as South Carolina, and have all script submissions funneled through that office. I don't know how much clout the WGA has now, but must assume it would eventually decline if it prevented its members from being employed.
Is there any way Viacom, Vivendi/Universal/NBC, et al, can afford to not follow suit? If they don't, Letterman will kill them in the ratings.
Conversely, what if Letterman *doesn't* get better ratings? Leno has some scripted stuff in his show, but that's not necessarily the strength of the show. I have very fond memories of when Letterman winged it during the last writers strike.
If Leno manages to continue beating Letterman even though Leno doesn't have writers, would that make the WGA look bad?
I'd LOVE to see the Oscars without writers. Does anyone LIKE the writing on the Oscars? Ok, the monologue, sure, but the "witty" banter? Please.
Idiot Actress: "Without the efforts of sound technicians, movies would be like this."
(They play a clip of DIE HARD 7: SO DIE ALREADY! without any sound)
Idiot Actor: "Wow. What a difference."
Idiot Actress:
Idiot Actor: "Wait, wasn't that your line?"
Idiot Actress: "Yes. I was silent so as to illustrate the point of how important sound is."
Idiot Actor: "Ha. Ha. How true that is. Well. Perhaps we should read the winners. With sound."
At this point I'm mainlining absinthe (now once again legal in this country. I just had some for my birthday. Interesting fact--it tastes like licorice ass.) I love writers but an Academy Awards show that had nothing but movie clips, acceptance speeches and ads for upcoming movies could be a serious step up.
The Oscars would definitely be better without the banter, but I don't think that's the fault of the writing. I think awards shows are the ultimate example of actors mailing it in. They don't care about the jokes, they've *maybe* practiced them a couple of times, and they wouldn't even remember them without the teleprompters.
Once or twice I've seen actors actually put some effort into the banter with massively better results. Same writing quality, just more effort on the part of the actors, and the jokes were actually funny.
I'm going to have to agree with Bill Mulligan here. I've never liked the writing at the awards shows, but there is a very big chance that many of the nominees would boycott a show conducted without the permission of the WGA. Presumably nearly 100% of the domestic writing nominees and a smaller share of the actors, producers, technicians and foreign nominees would feel honorbound to stay away.
If the shows do come off, I just wish the producers could force themselves to eliminate one thing: Original musical numbers recognizing the nominated non-musical nominees. If the artists involved in crafting a dark psychological drama saw no need to include snappy, pum-ridden show tunes, I would rather do without them while Jon Stewart is pretending he cares about the nominees.
Mark Evanier's blog, newsfromme.com, has been a great source of WGA strike news and analysis. He has predicted the AMPTP's response to the Worldwide Pants news and he's likely to be dead on. Read it for yourself here: http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2007_12_28.html#014540, though the gist of it is that Worldwide Pants' agreement with the WGA doesn't involve the areas of animation or reality programming, two of the big issues over which the WGA is striking.
My thinking on Awards Shows(in general, Oscar, Tony, Emmy, Grammy, Larry, Moe, Curly...) is USUALLY apart from the opening bit, I'd just as soon watch my computer render one of MY movies. Usually, the stuff that wins in any category I disagree with or haven't seen and I'd just as soon watch or listen to whatever it is and give it my own award, that being, repeated attention. Although, the odd hot person being named as a winner while in the powder room is always good for a laugh. My WIFE, on the other hand, eats them up with ketchup and a side salad. Thank GOD I've usually got some video to watch render....
(By the way, embarassed that I didn't think of this until AFTER I hit the post button--for the non-videographers out there who're just DYING to know, rendering is where the computer takes all the little segments of a video and makes them into one thing. Usually takes a REALLY long time. I started one last night at 5:30, when I woke up at 8 this morning it was just getting done. A little green line crawling in microscopic increments across the screen toward completion...I need a faster computer.)
By the way, Happy New Year, everybody.
For the record, this is what Mark Evanier predicted the AMPTP would say:
We respect the position of some independent producers to enter into arrangements that will spare them from the damaging, costly strike that the Writers Guild has caused in our industry. However, a company like Worldwide Pants is not engaged in areas such as Animation and Reality Programming that make the WGA demands so unacceptable to most production entities. The WGA demands would harm and cripple any studio engaged in those areas so we cannot and will not entertain them.
And this is what they actually said:
While it is good news for viewers that the jokes will be back on the late night shows, the biggest joke of all appears to be the one the WGA's organizers are pulling on working writers. The people in charge at WGA have insisted on increasing their own power by prevailing on jurisdictional issues such as reality, animation and sympathy strikes. Yet today the WGA made an interim agreement to send writers back to work that by definition could not have achieved these jurisdictional goals -- gains that would at a minimum require the company making an agreement to actually produce reality and animation programming. WGA’s organizers are also misrepresenting the fact that Worldwide Pants is an AMPTP member. Today's agreement is just the latest indication that the WGA's organizers may not have what it takes to achieve an industry-wide deal that will create a strong and sustainable economic future for writers and producers alike.
Amazing that they're just that predictable.
PAD
I don't know, Mark seemed a fair bit off. His version sounded much more professional and civil.
Good one, Bill. You pretty much summed up my feelings about presenter "witty banter".
The really sad part about Mulligan's Oscr Arawards bit is that it's actually less dull and boring then the banter that has really been on the show for the last few years.
And they wonder why the numbers are dropping...
I'm glad the WGA actually admitted their motivation for striking a deal with Worldwide Pants: to put pressure on NBC. Getting to the big fish by feeding the small one. Rather brilliant, really.
But if, somehow, Leno manages to beat Letterman, this will really blow up in their faces.
"And they wonder why the numbers are dropping..."
I suspect the reason the numbers are dropping has far more to do with the length of the broadcast and the fact that most people have never seen, or even heard of, most of the nominated features. Hollywood tends to nominate higher-quality fare while the local multiplexes are filled with whatever film has a Roman numeral at the end of its title.
PAD
PAD.... any chance of an entry on your general thoughts about Spider-Man: One More Day and its outcome? I realize it might be awkward given your position, but it'd be interesting to hear.
The run time may well be a factor, but older Oscar telecasts that were longer then some of the more recent ones still did better numbers. It could well be that a lot of viewers started actually noticing the length of the thing as the entertainment value decreased. Then there's the fact that you can bypass the ever more painful "entertainment" aspects of the thing and just see the winners' list on the net over your morning coffee.
I'm also not so sure about the "films being unknowns" factor. In the last five or so years, several of the movies that were up for awards were some of the biggest films of their years with huge followings. I think the bigger factor was the entertainment value. Guest after guest and the host telling poor jokes (or, in at least one case recently, screaming poor jokes) over and over again gets old really fast. Much easier to do the net thing the next day. ~8?)
But what if some other company purchases the properties somewhere down the line. Would the agreement still be "binding" with them as it was with WP? Or if WP merges with some other company? What's the law say in those circumstances?
As for Oscar banter, while I've not bothered with the awards for many years, how about getting PAD to write it? Bet it wouldn't be boring then.
While this little side deal is indeed a very good deal... for the writers working on the Letterman show... I still think in the long run it's going to divide more than bring together. There will be increased pressure from the WGA members to strike a deal, any deal, to start making money once again. Perhaps I'm wrong, but usually when side deals are done, those not involved are left asking: What about us??
I can only hope that this deal is the first step towards getting all the writers back writing, and not the first step in creating a crack within the ranks.
I'm still all for the writers in getting what they're rightfull owed, but it's beginning to wane slightly. It's time get a deal done.
"The run time may well be a factor, but older Oscar telecasts that were longer then some of the more recent ones still did better numbers."
*Everything* used to do better numbers. I Love Lucy was the number 1 show in its day and it had 80% of the audience when it came on. The Cosby Show was the biggest show in its first few years, yet it never got more than 50% of the TV audience. The best shows of the last ten years haven't come anywhere close to getting 50%, 20% is considered a huge hit now.
People just have more choices now. It used to be that when the Oscars were on the other two networks didn't even bother trying to put something decent on. So viewers had a choice between the Oscars and two types of reruns. Now the audience has *lots* of other places to go, and they're going.
Just a thought here, guys--could the decreased viewership have anything to do with the fact that in the past all you had was the Big 3 Networks and a smattering of local channels, whereas now you can get 1100 on your set with on-demand stuff and DVDs and video games? I'm not saying that's it, but could it be a part of it?
This is completely off-topic, but I'm just that angry after the conclusion to the "One More Day" story in Amazing Spider-Man.
Joe Quesada knew that the fans wanted Peter and MJ to stay together, but he just didn't care what the fans wanted, so he broke them up.
Because of that, I'm dropping the book. I suggest anybody else who wishes to express their displeasure with what amounts to a giant middle finger in the face of all the fans who liked the Peter/MJ marriage do the same.
Posted by Peter David
"And they wonder why the numbers are dropping..."
I suspect the reason the numbers are dropping has far more to do with the length of the broadcast and the fact that most people have never seen, or even heard of, most of the nominated features. Hollywood tends to nominate higher-quality fare while the local multiplexes are filled with whatever film has a Roman numeral at the end of its title.
That's sort of funny, because i can recall a time when everyone was complaining that Really Good Films hardly ever got nominated, because Hollywood liked to nominate big flashy money-making films of the type that generated more jobs in Hollywood...
Bill Holbrook's "Kevin & Kell" for New Year's Day (http://www.herdthinners.com/index.phtml?current=20080101) looks like the beginning of an arc inspired by the WGAZ strike; the Predators' Union is fighting for a fair share of the food the bosses are producing by new technologies...
Well, I just watched the first in-strike episodes of 'A Daily Show' and 'The Colburt Report'.
Jon Stewart wanted to work out a separate deal like Letterman, but the WGA said no?
Whaaaaaa?
I'd really like to know more about that. Stewart sounded like he had some serious issues with that. The only explanation I can come up with is that the WGA is hoping that by only letting one set of late night shows have writers, they'll make that show pull ahead in the ratings and show off how needed they are. That seems like a harsh way to do things, though.
As for the shows, I thought they were surprisingly good. Two very funny men doing very well without having very word meticulously worked out. Of course, they had some issues they really cared about and more time than they actually wanted to think about what they would say next time they hit the air. It will be interesting to see if they can be just as good doing this four days a week for awhile.
The difference is in who owns the respective shows. Comedy Central, a division of Viacom, owns Stewart's show, whereas Worldwide Pants owns The Late Show with David Letterman as well as the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Viacom is one of the 8 biggest members of the AMPTP which is refusing to bargain with the WGA at present.
I haven't seen the Daily Show yet; I was at a bowling league last night and intend to catch it on a morning repeat. But my assumption is that, if the WGA was unwilling/unable to cut a separate deal with Stewart, it's because technically they didn't cut a deal with David Letterman either. They cut a deal with a production company, "Worldwide Pants." They can't start cutting individual deals with individual TV shows; it's unwieldy and also would lessen pressure on the producers. However, I have absolutely no doubt that if Viacom, which owns the Daily Show, approached the WGA to cut a deal similar to what Worldwide Pants or UA has done, the WGA would do so in a heartbeat.
PAD
The difference is in who owns the respective shows. Comedy Central, a division of Viacom, owns Stewart's show, whereas Worldwide Pants owns The Late Show with David Letterman as well as the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Viacom is one of the 8 biggest members of the AMPTP which is refusing to bargain with the WGA at present.
I suppose the bottom line is that the WGA has to draw the line somewhere. If they gave a separate deal to Jon Stewart, then the People's Choice Award and the Golden Globe are going to say, "Hey! Wait a minute! How come you cut Stewart some slack and you refused to make a deal with us? That's not fair!" And they'd be right.
By saying they're dealing with production companies, period, it allows the WGA to take a consistent stand.
PAD