further to the conversation...

[lagilman]

And, in case you thought that it was only Google who didn't seem to grok that without a writer you don't have, y'know, A Story, and it's okay to ignore their essential involvement in the whole deal?

Hollywood doesn't think so either. And aren't sure writers have any right to attend the Emmys, apparently.

I've been mulling this one over quietly because it wasn't my story to tell, but I link you over to tightropegirl for her take on the situation. Read it, and weep for the Cluelessness.

http://tightropegirl.livejournal.com/19169.html



It is a hell of a time to be a involved in the creative arts in America, let me tell you. Who knew we'd be thinking about leaving not for political or medical reasons, but to protect our right to work? [I hear Paris has been kind to ex-pat American writers before...]*






*for those of you feeling humor-impaired this morning yes, that's a joke.

Comments

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

You know what's amazing? It's not the studio suits doing this, but the Academy.

You don't suppose they're still mad about the strike from a couple of years ago?

[lagilman]

No! Say it ain't so!

*mock shock*

That idea has been floated in quite a few places, yes. Which brings us right back to the original question -- why is it so hard for people to accept that creators should have creator's rights -- including full credit and compensation? [yeah, I know the writing-for-Hollywood scenario is different. But it comes down to the same disregard for the creative source from folk who are trying to make money off the creative product]

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

No! Say it ain't so!

*mock shock*

Okay, so I'm a bit slow without coffee this morning. (Heck, you'd think that with this icon I'd have remembered about Talk Like a Pirate Day.)

Seems to me it's the most obvious thing in the world -pay the people for creation- because if the product is poorly written, no amount of star power is going to save it. (I keep thinking of a comedy on FOX back in the 80's starring George C. Scott of all people; the writing was terrible and even he couldn't save the comedy.) Sure, the strike sucked for people, but there's a darn good reason why the writers went on strike.

Spending more money on (and getting recognition for) good writing is cheaper in the long run, because there are plenty of shows out there without the high priced a-list actors that succeeded because of the writing. Then again, what do I know? I'm just the person who watches the stuff, and in turn makes the suits money because I watch. (And read.)

[wishwords.livejournal.com]

I saw this in someone else's blog too. I suspect it might be a nasty bit of revenge for the strike last year.

[filamena.livejournal.com]

You know, the Scandinavian countries are beautiful, liberal, and take care of their artists. In Norway, if you freelance, you have a living wage for a few months if your between jobs.

[smoemeth.livejournal.com]

The whole thing boggles the mind. Without writers, THERE IS NO SHOW.

Unless, of course, you just scrap the "creative" part completely and come up with Stupid "Reality" Show # 8554. Which I also suspect is part of the hidden agenda here. Non-scripted shows are *much* cheaper to produce, and the lobotomized public laps them up much more easily, ergo...

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the mind, it boggles.

I keep thinking wistfully of Montreal, myself. Though I could be lured to the Netherlands, or Scandinavia. It is tempting.

(But it does have to be a place with horses. Which works for any of those spots...)

[ex-fashioni.livejournal.com]

This puts me in mind of the season ender from Mad Men last year, when Duck decried "creative" as a bunch of whining sissies who had tantrums and thought they ran things. *ahem*