Talk:WGA screenwriting credit system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
WGA screenwriting credit system is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 14, 2005. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
Ara Pelodi is currently recording or editing an audio version of this article. This notice is dated 2007-02-03. If a significant amount of time has passed, |
Contents |
[edit] older entries
Could we move this article to indicate it deals with the American system, and not screenwriting credits in general? 'WGA screenwriting credit'? Jihg 19:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I myself wondered where to put this article. I'd think it better to leave it where it is and let others contibute details of how other systems work so as to keep the material all in one place. PedanticallySpeaking 15:55, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'd prefer a more specific title to reflect the content of the article, but I guess its not important until we have material on other aspects of the subject. Do you know of similar systems in other countries? Also, what exactly is the WGA's jurisidication? All films made in America? Nice article, BTW. Jihg 18:50, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
-
- They have jurisdiction over every company that is a signatory to the Basic Agreement. That can include foreign companies and for films shot abroad. I suppose there are right-to-work issues with some jurisdictions, but they are beyond me. Any writer who is in the guild can't write for a company that has not signed the agreement. And thanks for the praise about the article itself. PedanticallySpeaking 18:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Basically, this is a recipe for totalcontrol and all around corruption. Given that they got this "privilage" in 1941, I'm guessing its a hangover from the days when the Communist Party's American offices acted as a censor board for Hollywood writng talent. I'm sketchy on the details of the period, but I'm willing to bet Dollars to Rubles on this one. Sweetfreek 18:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- This has to be about one of the most misinformed, nonsensical, moronic statements I've ever heard. The WGA credit system has NOTHING TO DO with leftism or rightism or anything political. Prior to the Guild credit system, it was common for studio executives to give credit to their girlfriends to get into their pants. The WGA system was simply designed to award credit to people who had actually worked on the film. Please save your grass-knoll-obsessed, tinfoil-hat-wearing, alien-snatching, communist-baby-eating blather for some deranged blog.207.69.139.7 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding the Film Miracle
An unregistered user, User:68.123.254.45, deleted material on the credit for the film Miracle (movie) which I found in the cited article by Shawn Levy in The Oregonian. I have rolled back his changes and here offer my reasons.
First, he cites bias by the article's author, that he and Mike Rich, who worked on the screenplay, have worked together. Certainly, if there was a relationship between the two, the paper shouldn't have assigned the story to Levy or it should have been disclosed. But just because that was not done it does not necessarily discredit the article. He also claims bias by the producers of the film, who have nice things to say about Rich in the article--I can't really comment on that.
Second, 68.123 faults me for saying Miracle was Eric Guggenheim's first film. I relied on the article's assertion that it was his first screen credit. Apparently, he had sold a screenplay previously but it was not produced. So I will change the reference to "first produced film" or the like.
Third, he cites an article in a writing magazine to respond to the material, but only in his edit summary rather than putting it in the bibliography or including the material in the article itself.
Fourth, he faults my assertion Rich worked "several years" on the script. The story says he spent two and one-half years on the film. So I'll tweak that language as well.
Fifth, he faults my writing that Guggenheim was surprised by the ruling. Levy wrote "not even Guggenheim thinks that the ruling accurately portrays Rich's importance to the movie" and quotes Guggenheim as saying "I reel really bad about how it turned out."
I hope this well explains my reversion of 68.123's edits. PedanticallySpeaking 18:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Page move
I propose a move to WGA screenwriting credit system, but any minor rename should clarify the central focus of the article--that it's U.S./Hollywood/union production, etc. jengod 21:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WGA
I'm not sure under which section this little tidbit would go, but of note is J. Michael Straczynski's (JMS) conflict with the Guild and Warner Brothers.
JMS's television series, Crusade, was canceled before it aired because of difficulties between the network (TNT, owned by Warner Bros.) and Straczynski. (In short, TNT changed direction midway through the series, forced production of a second first episode, and required, according to JMS, changes that would have harmed the show, such as adding gratiutous sex and violence.) Now, of course such difficulties are not unheard of in the annals of writing, so it would be otherwise unremarkable as far as this page is concerned, except...
JMS, predictably, wished to use a pseudonym for the episodes he wrote, and for the creator credit. The pseudonym he chose and registered, Eiben Scrood, was rejected by the guild. He revealed this in an interview with Dreamwatch magazine at the time (mid-1999), and elaborated as much on the USENET message board where he posts, the archive of which can be found through google, or at this link: http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-16393&query=Eiben
The short of it is that the WGA refused the pseudonym because it would be harmful to WB. I think this, and other instances like it would make a good addition to the article. Thanks for considering. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 22:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the suggestion. I've incorporated this material here. There also should be something about the 1950's blacklist writers psuedonyms, but I don't know enough about it to feel comfortable writing that up. PedanticallySpeaking 17:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] On the main page
This was the featured article of the day on June 14, 2005. PedanticallySpeaking 14:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Citizen Kane
I noticed it happened without discussion, but I would just like to second whoever took the Citizen Kane example out. When I saw this on the front page, and saw the very bald statement in the article that Welles didn't write Kane, I was surprised. I came in to fix it tonight and saw it had already been done. My view is that this is murky enoguh it was a poor example to use. While Mankiewicz probably deserves the main credit for the screenplay, there are pletny who rebut Pauline Kael's version that it was almost all Mankiewicz.--Cinephobia 09:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently, the Kane example was put back in place the same day on the rationale that it explained the motivations behind the WGA system. While that makes sense, the article should cite some sources, because as far as I know, whether Welles actualle wrote the screenplay or not is highly contested. IMDb Trivia [1] mentions "In the 1970s, film critic Pauline Kael wrote an essay called "Raising Kane". In it, she credited co-screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz for writing the entire script for this film, while alleging that Orson Welles "didn't write one line of the shooting script". However, this conclusion has very little factual basis, and was largely based on hearsay."
- Although we cannot take this for granted either (IMDb does not check factual accuracy of its submissions, so that Kaels essay had 'little factual basis' could be just as well be the opinion of a Welles fan, for all we know), it does raise some doubts. Is there other research that supports Kaels claim? The article on Citizen Kane simply lists Welles as one of the writers, and makes no mention of the conflict whatsoever. If it is unverifiable whether Welles co-wrote the screenplay or not, the example should be formulated more ambiguously (I mostly object to the statement that it is 'one of the best known examples of this practice'). Note that even if it is unverifiable, the example can still be a valid argument for the WGA system. - Queto Yurlunyur 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] repeat quote
The bit about "a writer's name is his most cherished possession..." appears in the first paragraph as well as the rationale section, any idea which is most needed?
[edit] The example image
Shouldn't the image show something a bit more complex, at least with both "&" and "and"? —tregoweth (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
