Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by andViolins
I'm not sure how correct this is. According to the "strike rules" posted on the WGA webpage:

"Non-traditional media
The Rules prohibit writing services performed for a struck company in connection with new programming intended for initial viewing on non-traditional media (such as the Internet and cellular telephones), and the option or sale of literary material for that purpose."

Thus, if the web page or other "new media" is connected to one of the struck companies, then the union member cannot "cross the picket line" and write for the company. If the website is not owned, operated or connected with any of the AMPTP companies, then the union could not prohibit the writer from writing for that site, blog, etc.

aV

I think that the web writing (and some of the animation writing) that they do isn't really covered by the contract that they're under. His interpretation was probably wrong in that they're free to write (for pay) for non studio sites, but I think that web writing in general isn't really something they're striking over.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that the web writing (and some of the animation writing) that they do isn't really covered by the contract that they're under. His interpretation was probably wrong in that they're free to write (for pay) for non studio sites, but I think that web writing in general isn't really something they're striking over.

Fair point. However the purpose of the strike is to cause the employer financial pain by limiting the company's ability to get any product out. While fringey is correct that this isn't like a traditional picket (i.e. UAW and Ford*) but I guess that a somewhat good anology would be the UAW member being on strike against Ford at a U.S. plant, but going over to Europe to do some assembly work in a Land Rover plant.

aV


*I recognize that the UAW did not strike Ford. It was simply an example.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think the studios can get more out of reality, but I think it's not going to go away -- so it's a reliable, significant source of money. And it seems like even though people might prefer to watch good stuff, if there's nothing really good, they'll watch almost anything.

The paradox in reality television was that it did lower costs substantially for the studios and open up a whole new revenue stream. But in so doing, television dumbed itself down just in time for the internet to enter the stage and show equally dumb programming to the public (Drudge, Gawker, etc..). Television didn't protect its advantage.

It's only a matter of time until the net figures out a way to start pumping out reality shows of comparable quality. And on the net, the banner ads can't be ignored with TiVo.

I have to confess, by the way, I hate-- No, loathe, reality television, in its almost every incarnation. Sure, I can watch a few minutes of America's Most Smartest Model because Ben Stein is hysterical, but I cannot stomach five minutes of Survivor or Real World or even Beauty and the Geek. It's always the same platform - cringe as fools embarrass selves. It's a very limited punchline.

I think the reason for the success of reality television is it makes the people who watch it feel a lot better about themselves. That kind of creeps me out.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Bob

"And I firmly believe that the institution of marriage is a sacred bond reserved by God for the lifelong union of one man [giggle] . . . one man . . . ."

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The paradox in reality television was that it did lower costs substantially for the studios and open up a whole new revenue stream. But in so doing, television dumbed itself down just in time for the internet to enter the stage and show equally dumb programming to the public (Drudge, Gawker, etc..). Television didn't protect its advantage.

It's only a matter of time until the net figures out a way to start pumping out reality shows of comparable quality. And on the net, the banner ads can't be ignored with TiVo.

I have to confess, by the way, I hate-- No, loathe, reality television, in its almost every incarnation. Sure, I can watch a few minutes of America's Most Smartest Model because Ben Stein is hysterical, but I cannot stomach five minutes of Survivor or Real World or even Beauty and the Geek. It's always the same platform - cringe as fools embarrass selves. It's a very limited punchline.

I think the reason for the success of reality television is it makes the people who watch it feel a lot better about themselves. That kind of creeps me out.

I think that the reality thing was one of many factors that actually made television better. Scripted television these days is so much better written than in the days when there were three networks and there was no competition for a viewer's attention. Shows on cable, reality shows, stupid ass gameshows like Who Wants to be a Millionaire resulted in a far superior television product over a broader spectrum than five, ten, fifteen years ago. Cheap reality fails in making money over and over again for the studios, but the good quality scripted stuff endures into syndication and DVD sales.

Used to be that there were one or two well written shows out there that offered the viewer complex story lines with multiple interesting characters. That's not the case these days. Used to be that once an actor broke out of TV and into the movies, there was no turning back to the small screen. That's not the case these days. Used to be that episodic tv was the sole province of soap operas. That's not the case these days.

Sure, there's still a lot of crap on TV, but there's also a LOT of good stuff out there that's well written, fairly well acted, and engaging to the viewer. I think that reality television was helpful in generating a better quality product.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Hank's Friends

RT, tell us about Texas again.

How do you deal with all Hank's friends down there?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hank's Friends

RT, tell us about Texas again.

How do you deal with all Hank's friends down there?

Texas is the greatest state in the greatest nation in the world. Doesn't mean it's perfect.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Texas is the greatest state in the greatest nation in the world. Doesn't mean it's perfect.

It's true that my kids are really missing out up here, having to learn about evolution when they could be learning about intelligent design instead.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Does anyone else enjoy that Rudy's latest scandal is being called the "Shag Fund" Scandal?

I mean, come on, it had nothing to do with shagging (except for the travel and "security" for his girlfriend, I hope). It was all just about scamming whoever wanted to try to read a City budget.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's true that my kids are really missing out up here, having to learn about evolution when they could be learning about intelligent design instead.

It's these kinds of posts that will lead people to collect articles about something asinine that Massholes do, and then wait for you in the tall grass.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's these kinds of posts that will lead people to collect articles about something asinine that Massholes do, and then wait for you in the tall grass.

We could start with electing Mitt Romney.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's these kinds of posts that will lead people to collect articles about something asinine that Massholes do, and then wait for you in the tall grass.

You see, I find those amusing, especially when they're on the mark.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's these kinds of posts that will lead people to collect articles about something asinine that Massholes do, and then wait for you in the tall grass.

what you miss is that almost everything GGG posts is something assinine someone from Massachuttes has done. Did she lose her job for what she was teaching or from taking a political position?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We could start with electing Mitt Romney.

This one's on the mark, but I am not amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]