I don't really see that happening. I think the AMPTP would rather the awards be a disaster because it makes the actors, writers, etc. look foolish, not them. They'll be in control. I'm in agreement with amysusanne on this. The Oscars are too big to make a gamble like this on. They have to grant them a waiver, because it will look bad on the ones striking, not the producers, because they can say that they tried. Giving the Oscars a waiver will look good for both sides and if played smart can be used as some sort of leverage. I don't think messing with the most important night in Hollywood is a good thing. I also think Letterman is doing a very smart thing.

I don't know what to think about the independent deals myself. I think it can work out well for the writers with particular shows but other writers would still be screwed and it kind of defeats that whole point of solidarity to get a respectable deal for all working writers. Not to mention, the late night writers don't have quite the same vested interest in DVD residuals, etc, at least at this point in their careers. So in the short run, it can be good, but in the long run is it effective? I don't know. Time will tell. As for not granting waivers to the awards shows, I have to think that's a good strike. I don't see any point in making any concessions along the way. If they want to shut entertainment down, then shut entertainment down. Either writers are needed or they aren't. The only reason that the shows are obliged to go on, it seems, is to appease the advertising dollars which have already been sold. Pressuring the advertisers who will not be getting the bang for their buck is necessary in capturing that leverage as well. I'm glad that SAG issued their statement of near solidarity with the WGA. I'd like it if the SAG members didn't cross picket lines to attend any of the award shows. And I actually think that issuing a waiver, just for an awards show, makes the writers look bad. After all, it sends the message that they're only willing to work on a program that is essentially self-congratulatory in its very essence.

United Hollywood (http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com) has a very interesting new piece about the writers meeting directly with the television advertisers. Since this gets updated so frequently, you might have to scroll down. Here it is, minus the links: Last week a coalition of WGA members went to NYC to talk with the seven largest media buyers on Wall Street. These ad buyers are the large corporations (like Proctor & Gamble, Johson & Johnson, etc.) who advertise on TV and pay the networks' bills. Our WGA crew, lead by Matthew Weiner, showrunner of "Mad Men," laid out our position to the advertisers -- who for some reason might not be getting entirely accurate forecasts from their corporate customers like CBS. The event was a success. The coalition of media buyers agreed that our demands are reasonable and that it was "irresponsible on the part of the networks not to settle this dispute immediately." Our hope is to enlist advertisers as our allies -- settling the strike is in their interest as well as ours. They agreed to put pressure on the conglomerates to do the only thing that will end the strike: come back to the table and negotiate a fair deal. Jack Myers reported in his article "Advertisers and Agencies Meet with Writers as Long Strike Seems Pre-Ordained" about the meetings, and quotes Sarah Fay, CEO of Carat U.S. and Isobar: "The strike is a huge issue for advertisers. It seems like the networks are intent on burning their own house. And ours! Not only that, but it also appears that the industry press, and of course the news channels, won't cover the writers' side fairly because of politics. They are now talking to people like me because they want us to know how dire the situation is." Myers goes on to discuss deals that Writers are making directly with advertisers as they migrate away from the studios and networks, and to the internet. In the interim, Family Guy creator Seth McFarland has contracted with Google to develop a series of sponsored five-minute mini-programs. Rather than residuals, McFarland will retain 50 percent ownership of the copyright. Other WGA members are forming ventures to take their work directly to the internet, allowing them to deal directly with advertisers. The media buyers get it. The public gets it. The congloms appear to be the only ones who don't understand -- their determination to keep internet revenues all to themselves is damaging their own businesses, and even the rosiest predictions about ad revenue are starting to be questioned. Sooner or later, Wall Street is going to get involved -- advertisers shareholders, media conglomerate shareholders. Burning down the house -- everyone's house -- for the sake of corporate greed isn't going to fly. The AMPTP needs to come back to the table and negotiate in good faith. And we're not the only ones telling them to do it.

Could anyone explain the effects of the strike on the upcoming award shows? On the past few pages people have been talking about them and mentioning 'waivers' but I'm still kind of in the dark.

piepeloe, all of the spontaneous banter you see at award shows is scripted by WGA writers. The host's monologue and all the introductions. So, if they don't get a waiver, all these people on the stage are going to be speaking without a script. The Hugh Lauries and Jon Stewarts will be fine but, if you think about some of the thank you speeches, you'll know how boring some of these people can be without scripts. Then there's the problem of getting people to attend. Most SAG members will not cross the picket line. (They filmed their shows until they ran out of scripts because they had a legal requirement to do so. They don't have contracts requiring them to show up at award shows.) So there's going to be a shortage of presenters and a lot of the winners won't show up either. All in all, a pretty boring show.

Thanks for explaining, Poeia. I'd figured there was writing involved with the actual show, even if they do get people who are somewhat funny on their own to present, but I hadn't realised how much. I guess I also thought they'd have most of it prepared quite a while in advance. And yeah, if the 'stars' don't turn up there will be a whole bunch of entertainment shows and magazines with even less to say than usual.

Do you think a lot of high profile guests will still appear on Conan/Leno, or will they be afraid to upset the writers? Ellen has had mostly unknown guests lately - her show is really suffering...I'm not sure if it's because there's less to promote or because people are afraid to go on.

Some of you have asked how you can help the people who have lost work because of the strike. Just found this link, so I pass it along: http://cashforthecrew.com/

Do you think a lot of high profile guests will still appear on Conan/Leno, or will they be afraid to upset the writers? Ellen has had mostly unknown guests lately - her show is really suffering...I'm not sure if it's because there's less to promote or because people are afraid to go on. I think it's a little bit of both. I also think that, slowly, a few of the people who are reluctant to cross picket lines right now will reconsider once all of the late night shows are back. I think the smart thing that Ellen has done lately is to work in "nobodies" who have previously appeared on the show, like the car jumper kid that was on the other day. They're not famous, but the audience feels like they know them. That's a good move on her part to keep people interested. Beyond that, though, for every Allison Janney she's had three or four random internet people or B-list chefs on. Not good. But, I think peer pressure will change some of that. Once everyone comes back and people start to see others do it, they'll be more likely to do it as well. It'll still be bleak (especially with guests spread out over at least four late night shows, maybe six) but it'll be less bleak than the WGA would probably like.

I just read that the Daily Show and Colbert are going to start up on January 7, 'without their striking writers'. I don't get it. Are Stewart and Colbert so good they can write that much material every day by themselves? Or are they going to use scabs? I can't believe they'd do that.

I think and hope that they will take every opportunity to skewer the AMPTP and point out that what is being asked for is not unreasonable. Because apparently a number of people get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, their return could be good news. I watched the last Daily Show before the strike. Jon Stewart seemed pretty ambivalent about the whole thing, and made a statement about the issue of Internet streaming by saying that both sides had good points. He has also been very quiet this entire strike. I would be my guess that he refuses to take sides. Colbert, that's a different story. I have no idea.

From a commenter at gothamist.com: As on-air performers, Colbert and Stewart are under AFTRA contracts; undoubtedly Comedy Central is (or certainly could if they are not) threatening to sue them and/or their production companies for breach of contract if they don't show up for work. It's unfair to call them scabs -- it's just a rare conflict of interest because they belong to two unions. I can't confirm the AFTRA thing (derr); is it the same union that required the House actors (and other shows) to tape until they ran out of scripts even though the actors supported the strike? From the NYTimes article: A Comedy Central spokesman declined to say whether it had pursued a deal with the guild. Both Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert are known for their political barbs and comedic campaign coverage, and their programs will resume one day before the first in a series of pivotal primary election nights. Comedy Central indicated that the timing was coincidental, since both shows were scheduled long ago to take a two-week end-of-year hiatus. Both hosts are Writers Guild of America members. The guild, in a statement, accused Comedy Central of forcing the two hosts back to work and reiterated that the studios should resume negotiations to reach a settlement in the strike. :? I think and hope that they will take every opportunity to skewer the AMPTP and point out that what is being asked for is not unreasonable. Because apparently a number of people get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, their return could be good news. Here's hoping you're right. Jon Stewart seemed pretty ambivalent about the whole thing, and made a statement about the issue of Internet streaming by saying that both sides had good points. He has also been very quiet this entire strike. I would be my guess that he refuses to take sides. Colbert, that's a different story. I have no idea. As a total fangirl of JS I have high expectations, and would be extremely disappointed if he came off as ambivalent about the strike. I don't think he will, and I thought the toss off about it he did on the show showed something stronger than ambivalence. The reference he made to it on the show is quoted at the end of the NYT snip below, which describes it as "arch". I haven't been to the Comedy Central site since the strike, obviously (its bookmark button still sits in my toolbar, gathering dust), but I remember someone saying that they didn't post it there with the rest of the ep. :roll: I enjoyed watching JS's mention of the strike when it aired, and am ticked I can't find a vid of it to link to for everyone. To me he was intimating that, like DOB1234 said, what the writers are asking for isn't unreasonable (since he emphasizes that viewing the online clips @ ComCentral's own website supports advertisers). Impossible to tell his thoughts on the matter from a clip obviously, and someone on gothamist did mention that he hadn't been at any of the WGA rallys in NYC. However, I thought I'd read that he'd been a force in getting both TDS & TCR unionized w/the WGA, but can't find the article now. IIRC, the shows have only been unionized for a short time, maybe 1 or 2 years. I fail at sourcing that though. :( Did Colbert say anything strike related before the break? My memory is for crap. (I totally fangirl him, too, so have high hopes for his comeback boosting the WGA as well. Is it January yet?) From the NYTimes on Nov. 5, 2007: There are indications that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert will come back in tweaked form if the strike is a long one, leaning on interviews and other writer-free approaches to keep both programs alive in a very busy political season. Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America East, is glad that his union brothers now include the staffs of two programs that have a visceral connection with their young, obsessed audiences. “These two shows are a big source of news for a whole generation that was not around for the 1988 strike,” he said. “Losing Stewart and Colbert is something like losing Cronkite during the Vietnam War. And because they are accessed in any number of ways both on television and on the Web, ‘The Daily Show’ and ‘The Colbert Report’ are exactly what we are talking about at the bargaining table.” Last week, Jon Stewart addressed the issue on his program, suggesting in his arch way that while a strike looked inevitable, the future that everyone seemed so confused about might actually be at hand. “So we won’t be here, but while we’re not here, you can check out all of our content on our new Web site, the DailyShow.com,” he said. “Every ‘Daily Show’ since I got here is on it, free, except for the advertising. So support our advertisers.” Here's a short xkdc comic that refers to WGA/Jon Stewart which predates the announcement that TDS would be returning. It's lulz-y; don't forget the roll-over text on the comic.