Talk:WGA screenwriting credit system

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)

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)

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)

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)

On the main page

This was the featured article of the day on June 14, 2005. PedanticallySpeaking 14:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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?

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)

Staff Writers

My understanding is that there are simpler standards for crediting staff writers who are working for ongoing TV series. Basically, the original author(s) are given credit for creating the characters or series (like with the Frasier example), the head writer for that episode is listed, and then all other staff writers who worked on it regardless of how many. (OK, maybe this isn't a simpler standard.) Does anyone have expertise or source on TV specifically?

There is certainly less litigation with TV credits but that may just be because there are less money in residuals at play.65.216.251.162DirectRevelation —Preceding comment was added at 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Christmas story credits.jpg

Image:Christmas story credits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationale now provided. —Theo (Talk) 14:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Replacement image

Here's a good candidate for replacing the deleted "Christmas Story" screeenshot: http://www.archive.org/details/last_time_i_saw_paris

Writing credits are 32 seconds in, and include an ampersand, an "and", and a "story by". I'd screencap it myself and upload it but screencapping isn't working on my system right now for some reason.--Father Goose (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Father Goose (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on WGA screenwriting credit system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615235017/http://wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=167 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=167
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510011309/http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=177 to http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=177
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510005149/http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=153 to http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=153

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:WGA screenwriting credit system/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 03:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been sitting here for entirely too long. I will be printing it out, going through it with a red pen, doing a light copyedit as I usually do, and then getting back in a few days or so with a review. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright. It's been ten days and a copy edit, on top of five months in the GAN queue. Time for my verdict. I would have probably done this sooner but the census is keeping me very busy.

Doing this review is sort of strange, because I can remember way back when this was the main page featured article a little over 15 years ago, around the time I began editing ... wooooooowwwww! I never would have imagined then that I'd be doing this someday.

And that's sort of a good starting point for my review. The current version of the article is better than the one that was gold-starred so long ago, better than the version on the main page. It's amazing to see what we accepted as the best the community could produce back then.

But our standards have gone up too. And while I don't think anyone would seriously claim it's still an FA in its present form, I also regretfully do not think it yet reaches the GA standard as well. So this article is a ✗ Fail.

Primarily because I think it could go into more depth about the subject. I read this and I would like to know more about the backstory, what's in the second section. I don't know how deep you've dug, but I suspect there's more to the story. Were there any specific abuses, any particular films, that motivated the newly-unionized writers to demand that credits be assigned purely through the Guild? Did the studios resist it? If so, why? And how was this resolved?

And how has the system evolved over the years? I know it has; one anecdote I am surprised doesn't make it in here is the famous arbitration pileup that was The Flintstones ... 35 writers on the film (75, in some accounts), with eight of them going for credit. IIRC, and I think one of your sources, Den of Geek, even mentions that this led to a change in the rules. Yet we don't have that in the article. (Tootsie should also be mentioned ... by some accounts (although none yet I can find that are reliably sourced) the arbitration after 45 or so writers worked on it forced a delay in the release of the film.

In fact, I think we could also use a background section explaining, as many of our sources do, that often (especially on a big studio film) far more writers contribute in some way, from a few jokes like the ones Quentin Tarantino got into Crimson Tide to restructuring the story while leaving dialogue intact, to a major polish like what Elaine May did for Tootsie (she added Bill Murray's character, for Pete's sake, which was important ... yet she declined to seek credit), than will ever actually be credited.

Alright. It's late and I will stop here for tonight; when I get back I have some more things to say and some suggestions for how you can improve this (And really, don't fault yourself. The work you did in the spring is the reason why I'm writing a longer review rather than just a simple list (but then again, I never do that for any GA candidate I review).

Tune in tomorrow ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Thanks for the detail! I will say that the FA didn't have anything except for an attempt at explaining how credits are assigned, and then a long list of articles in external links; if you don't think all the specifics are out of scope, I'll work on that (I think the Simpsons movie also had a lot of credited writers, because of an animation thing I can't find many sources on!) Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'm back.

Next thing I think we could explore, in the sense of the history of the credit system, is the blacklist era, so soon after the Guild's recognition. Many blacklisted writers submitted scripts using fronts ... how did the Guild feel about this? Did the credit system come into play? I think there was, infamously, one movie that because of this became one of the few, if not the only, studio production ever to reach the screen without any writing credit—I remember reading about this in Premiere once. If we can find out what that was, we should write about that. (And indeed, here's a New York Times article from 2000 about the Guild correcting past credits to include then-blacklisted writers, or include them under their real names).

And for The Flintstones, here's a great LA Times article from before the arbitration was heard, going into what was so controversial at the time: in addition to the record eight names submitted, the WGA decided to consider material ensuing from TV-style roundtables without granting an advance waiver, rather against its own rules.

I also found myself wondering, as I read this, well, has anyone ever sued the Guild over this? Yes, apparently someone did. And not always the Guild, either ... I think James Poe's suit against Michael Todd, who was not under the Guild's jurisdiction when he made Around the World in 80 Days is worth mentioning as the sort of thing that happens outside of the Guild process (even if the Guild was tangentially involved in things there).

Later there's Larry Ferguson's suit against the Guild over Beverly Hills Cop II. He had been given partial story credit; he had wanted sole credit for the whole thing, and sued the WGA in state court alleging the entire arbitration process was unfair. The appeals court held that Ferguson hadn't introduced evidence to back up some of his allegations of bias, or that the procedure gave rise to bias, and since courts generally give unions' internal procedures great weight and a great presumption of fairness, he lost and the credit system survived a direct court challenge. Federal courts reached the same conclusion in a similar case, over The Godfather III, two years later.

I have a lot of experience writing about law in articles, so I'd be happy to add this, probably in a separate litigation section, in the future, when I have more time. Keep reminding me about it.

Outside of that history, but sort of related to it, there's a passing mention of pseudonymous credit. We could write about how the Guild handles this ... basically very generously, since there are so many ways to distort a writer's or writers' work (in contrast to the more rigorous rules the Directors' Guild has about pseudonymous credit, even post-Allen Smithee). According to this blog post that might be reliable, although it seems to be based on an old version of this article, the Guild does have rules: The request must be submitted in a timely fashion, and the chosen pseudonym must not be one that seems to be chosen just to make a point. It cites the example of J. Michael Straczynski's request to be credited as "Eiben Scrood" (get it? Yuk yuk yuk ...) for all his work on Crusade because he didn't like what TNT was doing with/to it getting denied. I never knew the Guild had actually denied a request for a pseudonym.

But in this context, it might be fair to mention also the late Harlan Ellison's "Cordwainer Bird", used by him as a signal to those in the know that the work in question had been seriously compromised. He came very close to doing this with "The City on the Edge of Forever", which Roddenberry wanted to avoid. And speaking of Trek, there are also the pseudonyms that people use or have used to get around contractual restrictions on their work, like Gene L. Coon's "Lee Cronin" episodes during the third season of TOS, since he was under contract with Universal at the time and could only write for them. But I don't know if people do that/have to do that anymore.

I wonder too if we could also go for more images of, say, actual credits to illustrate some of these sections. If they're just phrases in a common typeface against, say, a black background, we'd not even need a fair-use justification since they'd be copyright-ineligible as stills. I think, for one, as lead image we could use the one from Lethal Weapon 3 that's reprinted in the Den of Geek article. The current one is difficult to read between the serifed face and the background, and that one is not only much easier to read, it illustrates the sort of apparent absurdities that can result from the credit system (in the text we could mention what the article does, that the studio's marketing department actually thought at first that that was a mistake and printed an initial run of "corrected" onesheets, which the Guild quickly intervened to have destroyed so new ones could be shipped with the proper credits. Also, it's from a more recent film.

We could also show screenshots from the films mentioned on the NEXTV page as having Guild-approved exceptions to the crediting. We mention the rare use of "Adaptation by" ... well, there it is at the beginning of Armageddon (although the article doesn't explain why, other than mentioning how many writers worked on the script). And take a look at what happens when you decide to use someone else's novel as the basis for the plot of one of the later films in a franchise suggested by a theme-park ride.

The article doesn't mention it, but I think we should, and maybe show a screenshot if we can: the very rare wording of the writing credit for Fatal Attraction: "Screenplay by James Dearden, based on his original screenplay". Again, to non-film people, this sounds ridiculous, but that's how it has to read when the producers liked a short film you wrote and made, and ask you to adapt it into a feature that they'll then produce.

OK, it's getting late again. More tomorrow. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I think I can wrap this up tonight.

First and foremost it occurs to me what the real problem is with the citations. I can see why you cited both the TV and Movie WGA guides for so many things. But you have over 50 separate notes to each and every page, just about. That's where the real citation overkill problem comes from.

So what I would suggest is what I've been doing on a lot of older articles of mine that I've rewritten and brought up to code for recent GA noms and peer reviews where one document had to be cited a lot ... use the {{rp}} template for different pages from the same work. It cuts down on a lot on this, and I can see very clearly how it would benefit this article.

Nearing the end ... under "notable conflicts", that one with Clooney is interesting, I didn't know about it, but I think an even more drastic story is the one about Quentin Tarantino. A quarter-century ago he wanted full sole credit for Natural Born Killers; the WGA only gave him story credit. In retaliation he has not only disowned the produced film, he has refused to join the Guild, and so none of his scripts can be considered for the WGA awards as he's not a member and only scripts all or mostly by members are eligible.

Another notable unhappy-writer story that occurs to me that could be mentioned here just because it's got an unusual twist: Nancy Dowd's complaint that after she got awarded story credit on Coming Home through WGA arbitration, reflecting what she thought was a seriously deficient, depoliticized rewrite done at Jane Fonda's direction and originally to be credited in part to Waldo Salt, whom Dowd says was too drunk to seriously do anything worthwhile, Fonda (the coproducer) retaliated against her, or tried to, by giving her credit an almost ephemeral flash on the screen, something Fonda and her coproducer had to apologize for publicly after the Guild complained.

Finally, it sort of occurs to me that the major problem with this article, then and now, which I've been working on here is that it's fairly dry as it relies heavily on the Guild sources. We do need them, but we have to remember that screenplays are written by people and for people and thus an article about something like this really needs to have that human element in it, which I think it has too little of right now.

I will be putting this on my watchlist and probably making some of these improvements to it myself, if and when I can, if you don't mind. I think it does have potential to make it to FA by current standards. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Thanks - of course, feel free to improve. Re. the citations: I use both rp and sfn templates a lot, which I didn't do here because it is possible to have a url to each individual page of the manuals, and given the possible confusion between document page number and pdf page number, I felt separate cites with the directs urls was beneficial. Kingsif (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. I hadn't realized that. It might be a good idea if you put an article notice in or something like that for editors who might be tempted to fix that. Or, are there links to the whole document? We should use those instead, really. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, one last interesting story that might illustrate a point, although I'm not sure yet what: Thanks to The Hollywood Reporter, we know now just how difficult things got during the production of the first X-Men (which prior to this summer's anniversary no one outside the production had really known about).

One of the tortured aspects was, naturally, the writing process. After several dozen writers, including Joss Whedon, had had a go at it, David Hayter, Singer's assistant, began writing scenes without the knowledge of anyone save Singer since he knew the source material well, and eventually those scenes became most of the script. When the studio found out, they told the producers that they had to give him script credit or he could sue them. So he got called into the office and offered $35,000, take it or leave it.

Hayter got sole screenplay credit in arbitration, with Singer and Tom DeSanto, the producer, who also was a Marvel fanatic, getting story credit. Some people familiar with the writing process say that Ed Solomon and Christopher McQuarrie, who supposedly asked to have their names removed from the credits (a decision Solomon says now he regrets) to keep the Guild from awarding it to them. Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Team Formats?

The article and the WGA handbook state that a team is denoted by using an ampersand between the writers' names. However, off the top of my head I know of two team writing credits that differ from this format: The Wachowskis (who have been credited thus and, previously, as "The Wachowski Brothers"), and The Clarkson Twins, who are writers on the The Wheel of Time (TV series). I'm curious if anyone has a source that explains how these credit formats were determined. The film and TV credits themselves are valid sources for the fact that writing credits in these formats do exist, and thus could be mentioned in the article. But, if I were the one to add it with my current state of knowledge, I would be unable to add context because I don't have any further information. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if there was some sort of side agreement with the WGA (similar to the one the Star Trek franchise has that allows them to accept fan-submitted scripts) to allow this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK pseudonyms also apply to teams. The Wachowskis famously did not want to be associated with the final version of Assassins but couldn't get their names removed, so I wonder if they came up with the pseudonym for that but then kept using it anyway? Note, though, Cloud Atlas is "written by Tom Tykwer and Andy & Lana Wachowski" (at the time), possibly because of Tykwer's involvement. Kingsif (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Extensive study could be good source

Screen Credit and the Writers Guild of America, 1938-2000: A Study in Labor Market and Idea Market Intermediation by law professor Catherine L. Fisk. Kingsif (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Additional literary material"

As of November, WGA members have approved adding this new credit, so all contributors can be credited. [2] Article will need to have this added, as well as updates in other sections about not all writers being credited. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone? Here's the WGA's page about it. Trivialist (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Will do at some point soon. Daniel Case (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)