Scripts Ineligible for WGA Nomination

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Well, Sonic, you got your wish!

It's not the writer they're against, it's apparently the producers of the films. Case in point: 73 year-old David Seidler, the sole writer of The King's Speech is a WGA member, a former nominee and winner for his television work.

His best known previous screenplay was for Tucker: The Man and His Dream, but he also wrote the screenplays for the godawful cartoons, Quest for Camelot and The King and I (The animated version voiced by Miranda Richardson).




Edited By Big Magilla on 1293891757
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Big Magilla wrote:Not to be belabor this,
Aw. come on! I want to see if the discussion extends into 2011. :p

Happy New Year, everybody!
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

(Big Magilla @ Dec. 31 2010,3:46)
Not to be belabor this...

I agree.

(Big Magilla @ Dec. 31 2010,3:46)
...but no, I don't look to the WGA for precursors to the Oscars. They do, themselves, I think, try to influence their membership who are also members of the Academy in that regard.

Certainly. But more so, they are trying to influence the Academy with Guild members. One of the reasons that I'm rather indifferent to this controversy is that it's not like the best scripts are going to be nominated regardless. It's not like this Guild will vote for Maren Ade or Giorgos Lanthimos & Efthymis Filippou or John Requa & Glenn Ficarra. It's not like we're talking about the great scripts that were going to be nominated and should be nominated. We're talking about The King's Speech being nominated so we can know ahead of time who will win in a mash-up between The Kids Are All Right, which by my estimation equals knowing which mediocre script is going to win beforehand. I'm only viewing this as what is best for these beleaguered writers, some of whom might have much better work that could benefit from the exposure.

(Big Magilla @ Dec. 31 2010,3:46)
I have no vested interest in who the WGA nominates or doesn't nominate. Frankly, I liked it better when they divided their categories by genre (drama, comedy, western, musical) than when they started following the Academy breakdown of original vs. adapted.

More nominated writers for more specific achievements leads to more unpredictability in the nominations. I'm down. I like that more also.

(Big Magilla @ Dec. 31 2010,3:46)
I used to run an office of approximately 100 people in California, another 50 in Boise, Idaho and a satellite office of three in Southern California. We didn't have "employee of the year" but for several years we had an "employee of the month" voted on by the various department managers and supervisors. The person who won the designation the most was one of the two women from the satellite office in Southern California, the WGA's version of independent non-union members.

I understand your point, but you wouldn't give your employee of the month equivalent to someone who did not work in any of your branches, but rather to someone who did the same job elsewhere.

Example: I just looked up The USC Scripter Award, which doesn't appear to be given anymore after they gave it to Slumdog Millionaire. The overview from imdb.com is as follows:

"The Scripter Award is an annual honor given since 1989 by the Friends of the USC Libraries to the best realization of an english language book adapted to film."

What about the people who are not Friends of the USC Libraries who also adapted book to film? Don't they deserve to be eligible for this award as well? The last nominees were Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Iron Man, Revolutionary Road, and The Reader. Why isn't Peter Morgan eligible? His script for Frost/Nixon is better than most of these.

The purpose of the Writer's Guild of America is to honor people within the Writer's Guild of America. Should there be an all purpose gathering of screenwriters that through aggregate nominate the Best Screenplays of each Year? Maybe. Should there be an award that just honors people within a specific Guild, let alone a Guild whose members are often times one of the most exploited and underpaid in the industry? This is it.
"How's the despair?"
Hollywood Z
Temp
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:07 am
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Hollywood Z »

Funny thing about all this speculation of who's going to win is pretty much moot, as the Academy's winner has generally lined up with the WGA's winner.

The ones that haven't were:

2009
Up in the Air --- Precious

2003
American Splendor --- The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

2002
Bowling for Columbine --- Talk to Her
The Hours --- The Pianist

2000
You Can Count on Me --- Almost Famous

1999
Election --- Cider House Rules

1998
Out of Sight --- Gods and Monsters

While this isn't a good sign for a win for ineligible films, it may not matter as much for the nominees. WGA ineligibility may work in the favor for some nominees and I certainly think that's going to come into play this year with as much press that the WGA is getting for some pretty high profile films being ineligible.

That being said, with The King's Speech being ineligible, I don't think that rules it out as a potential winner, but the scales are now definitely tipped in the favor of both Inception and The Kids Are All Right.
"You are what you love, not what loves you." - Nicholas Cage; Adaptation
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Not to be belabor this, but no, I don't look to the WGA for precursors to the Oscars. They do, themselves, I think, try to influence their membership who are also members of the Academy in that regard.

I have no vested interest in who the WGA nominates or doesn't nominate. Frankly, I liked it better when they divided their categories by genre (drama, comedy, western, musical) than when they started following the Academy breakdown of original vs. adapted.

I used to run an office of approximately 100 people in California, another 50 in Boise, Idaho and a satellite office of three in Southern California. We didn't have "employee of the year" but for several years we had an "employee of the month" voted on by the various department managers and supervisors. The person who won the designation the most was one of the two women from the satellite office in Southern California, the WGA's version of independent non-union members.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

(Big Magilla @ Dec. 31 2010,11:13)
(Sabin@ Dec. 31 2010,7:18)
No, it's like giving employee of the year to a guy who doesn't work in your office.

No, it's like giving employee of the year award to the guy or gal who most played by the rules as opposed to the one who did the best work.

But he doesn't work in your office. Some of these rules you're talking about are being done across the ocean by somebody who has said I do not want to work in your office. Or through a process by a small group-think community that produces good work but does not adhere to rules that you have previously established within the office.

You're thinking about this in terms of A) what is going to predict the Oscars, and B) what the Guild considers the all-encompassing best. That's not the purpose of these awards. The purpose of these awards is to highlight the best achievements in screenwriting this year WITHIN the Guild. Yes, it's weird that none of those films below are going to be nominated and it will not represent what is considered the aggregate favorites and it will likely not represent what will likely be the scripts nominated by the Academy, but what it will do is give a little extra recognition to screenwriters who otherwise would not receive recognition and will assist them in furthering their careers. They will get better agents. They will sell or maybe direct passion projects they've held on to. And Mike Leigh has made it clear he doesn't want to be in the Writer's Guild of America, so why should they nominate him when there's always the Academy Awards?


(Big Magilla @ Dec. 31 2010,11:17)
Except that that's not going to happen. The nominations will look a lot like Sabin's predictions....The underlying goal seems to be that the films which contribute most to the WGA's coffers are the ones that should be honored to give the finger to those "little" films like Winter's Bone and Blue Valentine that don;t play by the rules as well as those "foreigners" who won't pay tribute ether.

And this will literally be the online lineup of the year that does and that's okay. You've got dozens of other lineups that will include them. There should be one batch of honorees by those within the Guild, and this is it.




Edited By Sabin on 1293821098
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

rain Bard wrote:
Okri wrote:It might be more honest, but can we really say that the list of films excluded are unknown to the voting body?
The list of films excluded is endless. Some are going to be known to the voting body and some aren't. If they don't use their own rigidly-defined criteria for what's eligible for their award, what should they use? Scripts with at least a certain number of mentions by Oscar-prediction bloggers? Scripts mentioned in For Your Consideration ads?

I have no need to see The King's Speech or Toy Story 3 on every screenplay award list, especially not if it frees up a slot for a surprise pick, IMHO equally if not more worthy, like Cyrus or I Love You, Phillip Morris.

Would I feel differently if the titles folks were bemoaning being left off the WGA list were among my own pet favorite scripts of the year, like (Oscar-eligible) Essential Killing or Wild Grass, or (Oscar-ineligble) Father of My Children or Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl? Maybe.
Except that that's not going to happen. The nominations will look a lot like Sabin's predictions.

The underlying goal seems to be that the films which contribute most to the WGA's coffers are the ones that should be honored to give the finger to those "little" films like Winter's Bone and Blue Valentine that don;t play by the rules as well as those "foreigners" who won't pay tribute ether.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

No, it's like giving employee of the year award to the guy or gal who most played by the rules as opposed to the one who did the best work.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

No, it's like giving employee of the year to a guy who doesn't work in your office.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I still think the WGA's rules are arbitrary and capricious, but I fail to see how the WGA snubs hurt these films' Oscar chances. If none of those named are nominated, then the writer may have some kind of point, but until that happens, it's a bit like trying to make an apple pie out of oranges.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

Hollywood Reporter

WGA's Nix List: Top 10 Oscar Losers

December 29
12:13 PM 12/29/2010 by Tim Appelo

The Writers Guild has ruled some of 2010's best-written scripts
ineligible for a WGA Award, since they weren't filmed under WGA
jurisdiction. A screenplay that fails to get a WGA nom can still grab
an Oscar nom, of course, but it becomes harder to take home a writing
Oscar, since the big prizes tend to follow WGA choices. Here's a list
of the most important victims (and victors) of the WGA's latest
declaration of independence.

The Biggest Losers and How They'll Be Hurt:

1. The WGA. Fine, they don't want to predict Oscars. They want
filmmakers to sign contracts beneficial to their members. But by
nixing the likes of Inglourious Basterds, Up, District 9 and An
Education last year, which meant there was just a 40% overlap between
WGA nominees and Oscar nominees, they risked making themselves look
the way the documentary Oscar people did back when they omitted lots
of prestigious candidates. This year, they're driving a deeper wedge
between themselves and the Academy, sullying their reputation as
prestige bestowers.

2. The King's Speech. Because it's such a strong Oscar frontrunner,
being ruled ineligible for contractual reasons doesn't convey the
same shame as being snubbed for an award. The film's best picture,
best actor and best supporting actor odds probably won't be affected.
But one-time WGA winner and three-time nominee David Seidler's script
may lose Oscar traction. That would be a shame, since he may be the
most honorable screenwriter of the year (he waited years to make the
film just to protect the feelings of the Queen Mum), and you could
say of every character's dialogue what Colin Firth's King Bertie says
about Hitler: "He says it rather well." Possible beneficiaries:
WGA-eligible Inception, The Kids Are All Right and Black Swan.

3. Winter's Bone. Positioned toward the bottom of the best picture
contender list, director/co-writer (with Anne Rossellini) Debra
Granik could use some WGA love when the WGA noms are announced Jan.
4. The film needs every gust of goodwill and mindshare it can get,
and the WGA nix could hurt -- unless Oscar voters get mad and
motivated to vote for it, and against WGA bloodymindedness.

4. Another Year. Mike Leigh's marvelously peculiar writing method
(lots of improvisation and rehearsal with the actors) was good enough
for a WGA nom in 1997 for Secrets & Lies and four Oscar noms. This
nix is bad because even if he gets a fifth Oscar writing nom (or even
director, less likely), the film was losing heat, and the chief
victim is apt to be best-actress hopeful Lesley Manville, in a
lifetime breakthrough performance. Palm Springs fest director Darryl
Macdonald e-mailed me this heartfelt pitch about Manville's "terrific
turn as the bipolar friend wearing her every emotion on her sleeve.
Here's hoping [her National Board of Review and London Film Critics
awards] will get Academy voters to actually watch their screeners, or
better yet come see it at the Palm Springs Festival, and maybe get
her a crack at that fifth best actress slot." WGA might bump her down to sixth.

5. Blue Valentine. Surfing a rising tide of good PR (victory over
MPAA's NC-17 rating for what the Huffington Post calls "some of the
sweetest sex ever shown in movies"), freshly released with an R, this
frail, sensitive movie would have done a bit better with a WGA stamp
of approval.

6. Biutiful. Critics and pundits are beside themselves trying to loft
Javier Bardem's world-stopping, heart-stomping performance to Oscar
attention, and the WGA might have helped a bit by giving a nimbus of
prestige to a highly downbeat script that's hard to market, except to
people with excellent taste and high tolerance for grief.

7. The Way Back. Old-school genius director Peter Weir's
extraordinarily tricky, multi-character, globe-spanning, David
Lean-on-a-shoestring story faces lots of Oscar obstacles. The WGA nix
is just another one that doesn't help.

8. The Ghost Writer. Now that Roman Polanski's legal woes are out of
the spotlight, a WGA nom for the exquisitely economical screenplay he
wrote with the legendary alternative-history novelist Robert Harris
might be a useful nudge to getting them some Oscar spotlight. In his
top 10 list on MSN, former Film Comment editor Richard T. Jameson
calls it "the best thriller since, jeez, what? Let's say The Parallax
View, to which it has some affinities." It hasn't the ghost of a chance at WGA.

9. Made in Dagenham. Granted, William Ivory's screenplay was on few
shortlists. But charming star Sally Hawkins was on many, and the WGA
nix takes a bit of wind out of the sails of a little film that needs
a mighty gust.

10. Toy Story 3. Because it's so enormous and the omission is so
striking, I have to put this film on the list of WGA victims. But the
blow will harmlessly bounce off, like Buzz Lightyear's laser hitting
Woody's badge. In the real world, the WGA is not going to strongarm
Disney/Pixar into giving writers residuals by ruling its hits
ineligible. Toy Story 3 is a technically a loser in this kerfuffle,
but no practical damage will be done at the Oscars.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

I'm fine with the rules. I just don't get why I should care about the actual results as a consequence. After a certain point, they'll rule themselves into irrelevance.
rain Bard
Associate
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:55 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by rain Bard »

Okri wrote:It might be more honest, but can we really say that the list of films excluded are unknown to the voting body?
The list of films excluded is endless. Some are going to be known to the voting body and some aren't. If they don't use their own rigidly-defined criteria for what's eligible for their award, what should they use? Scripts with at least a certain number of mentions by Oscar-prediction bloggers? Scripts mentioned in For Your Consideration ads?

I have no need to see The King's Speech or Toy Story 3 on every screenplay award list, especially not if it frees up a slot for a surprise pick, IMHO equally if not more worthy, like Cyrus or I Love You, Phillip Morris.

Would I feel differently if the titles folks were bemoaning being left off the WGA list were among my own pet favorite scripts of the year, like (Oscar-eligible) Essential Killing or Wild Grass, or (Oscar-ineligble) Father of My Children or Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl? Maybe.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

rain Bard wrote:I prefer the honesty of a group like the WGA which limits its field of view to what its members know, than to groups that, behind a show of inclusiveness, end up picking mostly the same kinds of films anyway (out of ignorance and inertia, not malice), implying that they judge the best of all bests from a position of all-knowing wisdom. (though I won't go so far as Uri and root against foreign films in these stacked "competitions.")
It might be more honest, but can we really say that the list of films excluded are unknown to the voting body?
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Big Magilla wrote:If they didn't want to have an influence on the Oscars, they wouldn't rush their nominations.
I think that has more to do with not wanting to be ignored. Every awards group prior to the Oscars gets attention no matter how likely their nominees and winners match up with the Academy Awards. However, if they released their nominations after the Oscar noms were announced absolutely no one would care.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Post Reply

Return to “83rd Predictions and Precursors”