Oh, Shit….

So, I was reading a movie news site this morning and came across spoilers for the new Star Trek film that J.J. Abrams is working on. It sounded good. Really good, in fact. Got me geeked. Until I ran across another article and realized that nobody had consulted Harlan Ellison about the use of the Guardian from his episode, City On The Edge of Forever.

“If [director J.J.] Abrams — with whom I’m currently on strike — or anyone else at Paramount or elsewhere, thinks they’re going to use my creations — whether the City, the Guardians, Sister Edith Keeler or any elements created by Harlan Ellison … they had damned well better lose the unilateral arrogance, get in touch with me or my agent Marty Shapiro and be prepared to pay for the privilege of mining the lode I own.” 

There’s a couple of thing to keep at the front of your mind here. The first is that the Guardian is not a crucial element to the story. The only thing required is a time travel device. That could be accomplished many ways. Using the Guardian would be a nice touch, and perhaps easier to explain than a new device, but it’s not necessary. The second thing to remember is that we’re dealing with a rumor. If it’s even in the script, it may be a brand new draft, and it may not be locked in yet.

If they haven’t even decided to use it, the script probably hasn’t been through legal. Hell, it might not have gotten out of the production teams’ hands, the studio may not have even seen it. Or maybe it has and J.J. and crew are waiting till after the strike to approach and negotiate with Harlan. Maybe J.J. is still trying to convince Paramount that shelling out money so they can use the Guardian is a good idea.

There’s no way to tell yet, but having a bunch of people on the net stirring things up with Harlan over an unsupported rumor (especially when he’s already wound up over the strike) seems irresponsible and downright unpleasant.

Somebody needs to make a few phone calls and have a nice, rational conversation. In private. This isn’t our business, it’s between Harlan, J.J. and Paramount. At least until the facts are clear.

The Writer’s Strike

I haven’t been clear enough on this in earlier posts, and I want to be clear. I NEED to be clear. I stand, fully and unequivocally behind the WGA on this strike.

Damon Lindelof, of Lost, explains why much more eloquently than I could:

I am angry because I am accused of being greedy by studios that are being greedy. I am angry because my greed is fair and reasonable: if money is made off of my product through the Internet, then I am entitled to a small piece. The studios’ greed, on the other hand, is hidden behind cynical, disingenuous claims that they make nothing on the Web — that the streaming and downloading of our shows is purely “promotional.” Seriously?

Most of all, I’m angry that I’m not working. Not working means not getting paid. My weekly salary is considerably more than the small percentage of Internet gains we are hoping to make in this negotiation and if I’m on the picket line for just three months, I will never recoup those losses, no matter what deal gets made.

But I am willing to hold firm for considerably longer than three months because this is a fight for the livelihoods of a future generation of writers, whose work will never “air,” but instead be streamed, beamed or zapped onto a tiny chip.

The Lion Eats The Lamb

This is not what I expected.

When it was announced that Tom Cruise had been given control of the old United Artists label, I (like many others) assumed that it would quickly become a summer blockbuster factory. The one thing that Cruise has always been very good at is spotting commercial potential. I expected action flicks, sci-fi flicks, thrillers, maybe even some romantic comedies.

I did not expect Lions For Lambs.

Politics aside, it looks like an interesting film. A quiet little picture, mostly focused on two conversations. One between Tom Cruise (a US military commander) and Meryl Streep (a reporter). The other between Robert Redford (a college professor) and Andrew Garfield (one of his students). The structure allows Redford’s character to preach the anti-war argument, while Cruise’s character preaches the pro-war stance. The conversations are balanced out with footage of two of Redford’s former students in combat.

In a film like this, I’d like to see a balanced presentation. Give both sides of the story and let the viewer decide. But this is a film directed by Redford and his political ideology is right upfront, this is an anti-war movie.

And it may be an excellent one. Unless it opens wide, I’ll have to wait for the DVD release to know for sure. But it sure does sound interesting, if incredibly non-commercial. And it really makes me wonder what Cruise and United Artists have up their sleeves for future releases….