Strike having impact on film already
- Thread starter Rat Boy
- Start date
If this is the case, then shelve the movie and shoot it later, or not at all. What bullshit--if you don't believe you're giving us the best product, then don't do it, Abrams. Or at least do it with another movie, not a Trek movie. 
Borgminister said:
If this is the case, then shelve the movie and shoot it later, or not at all. What bullshit--if you don't believe you're giving us the best product, then don't do it, Abrams. Or at least do it with another movie, not a Trek movie.
Couldn't Abrams just cavalierly suggest a new line verbally without writing it down? Wouldn't that get around the problem?
Borgminister said:
If this is the case, then shelve the movie and shoot it later, or not at all. What bullshit--if you don't believe you're giving us the best product, then don't do it, Abrams. Or at least do it with another movie, not a Trek movie.
First he's contractually required to shoot the movie, just as the actors are contractually required to show up at work when they're called. I'm sure he's giving us the best he can under the pressures he's working with - this though prevents moments of spontaneity which is admittedly part of art.
This is one of the side effects of such things, if they strike didn't have an impact on production it would be a useless lever.
I'm sure he wrote down that idea some place, never know when the strike might end.
Sharr
The strike is supposed to be over by Christmas, right? Shooting goes until March.
If certain ideas pop up, and the scene is not too difficult to shoot or even redub, then there would be plenty of time to reshoot. (If the idea still seems worth doing. Sometimes, having the ability to sit on these spontaneous ideas can work to one's advantage.)
To the writers out there: What about the ad lib? Can an actor ad lib?
Or, say the director doesn't like the way a certain piece of dialogue flows as it's being shot. Can the director suggest that the actors simply act out the scene as they see it should go? Problem in XI, of course, is none of the actors are probably comfortable enough with their characters to pull that off.
If certain ideas pop up, and the scene is not too difficult to shoot or even redub, then there would be plenty of time to reshoot. (If the idea still seems worth doing. Sometimes, having the ability to sit on these spontaneous ideas can work to one's advantage.)
To the writers out there: What about the ad lib? Can an actor ad lib?
Or, say the director doesn't like the way a certain piece of dialogue flows as it's being shot. Can the director suggest that the actors simply act out the scene as they see it should go? Problem in XI, of course, is none of the actors are probably comfortable enough with their characters to pull that off.
Where did you hear this?
Yes.
Ha!
There's some of the most wishful thinking I've seen yet!
We'll be lucky if the strike ends by the time filming of the movie ends.
I was going to suggest the exact same thing. Find the defiition of "write" and work around it. But if we thought of that, of course J.J. has. It could be that anything filmed that was not in the script at the time of the strike is considered re-writing, even though nothing was physically written.
Part of the problem with Star Trek V is there was a lot Shatner wanted to change, but couldn't. There are always re-writes during filming. Shatner's hands were tied, and now J.J.'s are.
What would happen if J.J. said "fuck it" and started re-writing. Would he go to jail? Of course not. I'm guessing he would have a hard time for the rest of his career. It's so damned stupid.
I agree with the above...shelve the movie until this bullshit is over. Or, at least have J.J. keep his own notes (can he at least do that?) and shoot what he wants when this baloney is all over.
Quite frankly, I side with the writers. However, I'm pissed that it's now affecting me!
Does anyone think JJ is letting his loyalties to the Writer's Guild influence his responsibility as a director? As a director, couldn't he suggest an ad lib? Or is he just hemming and hawing to publicize the Writer's Strike because he has a job while many of his friends are eating Ramen noodles?
You know, these protests are just getting silly. Correct me if I'm thinking of something else, but doesn't the guild have a protest every year or everyother year? Eventually, they'll just stop getting paid if this keeps up.
Yeah, I don't know the ins and outs, but seems like you could blame just about ANYTHING on an actor's ad lib.
And they're NOT bound by the Writer's Guild.
Might be some tie between SAG and the Writer's Guild that I don't know about, though. <shrug>
And they're NOT bound by the Writer's Guild.
Might be some tie between SAG and the Writer's Guild that I don't know about, though. <shrug>
You're assuming that JJ disagrees with his own union, which is fighting to get him and his writer colleagues a sufficient royalty on future DVD and download sales of all his previous work.
ST V's problems were much worse than a few lines that might have been written slightly differently.
Maybe you need another hobby while you're waiting for ST XI? You'll drive yourself crazy with all this worrying.
Pay out all the contracts? Stop the actors from taking new projects? Seal up the soundstages that already have sets built on them? Pay fines to the distributors for missing the deadline?
Affecting you how? Before the Internet you wouldn't even know that JJ had to chuck away one idea for a better line. Just relax. JJ will bring you a fabulous movie. And he'll keep that great line in his head for the sequel. I promise.
I've never heard of them having a strike like this every other year. In fact when researching, this appears to be the third strike they've had, including the 1960 & 1988 Strikes. And how is it silly? They are fighting because they aren't getting paid properly for their work.
Well when you're on strike it's kinda hard to get paid for not doing anything! Of course they are probably getting residuals for past works.
I would think if an actor changed one or two very small things along the way it wouldn't be a big deal. If Quinto finds Spock saying, "Isn't" somewhere when it would be better for him to say, "Is not," who would care if he changed that?
Now, if Abrams really believes a scene going badly will be made good by changing a line (not just a good scene that would be improved by a change), then we (and he) will find out how good a union man he is.
I guess when the director's cut of the DVD of "Star Trek" comes out, we'll finally hear Abrams tell everyone what he really wanted his characters to say in certain scenes.
You can't suggest an ad-lib. Then it's not an ad-lib anymore.
Obviously, they are honoring the intent of the strike, so to try to find shady ways around it are not acceptable.
Just write it down on a post-it note and cross your fingers that the strike will end in time to shoot the line later.
Besides, one or two great lines will not make or break the movie anyway.
Obviously, they are honoring the intent of the strike, so to try to find shady ways around it are not acceptable.
Just write it down on a post-it note and cross your fingers that the strike will end in time to shoot the line later.
Besides, one or two great lines will not make or break the movie anyway.
Would union rules apply if they sang every line of dialogue?
The problem in this case is that Abrams is both a writer and a director. Now, he's not a writer on this picture, but he's a member of the WGA and, therefore, restricted by the strike.
If I understand correctly, if this were a movie where the director was just a director, and not a WGA member writer, then he could still go ahead and make dialogue changes on the spot, just as directors do all the time. It would just be considered part of directing. But since Abrams is a WGA member, his doing so would be considered writing by a WGA member in violation of the strike.
Kind of stupid if you ask me. Let the man do anything that would normally be done by a director directing a film, but nothing beyond that. Seems logical to me. But, of course, when have Hollywood unions been logical.
If I understand correctly, if this were a movie where the director was just a director, and not a WGA member writer, then he could still go ahead and make dialogue changes on the spot, just as directors do all the time. It would just be considered part of directing. But since Abrams is a WGA member, his doing so would be considered writing by a WGA member in violation of the strike.
Kind of stupid if you ask me. Let the man do anything that would normally be done by a director directing a film, but nothing beyond that. Seems logical to me. But, of course, when have Hollywood unions been logical.
Similar threads
