Comments on: Was Jay Leno’s monologue acceptable under strike rules?

By: Strike update: The Jay Leno monologue controversy gets crazier at No Fact Zone.Net

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:54:27 +0000

[...] Was Jay Leno’s monologue acceptable under strike rules? [...]

By: nousblet

nousblet — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:47:37 +0000

“…the guild’s contract ‘is notoriously difficult to interpret’”. I think that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. (Clause IV.A.ii: ‘in the case of performers performing a character whose name is identical to their own..’)

I hope Stephen and Jon are finding a way to laugh at all this. (How else could they keep from going insane?) Maybe some Rabbis and papyrologists and Gandolf the Wizard will cross the picket line to help them sort this all out.

By: colbertfan27

colbertfan27 — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:52:30 +0000

Who cares if it was “acceptable”–it was funny! Leno is an entertainer; he entertained me. Ipso facto, he did his job.

Moving on…

By: Ms Interpreted

Ms Interpreted — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:40:12 +0000

@ Erin, The strike guidelines were linked in the original of the Deadline Hollywood Daily article I linked above. Or you could go here. :)

By: auds

auds — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:05:36 +0000

@ Joshua J. Slone…”Didn’t these situations come up 20 years ago….One would think the precedent would be set, unless the rules have changed.”

And one would think that the rules would be relatively easy to explain and understand, too. But after reading (and reading and reading) all the interpretations out there, I’ve come to the conclusion that if one engages one’s brain, someone will consider it writing. :D

By: Erin

Erin — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:00:17 +0000

@ vigwig

I’d like to see something like that, however I remember reading somewhere that, according to the strike guidelines, you’re not allowed to perform material that would normally be written for a character. Or something along those lines. That’s what’s worrying me the most. Colbert may have an advantage because he has a background in improv, but on the other hand he is doing his ENTIRE show in character. I think that just by doing that, he may be breaking the rules. THAT is what I’m most worried about, and what I’m sort of looking forward to seeing the most.

By: vigwig

vigwig — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:56:01 +0000

I think Colbert might be able to do “formidable opponent” and debate the strike on air.

By: Joshua J. Slone

Joshua J. Slone — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:43:39 +0000

Didn’t these situations come up 20 years ago during the last strike? One would think the precedent would be set, unless the rules have changed.

By: Fifi

Fifi — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:18:15 +0000

@Erin…just like Colbert running for president…maybe he’ll do something with the strike like he did with that…with highlighted parts of the contract being read and make it kind of a learning experience like he did with the how to get your name on the ballot thing…

By: Erin

Erin — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:07:16 +0000

Adding:

In other words… what’s are the differences between writing and composing? Are there any? Should they outline differences to avoid confusion? What happens if they rule that there aren’t any? One could argue that improv is a form of composing. It is certainly a tool that can be used in the writing process, but what about that alone? If you dictate something to yourself to memorize that, is that composing (think dictating a book… heh)?

This is something I thought they’d have figured out by now. And you’d think that whatever the consensus is that the hosts make it their job to make 100% sure they are clear on what they can and cannot do. Just like Colbert running for president. He had to figure out what you can and cannot do. But there was never any doritos money, and here there is some. If you take doritos money to mean… content. Okay, my metaphor died.