In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
Grammys Will Go On as WGA Plays the Right Tune
Beyonce by Barry King/WireImage.com
After much speculation, the WGA has shaken on an interim deal with the Grammys' producers to let the show go on. The guild said last week it would not picket the awards show, but the terrain was still dicey for double-threat artists.
The hand-shaking went down after a few weeks of ongoing talks between various factions, during which the WGA was dangling the possibility of a picket line at the annual event.
Ultimately, though, it may have been stars like Beyonce who helped save the day: She, along with several other big-name booty-shakers, started announcing their participation in the show. What's your take? Was this the right move for the WGA? — Anna Dimond
Related:
• Beyonce and Tina to Just Duet?
• Music to Grammys' Ears: WGA Won't Picket
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2008 8:39 PM
|
|
What's the right choice for the WGA? How about make a deal and make it fast.
|
|
Jan 28, 2008 10:23 PM
|
|
Yeah, right. The Grammys and the artists, the WGA had hoped would side with them and not cross a picket line, basically told them to eat dirt. The Grammys were going to be held and everyone was going so they didn't need your approval. This garbage statement is nothing more than trying to save face and trying to put a spin on it that makes it seem as if your doing them a favor. The Grammys didn't need the WGA's approval and you know it. So get over yourself because it seems everyone else already has.
|
|
Jan 28, 2008 10:33 PM
|
Finally someone have the gut and courage to stand up against the WGA morons!!!
Good for Beyonce and others!!!
|
|
Jan 29, 2008 8:23 AM
|
Nice to see some enlightened and thoughtful opinions above. Thanks, Justeace and john_c11.
I can totally understand how you would come to the conclusion that this problem is because of the WGA. I mean, they were the nasty people that stopped making your favourite television shows and forced you to get off your backsides and go find something to do that didn't involve the remote control. How dare they fight for a fair deal when it involves you not being able to watch as much television as you feel you deserve. I mean, for them it's only their far future they have to consider whereas you have to worry about the immediate problem of what you will watch tonight.
Morons, indeed! 
|
|
Jan 29, 2008 9:00 AM
|
HellRokk
if the DGA can reach an agreement with the studio in a week time, there is something very wrong with the WGA negotiators when they cannot reach an agreement with the studios for more than 3 months!!
what is your explanation? The DGA sold themselves short?!! WGA is more righteous and would not yield to the "big bad wolf"
|
|
Jan 29, 2008 9:35 AM
|
|
HellRokk, get a grip. Nobody said anything about the strike or missing a favorite television show. By the way nice of you to assume without knowing anything about me that I sit around watching tv all the time, which I don't but that's none of your business either. My statement, unlike yours, were strictly related to the WGA making a statement about them giving the Grammys and their participants their permission to attend. The statement is garbage because most of the nominees/attendees had already made a statement saying they were attending regardless of the strike. Granted many of the music artists are members of SAG but if anyone thought they were going to insult their main bread and butter, music i.e. the Grammys, and risk being left off the Grammy nomination roster for years to come and their CD's and careers not getting that Grammy boost, then they are crazier than bugs bunny. At the core these artists are musicians, well most of them, and at the end of the day their music pays the bills not their so-so acting performance in a B-listed movie or blink your eye and miss it performance in an A-listed movie. That's what I was referring to, you might be spending too much time on this subject when everything you read you consider an attack on the WGA for their strike. Have a nice day and read a book, "To Kill A Mockingbird" might be enlightening to you.
|
|
Jan 29, 2008 10:19 AM
|
john_c11, the DGA agreement was reached as quickly as it was for many reasons but do you really think that the studios would have been so quick to make a deal if they weren't already up against the WGA strike? It never cross your mind that it was in the interest of the studios to use the DGA agreement as a way of making the WGA look like the ones in the wrong? Or that the DGA was simply not asking for anything the studios weren't happily willing to give anyway? Guess not...
Justeace, I actually should apologise to you as my original comment was directed towards john_c11's "morons" comment moreso than towards yourself. Whilst I don't entirely agree with your position that this was the WGA trying to save face, I do agree that in the case of the Grammys, or any awards that do not centre on television or movies for that matter, there should never have been a question of it proceeding. Had the WGA attempted to get in the way of the Grammys it could only have hurt their position in the public eye, in my opinion.
All that said, strike or no strike, I spend a lot more time reading than I do watching the box. Trust me on that.
|
|
Jan 29, 2008 11:29 AM
|
HellRokk, you're pretty much right on. john_c11, you're pretty much clueless.
The DGA reached an agreement quickly because 1) the studios didn't want them striking too. 2) the DGA apparently has been known for bending over for a good reaming at contract time in the past so 3) yeah the deal they got was nothing to write home about.
Furthermore for most of the 3 months the WGA has been on strike the studios refused to even talk to the them. Are they supposed to go to the studio heads homes and offices with guns blazing and demand the studios talk to them? If someone doesn't want to talk to you what can you do about that's legal?
|
|
Jan 29, 2008 12:22 PM
|
|
Well I have no problem with Beyonce going to and performing at the Grammy's. This is her bread & butter, she is first and foremost a singer and secondly an actress.
|
|
Jan 29, 2008 2:06 PM
|
Good for you WGA and its supporters!!
I now realize how NOBLE WGA is.
Keep on striking!!!!
|
|
Jan 29, 2008 4:34 PM
|
|
The idea of the WGA trying to impose its will on the Grammys, to me, was absolutely preposterous from the start. While there are many musician/actors, the vast majority of musicians have nothing to do with Hollywood and it would have been out of bounds for the WGA to picket the Grammys, an awards show that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with WGA business. Sure, they could have prevented any WGA members from writing bits for the Grammys, but really, who cares? They could still just announce winners and stage performances, and the Grammys would be just fine. The idea of the WGA picketing the Grammys would make as much sense, and be every bit as inappropriate as the WGA picketing the Nobel Prize award ceremony. So I'm glad the WGA decided not to picket. I stand behind what the WGA is striking for, but there has to be limits imposed by common sense, and the WGA should not try to overreach itself.
|
|
Jan 30, 2008 5:17 AM
|
|
|
