If you’ve missed the quirky gang from Dunder Mifflin, you’re not alone. I, too, have been yearning for those days of Jim pranking Dwight and Michael Scott’s cringe-worthy yet endearing moments. And now, it seems there might just be a glimmer of hope for fans like us.
It’s been whispered that our beloved ‘The Office‘ might be returning to TV. The show, which kept us laughing from 2005 to 2013, is more than just a sitcom – it’s a piece of television history with a dedicated following.
Related: ‘The Office’ Showrunner Thinks a Reboot Is a Bad Idea
Post five-month-long writers’ strike; there’s been talk around the water cooler. Jonathan Handel and Matthew Belloni believe our return to Scranton, Pennsylvania, might be imminent. Their piece in Puck News even hinted at the possibility of the original showrunner, Greg Daniels, coming back to breathe new life into the series.
It’s been whispered that our beloved ‘The Office‘ might be returning to TV. The show, which kept us laughing from 2005 to 2013, is more than just a sitcom – it’s a piece of television history with a dedicated following.
Related: ‘The Office’ Showrunner Thinks a Reboot Is a Bad Idea
Post five-month-long writers’ strike; there’s been talk around the water cooler. Jonathan Handel and Matthew Belloni believe our return to Scranton, Pennsylvania, might be imminent. Their piece in Puck News even hinted at the possibility of the original showrunner, Greg Daniels, coming back to breathe new life into the series.
- 9/25/2023
- by Hrvoje Milakovic
- Fiction Horizon
The people person’s paper people could be returning to a screen near you in the next few years. That’s according to Jonathan Handel and Matthew Belloni of Puck News, who say that Greg Daniels — who was responsible for creating the American version of “The Office” — is currently working on a reboot of the NBC comedy.
There were few details available on the project, as it appears to still be in the planning stages. Those plans will be able to continue soon, as Daniels and other Hollywood writers will likely be able to get back to work in the coming weeks. Writers have been pencils-down since May 1 when the Writers Guild of America (WGA) went on strike, but a tentative agreement struck over the weekend with producers means that they could be back to work soon.
“The Office” is a mockumentary following the employees of a fictional paper company...
There were few details available on the project, as it appears to still be in the planning stages. Those plans will be able to continue soon, as Daniels and other Hollywood writers will likely be able to get back to work in the coming weeks. Writers have been pencils-down since May 1 when the Writers Guild of America (WGA) went on strike, but a tentative agreement struck over the weekend with producers means that they could be back to work soon.
“The Office” is a mockumentary following the employees of a fictional paper company...
- 9/25/2023
- by David Satin
- The Streamable
Get in touch to send in cinephile news and discoveries. For daily updates follow us @NotebookMUBI.NEWSOn July 13, SAG-AFTRA issued a strike order, joining the WGA, who have been striking since May. In an incendiary speech, the guild’s president, Fran Drescher, said: “SAG-AFTRA negotiated in good faith and was eager to reach a deal that sufficiently addressed performer needs, but the AMPTP’s responses to the union’s most important proposals have been insulting and disrespectful of our massive contributions to this industry…Until they do negotiate in good faith, we cannot begin to reach a deal.” This Vulture Q&a with Jonathan Handel, author of Hollywood on Strike!: An Industry at War in the Internet Age, delves into the details of the work stoppage.Applications are open for Open City Documentary Festival & Another Gaze’s third annual critics’ workshop, which will take place in early September during the festival.
- 7/19/2023
- MUBI
Like all labor disputes, the WGA’s strike threat is meant to ensure its members get an equitable share of profits. However, this one contains a particularly potent strain of deja vu. As they did 10 years ago, and even 30 years before that, studios argue that writers want in on a market that doesn’t wholly exist.
The gap between writers’ and producers’ terms are massive: Entertainment lawyer Jonathan Handel crunched the numbers for The Hollywood Reporter and estimated the gap to be somewhere in the region of $350 million. The healthcare issue is particularly staggering, with Variety reporting the WGA’s 2020 projected deficit alone to be $65 million.
It sounds dire. Only this time, the public’s rapidly evolving viewing habits could give writers the upper hand.
Read More: WGA Members Approve Strike Authorization, as Contract Negotiations Resume Tuesday
In 1985, the WGA went on strike over the then-burgeoning home video market based...
The gap between writers’ and producers’ terms are massive: Entertainment lawyer Jonathan Handel crunched the numbers for The Hollywood Reporter and estimated the gap to be somewhere in the region of $350 million. The healthcare issue is particularly staggering, with Variety reporting the WGA’s 2020 projected deficit alone to be $65 million.
It sounds dire. Only this time, the public’s rapidly evolving viewing habits could give writers the upper hand.
Read More: WGA Members Approve Strike Authorization, as Contract Negotiations Resume Tuesday
In 1985, the WGA went on strike over the then-burgeoning home video market based...
- 4/28/2017
- by Chris O'Falt
- Indiewire
1024x768
Normal 0 false false false
Driverless cars are on the road now – Google’s fleet has logged about 700,000 miles of autonomous driving – and the California Dmv will be issuing regulations in a matter of weeks allowing self-driving cars to be sold to the public, possibly setting the regulatory pattern for the rest of the country (video). Google has predicted 2017 for first commercial availability, while Nissan and Mercedes say it will be 2020. The cars are highly complex systems whose sheer quantity of software surely exceeds the hundred million lines of source code in today’s non-autonomous vehicles. They weigh thousands of pounds and hurtle down public roads – robots with human payloads. But how will we know they’re safe?Google’s answer at Dmv workshops in March 2014 and May 2013 was, essentially, “trust us” (video, video, video). The company’s representative, Ron Medford, said Google would “self-certify” the car’s roadworthiness and...
Normal 0 false false false
Driverless cars are on the road now – Google’s fleet has logged about 700,000 miles of autonomous driving – and the California Dmv will be issuing regulations in a matter of weeks allowing self-driving cars to be sold to the public, possibly setting the regulatory pattern for the rest of the country (video). Google has predicted 2017 for first commercial availability, while Nissan and Mercedes say it will be 2020. The cars are highly complex systems whose sheer quantity of software surely exceeds the hundred million lines of source code in today’s non-autonomous vehicles. They weigh thousands of pounds and hurtle down public roads – robots with human payloads. But how will we know they’re safe?Google’s answer at Dmv workshops in March 2014 and May 2013 was, essentially, “trust us” (video, video, video). The company’s representative, Ron Medford, said Google would “self-certify” the car’s roadworthiness and...
- 7/1/2014
- by noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Handel)
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
I was stuck in traffic yesterday, which I didn’t really mind because I have a fun little yellow convertible, and I was thinking about Uber ($17 billion! – that’s the company’s valuation, not the price of a ride) and Google’s driverless cars (development cost unknown), and I decided it was time to connect the dots: once a car learns to drive, there’s no need to own it and there’s no need for a driver. That’s because the car can come when called, take you to your destination, then go off and pick up someone else. That sounds great and I’m hardly the first to connect those particular dots, but there’s a corollary that seems to have gone largely (though not entirely) unnoticed: when driving oneself becomes unnecessary, it will eventually become more expensive, less convenient and – ultimately – unlawful,...
I was stuck in traffic yesterday, which I didn’t really mind because I have a fun little yellow convertible, and I was thinking about Uber ($17 billion! – that’s the company’s valuation, not the price of a ride) and Google’s driverless cars (development cost unknown), and I decided it was time to connect the dots: once a car learns to drive, there’s no need to own it and there’s no need for a driver. That’s because the car can come when called, take you to your destination, then go off and pick up someone else. That sounds great and I’m hardly the first to connect those particular dots, but there’s a corollary that seems to have gone largely (though not entirely) unnoticed: when driving oneself becomes unnecessary, it will eventually become more expensive, less convenient and – ultimately – unlawful,...
- 6/19/2014
- by noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Handel)
My new book, The New Zealand Hobbit Crisis, is out on Amazon Normal 0 false false false in paper (http://amzn.to/SiHUX2) and Kindle (http://amzn.to/UG7q7F). Check it out. Here's the description:
Normal 0 false false false Essential reading for Hobbit fans and labor/globalization academics alike, The New Zealand Hobbit Crisis looks back at an attempt to unionize actors on The Hobbit that blew up into a national crisis, driving down the Nz dollar and leading the Prime Minister and Parliament to dance to a Hollywood tune.
All was not well in Middle-earth . . .After the third Lord of the Rings movie premiered in 2003, fans of the series eagerly anticipated production and release of its prequel, The Hobbit. It turned out they had a while to wait, as a series of troubles delayed production for years: lawsuits, studio bankruptcy, and ejection of producer/director Peter Jackson.
Then,...
Normal 0 false false false Essential reading for Hobbit fans and labor/globalization academics alike, The New Zealand Hobbit Crisis looks back at an attempt to unionize actors on The Hobbit that blew up into a national crisis, driving down the Nz dollar and leading the Prime Minister and Parliament to dance to a Hollywood tune.
All was not well in Middle-earth . . .After the third Lord of the Rings movie premiered in 2003, fans of the series eagerly anticipated production and release of its prequel, The Hobbit. It turned out they had a while to wait, as a series of troubles delayed production for years: lawsuits, studio bankruptcy, and ejection of producer/director Peter Jackson.
Then,...
- 11/25/2012
- by noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Handel)
With its final offer just hours before the screen actors contract expired Monday night, the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers issued a dare to SAG: Take the deal or go take your strike vote.
The move is backed by two seemingly safe bets: 1) The guild will fail to defeat the ratification of the proposed primetime TV contract between producers and AFTRA; 2) It does not have the will or the votes to get strike authorization from its rank-and-file because they -- and the rest of Hollywood -- took a financial hit during the 100-day WGA strike.
Then again, in an unprecedented year for entertainment labor, anything can happen.
The AMPTP move "is definitely not standard," said a longtime industry insider who has worked for labor and management. "I do believe that the producers are confident that SAG cannot get a strike authorization."
As for defeating the proposed AFTRA deal, SAG faces an equally difficult task. The federation has about 70,000 members, about 44,000 of which are dual cardholders. About 26,000, though, are non-sag members, and it seems unlikely that those with no loyalty to the guild would be inclined to reject a deal that their board of directors has overwhelmingly approved. To defeat the contract, SAG probably needs to persuade 80% of the joint members -- a steep arithmetic challenge, to say the least.
"Doug Allen comes from football, and this (anti-aftra) strategy is a Hail Mary pass," said Jonathan Handel, an entertainment attorney. "SAG has backed itself into a corner."
That is largely, but not exclusively, true. AFTRA is the one that suspended Phase One, the two unions' joint operating agreement, in part over allegations that the guild tried to poach its turf for the soap opera "The Bold and the Beautiful."
(Susan Flannery, the actress who is said to have instigated a possible change in jurisdiction, has declared that she and a castmate acted on their own. AFTRA has said the "B&B" fracas was the last straw in a long antagonistic campaign against the federation.)
Still, SAG leaders and its ruling Membership First party seem to have willingly engaged in a three-front war -- against AFTRA, its own New York and regional branches and the producers -- and as a consequence seems to have little leverage left except to strike. In undertaking this strategy, they appear to have become the victim of the proverb, "When the gods want to punish us, they grant us our wishes." The guild majority wanted to get AFTRA out of the negotiating room, it wanted to marginalize the New York and regional branches, and it wanted a credible threat of a work stoppage.
Wishes granted.
What SAG leaders really wanted, however, was leverage, and they do not seem to have much. In fact, they might not even get to strike because the producers might lock them out.
There is some confusion about what the AMPTP has given the guild: Is it what is known in labor negotiating as a "last, best and final" offer, or is it simply a "final" offer? Sources close to the producers said it is "last, best and final," while two independent union sources say it is simply a "final" offer. An actor and one of the strategists during the 2000 commercials strike said, "It is not at all uncommon for either side to make several 'last, best and final' offers along the way."
The distinction is important. If it is merely a final offer, it gives the sides some wiggle room. If, however, it is "last, best and final" and SAG rejects it, the producers legally can declare an impasse and do one of two things: Impose the terms unilaterally, which Broadway producers did with stagehands in November, galvanizing an already solid union and precipitating a 19-day strike; or lock out the actors, a move that one source said was a distinct possibility, though perhaps not for a few more weeks.
"I'd say they will lock (the guild) out within a week or two from impasse," said another source, who has a long history with Hollywood labor negotiations on the union side. "Impasse will occur the moment SAG rejects the AMPTP's last, best and final offer."
The last question is this: Will the producers' audacious move galvanize a horribly fractured guild? (Among other things, SAG leaders have denied New York board president Sam Freed access to the e-mail list of actors in his own region, keeping him from campaigning for the AFTRA deal, which would contravene official SAG policy.)
The first source, who has sat on each side of the negotiating process, said that was unlikely and contrasted Monday's move with the commercials strike of 2000:
"Under normal circumstances, they would be running precisely the risk that you've identified, but I believe that Membership First has managed to drive such a deep wedge this time, there is no way that this offer can bring the factions back together. Remember, in 2000, there were deep divisions, but the (advertisers) had rollbacks on the table. It's a whole different ballgame when it's only a question of how many gains are enough. In this climate, actors won't authorize a purely offensive strike and the AMPTP knows it."...
The move is backed by two seemingly safe bets: 1) The guild will fail to defeat the ratification of the proposed primetime TV contract between producers and AFTRA; 2) It does not have the will or the votes to get strike authorization from its rank-and-file because they -- and the rest of Hollywood -- took a financial hit during the 100-day WGA strike.
Then again, in an unprecedented year for entertainment labor, anything can happen.
The AMPTP move "is definitely not standard," said a longtime industry insider who has worked for labor and management. "I do believe that the producers are confident that SAG cannot get a strike authorization."
As for defeating the proposed AFTRA deal, SAG faces an equally difficult task. The federation has about 70,000 members, about 44,000 of which are dual cardholders. About 26,000, though, are non-sag members, and it seems unlikely that those with no loyalty to the guild would be inclined to reject a deal that their board of directors has overwhelmingly approved. To defeat the contract, SAG probably needs to persuade 80% of the joint members -- a steep arithmetic challenge, to say the least.
"Doug Allen comes from football, and this (anti-aftra) strategy is a Hail Mary pass," said Jonathan Handel, an entertainment attorney. "SAG has backed itself into a corner."
That is largely, but not exclusively, true. AFTRA is the one that suspended Phase One, the two unions' joint operating agreement, in part over allegations that the guild tried to poach its turf for the soap opera "The Bold and the Beautiful."
(Susan Flannery, the actress who is said to have instigated a possible change in jurisdiction, has declared that she and a castmate acted on their own. AFTRA has said the "B&B" fracas was the last straw in a long antagonistic campaign against the federation.)
Still, SAG leaders and its ruling Membership First party seem to have willingly engaged in a three-front war -- against AFTRA, its own New York and regional branches and the producers -- and as a consequence seems to have little leverage left except to strike. In undertaking this strategy, they appear to have become the victim of the proverb, "When the gods want to punish us, they grant us our wishes." The guild majority wanted to get AFTRA out of the negotiating room, it wanted to marginalize the New York and regional branches, and it wanted a credible threat of a work stoppage.
Wishes granted.
What SAG leaders really wanted, however, was leverage, and they do not seem to have much. In fact, they might not even get to strike because the producers might lock them out.
There is some confusion about what the AMPTP has given the guild: Is it what is known in labor negotiating as a "last, best and final" offer, or is it simply a "final" offer? Sources close to the producers said it is "last, best and final," while two independent union sources say it is simply a "final" offer. An actor and one of the strategists during the 2000 commercials strike said, "It is not at all uncommon for either side to make several 'last, best and final' offers along the way."
The distinction is important. If it is merely a final offer, it gives the sides some wiggle room. If, however, it is "last, best and final" and SAG rejects it, the producers legally can declare an impasse and do one of two things: Impose the terms unilaterally, which Broadway producers did with stagehands in November, galvanizing an already solid union and precipitating a 19-day strike; or lock out the actors, a move that one source said was a distinct possibility, though perhaps not for a few more weeks.
"I'd say they will lock (the guild) out within a week or two from impasse," said another source, who has a long history with Hollywood labor negotiations on the union side. "Impasse will occur the moment SAG rejects the AMPTP's last, best and final offer."
The last question is this: Will the producers' audacious move galvanize a horribly fractured guild? (Among other things, SAG leaders have denied New York board president Sam Freed access to the e-mail list of actors in his own region, keeping him from campaigning for the AFTRA deal, which would contravene official SAG policy.)
The first source, who has sat on each side of the negotiating process, said that was unlikely and contrasted Monday's move with the commercials strike of 2000:
"Under normal circumstances, they would be running precisely the risk that you've identified, but I believe that Membership First has managed to drive such a deep wedge this time, there is no way that this offer can bring the factions back together. Remember, in 2000, there were deep divisions, but the (advertisers) had rollbacks on the table. It's a whole different ballgame when it's only a question of how many gains are enough. In this climate, actors won't authorize a purely offensive strike and the AMPTP knows it."...
- 7/2/2008
- by By Andrew Salomon, Back Stage East
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
For actors, image is everything. And misuse of that image is enough to take someone to court for using it without consent.
Over the years, performers have done just that. From Arnold Schwarzenegger suing a car dealership for using his picture as the "Terminator" in an ad, to Fred Astaire's widow stopping the use of the iconic dancer's image in a series of instructional dance videos, "right of publicity" lawsuits are sometimes the only ways an image can be protected. And while a handful of states, including California and New York, have laws on the books protecting a name, voice, signature, picture or likeness for advertising or other uses, the majority do not.
So what happens when a major Hollywood studio wants to sell off film or TV clips of actors without full consent? Are those rights still protected?
The answer is no.
It should come as no surprise to those following the 18 days of talks between SAG and the AMPTP that a bone of contention between the two came when the studios put on the table a proposal allowing them to set up an online clip library. Under the proposal, the actors would still be compensated for sales of their TV or film clips, but give blanket consent to their use.
"What we're talking about is the right of publicity, the right to control the use of your name and likeness for commercial purposes," industry attorney Jonathan Handel said. "The clip proposal is sort of neither here nor there with respect to it."
The producers' proposal creates a conundrum. Studio contracts generally take precedence, but the guild's current agreement with the producers gives their members the ability to have a say in clips used outside the scope of promotion.
There's no dispute the studios own the clips. But for SAG, giving up control of their members' images is a hot-button issue that could heat even further later this month, when talks are expected to resume.
Since 1960, SAG has negotiated with the studios an agreement that limits the use of their clips for purposes of such things as promotions and trailers.
Over the years, performers have done just that. From Arnold Schwarzenegger suing a car dealership for using his picture as the "Terminator" in an ad, to Fred Astaire's widow stopping the use of the iconic dancer's image in a series of instructional dance videos, "right of publicity" lawsuits are sometimes the only ways an image can be protected. And while a handful of states, including California and New York, have laws on the books protecting a name, voice, signature, picture or likeness for advertising or other uses, the majority do not.
So what happens when a major Hollywood studio wants to sell off film or TV clips of actors without full consent? Are those rights still protected?
The answer is no.
It should come as no surprise to those following the 18 days of talks between SAG and the AMPTP that a bone of contention between the two came when the studios put on the table a proposal allowing them to set up an online clip library. Under the proposal, the actors would still be compensated for sales of their TV or film clips, but give blanket consent to their use.
"What we're talking about is the right of publicity, the right to control the use of your name and likeness for commercial purposes," industry attorney Jonathan Handel said. "The clip proposal is sort of neither here nor there with respect to it."
The producers' proposal creates a conundrum. Studio contracts generally take precedence, but the guild's current agreement with the producers gives their members the ability to have a say in clips used outside the scope of promotion.
There's no dispute the studios own the clips. But for SAG, giving up control of their members' images is a hot-button issue that could heat even further later this month, when talks are expected to resume.
Since 1960, SAG has negotiated with the studios an agreement that limits the use of their clips for purposes of such things as promotions and trailers.
- 5/15/2008
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.