Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1320467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wheeitsme

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3984
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4335 on: August 28, 2013, 02:20:39 PM »
This appears to be rather public Darwinism. 

http://www.tvguide.com/News/George-Eads-CSI-Leave-Absence-1069674.aspx


From my readings of the article 'sabbatical' seems to be a euphemism for 'suspended.'

Or maybe the situation was out of character for the 8 months pregnant writer? 

I'm not trying to jump to conclusions, but I always understood that by 8 months, hormones and stuff might leave you a little cranky.

So give everyone some space, and revisit after the birth? 

If that's the case, it seems like a good solution.

asb8

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 495
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4336 on: August 28, 2013, 03:19:28 PM »
If the writer was also out of line, I would hope that they would also be taking a sabbatical. Seems very unfair otherwise to only penalize one person. Especially since that person ended up with the time off being announced in the media.

Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 28434
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4337 on: August 28, 2013, 03:23:08 PM »
Am I the only one who could imagine how an angry script writer could punish an actor without getting him fired?

"OK, Sam, now your character has to crawl through the tunnel of cockroaches ... you're not afraid of bugs, are you?"
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

Shalamar

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1181
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4338 on: August 28, 2013, 03:47:11 PM »
Isn't that why an episode from a few years back had George Eades' character in all kinds of unpleasant situations, including being buried alive and covered with fire ants?    I'm pretty sure I remember something like that.

If so, the moral of the story is:  don't p*** off CSI writers.

Lorelei_Evil

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4339 on: August 28, 2013, 03:51:25 PM »
Yeah, that was the Quentin Tarantino season finale quite a bit back.  Good episodes.

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3561
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4340 on: August 28, 2013, 03:51:34 PM »
Isn't that why an episode from a few years back had George Eades' character in all kinds of unpleasant situations, including being buried alive and covered with fire ants?    I'm pretty sure I remember something like that.

If so, the moral of the story is:  don't p*** off CSI writers.

I'm pretty sure that episode was that disturbing because it was directed by Quentin Tarantino, not because a writer was feeling vindictive towards George Eads.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7323
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4341 on: August 28, 2013, 04:07:30 PM »
Why was it necessary to mention the writer was pregnant? I still don't understand that.

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3561
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4342 on: August 28, 2013, 04:08:57 PM »
Why was it necessary to mention the writer was pregnant? I still don't understand that.

Yeah, that bugged me too.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


asb8

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 495
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4343 on: August 28, 2013, 04:29:53 PM »
I did not get why the pregnancy was mentioned either, unless it was to try to make George look bad, you know 'the mean man who yelled at the pregnant lady.'

And were I a CSI actor, I would stay on the writer's good sides. They can put you in all sorts of awful, gross, yucky situations!

LazyDaisy

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 996
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4344 on: August 28, 2013, 04:45:33 PM »
Well, to be fair, he wasn't actually buried alive and covered in real fire ants so if that was intended as a way to get even with him it wouldn't be very effective. It seems to me that I recall reading that at the time it wasn't about a dispute with the writers but that his contract was up (along with Jorja Fox) and he was trying to negotiate for more money than the producers wanted to pay. Almost killing off his character to prove he's not all that essential is good salary negotiation leverage.

The problem I've always found with dramatic shows like CSI and even NCIS and Criminal Minds et al is that they have to keep one-upping themselves. For a while it's exciting but there is no way to win a game of thermonuclear war against yourself...soon they end up lining up their motorcycle to jump a shark tank...and the shark is 50 feet long and has a laser...'cause they have to one-up that too.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

PastryGoddess

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4688
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4345 on: August 28, 2013, 05:03:08 PM »
If I recall correctly, he and Jorja Fox were let go during their contract dispute and then resigned.

asb8

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 495
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4346 on: August 28, 2013, 05:03:35 PM »
... It seems to me that I recall reading that at the time it wasn't about a dispute with the writers but that his contract was up (along with Jorja Fox) and he was trying to negotiate for more money than the producers wanted to pay. Almost killing off his character to prove he's not all that essential is good salary negotiation leverage...

The contract negotiation was actually the end of the season prior to the one that ended with fire ants.  That was just done for kicks (and Quentin Tarantino).

wheeitsme

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3984
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4347 on: August 28, 2013, 05:04:29 PM »
I did not get why the pregnancy was mentioned either, unless it was to try to make George look bad, you know 'the mean man who yelled at the pregnant lady.'

And were I a CSI actor, I would stay on the writer's good sides. They can put you in all sorts of awful, gross, yucky situations!

See, and I didn't take it that way.  I was thinking..."the guy who said the wrong thing to the very pregnant lady". As in...it might not be too smart to start an argument with someone that has a physical reason to be extra cranky.

So, I saw George not as mean, but as not too smart. 

MyFamily

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4575
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4348 on: August 28, 2013, 05:44:18 PM »
If the writer was also out of line, I would hope that they would also be taking a sabbatical. Seems very unfair otherwise to only penalize one person. Especially since that person ended up with the time off being announced in the media.

The writer is 8 months pregnant...I really hope that she'll be taking at least 6 weeks and I pray more time off in the very near future because she's having a baby, so it may be that they decided to send him on sabbatical and just wait for her to take a break when she's given birth.


"The test of good manners is to be patient with bad ones" - Solomon ibn Gabirol

LazyDaisy

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 996
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4349 on: August 28, 2013, 06:59:21 PM »
... It seems to me that I recall reading that at the time it wasn't about a dispute with the writers but that his contract was up (along with Jorja Fox) and he was trying to negotiate for more money than the producers wanted to pay. Almost killing off his character to prove he's not all that essential is good salary negotiation leverage...

The contract negotiation was actually the end of the season prior to the one that ended with fire ants.  That was just done for kicks (and Quentin Tarantino).

I do have the time table off but every website I looked it up on says it was the beginning of that same season -- #5. They were allegedly let go because he was hours late to set for the first episode of season 5 and Jorja failed to submit some sort of letter to CBS by the deadline which CBS claimed was a breach of contract. I imagine that episodes are written months in advance (with emergency rewrites if necessary) but I'm not sure if contracts tend to be renewed/renegotiated per season.

Back to the argument with the writer. It appears that he's been having big issues with the writing of his character for several seasons now, so I don't think the writer's pregnancy is relevant at all. It sounds like that's just being used to fan the flames.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams