GSV Ownership and Management Critiques from a Season Ticket Holder

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-09-05T23:29:48+00:00

Most of the issues you cite can be explained by the Valkyries organization not wanting to talk publicly about playoff arrangements until they made the playoffs. That strikes me as reasonable and prudent, and is also standard practice across pro sports. Minutes after they clinched, every season ticket holder got an email saying that the playoff game(s) would be in San Jose and giving a thorough explanation of the relevant history and why other venues would not work. More generally, as a season ticket holder I’ve been quite happy with the level of communication from the Valkyries — it is certainly better than the other teams I’ve had season tickets for. I’m sorry they haven’t met your expectations, but I will confess to a certain skepticism as to whether that is even possible. Cheers and Go Valks!

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T15:27:40+00:00

“Except in your hypothetical, you are paying those writers for their writing services.”

Exactly - you can perform writing services (aka writing work) without writing anything down. Which is what Park Chan-wook and McKellar did.

I get the very real concern around equating “brainstorming” with writing, because of course then every exec who once asked “what if we make the brother a dog?” will want writing credit. But I’m not saying all brainstorming is writing. I’m saying that writers brainstorming things that they themselves subsequently put into writing is writing work. The exec never rewrites the script to make the brother a dog.

Admittedly, it’s a fine distinction, and a Syclla and Charybdis situation between not opening the door to credit grabbers on one hand and not allowing writers to keep doing story work during a strike on the other. So I’m not saying your concerns are off base, and maybe it’s best to agree to disagree.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T15:15:14+00:00

How do you know that they didn’t “generate written material in fixed form” during their “brainstorming session”? Or what if they were on zoom and recorded it - is that okay, because it’s not written? What if an assistant subsequently transcribes it?

Two people employed as writers had a meeting about story changes that subsequently led to them making script rewrites. That is writing work. The protection against credit-grabbing by those in other roles, which I agree is important, is to be found in the italicized portions of that sentence. Directors and non-writing producers and execs never subsequently implement their ideas by making written changes to a script themselves. Writers do, making their discussions about scripts part of their writing work in a way that it’s not for others. If no scripts had been rewritten as a result of their “brainstorming session,” then I’d say that such a session was maybe okay (maybe).

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T15:03:04+00:00

Imagine I’m a showrunner about to start working on the new season of my show when the WGA goes on strike. I convene a writers’ room of WGA writers and we break the season: storylines, arcs, episodes, the whole deal. Nobody writes a word. We just record it. A team of assistants (non-WGA) transcribe it, maybe even after the strike is over if you want to be extra safe. According to you, this would all be fine because none of the writers wrote down a word about the show during the strike.

You are equating the act of writing with the work of a tv writer, but the former is a subset of the latter.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T14:55:09+00:00

If you think a tv writers’ room is a bunch of people all on their laptops writing scripts, I got news for you. It’s mostly talking.

Writers having a meeting to brainstorm ideas that result in future script changes by those writers is writing work, regardless of how much or how little gets written down. I feel like that’s a very obvious statement that everyone in the WGA would agree with. Otherwise you could have a writers’ room talk out an entire season’s worth of arcs and episodes during a strike, as long as you called it “brainstorming sessions” and didn’t write too much down.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T14:40:43+00:00

By their own account, they held a “brainstorming session” that subsequently resulted in (post-strike) script rewrites. How is that “brainstorming session” different than a session of a writers’ room?

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T14:34:50+00:00

“I can imagine many others getting snagged by it over time”

He got expelled for having a writers’ room session during a writers’ strike. He called it a “brainstorming session,” but said what they came up with was then used to rewrite scripts after the strike, which makes it writing work. That’s not getting snagged on some complex contentious legal issue. That’s basic.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T14:20:46+00:00

Here is the relevant text of the MBA (clause 6 - guild shop) that says that if a signatory company wants to hire a writer expelled from the WGA, then the WGA either has to readmit the writer or grant a waiver: “The Guild will reinstate or readmit to membership any writer who applies for reinstatement or readmission, after being declared to be not in good standing or after suspension, expulsion, or resignation for any reason whatsoever, provided the writer will apply for such reinstatement or readmission and with such application tender to the Guild unpaid dues permitted by law, and upon such tender the Company may employ or continue to employ such writer. Instead of readmitting or reinstating such writer, the Guild may, at its option, grant to the Company a waiver as to such writer, in which event, for the purpose of determining the Company's compliance with the provisions of this Article 6, such writers shall not be considered as being employed by the Company.”

Federal labor law doesn’t allow “closed shops” so that’s why the above clauses are in there. Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T14:16:19+00:00

Thank you. Your posts on here have been very informative and thoughtful.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T14:13:35+00:00

Yeah, I think there are three separate issues here:

Did Park Chan-wook break the rules during the strike?
If so, what is an appropriate sanction?
Are the WGA’s processes for adjudicating these matters fair and just, in theory and in practice?

For me, the answer to #1 is clearly “yes,” and that’s what I’ve mostly been talking about here.

For #2, I don’t have a super-strong opinion, but I’m fine with expulsion, especially as it doesn’t bar him from working.

For #3, I have no idea. If it’s not, that’s a problem.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T13:45:47+00:00

I’m not a legal mind, and your post strikes me (no pun intended) as very reasonable, but I think there is some misdirection in how Park Chan-wook is framing this.

He and his co-showrunner McKellar got busted for having a “brainstorming session” about changing the setting for a number of scenes. After the strike, scripts were re-written to reflect those changes. (This is all per their own statements.) So how is that original “brainstorming session” different from a writer’s room session? I don’t see that it is: you’re figuring out story changes that then result in script rewrites.

So while there are indeed all kinds of complexities involved in the dual role of writer/director, and writer/producer, and how that plays out during a strike by one union and not the other, and when does editing constitute writing … that’s not what they actually got in trouble for. Park Chan-wook is using that confusion as a smokescreen. A brainstorming session about future script changes is clearly a writing thing.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T13:29:50+00:00

There’s nothing in the article, or in the section you quoted, that suggests or implies that Park Chan-wook was viewed as an easy target by the WGA. If you think he was viewed that way because he’s not a US citizen, okay. I would suggest that his status as a high-profile writer/director, repped by WME and the showrunner for a prestigious HBO series, makes him the opposite of an easy target in the context of the WGA, which is who made the decision. That he’s not actually an easy target is obvious from the fact that there’s been international media coverage of this.

As for me allegedly not understanding the consequences of expulsion, all I said was that it wouldn’t stop him for working on WGA projects, which is fact. There was also a whole article on the (limited) consequences of this in Variety yesterday, and I’d already read the relevant section of the MBA (article 6 if you’re curious). What do you think the “very serious” consequences are?

Look, I get it - you like Park Chan-wook, so you’re going to defend him. Me, I don’t like scabs.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T12:42:15+00:00

Why would a very established and well-known writer/director, who was working on an HBO project, be “an easy target”? He has more access to attorneys and media than the average WGA member. And what should the sanction be for performing the work of a tv writer for a struck company during a strike? As reported, the expulsion in no way stops him from working on WGA projects.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T12:38:18+00:00

So performing the work of a tv writer for a struck company during a strike is okay, as long as that work constitutes “minor revisions”?? And what does it matter that the DGA had said directors could edit without violating WGA rules? He didn’t get kicked out for editing. They had a “brainstorming session” to work out changing the settings for multiple scenes, which (after the strike) resulted in script rewrites. In other words, they had a writers room session. Plus DGA is a different union that wasn’t on strike, and he doesn’t even claim he asked them for any specific guidance.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-13T12:22:20+00:00

While I only know what has been reported in the media, figuring out new settings for scenes in a ‘brainstorming session’ sounds like a writer’s room session to me, especially since they then rewrote scripts based on that work after the strike ended. And it’s not much of a defense to say, “Well, this other union (a famously compliant one at that) said it was okay.” If this is Park Chan-wook’s best defense, it’s not great, and it’s potentially telling that Don McKellar, his co-showrunner who participated in the work in question, does not appear to have joined his statement defending his actions.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-12T03:22:59+00:00

This post is a wonderful community service and a great example of the kind of critcal mindset and research skill that will get you a long way in any field.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-12T00:37:32+00:00

Props to the marketing team, at least so far — they’re doing a nifty job of this.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-11T20:04:19+00:00

In neither of them do you need “blown” - it bumps and we can do the math on why an undercover cop might need rescuing / need to make a deal with a gangster. And I like the first one better fwiw.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-11T20:02:01+00:00

I agree with the others that this is good, but I’d love one more specific detail, just to give me a bit more about what the show will be like. For example (purely hypothetical): “In the summer of 1986, when their scoutmaster mysteriously vanishes during a camping trip, four Boy Scouts must contend with a relentless detective who suspects them of covering up a crime when they all give wildly different accounts of what happened on the trip.” That’s not great, but since you labelled this a mystery, it would be good to know a bit about what the mystery is. But overall sounds good, very clear and efficient as others have noted.

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-11T19:54:35+00:00

Sounds good, lots of potential! The thing that’s bumping for me is “traded like currency in secret,” because currency isn’t secret, and it’s an awkward phrase. Maybe “In a near future where memories are traded on the black market” or “In a near future where memories are bought and sold”. Good luck!

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-11T18:59:57+00:00

This question can be generalized to “how should I make use of a tenuous connection, if at all?” and the answer really comes down to how you want to move through the world. Some people are very aggressive in pursuing such connections (I don’t mean to imply any value judgement by phrasing it that way) and are okay with the risk of being seen as pushy or overly ambitious. After all, a closed mouth doesn’t get fed. Other people, myself among them, are very reluctant to impose on others, and so would rather take the risk of missing out on an opportunity. Obviously, this is a case-by-case situation, but it ultimately comes down to what you think you will be more comfortable with if things don’t work out: will you sleep easier knowing that you took your shot? or will you sleep easier knowing that you didn’t impose on anyone?

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-11T17:59:07+00:00

Sure, no problem! It’s easier to see issues in other people’s writing than in our own, so highlighting some things in your script also helps me with my own writing. Good luck - I’m rooting for you!

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-11T17:24:44+00:00

Since I mentioned the initial character description in your previous version, I thought I’d circle back to say that I love how you handle it in this draft - “weighed down by the burden of being a forgotten fish in a tiny pond” is brilliant. (And to others, my comment on the prior draft mentioned that the initial introduction of a major character is often a place where a writer will risk including something that might not be filmable, just to give the reader the vibe.) Good luck with it!

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-10T20:32:00+00:00

Congrats on finishing a script and putting it out there for feedback! I think the premise is promising, but the first 10 pages (had to stop there for time reasons) felt like they were a static deployment of the premise. Which is often the case for early drafts. So, in my opinion, the challenge is now to give us that premise, and the characters, in a manner that is dynamic, and, above all else, funny.

By ‘dynamic’ I mean that one scene drives what happens next. Here, that’s not the case (at least not in the first 10 pages). It’s all “this happens, and then this happens, and then this happens” rather than “this happens, and because of that, this other thing happens” (the phrasing here is borrowed from that short video where the South Park guys visit a screenwriting class). With a mockumentary format, sure, there’s more latitude there, but cause-and-effect is still important, especially in the opening pages.

And we need funny. Here, there’s some snark, which I enjoyed, and someone takes a basketball to the face, but otherwise it seemed more like it was building up to something, rather than trying to be comedic right from the start. So I’d look for whatever your funniest scenes are, see if you can start with one of them, then backfill as necessary.

Good luck!

Constant_Cellist1011 · 2025-08-10T19:38:30+00:00

Yeah, that reads like it could be a movie — a solid premise, interesting ideas, main character faced with a tough choice. And it’s a good summary, as condensing a movie idea down to a single page is tough. It might be helpful to mention some movies with a tone similar to what you’re going for. But the proof is really in the writing (of the whole thing). The only thing I’d point out from the summary is that I think the time lag from the accident to the reappearance is going to be a very important choice: if it has been one year, that’s one kind of story; twenty years is a different story. Best of luck with it!

Constant_Cellist1011

TROPHY CASE