Why is Sharon not credited?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Sharon Lawrence
pshepherd@austin.rr.com — 21 years ago(February 02, 2005 10:44 PM)
I just watched a fine but unappreciated little film, "The Only Thrill," which was shot in 1997 in Austin and surrounding Texas Hill Country (which happens to be where I live). The film's title is not very relevant, but otherwise, I really enjoyed it.
Sharon Lawrence had a small but crucial and beautifully acted role in the film. However, when the credits rolled, her character, Joleen Quillet, was not listedso of course she received no creditand she played most of her part nude (though discreetly covered by a sheet)! Here on IMDb, she IS listed in the credits, but the movie itself seemed to "forget" her. Does anyone know why?
She's always been a favorite of mineher years on "NYPD Blue" showed her talent vividly (though she was often under-utilized on that showand it was a shame to kill her off as they did). But I think this oversight or whatever it was in "The Only Thrill" is really unforgiveable!
Dream 521 -
widescreenguy — 19 years ago(September 20, 2006 05:01 PM)
I spoke with a part time film actor once who also got no credits. he explained the rule of thumb is if you waive credits the producers will pay you more as compensation for missing out of the publicity factor.
I took it to mean the leading actors get still more prominence as the credits roll, ie not all cluttered up with every tom dick and harry.
personally I would want my name everywhere I could get it, banking on future recognition and work as compensation. -
Evariste-Galois — 18 years ago(January 12, 2008 07:53 PM)
Of course they'll pay you more.
When you waive credits, you likely waive receiving residuals.
That's where the money is.
Whenever a show airs
It's part of why the WGA (Writers' Guild of America) is on strike.
For material which involves a writer and is somehow transported via the Internet; or, some form of technology not yet available, the AMPTP wants to have six weeks (minimum) of free use, pay the writers a fixed sum of $250-$500, and have free use thereafter.
If this is not part of the contract, the AMPTP will run everything possible through the media which provides no compensation so they owe nothing.
Why is this a big deal? No matter how much you think TV might suck, imagine any show you even half-like sink into the toilet because the people they are able to hire have no ability to do so. Right now, writers
can
work on reality shows and game shows. I know people who won't do it because of the principle.
The WGA has always been at the bargaining table. It's the AMPTP who has walked away, time after time, after time. At one point, they basically said, "remove everything from the table you are requesting and we'll sign the contract." In other words, we'll sign a contract just to let things move forward, but you won't get anything in return. cough gag choke
see: Tom Hanks - not WGA, but SAG, and the SAG has a contract to renew before much longer:
"
I just hope that the big guys who make big decisions up high in their corporate boardrooms and what not get down to honest bargaining and everyone can get back to work
."
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL1090411720080110
e.g.
p.s.
I am not in the WGA and I currently stand to gain nothing from the current or proposed contracts.
My Trunk Monkey can beat up your Trunk Monkey