His last movie didn't do so hot, but George Clooney's still making headlines. This time, he has spoken out about the recent split between the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. According to Variety, Clooney has decided to stay neutral where many prominent actors have taken sides, and he's urging others to take the same route. If Hollywood actors go on strike, it'll probably be SAG's fault, considering the eagerness of AFTRA to negotiate a deal with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. AFTRA's biggest defender is Tom Hanks, while Jack Nicholson is heading up the other side. "Stories about Jack Nicholson vs. Tom Hanks only strengthen the negotiating power of the AMPTP," Clooney said in a statement.

Like many actors, Clooney wants to take any measures he can to prevent a strike. As a member of SAG, the Directors Guild of America and the Writers Guild of America, he wears many hats. "I'm hoping that there might be a way out of this," he said. "To be sure, I'm not the brightest bulb out there. So maybe someone has a lot better idea." Then he got personal: "I just happen to believe so strongly in both unions... my father, my mother, aunt, uncle, even cousins were all members." Nobody's doubting his allegiance, but after souring his relationship with the WGA after Leatherheads came out, it's hard to say how the other unions will regard him in the coming months.

At last, there is some light at the end of the WGA strike tunnel. Meetings are scheduled in New York and Los Angeles this Saturday, and the purpose is to convince Guild members that the contract WGA leaders have been hammering out with the AMPTP is worthy of bringing the now three month-old strike to a close. The WGA's 10,500 members will vote on the issue, and if they approve, WGA leadership could send its members back to work as soon as Monday. The strike won't officially be over until the decision has been ratified -- likely two weeks, but the Oscars would go on as planned, new television episodes could be scripted, and the TV pilot season might be salvaged.

Living in Los Angeles, all I hear is strike talk. I was told this weekend that the strike would absolutely end yesterday. Didn't happen. I was told several times that it will definitely be over by Friday. That's not going to happen. Now I'm hearing next week for sure, and this official Saturday meeting would seem to support that. But it's not a done deal by any means. Late Monday, WGA negotiating committee chief John Bowman sent an e-mail to Writers Guild members that read: "While we have made important progress since the companies re-engaged us in serious talks, negotiations continue. Regardless of what you hear or read, there are many significant points that have yet to be worked out."

In other words -- the finish line is in sight. But there's no guarantee they're gonna run through it.

While sites like ours struggle to decide how, in fact, we're going to cover the Golden Globes, Deadline Hollywood tells us that a number of key decisions were made late today. Firstly (and probably the most important), SAG has officially announced that none of the actors or actresses will cross the picket line and attend the awards ceremony on January 13. That was an expected decision, but still one that kind of shocks you. However, DH claims NBC is still moving forward with preparations to air the make-shift ceremony on their network. With who in attendance? Got me.

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association issued the following statement: "The Hollywood Foreign Press Association has been placed in an extremely difficult position with the ongoing Writers Guild strike. We are making every effort to work out a solution that will permit the Golden Globes to take place with the creative community present to participate. We hope to announce a resolution to this unfortunate predicament on Monday." Personally, I'm not sure what the hell they're going to resolve by Monday, but I would expect NBC to fold and not televise the ceremony. How could they with no one showing up? And how ridiculous would it look if some fat studio exec was standing on stage, handing out award after award to folks who aren't there to accept them? This is what NBC wants the entire country watching? I don't think so.

Here's SAG's statement: "After considerable outreach to Golden Globe actor nominees and their representatives over the past several weeks, there appears to be unanimous agreement that these actors will not cross WGA picket lines to appear on the Golden Globe Awards as acceptors or presenters. We applaud our members for this remarkable show of solidarity for striking Writers Guild of America writers."

And here's the WGA's statement: "We are grateful to our brothers and sisters in SAG for their continued solidarity and support. The entire awards show season is being put in jeopardy by the intransigence of a few big media corporations. We urge the conglomerates to return to the bargaining table they abandoned and negotiate a fair and reasonable deal with writers to put this town back to work."

And here's Nikki Blonsky's statement: "Motherfu**ker son of a b*tch! This was my chance! You fu**kers!"

And here's Cinematical's statement: "We made up Nikki Blonsky's statement, but you have to imagine the poor girl is pretty pissed. Plucked from obscurity to star in Hairspray, nominated for an award, and she can't even show up. We feel you Nikki ... we feel you. Hug?"

Here it is: I'm sick of this Hollywood strike. I'm sick of hearing about it, I'm sick of writing about it, I'm sick of thinking about how many films could potentially suffer because they're being rushed into production faster than folks have time do dry the ink on their screenplays. It's ridiculous. I'm sick of reading quotes and analysis -- I'm sick of the words "new media" -- and I'm sick over the fact that, amidst all this, I haven't heard one person mention the average moviegoer. The person who's taking their wallet on a Saturday night, and shoveling out an absurd amount of money (if we're to include their hungry dates and/or children) to help pay the salaries of those who want to walk off the job.

"Oh, but the writers! It's the writers that are being shafted!" Yeah, talk to me when they're not making high six-figures on a script. I'm sure not all the writers are making that kind of money, but none of them are making minimum wage, busting their ass to put food on the table, living paycheck to paycheck while their significant other works three jobs. Perhaps there are working writers who don't make a fortune, but I doubt the extra "new media" dollars will help them get off welfare. I'm not exactly sure what the actors (SAG) and directors (DGA) are looking for (enough money to stop waitressing at Outback Steakhouse?), but how about we settle these damn disputes already. Is it really that hard? Do human beings exist out in Hollywood, or are they all designed to bleed absurd amounts of money out their ass?

Here's what I suggest: How about WE strike. What are WE getting? I didn't see a studio executive standing outside my screening of The Brothers Solomon with a coupon for a free tub of popcorn and a "Thank You" note after I spent 10 bucks on a ticket and another five on a small soda that gave me more gas than a 24-hour Taco Bell binge. They're threatening to walk off the job on June 1st -- how about WE stop seeing their films when that happens? There are plenty of things I could spend my money on (whatever little I make doing this -- yup, I don't have the luxury of being in a guild) -- perhaps I'll read a book. There's a friggin' thought! I'd like to know what Hollywood is giving us. You don't hear much about that, do you? Best case scenario: There's no strike and we continue to get crummy movies. Worse case scenario: There is a strike, we have to read about it twelve times a day, and we still get crummy movies. Man, do I wish us moviegoers had our own guild. Then we could threaten to strike, demand that with every fifth movie ticket we buy, we get two free. Demand that those so-called "value meals" inside theaters actually live up to what they're preaching, instead of raping the word for all its worth. What value? 13 bucks for a soda and a popcorn is a value? On what f**king planet?

So let's band together and strike on June 1st. While the actors, writers and directors fight over how many bags of money they get to stick under their pillows at night, we'll just do something else. Like read a book. Or take our loved ones out for dinner. Maybe then -- get this -- someone will actually appreciate us.

Or, do you look at it the same way you do a sports strike -- that these friggin' people make so much money as it is, why on earth should they be striking? Lets' backtrack first, because I want to explain this strike to those who keep hearing about it, but don't really know what the hell anyone is talking about. Who's striking? Why are they striking? When are they striking? And what does their striking have to do with me and my electric bill? Okay, here's how it's playing out: The WGA (Writer's Guild of America) contract with the studios is up in October, but they're going to delay negotiations for a bit so as to catch up with the DGA (Director's Guild of America) and SAG (Screen Actors Guild), whose contracts end in June of 2008. The current notion around Hollywood is that all three of these guilds could team up in June, go on strike and literally cripple the entire industry (look at it as the equivalent to getting punched in the nuts ... hard).

"Why would they have a reason to strike in the first place?" Easy ... money. Why else? Essentially, all parties are looking for better residuals on "new media entertainment" -- internet, stuff like that. So, in the meantime, studios are stockpiling scripts and rushing productions in order to have a slate lined up so that if there is a strike, they still have a product to put out. But like with any rush job in any field, I wouldn't expect that product to be any good. Devin from CHUD makes a good point when he says that no matter what happens, studios are still going to be left with all these films they rushed to complete -- which means, no matter what, we're still going to be exposed to the crappy "pre-strike" movies because studios will have no other choice but to dump them on us since, well, they're already completed. Which kinda sucks. As Devin points out (as well as the LA Times), the same thing happened in 2001, and that's the same year we got Men in Black II, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Reign of Fire and Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. Nice. But if the strike doesn't happen, it also means actors and directors will have open schedules and be available to take on smaller projects over the summer. So, there's a chance we may get some good movies out of this after all. Who knows ...

So, I ask you: Are you concerned about this strike now that you know what it's about? Do you think the guilds have a reason to strike in the first place? And if you're in one of these guilds, feel free to add your two cents to the conversation?

File this in the "what the heck took 'em so long?" department, but Julie Andrews is finally getting a lifetime achievement award from SAG, which she highly deserves. Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music alone should have put her in line for this award years ago. Seeing as how both of those films regularly top critic's lists of "Films Starring a Musical Nanny Played by Julie Andrews," that's the cinematic equivalent of making the hall of fame.

Me? I would have given it to her for writing one of my favorite children's books, The Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles.


[Update, fixed minor spelling]

Once again, the ever-vigilant House of Representatives has passed a bill (the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act) containing a provision that will bring any movie "that contains a simulated sex scene...under the same government-filing requirements that adult films have to meet." Were the bill to pass the Senate, it would require movie studios to file an affidavit with the government for each simulated sex scene, listing the names and ages of the actors who appear. When the films appeared on DVD, each one would feature a sticker, certifying that the movie complied with the filing laws, and giving information about where the affidavits could be found. While the reason for such a system regulating pornography is abundantly clear, applying it to the simulated sex scenes found in mainstream film and television seems like an outrageous overreach, not to mention a massive waste of time (someone, after all, is going have to fill out all those forms). In addition, the measure has drawn protests from the MPAA (!) and SAG, among others, who feel that the proposed regulation "is a bad idea for legitimate business and could actually undo the current adult-film industry reporting requirements as it is likely to face a court challenge if it becomes law."

When the House passed a similar bill last year, the presence of a hate crimes element made it difficult to deal with, and the measure never came up in the Senate; there is no such element in this bill.

The members of the Screen Actors Guild last night refused to bow to awards-related peer pressure, dammit. Brokeback Mountain? Totally not that good. (And some of their best friends - not to mention the guy played by their best actor winner - are gay, so just shut up about that homophobia crap, alright?) Instead of continuing to heap praise on the gay cowboys, SAG spread their awards around, and not a single one ended up in the hands of anyone associated with Ang Lee's film.

Despite ignoring Brokeback entirely, the SAG awards resembled the Golden Globes in other ways, namely in their choices for best actor (Philip Seymour Hoffman), actress (Reese Witherspoon), and supporting actress (Rachel Weisz) - and they also honored Sandra Oh for her work on Grey's Anatomy, as the Hollywood Foreign Press did. The other movie awards went to Oh's Sideways costar Paul Giamatti (best supporting actor for Cinderella Man) and the cast of Crash, which was voted best ensemble.

Though the absence of Brokeback is initially shocking, the film hasn't exactly been piling up acting awards - it's been Lee and the movie in general that win. So, in that way, SAG actually followed the script more closely than it would initially appear. While Heath Ledger has showed up on all the of lists of best actor nominees, he's only been the winner of a few regional (New York, San Francisco) critics' awards. If the Academy follows this trend, while we can be pretty sure his name will be included tomorrow morning when the nominees are revealed, a win seems increasingly unlikely.

A band of Screen Actor's Guild executives voted yesterday to overturn an agreement previously settled between actors and the video game industry, which would have raised minimum scale rates whilst denying actors residuals. SAG has a routine process for executives to overturn decisions made by member voting, but never in the union's 70-something year history has the clause been activated to successfully change a vote. Now, get this: SAG board's reversal does not effect a contract brokered last week between video game producers and AFTRA, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, so their members will be able to move in and take all the video game voicing jobs unless SAG gets its act together quick.