writing yourself into a corner, much?

[krickets]

I've been thinking a lot about the infamous hollywood writer's strike.

Bradley first mentioned the possibility of it to me about a month or so ago, and since he is my resident entertainment news guru, he's been keeping me abreast on the issue. Now that it's on our doorstep. I gotta say guys, I'm worried. Very worried.

While I do believe that the writers totally deserve their cut of DVD and online sales, and while I'm bummed about the idea of having truncated seasons of my favorite shows, I'm mostly worried about something much more long term.

In my opinion, there is unquestionably a clear divide in television programming patterns over the past five years. These are BL and AL.

Before Lost.

After Lost.

Before Lost, the reality show boom was at its pinnacle, and nobody was happy. At least, I wasn't.

After Lost, our pilot seasons were stuffed fat and all aglow with beautiful, innovative, interesting, hour-long, ensemble cast, and very, very pretty dramas. Sure, reality shows and old crime/medical staples were still there, but there was a definite shift. And one for the better, I'll argue.

Now, whether or not Lost is solely to blame credit with this phenomenon, the fact of the matter is, over these past few seasons we (the people who love scripted programming) were just starting to get our TV back! It was a good time to be a TV fan, that's for sure.

Now, with this looming writer's strike, I'm very worried that the tables might once again shift, and slide right back on over to the reality television side of things - especially once all those angelic TV execs are reminded of just how fast and cheap reality programming really is.

The very idea of it makes me one seriously grumpy fangirl.

In case you've ignored the sounds of rising panic rippling over Hollywood lately: The networks and studios have been negotiating a new contract with the union representing TV and film writers, and . . . let's just say it's not going well.

...

In any case, the Writers Guild of America isn't finding much common ground with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers,...

If members give the OK, the guild could call a strike as early as Nov. 1.

That is why in the last couple of weeks, the TV business -- networks, studios, writers, agents, managers and everyone else -- has been thrown into a major tizzy. What seemed hypothetical just a month ago has suddenly become uncomfortably real.

...

Studios are cramming to shoot as many episodes of existing series as they can before any work stoppage. Crews on NBC's "Heroes" and ABC's "Ugly Betty" have been hustling like crazy, with multiple units racing to shoot two episodes simultaneously last week. "The studio wants to get as much stuff shot as we can by Nov. 1, but we can only write the show as fast as we can write it," Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof, executive producers of "Lost," wrote me in an e-mail. (Cuse sits on the guild's 17-member negotiating committee.)

...

Network officials aren't talking for the record about their strike plans. But almost everyone agrees that once the supply of new scripted episodes gets burned off -- say, by mid-January -- network prime time schedules would quickly devolve to the two "Rs": reality and repeats. Reality shows generally don't use guild talent, so existing series like "American Idol" and "Dancing With the Stars" would be strike-proof.

[Actually, Dancing With the Stars writers are a part of a guild and therefore are subject to strike. There was a retraction printed.]

There might suddenly be more prime time sports too. And after disappearing almost entirely from network schedules, newsmagazines might come roaring back in style.

Perhaps most important, if the strike lasted for longer than a few weeks, the pilot season -- when networks would start the process of producing new dramas and comedies for the 2008-09 season -- would be thrown into disarray. The networks are already hedging bets by giving some early pilot orders.

...

But the past may not be a reliable guide this time around. The TV business bears little resemblance to its old self of 1988.

...

No one was using iPods or DVDs or DVRs. "There's much more competition for the audience's attention than there was 20 years ago," said Tim Spengler of New York ad firm Initiative.

Simply put, this is a bad time to be testing the loyalty of prime time TV viewers. That may be why everyone's talking about the strike with a kind of resigned dread. Like World War I, it's a conflict no one wants but everyone seems powerless to stop.

...

Some shows could be seriously damaged. Last year, ABC gave "Lost" a three-month hiatus in the middle of the season -- and the layoff was promptly blamed for the show's subsequent ratings woes. What would a strike do to the serialized thriller's fan base?

Obviously, anything that threatens scripted series isn't good for TV writers. The networks and studios know this, and that's why their reps are eagerly feeding reporters stats about how many network time slots have been lost to reality shows over the last few seasons. Message: Stop moaning about your compensation, you laptop-toting, latte-sipping ingrates, or you'll all end up writing intros for Ryan Seacrest.

If that sounds like overkill, well, the networks are running scared. Executives would likely have to renegotiate ad rates and offer extensive make-goods if their prime time lineups are hit by a strike, Spengler says.

Can't they avert this? Well, sure. It's possible that this will turn into a repeat of 2001, when the entire town braced for a writers' strike that never came. But even that near miss had serious consequences: The stockpiling meant to protect studios and networks from a strike left them instead with a glut of product, leaving many workers unemployed well into 2002.

"To me, a strike means a loss," said Mazin, summing up the ambivalence of many. "On the other hand, some things are worth striking over, even if it means shooting yourself in the foot."

*pouts*