Why should writers work for no pay? (LA Times)

The core of Huffington's justification for not paying is that the Huffington Post is a showcase for writers, and that exposure there leads to paying gigs and greater visibility. Huffington merely — and generously, by her estimation — provides the stage. Mario Ruiz, the Huffington Post's spokesman, claims that contributors are happy to write for free because they "want to be heard by the largest possible audience and understand the value that that kind of visibility can bring."

I can actually see both sides of this argument and it's not an easy one to solve. On the one hand, writing for free is like an internship in any other business. You get practice, make connections, and are then sent into the world better armed to get a job and create your career. On the other hand, interns (and unpaid writers) are often taken advantage of. They don't feel like they can say no when asked to do a non-work related task for fear of burning a bridge. And is a writer who just sold their first spec to di Bonaventura really going to say no to a free polish or two? It's easy to say writers who think the Huffington Post is using them should stop working with the site. It's also easy to say that people deserve to be paid for their work. Like I said, this one's not an easy fix. What do you think?


Read the full article here.

Selling Mel Gibson's "Beaver" (Huffington Post)

Remember the Forgetting Sarah Marshall wild postings from a couple years back? The ones written in faux Sharpie that were everywhere and said "I Hate You Sarah Marshall," etc. A similar concept could apply to The Beaver and Mel Gibson. I'm imagining billboards, wild posts, and web banners, with copy lines like "Mel Gibson Put His Foot In His Beaver Again," "Mel Gibson Likes Beaver More Than Jews," "Mel Gibson is a Beaver Face," "Mel Gibson = Huge Beaver," "Mel Gibson Sucks Beaver," etc. Maybe I still think like a 14-year old going through puberty, but these would get my attention. If there was ever a movie meant to aggressively appeal to the lowest common denominator, it's Mel Gibson's The Beaver right now.

I understand Schwartz' thinking here, but honestly I'd rather see Summit pull this movie altogether. Obviously, I know that will never happen. There's money to be made, and money trumps all! And every other studio and/or distributor would do the same thing. Disgusting.
Read the full article here.