Don't worry Mr Scott. It will get an Oscar for sure.

He never read Turner's draft but amazingly managed to include a significant amount of it in his final script that he filmed.

That's an amazing accomplishment.

"I never read Turner's draft" is a dodge as he clearly read/incorporated later drafts (written by others) that were based on/included Turner's work even if he never actually read Turner's draft specifically.

@Ryan Paige: The statement, "I have never read Sheldon Turner's script" and the reality of incorporating some of what Turner wrote in his drafts are not mutually exclusive. Assuming that Griffin - the second writer on UITA - included some of Turner's material in his draft, which we know to be a fact by virtue of the inclusion of the "emperor's have sat where you're sitting" side of dialogue, would be the conduit for Reitman to have transposed that into his own script. Moreover per WGA guidelines (I discussed this in a previous post) Turner would get credit for everything that ended up in Reitman's draft. That said, the fact is that the credit arbiters determined that Reitman more than met the 50% threshold, probably significantly more because Reitman is listed first in the credits.

So to sum up, it is possible that Reitman never read Turner's draft and yet included material Turner wrote because of the fact that Reitman acknowledged reading Griffin's draft, that acting as a conduit for Turner's material.

Finally why would Reitman lie about not reading Turner's draft? He has nothing to gain by making such a comment, he's already acknowledged reading Griffin's draft. Perhaps this is a shocking case of someone in Hwood telling the simple truth.

Why make a big point about never having read Turner's draft at all?

It was part of the "I found the book and started my draft all by my lonesome" story that he had been peddling prior to people pointing out that an awful lot of the script originated elsewhere.

Going from the beginning of this saga, he's been inelegant (at the very least) about sharing credit, having only more recently come around to even acknowledging that there were drafts written by others included in the final script.

Ryan, I confess to not having followed the entire saga, so I may have it wrong. If you've got the time and inclination, I'd be curious to read some of Reitman's earlier interviews / comments where he didn't acknowledge even the Griffin draft (i.e., a link or two would be helpful).

For the record, it is still possible for Reitman to have included material written by Turner that he never read directly, material that Turner included from the book that Reitman also decided -- on his own -- to include from the book. That is, the primary source material could have been what Reitman adapted, not Turner's draft.

I have no dog in this 'fight,' I just happen to think all three of the movies Reitman has been involved with, either as director or writer-director, have been fantastic films, and I would hope that he's of the creative and personal 'stuff' to continue to grow as a filmmaker. That's the basis of my curiosity as to whether he's been "inelegant" or worse in the public discourse re the authorship of UITA because I agree with your inference - no good reason for that stance at all.

I kept going back in this post, so it's a rambling mess. I apologize for that.

The big one from the LA Times that I remember is: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/01/james-cameron-jason-reitman-anthony-minghella-avatar.html

In this one, he never mentions any other writer or drafts:

http://www.canmag.com/nw/15075-up-in-the-air-jason-reitman

In this one, he tells the story of finding the book, writing the script from the book and even taking it to his Dad as something for his Dad to direct:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:rQYNzRbEtooJ:www.talkcinema.com/harlan-brief-encounters-jason-reitman.pdf+%22jason+reitman%22+%22book+soup%22&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And one more from Variety:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118012459.html?categoryId=3537&cs=1

I certainly wouldn't include any similar parts of the various scripts that came from the book or were "lateral moves" from the book as being directly from Turner's script.

When Jason Reitman started doing press for the movie, he talked about discovering the book in Book Soup and beginning his draft on his own right then, despite not owning the rights.

At about the same time as Jason was supposedly , we know that his father (Ivan Reitman) purchased the rights to the book and the already-written Sheldon Turner script and promptly hired Nick Griffin to rewrite Turner's draft as a project for Ivan to direct.

Before it gets made, Jason makes "Thank You For Smoking" and "Up In the Air" eventually becomes a Jason Reitman project. He makes the movie and goes all around telling the Book Soup story and never once mentioning Sheldon Turner or Nick or Ted Griffin (even when Turner is on stage next to him).

They submit the script for arbitration with Jason Reitman as sole author. They lose. They appeal and lose again (something that Jason Reitman claims to be "confused" about since he never even read Turner's draft. Since the claim of not reading the draft came in an instance when he was talking about being confused about not getting sole credit, the implication is certainly that he claims he didn't read any previous draft, having written the script from scratch, not that he read the Griffin(s)' drafts that incorporated Turner's material. If he knew that at least 33% of the final script came from elsewhere, he shouldn't have confused him to have to share credit with someone. And he didn't say "I was confused that I wasn't sharing credit with one of the Griffin brothers who I thought had written the script I incorporated into my own script despite all three names being on the script cover page when I got it - as per WGA rules").

It's only after other people start mentioning Sheldon Turner that he comes up with his "I never read Turner's draft" claim (which certainly might be true, but it's certainly misleading given his previous stories of finding the book in Book Soup and writing the script from scratch from there. At the time, the "I never read Turner's draft" seemed in support of the "I wrote it all by myself" story. Now it's been twisted into "He read a later draft that incorporated Turner's work").

It's only as people begin pointing out the similarities in the final movie that are in earlier drafts (the focus on the job instead of the lifestyle itself. What became the Anna Kendrick character. The famous line, etc.) that the thaw toward Turner began.

I'm not saying that most of the script is his, but there was a lot of heavy lifting done by others that Jason Reitman initially "glossed over" (the nice way of putting it).

Ryan, thanks for all that. I know that took time, but I appreciate it as the various links and your recounting of events does give a clearer picture of things. It's an unfortunate situation. It could even be more than that, but one doesn't know if Turner's explanation of what happened at the Golden Globes, which appears to exonerate Reitman from any public nastiness, is either true or Turner just toeing a PR line per his reps, as in take the high road, you don't want to get in a public pissing match with Reitman.

To put things in a larger context, there has been a move in the last decade or so at the WGA to undercut the percentage necessary for a second (or ensuing) writer to gain a share of a writing credit on a movie, which a lot of writers perceived as a shot at first-writers. In the case of adapted material, perhaps not such an egregious thing - while a first writer does make crucial decisions about what to include and omit from the primary source material, the material is, after all, preexisting. But when it comes to a first writer who creates an original screenplay, what the shift does, in effect, is minimize that contribution. We are talking, after all, about creating something out of nothing.

Since most movie writers in the Guild make their money on writing assignments, rewriting preexisting projects, it's little wonder that the mindset that exists with those writers would not see the unique creative contribution that is required to make something out of nothing. Moreover that attitude tends to get reinforced because by the time the director and actors are involved, and production is underway, the first writer is usually long gone from the process. Instead there are various script doctors and writers who work specifically for actors on their part and dialogue. To them, it must seem almost laughable to give significant credit to the first writer when they are a mere shadow, if that, in the consciousness of those actually producing the film.

And yet the simple fact is, none of those people would have a job on the project in question were it not for the first writer, who sat in front of a computer monitor, staring at a blinking cursor, had the courage to type FADE IN, and wrote an original screenplay that turned into a movie.

I know I've veered off the point of this discussion re Reitman and Turner. Perhaps the best thing that could happen to Reitman is to write a script from scratch, like Wilder and Brooks and Crowe did / do. Not adapt a book, but have the experience of creating something from nothing. Then perhaps he might find greater understanding of what it means to be a first writer.