You must watch..."Awkward."

For someone who claims not to follow comedy, here comes another half hour show I’m pushing to the masses.

While MTV is more known lately for shows of the Jersey Shore variety, they do have original scripted programming, and I think they’ve really scored with Awkward.

I love this show!  I watched all of season 1 in 2 days (granted, each episode besides the finale is only a half hour long and there are only 10 of them).  But yeah, clearly I really enjoyed it!  The dialogue has a fast talking Gilmore Girlsy vibe…which I like, mixed with a wacky Diablo Codyish teen slang thing (think Juno…which I’m not quite as into).  Overall, I think too much of either of these things might be irritating, but the writing never feels forced or strained.  Likewise, the actors are really exceptional and always do a great job.

Major props to Ashley Rickards who plays the lead, Jenna.  This young woman is really a star.  She’s one part snarky Ellen Page/Juno and one part wise beyond her years Claire Danes/Angela Chase.   I expect to see her in tons of things beyond this show in the future.

From a writing standpoint, I think the most important thing a writer can take away from this show is to craft three dimensional characters.  This is key on every show, but especially one with familiar character constructs (the awkward teen girl, the bitchy popular cheerleader, the popular hot jock, etc.).  I think this show just goes to show that no matter how high or low concept your show idea may be, excellent writing can shine no matter what and admittedly, Awkward. isn't really covering any new ground and yet, it always feels fresh.

Speaking of the characters, one character that stands out in particular for me is the main antagonist, Sadie Saxton, the bitchy rich popular cheerleader.  On paper she sounds pretty generic, but Sadie isn’t just some cardboard mean girl you've seen a million times before.  Sadie has issues of her own...she struggles with her weight, her mother, she likes a guy who doesn’t reciprocate her advances.  Sadie is also very smart, conniving, and does some pretty bad stuff.  Sadie always keeps me on my toes...I never know whether a scene is going to show her being horrible, or flip the script and put her in a situation that actually makes me feel bad for her...she's really fun to watch.

Anyway, the show is like this with pretty much every character and when you get to see the good and bad in everyone, it's hard to get bored.  Plus, there’s the whole fast/wacky dialogue thing which if you’re into, makes the show even more fun.

Speaking of good and bad (or pros and cons) the show also has a solid love triangle that’s really well done.  I’ve mentioned the importance of love triangles on teen shows before.  This show has one and neither guy is clearly better than the other...both have their pros and cons, which is great, interesting, and really keeps you guessing.

In a word, Awkward. is awesome…and if you missed it over the summer (like me) you can catch up on MTV.com where full episodes for the whole season are currently available.

Emmys Wrap Up - Broadcast Networks Rising

Did you watch the Emmys last night?  Overall, I thought it was a pretty good show.  A little fashion, a few funny sketches, some awkward Charlie Sheen time, and Jane Lynch doing a nice job hosting and performing in some funny pre-recorded bits.  While the show played it pretty safe and by the book  (i.e. it ran on time and Ricky Gervais didn’t host) there were a few upsets/surprises that kept me interested till the end.

I was especially happy with all the top acting wins -- Jim Parsons and Melissa McCarthy who are personal favorites of mine, along with Julianna Margulies for The Good Wife (which I love), and Kyle Chandler for FNL (which I also love).  Also, very pleased with Peter Dinklage's win for Game of Thrones (which I predicted even before he was nominated…okay not a stretch if you'd seen the show).

I was also really thrilled that Jason Katims won the big writing award for FNL.  As an aspiring writer of TV drama, this is an award whose winners and nominees I really take note of (sometimes even more so than the best show nominees and winners) and considering I've loved the writing on FNL, and the fact that the show has been severely under appreciated (awards wise), and the fact that I really like Katims' other show, Parenthood, it’s so nice to see him get the recognition he deserves.  To me, that win was probably the best surprise of the night.

On that note, I think I was surprised all night by how much the cable networks seemed to falter compared to the amount of nominations they got.  I mean sure, HBO can’t win them all, but the broadcast networks really seemed to hold their own.  First, there was the big loss by nominations juggernaut Mildred Pierce.  While Kate Winslet still won for playing the title role (and looked lovely doing it) the show lost out to a PBS show.

On the comedy side, Modern Family clearly dominated, winning acting awards in both categories it was heavily nominated as well as winning for directing, writing, and the show itself.  As I mentioned before, the other acting awards in comedy both went to shows on CBS.  If you’re a comedy writer who really wants to write a cable style dramedy right now…I’d say, that's cool and maybe you're going to have the next big thing, but maybe also make sure you have a good network friendly comedy in your portfolio because that’s clearly what’s hot (both critically and ratings wise) right now.

On the drama side, broadcast network (and former network) shows also made strong showings, with my personal favorite FNL getting two big awards for acting and writing, and Julianna Margulies nabbing the well deserved best actress award.

Now, maybe these couple of wins don’t seem like a lot when you consider the supporting actor nods, directing, and best show all went to non-broadcast network shows, but when you also consider how many nominations a network like HBO or a show like Mad Men gets every year, I’d say the broadcast networks did a pretty darn good job not letting any one cable show run away with it (hey, even Matt Weiner seemed surprised Mad Men won...I was right there with him, I thought for a second that FNL was going to pull off the big upset and take it).

Overall, despite the Mad Men win, I still felt like the Academy's choices really made the point that a show doesn’t have to be on basic or even pay cable to have the best writing and the best leading roles for actors (two things I think a lot of viewers and critics have not felt the past few years).

I guess a win by Mad Men must still feel good for some networks (cough, ABC and NBC, cough) who doubled down on 1960s shows this upcoming season (Pan Am and Playboy Club).  I guess we'll see if the solid Emmy performance of broadcast network shows (and somewhat faltering Emmy performance of cable shows) affects the ongoing TV development season but...I'm just saying...I’d love to see every network go after the next FNL or Good Wife just as hard as they went after the next Mad Men.  Make it happen broadcast networks.  Make it happen.

EDIT: Just saw this article from Deadline which talks about broadcast networks great Emmy performance this year... check it out!

You must watch..."Louie"

If you read this blog at all, you know I love TV, but that I focus on drama more than comedy.  Nevertheless, I still likes me a good TV comedy and so I wanted to write this post plugging one of my latest addictions, Louis C.K.’s brilliant FX show, Louie.

Why is Louie such a great show?  Honestly, the reasons are kind of inexplicable (sort of like the show itself).  While Louie stars a stand up comedian playing a version of himself, just like Seinfeld, and usually opens with Louis C.K. doing his standup routine, the similarities between the two shows end there (not that there's anything wrong with Seinfeld).  Louie is far from a sitcom, in fact, the episodes are essentially 1 or 2 indie looking short films about all manner of things.  While comedic moments abound, some episodes are actually very dramatic.  In recent episodes, Louis dealt with a down and out friend from his early standup days, creepy NYC thugs scaring his daughters on Halloween, and a USO trip to Afghanistan (a truly amazing episode of TV).  Don't get me wrong though, when the show is being funny, I think it's absolutely hysterical.

This video's kinda not safe for work...or for babies.

Just as Curb Your Enthusiasm takes a viewer into Larry David’s insane and twisted world of faux pas and people (usually Larry) behaving badly, Louie takes its audience into the funny, cynical, and sometimes mundane world of Louis C.K.  It can be extremely funny one moment and bittersweet (even sad) the next.  It’s really not like any other half hour comedy on TV.

I’m not sure what big lessons a writer can take from it, except that like Curb, Louie has a strong voice and Louie's point of view/way he sees the world really shines through in every episode.  Besides the distinct voice, the show is also full of surprises and can be incredibly disarming, so I always keep watching to see what happens next.  I’ve read on the internets that some people hate this show because it's so unusual for a comedy or they don’t like the Woody Allenish short film format, but I say...give it a chance!  Let it grow on you!  I think this is one of those show that once you like it, you’ll really really like it.

Speaking of liking the show, Louie is nominated for 2 Emmys this year (for lead actor in a comedy and for writing).  The show airs Thursday nights on FX...there are only 2 new episodes left this season, but if you like what you see a few others are up on Hulu (and feel free to watch the episodes out of order, with the format the way it is, continuity isn't really an issue).

Dead Man Walking

Happy Friday!  Just popping in to talk some recent Hollywood news.  I’d talk about my own writing but honestly, with every new script I finish, I’m settling more into my “process” and to me it’s become kinda routine so it seems more boring to talk about.  I guess that’s a good thing because having a more set way of doing things means I’m completing projects a lot faster than I have before…which has been a major goal of mine (although I still bog myself down with procrastination…mostly by watching awesome reality TV like SYTYCD…oh, and writing this blog).

So, what’s new in the world besides my latest pilot?  Well, you probably heard about Frank Darabont stepping down as showrunner on The Walking Dead.  Oh?  You didn’t?  Well, either way, just to recap, Frank Darabont, man of not much TV but lots of great movies such as Everyone Loves Shawshank and That Other Prison Movie That Isn’t Shawshank, has been running the show over on AMC zombie hit The Walking Dead.  As I’ve mentioned before, I watched Season 1, and while I liked things about it, I was critical of other things (hopefully those issues I had will be addressed in Season 2…or not, hey, I’m not the decider).

Braaaaaaaains!

Darabont/the show had made the news most recently for axing the entire writing staff from Season 1 and apparantly considering going it alone with no staff and only freelancers.  Of course, the way Darabont tells the story, it didn’t really go down like that.  I’m inclined to believe something in the middle.  I'm sure the people who were fired didn't feel so hot about that decision.  On the other hand, it’s important to understand the schedule these cable shows keep are not the same as a 20ish+ episode network show.  In other words, this is not a job a writer would keep almost year round, anyway.  Also important to remember, the writing staffs are indeed smaller.  That being said, if your staff is small to begin with, even firing two people is a lot.  So, was Darabont a big meanie for doing this?  I dunno, I wasn't there.  Side note: thinking about this makes me wonder more and more how the hell Glee managed with only 3 writers for 2 full seasons.  That’s 3 guys writing 40 some hour long episodes of TV.  That’s a lot!  Although, I guess that explains all the weaker episodes this past season.

Anyway, back to Darabont…so, after all this drama seemed done with, he suddenly steps down as showrunner this week (AFTER appearing at Comic Con to promote the show).  Needless to say, this turn of events surprised people and many think something fishy was going on.  So, what do I think?  Am I terribly surprised?  I guess.  Darabont is a big name, and his presence was used to promote the show.  Also, despite those bits of behind the scenes drama, the show was still really popular, people liked it, and Darabont seemed like a big part of that.  What do I think really happened?  Honestly, it’s impossible to say, but Glen Mazzara, who will be running the show now, is much more experienced in TV and some darn good TV at that (The Shield...ahem).  Maybe the network wanted someone with more experience meeting deadlines in TV?   Maybe Darabont just got burned out?  Maybe, all/none of the above?

I would certainly understand the whole burned out thing.  The writing schedule on any show is demanding…even a cable show with short seasons.  The Walking Dead only had 6 episodes in its first season and one was two hours long.  They are set to have 13 eps for Season 2.  Doesn't sound like much?  Well, when was the last time you wrote 6-7 specs/pilots in a few months time?  Or even half that many?  Writing that much material that fast, and having it be good...freaking hard.  Also, don’t forget, even if you relinquish control and only write a couple episodes of a show each season, if you’re the showrunner you’ll probably be rewriting/doing a pass on every episode anyway, or having your hands in multiple episodes at a time.  Not to mention your involvement in things like pre production/casting, production, and post.  Ahh!  Let’s just say, the time pressures/demands of potentially working on a TV show someday are the biggest reasons I push myself to be a faster writer and complete more projects.

The Halloween Costume Test

I know I should save this post for Halloween, but since I’ve started work on my new pilot, I’ve been thinking a lot about how I create characters.  So, what is this “Halloween Costume Test” you ask, and what does Halloween have to do with creating characters?

Nothing!  Muahaha!  Oh wait, just kidding...I had a point...

I went to a talk a while back for some screenwriting workshop/class thingy where the speaker stressed the importance of creating “character conceits."  But, what's a "character conceit?"  If you break down those words the term makes no sense, but from what I could gather, it was just a fancy way the speaker used to describe extremely memorable characters (Latka on Taxi, Kramer on Seinfeld, Urkel on Family Matters, and Sue Sylvester on Glee just to name a few).   Basically, the speaker was emphasizing the idea that writers should strive to create these types of characters since they stand out and can make hit shows.

Uh…duh, right?  Make an amazing character people latch onto, have a hit show.  I’ll get right on that.

And yet, I shouldn’t roll my eyes too much.  After all, who wouldn’t want to write a hit show?  So, I decided I’d go ahead and try to write a “character conceit” but how would I know if I was actually, you know…doing it?  Well, I think I’ve found one way and that is…you guessed it, the Halloween Costume Test.

What do all those characters I mentioned have in common?  I think their uniqueness and instant recognizability makes them all pretty good Halloween costumes.  Ergo, if I want to know if I’ve really created a memorable character (or “character conceit” as it were) I’ll just ask myself if people could easily dress up as my character for Halloween.  If the answer is yes, I just might have something good…or er…popular (Jersey Shore…huge hit, and the cast members were the most popular costumes from last year).  Heck, just look at some of the biggest music stars in the world at various points in time (Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga)…all are Halloween costume worthy.

Now, I don’t think this means a script would suck without one of these "character conceits" and I’m sure some people will say this idea puts too much emphasis on creating a bizarre look for a character for no reason, or promotes the writing of catch phrases rather than meaningful content.

But, I don’t think it has to be that at all.  I think keeping this idea in mind could help writers hone characters and force them to get really specific and create a person a reader has never seen before rather than "pretty doctor #1" or "handsome lawyer #3."  And hey, I think Don Draper, Joan Harris, Dr. House, and Dexter, would all make totally sweet Halloween costumes, and all are from shows with a lot of critical acclaim.

Now obviously, I understand that iconic looks for characters are brought to life by talented costume, hair, and makeup departments, and that the right actor can also take a role to a whole other level. Would Sue Sylvester be as easy to imitate without her Adidas tracksuits, megaphones, and Jane Lynch’s deadpan delivery? Maybe not. But she wouldn’t be Sue at all without her snarky comments and absurd one liners.

Time Flies - 100th Post!

This is my 100th post, yay!  I know I haven’t been blogging every day, I guess I’ve just been trying to focus on writing that new pilot right now.

Speaking of…writing this pilot has been a new and interesting experience.  For starters, the show is a lot more “cable” than what I usually write, which is cool with me…I like to watch cable shows and I'm trying to stretch myself after all.  It’s also my first time tackling a “period piece.”  That is to say, the pilot isn’t set in 2011.  The experience has been fun, but before I can really get into the writing of the actual script, I’m having to do a lot of research…library here I come!

Google Classic: For researching your retro TV show

Like I said a few posts back, I wanted to do something more out of the box for this pilot since the last one I wrote was much more mainstream.  As it happens, I had this seed of an idea I’d kicked around a while back, but I thought the premise was too “out there” or rather there was just something about it that did not work.  I came back to it recently and realized that the real problem I had with the idea was that it wasn't convincing as a modern story.  By setting it in a different time period, it suddenly became plausible to me.

So yeah, I guess you can say I’m getting on the Mad Men/Boardwalk Empire train.   And why not?  Period piece type shows are very hot right now.  Both of those shows (Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire) are magnets for awards, and more importantly, even though both are cable shows, they seem to be the type of shows that networks want.  There were several “Mad Men effect" shows as I called them this pilot season and 2 of them, Pan Am and The Playboy Club, got picked up.

I do worry that my sample will look stale if both those new network shows fail and people cool to the idea of retro set shows, but I’m trying not to think about that right now.  After all, even if this trend does briefly end next year, I don’t think period pieces will stay gone for long.  Before we could time travel with Mad Men there was Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, The Wonder Years, Homefront, I'll Fly Away, American Dreams, Swingtown, and That 70s Show just to name a few. I think there will always be a place for shows that either feed our love of nostalgia or that take us back to a different time we didn't get the chance to experience.

You must listen to...Jen Grisanti's interviews with writers!

So, I'm plugging away on the next big thing I'm up to (and yeah, maybe doing a little internet surfing procrastination) when I ran across something cool...

Half off blankets and pacifiers...kidding.

I’ve heard of Jen Grisanti and think I’ve even mentioned her somewhere on this blog before...but somehow I only just checked out her awesome blog and all the sweet podcast interviews she has posted with various writers.  Anyway, now I’m addicted and I’d highly recommend listening to them.  I’ve added the blog to my links on the right (under YOU MUST READ).

I especially recommend listening to her latest interview…it’s with FNL and Parenthood writer David Hudgins (Hudgins also created/ran the show Past Life…which he talks about).  The whole interview was really cool, but one of the best parts was when Hudgins (and Grisanti) recommended writing specs.  While I just finished a spec and am working on a pilot right now (because I want to and yeah, because pilots are supposedly hotter to have than specs) it was great to hear a couple pros advocate for specs.  After putting so much darn time into them for contest season, it’s nice to know that a former (and likely future) showrunner like Hudgins would like to read them.

I think Hudgins makes the excellent point that while reading original work is great and can show how amazing and creative you are (like a script about a man with pork chop hands) a spec can show your ability to capture the voice of a character…something pretty much impossible to judge in a pilot since...you know...you don't know these characters the way you know the characters on a show you like and watch.

So yeah, huge recommend…what are you waiting for?  Check out the site/interviews, already!

Entitled

No, this isn’t a post on nepotism…it’s a post on…titles!

Since I’m working on a new pilot I’ve been thinking a bit about titles lately and what the heck I want to call my new pilot.

Titles are fun…but tough.  Sometimes you have an awesome title that inspires you to write something and other times you have a great concept and can write the whole thing but when you're done, you're still stuck with just Untitled.

What the heck do I call this thing?

This is clearly something writers struggle with at every level (baby and up).  Just looking at the recent pilots, several changed their titles (Rookies became The 2-2, The Rememberer became Unforgettable, Damage Control became Scandal, etc.).  Now, the reason for title changes for pros aren’t always creative…there are sometimes bigger (read: legal) reasons for networks and studios to change a title…but other times it’s just about trying to find that one perfect title.

Here are some thoughts I’m trying to keep in mind so I pick the best title:

Get specific!

I remember Blake Snyder mentioning this in one of his Save The Cat books.  He talked about the movie Four Christmases.  Sure, they could have called the movie Yuletide or Noel or some other generic word that evokes the idea of Christmas, but Four Christmases is specific.  He also mentions a fake title...something like Love or Money, as an example of the sort of title that presents a concept that is SO generic dozens of movies could have it.  You don't want that.

I agree that vague concepts make pretty mediocre titles.  I know someone who recently revealed a project they had been writing and the title they picked was SO generic it could have been for pretty much every other piece of writing in that genre.  My Significant Other also mentioned seeing a driving billboard the other day (one of those billboards on a truck) and it was advertising some YA book called Dangerous Children.  I couldn’t help but think this was a sub par title.  While I like the contrast of dangerous and children (you don’t usually think of children as dangerous) this was SO generic it could have been the title for a bunch of other books like Lord of the Flies, The Hunger Games, or ANY book where there are children who do something dangerous.  All in all this title tells me ZIP about what the book is actually about.

So yeah, get specific and pick a title that could only be for that movie/show/book…I like to use the “no other” test for this.  Imagine the title Humans Vs. Robots…could have been used for several existing sci fi works, but there is no other Battlestar Galactica and no other Terminator.  Likewise, there is no other Harry Potter…no other Hunger Games…no other Jurassic Park...no other Bridge to Terabithia…no other Great Gatsby…no other Ugly Betty…no other Gossip Girl…no other Gilmore Girls…no other Shawshank Redemption…no other Jerry Maguire.   Find that thing, character, element, that makes your script/book/idea/whatever special and unique…and if you can’t find one…maybe you need a new idea?

A little something extra

Another Blake Snyder tip I recall is that a great title will have irony, an unusual contrast, or a double meaning.  His prime example was Legally Blonde which is great because it’s not only a riff/play on words of the term "legally blind" but it also refers specifically to the story of a “dumb blonde” going to Harvard Law.

I think Mad Men is a great title for similar reasons.  Think of all the meanings you can get out of it…(Mad Men as in Madison Avenue men, as a play on the phrase “Ad Men,” and of course "mad" as in crazy).  Also, there are no other Mad Men…another reason it’s an awesome title.

Anyway, just something I’m thinking about…but I think it’s also wise to keep in mind that what you write is more important than the title.  There might be no other Gigli but that doesn’t make Gigli a good movie.  Likewise, plenty of acclaimed books, movies, and TV shows have done just fine with fairly generic titles:

The Killing (couldn’t any crime show be called this/or some form of this?)
Friends (could be the title for pretty much any sitcom)
Election (could be used for any movie with an election)
Pride and Prejudice (pretty much good for any romance/rom com)
War and Peace (that pretty much covers everything…right?)

But then again, for every Pride and Prejudice there’s also a Love Happens.

The Man with the Pork Chop Hands

In exploring the internets a little while back, I ran across an old interview on Televisionary with showrunner Bryan Fuller where he talks about staffing Pushing Daisies (ah, too short lived).  The part of the interview that struck me the most was where Fuller mentions hiring writer Kath Lingenfelter because of a script she wrote about…wait for it…a man with pork chops for hands!  Now, this sort of script may not be for everybody/the best sample for every show, but I’ve gotta tell you…if I was a showrunner looking to staff my show, I’d sure like to read the script about the man with pork chop hands….and I bet you would, too!

There you are, righty and lefty!  I thought I lost you guys!

At any rate, this little anecdote really blew me away and was a wake up call of sorts.  I always strive to have my writing be top notch and to come up with unique and compelling ideas, but this just showed me how some pros are on a whole other level (pork chops...for hands...okay clearly I'm obsessed).

I’ve gotta say, the last pilot I wrote was…well…let’s just say, I wouldn’t have written it if I didn’t think it was an interesting and unique idea, but it’s also fairly “network” and “mainstream”…and yeah, it’s no man with freakin' pork chops for hands!

Anyway, I’ve been stuck on this whole pork chop thing ever since I finished my last spec and decided the next thing I wanted to write was another pilot.  Now, I was going to write another idea I’ve had for a while, a show that I thought was pretty cool and has a crime procedural element and yeah...it's also very “network” and “mainstream” in certain ways.  Buuuuut...I’ve put it on the back burner for a while, while I brainstorm coming up with something new that will hopefully be more...outside the box…we’ll see how I do.

So thanks, man with pork chop hands, for inspiring me to try something different…I hope reading about this inspires other baby writers to try writing something really different, too.  Oh, and if anyone knows where I can find or read that pork chop hands script…let me know!

Serial Killer

Hola, and happy Cinco de Mayo!  Today, something I've been thinking about, and maybe you have too if you’re writing a new spec for this year’s upcoming TV writing program circuit (as mentioned yesterday, deadlines are fast approaching...be sure to check the list again, I had a few mistakes actually that I just corrected).

Specs can cause a lot of headaches.  Like I said in a post way back when, there are a lot of conflicting “rules” when it comes to specs.

“Rules” aside, one issue I always seem to hear fellow spec writers discussing this time of year is: how do I deal with spec’ing a highly serialized show? (like Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, and lots of other cool shows you might want to spec).  As a friend of mine recently summed up, “I wrote a spec for a really serialized show last year and a couple episodes later, everything on the show had changed and now my spec is worthless and makes no sense.”

Wrong kind of "serial."

Jane Espenson has written extensively about specs and this specific issue on her a-mazing blog (btw she advocates NOT constantly updating your specs, so don’t think that is the solution).  I suggest checking out her blog for real pro advice, but two tips I’ve run across/have been suggested in my baby writing circles that I think are most helpful when spec'ing serialized shows are as follows:

1. Write a “one off” episode.

A “one off” is an episode that could happen essentially any time in the show’s chronology/doesn’t have to come after the last episode that aired/you saw.  This is easier said than done with some shows, and honestly, no matter what, you will probably have (and want) to deal with SOME (or many) juicy serialized elements or current cool storylines of any show you want to spec.  However, instead of trying to play psychic with how all the mysteries of your favorite show will develop, try instead to introduce something new into the show (and I don’t mean “new” like new character or location, I mean new like new conflict or relationship between existing characters...something that hasn’t been extensively explored or even hinted at...yet).

OR

2. Write an “in between” episode.

This is when you pick two fairly current episodes of the show you want to spec and write an episode that occurs in between these.  Your spec might seem a little stale as the show progresses and characters change, get together, break up, die, move away, but technically your episode will always be valid.  Thinking this way might actually help you do #1 and create a one off idea since you won’t be as preoccupied with predicting your show’s future.

Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Blog Post Ever Written

Happy Friday, all!

Okay, Pom Wonderful...where's MY check?

Ah, I kid I kid.  Let's see, what's new...outlining my new spec, but the mood struck and I actually wrote the first draft of the first act, so that’s good…just need to buckle down and focus on actually finishing the outline before I get too far along writing scenes or I know I’ll get stuck later.

In other news, I obviously saw the new Morgan Spurlock film, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, and found it really funny and enjoyable.  That being said, I don’t think it said anything new or amazing that most people don’t already know/assume…yes, product placement happens…a lot...yes, it can be funny... yes, it can be necessary to make money/finance films and TV shows... yes, you should take advantage of that and take the money but try not to "sell out."

One of my favorite parts of the movie that was not entirely related to the overall point of the movie was a scene where Morgan had to identify his “brand.”  I actually mentioned this idea of "brand" last Friday and I’ve alluded to it before when I talked about streamlining the genres/types of pilots, specs, and screenplays you write.

So yeah, think about your “brand” so people will "get" who you are as a writer.  I know it’s hard for a baby writer and I struggle with it ALL THE TIME.   I want to be a special little snowflake and write all sorts of stuff in different genres, or I read a new book/see a new show/watch a cool movie and feel all inspired to try something like what I’ve seen.  I guess growing as a writer is about learning to balance that urge to stretch/try new things, and perfecting a specific style.

On a slightly related note, Idol did another “express yourself” themed show last night and the Idol wannabes got one of their best chances to show their “brand” as it was "Songs of the 21st Century Night."  I think some Idol winners have struggled with “brand” in the past. You win the show by essentially being an awesome karaoke singer and singing songs in a bunch of genres, some of which haven’t been Top 40 popular for 20, 30, even 40 years, and then you’re expected to be a current artist…it’s tough.

Speaking of expressing yourself what was with all the Lady Gaga drama this week?  If I’m all caught up, here’s where things stand: no, she did not rip off Madonna's Express Yourself when she wrote Born This Way, and no, she didn’t tell Weird Al not to parody her (by the way, I happen to enjoy Gaga AND Weird Al, and Perform This Way is fantastic...even if it does sound suspiciously like Madonna's Express Yourself).

Testing...testing...

If you can’t already tell from my various Pilot Previews, or my obsession with upfronts…I’m excited for the upcoming TV season.

Deadline just released an article yesterday on the early pilot buzz (what’s testing well and what’s not).

Testing is a funny thing though.  I heard Bill Lawrence (creator of Scrubs and now Cougar Town) speak once about how poorly Scrubs had initially tested.  While the show didn’t test poorly enough to get axed from the get go, he implied that the audience thought the show was strange (probably because it was a little strange).  The show was a single camera comedy before single cam became the norm for every network besides CBS and it had characters narrating, breaking the 4th wall, and having all sorts of unusual out of body fantasy like experiences.  People hadn’t really seen a show like this before, so they reacted…negatively.

On the other hand, he said one show that tested incredibly well around the same time for NBC was Emeril…you know, that sitcom about the chef Emeril Lagasse.  Emeril was a straightforward sitcom with a well known celebrity chef/star...it was what you might call "safe," and apparently when it tested, people really liked it.  But why?  Well, I guess when you're turning those little dial thingies that measure your positive to negative response, what is weird and unknown equals negative and what is comfortable and known equals positive.  Oh, and you might doubt Emeril actually tested well, but I did find some proof.

In the end, Emeril was highly promoted by NBC but it died a quick death.  Meanwhile, Scrubs got tossed around a lot, changed time slots and even networks, but it lasted 9 years and arguably made Zach Braff a star.

So, check out what’s testing well, but take it with a grain of salt.  Testing well might equal “has a good chance of getting picked up” but it doesn’t necessarily equal “the show will be good” or “successful.”

$#*! my blog says

Didn’t know what the #&%! I should write about today, but I did read John August’s post about profanity in pilots the other day, so why not talk about profanity?

First, did you know that profanity can be good for you?  Yeah, I saw that episode of Mythbusters too.

Second, I find the way profanity is treated by the media to be interesting.  I think it's incredible that movies like The Dark Knight and Avatar are rated PG-13 while a film like The King’s Speech gets an R rating because of one scene where Colin Firth (humorously) drops the F bomb over an over again. Apparently, being blown up or stabbed in the face/chest is okie dokey as long as there isn’t lots of flowing blood or the movie is a “fantasy.”  It’s the same with network TV.  People get raped, murdered, shot, and mutilated on crime/law shows almost every week, but as long as it’s not too graphic, it’s just fine.  But, don’t even think about dropping a swear word.  That’s over the line.

And then there's sex in movies/TV...the way sex gets treated is bizarre.  I remember people protesting that film Zack and Miri Make a Porno just because it had the word “porno” in the title…as if the film was an actual porno that was going to be shown to your kids in school (btw if you want to protect kids, please keep that Miracle of Life film out of classrooms, you know the one with the close up of a baby being born...seriously, that movie kinda traumatized my entire 11th grade class).

All jokes aside, I don’t really have a problem with violence, profanity, or nudity/sex on TV or in film as long as it’s being used to "serve the story" or whatnot.  I just get annoyed by the way the three aren’t treated equally.  I guess profanity is just the easiest to police.  What’s simpler than “these are the words you can’t say in your movie or you’ll get this rating” or “these are the words you aren’t allowed to say on network TV.”  On the other hand, violence gets a pass when it's not bloody…and sex…well, like I said, the way that it’s treated confuses the heck out of me.  Shows have teens having sex all the time, and some get majorly called out for it (Gossip Girl, Skins) while others don’t get as much/any grief (Friday Night Lights, Parenthood, Glee).  I know it has to do with the age of the actors and the perception of how sex is being “sold” or not sold to teens who watch the shows, but it’s still a little strange.  Then there’s movies. I always thought any nudity equaled an R rating but look at Titanic...that has a big old nude scene but gets a pass (and a PG-13 rating) because it’s…what…“artistic”?

In the end, not sure there’s a point to this post except that I think a writer should write whatever they want as long as it serves their story...but I agree with John August in that it’s dumb to fill a pilot script with profanity (especially for a baby writer).  There are pretty much only 2 major cable networks (HBO and Showtime) where you can say all the words you want.  Why limit yourself so much?  Or better yet, why write a show that you know is a network type show not a pay cable show and load it up with words you can't say?  I guess some writers want to look edgy or maybe they think their show does belong on HBO?  I remember reading the pilot for The Mentalist a while back and it had some profanity in the dialogue.  I figured this was because the creator had done an HBO show before.  Regardless of the reasoning, the show ended up on CBS and all traces of bad language were erased.  While I think established writers can get away with slipping profanity in pilots and still be taken seriously, baby writers might look foolish to do so.

Streamline or diversify?

Happy Friday!  Friday is supposed to be the day I talk about how my own writing is going/not going but I’ve noticed it’s turned into something else recently, and that is:

I Watch American Idol and try to relate it to writing in some way.

So, why break from tradition?  Let’s look at this week’s Idol and see what we can learn.  This week was Movie Week, which I thought was funny since I don’t remember 90%** of the songs performed ever being in movies (**not intended to be a factual statement).

Anyway, I’ve noticed that this year on Idol there are fewer of the theme/artist centric weeks (Beatles, Motown, Country, Big Band, Disco, etc.) in exchange for more of the “express your own personal style” weeks (songs by your personal Idol, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, movie songs).  Basically, this means that Scotty kid (the deep voiced country singer who is probably going to win) gets a MASSIVE break.  In the past, he would have been forced to sing the Bee Gees and wear some terrible sequined outfit on Disco night.

However I might feel about Scotty (I actually think he’s cool) I like this change to the show because while the other format was more entertaining and produced way more hilarious flops, this way seems more true to how a creative industry actually works.  People want to see you singing the type of music you want to sing (or sell) since that’s what you’re gonna do (or not do) when you’re no longer a contestant on a popular TV show.  The show wants to find the best new artist in American (or whoever is gonna sell the most records and make them the most money).  So now, we get to choose between contestants who identify with such diverse artists as Sammy Hagar, Nat King Cole, George Strait, and Miley Cyrus (all on the same night).

But, isn't it good to have the theme weeks that force artists to go outside their comfort zone every now and then?  I remember thinking Kelly Clarkson was a great singer on season one, but she really shined in a whole new way when she did an awesome number on Big Band night and proved she had the chops to sing in any era.

Wow, I am a dork for Idol, how do I even remember this?

But, it's not like Kelly Clarkson ever put out a Big Band record, so...is showing a range of style really necessary?

The show presents a lot of differing opinions on that question.  The judges tell one singer “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” then turn around and tell another to stop “playing it safe” and step outside their comfort zone.

I think writers encounter this to some extent when they go to write a new sample (either a pilot or a spec…the latter of which which I’m doing right now).  I sometimes struggle to pick the right show to spec.  I like a lot of different shows but since I’m still starting out I want to spec shows that mesh well with the pilots I have written or want to write while not seeming too similar to my original samples.  But, maybe I should try for more range?  I was reading the new First Person interview on John August’s blog this week, and it came from a writer who made the jump from The Sarah Connor Chronicles to Melrose Place, a jump which got a lot of questions in meetings.  So, it would seem like having too much "diversity" in your work is not an asset, but just a source of confusion.  On the other hand, the writer also mentioned some disappointment over reading the new show, Georgetown, and loving it, but not having a sample that really worked for it.

So…streamline your samples or diversify to show variety?

In the end, I guess I’ll go with the idea that there is something to be said for perfecting one specific style and that while it is important to push your boundaries, maybe you shouldn't do that until you know what those boundaries are.  I think the most well known writers in Hollywood all have specific styles.  Aaron Sorkin doesn’t write gross out comedies, Judd Apatow doesn’t write political thrillers, and Diablo Cody doesn’t write period dramas, but they’re all good at bringing something a little different to each new script they write, while staying firmly in genres where we typically identify them.

See, John August also suggests writing a TV spec!

Happy Friday (it’s Friday, Friday, gotta get down on Friday)!

I’m in a good mood today despite the recent gloomy weather because I cut my new pilot to under 60 pages, I’m at work on my latest TV spec (which I’m psyched about), and I’m about to enjoy a piping hot bowl of noodles.

Speaking of, (TV specs, not noodles) yesterday, John August suggested on his blog that a team of baby writers who were getting attention from their spec screenplay tackle a TV spec as their next sample.  This raised some eyebrows but I couldn’t agree more with his spec advice.  A while back I also recommended writing TV specs (for different reasons, I admit…to practice the craft of TV writing before tackling a pilot, to use to apply for contests) nevertheless, it’s nice to see a pro promoting TV specs as good viable samples.

I must say, though, that he’s also TOTALLY giving away the secret that all us TV focused writers know already…that TV is where writer’s have it best in the industry and where the bulk of the best writing happens.

Anyway, even if you don’t listen to me, listen to John August and get cracking on a TV spec of your own…deadlines have already passed this year for certain programs (Nickelodeon) and others will be approaching soon enough.

More on script trading...

So, besides writing that uber post yesterday about script trading/sharing, I also edited a previous blog entry with the info written below.  That entry originally included a link to a site that I personally think is wonderful and provides baby writers with an amazing resource for TV scripts.  But, in the likely case you aren't always reading my site archives, I thought I’d bump it up by reposting...read on:

EDIT: 3/15/11

So, my post today got me thinking about this particular post.  I loved the site I originally linked to in this post (clearly), and I loved being able to steer other writers towards resources that would help them learn and become better writers, but I’m not going to link to it anymore (you probably found it yourself already by googling info on TV writing).

I originally felt alright linking to this site because not only had I seen other blogs link to it for the same purposes, but I had originally found the previous incarnation of the site via the WGA’s own website a few years back (they linked to it in a section about freelance scripts…although they now seem to have taken that link down, maybe they were asked to?  I don’t know).  While I think this site is an amazing resource for baby writers and while I don’t personally think the site is doing anything wrong per the fair use notice they have posted on the site, I’ve decided to take myself out of the equation.

But, not wanting to leave anyone empty handed, I will take the time to promote a couple other places you can find those scripts you seek  (if you are in the LA area).  One is the WGA Library.  While you can’t check out/take home any of the scripts, it's open to everyone (not just WGA members).  According to their online catalogue they have a bunch of Modern Families, not to mention scripts for some hot shows that site didn’t have (like Glee scripts).  John August also recommended the Academy run Margaret Herrick Library once on his blog.  I haven’t been there, but I imagine they have an impressive collection as well.

Is it okay to trade/share copyrighted scripts?

Yep, I'm going there.  This is gonna be a long post…get ready.

There was a stir in the online world last year when a certain blogger was sued by a certain major studio for running an online script sharing library.  Now, I never saw/used this library, but according to what I've read, the majority of the scripts shared were for movies so old you might have owned them on VHS, but one in particular was new…brand new…the unproduced script for Deadpool (you know, the X-Men spin off that may or may not happen depending on Ryan Reynolds' schedule).  Now, as I understand, this blogger was not the source of any leaks, she just collected scripts posted online and re-posted them in her library.  And now, she is getting sued for copyright infringement and a mess of other stuff.  Which brings me to my question: Is it okay to trade/share copyrighted scripts?

Sharing copies of your butt from the office holiday party = never okay.

So, what's the answer? 

First, let’s get some stuff straight (as I understand it).

1.     Writers read scripts to learn how to write.

2.     Scripts have copyrights.

3.     Sharing copyrighted material is a no no...except cases of  “fair use” (right?)

Ugh.  Now, I’m no legal expert, but it would seem that when you share/trade scripts or run sites that do just that, you are walking a thin line.

Now, I know some people will say, “fine, script trading is wrong/illegal/whatever but suing for millions is absurd.”  Some people even say a script for a movie that has already been released is worthless and others would argue a script in and of itself is worthless, regardless of whether the script is being produced (haha).  On the other hand, scripts for produced films have made money by being sold in book form (I understand Christopher Nolan worked hard to keep the Inception script under wraps so he could do just that).  So, when people trade a script for free, money might (or might not) be lost from the (theoretical) sales of a (theoretical) book.

So, there's that.

BUT BUT BUT...before I say, case closed, I think there is something A LOT deeper that needs to be addressed about this whole thing, something that goes WAY beyond one blogger and one script library.

There is a culture of script sharing in Hollywood, and a lot of it is sneaky.  I’ve heard tales of interns whiting out their boss’ watermarked name on scripts so their boss could have a copy they could share/trade and I can GUARANTEE you there are assistants at every studio on tracking boards right now asking for scripts that they/their bosses want.  In other words, studios are suing people for sharing copyrighted material while their own employees are DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.  This doesn’t make it RIGHT but it does suggest that studios that file these lawsuits are turning a blind eye to their own employees/other industry professionals doing the very thing they’re suing over (so long as it benefits them).

And, I mean, how do scripts get online in the first place?  That’s right, SOMEONE (or several someones) leaks them.  And who is that someone?  Well, logic would suggest it was someone who had access to the script, that probably means someone at the studio or at an agency.  In other words, the following scenario is quite possible: studio employee shares script, script gets passed around, script gets posted all over the place online, person finds script and puts it in her shared script library, studio sues woman. 

There’s got to be a better way, right?

This brings me back to the first thing I said:

1.     Writers read scripts to learn how to write.

It was great to see all the Oscar nominated scripts posted online a few weeks ago.  I think it would be great if studios/production companies/writers/the WGA could come together to create one (or several) easily accessible online libraries for already produced scripts.  I know most people don’t give a damn about aspiring writers, but I have a ton of respect and am super grateful to pros like John August and Kay Reindl who share their work on their blogs.  Now, of course, you can always read scripts in person at the WGA library, but if you don’t live in LA or you work a full time job, that doesn’t do you much good.  While a convenient online library for scripts wouldn’t eliminate the trade of unproduced scripts (like Deadpool) it might take many baby writers who just want to learn and don’t want to infringe on copyrights out of the legal crossfire.  Any other ideas out there to improve the script trade problem?

You must watch..."The Good Wife"

I suppose I shouldn’t feel bad for a show like The Good Wife.  It has great ratings, great reviews, and has picked up several nominations and awards in the 2 short years it has been on the air.  Nevertheless, I feel like a lot of baby writers don’t give shows like The Good Wife much respect, and that’s truly a shame.  I think most of them think this is a show for older audiences, not young hip people such as themselves, or they hear “lawyer show” or “legal procedural” and say: “yeah, maybe for my grandpa” (then, they go watch Mad Men and fantasize about living their grandpa's life...ironic).

I challenge you, baby writers, to watch this show and let it prove you wrong.  I think the characters are all really interesting and extremely complex, sometimes they do right, sometimes they do wrong, but they never do stupid just because it's convenient for the story.  I also think the writing in general and especially the dialogue is smart and sophisticated.  The show doesn’t talk down to its audience or dumb itself down for viewers.  Sometimes you won’t know what’s happening because of all the legalese or political jargon, and you just have to keep up.  That reminds me of The West Wing, another show I really loved, back in the day.

The show also doesn’t shy away from controversial subjects or taking on the not so heroic side of law (it's not all catching the bad guy/helping the innocent guy stuff, there’s lots of moral ambiguity, money making, and juicy back room deals going on).

Anyway, The Good Wife is really good, if you haven’t already, give it a chance (and if you’re looking for a hot new drama to spec this year, I think this is an excellent choice). 

Planting and Payoff

Today, I’d like to talk about one of my favorite little screenwriting techniques.  You probably already know, but planting and payoff is just what it sounds like: the writer plants something early on in the script (it can be anything like a prop, a mundane skill the protagonist has, or even a line of dialogue) and then, later in the script, that plant pays off when the script recalls it (the protagonist uses that same mundane talent, prop, or line of dialogue to some amazing effect).

Wrong kind of planting.

I really enjoy planting and payoff because it’s like a little gift to the attentive reader/viewer.  Sure, you noticed the protagonist put that child’s toy in her purse or that they have excellent aim when throwing clothes in the laundry, but since it hasn’t been brought up for a while you’re totally delighted when the protagonist rediscovers the toy and uses it to distract that guard dog or when they realize their amazing aim translates to amazing zombie fighting skills.

Not only is planting and payoff clever, but it also makes a writer look like they know what they’re doing, that they’ve planned meticulously and are not just making it all up as they go along.  Also, I think using planting and payoff makes a writer more aware of when they’ve got extraneous stuff that doesn’t need to be there.  I mean, why show the protagonist’s weird talent or write: CLOSE ON: WHATEVER PROP if it isn’t going to matter later?

So yeah, planting and payoff...use it…wisely, I think having every little thing in your script pay off would generate more groans than pleasant “ah-has!”

What show to spec? More suggestions...

To build on yesterday’s post, here is an article my friend just sent me from scriptmag.com by Heather Hale appropriately titled Which Show Should I Spec?  It contains (naturally) a list of good shows both comedy and drama to spec in this upcoming year.  The list recommendations were made by Jen Grisanti who has an impressive resume that includes working with the NBC Writers on the Verge program.  Look the list over to get an idea of exactly what shows are hot to spec in 2011…and get ready to watch some shows, babies!

Is Teletubbies on that list?