Novel new "chick flicks"

Read this interesting article yesterday about how the success of movies like The Help shows a new trend in “chick flicks” aka movies about women who don't blow things up.  The article says the chick flicks that are doing well nowadays aren’t rom coms but movies with substance…movies about female empowerment, friendship, and not just girl meets boy, girl loses boy.  While I think there are plenty of rom coms with substance, I agree that movies like The Help are certainly part of a popular (and positive) new trend.  The article points to an LA Times article that notes the success of other recent chick flicks of past years that fit this female empowerment/friendship mold: Eat, Pray, Love, Julie & Julie, The Devil Wears Prada…The Blind Side is also mentioned.

Is "The Help" helping to change chick flicks?

While the article touches on the themes and ideas these movies have in common and why they’re doing better as of late than Kate Hudson/Katherine Heigl-type vehicles…I think the article misses a chance to examine one other important thing that all these movies also have in common.

They’re all based on popular books.

Now, I’m not saying that it’s the marketing machine at work and not the subject matter that’s drawing audiences to these movies.  In fact I think it’s something else entirely.

A novel/book gives a writer a lot more space to explore and introduce a rich cast of characters (or just one great character) than a 100 page screenplay.  That’s not to say a screenplay, even a rom com, can’t have amazing characters or be an awesome character study, but I think sometimes rom coms get bogged down in their hook.  Not that hooky rom coms haven't made some awesome movies with characters that I love…Sleepless in Seattle…woman falls in love with a man she’s never met when she hears him on a radio show…You’ve Got Mail…a pair of rivals who loathe each other are unknowingly each others romantic online pen pals (this is actually based on a play).  I think the problem is that there’s probably only so many good original hooks out there and because of that, rom coms are starting to feel a little tired and derivative of one another (see No Strings Attached and Friends with Benefits...both did well by the way...but not Devil Wears Prada well).

I guess what I’m trying to say is that if you still want to write the type of hooky rom com that would star Kate Hudson while also taking something away from this new trend in chick flicks, maybe a good idea is to first imagine your screenplay not as a movie but as a novel.  Heck, maybe outline/write some of it first as a novel.  If nothing else, maybe that will help you think outside the rom com box, and give your characters more depth.  Or not.  I could be wrong.  Maybe rom coms in general are just "out" right now.  Something Borrowed (which yes, co-starred Kate Hudson) was based on a popular chick lit novel and domestically, The Help has already earned more than what that movie made in its entire run.

Perception vs Reality...cable shows on network TV

I read an interesting blog post this week about perception vs. reality.  Go ahead, read it!  It tells the story of a store owner being asked what their best selling item is and the store owner guessing incorrectly based on a couple recent sales.  In reality, their bestseller was a totally different item and if they’d filled their stock room with the wrong item, they would have paid the price…literally…they would have over bought the wrong item.

This reminded me of a conversation I was having the other day with some fellow baby and aspiring writers about networks wanting cable shows/buying up scripts for cable-like pilots.  While I know many people are excited about this trend, I think it is fueling its own perception vs. reality problem.  The perception is that cable shows are extremely popular.  I mean…aren’t they?  All your friends do is talk about Mad Men and have Mad Men parties and change their Facebook profile pics to their Mad Men-ify yourself equivalents.  And Mad Men wins all the awards every year.  So, Mad Men is super hot…right?

Wait...what was that question, again?

Reality check.

These are the ratings for the 2010-2011 season.

So…write the next American Idol and you’re all set!  Kidding.  The point is that among scripted shows, the most popular in terms of total viewers were show like NCIS, NCIS: LA, The Mentalist, Criminal Minds, and CSI.  In other words, crime procedurals. And what about cable shows? Well, take a look at what was on top this past week.

This link changes every week but on top are gonna be reality shows like Jersey Shore and Pawn Stars, sports if it's sports season, and...more procedurals like The Closer, Rizzoli & Isles, Burn Notice and reruns of NCIS.  Also, the scripted shows aren’t nearly as watched as the network procedurals (they tend to top out around 6 million viewers).

And…once again, back to the ubiquitous Mad Men.  Their most watched episode of the past season had 2.47 million viewers, and their highest rating ever was their season 3 premier back in 2009 which was 2.76 million viewers (numbers courtesy of the sometimes inaccurate Wikipedia).  Does this mean Mad Men isn’t popular?  No way.  It's certainly popular enough for AMC, though it's not their most watched show (that would be The Walking Dead).  And hey, don’t underestimate the power of network advertising.  Not everyone has basic cable, and maybe if Mad Men was on Fox, way more people would watch.  Also, plenty of shows succeed with limited appeal.  Heck, the CW dedicates itself to shows that only cater to a very specific demographic, like Gossip Girl, and that show often has fewer viewers than Mad Men...but I digress…

My point is, I guess I think there is currently a false perception that cable/cable-like shows are really popular/hot (not just critically) and that false perception might manifest itself next season.  A few networks seem to be going for shows that are more cable...and even a couple Mad Men-like period shows (Pan Am and The Playboy Club).  But, remember Lone Star last season?  I believe I read an article where Kyle Killen said Fox wanted a “cable show” for network and that’s where Lone Star came in…and well…Lone Star was critically acclaimed but only brought in around 3-4 million viewers in their first 2 episodes.  Those would be record breaking numbers for Mad Men, but clearly, no good for Fox.

Anyway, I’m not saying it’s dumb to write cable-y shows (I’m writing one myself) or that I don't want to see more shows like Mad Men and maybe a few less procedurals…just that maybe there’s gonna be a backlash if a lot of these cable-y shows for networks don’t draw big enough audiences to stick around next season.

You must watch..."Switched at Birth"

Sooo...I’ve been enjoying the new ABC Family summer drama Switched at Birth.  Like…really enjoying.  This is a concept that could have gone SO wrong and SO bad/cheesy.  But honestly, when the show is at its best it reminds me of Gilmore Girls (an old favorite of mine).  Especially Bay, one of the main characters (the actress actually WAS on Gilmore Girls).  She is full of witty little one liners/references like “You’re not a plot twist in a Mark Twain novel.”  Ah, so Gilmore Girls…it’s not for everyone, but I think it’s funny and I love it.

On that note, I think one of the best things the show does is use humor heavily.  Let’s face it, the show is dealing with some heavy issues – having your child switched at birth, your child going deaf, alcohol/gambling addictions, and (of course) typical teen/dating/sex stuff.  Without humor to even out all these things, I would probably be gagging every other scene.  Instead, this show legitimately makes me laugh out loud (and yes, get a little misty eyed at some points).  Something to remember if you’re writing your own family drama with some serious stuff in it…don’t skimp on the humor!

I also think, the show avoids the melodrama by pulling back and trying to show instead of tell or skipping conversations that would likely be long winded and overly dramatic.  Sure, there are still some big emotional scenes and monologues, but not every scene is like that which is such a relief.  I think the fact that many of the characters are signing while talking (or sometimes only signing) helps to add a little distance between the characters and the drama.  If one character only signs and the other doesn’t understand the signs, that buries the super serious moments a little by adding another layer to the scene.  Instead of just: two characters fight, the scene might be...two characters try to fight, but they can’t completely understand each other.  This definitely makes for more interesting viewing.

Another thing I love is the way teens are portrayed.  This is a show where teens are intelligent…in a realistic way.  Sure, they sometimes fight/care about dumb high school issues/boyfriends/petty things, but they’re smart, they do homework, they like art and music and have well thought out things to say.  It’s just so nice and refreshing to see a show that focuses on a couple high school girls that isn’t all catty fights and dumb boy problems.

I think a lot of the credit goes to the writers and especially to Vanessa Marano who plays Bay and Katie Leclerc who plays Daphne.  All I can say is…WOW, these ladies are both outstanding…seriously, two stars in the making.

I think my only criticism of the show would be that the glossy ABC Family look kinda negates the economic clash that’s supposed to be going on.  It’s hard to see one family as poor and the other as incredibly rich when everyone dresses nicely and even the “bad” neighborhood doesn’t look so “bad.”  Also, I don’t think I’ve seen any show that really nails teasing/bullying by teens in a totally believable way that doesn’t make me roll my eyes/doesn’t feel super on the nose.  But, whatevs, I can tell the show tries hard to make the point but also pull back a little.

Overall, Switched at Birth is really doing something right, and I’d love to see more family dramas written like it on TV.  You can catch the latest episode tonight (Monday) on ABC Family, or catch up on Hulu.

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.

2011 Emmy Noms: The Good, The Bad, and The Snubly

Primetime Emmy noms came out this morning!  Huzzah!  While I know some people just roll their eyes at awards shows and insist they are a joke/all fixed/just another chance for Hollywood peeps to pretend they’re more important than they are, I think the Emmys are a pretty solid way to judge what new shows are hot and what old shows still attract attention.  This can be useful information when say, deciding to write your next spec (hmmm maybe a Justified?) or when deciding to write a pilot (the fact that Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire are both nominated for best drama makes me feel solid about tackling a “period piece” for my next pilot).

She's got the whole world, in her hands!

So, how did the Emmys do?  I present (in my opinion…and probably my opinion only): The Good, The Bad, and The Snubly:

THE GOOD

Overall, I thought most of the nominations looked pretty good…much more to like than not to like.

Best Drama - So excited to see three shows I’ve pushed and profiled on this blog get three of the six drama nomination spots: Friday Night Lights, The Good Wife, and Game of Thrones.  All the shows are awesome (or were awesome…as FNL is now finito).  Not that these shows are huge surprise noms, but I'm still glad.

FNL - FNL’s writing and acting nominations are much deserved as well...Kyle Chandler, Connie Britton, and Jason Katims…I heart you all for this show.

Michael J. Fox – Heck yeah!  Michael J. Fox always knocks it out of the park when he’s on The Good Wife…well deserved guest actor nomination.

Peter Dinklage - Not surprised at all to see Peter Dinklage nominated for GOT, as I said earlier this week, I think he is awesome and will/should win.

Mireille Enos – I haven’t watch The Killing (it looks scary!) but Mireille Enos was one of my favorite actors on Big Love…so happy to see her having so much success.

Melissa McCarthy - I’m not a huge comedy nut, and I don’t even watch Mike & Molly (though I’ve read the pilot and thought it was a solid and funny sitcom) but Melissa McCarthy’s nomination makes me happy.  I think she’s a star and she’s hilarious (she steals every scene she’s in, in Bridesmaids).

Jim Parsons – I know TBBT isn’t for everyone and some people find it tired, but I freakin’ love Jim Parsons, so there.

Louis C.K. - Happy for the Louie related noms…every ep of the show that I've seen has cracked me up.

Matt LeBlanc - I haven't seen any of this show because I don't have Showtime, but as a huge fan of Friends from back in the day, I'm happy to see Matt move past Joey.

No Walking Dead - I don't have a grudge against this show, I swear (hey, I watched the whole first season) but as I wrote earlier this year, I thought the show was lacking in some areas.

South Park – Not that Trey Parker and Matt Stone need more awards considering the success of Book of Mormon, but I thought "Crack Baby Athletic Association" was one of the best episodes of TV I’ve watched in the past year…period...and I’m admittedly not a big comedy show watcher.  Glad to see them get nominated for this episode, hope they win.

THE BAD

Mariska – Ah, the obligatory Mariska Hargitay nomination…seems a bit silly at this point, no?  No issue with Ms. Hargitay’s acting and all, but on a procedural the plot is always gonna take center stage, not the characters (or actors playing them).  Ms. Hargitay might be a star and a great actress, but I think her Emmy nomination usually comes at the expense of snubbing another worthy actress.  Also, if you’re gonna nominate her, what about Christopher Meloni (who is btw an AMAZING actor, both comedy and drama).

Modern Family Cast - I’ve only seen a few episodes of Modern Family and I like it, I really do, but seriously, EVERY SINGLE principle cast member nominated for an Emmy?  Maybe if I was a hardcore fan I’d feel differently.

Glee – I watch Glee every week and I really enjoy it, I do, but I felt Glee was pretty mediocre at times this season and not all that funny when it was at its best.   I dunno, best comedy seems a bit much.   I’m down with acting nominations for the talented cast and guest actors, but the show as a whole was lacking in some ways this season or the plots just came out of nowhere/went nowhere at times.

Jon Cryer – I love you Duckie, but I feel like this nomination has a heck of a lot more to do with snubbing Charlie Sheen than the quality of Two and a Half Men as of late.

THE SNUBLY

Justified - I don’t watch Justified, but all my friends tell me it’s the best darn show on TV.  The show got several acting nominations but was itself not nominated for best drama in favor of longer running favorites like Dexter and Mad Men.  Snubbed or not snubbed?

Breaking Bad - Where was Breaking Bad in the nominations?  This is the other “best show on TV” that I’m embarrassed to say I’ve only watched a few episodes of.  Is the lack of nominations due to some schedule thing…like the show not airing a season during the nominations period?  EDIT: Took 5 seconds to look this up because it was bugging me and yeah, duh, the show has been on a hiatus...guess if I watched it more than once a year I would have known.

Parenthood - No nominations for Parenthood.  I know some people find the show hard to connect with because it’s a serial without an obvious and clear driving goal (similar to my issue with The Walking Dead).  Unlike Walking Dead, however, I always feel like I can relate to the sometimes mundane sometimes more serious family issues on the show…and yeah I like it a lot, especially the performances of Peter Krause, Dax Shephard (who is very surprising), and the wonderful Max Burkholder.  Plus Lauren Graham…always good.  Maybe like FNL, this show will pick up awards steam in time (if it continues to stick around).

Community and Raising Hope - Even though I’m admittedly not a huge comedy person, I’ve seen several eps of both of these shows and thought they were both great and very very funny.  I think either probably deserves that Glee spot in the best comedy category.


And that's that...we'll see who wins, who cries, and who dresses like a hot mess when the show airs on 9/18.  I'll also, no doubt, be rooting for some of my reality favorites that night like...Top Chef, SYTYCD (Cat Deeley!), and yeah...Idol...I guess...is it possible to simultaneously love and hate a show you watch every episode of?

You must watch..."Game of Thrones"

Hello all.  Wish I could say I’ve been busy doing something new and awesome and that’s the reason I haven’t been posting, but the real reason is just the usual stuff.  I’ve been plugging away on my writing and using the wasteland of summer TV repeats time to catch up on everything I missed the rest of the year…and well, I just finished watching the best new show I’ve seen in…a long time.

I prefer a less "pokey" chair myself.

If you don’t have HBO or if you do have HBO and you’ve just been living under a rock (like I was) you might have missed Game of Thrones when it originally aired this spring.  Not to fear, if you have HBO it’s still on, “on demand” for just under a week (till the 18th).  This might not seem like much time but trust me, if you like the show, you will finish all 10 episodes very quickly.  Also, I'm sure there will be cool legal ways for non HBOers to watch it soon/when it becomes available on DVD (like Netflix).

So, what makes Game of Thrones so great?  Is it all the naked ladies (and men), the occasional fighting/bloody violence, the excellent production values, or simply the Lord of the Ringsness of it all?  To tell the truth, I’m not a huge fan of fantasy or worlds where vaguely medieval knights gallop around on horses and live in realms where there are dungeons and dragons and those sorts of things.  I appreciate the detail in the world building, but I tend to be drawn more to family dramas and shows about the world I live in, even if they’re still totally unrealistic (like Desperate Housewives) or way outside the scope of my ordinary life (like The Good Wife).  I just feel like I can relate more to the familiar character dynamics of those types of shows (modern day parent/child, sibling, and couple relationships) which helps me in turn care about the shows' characters and their stories.  To me, fantasy or stories that happen in pseudo fantasy worlds are more about that world and therefore usually feel a little alienating to me, even if the worlds are cool.

But that’s the beauty of Game of Thrones.  The shows gets to have it both ways.  Even though the show definitely has a fantasylike world, at its core, this show is a family drama (or several family dramas as it were) and the show's focus on family relationships is just one reason I got hooked.

Another big reason has to do with the complexity of characters.  Fantasy to me usually means pretty clear GOOD and EVIL characters/creatures/giant burning eyes.  Game of Thrones is a lot more ambiguous.  Characters will surprise you, or you will find yourself loving them one moment and being angry at them for the way they act the next.  You might also find yourself rooting for two separate families or characters whose goals you know will ultimately be at odds with one another.  This complexity is great and with stakes so high (life and death) the show is exciting to watch and will hook you and keep you guessing where the story is going to go.

The show, based on a series of popular books (the newest of which is being released today, I guess) also does some craaaaazy stuff that I don’t think I’ve ever seen a show do before in season one (no spoilers here, you’ll just have to watch to see what I mean, and if you have watched, then you already know).  Also, keep your eye on the oh so talented Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister.  Seriously, he steals every scene he's in and yeah, I’ll call it right now…Emmy nominations are announced later this week (7/14) and I think Dinklage will not only get a nom, but will win this year.

So yeah, even if you’re like me and fantasy isn’t your cup of tea, put that aside and watch Game of Thrones already.  It’s just that good.

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.