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.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
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!
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!
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
What’s the deal with Kickstarter and IndieGoGo?
I think I mentioned a couple months back (when I took a blogging hiatus) that I was super busy not only because I was fine tuning my new spec for TV contest season, but also because I was helping some buddies out on their webseries.
Like many people out there, my friends financed their webseries (successfully!) through IndieGoGo (a site similar to the relatively more well known Kickstarter). Now, I thought everyone knew about these sites, but apparently not, because whenever I mention my friends using them, I get all sorts of questions. Below are some of the most common ones I've gotten and my best answers.
What is IndieGoGo? ...or... What is Kickstarter?
You can go to either of their sites to read more (IndieGoGo, Kickstarter), but quickly, I can say that these are both online crowdfunding sites, AKA socially acceptable ways to beg your friends (Facebook and otherwise) for money to fund your creative projects (webseries, indie film, music album, small business, event, etc). While you could probably just open a Paypal account and make yourself a nice webpage, these sites have a whole interface already set up for you to promote your project and get donations, and hey, they also provide exposure for your project on their site so maybe some random people you’ve never met will donate money (not likely unless Taylor Lautner or Justin Bieber has signed on to star in your project, but you never know).
What’s the difference between Kickstarter and IndieGoGo? ...or… Which is better, Kickstarter or IndieGoGo?
A quick Google search of Kickstarter vs. IndieGoGo yields a ton of pages and articles that I’m sure can detail all of these sites subtle and not so subtle differences, but from my own experience, the biggest difference I have seen has to do with money. As of now, you only get the money pledged to you on Kickstarter if you raise it ALL (AKA you must meet your goal to get the moolah…this is insurance I guess for anyone pledging to donate that you won’t just take their money and never do your project). IndieGoGo, however, allows you to take away whatever you can raise even if you don’t meet your goal (with IndieGoGo taking a bigger cut if that happens).
So…does that make IndieGoGo better? Hard to say. I think it depends on your specific goals and needs. You might think IndieGoGo is a great deal, but since both sites require people to register to donate and since I think Kickstarter is more ubiquitous (at least in the US) choosing it might make it easier to get donations when you Facebook spam all your friends to donate.
How do I make a successful Kickstarter or IndieGoGo?
John August already has a post about this, direct from the source, but I think I have a few tips to share (some similar some different) from the experiences of my friends who have used both sites:
1. Have an awesome promo video – Really put time and whatever money you can spare into making a great promo for your project. This is what you’re selling to your friends. Something dinky isn’t going to inspire anyone besides your mom to open their wallet.
2. Have decent incentives – While most people are donating because they like you and not because they want a free DVD, I think it’s wise to remember the little people giving you their money…so don't be stingy with those copies of your CD/DVD at the low contribution level and maybe think of offering executive producer/equivalent credit at the high ends. And hey, if your incentives...er...products are really great (like this guy) you might be surprised how fast you meet or even exceed your goal.
3. Have reasonable expectations – These sites are great ways to raise a lot of money in a relatively short amount of time but remember, it’s mostly coming from your close friends/family and a lot of them probably don’t have $1000 bucks to give up (and if you have a ton of friends like that, what the heck are you crowdfunding for?). In other words, yes, people can raise lots of money on these sites, but setting something like a 50k goal is extremely ambitious…the most I’ve ever seen a friend raise was about 8k and a large portion of that came from parents/close family who had already agreed to donate...so just know what you're getting yourself into.
4. Don’t lose hope - Keep plugging your project’s site. I think the going always seems to be slow early on, but the money tends to really start rolling in at the end if you’re promoting hard and the project looks good. All of my friends who have used Kickstarter/IndieGoGo have met their (reasonable) goals with the majority of the money coming in the last 48 hrs.
Like many people out there, my friends financed their webseries (successfully!) through IndieGoGo (a site similar to the relatively more well known Kickstarter). Now, I thought everyone knew about these sites, but apparently not, because whenever I mention my friends using them, I get all sorts of questions. Below are some of the most common ones I've gotten and my best answers.
Money, money, money...
What is IndieGoGo? ...or... What is Kickstarter?
You can go to either of their sites to read more (IndieGoGo, Kickstarter), but quickly, I can say that these are both online crowdfunding sites, AKA socially acceptable ways to beg your friends (Facebook and otherwise) for money to fund your creative projects (webseries, indie film, music album, small business, event, etc). While you could probably just open a Paypal account and make yourself a nice webpage, these sites have a whole interface already set up for you to promote your project and get donations, and hey, they also provide exposure for your project on their site so maybe some random people you’ve never met will donate money (not likely unless Taylor Lautner or Justin Bieber has signed on to star in your project, but you never know).
What’s the difference between Kickstarter and IndieGoGo? ...or… Which is better, Kickstarter or IndieGoGo?
A quick Google search of Kickstarter vs. IndieGoGo yields a ton of pages and articles that I’m sure can detail all of these sites subtle and not so subtle differences, but from my own experience, the biggest difference I have seen has to do with money. As of now, you only get the money pledged to you on Kickstarter if you raise it ALL (AKA you must meet your goal to get the moolah…this is insurance I guess for anyone pledging to donate that you won’t just take their money and never do your project). IndieGoGo, however, allows you to take away whatever you can raise even if you don’t meet your goal (with IndieGoGo taking a bigger cut if that happens).
So…does that make IndieGoGo better? Hard to say. I think it depends on your specific goals and needs. You might think IndieGoGo is a great deal, but since both sites require people to register to donate and since I think Kickstarter is more ubiquitous (at least in the US) choosing it might make it easier to get donations when you Facebook spam all your friends to donate.
MONEY!
How do I make a successful Kickstarter or IndieGoGo?
John August already has a post about this, direct from the source, but I think I have a few tips to share (some similar some different) from the experiences of my friends who have used both sites:
1. Have an awesome promo video – Really put time and whatever money you can spare into making a great promo for your project. This is what you’re selling to your friends. Something dinky isn’t going to inspire anyone besides your mom to open their wallet.
2. Have decent incentives – While most people are donating because they like you and not because they want a free DVD, I think it’s wise to remember the little people giving you their money…so don't be stingy with those copies of your CD/DVD at the low contribution level and maybe think of offering executive producer/equivalent credit at the high ends. And hey, if your incentives...er...products are really great (like this guy) you might be surprised how fast you meet or even exceed your goal.
3. Have reasonable expectations – These sites are great ways to raise a lot of money in a relatively short amount of time but remember, it’s mostly coming from your close friends/family and a lot of them probably don’t have $1000 bucks to give up (and if you have a ton of friends like that, what the heck are you crowdfunding for?). In other words, yes, people can raise lots of money on these sites, but setting something like a 50k goal is extremely ambitious…the most I’ve ever seen a friend raise was about 8k and a large portion of that came from parents/close family who had already agreed to donate...so just know what you're getting yourself into.
4. Don’t lose hope - Keep plugging your project’s site. I think the going always seems to be slow early on, but the money tends to really start rolling in at the end if you’re promoting hard and the project looks good. All of my friends who have used Kickstarter/IndieGoGo have met their (reasonable) goals with the majority of the money coming in the last 48 hrs.
Monday, August 29, 2011
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.
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).
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).
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
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?
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.
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.
Monday, August 1, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)