Pilot Season

By Lisabeth Laiken

OK, quick, answer this — what will you want to watch this fall?

With everything going on in the world, can you hazard a guess right now where you will be and what you will be in the mood for in seven months?

Do you think you will want to watch shows about parenting? A family drama maybe? A family comedy? How about some more soft procedurals? Will you be ready to laugh at the exploits that happen after being fired? Or have your heart tugged by them? Will a new medical drama or two distract you from your woes? Or will you have had enough of reality and just want an escape, so maybe some familiar witches? Vampires? Aliens? Or do you just want to cut to the chase and see the apocalypse? Or the future? These are all options under consideration. Do any of them strike your fancy?

There are millions of dollars at stake right now trying to guess that answer. Maybe that’s why time travel is such a popular television theme; the network execs wish they could do it themselves!

Pilot season is a crazy carnival ride in a good year; this year it might be even wilder - how can the execs gauge anything with everything in such flux? And this pilot season wasn’t even supposed to happen. After the writers strike, the networks proclaimed very loudly that throwing money at an array of pilots didn’t work and wasn’t cost effective and they weren’t going to do it anymore. Well it may be true that it’s inefficient, but not doing it didn’t work out so well either, so they are back at it.

In the last few weeks, dozens of ideas have gotten the greenlight - to go to script, to be cast, to get directors - all with the hope that in March they will get the word to start shooting. If you are writing a spec script or developing your own television show idea, or if you just like TV and want to follow a kind of horserace, there are three great resources to keep track of it all: Variety's Pilot Watch, The Hollywood Reporter's articles and orders at Pilot Log, and The Futon Critic DevWatch. This last resource lists everything - details and history - with great filtering options!

The casting reports are starting to pop up. So much of a show's success depends on chemistry between set-up and actor. Just look at this seasons The Mentalist; its whole pull is what Simon Baker makes of that character in a rather middling show. Who would you like to see back out there? If you were writing a show, who would you want to be delivering your lines? I know that if Kyle Secor, John Hawkes, Emma Caulfield, or Caroline Dhavernas were to be cast in something I would need to check it out. Lauren Graham (who tops my list of MIAs) has a pilot for ABC called "Let It Go" that seems to be gaining momentum, so here’s hoping I’ll see at least one of my faves this fall.

Other shows on the radar already include the latest attempt to recreate AbFab (Kristen Johnston, Kathryn Hahn) and a remake of V. Two movies being dusted off and having their shoulder pads removed are Parenthood and Witches of Eastwick. The CW is hoping to attract the Twilight fans with Vampire Diaries. Hotties James Tupper and Michael Vartan have been tagged for medical shows, Mercy and Time Heals, respectively. Jenna Elfman is getting another go with Accidentally on Purpose and Amy Smart has her first lead in See Cate Run.

It’s way too early to say what will end up on the air. I have my fingers crossed very tightly for the new Herskovitz/Zwick drama A Marriage but who knows — a couple of years ago I was sure we’d be watching Judy Got a Gun and Nice Girls don’t Get a Corner Office. Anyone remember when those had the buzz? It was 2007. We got Cavemen instead.

Lisabeth Laiken has been scrutinizing television since they got the breed of dog wrong on Little House on the Prairie. After ending her college years watching movies and television critically in a joint Film Studies and Semiotics program, she went on to use two VCRs to collect and catalog all her favorite shows (over 500 tapes) long before DVR was a glimmer in anyone’s eye.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Table Read Follow-Up

Last evening, The Script Department hosted another of our monthly table reads at The Attic Theater. And this is what the writer, Seth Fortin, had to say about the experience:

***

I always feel, as a screenwriter, that my work happens in a kind of vacuum until the moment someone actually reads it out loud. I know how these lines are supposed to be delivered, and in my head I can hear, oh, William Hurt or Michael Gambon or Glenn Close inflecting them with exactly the right emotional notes, allowing the subtext to ring out sharp and clear like a fork against a wine glass in a crowded room. I know how it's supposed to sound, I know what's been left unsaid in each scene, I know when characters are bluffing or holding something back or on the verge of tears.

But is it on the page?

Have I actually written the scenes in such a way that all that stuff comes to the fore?

Do the act breaks really ramp up the tension, or are they over-subtle and meaningful only to the guy who's got the whole story in his head?

Do the characters have all the distinctive bumps and wrinkles that I think they have, or have I left some of that stuff sitting in storage boxes in the abandoned warehouse of my imagination?

Is my exposition faced-paced and clever, like a West Wing walk-and-talk, or is it frustrating and sleep-inducing, like my college calculus class?

In short: did I write what I think I wrote?

One way to answer that question is to give your script to someone in the business and get their very first, unvarnished opinion. Another way is to get a bunch of working actors together and have them do a read-through, cold, with no rehearsal. It's not that a first impression is always right; it's just that if a group of professionals understand where you're trying to go with a certain scene or a certain joke or a character arc, then it's probably on the page. If not, you may have left something in the brain.

Happily, Julie and The Script Department can help you with both of these. Last evening, Julie and her colleagues organized a table read for my original science fiction comedy pilot Just In Time. Six actors, all Guild members, all pros, sat down and performed the script in front of a small audience, while Julie and special guest Margaux Froley, a writer for the CW's Privileged, took notes and prepared to give feedback.

As the actors did their thing, I had a chance to hear, directly, what a first-time reader thought was happening in each line of dialogue. I had a chance to see where, on a first look, character interactions were confusing or unclear. It was a useful exercise. But for me, as the creator of the characters, it was also a little bit magical to see them brought to life. (This is the other, private benefit of the table read. Sure, it's great to wade into the technical needs of your script. But it's also a thrill to see your work become a physical reality, even if it's an unrehearsed, off-the-cuff reality. Especially for those of us who are still writing spec scripts, there's no guarantee that the thing you're pouring soul and sweat into will ever be filmed. So if you ever do a table read -- treasure the moment!)

After the read-through, the actors gave their immediate impressions and asked me the things they'd been wondering as they read. These ranged from "The characters were well-drawn" to "If you cut down on the sci-fi exposition, you'd have more time to spend on character" to "Do you envision this as a single-camera or multi-camera show?"

Then we turned to the writers in the room. Friend-of-the-blog and previous table read participant Christopher Bosley and web-series producer Mike Perri both chimed in with great insights - including one casually-dropped idea that made me want to jump up and go "Holy crap! That's it! That's the missing link! Goodbye, everybody; I have to go write now!" (I didn't; I'm polite. But I wanted to.)

Next Margaux and Julie gave notes. At first they asked where I saw the show going, what I thought motivated the main character, what kinds of things we hadn't seen on the page yet - the vision questions. These are the kinds of questions you would expect to be asked if you were in a meeting with someone who could actually produce your show. This reminded me of the most important thing about writing pilots - you have to know what comes next, what could be happening in a year or several seasons down the road.

Then we got into the deep and brutal questions that have to be asked about any script. Really, they all boil down to a single question: Can you get an audience to watch this? Under that general question, subquestions: Is there a clear genre? Does this really work as a half-hour show, or would you be better off making it an hour-long drama? Are your characters the kinds of characters that people would want to see week after week? Do your act breaks make people want to stick around through the commercials?

Finally, while everyone else noshed on cookies and fruit, Margaux and I had a quick conference where she gave me her point-by-point notes, which ran from the technical ("use an en dash instead of an em dash") to the practical ("What show is this like? What network do you see this on?") to the philosophical ("It's not 'comedy-specific'... doesn't fit into an easy mold.")

By the end I had dozens and dozens of useful suggestions, enough to take a script, premise, and characters I love and shape them - I hope - into a sharp, marketable piece of work. And I had seen what every screenwriter hopes to see - my work leave the page and become a real thing for half an hour. Awesome!

Seth Fortin is a Rouge Waver and Los Angeles newbie of six months. In his previous life, he worked in Military Intelligence as a translator.

If you live in the Los Angeles area (or would like an excuse to visit) and would like a table read of your material, please click HERE for details and arrangements of this free, fun and illuminating experience.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Telly

Hi Wavers! Lisabeth Laiken here. Since I am writing these posts it should come as no surprise that I like to talk to people about television. Sooner or later in many of these conversations I bring up Battlestar Galactica and quite often the response to that is an adamant or dismissive “I don’t watch sci-fi.” I always find that funny because dollars to donuts, one of the shows that we have already discussed would has been Journeyman, Chuck, Day Break, Lost or Heroes. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: “ I do not think it means what you think it does.”

To be fair, science fiction shows run the gamut, and Battlestar Galactica - about a ragtag fleet of spaceships traveling by means of FTL jumps through the galaxy looking for Earth while being chased by human-form robots - is pretty far into the red zone. Being a reboot of what is remembered as a pretty cheesy show doesn’t help. But Ronald D. Moore and co. have spectacularly subverted the original, managing to eerily flip what we remember to its own shadow. This is science fiction as allegory, providing a stark stage on which to play out a civilization’s reaction to crisis and tragedy. Shot in a realistic, hand-held style, it’s a show that makes its characters walk through pitch just waiting for a spark to set them all ablaze. And over the course of the four seasons there have been plenty of sparks.

No show suits everyone, but I highly encourage those of you who haven’t watched Battlestar Galactica to check it out. If you are looking to write for the screen of any size you can learn a lot from this show, and if you are looking to write television, there are opportunities with BSG to get under the hood and see how it all works that I’ve never seen offered before.

If you’re a newbie or had given up on it because it was too dark (and it is dark, really dark, bleak, and cold, like so many of last year's Oscar movies), the first thing to check out is this video, which manages to encapsulate the story of three seasons in eight minutes. It's a great primer on finding the plot points. Also, Salon posted a comprehensive low-down on the whos, whats and whens. After these two you will be ready to watch this season. The latest Season Four episodes are up on the Sci-Fi channel and Hulu; the other seasons are available on DVD.

Now seeing it once is good, but seeing it a second time with commentary track is even better. On these iTunes downloads, Ron Moore talks about how each episode developed and discusses the difference between the original scripts and the shooting scripts - he really gives an inside look into how a show with such a long and complicated arc is accomplished. Look for the other goodies like audio of story meetings and David Eicks videoblog to get some other insider views.

Some other things else to check out from the writers' perspective, are the webisodes. The Resistance, Razor Flashbacks and The Face of the Enemy [Julie:] all show you storytelling in miniature and are a great introduction into this new and upcoming storytelling format.

Ron Moore and the writers give incredibly in-depth interviews with Maureen Ryan at the Chicago Tribune. I’ve never seen a production team talk so openly about their creative process before the show is over. There is even an example of a first draft of a scene with a discussion on why it changed. I am hoping that these keep up through the end of the season (I think they will) as they add so much to my understanding of the show and of the crazy, controlled chaos that is creating long arc television.

So check out Battlestar Galactica (on the Sci-Fi channel 10pm Fridays) before it’s over and dip into the extras. And if you are one of those who say they don’t watch sci-fi, let me know if this has changed your mind, or if at least you find it to be interesting storytelling.

Lisabeth Laiken has been scrutinizing television since they got the breed of dog wrong on Little House on the Prairie. After ending her college years watching movies and television critically in a joint Film Studies and Semiotics program, she went on to use two VCRs to collect and catalog all her favorite shows (over 500 tapes) long before DVR was a glimmer in anyone’s eye.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Boob Tube

On Tuesday I saw change come to America, twice.

First and foremost, as I stood on the Mall in Washington, one of millions in a crowd that truly encompassed the great variety of Americans. The prevailing feeling was a happy anticipation of the needed and past due end of one presidency and the amazing ascendancy of another. The peaceful transition of power, now — after everything, in the midst of all this — it’s amazing...and beyond that, for it to be such an important first. I saw it on the faces of everyone I passed: people who traveled to Washington knowing that they would not be within eyesight of the action but nonetheless, needing to be there.

Witnessing this historic inauguration was a profound experience. Standing with my friends, about halfway down the mall, in easy camaraderie with the people surrounding us, it was a type of technologically assisted witnessing that has become normal. It was all directly ahead of us, but we looked to the Jumbotrons and followed the action through that edited feed. There were four screens between me and the Capitol - I could see the images repeated and reduced until the eye was drawn back to where history was happening. That has become commonplace, but over the shoulder of a neighbor in the crowd I watched the CNN footage of what I had just experienced myself: the crowds emerging from the Metro, massive but orderly, the filling up of the Mall and also the events unfolding inside the Capitol. A live experience added to and mediated by having the televised experience in your hand.

And then when it was all over, we returned to my friends’ apartment. After an intense nine hours, of course what we wanted to do was to watch more! To check out the parade and catch up on the coverage of the event itself. After peeling off our layers we collapsed on the sofa — and our host turned on his computer. He doesn’t have cable. He doesn’t even have a TV antenna. All his viewing comes over the internet. And generally, he says, that works fine. He’s an avid follower of a few shows and an extremely well informed person but he doesn’t care if he catches things as soon as they are on or a day later, so he sees no reason to have cable. He has no plans at all to get it ever again. For the entertainment industry this is a game-changer.

I know this might sound like a sublime to ridiculous juxtaposition, but bear with me a moment. The trend to do without cable has already started for college students - they go on to not pick it up when leaving school for their first apartments. But my friend is not in the 18-34 bracket, just someone at ease with computers.

Setting something up so it works and having it able to do what you want is not necessarily the same thing. It is still the early days of internet access to what has always been the purview of cable and network channels, but content is out there, if you can find it.

If Tuesday was a good example, web TV is a scattershot world. Mostly we searched and surfed, without finding what we wanted. Googling by topic doesn’t work very well. It was great to go to YouTube and watch the videos that people had already uploaded to the site about their experiences that day, but that’s not the same as real news coverage. On sites like CNN, ABC or Comedy Central it was not always easy to find if they had live or earlier event coverage streaming. And using the mouse and keyboard, even wireless, was continually awkward, especially when it was sharing the coffee table with snacks.

Some of you might have already given up your cable box and are, like my friend, doing the solely web TV thing. I’d love to hear how it is working for you but this experience didn’t convince me. If I had been home I would have taken full advantage of the two tuners in my box and the Picture in Picture capabilities of my television to keep one channel up and wander around to see what else is being reported, then switch when I found something of interest. On my high-def screen I would have seen the details, the resolve on President Obama's face during the speech or the tears in spectators' eyes. It would have been as real as being there in some ways. The full screen streaming was not even as sharp as regular television and some of those parade costumes deserved to be seen in detail.

My friend was OK with it, despite the shortcomings. He thinks it will only keep getting better. And I think he is right; eventually it will. Both in how you find the content and the quality. It already has for non-live events - look at Hulu. Sooner or later they will find a way to normalize and monetize video on the Internet. The question is how long will that take? Change is happening, but right now, with a struggling economy and an unsure industry, what will the effect be to the production of content if more people make the decision my friend made and don’t subscribe to cable?

***
Tips from TV Land on catching your favorite shows.


Our TV correspondent Lisabeth Laiken has been scrutinizing television since they got the breed of dog wrong on Little House on the Prairie. After ending her college years watching movies and television critically in a joint Film Studies and Semiotics program, she went on to use two VCRs to collect and catalog all her favorite shows (over 500 tapes) long before DVR was a glimmer in anyone’s eye.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The TV Tattler

Woot! Brand new weekly column on the Rouge Wave! The TV Tattler is written by my friend, the gorgeous, glamorous television aficionada Lisabeth Laiken. Feast on this, Wavers!

The third week of January there will be an unusual conjunction of events. Like Jupiter and Venus in alignment to make a smiley face with a crescent moon, Friday Night Lights has its third season finale on Wednesday and then its third season premiere on Friday. Time is not going backwards, despite what happens on some of our current TV shows - but it is occurring in order to save something precious. Last year trying to find a way to renew a critic favorite with a relatively small but very ardent audience, NBC went looking for a partner. This would give them a way to keep the show on the air despite the fact that the ratings were too low for them to continue to produce it. Luckily DirectTV was looking to increase its original programming, and, for first airing rights, took on the production costs. NBC is gambling that the relatively small portion of the viewing audience that has satellite will not take too much away from their ratings. Whether fans have also viewed it through illegal torrents in enough numbers to make a difference is yet to be seen.

TV is in the midst of a turbulent time, above and beyond the continued impact of the writers' strike last year. Look at FNL, or NBC’s Hail Mary play moving Leno to prime time, or the canceled Dead Like Me returning as a direct to DVD movie or Sanctuary - a show that started as pay to view on the internet, was picked up by SCI-FI and then renewed for its second season - or Childrens’ Hospital, original programming on the website for the defunct television network The WB. This is a time when a million viewers on one channel means success and major award victories but six million on another is cause for the cancellation for a critics darling. And speaking of ratings, are they counting the night's numbers or live plus three?

This is a time of continued erosion of scripted time-slots on networks, growing original programming on basic and pay cable, and a year-round TV season. Television is confusing right now, absolutely, and there are grave issues - but there is also new potential and exciting opportunities. And while it's been bumpy the last few years with no one place that seems to have a corner on the “Must See TV” market, like HBO did and NBC before that and ABC before that, going back to the early days of broadcast...there is great scripted television out there. Wonderful shows of all types that grab you and make you want more. The question now is where to find it, when to find it and how to find it. And does or will it even ever appear on your television set? What the landscape will look like in a year or five is still anyone’s guess, although it will no longer be dominated by a stand-alone box in our homes. But there are trends and decisions to be watching. And beyond the business aspects, there is what's going on with the shows themselves. What type of shows are being programmed and, more importantly, watched. And in this time of The Long Tail, where do the numbers come into play? But everything going on does have it’s own sense and logic. There is a "how" to the workings of television. Storytelling in this medium is a complex set of intersecting issues and challenges before you even get to the plot, theme, arc and character development. So these postings will aim to look at all that, to shine a light, to throw down an anchor or two in these unsettled waters.

And finally I’ll ask you the question: Why do we watch what we watch? With so much out there, what draws you to one show rather than another? Unlike movies, television is the writers’ medium. Showrunners, producers, are most often the writers. Television tells the long format story. Week in, week out, with great convolutions or none, with characters changing and growing or staying comfortably the same, with the acknowledgment of time passing or characters that don’t seem to age a day from beginning to end, it has to hold your attention for six episodes or 13 or 23. It has to hold the audience over time. And for that you need the wonder of the writers' minds creating a world that the viewers will want to visit — 100 times if they are lucky. And maybe some of you want to be lucky like that. Hopefully here there will be some good information, insights and explanations to help you.

-Lisabeth Laiken has been scrutinizing television since they got the breed of dog wrong on Little House on the Prairie. After ending her college years watching movies and television critically in a joint Film Studies and Semiotics program, she went on to use two VCRs to collect and catalog all her favorite shows (over 500 tapes) long before DVR was a glimmer in anyone’s eye.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

TV Staffing Season

By Margaux Froley

You might think that TV staffing season is more of a spring event. Yes, generally new and returning shows do the majority of their hiring, or as we call it, staffing, around May. However, January is here and the prepared writer should be acting like May is tomorrow.

If this is your first staffing season and you are still trying to get that first elusive staff writer job, you should be getting your material ready to shop to agents and possible representatives. Giving an agent as much time as possible to get to know your work and your own personality only helps them pitch you to shows that might be hiring. Now is the time to solidify any representation relationships. With this jump on the season, an agent can do his/her work getting you general meetings with the networks and studios that will be doing the hiring in months to come. Again, this all allows you to build stronger relationships with people who will be in the position to hire you or to pass your work onto showrunners looking for new writers. Creating fans of your writing early on only helps the staffing process for when you need agents and executives in your corner come April. And, don’t forget, because of cable programming staffing is more of a year round job than ever before. Sure, the majority of jobs come up in the spring, but being ready to go when that hot new HBO show comes looking in February is always a smart move.

Now, the bigger concern many of you might have: What about my material? Is my DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES spec going to work for me this year? Do I need to write another spec? What if I only have a pilot? I would say that having a current spec is first and foremost. If you don’t have a functioning spec, get writing! The market is seeing a lot of specs of DEXTER, HOUSE, and THE OFFICE. New shows that are relevant to spec might be THE MENTALIST, MAD MEN or even DAMAGES, and comedies 30 ROCK, HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER, and maybe for the kookier writers, IT’S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA. You should be spec-ing a show that is in the genre you want to get hired in. Don’t write a HOUSE and wonder why THE BIG BANG THEORY didn’t call you. A spec should be of a show that is critically acclaimed and has some commercial viability too. You won’t get a lot of fans of your work if no one has seen the show you are mimicing. And watch out for those stunt specs. Writing the DEXTER spec where his sister dies might be a great sample, but that doesn’t show off your skills to work with the given components of a show. The people hiring you want to know you can work with their cast of characters week after week; you can’t kill a series regular every week.

Having original material, preferably a pilot or a play, has become more and more in demand. Specs are a necessary evil to show people you can mimic someone else’s voice, but with so many people trying to break into TV, you also need material to show that you have a voice. If you are aiming to get staffed, your pilot is being read as a sample. Feel free to make it memorable. You don’t have to worry about production limitations yet; this pilot is purely an example of you showing off your voice. Maybe in a few years someone might want to make it, once you get more experience under your belt, but for now, your original work should be just that, original.

Breaking into TV has become more and more difficult. I highly recommend taking advantage of the many fellowship opportunities around town. Even being a finalist in the ABC or the Warner Brothers Fellowships might get that agent who was hip pocketing you to want to push harder for you this staffing season. These fellowships are a great way to stand out from the pack of writers trying to break in. Even then there are no guarantees.

Good luck getting your scripts in order. Happy Staffing!

Margaux Froley is a staff writer on the CW's Privileged. A long time member of The Script Department, Margaux is available on a limited basis to read and review your television scripts. Rouge Wavers receive a 15% discount on all television services.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Lifespan of a Television Show

My dear friend and mentor Jeff Lyons, and independent writer, producer and bon vivant has been deep in the trenches lately, developing a TV series with producers foreign and domestic. And it's been one helluva ride. Today he shares a particular frustration with us: the natural lifespan of a television show:

***

Forgive me for letting off steam, but I’m pissed. I’m working on developing a TV series with a company, and it is a grand, fun, fulfilling, and educational experience. I’m really having a great time. Yes, you hear the “but” coming a mile away, don’t you?

But--the mindset that rules how TV series operate is crazy making. First, let me make clear, my middle name is not Pollyanna. I have been trying to produce film and TV content for a long time and have been around the block, swum with the sharks, danced with the devil, and shoveled my own share of s@#it to get projects down the road to development. TV exists to sell soap; it is not an instrument of entertainment, it is a sales tool. TV shows are aired by networks to create a reason for people to watch commercials, not because they are pursuing high-art. This is not true for the Internet (yet), but it is the nature of TV. In short, I have no illusions. I really do get it.

But--with that said, why can’t we just let a TV show have it’s natural life span? Why do we have to drag out a series for nine seasons because economically it makes “sense”? My beef with this comes up now because I’m currently beating my head against this wall with my colleagues. I’m telling them that the show we're trying to put up is a one season killer-diller, any more than that and it will be diluted. They insist it has to “have legs” past one season, otherwise there will be no incentive for the suits and executives to do the show. They simply won’t spend the money if they can’t get it back eight billion fold; meaning the show has to have a multi-season potential.

But--what if it doesn’t? What if it’s just a perfect one-season show? Why can’t it just live its lifespan naturally and die with dignity? Why does it have to go on life support with cranked up subplots, dumb-ass new characters, and forced plot lines? Whatever happened to a dignified death? Well, the answer, of course, is what I’ve just been describing. The damn show is making money! And, actors, directors, writers, etc., are making residuals! Now, certainly this is not a black and white situation. There are mini-series, limited series, etc. And these work fine. They make money and the trend for limited series is actually increasing (in cable anyway).

But--The problem I’m describing is still the prevailing zeitgeist. I’m a bonehead for suggesting this, but aren’t we all just drinking the network/advertiser Kool Aid? Isn’t there an alternative? Yes--Virginia, there is.

But--It will take guts, courage (the two aren’t the same), business savvy, and creative moxie. The solution is to let a show end naturally. Don’t push it, don’t extend it, and don’t put it on life support. If you limit shows to 13 or 26 weeks max, then two things can occur: first, viewers have a truly satisfying experience with the show, because it doesn’t fizzle out and “die” from being forced past it’s natural lifespan. Rather, the show follows its natural course and, like a good book, ends right on time. Viewer is happy, happy, happy. But, advertiser is pissed, pissed, pissed. They’ve just lost a cash cow. Right? Not necessarily.

With shorter series, networks have more space for more shows. With shorter series, more producers get their shows up, more writers are working, more revenue flows, more dollars are out there to buy more soap, and there are more and varied shows on the air to show advertising. Shorter shows don’t have to mean lost revenue. More shows means more creative work is available to be shown. How many great shows never see the light of day simply because networks won’t pull their cash cows from the airwaves to make room for new blood, simply because they are afraid of losing ad dollars? If they are smart (and they are) new product can be put up each season, with more in the pipeline. It can be win-win! If, if, if the creative will is there and the business savvy is in place to make it work. And I believe both those things are out there … somewhere.

But--I hear the wail of despair, “How can we pull performing shows from the air, when they are performing! Are you nuts?” Yes, I am. But that’s beside the point. What I’m suggesting is that even though these shows are performing economically, they probably stopped performing creatively a long time ago. I think that artificially sustaining shows that have died creatively by grasping for new story lines to keep viewer interest only shows that a show has stopped being its intended form and is not being “forced” to keep going despite the fact that it has really ended. Viewers watch anyway, because they’re hooked. That’s a good thing, but why not just hook them on something new, maybe something even better? And in the hooking, more work is generated, more revenue spent, etc., etc., and the great wheel of life in Hollywood continues profitably.

But--I’m not totally pig-headed about this. Seinfeld was the kind of show that could have gone on forever. It’s just the nature of the beast. It wasn’t about anything anyway, so there was not storyline to blow up or mutilate. But, how about Lost, which has been lost for seasons. It was done after its first season. What a perfect example of a show that had nowhere to go after thirteen shows. And then there is Battlestar Galactica, one of the best reborn series in TV history. Three seasons and the producers had the sense to end it. BRAVO! But, it’s spinoff , Caprica, is in the works, so we’ll see. We’ll see.

Be clear that I am not lumping all shows together here. Some shows naturally extend, most don't. What I'm railing against is something like the following:

Cheers, popular 1980s sitcom. Great show, great audience, but as with all great things it started to come to it's natural end. But, not wanting to lose the demographic and the time-slot that was generating lots of cash, the producers and network decided to "give the show legs." The decision was made to make a change so they could come up with new story lines to keep their audience. So--what did they do? They had Sam, the womanizing bar-keep fall in love with Daine, the snobbish intellectual waitress. That their mutual antagonism and oil-water banter was the heart of the show and it's success was of no consequence. Some brilliant exec probably thought, "Hey, if they get on each other's nerves as co-workers, how much more fun will it be if they're boyfriend and girlfriend?" Nice idea, lousy reality. The change altered the shows dynamic and it died faster than the first round Bush bailout bill in Congress today. They killed the show to save it, rather than just letting it go out with dignity. This is what I'm talking about ... stupid changes in a show to try to keep it alive. This is the norm, not the exception. This is the problem.

So--To summarize: Shows are like life forms. Some are meant to be Galapagos tortoises (daytime soaps) and live forever, while others are more like a Gastrotrich (multi-cellular bug that lives 3 days). Most shows are more like the Gastrotrich. We can still have profitable shows if we are smart enough to know when a show REALLY needs to die. Viewers can have a better experience, more work will be generated with more slots to fill, more work means more advertising and soap selling, and residuals continue to flow. And creatively things can grow exponentially. It’s a Win Win Win.

But--all the pragmatists and my grounded-in-the-real-world contemporaries out there will, without doubt, come back on all this with, “You’re dreaming! Good luck selling that argument. If they buy this, I’ve got a bridge in Alaska!”

A boy can only dream.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

James Wolcott on Indie Films - Ouch!

I have a love/hate relationship with Vanity Fair, the iconic cultural-society-literary-celebrity publication now in its famed second incarnation, having been revived 25 years ago and helmed by some guy then Tina Brown and now Graydon Carter (my two cents: don't change the hair).

I have been a subscriber for lo these 25 years. Love it because receiving my Vanity Fair each month is a happy-mail-box ritual and I love, in this order, the Proust Questionnaire, the letters to the editor (in which I was once anonymously soft quoted as complaining about the number of ads that appear before the table of contents unless some other chick said the same thing in the same way which is possible but let me dream) Dominic Dunne, Christopher Hitchens and James Wolcott. Hate because the copious, upscale ad content clashes mightily with my values and makes it A NIGHTMARE to find the table of freaking contents.

But yes, I do like reading about the lives of various Princess Von Furstenburg-Hapsburg-McFabulous's because it's a guilty pleasure of mine even though at the end of aforementioned guilty-pleasure bio-article, I am usually in touch with my inner angry Communist self. These people are so vain and so shallow! And so rich! LOOK at that spread of their palace-compound-castle! But ohhhhh to have a peek into such a rarefied world...

In the latest issue, the one with Marilyn Monroe on the cover, James Wolcott, erudite cultural critic, tells us of his new discovery - television. It's a really great article, actually - slightly behind the curve for Wolcott, says I - but well worth a read.

But tucked into the middle of this great article, Wolcott gets ensnared in two things: generalized, "the good old days" snobbery when it comes to indie films and witty, elliptical turns of phrase that make grasping his point an annoying exercise in parsing, well - witty, elliptical turns of phrase. To wit:

Most of these loosely-hung-together slow-metabolism vignettes remain nestled on the naturalistic surface, with mumblecore films caterpillaring into unmade beds.

Despite their supposed deviance from Hollywood formula, indie films are sometimes no better and often worse in their time-released didacticism and midafternoon droop, the characters so depleted by anomie, shrunken-head defeatism, dead-end prospects, deadbeat friends, bed-head hair, and a wardrobe of carefully selected from the dirty-clothes hamper that they can barely drag themselves to the diner to watch the new waitress tie her apron.

and

There's an overdetermined depressiveness to so many indies - noble in intent, conscientious in execution, they tell you tonally from the opening shot or the first scratchy musical note that there'll be no Shawshank Redemption at the end of this bus ride....[whereas] Television spares us the faint twitchings of twig life.

Now mind you: I have seen indie films that Wolcott is describing here, I really have. But Wolcott seems to (and it's hard to say since his writing here is quite definitely a mumblecore article caterpillaring into an unmade bed) be indicting all indie film except those of Paul Mazursky. To which I say - dude? Jim? You're making yourself sound really, really old here. There have been indie films caterpillaring into all sorts of disheveled messes as long as there have been indie films. Wake up and smell the JUNO.

We all know the power of words to persuade, romance, inflame and provoke. Anonymous internet jackasses know it (albeit unwittingly), screenwriters know it, novelists and journalists know it. And certainly Wolcott, a writer I greatly admire precisely for his rich, rambling, old-school voice knows it.

But in this article, Wolcott, like Ziggy Stardust, got sucked up into his own mind and the result is a mildly entertaining, thoroughly prejudiced, somewhat inaccurate musing on indie film. The main gist of the article is the delivery, speed and ascendance of good television, which in my view is inarguable. But -

...[whereas in indie film] there's a slumpy sameness to the dialogue delivery and body language, as if everyone were making withdrawals from the the same tired bloodbank.

Really, Jim? The majority of the time? Of course, the more movies you see, the more clear it becomes that just because a film has "indie" or "foreign" in front of it, does not automatically mean that greatness or intellectual, hipster or existential heights have been reached. But I do think Wolcott is rather letting his age show and is overlooking some of the best movies ever put to celluloid - or digital video, as it were, and as a lover of such, I take offense at the lumping together of all indie films as pretentious exercises in nothingness. Yes, yes, we all know that "indie" films aren't generally as "indie" as they used to be. But on the whole, they are one of the few outlets for filmmakers to unleash characters and dialogue that are anything but anemic blood bank withdrawals suffering from slumpy sameness and navel-gazing.

And while the ascendance of great television is inarguably a threat to the box office, great television is hardly new - there's just more of it now.

In my view, television still offers, on the whole, a vast acreage of vapid nothingness compared to indie film. Reality programs, teeny bopper musings on Vanity Fair inspired rich-life pipe dreams (a guilty pleasure but not mine) and stultifyngly dull, outdated sitcoms the success of which mystify me. Everybody Loves Raymond. Really? Did they?

For every great television show there are 10 awful shows. So let's keep our wits about us here. Wolcott's rather sweeping take on indie film as a head-up-its-own-arse exercise in nothing-muchness is too sweeping for this girl's taste.

Despite having taken exception to the midsection of this particular Wolcott piece - I recommend reading it. Because I may be complaining here, but damn I love a good writer, even if Wolcott writes the equivalent of indie-mumblecore-caterpillar-slouching-into-intellectual pretension while protesting it at the same time. Love ya, mean it Jim. Have your people call my people.

To read James Wolcott's blog, click HERE.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Emmy Recap

I don't usually watch the Emmys. I know - shame on me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Luddite, I watch some tv; probably more in the past couple of years than in earlier times in my life. But I watched this particular Emmys initially because my best friend works on Grey's Anatomy and had a little something to do with the Michael Phelps bit that Jimmy Kimmel did. Which I though was HILARIOUS. So I tuned in for that only to get sucked into the show afterward. Here are my observations:


Not nice things I thought and felt bad about and yet….
Wow Oprah has (re)gained a lot of weight!
Candace Bergen – she’s aged well but that blouse – ew!
Mary Tyler Moore – one of my idols but BLEEP! The plastic surgery overkill is disturbing and disappointing. Especially side by side with Betty White who has not gone down that road.

Awards that made me really happy:
Alec Baldwin
Betty White
Tina Fey

Best moments:
Jimmy Kimmel’s lead in show
Tommy Smothers speech
Glen Close’s speech: …we’re proving that complicated, powerful, mature women are sexy and…can carry a show.
Josh Groban’s medley of television theme songs
When Kathy Griffin commanded the audience to Get. Uuuup for Don Rickles.

Most cringe-worthy moments:
The lame Heidi Klum joke about ripping off her tuxedo; that landed with a horrible thud.
The lame reality host time killer at the top of the show
Howie Mandel. Every time.
The Laugh-in presentation

Best sly jibe at a dumb move:
Conan O’Brien’s reference to Katherine Heigl’s assertion that the material given her character in the last season of Grey’s was not worthy of an Emmy nomination.

Most telling quote:
Barry Sonnenfeld, Director, Pushing Daisies: Love TV and fear the internet.

Funniest quote, attributed to Lorne Michaels by Tina Fey:
Don’t ever follow a hippy to a second location.

Most disturbing and annoying commercial slogan:
ABC’s National Stay at Home Week

Most egregious music-off:
Kirk Ellis, writer, John Adams:
…a period when articulate men articulated complex thoughts in complete sentences. They used words….music. ARGHGH!

Most boring sweep:
John Adams. Full disclosure: I haven't seen it. And I'm a history buff.

Most egregious waste of a comedy actress who should be more famous:
Sarah Chalke shilling underpants with the slogan: Be wedgie free!
Close runner up: Jamie Lee Curtis and that yogurt that makes you more regular ad.

In Memoriam’s that made me really feel sad:
George Carlin
Suzanne Pleshette
Sydney Pollack
Dick Martin
Bernie Mac
Deborah Kerr
Harvey Korman
Jim McKay

And – Bozo the Clown died?

Random thoughts:
Until CSI I had never heard of William Peterson. I mean, he’s good but I have literally never noticed him in anything before. So. You know. I guess I’m a dope.

Laurence Fishburn’s red jacket: not so much.

Was Craig Ferguson drunk?

Why does Brooke Shields increasing look like a man?

Sally Field still sounds like Gidget and it is vaguely discomfiting.

Is Entourage a comedy? Why was it in that category?

Tom Selleck – holy BLEEP is he still handsome. Man.

Tina Fey’s multiple wins made me really happy – really happy – but she didn’t need to shill her show when she won the best comedy award. Don’t worry, Tina, we’re watching your show. And we know where to find it, thanks.

Complete list of winners.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Got a Great TV Pilot?

Hello, Wavers - this just in:

Dear Writers, Actors and Filmmakers:

FX is looking for their next big COMEDY pilot TV show - similar to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. If you have an over-the-top comedy Pilot TV show, here's the LINK

If you have one, or know someone who might be interested, pass it on!

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

But, Do I Really Need an Agent?

by Margaux Froley Outhred

TV writing is a job where writers often have to work their way up the ladder. More so than in features, where, if you are lucky enough to write a million dollar spec idea, you are thrown into the feature pool. In TV there are a lot of annoying double standards. To get staffed on a TV show, the writer must show the showrunner writing samples which should be at least one spec of an existing show and also something, like a pilot, that shows their original voice. To be staffed on a show, the writer must prove that they can mimic someone else's voice (the showrunner's), and still bring something new to the table. (It's really about walking a fine line here.)

Now, how much do you know about showrunners? The quick answer is that showrunners are the people who create a show and then often will be the ones who run the writer's room, along with making the majority of decisions on the production of that show, from casting to costumes....the showrunner really does prove that TV is a writers medium. However, no network is just going to let anyone be a showrunner. (Most pilots don't get made for less than $1 million..so, you have to have a track record for them to put $1m in your hands.) In your case, you would have to have been working in TV for awhile to be considered as a showrunner.

There are cases, however, of less experienced writers getting paired up with existing, larger showrunners. However, those people often get pushed to the side...those larger showrunners, the majority of the time will pay you for your idea and basically get you to go away. If you are lucky, and have the track record behind you...you would get hired to be a higher level writer on the series.

Agents really are the name of the game in TV because they are good at getting people into those staff positions so they can work their way up to being showrunners one day. Again, the annoying double-edge sword rule is that you have to have good original material to land the agent in the first place. In TV, lots of the writing you do is what gets you hired to do more writing, as opposed to that writing really being a viable project to sell...at least to start off.

If you have written a sitcom that is GREAT, pair that with a solid and current spec or two, and you would be ready to shop to agents. If you land at a big enough agency, they MIGHT be able to pair you with a showrunner to push your pilot further, but the pilot would have to be spectacular (most showrunners prefer to create their own shows than hear others)..and the agency would probably want you to prove yourself as a working writer first. Getting you the experience it takes to be a good showrunner is key...because sometimes a showrunner can start off big, but lack the experience and know-how to keep a show going and how to run a staff. (which ends up being career suicide as opposed to a slower but safer rise to the top.)

Most studios and networks couldn't even read your pilot for pure legal reasons, so yes, you would need an agent, or a pretty well-known lawyer, to get your pilot in the door. But again, it wouldn't quite be worth it unless you have the chops to be a showrunner now. A pilot might serve you very well for staffing season, but again, should be paired with a current TV spec also.

This is a tight year for many TV shows and agencies also, keep in mind, (because of the strike), so, this could be a great year to use the strength of that pilot to enter into some of the Fellowship programs in town. I think both Disney/ABC and Warner Bros. want original material for their submissions. Having the pedigree of one of those programs really helps give you an upper hand among the competition.

-and Margaux should know. A recipient of the Warner Brother's Television Fellowship in 2007, she is busily working on a pilot and a one-act play. Her services are available through the Script Department. And to all the boys who continually tell me they have a crush on Margaux - yeah, you would. Too bad she's happily married to a handsome poker afficionado. :)

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Matt Nix Exclusive!

The Rouge Wave and The Script Department's Dave Sparling recently had the chance to catch up with Matt Nix, creator and Executive Producer of USA Network's hit show "Burn Notice," which will go into production on Season 2 when the WGA strike is settled. Anyone with any interest in developing a TV series should be inspired by Matt's successful freshman effort in the medium.

DS/RW: "Burn Notice" is your first foray into television, quickly becoming a hit for USA while earning praise from critics. Can you talk a bit about the factors that led you, a longtime feature-centric writer with roots in the indie side of the spectrum, to the so-called "small screen?"

DS/RW: The WGA strike notwithstanding, has the success of the show stoked demand for you as a feature writer? Anything in the feature pipeline you'd like to tell us about?

MN: There’s not a lot of crossover between TV and features. I wouldn’t say the show has stoked demand, exactly. Perhaps there’s a comfort factor, in that there’s something I’ve done that has been reasonably successful. It’s good to be able to prove to people that your words can be used to expose film, and that the results are considered entertaining by some subset of the population. But the worlds are pretty separate.

I’m writing a few things. I had a comedy in development at Warner Brothers, and I’m doing another draft of that, for producers Jon Shestack (AIR FORCE ONE) and David Dobkin (director of THE WEDDING CRASHERS). I’m writing a kids film for Nickelodeon, sort of a paranoid thriller for children. And I’m writing the HOT WHEELS movie for Warner Brothers and producer Joel Silver, which is a big action movie. I’m pretty excited about all of them.
DS/RW: Any plans to direct an episode of the show? If so, do you think it'd be an episode you wrote?

MN: Yes, I’m planning on directing an episode this season. It will almost certainly be my own episode… it’s just a matter of making sure the show is running smoothly enough that I can take that time to devote to directing.

DS/RW: As Executive Producer/showrunner, have you found yourself in the tenuous position of being expected to continue the non-writing aspects of the show while you're on strike as a writer? (If so) how has that worked out in practice?

MN: Actually, I’ve been fortunate in that we were in writer prep for the show when the strike hit. There wasn’t really much producing to do. For this strike, the producers are really trying to hold the line and not produce OR write, and I’m standing with them on that. So I can’t really be involved with the DVD, which sucks, but other than that, there wasn’t anything to do except write.

DS/RW: Have the logistics of running the show made it impossible or difficult for you to keep current with feature releases and/or any favorite TV series of yours? If not, what's blown you away lately and why have you found it so compelling?

MN: I’ve watched some stuff. It’s more having three little kids at home that gets in the way of my movie viewing, but I haven’t gotten out much. I watch "Dexter," which is probably my favorite show. It’s intelligent but never pretentious, and it’s a great mix of character and plot. Plus, it’s another show with voice-over set in Miami, so it has that going for it. My favorite movie recently was SUPERBAD which I thought was fantastic.

DS/RW: You set up "Burn Notice" with no significant experience under your belt on the TV side of the industry. Any suggestions for writers looking to follow in your footsteps?

MN: I think the thing that served me best was keeping one eye on writing something that I cared about and another eye on the realities of what worked for the network, the studio, and the executives involved. It was less a matter of balancing the two than it was a matter of finding a way to do both at the same time - I worked really hard to make sure that I was always doing work I was proud of, while at the same time being really conscious of the fact that I was working in a specific context. There can be a temptation to regard the studio and the network as meddlers getting in the way of your vision. I think that’s counterproductive. They’re setting the parameters, and then it’s your job to succeed within those parameters. Sometimes that’s impossible, but more often than not you can find something that works for everyone. You have to fight the battles that matter, but you also have to make sure everyone’s always on the same team, moving forward toward the goal.

You have to listen to everyone. The minute you think you’ve got all the answers, you’re dead. I learned from everyone. I took notes from everyone – from the network, the studio, the writers, the actors, my assistant, my mom. I sought out criticism, and when something wasn’t working, I killed it, no matter how long I spent working on it. I was shameless about calling people and asking “how do you do this?” And when you come to people with that attitude, you’d be surprised how willing they are to help.

Matt Nix serves as executive producer, writer and creator of the new USA Network original series BURN NOTICE, which premieres Thursday, June 28 at 10pm/9c.
Nix has worked as a feature writer since 1997. He has written scripts for Warner Brothers, Columbia, Paramount, Universal, and New Line, as well as several independent companies. He has had the opportunity to write in a range of genres, including dramas, thrillers, light comedies, dark comedies and children's films.

Nix currently has several feature projects in active development - an adaptation of the bestselling young adult novel "Chasing Vermeer" with Warner Brothers, a workplace comedy for Warner Brothers, and a "paranoid thriller for children" for Paramount/ Nickelodeon Films. He is also an acclaimed director of several short films. His work has been featured on the SCI FI Channel, FX Movies Channel, PBS and in numerous film festivals around the world. He lives in Pasadena with his wife and three children.


ShowHype: hype it up!

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

TV Premiere Week

The Script Whisperer's resident television expert, Margaux Froley Outhred has got some choice thoughts about premiere week and what we can expect:

The new Fall television schedule is officially upon us. Each network is pandering to our desires, trying to stand out from the rest, desperate to guarantee that we set our Tivos to THEIR new shows (not their competitors). And hopefully, if they’ve done their job right, we’ll tune back into our old favorite shows returning for another season.

So, the big question is, are you taking the bait? The networks have updated their websites, imbedded ads into popular blogs (anyone think those ABC DIRTY SEXY MONEY ads on Perez Hilton are odd?), and are even advertising their new shows during theatrical film trailers. It’s early in the week, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say, I’m not impressed thus far.

NBC seems to have gotten rid of that weird screen-saver interface and voice between their shows (remember that last season?). But, the HEROES season premier felt lackluster to me. Couldn’t they do a full episode without it having “TO BE CONTINUED”? I know it will be continued, you have a full season order, just give me one complete hour-long episode. CHUCK was interesting, but I’m not sure I want to devote an hour of my life to that this season each week. Same with JOURNEYMAN. A descent show, but it felt like QUANTUM LEAP without the charm. BIONIC WOMAN has some terrible moments in the script, but also some interesting fight sequences. The lazy factor of Wednesday night viewing might keep me in my chair for that one. And, even though I’ve heard some negative buzz, I truly enjoyed DIRTY SEXY MONEY, and might even secretly love the soapy-ness of GOSSIP GIRL. Tonight is a big debut night with GREY’S ANATOMY, BIG SHOTS, (I’m only tuning in for the hot guy factor) and NBC’s comedy line-up, desperate to keep you intrigued with Jim and Pam, Earl and….Earl. 30 ROCK is fresh off its Emmy win, hopefully audiences will finally show up in the numbers they deserve.

The next few weeks are interesting for us writers (television and feature) because this is where the shows will find their voices. Already in the preview for next week of JOURNEYMAN, it looks like they are trying to add a snappy one-liner here and there, (“Don’t worry, honey, I’ll be home for dinner”), something that was sorely missed in the premier. These shows have been shooting since June and/or July. Often these premier episodes were written by a singular writer/showrunner. Now, as the rest of these episodes begin to air, you’ll see how a team of writers can shape a show, give it more personality, or in some cases, potentially bring too many cooks into the kitchen. BIONIC WOMAN shut down production at the 5th episode to replace the showrunner and give the show a different direction. How will that come across in the episodes airing in mid-November or later? Are shows with lackluster reviews going to get thrown into the Friday night deadlands? Did you know that only one in three of these new shows will even be around next fall?

If any of you are writing television specs, or pilots, these are the interesting weeks. How does the schedule change to accommodate for flops or hits? Which shows will push the envelope and snare a new audience? Do people really buy that the teens in GOSSIP GIRL, drinking martinis, are really 15? How would you adjust or edit any of these shows? Did the returning hits raise the bar enough? What will be pulled first? And, can you tell yet which shows will be the hot specs to be writing this coming staffing season? My money is on GOSSIP GIRL and DIRTY SEXY MONEY hooking a scandal-loving audience. Character pieces like LIFE, and JOURNEYMAN might fight it out, but my guess is, given the popularity of the quirky drama HOUSE, LIFE will find an audience and beat out JOURNEYMAN. Comedy writers can look forward to another bleak year, but these character dramas seem to be where the action is at. At least in terms of writers having the opportunity for more work.

The race is on folks, may the best horse win. Or, in my case, just stay tuned for FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS and DEXTER, the only ones worth watching. Let’s hope they don’t prove me wrong!

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Great Blog Resource for TV Writers

...So every once in awhile I check my site meter just to make sure my mom isn't the only Rouge Waver reader (hi mom!) and also look to see where Rouge Wave visitors are coming from. And today I noticed a reader who clicked over from a blog I was unfamiliar with. A short visit later, I was really impressed by this blog and wanted to share it with Rouge Waver readers, front and center. It's Running With My Eyes Closed and it is, as my good buddy Manolo the Shoeblogger would say, super fantastic! So add this gem to your daily reads you aspiring television writers!

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.