Friday Questions

What better way to kick off Martin Luther King weekend than with some Friday Questions?

Kieran is up first:

I was watching the 'Big Bang Theory' pilot (the one that aired, not the disaster that didn't) the other day, and was struck by the fact that although Sheldon in particular was neeeearly the finished article, there were certain aspects - not least, his initial willingness to donate to a sperm bank - that he would never do even a few episodes later.

With the obvious caveat that many characters grow and evolve over time, in a show as in real life (Hawkeye and Hot Lips being prime examples that come to mind), generally speaking do you look back and feel that most of your characters have arrived fully formed? Or how many episodes do you feel it takes them to fill out fully? Or does it vary widely?

Here’s the dance. As the writer, you’d like all of your characters fully formed right from the get-go. But once you cast it, see the dynamics, and get a sense of what works, things change. So you have to be flexible enough and willing enough to change things – sometimes rather drastically. These projects take on a life of their own and sometimes there is a real learning curve before you figure out the characters, relationships, tone, storylines that work, etc.

On the other hand, certain characters do arrive fully formed. Diane Chambers on CHEERS is maybe the best example. Shelley absolutely nailed it.

From BD:

Recently Gawker posted the minimum salary for staff writers (eg $3,703/wk for a 20 week guarantee). This got me to thinking... what is a staff writer's commitment to a show? If it is in production for 26 weeks per year, are they free the rest of the time to pursue other writing assignments? And if they choose to pursue other assignments, what impact might it have on their ongoing employment the next season?

Some deals are for number of weeks and others are for number of episodes. Sometimes you get screwed if it’s number of episodes. Let’s say a show has production issues and shuts down for a few weeks. The writing staff still works those weeks. So you’re essentially working for free those weeks.

Since staff writers are busy all year on their shows, the only moonlighting they might do is development (writing a pilot). Some deals allow for this, others require exclusivity to the show or the production company that makes the show. So if you’re on a 20th show and you have a pilot you will have to do it through 20th.

JoeBobFrank asks:

My twelve-year-old kid is a huge fan of the Good Wife and has a terrific idea for it. Does this mean he has to write a spec script? He's a kid with a great sense of perspective, (and humor) and honestly, he's got a great--and unexpected--idea. At twelve, he's unlikely to be doing this for a career, but this is a kid with both school and writing anxiety--he missed half of last year after his teacher left school abruptly--so I'm excited anything that might encourage him to be excited about something remotely academic.

Really, what he would prefer is simply to write to them and tell them his idea and have them say, hey, kid, great. Keep up the good work. (Says his Mom) Any suggestions are much appreciated.

Yes, I would write the producers, Robert & Michelle King and say exactly what you wrote to me. Shows generally don’t look at unsolicited ideas, but if the goal is encourage your son they may just oblige.

When I was on MASH we got a script on notebook paper from a 10 year-old. We sent him an autographed cast photo, and a whole packet of scripts, autographed pictures, and MASH swag.

And finally, from Bobby M.:

When I was in undergrad, a teacher of mine told me that many contemporary sitcoms are based off of Jewish theater: the Rabbi, the Putz, the Schmuck, and the Princess appear as the main character archetypes. He specifically cited Frasier, Seinfeld, Will and Grace, and even Friends to some extent. Now I'm in grad school, and my theater history teacher suspects the tradition dates as far back as Plautus and the birth of New Comedy.

My question to you—as a college professor and writer of one of the aforementioned shows—is how aware of this were you when writing for TV? Did you work to establish characters as these specific archetypes?

Thanks! (and if you answer my question, I promise to buy your book, which I hear is available on Amazon for $2.99)

Yes it is, Bobby.  And it's as funny as ever.

With all due respect to your professor, no. I have never considered the Jewish Theater for inspiration in creating a series. Nor has any comedy writer I have ever met.

That certain character types reoccur in series has more to do with (a) the dynamics of the series itself, and (b) certain comic types are proven winners.

When I develop a pilot I look for the theme, a premise that’s fresh, and characters that are interesting and will relate to each other in fun exciting ways.

I seriously wonder how many of today’s younger TV writers have even heard of the Jewish Theater.

Happy to answer your question. Please leave it in the comments section. Thanks.

Read More

Quick thoughts on today's Oscar nominations

I expect Oprah will now start her own Movie Academy so she can be nominated and win.

I guess I wasn’t the only one who thought INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS sucked.

Meryl Streep gets nominated just for showing up.

So does Scorsese.

Interesting that THE INVISIBLE WOMAN was nominated for Best Costume Design.

Surprised that James Gandolfini didn’t get nominated. Only possible explanation: not enough screeners went out.

Maybe Robert Redford should have put himself up for Best Supporting Actor.

The Academy was not charmed by SAVING MR. BANKS. Or AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY... no matter how many screeners went out. 

THE LONE RANGER actually got a nomination (for make up).

Doesn’t the Academy love Tom Hanks anymore? This may be the first time since VOLUNTEERS he wasn’t nominated.

Scarlett Johansson was not nominated for HER but is nominated for Billboard Magazine radio personality of the Year.

I love that June Squibb was nominated for NEBRASKA.  Sorry Bruce, she steals the movie.

When CAPTAIN PHILLIPS gets nominated for Best Picture but its star and director doesn't get any love, don’t write acceptance speeches.

MONSTER UNIVERSITY wasn’t nominated. The Academy dare snub Pixar?

Thrilled that 20 FEET FROM STARDOM was nominated for Best Doc. Go see that movie if you haven’t already.

I still say AMERICAN HUSTLE is over-rated.

At least Seth MacFarlane isn’t hosting.

Read More

Kevin Reilly says Fox will eliminate pilots

Kevin Reilly, the head honcho at Fox, said at the TCA convention on Monday that he was eliminating pilots for dramas and would continue to make them for comedy but with an eye towards phasing them out.

I don’t know if it’s going to work, but I love a network president who’s willing to shake things up.

As long as he’s doing it for the right reasons. What are the wrong reasons? To save money. Remember a few years ago when genius Jeff Zucker ran NBC and eliminated pilots? The result: not one new hit that year. My sense is Reilly is not taking this tack for the same frugal reasons.

You certainly run a risk when you just order an idea or even a script to series. If it turns out badly you’re not just stuck with one hour, you’re committed to six or thirteen.  That's a major disaster.   Two or three of those and Rupert might have to sell MySpace. 

But the good news is if you’re a creator you can plan your project differently. Especially if your project is episodic. You don’t have to introduce all your characters and set everything immediately into motion. You can use your first episode to hook in the audience.  Translation:  You can make a more cable-esque series. 

Often times drama pilots can be deceiving. A feature director is hired, the production values are spectacular, and the results are sometimes dazzling. Then week two comes around and the director is a guy who did a few music videos and the production values are scaled way back. Remember that Andre Braugher submarine show from a couple of years back? Sensational pilot. Meh rest of the run.

In any event, it’s an experiment worth trying.

As for comedy, it’s a different animal. Most episodes are by-and-large stand-alone, and you need to see whether the show works. Has it been cast properly? Is there chemistry? Can the creator/showrunner really write a funny show? You’d be surprised how often the answer to that last question is NO.

There’s no question the current development model is flawed. And wasting money on bad pilots is certainly a major reason why. But I’ll tell you a larger reason: Research. The research is horribly inaccurate and networks place way too much importance on it. When 90% of new shows failed, and they got on the air because they tested well – what does that tell you? By skipping pilots, networks might have to go more on intuition and faith in the creators. And to me that would be a huge step in the right direction.

I'm not a drama writer, but if I were, I'd be running to Fox first with my idea.  

Read More

Swapping jokes

Recently in a post I wrote a joke that some felt was too insensitive. Was it? You could argue either way. But I decided it was easier to just swap it out for another joke. I could have stayed with it, but in this case figured it wasn’t worth offending some people. I say “in this case” because in other instances I have kept original jokes that was controversial.

But I kept those because I thought they worked and were appropriate and those who were offended were overly sensitive. You can’t do humor without offending someone. I have never however, kept a joke because I thought it would be too hard to replace.

Professional comedy writers learn early that swapping out jokes is just a part of the game. Many young writers are very defensive. They like the joke they wrote, it took forever to come up with that joke, or both. But jokes often need to be changed. And not just because they don’t work. Actors have a problem, the network has a problem, standards & practices have a problem, legal has a problem, the scene changes and it doesn’t fit as well anymore, it’s funny but too jarring, it’s funny but makes the character seem too stupid, it’s too hard to shoot, it’s too similar to another joke, or of course – it’s too Jewish. You get the idea.

Comedy writers need to get in the habit of swapping out jokes. When my writing partner, David and I can’t agree on a line, rather than argue for forty minutes and one team member ultimately unhappy, we just throw it out and come up with something else. It’s easier, faster, and reduces a lot of unnecessary tension.

Obviously, re-writing jokes is a skill – you’re working under very specific parameters. And in time you get better at it.   How do you learn that skill?   Read on.

The way I approach it is to first think that I’m “beating” a joke, not “swapping” it. A bad habit for young writers is to think of the first joke and just go with it. Be tougher on yourself. The first joke is often the obvious one. Come up with four or five alternatives. Or ten if need be.

David and I are always looking to “beat” jokes. Once we’ve finished a script we’ll take another pass for just that purpose.   And you'd be surprised how many eleventh-hour jokes proved to be the best in the script.

There is one instance though where I advise against changing jokes. On multi-camera shows the writing staff sees run-throughs every day. By the third time they’ve heard the same joke they get tired of it. So they want to swap it out. When that happens you generally make lateral moves or negative ones. Remember that the audience hasn’t heard the original joke. So if a line gets a good laugh on the first day of rehearsal, leave it. Yes, it won’t be funny the next three days you see it, but trust that virgin ears will find it delightful.

Learning to “beat” jokes will take you a long way.  So how do you learn it? Simple. Tape a current sitcom. As an exercise determine jokes that could be beat then go at it. Some will come easily. Others will be a bitch. Don’t give up. Wrestle the bitches to the ground.

Make no mistake – television comedy writing is competitive. You want to be the one that producers swap “for.”

Best of luck.

Read More

Why the little screen is now better than the big screen

Here’s one of those Friday Questions that became an entire post.

It's from reader Joseph Scarbrough:

There was once a time when movie actors were considered, "Too big", "Too important", and/or, "Too expensive" to even remotely consider lowering themselves to do TV work (or at least, that's why none aside from Gary Burghoff reprised their M*A*S*H roles for the series), however, nowadays, Maria Bello, Kevin Spacey, Dennis Quaid, Ashley Judd, James Caan, even Samuel L. Jackson are all doing TV now. What's your personal opinion on this shift in movie actors migrating to TV? Are the actors trying to broaden and expand their own repertoire, or are networks still in the mindset that a show will only sell if it has star power?

Yes, we lowly television producers used to say, “They’ll all come to us eventually.” Actors who were once insulted that you offered them a multi-million dollar starring role in a television series are now actively campaigning to get on the little screen.

Why? A number of factors.

They age. Meg Ryan can no longer get starring romantic leads no matter how much collagen she uses.

Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, and Tom Cruise are still taking all the good roles.

They can make all the GODFATHER sequels they want – James Caan was killed in the first one.

There are fewer studio movies being made. If movie stars want to still work exclusively in movies they might have to go the independent route. But there’s rarely big money in those. TV pays way better.

They learn the dirty little secret. Being on a series is a good life for an actor. Especially if he’s on a multi-camera show. Very few nights, regular hours, no extended location shooting, week long hiatuses once a month, more exposure, only 22 weeks of work a year, and great salary. That sure beats toiling for a year in Siberia for a film that bombs and winds up only being shown at 35,000 feet.

(Samuel L. Jackson should know this dirty little secret. Before he became a star he was Bill Cosby’s stand-in on THE COSBY SHOW.)

With so many people staying home watching their nice flatscreens, movie stars are starting to realize people are watching them exclusively on television anyway.

Some cool stars like Matt Damon have done TV so it’s now okay.

Movie studios used the last WGA strike to dump a ton of actor production company deals.

Networks make big plays for movie stars they think might be vulnerable. Lavish attention, private jet trips, etc. That all ends when the star’s pilot doesn’t test well and gets passed on for some Tim Allen vehicle.

I remember a few years ago on the Oscars they put together a reunion of actors who had won Academy Awards. It was shocking how many of them were out of work.

There’s much more status in television drama these days. You can thank HBO and SHOWTIME for that.

Premium cable series generally are only 13 episodes, not 22. It’s less of a commitment.

A-List movie directors are realizing they can make a boatload of money for directing TV pilots. They bring status and lure better talent. It’s hard for an agent to scoff at a TV pilot directed by Martin Scorsese.

Movie studios tend to typecast. If a movie star wants to break out and play a different kind of role he might have to do it on television.

I have found there’s sometimes a real disconnect between the career level a movie star thinks he’s at, and where he’s really at. When I had a development deal we got a note from an agent saying a certain actress would consider television that season but would only meet with A-list writers. This was a C-level actress. She couldn’t open a home movie. It was a joke. We sent back a note thanking the agent and saying if we had a role in a pilot the client was right for we would be delighted to have her read for it.  Epilogue:  She never got a series.  In fact, I don't think she's still in the business anymore.

And finally – television is generally BETTER than movies these days. Especially in dramas. We’re in a golden age of TV drama. Studios make comic books. The best writers, the most daring concepts, the characters with the most dimension are now found in TV.

Welcome movie stars.  We've been waiting for you. 

Like I said, they all come to us eventually. Today’s unsold pilot might well become tomorrow’s AMY ADAMS SHOW.

Read More

The Golden Globes

I didn’t see the Golden Globes last night. I’m in Hawaii. But I’ve seen enough of them that I could probably review the show without having actually seen it. I hope this works because it would be great to skip to Emmys this year.   Let’s see how well I did – assuming that you watched the Golden Globes, which is like assuming the Houston Astros will win the 2014 World Series.

Remember, I could be completely off. This was written before the show aired.

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler will again be very funny and will even make a 12 YEARS A SLAVE joke that doesn't cause the audience to gasp.

They'll be 3,454,483,203,293,935 times better than Seth MacFarlane.  

Steven Spielberg will not be there because he’s not nominated.

If 12 YEARS A SLAVE wins, Spielberg is going to want a recount on LINCOLN.

Since it’s the Foreign Press, shouldn’t the “Best Foreign Language Film” be in English?

The audience will be drunk by the red carpet show.

Expletives will be bleeped all night.

There will be a teleprompter snafu and two presenters will look like idiots because they can’t ad lib their way out of a hard rain.

None of the Best Comedy nominees were actually comedies. NEBRASKA? I’m surprised 12 YEARS A SLAVE wasn’t in the comedy category.

Since it’s the Foreign Press (i.e. waiters at Matteo’s), any nominee with a foreign sounding name will likely win. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a lock.

It’s hard to take seriously an awards show where 12 YEARS A SLAVE and HER compete for the same screenwriting category. Or Jacqueline Bisset and Sofia Vergara, in the same acting category.

Taylor Swift will win because she didn’t win last year and if she doesn’t win she won’t attend anymore.

Always ahead of the curve, BREAKING BAD will win.  

There will be at least two jaw-dropping upsets.

You’ll see that Michael J. Fox is nominated and say, “Is that show still on?”

The set will look like Liberace’s bathroom.

No one will miss Ricky Gervais.

MAD MEN wasn’t even nominated so Matt Weiner will never eat at Matteo’s again.

Jennifer Lawrence will look great.

There will be no Obamacare jokes.

Bill Clinton will not be there this year to introduce HER.

Meryl Streep’s dress will still have the Ross For Less tag on it.

Since ANCHORMAN 2 was not nominated, maybe – just maybe, you'll be spared Will Ferrell as Ron Burgandy.

By the time you read this no one will care who won.

So how’d I do?

Read More

The "Aha" moment when I first realized I wanted to be a writer

I'm killing two birds.  From time to time I present brief excerpts from my book THE ME GENERATION BY ME... GROWING UP IN THE '60s (still available on Amazon and funny as ever) on my formative years in swinging Southern California. Reader Tamara submitted a Friday question: "When did you first know that you were a "writer"?  So here's a way to combine both posts. 

We all had to take state aptitude tests. These were a series of tests intended to determine which career path might be best for you. One test was spatial relations. We’d see a folded house and be given four flat layouts. Which layout, when folded properly would match the house? Other than working for Ikea, how could this skill possibly help you? I think I finished in the 40th percentile.

Worse was mechanical reasoning. “If Gear A turned left and Gear B turned right, how does a steam engine work?” I had no fucking idea how to answer any of these questions. I placed in the 25th percentile. That has to be in the severely retarded range, doesn’t it? The apes in 2001: A SPACE ODDESSEY who pounded sticks on the ground had to score at least in the low 30’s.

The only test I excelled at was clerical proficiency. As fast as we could we had to copy down sequences of letters. I placed in the 78th percentile. So according to the State of California, my life’s calling was filing.

Thanks to Miss Harper for providing another option.

Miss Harper taught U.S. History. Instead of tests she would assign us several essay questions on Monday that had to be turned in on Friday. To answer the questions you needed to hear her lectures and read the chapters. Essay writing has never been my strength. I would slog through the material and vomit back as much as I could. My grade was usually B-.

One week I put off the assignment until the last night. Having worked at Wallichs that evening it was well after midnight before I tackled the essay. I didn’t have time to do all the reading so I padded the paper with a few jokes. If I was going to fail at least I’d do it spectacularly.

I got an A.

Miss Harper had little exclamation points after the jokes (no one knew from LOL in those days).

So the following week I sprinkled in more jokes.

Another A.

By week three I had stopped reading the textbook entirely. I just used the essay topics as springboards and wrote comedy monologues. I suspect the quality of the material was not that stellar but I was Richard Pryor compared to the twenty-five other explanations of the Monroe Doctrine.

I breezed through that course with an A and a light went off in my head – there’s gold in them thar hills. Writing comedy might just be a more lucrative skill than alphabetizing.

Thank you, Miss Harper, for being my first and maybe most important fan.

Read More