The Great Hosannah

It's been a busy few weeks, gentle readers. We've been rewriting our pilot and pitching which, by the way, has been a blast. We wanted to take the show on the road but there are only so many networks. We've never gone out with a spec pilot before, and we've never had talent attached. So the entire process has been new and unexpected. But now we wait and see if anyone bites. NO idea how long answers will take, but probably longer than normal. Whatever happens, we met new great people and it was satisfying to dive back into an old pilot. I'll update it in the file section at some point, so anyone who read the earlier draft can see what great notes and fantastic collaboration can get you. Shooting this pilot, with these people, would be a freakin' dream.

Anyway, apologies for the lack of rant. But fortunately, Hollywood has been a busy little bee these past few weeks. It has not let us down. There's plenty to rant about.

SyFy debuted its new spelling last week and they aired their first newly spelled show, Warehouse 13. Numbers-wise, it did well for them. They need the show to work so it would have to seriously tank to worry them. I generally liked it, especially the leads. I didn't think I would at first, but both leads do more with their stock characters than you'd expect. However, I'm not terribly fond of the uptight female character, and the "let's share our private pain" scene had too much of a list-making quality to it. It feels like they went for type first and character second. Plot-wise, too, I think they could have done better. Maybe knowing something about Lucrezia Borgia would help? There's a simplicity and a cleanliness of story that marks excellent pilots, and Warehouse 13 lacked a bit in that department. But as a show on TeeVee, it fits in nicely. If any viewers had other expectations, you're looking at the wrong network. SyFy HAS to re-brand itself away from the darkness of Battlestar Galactica. They had a taste of the critical acclaim and it didn't mean as much as numbers do. They're okay with that and an audience that tunes in to their shows should be okay with it, too. They wanted a lighter show with close-ended episodes that would be a companion for Eureka. That's what Warehouse 13 is.

If you think about what scrutiny this show has gotten from the network (it is, after all, launching Y's), then the confusion and wishywashiness of the pilot is understandable. This is a concept that wasn't delivered to screen by the person who actually came up with it. And that's always going to cause some trouble in TeeVee. I'm a firm believer in TeeVee being creator-driven. TeeVee, however, has a different opinion. The execs seem to be in line with film execs, where a literary vision just isn't important. Since the whole POINT of TeeVee is that it's creator-driven, that is just plain unfortunate.

So I watch Warehouse 13 and I'm fine with it, but then The X-Files comes on. It's Ascension, the episode after Duane Barry when Barry kidnaps Scully and they use that awesome Nick Cave song, "Red Right Hand." And I'm thinking, "Was it REALLY the right decision to have X-Files anywhere in proximity to Warehouse 13?" X-Files is the show they're always trying to do. But networks are rarely about the sensation of a show. They're about the hard realities. So the elements of X-Files that supposedly work are two FBI agents chasing weird shit. Never mind the zeitgeist of the moment, or the fact that we hadn't really seen a show that had mythology AND standalone episodes. Forget about the feel of Vancouver, the gray rain and the forest. That was all NEW to the viewers. The tone was new. The pacing was new. Woman-as-skeptic and not emotional basket-case was new. Mulder being bat-shit crazy was new.

Incidentally, for all the talk about X-Files being inspired by Kolchak, its real inspiration was The Invaders. Fox Mulder is David Vincent without the proof.

Anyway. X-Files was described as a show where the two leads were believer and skeptic. Great, right? A perfect pitch. A pitch that has completely fucked up television forever, by the way. Because now you're expected to put your characters into those particular boxes, especially when you're pitching a genre show. And that leads to types and not to actual characters.

I think that when there are zeitgeist shows, they exist for several reasons. One reason, and this is something that you can't manage or predict, is the timing. Not only for that particular show, but network timing as well. You need a network that is primed to let the show be the show. Fox did this with X-Files, and the WB did it with Buffy. We don't really have that network now. Oh, AMC's shows are brilliant, but they only have two (and a new one coming on eventually). So that doesn't help creators. There's simply not enough product. But the bigger reason for zeitgeist shows is that there's something in them that we haven't seen before. Buffy's another example of that. Buffy was a metaphorical high school show in which the metaphor was something we hadn't seen in a high school show before.

But see, you can't just make it happen. It's not the specific, obvious elements that makes these shows work. It's that intangible creator part. THOSE decisions, which are made by the person who DREAMED THE SHOW UP IN THE FIRST PLACE, take the show to a place that can't be replicated.

Nobody seems to get this. And nobody seems to get how important characters are. How integral were Mulder and Scully to their world? How about Buffy? You can't just cynically plop down characters in a world we've seen before and expect people to get excited. But that's exactly what the networks are asking of the writers and the audiences. They don't REALLY want Mad Men or Breaking Bad. They want the acclaim.

To wit: SyFy's relieved at the numbers for Warehouse 13. And good for them and the people on the show. I hope it works. I no longer, however, hope it works so that we can shoehorn more genre onto the TeeVee. Because that's not going to be happening. SyFy is not, as you would hope, opening the floodgates to fresh, original voices. Instead, they'll be remaking Alien Nation and Quantum Leap.

Okay, see, when someone goes, "Hey, they re-run all these great genre shows," that is not an invitation to remake them. Instead, it should make them want to hear ORIGINAL pitches in that specific genre. But network and studios don't seem to be operating that way anymore. In fact, this has been the worst few weeks EVER for movie and TeeVee announcements (except for ours, of course, which isn't a remake or a board game). I just have to wonder if ANYONE is embarrassed by these announcements. I mean, do they know, deep down, that they're putting another nail into the coffin of entertainment? When a studio goes, "So yeah, we're developing Hong Kong Phooey as a movie," is there even a twinge of awareness?

What's even more worrisome about this is that they make these announcements. Because if you WERE going to develop something stupid into a film, and you knew it was stupid but you have to feed the corporate machine and it doesn't care if money is stupid or not, wouldn't you NOT make a huge trade announcement?

Besides Hong Kong Phooey (I mean, FUCK!!), we'll also see big-screen adaptations of TJ Hooker and The Big Valley. I shit you not. The Big fucking VALLEY. Which they won't, BTW, SHOOT IN THE ACTUAL BIG VALLEY. That's bad enough, but now they have to cast someone as Victoria Barkley. If you're a zygote, Victoria Barkley was played by the great Miss Barbara Stanwyck. If you're stupid and have never heard of her, well... fuck you. And actresses? I know you need work. I know it's tough out there. DO NOT STEP INTO BARBARA STANWYCK'S BOOTS. Seriously. You don't want this.

When I worked at Universal, we used to play this game where we'd fake-cast TeeVee shows as movies. Almost all of those shows have been made into films. What we didn't do, though, was cast toys and board games as movies (stupid us, apparently). But now we're going to see the ViewMaster movie. I can't WAIT for the Comic Con panel on THAT. I figured, Hell, if studios are all into buying games and toys for adaptations, lemme get IN on this bitch. So I worked up a few loglines:

SLINKY: When the Anderson family's car breaks down, they're forced to stay at the spooky, mysterious Staircase Inn, which was built by a Winchester cousin. The two inquisitive Anderson children unknowingly unleash the Slinky monster and must team up with a local Slinky hunter to destroy the monster.

CONNECT FOUR: In the future, a holographic four-dimensional game determines whether a person lives or dies. But when a mild-mannered holographic tech discovers a nefarious plan to fix the game and kill the President, he teams up with a game designer to foil the plot.

UNO: While on a dig in Egypt, an archaeologist digs up an ancient deck of cards that unleashes a terrible power, which can only be stopped by playing a medieval card game, the instructions to which were lost centuries ago.

SIMON: A community living in a state-of-the-art incorporated town are terrorized when SIMON, the computer that keeps the town running, short-circuits and begins exercising ultimate control over the town's residents. It's up to a former Navy SEAL and his estranged genius son to stop SIMON and save the town.

MONCHICHI: An alien race of -- oh, fuck it. They were too creepy.

And for nostalgia's sake, remember when they'd just make movies out of rides?

SPACE MOUNTAIN: A grieving Commander Rip Griffin, whose wife was killed in an asteroid accident, is sent on an undercover mission by the Space Corps, where he must pose as an illegal miner so that he can gain access to the lair of an evil overlord who is using black hole technology to build a series of space mountains, which he will use to crush every planet in the system.

Seriously, don't be concerned when Inch-High Private Eye and The Far Out Space-Nuts surface. Because they will. I just wonder what they'll wind up with last. Cereal, maybe. Are we looking at a Count Chocula-Cap'n Crunch team-up??

Rant over. FOR NOW.

np -- The Jam, "All Mod Cons"

The Ancient Commonsense Of Things

Stop making fun of Billy Mays, ironic-distance professionals! Yes, the shouting annoyed me too but then I watched his and Anthony Sullivan's show on Discovery. Not so annoying anymore. So stop it.

It's been a busy few weeks, hence no blog post. I've been doing a rewrite on a pilot we're going to be taking out and hopefully selling. Which leads me to this:

David writes,

HUGE congrats on A Town Called Malice! After reading this blog for about a year, I'm insanely happy for you and your new success! I hope this leads to you being on my television permanently :) Oh, and do give us the new knowledge gained from your success and do tell us the whole story as to how you sold your pilot!

Thanks! But to be clear, we haven't sold it yet. We've done the thing that I hope is going to make people want to be in business with us. We've attached talent, and we've gotten promotion for it. The way the business is working at the moment is that it's almost if not completely impossible for working writers to sell pilots. There's already at least one major studio that isn't taking pitches from anyone who isn't a giant ape, or doesn't have great attachments. We couldn't be happier with the team we've got, and now it's up to the networks to make the next move. I'll keep everyone posted on that process.

David Thom wonders:

Comic book writers are the new hot hire in TV? Any idea why?

Geek is the new cool. I think JJ Abrams, et al, have made this effect happen. And the way projects are being set up is different, too. Comic books have become the new novels, the go-to source for material. So much so that writers are publishing their own comics and sticking a few copies in Golden Apple or Meltdown in the hopes that some eager producer or executive will buy them. This has been happening in film for awhile and since film people are always coming to TeeVee, now it's happening here, too.

There's actually more distressing news, though, which is in the following article that Kira sent. The article, from Variety, is about how studios aren't giving as many overall deals in TeeVee this year. It's a very sad article, as you can see from the first sentence:

With everyone in TV tasked with doing more with less, will top scribes have the time and energy to come up with primetime's next big smash?

I mean, THOSE POOR FUCKERS! Now about ten percent of writers in the business are being asked to not only write and run TeeVee shows, but at the SAME TIME, they have to also create new shows!! And they also get to charge their exorbitant script fees for that! Wouldn't it be great if there were, say, around ninety percent of a workforce that isn't as expensive as a giant ape showrunner, isn't doing the work of twelve, and might -- just might -- have some new ideas? Seriously, a friend of mine has a pilot idea that would make you guys beg like dogs. But she's not a giant ape, so it's not on the air.

Making it even tougher for scribes, this year, most series are having to make do with smaller staffs -- once again, a result of the weak economy. But that also means more work for everyone, including those writers who might otherwise have had time to develop.

From a business point of view, I have to say that paying a giant ape a coupla hundred grand to write a pilot and fifty grand an episode on staff comes across as something of a mistake. If you're really saving money, shouldn't you... I dunno... ACTUALLY SAVE THE MONEY?

I would really like to see the trades delve into what's really happening in TeeVee. Where's the article about how smaller staffs and doubling up actually takes work away from an entire workforce? It's natural that Variety is going to talk to studio and network execs, and those people are going to send them to giant apes. This happened during the strike, too, where the quotes all came from the giant apes and there was very little heard from the working writers. Which is, of course, why most of America thinks writers are entitled rich people.

Meanwhile, experienced writers without deals have had to make tough decisions this year: Do you join a series staff, which promises a steady paycheck, or do you hold back and develop what you hope could be your ticket to massive success?

Sigh. Yeah, WHAT DO YOU DO??? This article makes it sound like any writer with any experience is in this predicament. But that's simply not true. It is LITERALLY about twenty guys who are struggling with this.

I'm not denigrating their quandary because when you're at the level these guys are at, it IS a quandary. If you want to create shows, you don't want to get known only as someone who can come in and run someone else's show. You want to be known as a creator. And being thought of as the guy who can run someone else's show is really frustrating creatively. But there are others in this industry. It's probably the same with working actors, who also don't have a voice.

Where the article gets it right, IMO, is in talking about the vague contracts that are basically ass-raping everybody. There's no clear path for writers anymore, even rich showrunner guys. Studios are now bald-facedly saying that they're taking advantage of writers. The article says that specs are going to be more popular, and that it's going to be harder for studios to find product because they're forcing these guys onto staffs. Well, that's not entirely true. Or true at all. One studio, for example, won't even take pitches from anyone other than "names," and those names don't necessarily have to be giant TeeVee apes. They can also be giant feature apes. So it's actually working the opposite of what the article claims. It's closing the door even further on the rest of the industry.

Personally, I think overall deals are fucking stupid. I think showrunners who get hired to run a show should, I dunno... RUN THE FUCKING SHOW. I don't think they should get fat overall deals. I think they should get contracts like the rest of us. If you want to take the (apparent) security of a staff job, then you SHOULD have to forego development... unless -- and this is a big one -- the studio is fucking you on your quote (which they are doing to lots of people). People who develop should just develop, and showrunners should run shows. Once again, the industry does this backwards.

silverlain goes:

As a non-industry person, I'm curious as to how this "testing" works. Who and how many do they have as the test audience? Do they just watch the pilot?

Basically, the company doing the testing grabs unsuspecting people off the street and puts them in a room together. They each get a little dial to turn, indicating their like or dislike of whatever is on the screen. They're shown the pilot, they turn their dials like the little monkeys they've been turned into, and then afterwards they are interviewed and quizzed by the company's rep. The questions they're asked are all marketing type questions. They have to put into words what their impressions are of the show. This is an alien endeavor for most people, which makes their answers suspect. Also, they are not asked these stupid questions alone, but in a group. That means that group mentality takes over. So maybe a timid person loved the pilot but the loudmouth asshole down at the end of the table hated it. Eventually, everybody conforms to the asshole's opinion. In order to test pilots, they take people out of the natural environment in which they watch TeeVee. Now, they've been experimenting with new methods that are more organic to the viewing experience. But focus groups are still the most popular method.

It's fairly obvious that testing doesn't work because hows that test well get on the air. How many of those shows succeed? About as many as would succeed if a network president just put what he wanted on the air. But it's not about being a predictor for success. Testing is a way for the executives to cover their asses. It's not THEIR fault if the testing was wrong.

Alex,
That's it. I'm moving to Canada.

Speaking of Canada, that's another thing that's really hurting American TeeVee. Not only are studios like Fox shooting shows in Mexico and South America (with all local crews and post-production) but networks are buying Canadian shows and airing them here. Luckily for the American TeeVee industry these shows aren't doing that great but it doesn't really matter. The barometer for success on a network has little to do with creative success and everything to do with financial success. So a failed show that a studio didn't pay for is a much better bet than a failed show that was produced here.

Shawn wonders,

To build off of Kira's question about the possibility of more spec pilots being bought, what are your thoughts about showrunners being more open to attaching themselves to an existing script rather than developing their own ideas? If studios and networks start trending toward buying spec scripts, even from noobs like myself, I would guess that showrunners would have no choice but to help shepherd someone else's idea.

Even if you went in and sold a pitch, if you hadn't run a show before they'd put someone with you. It might get somewhat interesting this year if they really aren't making overall development deals without the showrunner actually running a show. Which could be good because it means that the showrunners not lucky enough to wind up on a show or in a deal -- really talented people who literally have not gotten the break they deserve -- could be available to you, if they haven't sold their own pilots. We'll see what happens. And exec producers normally don't have a huge issue with doing this. They're usually developing several things. Writers with deals occasionally have in their deal that they'll also shepherd a project of someone else's.

Christine,

When I read the article, I was offended. But then I realized that these are the same morons who think that if you are over 30 you have no talent. Or other similar supidities. That brought out the outrage (which most of the women I know in the entertainment field have shared about this stupid article) Thanks for taking it on paragraph by paragraph.

Yeah, there's a GREAT Elisberg piece in the Huffington Post about ageism in Hollywood. It's good we all stopped aging at 29. And it's appalling that ANYONE has to be conscious of their age, but WRITERS? Totally retarded.

By the way, the new pilot for V is just awful.

I'm trying to find a way to be surprised. Not successful. The first V was a zeitgeist show. It was totally fun. This V has a priest in it. That's really all I needed to know. It's nice that ABC is trying something with this much genre cred, but it would be nicer if it were something original. They've also got FlashForward, which is also not original. It will, of course, be better than the book, but that's not exactly a glowing recommendation. And now SciFi is going to "reboot" (the new fashionable word for "we're scared shitless of new ideas, please stop bringing them to us") Alien Nation. Part of me is excited because it means SciFi has actually admitted that aliens are sci-fi. Whee!! But there are any number of writers who have marched into SciFi and pitched a cool alien show. What I'm not looking forward to at all and will actively protest against is any new "reboot" of The Invaders. Seriously. I will kill someone.

odocoilius writes:

Looks like a woman wrote the commentary. Am I wrong? It's got to be either a woman or a gay man. Straight guys just don't care enough about the stuff the writer in question obsesses over.

Straight guys don't care because... they rule the world already? I'll buy that. You must come from the particular batch of guys who were born on third and think they hit a triple. There are a lot of people out there like you, people who roll their eyes at what others perceive as injustice. If you've never been told that someone isn't going to give you a job because they have already hired enough women then no, I can imagine how mystified you are. It's a shame that you can't go beyond your limited viewpoint and figure out, on your own, why this matters.

You have to admit there are lots of girly-girls in the US, and even more in Asia. They buy lots of stuff. There's a whole genre of manga where pretty boys like those described in the article bang each other after long drawn out romantic courtships. Japanese girls eat it up.

First of all, you have now done precisely what the article did. Every Japanese girl does not "eat this up." You've completely missed the point, which is that stereotyping doesn't help anything. As a matter of fact, there was even more stereotyping in this laughingstock of an article: All geeks are drooling homunculi who live in their parents' basements and obsessively play/watch genre. Sure, some are. But an awful lot aren't. Funny that you missed that, but then your lot isn't used to outrage.

Is this sexist outrage, or just a message aimed at a different demo?

You don't get to ask that question. You have already abdicated your social responsibility. There's a Jarvis Cocker song about one particular group of people running the world. It's not a word I am going to say on this blog, but you can look it up.

Anonymous hopes:

any chance scifi has changed it's tune about the name change?

Not before the big spelling launch!! Warehouse 13 begins this week and this is supposed to be the flagship show for the new letters. This partially explains why they haven't been buying pitches from anyone who's not a giant ape. They need to see how the show does first. I can certainly understand that, and I hope that if it IS successful, it helps the network zero in on what they need. This is a gripe writers have had for years.

They've promoted the hell out of Warehouse 13. But there's a lot the show has to do, most notably to break out of the perceived SciFi sheen that's existed on practically every show and TeeVee movie they've ever done. It can't be the least bit cheesy. It has to be clever and subversive. In essence, it has to look like a show on a new network. I don't doubt the creative forces behind the show but I'm skeptical of the network actually making the attempt (i.e., spending the money) to raise the bar. I sure hope it works. I hope the spelling's a bit hit, too. Because I still believe that the more shows succeed, the better that is for the business.

I am probably totally wrong about that because the business keeps finding ways to turn success into fewer jobs.

Monsterbeard laments,

The other weird thing is that all I really wanted to do was discuss the different projects at Comic-Con instead of the shitty article. C'est la vie.

When they post the schedule, we'll get there! Can I just bitch again about how there's going to be panels for Glee and The Office?

Michael Taylor defends,

Geeze, I kind of like TJ Simers. Anybody who can piss off so many Laker fans, Dodger fans, and hockey fans every single week -- not to mention bringing die-hard USC Trojan fans to the frothing brink of crimson-and-gold apoplexy -- must be doing something right.

He went too far when he talked about the death of Eight Belles in last year's Derby. And corresponding with him is even more disgusting than reading him. He's lucky to have a job, even though he's of the opposite opinion.

He's on my list of a few people I'd love to see in person, just so I could glare at him.

Planet Helpless

Two posts in one week, because my rage could not be contained.

Oh, Los Angeles Times. Are you trying to make me think you're Entertainment Weakly? I feel the need to add my name to the growing blogroll of rantees. This is the beginning of a column that seems to have been written twenty years ago, but apparently is only a week or so old. I know, right?? It is called, I SHIT YOU NOT, "The Girl's Guide To Comic Con 2009." And yes, it CAN get more stereotypical and offensive than just the title. Watch:

Comic-Con. It's not just for nerdy guys anymore.

And it's not all just about the influx of squealing "Twilight" girls, either. This summer's event, taking place July 23-26 in the San Diego Convention Center, could shape up to be a smorgasbord for female fandemonium. (We say "could" because the official rundown of panels and events won't be officially released until next month.) But we've got a pretty good idea of what eager girls can expect (aside from one heck of a line for the "New Moon" session). Other vampires will be in their midst ("True Blood" and CW's upcoming "Vampire Diaries") but also kick-ass TV heroines ("Dollhouse" and "Chuck"), the muscle behind "G.I. Joe" (Channing Tatum, anyone?), perhaps a return visit from Robert Downey Jr. (hawking "Iron Man 2") and, if we're lucky, Brad Pitt himself (for "Inglourious Basterds").

Holy effing crap. Where to start? Okay, the Quentin Tarantino thing seems easy enough. When Reservoir Dogs came out and I went to see it, this dude goes, "Um, why are you at this movie?" He said that, you see, because Reservoir Dogs is a boy movie. My presence at Reservoir Dogs confused him. I imagined that when he got home from his he-man movie night, his Barbie girlfriend would bore him with her breathy recitation of the sparkly princess movie she saw with her Skipper and Midge friends. Gender roles: Safe!!

Anyway, girls are apparently not supposed to see Quentin Tarantino movies, unless Brad Pitt is in them playing another actor. Hmm? Girls aren't supposed to get the movie references either? Oops.

Let's skim through some of the highlights.

'Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time'
Women will be rushing the stage, offering to do star Jake Gyllenhaal's laundry on those washboard abs that he acquired for the film, since he spends much of it fighting, shirtless or both. Jake, we don't want to know how to quit you.

Maybe if the girly girls are lucky, Jake will give them money to buy a new hat, and then he'll let them sing in the show. But not if they go off and do something crazy with Ethel!

'New Moon'
Edward and Jacob appear shirtless in the upcoming "Twilight" sequel, so arrive to Hall H early – as in a week or two before – to beat out all the other would-be Bellas who will no doubt descend. A word of caution: Robert Pattinson is currently filming a romantic comedy (opposite “Lost’s” Emilie de Ravin) in New York so he might be M.I.A. Still, count on the publicity-loving-yet-affable Taylor Lautner showing up to talk about how he bulked up -- and fast -- to play the buffer-than-buff Jacob.

ZOMG!! SQUEAL!!!!

Would-be Bellas, hmm? As in, "I would have a personality and a point of view, but I need to be fought over by a vampire and a werewolf, both of whom want nothing more than to protect me. Oh, and fuck me, too. Secondarily." This genre is hilarious. Most recently we were graced with the Laurell Hamilton books and the Charlaine Harris Sookie Stackhouse books. Tanya Huff has the triangle, too, but it's vampire-girl heroine-human cop. Now, Tanya Huff can actually write. And the triangle works on True Blood because the characters are not just the sum of their fur or teeth. But seriously. No more. It's no longer fresh or new. And really, women don't WANT to be fought over. They really don't. That's just something men think women want. Moving on:

'Time Traveler's Wife'
Picture the wonderful sappiness of "The Notebook," replace Ryan Gosling with equally appealing Eric Bana, and inject a different hapless conflict to keep him from Rachel McAdams. In this case, Bana's character's got a gene that causes him to leap through time without the wife. Oh yes, bring on the bittersweet tears.

I can't picture the sappiness of The Notebook because you couldn't pay me enough to see it. Nicholas Sparks is the non-genre version of Stephanie Meyer. Now, I love me some time travel, but I'm talking 12 Monkeys, or Terminator. Or the first science fiction book I ever read -- The Time Machine. Not sure who the love interest was in THAT...

Alex O'Loughlin for 'Whiteout'
What more do you need than the hunkiest Aussie to ever play the undead ... alive and in the flesh? And as long as he uses his real accent, he can talk all about this murder mystery set in Antarctica. Male lead Gabriel Macht isn't too shabby either.

Are you fucking KIDDING ME? What year is this???

'The Wolfman'
Vampire-lovers have it all wrong. Werewolves can keep you warm, sympathize with your monthly curse, sniff out where you lost your keys and not thirst for your sweet, sweet blood. Bonus: Benicio del Toro's natural wolf-y looks won't even require hair and makeup for the panel.

Did a human being who gets paid to write for a living just say "monthly curse?" Can I have your job?

The Mad Hatter Johnny Depp in 'Alice in Wonderland'
"Alice in Wonderland" alone would be a draw for many girls, but add in the fact that quirky hotness Johnny Depp, right, is set to play the Mad Hatter, and you could have a mad (crazy) crowd of women seeking a glimpse of him on stage.

Yes, Alice In Wonderland. That darling story about LSD. Little girls LOVE that shit. Oh... you mean because Alice is adorable and wears an apron, of course...

The men of 'True Blood'
To be honest, Stephen Moyer's 173-year-old Southern gent of a vamp is our least favorite on Alan Ball's swampy HBO series. He's alright -- and there's no not enjoying the sexy way he says "Sookie" (rhymes with "cookie") -- but we much prefer his supernatural co-stars: Alexander Skarsgard's steely-eyed bad vamp Eric and Sam Trammel's sweet, shape-shifter Sam. Of course, we've also got a soft spot for Ryan Kwanten's Jason, the Sookie's clueless blond brother.

COULD YOU FUCKING STOP SAYING WE???????

'Where the Wild Things Are'
Two words: Mark Ruffalo.

Two words: Fuck you.

Those witchy women of Eastwick
Get your female empowerment right here. John Updike's novel about three women who find their lives turned upside down and mysterious personal powers unleashed when a devlish man moves to town, gets the network series treatment courtesy of ABC. Plus, you know the wardrobe of Rebecca Romijn, Sara Rue and Lindsay Price is going to give those "Desperate" housefraus a run for their money.

I love how people think "female empowerment" is just what happens when three hot girls (who happen to be severely under the thumb of men) are onscreen together. I doubt very much that any woman would agree with the idea that empowerment involves some dude who comes to town and controls all of those women through their vaginas. But one of the girls is shy, wears glasses and has her hair up. I wonder what will happen with that in the pilot?????

'V'
The ladies who recall the '80s miniseries this is based on will be hoping for a repeat of that forbidden reptilian allure, the ultimate in star-crossed lovers. Morris Chestnut and Scott Wolf provide the requisite eye candy, but it's "Serenity" stars Alan Tudyk and Morena Baccarin who will have all the Whedonettes giddy for talk of a possible reunion (uh, even though Wash died).

I couldn't give less of a shit about the starcrossed bladdy blah. Jane Badler ate a fucking rat.

'Supernatural'/'Smallville'/ The CW hunks
Jensen Ackles, Jared Padalecki and Tom Welling are splitting up on the CW after a long run together, but that just means more nights of hunky goodness. Who knows how long Welling's "Smallville" will be around, so let's appreciate him while we can. Jensen and Jared ... isn't brotherly love beautiful?

Apparently, that show is going to be around forever. And now Brian Austin Green has been pulled into the suck void that is Smallville. A huge waste of an actor who deserves better. There is NO part of comeback or reinvention that involves joining the cast of a ten billion year old CW show.

'Caprica,' sci-fi for girls and guys
"Battlestar Galactica" taught us that there are girls galore watching sci-fi. "Caprica" adds an element of family drama and even soap opera addiction (it's been called "Dynasty" in space) that may even be able to build on the greatness of mourned "BSG."

You know what else taught us that "girls" are watching science fiction? THE FACT THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR FUCKING DECADES.

Channing Tatum in 'G.I. Joe'
People may pooh-pooh dance flicks, but not when Channing Tatum, former underwear model, is in them. And some girls may steer clear of high-testosterone action films, but the same applies. There's also Sienna Miller, Marlon Wayans, Dennis Quaid and some others, but it's Tatum as Duke that may be the girl-draw.

Is there another actor on the planet with blanker eyes than Channing Tatum? Does ANY woman actually LIKE this guy? Channing Tatum is the dude that other dudes think women like, because other dudes are secretly gay.

'Dollhouse'/'Chuck'/Girls who kick butt!
Girls that can kill you with a quick chop to the throat should always be applauded. And "Dollhouse's" Echo (Eliza Dushku) and "Chuck's" CIA Agent Sarah Walker (Yvonne Strahovski) dole out butt-kicking goodness pretty often. Echo is sometimes a bit airheady, but don't be on the wrong side of a downloaded killer. And for Sarah, touch Chuck, and you might lose something valuable.

That's great, because Lord knows Dollhouse is JUST about fighting. It doesn't have anything to do with the nature of humanity. Because that stuff is BORING. It makes my girl head hurt.

These little gems come to us courtesy of LATimes.com people Denise Martin and Jevon Phillips, Zap2It monsters Hanh Nguyen and Brill Bundy (Brill does not understand female empowerment) and Zap2It's Rick Porter, who is mightily offensive but pales in comparison to these other idiots.

Hey, L.A. Times? No big shocker newspapers are going down the toilet. Not with offensive shit like this.

The people who matter know that this article is bullshit. They know that women (not GIRLS, you fetid dimwits) who like genre aren't rare creatures who need to be studied. But articles like this DO perpetuate the stereotype. And that stereotype is heard, by executives, producers, and other writers. Hell, I remember not getting a meeting on a show because the producer told our agent that girls don't know anything about sports.

This is NOT helpful. It means that the same tiny circle of people -- generally white men, and nothing against them because you take what you can get -- are going to continue creating television and film. There isn't room for other viewpoints, because of these stereotypes.

I'll stop there, because this post is bleeding into another one that I'll write next week.

But seriously. FUCK the L.A. Times. I thought TJ Simers was bad... but MAN.

No Man Is An Archipelago

Now is the time in TeeVee when you're required to beat your head against a wall. Repeatedly, and with passion. Yes, gentle readers, it's time to pitch pilots!! I've been watching this fantastic show on Discovery Channel called Pitchmen. It follows the real-life antics (you'd agree with that word choice if you'd seen the show) or product pitchmen Anthony Sullivan and Billy Mays. While you may not know Sully, you definitely know Billy. He screams at you from your TeeVee, imploring you to buy OxiClean or the Awesome Augur, yelling at you to WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

Yeah, he annoyed the shit out of me, too, until I watched the show. First of all, they're hilarious. Just watch Billy's eye start to twitch when Sully casually mentions the Sham Wow, just before they're going to shoot. And the show's not just about Billy and Sully trying to one-up each other with their product pitches. These guys don't pitch anything they don't believe in. If they don't think it works, or can be telegenic, they pass. Working in an industry where it's imperative you get your idea across to buyers, this show appealed to me. Now, there's an obvious major difference between pitching pilots and OxiClean. You can physically test OxiClean and show that it works. You can't do that with ideas. And that's one of the things that creates layers of executives. It's all about checks, checks, checks, and balances.

Talking to people about pilot ideas, a few things occurred to me. As much as the business has changed with staffing shows, where only about three people get hired, most of them Bruckheimer or comic book writers, pitching pilots has also changed. I know an awful lot of writers who work very hard to develop that one idea they're going to go out with every year. And in the past, that may have worked. Because you could take your idea to all the networks and all the studios. Over the past few years, that process began to change as cable networks rose to prominence, successful in part because of the specificity of their programming. The networks are following suit a little bit.

But where the cable networks' specificity is inclusive, the networks' specificity is exclusive. They're walking a tough tightrope. They have to look back at what worked for them last year, but they also have to look forward to what they hope will work for them next year. There's nothing present about them. It's all about the past and the future. Anything that IS happening in the present has to do with the capriciousness of the day-to-day work on a TeeVee show. For example, if ABC is really loving everything that's been happening on Eastwick, they'll be more predisposed to like pitches that seem like a good companion for that show. Networks do occasionally have the tendency to make knee-jerk decisions on what new show is or isn't working. Because the things don't premiere for months, so nobody knows what to think yet. For the most part, the cable networks don't have to do this. They know what works for them, and they stick with that. But networks can't have that narrow a viewpoint. They still think they have to appeal to a broad audience.

But do they really? Isn't that attempt what's destroying them? Audiences have become even more fragmented than a Buffy mailing list. Is it realistic to expect an audience to be loyal to a network? I don't think so. Not if the network is attempting to broaden their programming. Because audiences don't have to tune in to the networks for entertainment. They have multiple places to go. If all a viewer likes is Sniping Parents With Too Many Children, there's a channel for that. And the networks don't seem to realize this. The only network that attempts to specialize is CBS, and hey look! According to the ancient, creaky Nielsen system, CBS is the number one broadcast network!

That's no accident.

As far as cable networks go, every one seems to know what they can work with except for SciFi. There's a reason for their indecision -- they're waiting to see how Warehouse 13 does, because that show is supposed to launch their new spelling. So they're buying things, but they only seem to be buying things that could be taken elsewhere. I.e., from famous people, or writers/producers with great relationships at other networks. So nobody really knows what SciFi wants at the moment but when Warehouse 13 premieres, they'll be able to focus more.

I hope.

So what does this have to do with pitching pilots? I think it's impossible to have only one pilot idea anymore. Because you can really only pitch one specific type of idea to each network. Even a procedural idea, which every network wants, has to be tailored to what each network needs. You can't pitch the same procedural to Fox that you can to CBS, or the same procedural to ABC that you can to Fox. And when you're talking cable, FX wants something different than TNT, which wants something different than USA.

This is why I think deals with studios are bad ideas. The studios are moving more towards integration with their network overlords. If you pitch something to ABC Studios, they'll have ABC's needs in the backs of their minds. If ABC doesn't like it, maybe the studio doesn't want to take it anywhere else. Same with 20th, or CBS Paramount. What this means is that unless you can get Warner Bros or Sony onboard, you had better have an arsenal of pilot ideas ready to go. The days of taking a pitch out and then going through the process are over. Because if you go through the process and ultimately the network passes, you are probably not going to immediately be setting other network pitches. It used to be that you would schedule all your network pitches within a week or so. But that isn't going to happen anymore. So the process is quite drawn out and since the window of pitching is getting shorter and shorter (hell, it may be over now, for all I know), you may not have the chance to develop another idea and start the process all over again.

Studios and networks are trying to make it easier on themselves, so they have their go-to people. This does not make it easy on the industry, and it doesn't make it easy for the viewers. It closes the door on fresh ideas. It narrows the focus so much that only the most generic survive.

Nobody seems to realize that this is happening. The executives are buried in work, and the agents seem to be so stunned by staffing that they don't know where to put themselves. What they think is that studio pitches will open up around July, and people will start taking their ideas into networks in August. But I'm going to go on record right now and say that by August, the money will be gone. Networks will be closed. The only money they'll have left will be for for big-ticket items, like hot feature people or giant ape showrunners. This is pretty typical, BTW; they always save some money for the big fish. But will they even listen to outside pitches? Dunno. I guess we'll see.

Luckily, there are other places for writers. Cable networks still seem to be taking pitches. I think it's actually a good thing for networks to still woo big-time writers because then they won't go to cable. Networks siphoning off the people they always work with is good for the rest of the business. So let them stay around, even if they only serve that purpose.

Giant apes seem to blanch when they find out how little cable pays, which I find hilarious, especially in this economical environment. So let them get their big network deals. It's a win-win for everyone.

Alan Smithee sez, regarding Fringe:

But it has its moments, sure. The beach house scene is one. A few other chinks of characterization along the way. But it ain't no BREAKING BAD. For terrific character work, Breaking Bad has put all others in the shade this season. The entire cast is so brilliantly layered and agonizingly real, and not just the top six. Even the bit players are living, breathing entities with complex, unspoken depths.

I would hope that there wouldn't be one person on the planet who would disagree with you. Because Breaking Bad is, far and away, the best show on TeeVee.

But of course Breaking Bad is a cable show. Does that mean we should settle for less on the networks and be content with something at least vaguely out of the routine just so long as it's not Leno? Maybe we have to in this day and age and just be realistic, but I'd like to think we shouldn't. The likes of Breaking Bad could never happen on a network, I realize that, but I don't think that means we should give network shows a free license to mediocrity as viewers.

I think this speaks to the specificity I mentioned above. I don't think we should give network shows a free pass, and I don't think we are. Cable shows are growing in viewership and awareness. They're winning awards. That's a message to the networks. But the question is, do they care? That may not be in their portfolio. The biggest issue here is that we don't REALLY have to choose. I can watch Fringe and Breaking Bad. But if I did have to choose? Breaking Bad. No question.

And now for a word on the main topic! Part of me really feels for Friedman. God knows what a fickle, cruel and sometimes downright spiteful whore the business can be. Hard not to feel some empathy when so many have been put out of work. But then part of me says, you know what? T:SCC got more than its fair shot. 30 episodes -- more than most. It got that stay of execution mid-season. Granted that was only because WB lowered the license fee to pimp Salvation, and granted FOX moved it to Fridays, but still. FOX didn't have to order that back nine, and yet they got it. They got to finish a 22 episode season. And as much as I liked the first season, and as much as I wanted to love the second, it really did look creatively drained with the back nine.

What came through for me was the struggle. Because when it's been decided that your show is on the bubble, it's ALWAYS on the bubble. You never get to relax. And when the struggle is ended, I think there's a sense of inevitability, which is the very thing you were trying to fight against the whole time. There's also the issue of who moves into your house, which he touches on. Look, every show I've ever been on has been canceled. This is not shocking because every show eventually gets canceled. But the shows I've been on were canceled pretty fast. Like, "no back nine for you" fast. But there were several of those shows that were, in my opinion, replaced with lesser shows. Not only did those lesser shows not survive, but the ratings in that timeslot went down, too. From the second a network decides your show is in trouble -- and this is WAY before audiences have a chance to chime in -- you live in fear of cancellation, of a production shut-down. If you don't even have a few months before trouble is foisted upon you, there's no opportunity to feel comfortable and creative.

Deepstructure:

isn't the audience the measure of the show? this feels like blaming the audience for not knowing something good when they see it - and yet terminator had two seasons to try and change that perception.

Well, the audience doesn't always know when something's good, do they? But I'm not blaming an audience for not liking a show. The ratings do not always directly correlate to death watch. There are many, many other factors (see above). Say you're on a genre show and the network president doesn't like genre. Say the studio's fighting with the network, trying to get the budget up while the network wants to lower the license fee. It's also VERY rare for an audience that leaves to return. And audiences are unforgiving. They rarely give something a chance. Audiences are psychopathic little children, but we have to try and entertain those children. To depend on them for the life of your show, well... it sucks. Networks used to heavily factor in ratings, but there was also that other "something," which had to do with how a network president felt about the show. But as much as you think there's autonomy with network presidents, there isn't. There isn't that relationship between the creator/showrunner and the network head anymore. A network head isn't going to say to a writer, "It's okay. I trust you. We believe in the show." That's just not the business anymore. So they rely more heavily on audience reaction and especially on testing.

Speaking of that, and of an audience not knowing when something's good... you DO realize that shows get on the air BECAUSE of the audience, right? Testing, which used to be an aid, is now all-encompassing. You show doesn't test well, it doesn't get on. Which would have kept Mary Tyler Moore off the air, BTW.

Devon:

Do you think Summer Bird and Mine That Bird will rematch in the Travers or the Breeders' Cup? Do you have your BC tickets? ;)

GA's ten bucks! I'm jazzed about that. So I'm definitely going. I think they could meet up in the Travers. The Breeder's Cup... I'm not sure. Mine That Bird is definitely not a Polytrack horse. Not sure if Summer Bird is. My dream Breeder's Cup Classic favorite is Zenyatta, but that won't happen.

I'm actually more interested in how this race season affects the two trainers than in those two horses.

There's something to that, and I think the focus on Woolley and Borel should tell the racing industry something about how to market itself. Sure, you can market the horses but the industry has a problem in that the good ones don't stay around, or they're fillies (and we all know that fillies are inferior to colts!). But marketing the people, who will ALWAYS be around... that's the way to go. I think the show Jockeys is showing that.

Dunkirk did better on Sat. than I thought -- he's getting his mental game together. I think he'll be very good in Saratoga and at the BC.

Or... he'll succumb to his breeding and break down, requiring surgery! Stupid Unbridled's Song infirmities...

np -- nattering on MSNBC.

Fear Theme

If you haven't read Josh Friedman's new post on his last day as exec producer on (as he calls it) the scary robot show, go now. I'll wait.

All caught up? Great.

There's the business. Right there. In one hilarious, depressing blog post. One test screening, one ratings point, can make you go from hero to zero, or back again, in a split second. Because the business is all about perception. And perception is driven by numbers. There are the ratings, of course. And then there's the cost. With a new show, you're always fighting about money. What you can amortize over the initial episode order, how embarrassingly low your pattern is, and why Some Other Show next to you on the lot is spending so much more money than you are. It's about how much the studios and networks give you for a writing staff. These days, it's about forty dollars, because development has changed, which means that PODs take a big cut of your budget.

And if your show isn't working, then you're on Death Watch. It used to be that Death Watch only existed inside the industry, but now there's a whole industry outside TeeVee that will do Death Watch for you. For free! Blogs and entertainment sites will gleefully spew about how such-and-such show is about to be canceled, or already has been (Dollhouse was canceled a long time ago, except it wasn't). But you can't really know what Death Watch is like unless you're on a show. The stress of it alone is virtually unbearable. And I've only been on staff. I can't imagine what it's like for a showrunner, for the person who created the show, to be expected to stay creative when their show is hanging by a thread for six months. Because Death Watch starts as soon as your first ratings dip occurs, which is normally by the second episode because that's how audiences ARE. And no matter how much you lie to yourself about the demos being good or the show being cheap or the network execs really loving the show in spite of the ratings, your show is probably dead. The networks will only be so supportive and if they perceive your show as a loss, they will cancel it. And the studio will go about this far, too, because let's remember that studios have different functions than they used to. They are no longer there to protect the show from the network because more likely than not, the studio and the network are the same entity. And as soon as one entity goes, "Hey, you know that fancy licensing fee? We'll pick the show up, but only if that bitch is cut in half," well... the studio backs down real fast.

The studio also makes deals with the network. If they're trying to get an underperforming show picked up but they're also trying to get new shows picked up, they will sacrifice the old in a heartbeat. And overnight, or over a studio lot latte, your show will go from protected to sacrificed. Because from their point of view, that new show is like a horse going into the gate for the Derby. All potential, baby. While your show already struggled down the stretch and finished in the back of the pack. And even though it's frustrating and infuriating, you can't argue with them when they talk numbers. A network may also be more inclined to pick up a show from their vertically integrated studio. This doesn't always happen. But Fox owns Dollhouse, and it doesn't own Sarah Connor. So you can parse whatever you want from that.

All that aside, the one talent you develop from being on show after show that's been on Death Watch (and this is every show I've been on except one) is instinct. You start to know the signs of displeasure. You begin to figure out, much more quickly than your agent, that a certain job isn't going to happen, that your show's going down, or that your pilot is dead. My instincts are razor fucking sharp and so far, infallible. It's not necessarily a talent I love, because it precludes any kind of anticipation or hope. But it's seriously valuable and when we get a show on the air, I'll be ready.

I think the relationship between entities and showrunners has changed, too. Showrunners aren't partners anymore, because partners have no role in a corporate environment. The power structure is different. A showrunner is essentially middle management. But there's also the thorny issue of creativity. A middle manager isn't necessarily a creative person, but a showrunner is. Likewise with executives, who are also middle management but can also be creative and supportive and great. The problem is that they have a corporate structure they must answer to, and this hurts creative partnerships. That's the part of the job that can be infuriating but also intensely rewarding -- when you're working with an executive who really gets what you're doing and what the show can be. But they don't really get to make those purely creative decisions anymore.

What a corporate structure REALLY wants is to make a show without pesky folks who have creative visions. Welcome to the fold, reality shows!

I doubt very much that there's an integrity stand-off or a creative coalition over one of the myriad dancing shows. Although maybe they fight like little Chihuahua critters over which Olympian to cast. I don't know. How easy reality show producers must be to deal with! All the corporations have to do is, every few years or so, feed Simon Cowell some line about how he's irreplaceable, then hand him another bag of money (which they can afford to do because they've slashed the budget of scary robot shows and the writing staffs of everything).

But something's been happening lately, and it has to do with the Thing That Will Change TeeVee Forever -- the new Jay Leno show. Yes, the show that took somewhere around 25 writing jobs and about a thousand -- that's 1000 -- production jobs away. DAMN YOU, JAY, DAMN YOU TO HELL! Except not. Because it's certainly not Jay's fault. "Hey, Jay, turn down all that money so there will be more dramas on the air." He's not a fucking saint. He's human.

So we get Jay Leno, every night at ten. A radical new way of addressing network costs while still airing something. Networks generally order at least one show that is either not totally fleshed out as a series, or that they think is one thing, when it's really something else. Or, they'll order something they like on Tuesday, but have problems with on Wednesday. Jay Leno is apparently that show for NBC. In the first virginal flush of "Hey, this shit's CHEAP!" NBC forgot that they have the Tonight Show, now with Conan O'Brien. The Tonight Show's a big deal. Always has been.

And that format isn't going to change because there's a new host. But funny interview host guy is also Leno's brand. And that would be fine, if NBC had just let the guy go to ABC. But they didn't. They kept him and maybe they thought, "We'll figure out what his show is later." But according to Internet gossip, they haven't cracked it yet. And maybe there's a little bit of buyer's remorse, where they've realized that they have two hours of essentially the same show on every night. How do they make it different, when they're counting on Leno's brand to bring an audience, and that brand is the Tonight Show?

They take the reins and try to fix the problem. They tell Leno that he has to come up with a solution, too. They make the show one of their priorities (and really, it must be THE biggest priority at the network). They do exactly what they do to a drama that they perceive as problematic. This is really interesting, because the Leno idea seemed like something they could order and forget. And that seemed to be one of the main attractions to the idea, aside from the massive monetary savings.

Everybody is going to be watching NBC to see if this works. If it fails, does that mean NBC will go back to scripted programming at ten, or is that now gone forever? I guess we'll see. Regardless of whether or not the Leno gambit succeeds, it will still have changed the network business forever.

Enough of that.

Alan Smithee on Fringe:

But I do think the praise lavished on it is worrying, perhaps indicative of an age of diminished expectations on network television. I mean, isn't the show guilty of most of the things you condemn elsewhere? Cool Ideas given more importance over character, motives sacrificed for mystery, gimmicky, hollow plots. Sound familiar? I wonder why it is that people can recognize all this stuff so readily on the likes of, say, HEROES, but don't want to see it in Fringe and LOST. Maybe it's because JJ Abrams is just so fashionable at the moment that to step back and say "hang on a minute" is to make yourself the only pooper at the party.

I've only seen the pilot of Heroes, but I didn't see anything at all original. Although TeeVee is ostensibly about characters, let's take a look at what most people watch -- procedurals, which are about plots. So seeing a cool idea on a TeeVee show that isn't a new way to catch a killer actually DOES make me happy. And for me, at least, it's not the fact that JJ Abrams is fashionable. I adored Alias, and that had one cool idea piled on another. Sometimes I really, really love cool ideas. The fact that I love them on genre shows isn't acceptable, but other people loving ideas on procedurals somehow IS.

But with Fringe and Lost, I also like the characters. Now, Olivia Dunham certainly isn't the archetype that Fox Mulder is, but it's not necessary that she be. And there was little more terrific character work in last year's TeeVee season than Walter and Peter at the beach house. What I loved about that scene is how the revelations of the episode deepened the characters. They didn't have to come right out and say it. It was there.

Dan said above that there's nothing gimmicky or tacked on about Fringe. Putting aside Nimoy's appearance (which felt like both), there's that other thing they call The Observer. I of course refer to the giant Where's Waldo game that's been going on not only on Fringe, but in fact all over FOX apparently. This is a figure who has no discernible motive or purpose, but gets people thirsty for the Kool Aid. You might as well call him The Gimmick. It just makes the show feel so cynical and manipulative, the TV equivalent of The Cups And The Balls.

Outside of the show, he's a marketing gimmick. But inside the show, well... it's exactly the kind of move that makes me happy. See, I don't think they're trying to be gimmicky. I think they're trying to do cool stuff.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's all bad. The production values are immense. It looks glorious on screen, and I loved the final shot. Production wise, the Bad Robot machine clearly knows exactly what it's doing, as you say. They've got FOX investing in the genre, giving it more minutes and less commercial time, and no one quite builds a hype bandwagon like Abrams. Fringe has clearly got a lot of potential in its set-up and could stand to improve a great deal in its second season if it either gives Astrid/Charlie/Broyles/Nina something worth doing or else ditches them entirely. I don't think the series is structured with enough elasticity to ever match THE X-FILES, but it could be fun watching the attempt.

There are many differences between X-Files and Fringe, and most of them have to do with how the business has changed. A show like X-Files is never going to happen on Fox, or on any other major network, ever again. Fox didn't take a risk with Fringe. Network don't take risks. Nothing gets on the air without extensive testing. And I wouldn't ask Fringe to be another X-Files, either.

Speaking of which, I'm curious about your old X-Files spec should you be tempted to showcase it alongside the unproduced pilots. ;)

Hmm. I've looked at it lately, and it's rather talky .

To anyone bothering to argue with pisher in the comments -- it will only lead to great pain. I'm not going to engage him publicly, because then the blog will have been consumed by pisher. And I'm not going to let that happen.

np -- Stereophonic Space Sound Unlimited, "Jo Siffert"

Any Way You Want It

So last time, I said I'd take a look at the new fall shows.

But over the past week, every Goddam blog in existence has reviewed the new falls shows via the clips and trailers supplied by the networks. And really, who the fuck cares? This is all about the networks putting their best foot forward. And that foot is never going to be better placed than it is now. So their trailers and the hype? Means nothing until shows premiere.

This is only a brand new shiny TeeVee season because nothing's failed yet. Shows haven't lost their way. They haven't been recast or retooled. Everybody's happy with all those white male co-exec producers and staff writers they hired. They all think they can make the show they want on the budget they have, and they also think they'll easily be five scripts ahead by the time they start production. I'd make a snooty feature writer crack here, but there are wonderful, non-snooty feature writers in TeeVee who should not be lumped in with the assholes.

Anyway.

The most talked about thing during upfront week was the renewal of Dollhouse. People were either surprised, enraged, confused or delighted. A lot of the enraged couldn't understand why Dollhouse was renewed while Sarah Connor wasn't. The network rather harshly said that Sarah Connor had two years and that was enough, which tells you something about the graciousness of networks. But if you look at it realistically, FBC owns Dollhouse through Twentieth TV, where it does not own Sarah Connor. And the studio for Sarah Connor, Warner Bros, seems to perennially be stretched thin in the money department. They also seem to have problems giving a network the series they promise in the pilot. While I don't imagine that this was the only factor involved in the decision, I think it had something to do with it. But really, the cold hard fact is that Fox didn't make many pilots and they didn't pick up either of the two Twentieth studio pilots. Instead, they picked up Past Life and Human Target, which are both from Warner Bros. Did they really want to subtract a Twentieth show and add another WB show?

Other networks got in on the vertical integration game a little. ABC picked up Flash Forward and Happy Town, both from ABC Studios. Which surprised me a bit, because they picked up two others from Warner Bros and one from Twentieth. I really thought that this would be the year they'd pick up all ABC shows, but maybe that'll happen next year, after their integration of the studio and network. CBS picked up a Warner Bros show (from Bruckheimer) and three Paramount shows, so they own three of the four. The CW picked up two from Paramount and one from Warner Bros. Slowly but surely, we're inching towards complete vertical integration. Warner Bros is ostensibly independent (sort of) and Sony, the real independent, got dramas made but not picked up. I wonder how much that had to do with what they could afford in this climate.

Don't kid yourself, gentle readers; no matter how much they talk about product, it's all about money. That's not cynicism. It's reality. But ever now and then, something peers through. And that thing staring at you through the curtain is Glee.

There have been great high school shows, most recently Buffy the Vampire Slayer (what, you don't think it's a high school show?), Freaks & Geeks and My So-Called Life. High school shows work on many levels. They can be metaphorical (Buffy), nostalgic (Freaks & Geeks), achingly real (My So-Called Life),or even bitchy soaps (Gossip Girl). And with few exceptions, they work. Because everybody went to high school. So there's really nothing more relatable than a high school show.

Glee is relatable in a different way. It's nostalgic -- not just the Journey, but it's written into the characters. And the adults on the show seem to be struggling with the transition to adulthood. Are they teachers because they want to recapture that experience? Most high school shows are about the outcasts because that's also a relatable feeling. Everybody, no matter how popular, felt like an outcast in high school. That's what high school's FOR. And even though we're supposed to move past it, that feeling always simmers and can surface at any time, apparently until you're, you know, dead. But there are a few geek arenas that even TeeVee hasn't fully embraced -- and we're looking at a biggie: Music nerds. I mean, even Lane Kim quit the band and became a cheerleader. Glee embraces the music nerd and as a former high school music nerd, I couldn't be happier. And it couldn't be more authentic, even with its occasionally broad tone. You should see my high school band now. Pathetic.

Glee is such a wonderful, open-hearted show that it made me think about the fall shows and why I've become so meh about them. Because I'll watch Glee. I don't know if I'll watch any other fall shows beyond their pilots.

Even when it's focusing on outcasts, TeeVee is still all about the cool. That's why these fast-talking procedurals are ordered every year. That's why main characters are lawyers and cops and detectives and forensic specialists and doctors and nurses (a hot new genre in 2009). Now, God forbid that they be actual geniuses, like physicists. Real scientists can appear as supporting characters, but they can't be leads. You can have a physicist, but he has to be twitchy and weird, like Daniel Farraday. Or he can be crazy, like Walter Bishop. But they must be balanced out by cool doctors (Jack Shepherd), or scruffy, hot rogues and sleek FBI agents (Peter Bishop and Olivia Dunham). You don't believe me? Go pitch a scientist show to a network (comedies, BTW, are different animals).

Think about it -- what drama do you watch on network TeeVee that features uncool lead characters? Even my favorite network shows featured cool people. The Gilmore girls were cool. The politicians on the West Wing were cool, even when they were policy wonks because they would still sleep with prostitutes. And even Buffy, with her outcast-ness, slayed vampires. Willow became a cool lesbian witch. Xander married an ex-demon and lived in a weird 80s condo.

There are two ways to be an outcast: You either hide your weird qualities (Buffy), or you showcase them (Glee). It wasn't until I watched the Glee pilot that I realized what had been bothering me about the pilots, and it's that cool factor. Even when a pilot tries to make a character less cool, they invariably balance that quality out with a cool element: Mary Sue's a mousy librarian, but she's also a witch who looks GREAT with her hair down and her boobs pushed up. Cool is the safe zone for networks, whereas cable networks are at ease with cool (Damages), or not (Breaking Bad). Actually, cool and not-cool exist in both AMC shows. Mad Men would be the cool one, people. In case you're slow. But Mad Men also writes towards the cool, in order to show the audience the interminable pain of maintaining that cool. Network dramas don't seem to be that layered. And if they manage to be, the audience isn't there and the network doesn't get the show. I think the characters on Sarah Connor were cool, but in more of a cable way than a network one. Their cool was desperation, the need to stave off the coming apocalypse. They became cool because of that. They didn't come that way. And that makes TeeVee viewers go, "Uh, what?" And then it makes networks cancel the show.

So are these shows layered when they're conceived and pitched, but then those layers get stripped out by the process? I honestly don't think so. Because if you try to come up with a network show, you automatically create cool characters. You know what they'll want to hear, and it's not your show about the droolingly crazy mad scientist who doesn't have any interest in forensics or solving murders. But in thinking about spec pilots, maybe it's a better idea to consciously write away from that. A spec doesn't have to be a network show, and it's not easy to distinguish yourself in a spec if you're already reining yourself in and trimming the edginess out. Pitching network pilots is and should be a different prospect than pitching cable pilots.

So the fall season is what it is. Once those shows are launched, with the same people as last year behind slightly different helms, the networks will turn their attention towards creating next year's cool shows. Going on the assumption that all of their shows will be big, big hits (because this always happens), they will begin to buy companion shows. Once the majority of those shows are bought, the fall shows will premiere. Most of them will fail (because this, really, always DOES happen). And then they will panic and begin to buy different shows. I'm not psychic, by the way. This happens every single year.

The real losers will be any audience member who expects this season to be any different. The networks have their niche. That would have been painful before cable, but now it doesn't matter as much. I say "as much" because there's still a lot of work to do to make really good TeeVee. There are things I would like to see from cable, such as separating its structure even more from network TeeVee. I'd like to see more of a division between network writers and cable writers. The cynicism of the major networks doesn't translate well to cable. A good example of this is the TNT show Trust Me, which nobody watched. And I think that had to do with the fact that it had a network patina to it. People who watch cable shows like them for different reasons than they like network shows.

But the audience who tunes into the networks while they're folding laundry, or making dinner? They'll be happy with the new fall schedule. In-between life, they'll see bright, shiny, expensive, handsomely cast cool shit on every network. Network TeeVee isn't gonna change. Shows will sneak through on occasion, but it's going to stay essentially the same.

Not that I can't still complain about it, of course.

I'll get to the rest of the comments next time. Until then... enjoy the Breaking Bad finale!!

PS -- Mormons, get your shit out of California, or we're gonna be coming for you.

np -- The Dodgers/Cubs game.

Speak Softly

Thanks to everyone for your comments on my "Rule By Secrecy" post. Ultimately, the Internet is all about perception and interpretation. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be flame wars. As politic as I try to be, there's always going to be someone who doesn't get what I'm saying, or who gets offended. Whatevs. I'm doing my best.

Getting to some comments, but not all of them, because what fun would closure be? Next time, I'll blather kindly about upfronts. No real surprises there, because networks are always going to develop what they develop. But there were some surprises regarding renewals, and one fall show has already premiered. I watched it. You don't get to know what I thought until next week.

Neil:

"gentle readers" - Way to go all Jane Espenson on us!

I was actually going all Isaac Asimov, which I suspect she may be doing, too!

Bobo:

I'll be curious to see what you think of Damages season 2. I love virtually everything about the show--cast, tone, scene-for-scene writing--except for...the storytelling. I find the flash-forward bookends to every episode kind of a cheat, a way of maximizing and extending the shock value of what is actually a solitary twist/cliffhanger. And I don't find that the bookends comment all that meaningfully on the particular episode we've just seen, although I suspect I maybe haven't paid close enough attention to that. But I'm grateful to Damages: swanky, smart, upscale, educated, cutthroat NYC (with blood and sex) is a combination I've ALWAYS wanted to see on television.

I agree about the bookends, but I still like them and think they're effective for this particular show. They add a great sense of dread to the show. And that's really what I love most about Damages (and the acting, of course). Dread infuses every moment of the show. This show is about the unreliable narrator, the skewed point of view character. Because we weren't really sure how far Ellen would go this year. She was unreliable, too, and that enhanced that sense of dread. I just love it. I think it's such an underrated show.

Rob, from WAY back:

On another note... are you excited about the upcoming GAMES OF THRONES adaptation? It's kinda' flying under the radar, but if done correctly, this could be the LOTR of television.

I haven't read the books, but I know they're supposed to be fantastic. The biggest issue is going to be money. This shit's expensive, and we'll see if HBO can actually afford it. What's good about HBO doing it is that it will hopefully lend the genre some critical cred. I don't know if this will be another example of a genre show that isn't going to help the genre or not. Time will tell.

EDT -- Kings was a good-looking show. Luck to your friend.

pisher,
Yes, Bridget Regan can act. Lots. She has star quality, that one. Now, getting into a discussion with pisher, gentle readers, isn't always the best way to go. Don't try to convince him that TeeVee can live without Joss Whedon. He's on a Whedon-hating kick right now. Just let him have it. So I'll comment on only a few things:

I'm sorry, TV is full of itself. Everybody wants to write the Great American Novel, when even real geniuses writing novels with no network suits to deal with couldn't manage that.

Everybody wants to make the best show they can. There's nothing wrong with aspiration, regardless of whether it's an aspiration to do a great drama that wins awards, or make something that's purely entertaining. It's been proven, especially this season, that the spectrum is alive and well. I'm tired of our whole humble American thing, where we're not supposed to aspire to anything because it's unseemly, and intelligence is arrogant. That's bullshit.

Burn Notice is basically genre (okay, no magic or superscience, but c'mon--it's sure as hell a fantasy), and it's the #1 scripted show on free cable. It's been renewed for another 16 episode season.

Burn Notice is not genre. Are you also going to appropriate Jane Austen as romance? Because I've already won THAT particular fight.

Whedon started out with the WB, which gave him a lot of room to run. Maybe it gave him a false impression of what it's like to work on a real network, but then again--he's a third generation TV writer. How could he not know? So maybe the REAL problem is that the WB, through Buffy, gave us slightly impression of how good a showrunner Whedon really is?

There are flashpoints in TeeVee, and Buffy/WB was one of those flashpoints. Another was X-Files/Fox. And right now we're looking at AMC, with Mad Men and Breaking Bad. When a network is starting out like that, the sky's the limit. The executives are hungry and enthusiastic, and they'll take chances they won't take later because they don't have that development box all set up yet. I know what it's like to have a great first experience and then be smacked with the reality stick. I know what it's like to trust people, and how hard it is to stop doing that. I honestly believe that Whedon tried like the devil to work with Fox, but his default is trust. Even more than that, though, has to do with something you mentioned. He's from an industry family. The last thing you want to be known as is a complete asshole. There's certainly a fine line. You can be partly an asshole. You can be a big asshole if your show is a huge hit. But if you choose to be a complete asshole, well, that's gonna hurt you eventually. Whedon grew up in the system. He works within it. He worked on Roseanne, for God's sake. Those writers learned a little something about bad experiences. No matter what, you HAVE to be at least somewhat accommodating, or they won't hire you again. And I think that hurt -- but didn't destroy -- his show. Ironically, it also may have helped. More on that next week.

We each fight as much as we can, and we pick our battles. Sometimes we're wrong, but at the end of the day I think we all have to be true to who we are.

I haven't seen the Trek movie yet, so my only comment is that Dorothy Fontana says she has no intention of seeing it. This being the same Dorothy Fontana who was story editor on the original series, and played an important role in creating Next Generation, and was one of 5 women credited on 16 of the 79 original series scripts (20% of the show). In the 60's. And here we are in the 00's, and there are two men credited with writing the script for this film, seven men credited with producing it, and Roddenberry gets exclusive credit for creating the characters, even though we know it wasn't quite that simple.

Ah, I love it when have the gall to whine about how there aren't many women writing for TeeVee or film. Hilarious. Also, I have this bizarre thing of making up my own mind about going to see something. I know. Like I said, bizarre. But that's how I roll.

Kimshum:

Finally, as to samples, I often wonder if writers know which samples their agents are sending to which shows. Somehow I doubt it.

You'd be correct. Sometimes an agent will ask you what to send, but more often than not they will send what they think is the right sample. On a list of ten things that gall me about staffing season, the search for the perfect sample is way up there. If someone doesn't know how to recognize good writing, then yeah. The perfect sample is crucial. I wish it didn't matter as much as it does because at the end of the day, good writing should win out. But it doesn't always.

A few ways to at least try and put your best foot forward: Read all the pilots. Know the shows. Send your agent a list of what sample works for what show. Also, if you want to be submitted to a wide range of shows, you need to have a wide range of samples. It's retarded but true.

Kaley:
Regarding Heroes, I can't speak to specifics because I don't watch the show, but based on the pilot, what others have said about it and what Kring himself has said, it seems to me that he bit off something he just didn't want to chew. I don't think I could create a legal show, because I don't have a background in that world. When Kring sold Heroes, by all accounts it was a rich, detailed, wonderful pitch. He was excited about the idea. But see, if you're a genre writer and you come up with that idea, you already know that you have to make it different somehow, because there have been sixty million comic book stories about a group of modern-day superheroes. I feel somewhat justified in talking about this because we sold the same kind of show years earlier. And based on our knowledge of the genre, we knew we had to change it up and make it fresh -- and that was just because of the comic book world, not the TeeVee world. Because it hadn't been on TeeVee all that much at that point. We also knew that we had to create arcs, for the characters and the story. We had to keep everything organized, and all the rules clear. I honestly don't think Kring knew what he was getting himself into. You can't break the rules unless you already understand them.

David Bishop:

As to procedural creators not getting it in the neck from procedural like Whedon has done from some genre fans, I'd humbly suggest it does happen. David Milch's John From Cincinnati caused all sorts of head scratching and angst from fans of Deadwood and NYPD Blue. But those communities are far looser knit and less vocal than genre fans, in my experience, so maybe the noise wasn't so deafening...

They do if they stray from what they do best, but when they're actually IN the crime/procedural drama, things settle down. I just think genre fans demand different things than procedural fans. For a procedural fan, a satisfying mystery with some character work is exactly what they're looking for. But genre fans, well... it runs a little deeper than that, which sadly leads to jokes about parents' basements and virginity.

Anonymous Bosch:

That's my main problem with the show. It's not exploring the harsh realities of the very loaded ideas it raises, but engaging them in only in the most superficial, glossed-over shiny-background, cool-sunglasses, endless-back-flippy-fights-where-nobody-gets-bruised-let-alonehurt, alt-rock CW montage way.

I think they've gone away from that with the season finale. And not that I know from the inside or anything, but based on how I do know TeeVee works, I believe this was a function of a network trying to make the show into what it wanted. The show struggled all season, but that's what happens when you make the wrong compromises.

Anonymous attacker guy,
Well, thanks! I think I've only rejected two comments, and that was because they were obvious trolls that had nothing to do with the blog. Don't try and push that envelope or anything, but I said early on that I didn't want to be a blog Nazi. I mean, I approve pisher's posts, for God's sake!

Jeffrey:

I think you are overlooking some cool genre shows on TV. Supernatural started out looking like Buffy with dudes, but really became something cool, and supposedly they're having the balls to end it next season even though ratings are good. Also, Eureak really is a quality show, and it's one of the few shows with a positive outlook on the future. Also, Smallville has had some great moments. What about True Blood(which I don't actually like but it is a genre show you left out?

I haven't seen True Blood yet (no HBO), but I will watch the first season. Because there's so much shit on, and also work to do, I can't watch everything (I know. Sad). But I do sample as much as possible. Supernatural has definitely filled that void, and my understanding is that they're doing some cool stuff and constantly reinventing the show. Smallville is what it is, and what it's been for the four thousand years it's been on. I sure liked what I saw of Eureka. Of those, though, I think the only one that's relevant to the conversation is Eureka, because SciFi is really trying to build the network around it. Bringing up the eight million seasons of Smallville isn't going to get you anywhere. That show exists outside of any conversation about genre. See, the networks like to make exceptions, which means that if something like Heroes works, the network will make up some excuse for why it works, which precludes anyone pitching anything in the same vein to NBC. You simply can't go pitch a superhero show to the CW.

I had a question. You have written that network shows are viewed as being more prestigous. Why does it matter who's signing your check? I would think, writing good TV would be the true measure, but I could be wrong.

Well, I agree with you. But the business is still focused on the big networks. It's the major leagues, baby, and sure, you can make your quirky little show on cable, but the networks... that's where you rake it in! This is mostly, at this point, an agent discussion. The agents LOVE the big networks, because THEY make more money. For writers, though, the majority just want to get a show on the air. I would put myself in that majority.

Cory:

My one (very minor) critique with STAR TREK (and MI III) is that the villian was only okay. It's tough, with everything the movie accomplishes, but a great villian would have nailed it for me.

Not that I've ever written a great villian either...

I see this complaint a lot and from a storytelling point of view, it makes sense. You can't have a great hero unless he's fighting a great villain. But I don't think that's as important in a franchise like Star Trek. This movie in particular was a pilot for a new franchise, and in that sense the most important element isn't the fight between the hero and the villain. It's the coming together of these characters.

Geez. Long. Again.

np -- Doves, "Kingdom of Rust." It really is an excellent record.