On Sunday night, "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" debuted on Fox, after football. The numbers were astonishing. And the show was great. The numbers dropped a lot last night because there was no football lead-in, but it still built on "Prison Break" and didn't lose in the half hour. Well, at the Monday picket, there were the "Sarah Connor" folks, picketing as usual. I can't imagine what it would be like to walk away from a show, especially to walk away before the show's finished shooting. And then, the morning after mind-boggling numbers, to show up to picket the studio that paid for the show.
Today, there were very few people picketing. What the diminishing numbers say to those of us who show up every day is that the strike has gotten inconvenient for people. It's getting tougher now. Those who have been lucky enough not to be forced to sacrifice before no longer look at the strike as a good chance to decompress from work. Now, it's a hindrance, or an annoyance.
In the midst of this comes the news that studios are canceling some pretty big producer deals. If you were wondering about the fate of your favorite show during the strike, take a look at the deal list. If the creator of your show is listed, just cut the cord now, man. The show's dead.
The following is from an article about the deals:
Studio execs, for the most part, say the strike could represent a turning point in how they do business.
"This is causing all of us to look at our businesses and look at the efficiency of going from development to series," one topper said. "We’re all seeing insane efficiencies. We’re building shows that are really more challenging than ever economically. We’ve got to do this better."
I agree with the entire statement. But I question the truth of it. Do the studios really understand why the shows are so expensive? Do they really think their way of doing development is inefficient? Somehow, they're deciding to blame the writers for this but as we've seen with the negotiations, nobody can force a conglomerate to do anything it doesn't want to do. The writers and the PODs didn't go to the studios and say, "Listen, this whole development thing? Let us handle it. We'll hear the pitches and then we'll bring the good ones in." It's not the lower-level execs who are making these deals either, but they are the ones on the front lines who have to handle the fall-out. The studios over-reached and as a result, they have to try and recoup the enormous payouts somehow. So they put these writers on shows, or hand shows over to PODs. The shows become responsible for paying out these deals. That's a gob of money that you can't use for production.
If the studios really understand why these shows are so much more expensive now -- if they can look at the fact that when budgets took off there was a rise in these types of deals -- then things can really change for the good. It won't only be the deal-less who have to fight for their ideas and the jobs, it'll be all of us. You won't have co-exec producers who were shoved onto your show, don't give a shit, and just want to work on their pilots. Instead, the people who are there will WANT to be there.
Early in the strike, I was out on the line and got roped into a conversation about the strike that morphed into a discussion of why TV isn't working, and why there aren't more writers working. The assertion was made that the biggest problem with TV was that there weren't more freelance jobs. The insinuation was that if there were more freelance assignments, more writers would be working.
I countered by saying that IMO, the problem was that there weren't enough staff jobs. I sound like a broken record about this, but the reason for that has a lot to do with deals and PODs. The way I understand British TV is that it's primarily freelance. So there isn't a staffing season, where you either get a job or you starve for an entire season. As a freelancer, you have to be on your fucking game the entire year. If you get a chance for a freelance script, you knock it the fuck out of the park, which ensures that you will continue to work. The criteria for staffing is different. When you get staffed on a show, you have confirmed employment for a particular period of time. You get a regular salary, you get scripts to write, and if your show is a hit, you are, too. Staffing means relaxing. You have a job. You have nothing to worry about.
I think both points -- that there aren't enough freelance jobs or enough staff jobs -- are equally relevant. But the TV business has become quite resume-driven. Say you like two writers equally, or close to equally. You're going to hire the person who was on "Veronica Mars" over the person who was on some show you've never even heard of. That's just the way it is. The make-up of a writing staff is so delicate that you cover as many bases as possible. So now writers have two things to worry about -- how to make a living in an atmosphere that only caters to being on staff, and how to get that resume all sexed up so you can staff the next season.
It's not the writers' fault, nor is it the fault of the showrunners. It's the environment this business has fostered that leads to this sort of thing. I doubt very much that the strike is going to fix what's wrong with TV. I hope that it might, if all goes perfectly, slightly alter the way the business works. Doing away with the dead weight above the line is going to help. My fear, though, is that once the strike ends the studios will scramble to make deals with the people who are suddenly free. And then we're right back where we started.
I hope we can all find a way to make television affordable and profitable again. If it takes the strike to make the studios change the way they do business, great. They act like it's some big threat to the writers but any way they can reduce the budgets of these shows so the money's on the screen and not in the pockets of people who add nothing more than their names to the show is in everybody's best interests.
np -- Sea Wolf, "Leaves In the River"

11 comments:
Hey, where is the list of deals that were canceled?
Canada's been moving away from free lancing everything to more staffing. That's good. Free lancing means there's one overworked showrunner rewriting lots of people who didn't get the show. Staffing means people in the room discussing what the show is, and therefore knowing what the show is. British TV has lots of scripts mailed-in by free lancers. The brilliant shows we love are the cream that rises to the top of any system. Steven Moffat would be brilliant in the room, too.
Also, no staffing means no one learns to be a showrunner. That leaves producers running the show. You DON'T want that.
Staffing is the apprenticeship system. Michelangelo wouldn't have been half the artist he was if he hadn't worked for really great artists first, learning.
I was supposed to be at the WB gate today, but I've been sick as the proverbial dog since last Thursday. Turns out--Aha! A medical plan? Why, yes, it does come in handy once in a while, especially if you need to use it--I've had something close to walking pneumonia, which explains a few things...
Anyway, I struggled yesterday to make it to the WB and even though I completed the early shift, it wore me out. So I bagged today and felt lousy at doing so. I'll be back on the line tomorrow, unless I die sometime before the morning hits.
As I feature writer my life is pretty much like that of the Brits TV situation: do good work or no job. From time to time I've thought about doing TV work, but I don't think my personality is suited for it...
I think TV will bounce back, especially once this all gets settled and people demand scripted entertainment again. Pretty soon the networks will start embedding (once TV goes completely digital) shows with ads that can't be skipped over and all of a sudden their profits will rise.
And even before that happens Kay will have a TV gig and money in the bank.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the threat reality TV has over the livlihood of scripted television.
I dunno, Carlo, have you seen some of the reality tv drek? It's a stop gap, a sort of for the moment solution for the networks, but long term? Ummmmm...not really.
Everything in this business is cyclical: hospital dramas are hot for a while, then comedy, then cop shows, etc...Now it seems that it's those so-called "unscripted reality shows." Pretty soon it'll be scripted shows again. Whatever the format, writers will always be there behind the scenes making tv the entertainment experience it is for the audience.
Rah Rah Rah!
Well, not everything in the entertainment industry is 'cyclical.' Westerns never came back. I would hate to have been a screenwriter specializing in Westerns when they suddenly stopped being produced in mass quantities and thinking 'oh, they'll come back, it's just a trend.' More recently, those eighties-style action movies seem to have more or less disappeared.
I agree, Kay, that if scripted shows are going to remain at all viable, they need to get more of their budgets on the screen, and that eliminating a lot of fat in overall deals is a good way to start. But I'm worried that it's not nearly enough. Because to the extent that scripted programming *is* working on network, it's the huge-budget shows which are attracting audiences-- The 'Lost's and the '24's-- which are just inherently expensive, *really* expensive to make. And they then breed expensive failures, like 'Bionic Woman', etc.
Seems to me that for scripted programs to survive, writers and executives need to figure out how to make shows with cable-sized budgets appeal to network-sized audiences. I'm told that Burn Notice patterns at about $1.5 million, for instance. If you could put a show like Burn Notice on NBC and get a network-sized audience, that would be an amazing thing for the industry. But just cutting fat from POD deals, etc., doesn't seem like enough. The price differentiation between scripted and reality is just too great. And though I'd love to believe, as Jake Hollywood does, that this is just a cyclical phenomenon, I see no evidence to support this optimism.
Comedies are cheap, yet we don't see many of them on the air (good ones, at least).
R.I.P. Arrested Development.
Okay Kay, here we go.
A non-strike question. A TeeVee Question.
I've got a Millennium question for you.
I was a fervent watcher back for the two years it ran, and a fan (I'd also say that some of the darker procedurals of today wouldn't exist without Millennium going there first, the CSI's or Criminal Minds) . . . it was on late fridays, as I'm sure you remember, and I'd be just getting off the shift of the regular-job type job I had then, crack open a couple beers and watch Frank Black.
Here's my question, and remember I was drinking beer back then, so my memory is a bit fuzzy.
There was an episode where a woman is drugged, and we get this whole hallucinating dream of hers before she dies, set to a song, and it lasted at least six, seven minutes. As long as the song!
And it was far out, dude. It totally freaked me out, and was by far one of the best things I'd seen on television, definitely the most risky, because she wasn't going through something pleasant, but whoa.
I remember thinking at the time - Whoever chose to do that has got some serious sack!
So now for my question.
What was the episode, what was the song it was set to, and how was that particular creative choice made, was it the writer, the creative producer, etc?
Basically, I've never gotten that image out of my head (heh-heh) and I wanna know more about that episode, it never ran again that I remember and I'd like background.
Fu-reaky, it was.
Thanks!
Joshua James
'My fear, though, is that once the strike ends the studios will scramble to make deals with the people who are suddenly free. And then we're right back where we started."
I think your fear should be that you are going to get back to a market that will have less jobs available.
The Shawn Ryans and co. will see their fee increased, but the amount of struggling writers will incrase too.
good luck.
I hate to bring up the spectre of Craig Mazin here, but just wanted to mention that he did a little rant about some "idiot" wanting to "punch him in the heart." He's carrying it off like he thought it was a real, viable threat. And he then goes on to say that instead of threats like this, he values reasoned discourse.
(Unless, of course, the discourse involves disagreeing with him. Then, he merely bans you from his blog and deletes your comments.)
Hypocrite.
Okay, so why am I bringing him up? Because he's running around posting with his advice about what we all should do about this deal. And I take issue with this the same way I do with what John Wells has done.
THE LEADERSHIP HAS NOT YET COMMENTED ON THIS DEAL. They have not yet made a recommendation. I would prefer to wait for them to do this than to have Mazin and Wells poisoning the well by making the deal sound great, and making our leadership sound insane if they don't embrace it.
I'd post this over on Mazin's site, but he doesn't let people comment anymore. Someone might disagree with him. (and besides, I was banned from his site anyway. Guess why...?)
Post a Comment