Heh.
Given the complete lack of an actual staffing season, we happily find ourselves on Wizard's First Rule (or whatever it will eventually be called). Based on the Terry Goodkind books, this is a syndicated show produced by Rob Tapert and Sam Raimi. You may remember them as some of the last people do do syndication, back before it sort of went away. Well, it's back, and that's good news for everybody. Syndication has an indie feel to it. Even when I heard about the show, I hoped it would work because it's another venue for writers, and another option for viewers. We're totally thrilled to be there and hope we'll be able to tell some fun stories.
The nice thing for the blog is, I was seriously running out of ways to go, "So... we're developing pilots again this year, and here's how it's different than it was last year." We do have several viable pilot ideas that have producers interested and we're hoping that the producers will wait for us, and when we can develop, we can jump into that. But for now, our focus will be on the show. So, without giving away any big secrets, perhaps I can blog about what it's like to be on staff now, and even give a tip every now and then. I am going to try my damndest to blog once a week but I may not be able to, at least for awhile. So maybe I'll just be able to drop a paragraph here and there. Can I not be wordy? Dunno. Let's see!
Something I've been thinking about lately is how weird our industry is. We're all competing for jobs, whether they be staff jobs, pilots or movies. And that competition doesn't foster a collaborative atmosphere. There's little sense of community. I don't know if it has to do with how quickly our business works, or if it's just the competitive angle. But if you look at novelists, there's a great sense of community. Writers band together in writer's groups. They are constantly supporting each other. They have a real community and they're genuinely happy when one of their own succeeds. I'm speaking generally, not specifically, so don't give me any contrary examples, smarty-pants. I see novelists promoting each other all the time. They always remember where they came from and how hard it was to break in. Why don't most people in TeeVee and film remember that, I wonder? Is it because seeing someone struggle or trying to break in makes them see how tenuous it all is? Does it have to do with self-esteem, or lack of belief in ones' own talent? Or is it the capriciousness of the business? Do they know that, deep down, their fabulous careers could have gone another way, that they exist at the whim of something nobody can predict?
For a surprisingly perfect illustration of this attitude, see the good scene in "The Oscar." No, really. There is one. Peter Lawford plays a washed-up actor whose time has passed, and flavor-of-the-moment/psychopath Stephen Boyd has his only true moment of humanity and horror in the film as Lawford tells him what he has to look forward to. It's a lovely scene and I think it encapsulates what we go through in this industry.
Another big difference is, I think, the number of ideas you have to have in TeeVee or film, versus the number of ideas you have to have as a novelist. Novelists spend years with one idea while we come up with ten pilot ideas every year, a bunch of feature ideas we never write, and ideas for freelance scripts that we write for free (that's another story that I can't talk about in public, but suffice it to say, some people are just total assholes). There's a lot more pointless idea generation in TeeVee and film whereas with a novel, you can stick to one idea. Since generating a lot of ideas never seems to make much of a difference, maybe I'd like just doing the other thing. Who knows?
If novelists would like to disabuse me of that notion, please feel free. Tell me what it's like in your world.
Speaking of books, I love what's happening in Young Adult. You won't find more intriguing sci-fi, fantasy and horror in any other genre. I wonder what would have happened, for instance, if Cory Doctorow had written "Little Brother" as a mainstream sci-fi novel. How would it have fared? I've read all of his books and for me, "Little Brother" is his tour de force. This is so clearly the book he was always meant to write, and I've been a fan of his since the beginning. There's so much heart and enthusiasm and such a clear focus in this book. And I love that he wrote it as a YA, and not as some important literary novel. For those who haven't read much or any YA, we're not talking about children's books here. Don't think "Harry Potter." YA's way, way better than that. Go read Scott Westerfeld, or Holly Black. Read Kirsten Miller's inventive, energetic "Kiki Strike." These writers are doing fantastic work in a genre most people just dismiss. What I especially love is how creative these stories are. If you tried to pitch this stuff to TeeVee, they'd look at you blankly. But in young adult fiction, they're hits.
Onto a few comments...
Anonymous wonders:
Also, re: showrunner not being the creator, I'm currently develop a show as creator with a showrunner who isn't me attached. I've never been on staff before. Any advice to prevent the dangers you warn of? The showrunner I'm working with 'gets' the show and all his contributions have been valuable, the network and studio have been fine (mostly), but what can I expect down the road? (If we're picked up, that is)
The absolute best advice I can give you is, stay involved. Don't let the showrunner stand between you and the network/studio. Stay in constant touch with them, go out to lunch with them, talk to them. Don't let the showrunner filter their notes through himself. No matter how great he is, and it's terrific that he gets the show, it's YOUR show. You are NEVER out of bounds if you have questions or concerns. Listen to everyone, take in his expertise, but YOU are the creative voice behind the show. Good luck!!!
I am, BTW, going to read Kings and Dollhouse, so I'll have something to say about them later.
Devon Ellington says:
I think he was instructed by the owners to pull up the horse if he couldn't win to protect the investment. I don't have proof, but that's my gut response. Also, did they show the shot of BB in the paddock? Or did we just see it because we were close? Where he was placing one of his hind legs really strangely? I nearly had a heart attack. From the way he was behaving earlier in the day, I don't think he is healthy, even though they can't find anything wrong with him. Yet. There was something very different about him in person here than in person at Preakness, separate from the quality of the rest of the field and the politics surrounding it. Not being a vet or having the access to actually put my hands on the horse, I can't say what, but something was very different on Saturday, and I mean in a bad way.
I think he's perfectly healthy. This is a horse that has always acted professionally and he lost his fucking mind in the holding barn and then during the race and afterwards, in the test barn. You know, with all the talk about how fragile these horses are, I think people forget that they are athletes. As such, they need to be fit and trained. When a horse does what Big Brown did, that means he's jumping out of his skin. He's not fit. He's undertrained. Read Billy Turner's rant on that (and Steve Haskin's excellent analysis as well), and look at how both Secretariat and Seattle Slew prepared for the Belmont. It was Slew, I think, who worked a mile on each Saturday between the Preakness and Belmont. I don't think I've seen a Thoroughbred work a mile in about ten years. Those horses were dead fit for the Belmont. I don't care how talented your horse is, if he isn't fit, he isn't going to win.
When Casino Drive was scratched (oh, that poor baby looked MISERABLE, not even putting weight on that leg), Da'Tara moved into my second spot, but I sure didn't expect him to run that kind of race, in spite of the Tiznow connection. I never saw Tiznow show that much zip early on (although I didn't see his early races -- maybe he was zippier early then).
He showed a good bit of tactical speed and he had a high cruising speed. I never thought of Tiznow as a late runner. His foals seem to have good tactical speed as well and that, combined with the stamina they get from him, makes them tough. I am personally not a bit surprised that he's turned into such a good sire. Any horse that can win two Breeders Cup Classics, especially the way he won them, is going to pass that on to his foals. Tiznow was tested, so we knew what kind of a horse he was. If I decided to breed a mare to Big Brown, what would I get? I don't know, because I don't know what kind of a horse he really is.
Speaking of horses, bless the owners of Curlin, who seem to have time-traveled from a time where owners were sportsmen. They're going to try him on the grass and if he runs well, he'll ship to France for the Arc, the biggest grass race in the world. It's a tremendous idea, and I hope Curlin's enough of a superstar to pull it off.
Now I've got to go do some wizard work, and I hope it won't be this long before my next post!
np -- Yeti, "the Legend of Yeti Gonzales," which features a hidden Star Wars filking track. I'm not kidding. And it's GREAT. Not kidding about that, either. There's also a song called "Shane McGowan." Seriously. The album ROCKS.
9 comments:
Mazel tov on the gig, girl!
I have a different perspective on "I created the show but I'm not the showrunner." My suggestion would be to cultivate the showrunner, not the studio. The studio put the showrunner there instead of you; they listen to him. If he feels you're endrunning him, he can kill you on the show by telling the studio you're being "difficult". They will fire you.
My instinct would be to suck up to the showrunner. Make him look good. Make his life easier. Since you created the show you have the right to tell him when you think he might be missing something important. But it's his call.
In other words, treat the showrunner the way you'd treat a showrunner. It's his show. Make his life easier and everyone will be happy and you'll be hired again. He might come to lean on you more and more as he comes to trust you. Make him look bad, complain about him behind his back, and you'll be gone before you know what hit you.
Hi Kay,
First of all, congrats on the job! But I'm feeling compelled to be a smarty-pants and argue that there isn't really much less of a sense of community among tv writers than novelists, because there's more of the former and less of the latter than you suggest.
I think in both cases, tv writers and novelists tend to be friends with and support the other writers they meet on their way up. When you see novelists lending support to each other the way you describe, it's usually, in my experience knowing a lot of fiction writers (mileage may vary, blah blah) because they know each other. Maybe they went to grad school together, or their forst novel came out at the same time so they met at the LA Times Festival of Books, etc., or they were in a writers group together, etc. Beyond those types of bonds, I don't think there's an *enormous* general sense of we're-all-in-this-togetherness.
Which I think is mostly true in TV. I mean, I know individual cliques of tv writers who are enormously supportive to each other, and it's usally people who were baby writers on their first show together, or met when they were PAs or in film school, or so forth. As a general whole, yeah, not much sense of community, but again, that;s not really different from the literary world. (Belive me, I used to hear novelists denigrate each other privately just as viciously as tv people.)
And to the extent there *is* a difference, and here I'm undermining my own argument by suggesting you might be right, I think it's because there's more direct competition between tv wrtiers than novelists. Novelists don't go up for the same jobs directly in the way that TV writers are constantly up for the same jobs as their friends/ colleagues, or going out with a similar pitch, etc. Obviously, there is plenty of competition in the literary world, but you can't say 'well, my book would have been successful if it hadn't been for this specific other book' in the same way a tv writer can say 'well, I'd be an executive story editor on 'Heroes' if so-and-so hadn't gotten the job.' Which does breed a general sense of competition and watch-your-back-ness.
And also, in the literary world, there's just generally less money at stake-- I mean, a typical first novel advance is a bit less than the script fee for a cable drama-- and that allows people to be a little more charitable, because pracitcally nobody can quit their day job.
Congrats on the job, Kay! Woo-hoo! I'm looking forward to watching it!
One good thing about the BB meltdown is that we get to see him in the Haskell, the Travers, and the BC before they retire him -- hey, BC is at Hollywood Park this year!
It would be great for Curlin to go on the grass in Europe -- I think he'd love it.
Regarding novels and TV writers -- I don't know that much about TV writing, I know more about playwriting, and i think playwrights can be very supportive of each other.
Maybe because I move between genres and styles I'm odd (shall we not go through that open door?) but I generate probably 2-3 dozen ideas per year AT LEAST, and then try to sort out what's viable to write. The first draft of a novel takes 3-4 months, but I'm always working on multiple projects. I have to, to make a decent living.
I have very few writer friends with whom I came up in school - I'm constantly expanding my circle, and I've found, with writers, the old adage, "If you want a friend, be a friend" holds true.
Yes, we promote each other because we know how hard it is to make a living doing this and we believe that there are so many readers out there with different tastes that there's room for many different stories.
In TV, the slots are more limited.
I hope this is a great experience.
Kay,
I'm back from Bulgaria. Nicely done on the new work situation, but I'd like to ask you...can we see X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE together?
Please say yes.
Rob
I wish you would talk more about people asking for/demanding free rewrites. I'm going out with a feature spec and as I have no agent yet, I get very few people to read the spec as it is. When I find a producer who's interested in the project, he will invariably say he loves it -- but with some notes that he wants to see incorporated before he will take it to the studios.
Okay, fair enough. The problem is, each producer who "loves it, with some notes" has a different take. Their notes often contradict each other. And they all want free rewrites to suit their own particular whims. I'm sure these producers are asking many writers for free rewrites, stringing them all along, until they decide which project they're actually interested in producing.
Congratulations on the new gig! I'm not familiar with these "Terry Goodkind books," but I'm interested in anything Rob Tapert and Sam Raimi are doing. :)
Where can we check on the syndication coverage of the various markets? I have a feeling that in my market it will be scheduled on one of the digital side channels at some ungodly hour during the weekend, probably after "Davinici's Inquest," "Cold Squad," or "Stone Undercover."
I'm more of an "aspiring" novelist, but I will say, one key difference is, you're really putting your eggs in one basket when you're writing a book. Spend ten years on one project, and if it doesn't go anywhere, you're so screwed. (And so despondent.) If you're coming up with ten pilot ideas a year and none gets picked up, well, you come up with ten new pilot ideas next year. It's not fun, but it's not a decade of your life, either. I try very hard not to work exclusively on one project.
Congratulations on the job, Kay, that's fantastic!
Post a Comment