Friday, May 01, 2009

Girl From Mars

Welcome to the Massive Insecurity Show known as staffing season! You can throw all reason out the window at this time of year. But there has to be a way to make sense of it all, so I put together a list of rules to help you make it through:

1. If someone says they love you, that only means they don't hate you. It does not mean that they will hire you. Quite the contrary.

2. No matter what level you are, you will always be too expensive.

3. Even if you have twenty different samples, you will never have the exact right one.

4. The studio or network list doesn't mean anything if you're on it, but it does mean something if you're not.

5. Most people don't know how to recognize good writing, which is why having the exact right sample is so crucial.

6. You will always knock a meeting out of the park on a show that doesn't get picked up.

7. There is always one show that gets picked up that makes everybody in town go, "Where the fuck did THAT come from?" That show never lasts.

8. The rumors you hear only come true if they diminish your chances of getting a job.

9. Somebody in one of your meetings went to college with that psychopath you worked for.

10. Showrunners will never be impressed enough that you researched your ass off about their credits.

11. If you go into a meeting with story ideas, the showrunner won't want to hear them. But if you go in without story ideas, they will inevitably ask.

12. Every year, on every show, the number of gatekeepers you must impress grows by one.

13. The best pilot you read won't get picked up.

I'm shocked that there are only thirteen.

Since pilots are either being shot or are being edited, the rumors are starting to fly about what's hot and what's not. If you pay attention to this stuff you will go insane. Especially if you've met on any of these shows, or know people who can get you in. I think this year's still showing the effects of last year and things aren't quite settled yet. Also, cable's importance is taking a toll on network staffing. Pilots that need showrunners may have a tough time finding them because showrunners may also have their own pilots at cable networks. And if the decision is between running your own show and someone else's, well... that's really no decision at all.

Showrunners are under an intense pressure right now. They have to cut their show, take network and studio notes, read samples, find their number two, and try to put together a staff with what will be a frighteningly small budget. What we saw the last few years was that writers would take pay and level cuts to go on staff. I don't know if that will happen this year, especially for upper level writers who also have the option of selling to cable. They no longer have to wait until networks open up for development.

Back when pilots were being picked up, I was thrilled that there were so many genre shows. But now the same old thing is happening. People are ashamed of their genre shows, and genre writers are again being marginalized. Procedural writers are getting those jobs, because it's embarrassing to hire writers who are actually fluent in the genre. Apparently. This is aggressively stupid. TeeVee has been fragmenting, and the procedural world has, I think, become a world unto itself. Procedurals beget procedural writers, and they move from one Bruckheimer show to the next. This is not a slam against procedural writers. It takes a special skill to be able to break and write those shows. It's not really my first choice, although I've done some work on procedurals that I quite enjoyed, but the people who do it are very, very good at it.

But see, it takes a special skill to write genre, too. You have to think differently when you're writing genre, just as you do when you're writing a procedural. But a procedural is a socially accepted show, while genre shows are dirty and embarrassing and sub-real. Apparently, all we should aspire to is to elevate the genre so that mainstream America can understand it. I find that a little curious. I think mainstream America got Iron Man and The Dark Knight just fine. There's been a lot of talk lately about why audiences go to big genre movies but shun genre TeeVee, and the general consensus is that (A) Audiences love the big-budget explosions and effects of a movie, or (B) The genre shows suck, and audiences don't watch shows that suck.

Really? Don't they?

Yes, some genre shows suck. But some genre shows are really, really good and just didn't find an audience. Like non-genre shows that didn't find an audience. Yes, non-genre failures exist, and pretending they don't for the sake of proving a rule about genre shows is dishonest.

It's harder to market a genre show, especially when you're talking about the fifteen other TeeVee shows that are being marketed at the same time. That's a much different scenario than marketing a big-budget science fiction movie when you only have two or three movies opening that day. It is much harder to get a TeeVee audience to stick with a show because there are so many different options. Procedurals have the advantage there, because the marketing can be shorthanded. Everybody's seen a procedural, so there's not a lot of world-building that has to go on, and it's easier for an audience to grok what the show's about. But even procedurals fail. Having been on two of them, I can attest to that. It's just easier to assume that there's a problem with genre, though, isn't it? Especially with Dollhouse on the air. Dollhouse, everybody's favorite punching bag. More on that in another post. Because seriously, people. STOP IT.

I don't think it's the budget and the explosions that people miss in genre TeeVee. And I don't think that every genre show that fails does so because it's bad. I think most genre shows are more complex and as such, they require more attention. And a marketing department gets very impatient with that. It's hard to market and to promote. But look at some cable shows, like Breaking Bad, or Mad Men, or Damages. These shows are still on the air. They don't do massive ratings, but they don't have to. They are complex shows that emulate what I like best about genre shows. But on a major network, they're canceled.

Enough of that, because just talking about it makes me angry, and I'm already annoyed today. Sure, partly because Zenyatta scratched out of her race and now Jon Court's wife gets a new pair of shoes, but for other reasons, too. SO DO NOT FUCK WITH ME. Seriously.

Anyway.

If people outside the genre (let's call them executives at major studios and networks) want to elevate the genre, then we as genre writers should fight against that. But if it's also the genre writers who are ashamed of what they're doing, then that's sad.

There have been shows that have aggressively gone after genre writers, and those shows have worked great. But some people think that in order to have a big network hit, they have to hire procedural writers. It's an easy formula -- if you hire someone who worked on a ginormous hit, then your show has a better chance of being a ginormous hit. But I can only imagine how tough things are going to be in the writer's room on those shows. Executives do have that default position, that a show can get more of an audience if it becomes more of a procedural, but I strongly disagree with that. It simply hasn't been proven.

Genre writers aren't only going to write about spaceships and time travel, you know. Genre writers just have a slightly different way of looking at the world, and sometimes shows can benefit greatly from that. But people are afraid of it. You see it all the time, in cracks people make about geeks living in their parents' basements and playing World of Warcraft. Which I've never played, BTW. I wouldn't know the first thing about it.

What compounds that, too, is the fact that female genre writers are doubly creepy. For some crackpot reason, women are not considered diversity by this industry. That means that a showrunner is safe to hire only men. And that's what a lot of male showrunners want. So they do, and that's fine with everybody. Sometimes, someone notices and a showrunner is told to hire an upper-level woman or something. But it's rarely a number two, which means that this woman is upper-level in title only. Or, they'll go, "Fine, I'll hire a woman," and they hire a staff writer or a story editor. This is easy for them, because they're hiring a woman who doesn't have any inherent power. Of course, if women were diversity, then only lower-level women would get hired, so maybe it just doesn't matter, in the end...

np -- My Derby picks, which are: Pioneerof The Nile & I Want Revenge, plus big looks at Chocolate Candy, General Quarters, Hold Me Back and Desert Party. Going out on a potential limb here by throwing out Friesian Fire and Dunkirk, and maybe I'll be proven totally wrong, but I just don't believe in them.

13 comments:

Hugh said...

"Female genre writers are doubly creepy"

God, I really need to get a *slightly* larger budget so that I can take advantage of idiocy like this by, you know, hiring people others are too prejudiced to...

Really looking forward to your Dollhouse piece.

kimshum said...

Genre writers just have a slightly different way of looking at the worldIn what way, if I may ask?

As for staffing season, you're right about people being unable to recognize good writing. What's worse is when they're convinced bad writing is actually good writing. Maddening.

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

Anonymous said...

Can I say something? I will anyway. Joss Whedon is a luxury genre TV can no longer afford. Starting with Firefly, he has been coming up with show ideas that are, at their very core, unworkable. He indulges his worst casting instincts (the ones that would have picked Katie Holmes for Buffy), and gives us Eliza Dushku in a role that calls for somebody who can play a variety of characters.

Yeah, I know he had to cast Dushku, because she was the one who got him back in the door at FOX. But that's beside the point. He didn't have to do this show at all. He went in there with an idea that would have been tough to pull off under any circumstances, while he was working on other projects, and he insisted on directing several early episodes, which diffused his attentions even further.

And the result? 1.1 in the demo last Friday night. About three million viewers total. He loses viewers almost every week. The show has been lurching from overly episodic to overly serialized, and the character people seem to like the least is the character the show is supposed to be ABOUT.

But the truth is, hardly anyone likes any of the characters terribly much. People loved Tony freakin' Soprano, and Dr. House, and lots of other horrible obnoxious TV people. Don't tell me people can't handle unsympathetic characters. They can't handle unsympathetic DULL characters. They can't handle characters who barely deserve to be CALLED characters.

My point is this--whether Dollhouse gets a temporary reprieve or not, it's a failure, and is widely perceived as a failure. As a GENRE failure. As Joss Whedon's second consecutive genre failure on network television.

And how do people perceive Joss Whedon? As The Greatest Genre Writer/Producer in the History of Television. That's what the critics and fans keep telling us--even in college courses, fifth rate academics try to drill it into the heads of kids looking for an easy grade. Joss Whedon is the epitome of everything a great genre showrunner should be, and we are just not worthy of him.

So let's just not deal with the fact that the best genre show on TV is True Blood, and Alan Ball had never even done genre before. He's having fun with it, and so is the audience. An enormous hit it isn't, but it's easily the #1 scripted show on pay cable, and that's all it needs to be. Just like all Dollhouse needed to be was higher-rated than Friday night COPS repeats. Which it isn't.

My point is that Joss Whedon is bringing down the whole team with his fetishes. He's creating the impression that The Greatest Genre TV Writer/Producer of all time can't make genre work, and therefore genre must be unworkable. But the fact is that Whedon is failing because he's setting himself up to fail. He's making shows about space cowboys and hookers who don't know they're hookers, and he's making them under circumstances that make them more likely to fail than they were already.

He's sabotaging himself. I don't know why. Ask his therapist. If he doesn't have one, refer him to Paul Weston on HBO. I'd watch that conversation over Dollhouse any day.

I'm not that picky. I watch all kinds of crap. I watched Buffy before most of the people reading this blog did, I bet. It was damned good crap. Firefly was just crappy crap (I seem to recall somebody agreeing with me about this, back when it premiered). And so is Dollhouse.

And this notion of Joss Whedon being Mr. Genre has just got to GO. The problem with genre is, just like you said, that it isn't CONTENT with being genre. Joss Whedon felt trapped in his ggenre cubbyhole, so he tried to do a genre show that would allow him to stretch out--but the end result was that the pleasures of that form were sacrificed to his pretensions.

Alan Ball's show is working because he really wanted to do genre--he didn't HAVE to. He wasn't even expected to. He just did it because he wanted to have some fun. AND SO DO US TV VIEWERS. And that's why Dollhouse is tanking. That is the only reason Dollhouse is tanking. It's not about beating anybody up. It's a little bit about being tired of being beaten over the head by critics about not watching the latest show about highly improbable forms of prostitution. Sheesh, who are they programming for these days? Eliot Spitzer?

pisher

Kaley said...

Hi Kay,

As someone who's just starting out in creative writing, I'm curious about the "rules of genre," so to speak. I'm sure that's too broad a question, so I'd like to narrow it down to Heroes.

I've read in your archives that Tim Kring doesn't understand and respect genre, and that's why the show is struggling so much now.

I'm one of those people who started out excited about Heroes, and I've been extremely disappointed. I find the whole inability to develop the characters disappointing. I don't understand how Nathan Petrelli goes from a power-hungry egomaniac to someone who feels he has to do God's work, which is giving more people abilities, to hunting down everyone with abilities (with no real explanation/motivation ever provided for the abrupt switch back).

I don't understand why Hiro is STILL so naive (although I loved his childish enthusiam in season 1: I just feel he should be a little wiser by now).

I never liked that whiny Claire, and she's still whining, so she just grates on my nerves.

They don't seem to know what to do with Sylar.

So to me, the problems in Heroes are related to poor (well, no) character development.

What are the rules of genre that Kring doesn't know?

Thanks for reading this long question, and I hope you can provide some insights into genre writing!

Kaley

Anonymous said...

As good a place as any to stick an obscure genre television joke.

If they ever got into it, who would win: Gail Berman versus Rick Berman? They can have legions.

Anonymous said...

Jeez, Anonymous-pisher. Did Joss Whedon run over your dog? Or did he just pass on hiring you?

Gareth Wilson said...

Kaley, I think it's that Kring doesn't respect the characters if they're part of a "sci-fi" storyline. It can't be a coincidence that Noah Bennett is the most consistent and well-drawn character in the show, and he has no powers. The audience makes jokes about powers giving you brain damage, but the real problem is that when a character gets powers the writers start treating them as a plot device rather than an character.

Kaley said...

Regarding Gareth's comment: that makes perfect sense! I couldn't figure out how writers could create such interesting characters and then do nothing with them, but if they just think of them as cartoons, not fully dimensional people, then this travesty of a show is what happens.

Thanks for your insights!

Anonymous said...

Geez, anonymous pisher-hater. You write that sparkling original repartee all by yourself?

Seriously, why all the doom and gloom about genre TV? Genre TV is doing just fine.

Legend of the Seeker is the #1 scripted show in syndication, and got renewed for a 22 ep second season.

True Blood is the #1 scripted show on pay cable, and got renewed for a 12 ep second season (and is clearly headed for a long run).

Fringe is the most successful scripted show FOX has launched in years, and it just got renewed for a 22 episode second season.

Lost is the most successful serialized network primetme drama--well, probably ever. It gets a final 17 eps next season, bringing the tally up to 120. It achieved what was long considered an impossible dream in American TV--its producers got to plan the finale several years in advance, and know exactly how many episodes they had to get there.

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.

That's NINETY HOURS of highly successful genre TV. In about one year.

So somebody please explain to me why we need Joss Whedon? Let him go back to the drawing board and come up with something that works. He's never done me an injury, but he's done himself plenty. And as long as he's put forth as Mr. Genre, he's doing genre an injury. Genre can get along just fine without him.

I'm anonymous because my pisher addy isn't from gmail, btw. :)

pisher

Anonymous said...

Oooh burn. Like comments about Joss Whedon's therapist and Eliot Spitzer jokes are cutting edge.

You're like the crazy homeless man of blog sites aren't you? Chill, dude. If you don't like Joss Whedon's writing, that's fine. PLENTY of others do. Why not write something you approve of instead? Waging hateful and (frankly) kind of psychotic campaigns against him in blog comments sections is a waste of your precious life, dear.

Anonymous said...

Um--you sure flame wars are what Kay's looking for here, Anony? She posted my remarks--doesn't mean she agrees with 'em, but it does mean she thought they were according to Hoyle. ;)

If you don't agree with me about Whedon, that's fine--plenty of other people do. Are you seriously trying to play the majority card here? Dollhouse has fewer viewers in that timeslot than COPS reruns. Does that mean it's bad? No. Does fervent online worship of its creator prove it's good. HELL no.

pisher

Kiyote said...

Love the post...you know there are a ton women too who like genre teevee. I am one of them. I think teevee messes up on selling it to audiences cause they forget about us (the women). I watched every version of star trek on teevee (except the cowboy one)...scott bacula's fault there - couldnt get QL out of my mind.

I hunt for every genre show on teevee...cause you sure dont see adds for them anywhere.

My fav shows on right now: Fringe, Sara Chronicle (the finale was amazing), Harper's Island (this is the funniest/scary show on tv).

devonellington said...

I love Dunkirk, but I was worried he doesn't have it together enough mentally. And I was right. Loved Friesan Fire and disappointed. Never cared for I Want Revenge -- sorry he was injured, but he wouldn't have been a pick. Loved Pioneer of the Nile.

Looked at Mine That Bird, because of Birdstone -- and then FORGOT TO BET HIM -- idiot! He ran a great race.

But my fave horse of the year is Rachel Alexandra. She doesn't have the hardness Rags to Riches had, the anger Rags had at anyone in front of her, but she's got the talent. Wish she'd been in the Derby.