I just finished reading a few hundred scripts for one of those "searching for new talent" programs, where aspiring writers send in samples of their work in the hope of being one of the five or six chosen for the mentoring program.
It's a wonderful way to identify new talent among those who don't have "connections" in the business and over my years of doing it I've seen a sharp increase in the quality of scripts. When I started doing this, at least half were sub-par efforts, the work of people who seemed to think that putting dialogue on a page was the proper way to write a script. Now, the proliferation of books and classes about TV and screen writing has made hopeful writers much better at the basics. It still comes down to creative talent, can you capture the essence of your characters and tell a good story, but the great majority of the script now cluster around the mid-level of the scale rather than the bottom.
So, what's my complaint? The little things that just show you didn't do your homework or are careless. If you've read other entries in this blog, we'll call it "Jimmy Hendricks Disease." No one wants to hire a lazy writer and when I come to the end of an act on a "CSI: Miami" spec script and the writer types "zinger before the commercial to come" rather than actually creating a zinger, I'm tempted to just put the script aside at that point and move on. You're being judged on what you can offer, if you offer nothing, don't expect the judges to think, "well, maybe he/she can come up with something later." This is your shot, take it. To use a baseball metaphor, go down swinging, not looking.
I also read a "Grey's Anatomy" where the writer didn't think to check the name of the hospital ("Seattle Grey's" rather than "Seattle Grace") and a "Desperate Housewives" spec where Bree's children were labeled merely "Boy" and "Girl." Go on IMDB.com and check a cast list! Come on! Show me some effort!
This particular program was for TV writers, so I was amazed by how many people thought sending in something other than a TV script was proper. Even if the program allows other types of writing for the submissions, don't forget what you're shooting for. If you're allowed to submit two samples and want to show off your "range," submit a comedy and a drama script. You've entered the program because you want, in this case, to be a TV writer. Are you telling me you've never written a TV script? Then how passionate are you about this type of writing? Again, take the time to show me that you've made the effort.
Just in case you're thinking I might arbitrarily dismiss short stories, plays and feature submissions, I don't. In fact, some of them got passed along to the next level. However, if you're on the borderline, chances are an average TV script (showing that you've paid attention to TV enough to get characters, tone, story type and details right) will get higher marks than an average short story (which might be creative, but has no dialogue, so how can I give you good marks for that?)
The programs are looking for passionate, creative, driven individuals who want to put the time and effort into becoming a success in a demanding field. Show that you want it, not that you're just submitting whatever you've written lately.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Boy am I a lazy blogger. What follows is something I dashed off and submitted to "McSweeney's." An interesting site if you've never been there. They turned it down, but I figured I could put it somewhere for my vast audience here.
Pop-Wow
“Here they are again,” thought Sandy.
Another Wednesday, another meeting of the “Plotters to Overthrow the Present World Order of Worthlessness.” Or POP-WOW, for short. The five members came up with the name when they were seven years old. Now they’re all thirty-two, but are still plotting to take over the world and refine their plans over weekly breakfasts at Arnie’s Midnight Diner. Breakfasts of blueberry pancakes and three side orders of bacon.
“Because blueberries are brain food,” claims Dorothy Lemberson, mother of seven. “Bacon contains the fat that is an essential ingredient for lubricating a body’s joints. Jewish people can substitute lamb and goat fat, but vegetarians are just out of luck. That’s why they are so grumpy.”
Each member of POP-WOW has at least five kids. Sandy believes part of the plot has something to do with re-populating the world with their own families. The waitress in their section (for they sit at the same table, even waiting for it if it’s occupied) for the past ten years, Sandy has picked up bits and pieces of their plans as she takes orders and delivers the plates and refills. They’ve come to trust her, content in the opinion that she is just not smart enough to comprehend their plans.
Oh, she’s smart enough all right. Smart enough to comprehend that they’re fully-functioning delusionals. It’s a side effect of a dose of radiation the received one day when they were all three years old. Of all the horrific claims scientists have made about exposure to radioactivity, the one that affects these three is never mentioned. Sandy knows, she’s checked dozens of websites dedicated to the topic on the Internet. They suffer no physical abnormalities, just two mental ones. Delusions of grandeur and an inability to stay on topic.
The story of these five begins in March of 1979, when the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania leaked radiation into the atmosphere. Through a trick of nature, a dose of this radiation was swept up above the clouds, floated north and deposited itself on the playground of the Mildred Middlestone Preschool in Williamsport, PA. Most of the kids were inside, but Dorothy (then Sanders) and four of her playmates were lollygagging by the sand box and were dosed with a powerful dose of radiation. Their teacher, Miss Cleoletta Ferndale, noticed they glowed when they came inside. Other than a quickly fading electro-magnetism that tugged at the metal on anyone who approached them, doctors at Williamsport Community Hospital couldn’t find anything wrong and their parents, striving to not frighten the children, told the kids that they had had magic fairy dust sprinkled on them and were now exceptional children. As three-year-olds, the kids didn’t know what to make of this. By age seven, they had decided it meant that they would rule the world. It seems that Brently Krawonski had seen Madonna proclaim on the old TV show “American Bandstand” that her ambition was to “rule the world” and that sounded like a good idea to Brently and his friends.
Over the years, the plans had evolved from hording apples to throw at anyone who tried to stop them, a plot exposed when Dorothy’s older brother Kent got hold of her journal and took to the story to the local paper, which did a “human interest” on the eight-year-old girl, to the present plot, which has something to do with jet packs and convincing governmental leaders to hire the five as consultants. Once they are imbedded in various world governments, or possibly the United Nations to make it simpler, they will take over.
How the five remain convinced that they are capable of leading the world has been reinforced by seminal events in their lives. Dorothy was president of her sorority at Slippery Rock University, thus feels she’d be an excellent World President. Byron Peters was the QB for Williamsport High’s football team in 1992 and 1993 and sees himself as “Commander of the Newly Assembled Armed Forces,” despite the fact that his leadership skills on the football field resulted in a record of 0-18. Brently has invented 124 different useful gadgets for the home such as the “sock vacuum” and the “hanging cat hotel.” None of the 124 has attracted any interest from investors, but Brently remains convinced he’s a genius. After all, that is what his mother always told him and she promised to never lie to him. He’s in line to become “Commerce Commander of the Colonies.” Sally Wiggins has chaired committees for the PTA and her church guild every year since high school graduation, thus will make a perfect “World Events Coordinator” and looks forward to adding knitting and candle making to the Olympics. Finally, Daniel Beaulieu will use the knowledge he gained in the Boy Scouts, where he earned a merit badge in forestry (his only merit badge), to reverse global warming.
Sandy’s opinion of the plan is that it seems rather silly, but the group insists that sounding silly will help them catch the world unaware. However, the inability to stay on topic manifests its by making the five to be agreeable on every idea that one of them brings forth, without debating or discussion of anything. Thus, when one comes up with a plan, they all immediately agree. When one of them suggests a change, they again agree. So, the plan is constantly in flux, destined to never be fulfilled.
This “agreeableness” might also explain why they all have five or more kids.
So, for now, Sandy serves them their pancakes and bacon and they launch into the latest variation on their plot. Daniel has just suggested putting a video on YouTube to explain their plan to the masses. The suggestion has been unanimously approved. As they do every week, they invite Sandy to join them so they can have an opinion of the “common woman.” She thanks them for the offer but turns it down. She has other tables to tend to and knows they’ll give her a big tip, as the five never were very good at math. To figure out a 15% tip, they multiple the bill by 15, rather than. .15.
Though no one takes POP-WOW seriously at present, if someday a plot for world domination has its genesis in Williamsport, PA, don’t say you haven’t been warned.
Pop-Wow
“Here they are again,” thought Sandy.
Another Wednesday, another meeting of the “Plotters to Overthrow the Present World Order of Worthlessness.” Or POP-WOW, for short. The five members came up with the name when they were seven years old. Now they’re all thirty-two, but are still plotting to take over the world and refine their plans over weekly breakfasts at Arnie’s Midnight Diner. Breakfasts of blueberry pancakes and three side orders of bacon.
“Because blueberries are brain food,” claims Dorothy Lemberson, mother of seven. “Bacon contains the fat that is an essential ingredient for lubricating a body’s joints. Jewish people can substitute lamb and goat fat, but vegetarians are just out of luck. That’s why they are so grumpy.”
Each member of POP-WOW has at least five kids. Sandy believes part of the plot has something to do with re-populating the world with their own families. The waitress in their section (for they sit at the same table, even waiting for it if it’s occupied) for the past ten years, Sandy has picked up bits and pieces of their plans as she takes orders and delivers the plates and refills. They’ve come to trust her, content in the opinion that she is just not smart enough to comprehend their plans.
Oh, she’s smart enough all right. Smart enough to comprehend that they’re fully-functioning delusionals. It’s a side effect of a dose of radiation the received one day when they were all three years old. Of all the horrific claims scientists have made about exposure to radioactivity, the one that affects these three is never mentioned. Sandy knows, she’s checked dozens of websites dedicated to the topic on the Internet. They suffer no physical abnormalities, just two mental ones. Delusions of grandeur and an inability to stay on topic.
The story of these five begins in March of 1979, when the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania leaked radiation into the atmosphere. Through a trick of nature, a dose of this radiation was swept up above the clouds, floated north and deposited itself on the playground of the Mildred Middlestone Preschool in Williamsport, PA. Most of the kids were inside, but Dorothy (then Sanders) and four of her playmates were lollygagging by the sand box and were dosed with a powerful dose of radiation. Their teacher, Miss Cleoletta Ferndale, noticed they glowed when they came inside. Other than a quickly fading electro-magnetism that tugged at the metal on anyone who approached them, doctors at Williamsport Community Hospital couldn’t find anything wrong and their parents, striving to not frighten the children, told the kids that they had had magic fairy dust sprinkled on them and were now exceptional children. As three-year-olds, the kids didn’t know what to make of this. By age seven, they had decided it meant that they would rule the world. It seems that Brently Krawonski had seen Madonna proclaim on the old TV show “American Bandstand” that her ambition was to “rule the world” and that sounded like a good idea to Brently and his friends.
Over the years, the plans had evolved from hording apples to throw at anyone who tried to stop them, a plot exposed when Dorothy’s older brother Kent got hold of her journal and took to the story to the local paper, which did a “human interest” on the eight-year-old girl, to the present plot, which has something to do with jet packs and convincing governmental leaders to hire the five as consultants. Once they are imbedded in various world governments, or possibly the United Nations to make it simpler, they will take over.
How the five remain convinced that they are capable of leading the world has been reinforced by seminal events in their lives. Dorothy was president of her sorority at Slippery Rock University, thus feels she’d be an excellent World President. Byron Peters was the QB for Williamsport High’s football team in 1992 and 1993 and sees himself as “Commander of the Newly Assembled Armed Forces,” despite the fact that his leadership skills on the football field resulted in a record of 0-18. Brently has invented 124 different useful gadgets for the home such as the “sock vacuum” and the “hanging cat hotel.” None of the 124 has attracted any interest from investors, but Brently remains convinced he’s a genius. After all, that is what his mother always told him and she promised to never lie to him. He’s in line to become “Commerce Commander of the Colonies.” Sally Wiggins has chaired committees for the PTA and her church guild every year since high school graduation, thus will make a perfect “World Events Coordinator” and looks forward to adding knitting and candle making to the Olympics. Finally, Daniel Beaulieu will use the knowledge he gained in the Boy Scouts, where he earned a merit badge in forestry (his only merit badge), to reverse global warming.
Sandy’s opinion of the plan is that it seems rather silly, but the group insists that sounding silly will help them catch the world unaware. However, the inability to stay on topic manifests its by making the five to be agreeable on every idea that one of them brings forth, without debating or discussion of anything. Thus, when one comes up with a plan, they all immediately agree. When one of them suggests a change, they again agree. So, the plan is constantly in flux, destined to never be fulfilled.
This “agreeableness” might also explain why they all have five or more kids.
So, for now, Sandy serves them their pancakes and bacon and they launch into the latest variation on their plot. Daniel has just suggested putting a video on YouTube to explain their plan to the masses. The suggestion has been unanimously approved. As they do every week, they invite Sandy to join them so they can have an opinion of the “common woman.” She thanks them for the offer but turns it down. She has other tables to tend to and knows they’ll give her a big tip, as the five never were very good at math. To figure out a 15% tip, they multiple the bill by 15, rather than. .15.
Though no one takes POP-WOW seriously at present, if someday a plot for world domination has its genesis in Williamsport, PA, don’t say you haven’t been warned.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Rhetoric of the Writer's Strike
This on-going work stoppage has done little more than hurt people in the short-term and make both sides look like children with their immature "we're trying so hard and they're doing nothing" outbursts.
The latest is an entry on a strike blog site (I don't know the legalities of copying blogs, so I won't cut and paste the relatively brief diatribe) where a blogger, whom I presume is a writer based on the post's POV, rants about executives from CBS/Paramount going on a retreat this weekend. The angle of the post is that the execs are basking in luxury while the downtrodden writers are beating the pavement and struggling to pay their bills.
Of course, the blogger neglects to bring up the fact that such retreats are regularly scheduled no matter what is going on at the company. The blogger would like the reader to believe that the negotiations are being put on hold for this, but there is no evidence that any sessions have been scheduled (both sides seem more interested in putting off negotiating than actually doing any and always blaming the other side) or that anyone going has anything to do with the negotiating.
It's also been the WGA stance that the majority of their member writers make little money most years, basically waiting for that "big break" that brings in the bucks. Thus, the fact that the WGA is on strike really shouldn't have much impact on most members. The idea that they're all "struggling to pay their bills" seems to be a way of life for a member, based on their own words since the strike began. The only ones being hurt are the successful ones, as they're not drawing a paycheck.
The latest is an entry on a strike blog site (I don't know the legalities of copying blogs, so I won't cut and paste the relatively brief diatribe) where a blogger, whom I presume is a writer based on the post's POV, rants about executives from CBS/Paramount going on a retreat this weekend. The angle of the post is that the execs are basking in luxury while the downtrodden writers are beating the pavement and struggling to pay their bills.
Of course, the blogger neglects to bring up the fact that such retreats are regularly scheduled no matter what is going on at the company. The blogger would like the reader to believe that the negotiations are being put on hold for this, but there is no evidence that any sessions have been scheduled (both sides seem more interested in putting off negotiating than actually doing any and always blaming the other side) or that anyone going has anything to do with the negotiating.
It's also been the WGA stance that the majority of their member writers make little money most years, basically waiting for that "big break" that brings in the bucks. Thus, the fact that the WGA is on strike really shouldn't have much impact on most members. The idea that they're all "struggling to pay their bills" seems to be a way of life for a member, based on their own words since the strike began. The only ones being hurt are the successful ones, as they're not drawing a paycheck.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Recent Movies I've Read
As the end of the year approaches, films are released at a furious pace and I start noticing more popping into theatres for which I read the scripts. Some of these might be playing at your local theatre, so I figure I'll toss in my two cents. Keep in mind, the translation of script to screen can improve or diminish what is on the page:
"Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium." Here's the only one from this list that I've seen so far, and I must say it's a bit of a disappointment. I thought the script was very imaginative, but the film emphasizes too much "wonder" and not enough of the characters. I also didn't like Dustin Hoffman's interpretation of the title character. On the other hand, my kids loved it.
"Into The Wild." Already on many "Top Ten" lists, I found the script to be tedious, but what really turned me off was the main character. To me, he was too self-involved to be of interest. Most of the reviews I've read have emphasized how beautiful it all looks. I always hesitate when the main thing I take from a film review is "the pictures are pretty."
"Juno." Another well-reviewed film, I liked the characters a whole lot. A nice variation on the typical "high school movie."
"Thirty Days of Night." Good premise for a horror-thriller, but becomes repetitious after awhile. Of interest for those who like scares, but probably not for others.
"3:10 To Yuma." Just a dang good ol' fashioned Western.
"Dan In Real Life." This might be gone already, but I found it to be a sweet script about a man trying to deal with life. That said, it's just the type of story that can go wrong in translation. (Reviewers have been generally harsh.)
"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly." Another one that film critics are falling all over themselves to praise, the script felt one-dimensional and claustrophobic (which, granted, is part of the point). Not something I plan to see until it's on cable.
"I Know Who Killed Me." I'd be surprised if you could find this still playing. I didn't buy into the premise at all.
"Love In The Time of Cholera." People love the book (which I've never read), but critics find the movie too slow. This is the type of film that I always try to be aware of whether or not a critic has read the book. Expectations can be too high for them. As for the script, I thought it was well done, though I can see how it might be considered "slow," but my take is that's how it's supposed to unfold,. Probably something just for those who really like romantic movies.
"Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium." Here's the only one from this list that I've seen so far, and I must say it's a bit of a disappointment. I thought the script was very imaginative, but the film emphasizes too much "wonder" and not enough of the characters. I also didn't like Dustin Hoffman's interpretation of the title character. On the other hand, my kids loved it.
"Into The Wild." Already on many "Top Ten" lists, I found the script to be tedious, but what really turned me off was the main character. To me, he was too self-involved to be of interest. Most of the reviews I've read have emphasized how beautiful it all looks. I always hesitate when the main thing I take from a film review is "the pictures are pretty."
"Juno." Another well-reviewed film, I liked the characters a whole lot. A nice variation on the typical "high school movie."
"Thirty Days of Night." Good premise for a horror-thriller, but becomes repetitious after awhile. Of interest for those who like scares, but probably not for others.
"3:10 To Yuma." Just a dang good ol' fashioned Western.
"Dan In Real Life." This might be gone already, but I found it to be a sweet script about a man trying to deal with life. That said, it's just the type of story that can go wrong in translation. (Reviewers have been generally harsh.)
"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly." Another one that film critics are falling all over themselves to praise, the script felt one-dimensional and claustrophobic (which, granted, is part of the point). Not something I plan to see until it's on cable.
"I Know Who Killed Me." I'd be surprised if you could find this still playing. I didn't buy into the premise at all.
"Love In The Time of Cholera." People love the book (which I've never read), but critics find the movie too slow. This is the type of film that I always try to be aware of whether or not a critic has read the book. Expectations can be too high for them. As for the script, I thought it was well done, though I can see how it might be considered "slow," but my take is that's how it's supposed to unfold,. Probably something just for those who really like romantic movies.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Last Script in Hollywood
Dateline, July 17, 2014. With the Writer's Guild strike in the middle of its seventh year, and talks suspended after a food fight broke out between the sides at the last negotiating session, Hollywood faces the final crisis of the strike. For though the TV networks have changed and survived, unproduced film scripts are about to run out.
Reworking old formulas and ideas has kept new programming on the TV airwaves. The CW, which had been seen as a floundering network prior to the strike, found an unlikely source of surprise hits based on its 2009 offering "The Bob Show," where random people named Bob were followed around by cameras and the audience voted a prize for the person with the most interesting life (this fall's versions will be "The Dwayne Show" and "The Debra Show"). CBS decided to cash in on a long-time joke at its expense with the reality "CSI: Fargo" and has breathed new life into its "Big Brother" and "Survivor" skeins. Where those shows formerly would attract aspiring actors and actresses hoping to get noticed, now well-known stars vie for slots on the shows as a way to keep their names in the public eye. The latest edition of "Big Brother" features members of the casts of the three scripted CSI shows, "Cold Case" and "NCIS" in a special "season of investigations." NBC has followed in a similar vein, casting actors looking for new careers in their "Apprentice" series. In addition to the two Donald Trump versions airing Wednesdays and Thursdays, this fall will see both a Steve Jobs version and one where the contestants compete for a government job, hosted by Vice President Barack Obama. ABC continues in its quest to match up every unmarried person in the U.S. with its expanded "The Bachelor" series and created variations on both "Extreme Makeover" ("Extreme Makeover: Hotel Edition," "Exteme Makeover: Unoccupied Loft Space Edition" and "Extreme Makeover: Fido's Doghouse") and "Dancing With the Stars" ("Dancing With Captains of Industry," "Dancing With Your Congressman"), while Fox sticks to what worked before the strike, "American Idol" and its animated shows that aren't covered by the WGA contract.
But for the theatrical film side of the business, the crisis has arrived. After scripts judged "ready for production" ran out in 2009, Hollywood studios reverted to remaking old scripts with no revisions. That policy led to the disastrous "less than one billion dollar summer" of 2010, so they retrenched and began making films of the scripts they had bought, developed and then abandoned for one reason or another. Executives' days were filled with phone calls and conferences over which of the dozens of drafts of these projects was best. Attempts to piece together "one great draft" from pages of many proved to be unworkable, as continuity suffered. Even inserting a car chase, fight or explosion every fifteen pages didn't help many of these scripts.
Now, all but one of the backlog of abandoned scripts has been produced. A feature film adaptation of "What Makes Sammy Run?" that has been on the shelf of many studios over the years will go into production in August as a joint venture of Warners, Disney, Universal, Fox, Paramount, Sony and MGM. Starring roles haven't been cast yet, but word has it that actors are offering to not only slash their fees, but possibly work for free just to have something to do. Once this film is complete, most of the last offices of each of the film companies will shut down until the strike is resolved. Oddly, considering the issues of the strike, the sole office open at many studios will be the one handling residuals.
Looking back over the years of this strike, one has to wonder if the writers are finally going to back down from their stance of "we're not going to let them tell us what to do anymore," which was their battle cry after the DGA and SAG both came to agreements with the producers back in 2008 and tried to convince the writers to follow suit. As many have said for years, it's not money that runs Hollywood, but ego.
Reworking old formulas and ideas has kept new programming on the TV airwaves. The CW, which had been seen as a floundering network prior to the strike, found an unlikely source of surprise hits based on its 2009 offering "The Bob Show," where random people named Bob were followed around by cameras and the audience voted a prize for the person with the most interesting life (this fall's versions will be "The Dwayne Show" and "The Debra Show"). CBS decided to cash in on a long-time joke at its expense with the reality "CSI: Fargo" and has breathed new life into its "Big Brother" and "Survivor" skeins. Where those shows formerly would attract aspiring actors and actresses hoping to get noticed, now well-known stars vie for slots on the shows as a way to keep their names in the public eye. The latest edition of "Big Brother" features members of the casts of the three scripted CSI shows, "Cold Case" and "NCIS" in a special "season of investigations." NBC has followed in a similar vein, casting actors looking for new careers in their "Apprentice" series. In addition to the two Donald Trump versions airing Wednesdays and Thursdays, this fall will see both a Steve Jobs version and one where the contestants compete for a government job, hosted by Vice President Barack Obama. ABC continues in its quest to match up every unmarried person in the U.S. with its expanded "The Bachelor" series and created variations on both "Extreme Makeover" ("Extreme Makeover: Hotel Edition," "Exteme Makeover: Unoccupied Loft Space Edition" and "Extreme Makeover: Fido's Doghouse") and "Dancing With the Stars" ("Dancing With Captains of Industry," "Dancing With Your Congressman"), while Fox sticks to what worked before the strike, "American Idol" and its animated shows that aren't covered by the WGA contract.
But for the theatrical film side of the business, the crisis has arrived. After scripts judged "ready for production" ran out in 2009, Hollywood studios reverted to remaking old scripts with no revisions. That policy led to the disastrous "less than one billion dollar summer" of 2010, so they retrenched and began making films of the scripts they had bought, developed and then abandoned for one reason or another. Executives' days were filled with phone calls and conferences over which of the dozens of drafts of these projects was best. Attempts to piece together "one great draft" from pages of many proved to be unworkable, as continuity suffered. Even inserting a car chase, fight or explosion every fifteen pages didn't help many of these scripts.
Now, all but one of the backlog of abandoned scripts has been produced. A feature film adaptation of "What Makes Sammy Run?" that has been on the shelf of many studios over the years will go into production in August as a joint venture of Warners, Disney, Universal, Fox, Paramount, Sony and MGM. Starring roles haven't been cast yet, but word has it that actors are offering to not only slash their fees, but possibly work for free just to have something to do. Once this film is complete, most of the last offices of each of the film companies will shut down until the strike is resolved. Oddly, considering the issues of the strike, the sole office open at many studios will be the one handling residuals.
Looking back over the years of this strike, one has to wonder if the writers are finally going to back down from their stance of "we're not going to let them tell us what to do anymore," which was their battle cry after the DGA and SAG both came to agreements with the producers back in 2008 and tried to convince the writers to follow suit. As many have said for years, it's not money that runs Hollywood, but ego.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Don't Annoy The Story Editors (or whoever is in charge of the readers)
Whether it's because reading is an isolating job and my social skills have diminished since I began this work or whether I just didn't have great social skills to begin with, every once in a while I speak without thinking. In general discourse with friends, such is understood and everyone moves on. However, when I do it in conversation with a Story Editor or Creative Executive, I get the feeling the comment isn't so easily dismissed.
There have been a number of instances in my past where, I believe, a simple comment led either to a dismissal of my services or a negative impression on a Story Editor that has kept me from future employment.
The first was the simplest. I had been reading for this company for about a month when the Assistant Story Editor bluntly told me to "proofread your coverage." I told him I did proofread my coverage and asked what the problem was. The "problem" turned out to be that the Story Editor hated typos and had found a few in my coverages. I tried to explain the difficulty in proofreading one's own work. It's always best to get a different set of eyes when it comes to proofreading, as the writer will...that's about as far as I got before the ASE interrupted with "just do it." I shot back "I do" and left. About a week later, I was told they had "too many readers" and didn't require my services any longer. I truly believe I'd still be working there if I'd just said, "I'll strive to do better" rather than return the ASE's dismissive attitude.
So, rule #1. Be nice to them, they have the power.
In another instance, I had finally, after many years, landed a gig at a studio (well-paying, benefits, consistent work). Two other Readers were there with me at the orientation meeting. At one point, the Story Editor made a mention of how he had "heard a lot about all of us." I snorted. You know, a short semi-laugh that is usually interpreted as being derisive. Why did I do this? I just couldn't imagine that Story Editors spend a lot of time talking amongst themselves about Readers. Of course, if I had just thought about it for a second, I would have realized that I had submitted a resume and he might of actually have called a few places I worked for references. End result, I worked one week and then was let go. Could the two events be unrelated? Possibly, but why take the chance?
Rule #2. Control yourself. Derisive attitudes don't make the best first impression.
Finally, I was present in a discussion of a new contract the Reader's union had signed that included a provision for employers to work a Reader "any 8 of 24." I.e., awork day could be any eight hours, not just daytime hours. It's a way of getting rid of overtime, as you just assign a reader or two to work a 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift and they read overnight scripts without getting extra for them. The Story Editor in the conversation was extolling this as a wonderful idea. I pointed out that a it was likely that a Reader was likely to just want to get done with the work and get to bed, leading to hastily-written coverage that could have used more time for thoughtful analysis. During the day, you know you're there for eight hours and can possibly put the script aside after reading it or synopsizing it to ponder it. At night, most (night owls being an exception) just want to get to bed. You hardly consider "Great, I have until 4 in the morning to finish this." (Actually, you would have until seven or eight, since no one is sitting up at 4 waiting for the coverage, but that's another discussion.) The Story Editor's response was that you're being paid for eight hours, so you have an obligation to use the entire eight hours to work. I argued that this thinking went against human nature. When she went back to her argument, I knew further argument was futile and dropped it. For whatever reason, I've never been hired by this Story Editor, but I've always assumed it had to do with this discussion, which might make it seem, in her eyes, that I would be argumentative and not want to do my work.
Rule #3. Don't make it seem like you don't like to work.
Now, I might just be paranoid and nothing I said had anything to do with my losing or not getting a job in these instances. On the other hand, they just might be out to get me.
There have been a number of instances in my past where, I believe, a simple comment led either to a dismissal of my services or a negative impression on a Story Editor that has kept me from future employment.
The first was the simplest. I had been reading for this company for about a month when the Assistant Story Editor bluntly told me to "proofread your coverage." I told him I did proofread my coverage and asked what the problem was. The "problem" turned out to be that the Story Editor hated typos and had found a few in my coverages. I tried to explain the difficulty in proofreading one's own work. It's always best to get a different set of eyes when it comes to proofreading, as the writer will...that's about as far as I got before the ASE interrupted with "just do it." I shot back "I do" and left. About a week later, I was told they had "too many readers" and didn't require my services any longer. I truly believe I'd still be working there if I'd just said, "I'll strive to do better" rather than return the ASE's dismissive attitude.
So, rule #1. Be nice to them, they have the power.
In another instance, I had finally, after many years, landed a gig at a studio (well-paying, benefits, consistent work). Two other Readers were there with me at the orientation meeting. At one point, the Story Editor made a mention of how he had "heard a lot about all of us." I snorted. You know, a short semi-laugh that is usually interpreted as being derisive. Why did I do this? I just couldn't imagine that Story Editors spend a lot of time talking amongst themselves about Readers. Of course, if I had just thought about it for a second, I would have realized that I had submitted a resume and he might of actually have called a few places I worked for references. End result, I worked one week and then was let go. Could the two events be unrelated? Possibly, but why take the chance?
Rule #2. Control yourself. Derisive attitudes don't make the best first impression.
Finally, I was present in a discussion of a new contract the Reader's union had signed that included a provision for employers to work a Reader "any 8 of 24." I.e., awork day could be any eight hours, not just daytime hours. It's a way of getting rid of overtime, as you just assign a reader or two to work a 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift and they read overnight scripts without getting extra for them. The Story Editor in the conversation was extolling this as a wonderful idea. I pointed out that a it was likely that a Reader was likely to just want to get done with the work and get to bed, leading to hastily-written coverage that could have used more time for thoughtful analysis. During the day, you know you're there for eight hours and can possibly put the script aside after reading it or synopsizing it to ponder it. At night, most (night owls being an exception) just want to get to bed. You hardly consider "Great, I have until 4 in the morning to finish this." (Actually, you would have until seven or eight, since no one is sitting up at 4 waiting for the coverage, but that's another discussion.) The Story Editor's response was that you're being paid for eight hours, so you have an obligation to use the entire eight hours to work. I argued that this thinking went against human nature. When she went back to her argument, I knew further argument was futile and dropped it. For whatever reason, I've never been hired by this Story Editor, but I've always assumed it had to do with this discussion, which might make it seem, in her eyes, that I would be argumentative and not want to do my work.
Rule #3. Don't make it seem like you don't like to work.
Now, I might just be paranoid and nothing I said had anything to do with my losing or not getting a job in these instances. On the other hand, they just might be out to get me.
Before I Was So Rudely Interrupted
No, it wasn't a misprint in my last entry. I fully intended to post on 8/13, not wait until 9/13. However, when I tried to log on after my vacation (a wonderful time, BTW), the great gods of the blogworld wouldn't allow me.
I got a variety of reasons, from "e-mail address doesn't exist" to "wrong password" (even though my e-mail address certainly does exist and I keep a list of my passwords, so that was not likely to be wrong since it worked 20 times before) and then got lazy about trying to figure out the problem. Finally, I found a "back door" entry and now it all works again.
Let's see if I still have anything to say.
I got a variety of reasons, from "e-mail address doesn't exist" to "wrong password" (even though my e-mail address certainly does exist and I keep a list of my passwords, so that was not likely to be wrong since it worked 20 times before) and then got lazy about trying to figure out the problem. Finally, I found a "back door" entry and now it all works again.
Let's see if I still have anything to say.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
On Hiatus
Well, it has become so-o-o-o-o-o-o slow here in the dog days of summer, that I'm packing off for a vacation myself.
I'll dig up a new story or what-not upon my return, August 13.
I'll dig up a new story or what-not upon my return, August 13.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Two Movies To Check Out
Loved these two the first time I saw them and have watched them repeatedly. As the years pass, I meet more and more people who haven't seen them or even heard of them, so I'm giving them a shout out here. Both are from 1980:
"The Stunt Man" starring Peter O'Toole, directed by Richard Rush, written by Lawrence Marcus and Richard Rush.
"Breaker Morant" starring Edward Woodward, directed by Bruce Beresford, written by Kenneth Ross and Jonathan Hardy.
The latter is a military courtroom drama set during the Boer War (look it up in Wikipedia if you've never heard of that particular conflict...the movie is based on a true story), the former a story of an arrogant director doing everything in his power, including covering up the death of a stunt man and replacing him with an escaped convict, to finish his film.
"Morant" is a great example of how to open up a stage play for a film. "Stunt Man" has wonderful theme music.
Check 'em out.
"The Stunt Man" starring Peter O'Toole, directed by Richard Rush, written by Lawrence Marcus and Richard Rush.
"Breaker Morant" starring Edward Woodward, directed by Bruce Beresford, written by Kenneth Ross and Jonathan Hardy.
The latter is a military courtroom drama set during the Boer War (look it up in Wikipedia if you've never heard of that particular conflict...the movie is based on a true story), the former a story of an arrogant director doing everything in his power, including covering up the death of a stunt man and replacing him with an escaped convict, to finish his film.
"Morant" is a great example of how to open up a stage play for a film. "Stunt Man" has wonderful theme music.
Check 'em out.
Dog Days of Summer
There are a few times during the year when the work slows down. The most obvious one is the end of year holidays. Whether celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or some other religious or secular holiday, mid-December, when office parties are in full swing, to the first week of January is a time of little work. Late July and early August are also a few weeks of lull, then there is Cannes (depending on the company, either during the festival or just after) and Spring Break week. It all adds up to about six weeks a year when little or no work comes in. Such requires expert budgeting of moneys to cover expenses during the lean times.
Like many, I have no patience for budgeting of money. When things are slow, I simply don't eat.
As for filling the time. Working on those scripts that just about any Reader worth his/her salt has stashed in a drawer is always a good idea. Or, if you're really ambitious, continuing work on your version of the Great American Novel. (Note: Philip Roth already wrote a book with that title. If you like baseball, it's a hoot. Can't say there is much potential as a film in it, though.)
But what we live for, like many Writers, is procrastination. Should be rewriting that sitcom spec? Gotta shop for groceries first. Get new batteries for your watches. Mow the lawn. Edge the lawn. Consider buying lawn seed for the bare patches. Hey, there's a "Law and Order" on A&E I haven't seen before.
I'd start writing now, but it's almost lunch time and I want to have a clear three or four hours with no interruptions.
Lunch is over. Gotta watch "NFL Live" on ESPN.
Damn, the rug looks dirty, better vacuum it. Forgot milk at the store, better go before it's too crowded.
Wow, I just got a great idea for a topic for my blog! Better write it before I forget.
A bit hot today. Think I'll wait 'til things cool down before starting on any real work.
You know, "Full House" is a really funny show. And they show four episodes back-to-back on Nickelodeon.
I should check iTunes to see if they have any new music for my iPod. Wow, it's getting near dinner time. The kids come home, the wife comes home. Gotta relax with the family.
But, first thing tomorrow, chapter four of my novel.
Like many, I have no patience for budgeting of money. When things are slow, I simply don't eat.
As for filling the time. Working on those scripts that just about any Reader worth his/her salt has stashed in a drawer is always a good idea. Or, if you're really ambitious, continuing work on your version of the Great American Novel. (Note: Philip Roth already wrote a book with that title. If you like baseball, it's a hoot. Can't say there is much potential as a film in it, though.)
But what we live for, like many Writers, is procrastination. Should be rewriting that sitcom spec? Gotta shop for groceries first. Get new batteries for your watches. Mow the lawn. Edge the lawn. Consider buying lawn seed for the bare patches. Hey, there's a "Law and Order" on A&E I haven't seen before.
I'd start writing now, but it's almost lunch time and I want to have a clear three or four hours with no interruptions.
Lunch is over. Gotta watch "NFL Live" on ESPN.
Damn, the rug looks dirty, better vacuum it. Forgot milk at the store, better go before it's too crowded.
Wow, I just got a great idea for a topic for my blog! Better write it before I forget.
A bit hot today. Think I'll wait 'til things cool down before starting on any real work.
You know, "Full House" is a really funny show. And they show four episodes back-to-back on Nickelodeon.
I should check iTunes to see if they have any new music for my iPod. Wow, it's getting near dinner time. The kids come home, the wife comes home. Gotta relax with the family.
But, first thing tomorrow, chapter four of my novel.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Working With a Writer
Just had the experience of working with a couple of Writers on their scripts. This is the most involving and satisfying part of what I do and I wish I could do more of it. (Whatever happened to the old-time "Story Editor" position, where a person could just work on developing scripts rather than trying to bring the material to the company?)
I always approach working with a Writer from the angle that it's their vision, I'm just here to help them refine it. If I point out that certain speeches seem a little preachy and find they've been left in on the next draft, I have to go with the notion that the Writer wants to make the point in that manner. Obsessing over something like that in draft after draft only wastes time. It's their script and should reflect their point-of-view. If I take the stance of "do what I tell you, regardless of what you feel is best," I'm taking away their creativity. The script should be their voice in telling the story, so I focus on trying to make sure the story's basic foundations are in place. That the plot and characters are set up well, that it offers complications and solutions that serve the story and that things are wrapped up in a manner befitting the story. Whether or not it's a "happy ending" is up to the Writer. After all, it's up to them to sell the story. The most I can do is try to point out ways to tell their story in the best possible manner.
I always approach working with a Writer from the angle that it's their vision, I'm just here to help them refine it. If I point out that certain speeches seem a little preachy and find they've been left in on the next draft, I have to go with the notion that the Writer wants to make the point in that manner. Obsessing over something like that in draft after draft only wastes time. It's their script and should reflect their point-of-view. If I take the stance of "do what I tell you, regardless of what you feel is best," I'm taking away their creativity. The script should be their voice in telling the story, so I focus on trying to make sure the story's basic foundations are in place. That the plot and characters are set up well, that it offers complications and solutions that serve the story and that things are wrapped up in a manner befitting the story. Whether or not it's a "happy ending" is up to the Writer. After all, it's up to them to sell the story. The most I can do is try to point out ways to tell their story in the best possible manner.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Annoying Things in Scripts (Part One)
If you read enough stories of any type, certain cliches, genre conventions and repetitions of ideas begin to stand out. Since popular entertainment can sometimes be simply finding an interesting new way of telling an old story, it's not necessary for a Reader to point out every time a Writer is merely recycling old ideas. With a couple creative elements, "everything old is new again."
But that doesn't mean everything needs to be joyously embraced by a Reader. In my little part of the world, there can be many things that stand out as being repeated so many times by so many Writers that I just want to say "enough." I realize I'm screaming into the abyss (particularly with one of them, for it's too popular a situation in its genre to trash can), but I'm bringing them up anyhow.
First is the horror film set up of (basically, with only minor deviations), "six college-age people travel to a remote location where their cell phones don't work and they're attacked by..." Fill in the last part yourself. It can be one of their own party, a monster, an alien, a serial killer, an animal...you know, you've all seen this story, probably more than a dozen times. Obviously, this is a pretty standard set up for a horror story and many more films will be made from it, but why not a little variation at times? Find a creative way to put the characters in a location teeming with people, but no one can help. Have their cell phones work, but help can't come. Something to make it more than just the basic set up.
Then there are certain situations that pop up in way too many romantic comedies. First of all, I'd like say that I generally like romantic comedies. As long as they make me laugh a few times and I feel that the two folks belong together, I find them a satisfying experience. That said, can we get past using "the big lie" as a plot point? You know, one character tells a lie to the other for some reason in the beginning of the story, doesn't come clean when they could in the middle and the other person gets really angry as things just seem to be heating up and breaks off the relationship. Of course, this monumental disruption to the relationship is typically smoothed over about twenty pages later, so I just never buy into the whole "you've destroyed my trust in you" speech when it's delivered. Walking hand-in-hand with this is the fact that the "wronged" party never allows the liar to explain. Usually, there is an understandable reason why the person lied, usually having to do with the fact that the circumstances of their relationship have changed over time, but the wronged person won't listen. This is basically just false conflict. A Writer who can't think of anything else to do, so they fall back on having one person storm off. Be creative. Try harder.
That and having one character see the other in an embrace of some sort, jump to the wrong conclusion but not try to find out the truth. That's just another lame, too-easy-to-do plot turning point that makes my eyes roll into the back of my head. It's especially disappointing if the script has me hooked up until then.
Basically, don't fall back on overused cliches if you can possibly avoid them. There's always the chance someone out there has avoided them and your script is being passed over because they've captured my imagination with something new, not something overused.
But that doesn't mean everything needs to be joyously embraced by a Reader. In my little part of the world, there can be many things that stand out as being repeated so many times by so many Writers that I just want to say "enough." I realize I'm screaming into the abyss (particularly with one of them, for it's too popular a situation in its genre to trash can), but I'm bringing them up anyhow.
First is the horror film set up of (basically, with only minor deviations), "six college-age people travel to a remote location where their cell phones don't work and they're attacked by..." Fill in the last part yourself. It can be one of their own party, a monster, an alien, a serial killer, an animal...you know, you've all seen this story, probably more than a dozen times. Obviously, this is a pretty standard set up for a horror story and many more films will be made from it, but why not a little variation at times? Find a creative way to put the characters in a location teeming with people, but no one can help. Have their cell phones work, but help can't come. Something to make it more than just the basic set up.
Then there are certain situations that pop up in way too many romantic comedies. First of all, I'd like say that I generally like romantic comedies. As long as they make me laugh a few times and I feel that the two folks belong together, I find them a satisfying experience. That said, can we get past using "the big lie" as a plot point? You know, one character tells a lie to the other for some reason in the beginning of the story, doesn't come clean when they could in the middle and the other person gets really angry as things just seem to be heating up and breaks off the relationship. Of course, this monumental disruption to the relationship is typically smoothed over about twenty pages later, so I just never buy into the whole "you've destroyed my trust in you" speech when it's delivered. Walking hand-in-hand with this is the fact that the "wronged" party never allows the liar to explain. Usually, there is an understandable reason why the person lied, usually having to do with the fact that the circumstances of their relationship have changed over time, but the wronged person won't listen. This is basically just false conflict. A Writer who can't think of anything else to do, so they fall back on having one person storm off. Be creative. Try harder.
That and having one character see the other in an embrace of some sort, jump to the wrong conclusion but not try to find out the truth. That's just another lame, too-easy-to-do plot turning point that makes my eyes roll into the back of my head. It's especially disappointing if the script has me hooked up until then.
Basically, don't fall back on overused cliches if you can possibly avoid them. There's always the chance someone out there has avoided them and your script is being passed over because they've captured my imagination with something new, not something overused.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Decision time -- Harry Potter
I wrote earlier about having trouble settling down with a book to read for pleasure when all I do all day is read. Well, this weekend created a dilemma.
You see, I've read every Harry Potter book published and now the new one is out. For the first time, I won't be reading it to my oldest son, he's going to tackle the book on his own. Now, I have to find time to read the book on my own, rather than every morning at breakfast for my son.
(Sigh) Maybe I'll just flip to the back and find out how it all ends....
You see, I've read every Harry Potter book published and now the new one is out. For the first time, I won't be reading it to my oldest son, he's going to tackle the book on his own. Now, I have to find time to read the book on my own, rather than every morning at breakfast for my son.
(Sigh) Maybe I'll just flip to the back and find out how it all ends....
Friday, July 20, 2007
Best Advice I Ever Got (at least as a Reader)
Back to a Reader/Analyst topic.
Possibly the most common question I get from someone who wants to know more about what I do is, "Where do you start when writing a comment?"
The perception is that there could be so much good, bad or indifferent that choosing what to focus on first might be a problem. However, advice I got from my first story editor has proved invaluable and is so simple, you slap your head if you didn't think of it first.
What is the Writer trying to do and do they accomplish it?
From there, you take the first basic step. Identify the genre. Then, what are the basic elements of the genre. Just keep it simple. If it's an action film, did it have exciting action? Were the reasons for the action plausible? Is the story that holds the action together interesting without the action? If not, why?
A romantic comedy? Do you buy into the romance and is it funny? If not, why?
See, simple. Since most comments are typically a page long, you should probably be able to fill a page just answering the simplest questions, from characterization to dialogue to originality.
Possibly the most common question I get from someone who wants to know more about what I do is, "Where do you start when writing a comment?"
The perception is that there could be so much good, bad or indifferent that choosing what to focus on first might be a problem. However, advice I got from my first story editor has proved invaluable and is so simple, you slap your head if you didn't think of it first.
What is the Writer trying to do and do they accomplish it?
From there, you take the first basic step. Identify the genre. Then, what are the basic elements of the genre. Just keep it simple. If it's an action film, did it have exciting action? Were the reasons for the action plausible? Is the story that holds the action together interesting without the action? If not, why?
A romantic comedy? Do you buy into the romance and is it funny? If not, why?
See, simple. Since most comments are typically a page long, you should probably be able to fill a page just answering the simplest questions, from characterization to dialogue to originality.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
TV Emmy Award Nominations
These were just announced today and columnists around the country are declaring their picks for "snubs" and "well-chosen" nominations.
As I've stated before, I enjoy a lot of TV and agree that there are a lot of worthy shows and performers who are passed over in the nominations. But, there are only five nominations per category, so everyone can't be chosen.
I also feel that we all have our personal favorites and those who criticize the nominations are usually sticking up for their favorites, wishing to see them singled out. That being said, I'm not going to belittle anyone's nomination (there are some nominations that I just don't "get," but I'll just accept that mine is a minority view), but would like to give a pat on the back for a few actors that I feel were truly worthy and I hope will walk away with an award:
Hugh Laurie in "House." I just started watching this show this spring and am always entertained by this actor and the character he plays.
Kevin Dillon in "Entourage." Jeremy Piven is wonderful as Ari, biting deeply into his role and reveling in how he delivers the lines, but Dillon plays a much wider range with Johnny Drama. I really find him to be the heart of the show.
Neil Patrick Harris in "How I Met Your Mother." Not to knock the other actors on this show, but Harris' Barney commands center stage whenever he's in a scene. Maybe the writers just give him the best lines, but I'm almost guaranteed a laugh when he speaks.
T. R. Knight in "Grey's Anatomy." Am bored with his storyline, but still like his character. Gotta be the actor, right?
Otherwise, I think the Emmys basically get it right. Sometimes, shows seem to just get a nomination through past reputation (like All-Star teams in sports?), but fresh blood is also rewarded quite often ("Heroes" is this year's best example).
The toughest category for me are the writing categories. I'm always on the fence about it when one show dominates these. Certainly, "The Sopranos" has great writing and it wouldn't be fair to limit each show to only one nomination when there are so many good writers on the staff, but I always think there must be some way to "spread the wealth" rather than just see one show take three or more of the five. But, I will admit, every strategy I can think of to remedy this has problems. I'll keep working on it and get back to you.
As I've stated before, I enjoy a lot of TV and agree that there are a lot of worthy shows and performers who are passed over in the nominations. But, there are only five nominations per category, so everyone can't be chosen.
I also feel that we all have our personal favorites and those who criticize the nominations are usually sticking up for their favorites, wishing to see them singled out. That being said, I'm not going to belittle anyone's nomination (there are some nominations that I just don't "get," but I'll just accept that mine is a minority view), but would like to give a pat on the back for a few actors that I feel were truly worthy and I hope will walk away with an award:
Hugh Laurie in "House." I just started watching this show this spring and am always entertained by this actor and the character he plays.
Kevin Dillon in "Entourage." Jeremy Piven is wonderful as Ari, biting deeply into his role and reveling in how he delivers the lines, but Dillon plays a much wider range with Johnny Drama. I really find him to be the heart of the show.
Neil Patrick Harris in "How I Met Your Mother." Not to knock the other actors on this show, but Harris' Barney commands center stage whenever he's in a scene. Maybe the writers just give him the best lines, but I'm almost guaranteed a laugh when he speaks.
T. R. Knight in "Grey's Anatomy." Am bored with his storyline, but still like his character. Gotta be the actor, right?
Otherwise, I think the Emmys basically get it right. Sometimes, shows seem to just get a nomination through past reputation (like All-Star teams in sports?), but fresh blood is also rewarded quite often ("Heroes" is this year's best example).
The toughest category for me are the writing categories. I'm always on the fence about it when one show dominates these. Certainly, "The Sopranos" has great writing and it wouldn't be fair to limit each show to only one nomination when there are so many good writers on the staff, but I always think there must be some way to "spread the wealth" rather than just see one show take three or more of the five. But, I will admit, every strategy I can think of to remedy this has problems. I'll keep working on it and get back to you.
Do I Write Scripts?
This is the most common question I get when people engage me in conversation about my job.
Obviously, no one expects to make a career out of just reading scripts, right? Pretty much correct. It's seen as a way to make a living while you're writing your own things or as a starting point to a career as an executive.
So, I write. About a dozen film scripts, two TV spec sitcom pilots and a handful of TV spec sitcom episodes. It may be a little easier for me to get someone to read my scripts, but I also want to make sure I don't abuse the access to them. I have to be fully confident they might like what they read or they'll be less likely to say "sure, give me a copy of your script" next time I ask. However, even for me, it's all about getting the right script to the right person at the right time.
Here's a tale of frustration:
One of my TV specs had to do with a young man marrying into a family from a different cultural background who ran a restaurant. The clashes of culture played an important part in the comedy, as did gender and family issues, along with the work issues. The pilot had to do with the couple returning from their honeymoon and becoming involved with the bride's family.
I could never get much interest in this.
Then, along came "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding." The success of this begat "My Big, Fat, Greek Life" on TV, the pilot of which had to do with the couple returning from their honeymoon and becoming involved with the bride's family.
Now, get this...both my script and "MBFGL" opened with a scene of one member of the newly married couple being involved in physical comedy regarding their luggage (theirs at the airport, mine in the hall of their apartment building).
(Sigh.)
"MBFGL" may not have been a complete success, and its being put on the air was obviously linked to the success of the movie, but, boy, did I feel like I was close to something with my own script.
More adventures of my screenwriting efforts late.
Obviously, no one expects to make a career out of just reading scripts, right? Pretty much correct. It's seen as a way to make a living while you're writing your own things or as a starting point to a career as an executive.
So, I write. About a dozen film scripts, two TV spec sitcom pilots and a handful of TV spec sitcom episodes. It may be a little easier for me to get someone to read my scripts, but I also want to make sure I don't abuse the access to them. I have to be fully confident they might like what they read or they'll be less likely to say "sure, give me a copy of your script" next time I ask. However, even for me, it's all about getting the right script to the right person at the right time.
Here's a tale of frustration:
One of my TV specs had to do with a young man marrying into a family from a different cultural background who ran a restaurant. The clashes of culture played an important part in the comedy, as did gender and family issues, along with the work issues. The pilot had to do with the couple returning from their honeymoon and becoming involved with the bride's family.
I could never get much interest in this.
Then, along came "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding." The success of this begat "My Big, Fat, Greek Life" on TV, the pilot of which had to do with the couple returning from their honeymoon and becoming involved with the bride's family.
Now, get this...both my script and "MBFGL" opened with a scene of one member of the newly married couple being involved in physical comedy regarding their luggage (theirs at the airport, mine in the hall of their apartment building).
(Sigh.)
"MBFGL" may not have been a complete success, and its being put on the air was obviously linked to the success of the movie, but, boy, did I feel like I was close to something with my own script.
More adventures of my screenwriting efforts late.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Watching TV
Discussions of TV shows come up all the time at gatherings of "industryites" and, invariably, there are those who insist they don't watch TV. That is usually followed by them mentioning a few minutes later some TV show they watch. The most amusing of these folks are the ones who "hate reality TV," only to confess that they do like one or more reality TV shows. Some people insist they don't even own a TV.
Instead of watching TV, they read, listen to music, exercise, go to plays, etc. I do most of those things, too. (Well, I don't go to many plays.) However, when it comes to reading...would you suggest that a farmer plant a garden in his non-working hours? I do read for pleasure, but I think you understand why I don't usually curl up with a good book after having just spent eight hours reading a book for work.
Thus, I watch TV. The most common complaint about Mr. Farnsworth's* invention is that the shows are awful. Remember my mention of "industryites"? I find it amusing that they're basically saying that the product of their own industry is awful. I wonder if car company employees think the same thing. That being said, some of the shows are pretty lame, but which shows are lame is always a matter of opinion. I never was amused by "Scrubs" in anything other than a "well, that was weird" way, yet "Two And A Half Men" usually has me laughing out loud. Critical opinion doesn't agree with me; ratings do. Go figure.
Trust me, I'm not advocating that everyone spend every free hour watching TV. But to say there is "nothing good on" is a broad, untrue generalization. No matter your interests, you can find something worthwhile to watch. There are definitely educational programs (Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The History Channel and more). If you want to laugh, sitcoms aren't the only choice. Rather than belabor the point, this moment in TV history has a range of choices. If your choice is just not to watch, you won't find me trying to convince you to watch. But if your argument against TV is that there is nothing good or worthwhile on it, you're just wrong. If your argument is that you don't want to pay for all those channels, why pay for a gym when you can exercise on your own outside? Why buy books when there is a library nearby? Sometimes, if you want the best, most convenient or most diversity, you have to pay for it.
Since I at times read for TV companies, I try to familiarize myself with most anything that's been on the air for more than a few weeks (figuring they've past the "quick cancellation" point and will last at least a season). With cable channels coming up with more and more new series, it can be a daunting task. Once I've seen a show, they will fall into one of several general categories. First are shows I watch when they're on or by recording them on my DVR because I don't want to miss them. ("The Sopranos," "Big Love," "Entourage"...is this looking like a promo for HBO?...come to mind, along with "Ugly Betty.") Shows I will look forward to and watch unless distracted by other things, but won't DVR. ("Project Runway," "Two And A Half Men," "CSI: Miami," many others, typically sitcoms and a few dramas. I do watch some other reality shows, but find the repetition of conflicts after a season or two become boring. Of the dating shows, only "Joe Millionaire" held me for a season, basically to see if they could pull off the stunt.) There are shows I watch a number of times wishing I liked them more than I do and keep hoping they engage me, but haven't yet ("Dirt," "The Closer"). Then, the ones that, if the subject is good enough, I'll check them out if I'm sitting down with an hour to spare. (Typically, "true life" stories like "Biography," "City Confidential" and the like or informational shows like "Unwrapped." )
That being said, there are innumerable shows that I bypass without a second thought. (I won't begin to list them, but suffice to say I'm not a fan of shows where the goal is to embarrass people.)
Pretty much, I ask TV to entertain me for an hour or so and to see the end result of things I've read about. Also, to keep up on the "hottest" actors, writers and directors, for their names are sure to pass over my desk at some time.
Instead of watching TV, they read, listen to music, exercise, go to plays, etc. I do most of those things, too. (Well, I don't go to many plays.) However, when it comes to reading...would you suggest that a farmer plant a garden in his non-working hours? I do read for pleasure, but I think you understand why I don't usually curl up with a good book after having just spent eight hours reading a book for work.
Thus, I watch TV. The most common complaint about Mr. Farnsworth's* invention is that the shows are awful. Remember my mention of "industryites"? I find it amusing that they're basically saying that the product of their own industry is awful. I wonder if car company employees think the same thing. That being said, some of the shows are pretty lame, but which shows are lame is always a matter of opinion. I never was amused by "Scrubs" in anything other than a "well, that was weird" way, yet "Two And A Half Men" usually has me laughing out loud. Critical opinion doesn't agree with me; ratings do. Go figure.
Trust me, I'm not advocating that everyone spend every free hour watching TV. But to say there is "nothing good on" is a broad, untrue generalization. No matter your interests, you can find something worthwhile to watch. There are definitely educational programs (Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The History Channel and more). If you want to laugh, sitcoms aren't the only choice. Rather than belabor the point, this moment in TV history has a range of choices. If your choice is just not to watch, you won't find me trying to convince you to watch. But if your argument against TV is that there is nothing good or worthwhile on it, you're just wrong. If your argument is that you don't want to pay for all those channels, why pay for a gym when you can exercise on your own outside? Why buy books when there is a library nearby? Sometimes, if you want the best, most convenient or most diversity, you have to pay for it.
Since I at times read for TV companies, I try to familiarize myself with most anything that's been on the air for more than a few weeks (figuring they've past the "quick cancellation" point and will last at least a season). With cable channels coming up with more and more new series, it can be a daunting task. Once I've seen a show, they will fall into one of several general categories. First are shows I watch when they're on or by recording them on my DVR because I don't want to miss them. ("The Sopranos," "Big Love," "Entourage"...is this looking like a promo for HBO?...come to mind, along with "Ugly Betty.") Shows I will look forward to and watch unless distracted by other things, but won't DVR. ("Project Runway," "Two And A Half Men," "CSI: Miami," many others, typically sitcoms and a few dramas. I do watch some other reality shows, but find the repetition of conflicts after a season or two become boring. Of the dating shows, only "Joe Millionaire" held me for a season, basically to see if they could pull off the stunt.) There are shows I watch a number of times wishing I liked them more than I do and keep hoping they engage me, but haven't yet ("Dirt," "The Closer"). Then, the ones that, if the subject is good enough, I'll check them out if I'm sitting down with an hour to spare. (Typically, "true life" stories like "Biography," "City Confidential" and the like or informational shows like "Unwrapped." )
That being said, there are innumerable shows that I bypass without a second thought. (I won't begin to list them, but suffice to say I'm not a fan of shows where the goal is to embarrass people.)
Pretty much, I ask TV to entertain me for an hour or so and to see the end result of things I've read about. Also, to keep up on the "hottest" actors, writers and directors, for their names are sure to pass over my desk at some time.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Ms. Spelling
No, not an entry on the film and TV career of Tori.
Instead, that supposedly dreaded terror of all writers...that Script Readers turn up their noses at any script containing a misspelling.
First of all, we are hardly immune from misspellings in our coverages. (Come on. 'Fess up, any of my fellow Analysts reading this. You've read an old coverage of your own and found some embarrassing errors.) I myself usually find missing words (that my mind somehow assumed existed when I proof-read my work the first time) or stray words that I missed on proof-reading.
As for the the usual suspects, its and it's and their and they're and there, they really just provide a moment to sigh and move on.
However, writers should also be aware that 90% or more of the scripts I read don't have such errors. When more than one is found, there can be an inkling that, if you didn't pay that much attention to your proof-reading, it's probable that you also missed things like your poor story development and weak characterization.
That being said, the errors that stand out to me are the ones of complete disregard for spell check or facts. A misspelling like "desert" for "dessert" can be missed because spell check won't catch it and it is easy to whiz by as you read. But "dinning room"? Unless you're being creative and have a location where people go to make a lot of noise, you really should catch this. Add to that "nods his head 'no'." A "nod" is an up-and-down motion signifying an affirmative response. "Shake" your head "no." Please.
Though in the end, the truly egregious error is the one of including a specific title or name in your script and misspelling it. This happens a lot with music. Most scripts won't specify the music being played over a scene, so when one does, I have to figure that the Writer feels this is really important and wouldn't be picking this song or artist unless he/she had an important reason to include it in the script. Thus, when I read "Jimmy Hendricks' 'Excuse Me While I Kiss The Sky'" noted, all I can do is cringe and think, "this person really doesn't know what they're talking about."
Remember my assertion that 90% of all scripts don't have errors? Well, 90% of all scripts that have errors like the Hendrix one are usually pretty sloppy creatively.
Repeat after me: Jimi Hendrix, "Purple Haze."
Instead, that supposedly dreaded terror of all writers...that Script Readers turn up their noses at any script containing a misspelling.
First of all, we are hardly immune from misspellings in our coverages. (Come on. 'Fess up, any of my fellow Analysts reading this. You've read an old coverage of your own and found some embarrassing errors.) I myself usually find missing words (that my mind somehow assumed existed when I proof-read my work the first time) or stray words that I missed on proof-reading.
As for the the usual suspects, its and it's and their and they're and there, they really just provide a moment to sigh and move on.
However, writers should also be aware that 90% or more of the scripts I read don't have such errors. When more than one is found, there can be an inkling that, if you didn't pay that much attention to your proof-reading, it's probable that you also missed things like your poor story development and weak characterization.
That being said, the errors that stand out to me are the ones of complete disregard for spell check or facts. A misspelling like "desert" for "dessert" can be missed because spell check won't catch it and it is easy to whiz by as you read. But "dinning room"? Unless you're being creative and have a location where people go to make a lot of noise, you really should catch this. Add to that "nods his head 'no'." A "nod" is an up-and-down motion signifying an affirmative response. "Shake" your head "no." Please.
Though in the end, the truly egregious error is the one of including a specific title or name in your script and misspelling it. This happens a lot with music. Most scripts won't specify the music being played over a scene, so when one does, I have to figure that the Writer feels this is really important and wouldn't be picking this song or artist unless he/she had an important reason to include it in the script. Thus, when I read "Jimmy Hendricks' 'Excuse Me While I Kiss The Sky'" noted, all I can do is cringe and think, "this person really doesn't know what they're talking about."
Remember my assertion that 90% of all scripts don't have errors? Well, 90% of all scripts that have errors like the Hendrix one are usually pretty sloppy creatively.
Repeat after me: Jimi Hendrix, "Purple Haze."
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Meeting Writers
Most Writers I meet are delightful, as we have a common bond in what we do and can discuss the art of screenwriting and relate our feelings of examples of both good and bad scripts or movies.
There are some, however, who feel that I am slightly below the Anti-Christ on the list that ranks individuals on the merits of their existence. Usually, I'm amused by this reaction, but over the years there have been two who stood out for their comments to me.
The first was a successful TV Writer, the comedy variety. We met at a Christmas party and when he was informed of how I make my living, his response was, "What qualifies you to do that?" Now, I have to admit my reaction was little more than shock and don't remember my response. On reflection, it seems to me that "what qualifies me" is the same thing that "qualifies" a Writer to do what he or she does. You set out to do it and if people like your work, you can make a living at it. One might argue that writers are creative individuals who study and work at their craft, but there are thousands of people who believe themselves to be creative individuals and take the same classes or read the same books and work just as hard at writing who never create anything anyone wants to buy. Not everyone who thinks they can do something can do it. I studied Ted Williams' "The Science of Hitting" and played baseball for five years, yet I was never any good at it. No one wants to hire a bad Writer and no bad Reader is around for very long. You work at it and, if you're any good, you get to continue doing it. Just like a Writer.
Then there was the successful film Writer who asked me if I had ever written a script. I have, around a dozen of them. When he asked if I thought there was any reason why I hadn't sold any of them, I replied that the common comment on my work is that it lacks "edge." Now, this is a common Hollywood term, one with which anyone in the business should be familiar. However, this Writer claimed that he had no idea what "edge" or "edgy" meant and had just been in a meeting with a Studio Executive who agreed with him. I must say, I find this very hard to believe. There might be some debate over what "edgy" means exactly, but the ideas that situations in the script should have elements that aren't completely mainstream and that the characters should have odd or even unlikable qualities are probably on most anyone's list. I still puzzle over the purpose of his statement, as it just made him look kinda...dumb. And most writers are far from dumb. Intense, focused, repositories of obscure knowledge on the subjects that interest them the most and very opinionated. But rarely dumb.
There are some, however, who feel that I am slightly below the Anti-Christ on the list that ranks individuals on the merits of their existence. Usually, I'm amused by this reaction, but over the years there have been two who stood out for their comments to me.
The first was a successful TV Writer, the comedy variety. We met at a Christmas party and when he was informed of how I make my living, his response was, "What qualifies you to do that?" Now, I have to admit my reaction was little more than shock and don't remember my response. On reflection, it seems to me that "what qualifies me" is the same thing that "qualifies" a Writer to do what he or she does. You set out to do it and if people like your work, you can make a living at it. One might argue that writers are creative individuals who study and work at their craft, but there are thousands of people who believe themselves to be creative individuals and take the same classes or read the same books and work just as hard at writing who never create anything anyone wants to buy. Not everyone who thinks they can do something can do it. I studied Ted Williams' "The Science of Hitting" and played baseball for five years, yet I was never any good at it. No one wants to hire a bad Writer and no bad Reader is around for very long. You work at it and, if you're any good, you get to continue doing it. Just like a Writer.
Then there was the successful film Writer who asked me if I had ever written a script. I have, around a dozen of them. When he asked if I thought there was any reason why I hadn't sold any of them, I replied that the common comment on my work is that it lacks "edge." Now, this is a common Hollywood term, one with which anyone in the business should be familiar. However, this Writer claimed that he had no idea what "edge" or "edgy" meant and had just been in a meeting with a Studio Executive who agreed with him. I must say, I find this very hard to believe. There might be some debate over what "edgy" means exactly, but the ideas that situations in the script should have elements that aren't completely mainstream and that the characters should have odd or even unlikable qualities are probably on most anyone's list. I still puzzle over the purpose of his statement, as it just made him look kinda...dumb. And most writers are far from dumb. Intense, focused, repositories of obscure knowledge on the subjects that interest them the most and very opinionated. But rarely dumb.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Barry Bonds
Baseball's All-star game was yesterday and Mr. Barry Bonds was a big story, just as he's been for the past year or so on sports shows and in the sports section of your local paper.
What does the soon-to-be, all-time American major league home run leader have to do with Hollywood? Any tale of Bonds will usually include two terms, steroids and ego. Betcha can guess which one interests me today.
Ego isn't necessarily a bad word in Hollywood, mainly because you have to have some sort of ego to even consider trying to make it in this business. In terms of being a writer, no one comes to L.A. thinking, "I really don't know if I can write, but I'd really like to take a chance and see if I can become successful." Replace "write" with "act," "direct," "choose projects that will be successful..." Well, you get it. The simple thought of "I can do this" is ego-based and if you don't believe in yourself, it's hard to convince others to believe in you.
Ego drives an agents'"I know this will be a winner" mantra when they're trying to sell their clients' work to a buyer. The writer has the ego that what they've written is better than anything out there and I have the ego to believe I can differentiate between those who actually have written something better from those who have to work at their script a bit more. The producer/executive has the ego that they know what will be successful and the director has the ego that they take the promise on the page and translate it magnificently to the screen. And I know you haven't forgotten the actors...
It comes down to what I've said before and I'll say it again, if you think your script is "as good as anything out there," you haven't accomplished your task yet. To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, "Ego is good."
That's not to say it can't get out of control. But, if you're successful, no one will tell you to calm down, as it just might be part of the mojo that makes you succeed.
What does the soon-to-be, all-time American major league home run leader have to do with Hollywood? Any tale of Bonds will usually include two terms, steroids and ego. Betcha can guess which one interests me today.
Ego isn't necessarily a bad word in Hollywood, mainly because you have to have some sort of ego to even consider trying to make it in this business. In terms of being a writer, no one comes to L.A. thinking, "I really don't know if I can write, but I'd really like to take a chance and see if I can become successful." Replace "write" with "act," "direct," "choose projects that will be successful..." Well, you get it. The simple thought of "I can do this" is ego-based and if you don't believe in yourself, it's hard to convince others to believe in you.
Ego drives an agents'"I know this will be a winner" mantra when they're trying to sell their clients' work to a buyer. The writer has the ego that what they've written is better than anything out there and I have the ego to believe I can differentiate between those who actually have written something better from those who have to work at their script a bit more. The producer/executive has the ego that they know what will be successful and the director has the ego that they take the promise on the page and translate it magnificently to the screen. And I know you haven't forgotten the actors...
It comes down to what I've said before and I'll say it again, if you think your script is "as good as anything out there," you haven't accomplished your task yet. To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, "Ego is good."
That's not to say it can't get out of control. But, if you're successful, no one will tell you to calm down, as it just might be part of the mojo that makes you succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)