Your Must Read For The Weekend

IF YOU'RE A TV writer, or an aspiring, that is...

Rogers got through his script pile. And now the Kung Fu Monkey shares his Lessons from the Script Pile.

A Taste:

2.) Definitely want the double-team when submitting. One on-air show/one pilot. On-air to see how you adapt your voice to another show, a pilot to show what sort of tone and structure you dig when cut loose. I personally don't mind reading movies, but when facing a mountain of scripts they are generally wince-inducing. If submitting a movie, make sure it's got a helluva first act. A screamingly funny one-act play isn't bad either, and may even be preferable to the pilot when doing half-hour submissions.

Having now plowed through a ridiculous number of on-air specs, for what it's worth (and this is purely personal) I'd recommend writing a House. It's one of the few one-hours where you can show off your research and plotting skills, AND the characters are both joke-funny and engage the emotional issues presented by the case-of-the-week. Without a Trace is a fine show, for example, and we interviewed a couple writers of WaT specs, but the characters do not lend themselves to banter.

If you've been on staff, that second original work is important. We've been on staff, we know how the rewriting process goes. It's very hard to break out what's yours and what's derived from the mandatory template of the sow and your own particular show-runner's idiosyncracies.

If your on-air spec show has been off the air for two years, time for a new spec.

Go read the whole thing. And pay special attention to the part about the play. Put...that...play...down.

John Adams: Join or Die

WHEN I FIRST moved to Canada as a child, lo, these many years ago, one of the first things I remember is the shock of hating history class.

It was boring.

This came as some kind of shock.

History had been my favourite subject. But, I was used to the U.S. history, all stirring and bloody, full of cowboys and wars and fights and exploration and danger and bad, mad, glorious craziness.

Canadian history, it seemed to my child mind, was all people talking in rooms in hushed tones. And the railroad. And Mounties. Oh sure, there was that cool thing on the Plains of Abraham, but come on, man, both the Generals died. What good is that?

Apparently one day I came home and announced my feelings with disdain: "Real countries don't confederate. They revolt."

I have learned to temper those childlike opinions. Somewhat.

(By the way, there's a new bio of John A. MacDonald out. The first in fifty years. There's a new book on Lincoln out, what, every sixteen minutes?)

Still, there is a certain stir in my heart for that early period of United States history.

A few years ago, when I read JOHN ADAMS, the stirring quickened. Here was a great, neglected guy -- the first first-term President, the first President to be defeated.

The first loser.

Oh yes, we Americans are harsh. John Adams didn't get his way onto any money. He's one of the most important Founding Fathers, but we've kicked him to the curb something fierce.

Here's a guy who wrote the Massachusetts Constitution, which formed the basis of the American document. He argued first, and forcefully, that the break from Britain had to be permanent. He pushed for Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence, and he pushed for Washington to be appointed the head of the Continental Army. He secured the first major loan from the Dutch to get the country on its feet. And it was he who took up what had to be the most awkward position in colonial history: the first Ambassador from the United States of America to the Court of St. James. He was the second President, and the first man to see his son also become President.

Why did Adams get such a raw deal? Some say he was unpleasant. He fought too hard. He was inflexible. He waffled, as President, on the implications of some of the freedoms won in the Revolution.

But he called some things right. He believed that political parties were going to poison the Democratic experiment. And they did.

What Author David McCullogh had going for him was the ability to correct over 200 years of partisan hagiographies of Jefferson, most of which cast Adams in a poor light. (The two friends' bitter falling out and eventual rapprochement is one of the major themes of the miniseries.)

He also had the relationship between John and his wife, Abigail. They had a pretty astonishing relationship, a marriage that was probably a couple of centuries ahead of its time. And it's all documented, because they wrote long, passionate, beautiful and teasing letters to each other. It's probably the most enjoyable history book I ever read. Its Pulitzer Prize was richly deserved.

And now HBO and Tom Hanks have pulled out all the stops in adapting it.

JOHN ADAMS, the miniseries bows the first and second of seven parts Sunday night on HBO in the U.S./Movie Central & TMN in Canada. This is American history even a Canadian could love.

Lavish and confident in scope, the first episode does a wonderful job of both establishing Adams' character, and his deep ambivalence and slow move toward the need for a permanent break. Nothing was sure, and everything was fluid. The stalwart heroes of childish history books are nowhere to be found. George Washington (David Morse) is taciturn, and socially uncomfortable -- as he was in life. A scene with a tar and feathering isn't the "wow gosh" thing from childhood. It's nearly unbearable to watch -- this is torture, pure and simple, and the disgust it prompts in Adams reminds anyone watching that American brutality didn't start with Abu Ghirab.

I've seen the first four parts, and I have to say, like he did on Band of Brothers, Hanks, Director Tom Hooper, and Screenwriter Kirk Ellis have captured everything that was great about the book. It's an amazing feat, since so much of the book leaned on the source material of letters and such. Here, Ellis puts some of those letters in the mouths of Abigail (Laura Linney, luminous) and it works surprisingly well.

The acting, again, is top notch -- Tom Wilkinson is a delight as Horny Old Ben Franklin, and Stephen Dillane is quiet and fierce as Jefferson.

There's a key scene in Episode Four where Adams faces George III in his first meeting as Ambassador. It's as rich and poignant and evocative as you could hope for. Paul Giamatti finds the arrogance and the hurt and the doubt.

They wanted to make a republic of laws, not men. But the men who did it weren't statues and granite. The outcome was never clear, always uncertain.

This is historical drama of the highest order.

In its pains to tamp down the heroic, and focus on the human, it becomes more than a parade of history. It becomes everything a history buff and a drama buff could hope for.

HBO may be stumbling in the series department, but this is a monster show for them. Well worth the price of the subscription.

I'm buying this bastard on DVD for sure.

Now Here's a Guy I Can Get Behind...

FROM SALON.COM:

Yesterday -"Just so we don't have to go through this whole resignation thing again," one ballsy reporter asked, "have you ever patronized a prostitute?" Paterson thought for a minute. "Only the lobbyists," he said.

That's an exchange New York Lt. Gov. David Paterson had with a reporter, according to New York magazine's Daily Intelligencer blog. Paterson will replace outgoing Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Monday.

Q-Cast

THE PODCAST for yesterday's Q is available here. Tara Thorne and I start after the interview with Battlestar Galactica's Grace Park and Katee Sackhoff.

And Then The Cylon Said, "That's Not a Waffle Iron, That's My Husband..."

SO, Q. Katee Sackhoff and Grace Park are actually just as beautiful in person as they are on the show. And without makeup, too. Wow.

Though the earlier DTOS Theory of People On Television still stands...


During the interview, when we get to talking about fan campaigns I refer to a much-forwarded blog post I did on the subject. If you're one of the seven television fans on the internet that hasn't been sent this in regards to Jericho, Supernatural, Intelligence, Friday Night Lights, One Tree Hill, Blood Ties, Moonlight, or a dozen other shows, take a gander here.

Q airs at 2pm and 10p on CBC Radio.

Oh $#@. I'm in Deep, Deep &^#%

WHAT TO SAY about this little story?

LAS VEGAS–A new study by The Nielsen Co. has found that the PG-rated movies with the least profanity made the most money at the U.S. box office.

Sexuality or violence in those films had less to do with success than the language, the Nielsen PreView group said in a study being released Thursday.

"The reality is that profanity, within PG, is the big demarcation between box office winner and box office loser," research and marketing director Dan O'Toole said at ShoWest, a conference where studios unveil upcoming movie lineups.

"Parents are choosing PG films for their kids that have very, very low levels of profanity. We're talking one-third the level of the average PG film," he said.

The research firm cross-referenced box office data on 400 films in wide-release from the fall of 2005 to the fall of 2007 with their ratings for sex, violence and profanity given by Critics Inc.'s Kids-In-Mind.com website.

Controlling for marketing and production budgets of films, as well as depictions of violence and sex, movies that scored an average 0.8 on a 10-point profanity scale collected an average of $69 million. Those that averaged 2.8 for profanity averaged $38 million.

All PG movies averaged 2.3 on the profanity scale.

Actually, when you think about it, this really makes perfect sense. There's not a parent I've ever met that hasn't been concerned about their kids' use of profanity. Profanity, especially in writing, is a crutch. For all the many arguments people make about a Deadwood or a gangster movie where the use of profanity adds to the realism, I think 90% percent of the time it's gratuitous.

And I cringe whenever the punchline to a joke is just a big curse-out. Even when I laugh, I think, "man, this is such a #$@ing clam."

Cursing does make you feel better. Some people don't get that. And for whatever reason, cursing is endemic in film and TV. You know who also curses a lot? Dancers. Oh My Stars, they talk the blue streak.

Oh well.

I should also hang my head here a bit and say publicly, in light of this article:

Dad. Hi. Um.... You were right.

Now I hope somebody comes up with a study proving that profanity makes R movies more profitable, or I'm right and truly #@$%ed.

The Jezebel Inside

VINAY MENON got me thinking this morning.

That's not an unusual circumstance, by any means. Menon, who writes on TV for the Toronto Star, usually sports a pleasing populist sensibility in his reviews. He's the kind of reviewer where, often, a pan makes for funnier and better reading than a rave.

This morning he takes on Amy Sherman-Palladino, the creator of Gilmore Girls, who's back tomorrow with a new show, The Return of Jezebel James.

Uh, he didn't like it much:

You better alert your agent, manager, publicist and legal team because Fox has clearly hatched a diabolical scheme, one that involves attaching your good name to their very bad show.

Did the scoundrels really think they could get away with this brazen deception? Did they think fans would believe you created a show so stupendously awful it makes Full House seem like Seinfeld?

I don't know who actually wrote this pilot. But the person was surely forced to do so while strapped into a jury-rigged electric chair, one that emitted an excruciating jolt whenever a scene threatened to be funny or logical.

Then there's Parker Posey, or a life form cloned from Parker Posey's DNA. After watching the pilot, I'm convinced this creature was either: a) secretly given amphetamines and forced to do strenuous calisthenics before each scene or, b) blindfolded, spun around a few dozen times and hastily thrown toward her mark so character Sarah Tompkins would always seem looped, out of breath and dizzy.

Though I'm not sure why Posey was advised to whisper occasionally, ambulate exclusively in tiny stutter-steps or deliver her lines as if she doesn't actually comprehend the English language.

Sarah, in her mid-30s, is a children's book editor. She has decided, out of the blue, to have a baby. The hitch: she's infertile.

So Sarah asks younger sister Coco (Ambrose) to be a surrogate because, let's face it, when you make a snap decision about motherhood but are diagnosed with Asherman's syndrome in about 2 1/2 minutes, you might as well rent the uterus of an estranged sibling who is technically homeless, unemployed and recently out of rehab.

Honestly, Amy, between the utter lack of comedic timing and the utter surplus of lame dialogue, even the voices on the laugh track sounded like they were faking it at gunpoint.

I was never a fan of Gilmore Girls, but I understand the passionate devotion of those who were.

I've also, in the last few years, grown amused and heartened by the way that the internet has created a sort-of brand of "writer fandom." This used to be well nigh impossible, because it's so hit and miss to know whether this show or that show was created by who or what. But ah, internet, you vixen like series of tubes, you make all that easy -- just one "Google Alert" and you're off. So you get JMS from B5, and Whedon, and Tim Minnear and Darin Morgan, and Winnie Holzman, and people who keep their eyes on Bryan Fuller, Greg Berlanti and Shawn Ryan, or Jenji Kohan, David Shore, or Shonda Rimes. These days, there are TV writer fans. It's bizarre.

And it's a tough gig to take too, being a writer's fan. it's not like being a fan of an actor. An actor makes a horrific misstep with a role and you blame the directing, or the writing, or you just say they tried something different but failed.

But it's harder to understand how somebody you've been following, somebody whose work you've admired and loved, can create something that sucks so very, very hard. I mean, they created this whole world you loved -- the characters, the dialogue, the whole shebang. How can the next thing they do suck? I mean, it's not like it's any less work to make something that sucks. I guarantee you that Amy Sherman-Palladino (just typing her name is exhausting) worked every bit as hard on Jezebel James as she slaved over Gilmore Girls.

I've been disappointed by authors and by artists, by musicians and movie makers -- people whose brilliance in one project did nothing to protect them from the great suck that followed. Anne Rice gave me vampires and witches and now she's all about the Jesus? Wha? What do you MEAN that group's new CD sucks? They're awesome! I can't believe that the same guys who made The Matrix, made the next two movies. It's almost unfathomable.

Yup. It's hard being a fan of a writer. Maybe almost as hard as it is being a writer. I wonder, though, if you ever get the terrified realization we do, the thing that you just have to push past and forget to keep going:

We have no idea where it comes from. And we know that one day it might go away and not come back.

Pour that over your cereal in the morning, kids!

When we engage in low level neurotic games, or drink, or self-medicate, or do whatever it is to unwind, or snap back, or forget, that's the thing that we're trying to get past. We have no idea where it comes from.

One of the most pathetic things troll-y people do (and these trolls can be people in the industry, or they can be internet commenters, or whoever) is throw early credits at you. It's a particularly clam-y kind of halfass critique, and it goes like this, "Oh yes, I suppose I should listen to the guy who wrote X..."

What writers know is that the guy who wrote X might, right now, even as we speak, be writing the thing that will be a hit and run for nineteen years. Or it might suck. And hey, it got made. There's not a successful writer I know who won't roll the eyes and say, "ooh, don't," when you bring up the sucky early credit. But I guarantee you that there's affection for that thing deep down there. And those credits always come with great stories attached to them. Often, the best stories. You can't choose your break. And you can't judge it down the line...because it's the thing that set you on the path...

And, because, you just don't know.

David Chase toiled for how many years before creating Sopranos? Tom Fontana has had TWO brilliant series, and keeps trying for a third. Larry David managed to slice his pimento of an idea twice and cash in.

And the rest of us pound the keyboard, hoping that we're writing Gilmore Girls and not Jezebel James.

I think that most professions probably have the thing you make peace with. They say that Doctors have to establish a distance, because they kill people. Who knew what demons drove New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, but you do have to wonder at the law and order crusader who lost it all, because he couldn't make peace with his public and private selves, and understand or overcome his desires.

The other night, in the midst of a Florida night, crisp and dark, I stood in the middle of a parking lot at 2:30 in the morning to watch the sky turn from night to day and back to night again. Even from far away, the sight at the horizon of the Space Shuttle Endeavor blasting off is simply a sight that is hard to process. My mother shook her head, the next day, watching the coverage and said, "who would do that?"

"Strap yourself in on top of a huge bomb, you mean?" I said. She nodded.

I shrugged. "I guess maybe they don't think about it."

But now I think that's a load of hooey. I bet they do. I bet they think about it all the time. But the horrible, crazy thing is that if you ask them where that comes from -- the courage to be able to think about it, and understand what it is they're doing, and still to get up there and do it, to strap yourself into that little capsule on top of a bomb...I bet you they don't know.

When I worked at the Canadian Sci-Fi channel, we'd sometimes have a parade of astronauts come through, as they were promoting this project or that one. I met Eugene Cernan, the last man on the moon. I met Buzz Aldrin, Roberta Bondar, Marc Garneau, and a few others. The ones who walked on the moon, especially, were frustrating. Because you'd try to get them to describe the experience, to give thoughtful answers to the big, sweeping, important feel of it all -- and they'd always come up empty.

Buzz Aldrin was the second guy to step on the moon, for Godsake. He was a perfectly nice man, but you think he could string together a sentence about it that had any poetry whatsoever? Nope. Neil Armstrong doesn't give interviews anymore. I wonder if it's because he just has no idea what to say, and he's tired of seeing the look of disappointment on the faces of people when he answers with something that's somehow ... less than what they hoped for.

"Leave me alone. I'm a pilot, for god's sake. Yes, I know it was profound. Or important. But you think I spent any time up there worrying abou that? I had a million things to do. I just had to keep going. I have no idea where it comes from."

I'm not really comparing myself to Neil Armstrong. Or Buzz, or a surgeon that saves lives and occasionally ends them. Or even to Amy Sherman-Palladino. No sir. All I'm saying is that there's an essential mystery to the things we do, and the great human defence mechanism against that uncertainty is to push past it, and try not to think about it too hard.

I have no idea where it comes from.

And the flipside of that? I have no idea where it's going.

I guess, in the end, that's not the worst way to live your life.

I just hope there's more Girls out there than Jezebels, is all.

Them Cylons Sure Is Purdy

WELL, LOOKS LIKE I'll be on CBC Radio's "Q" today talking about the CBC Cancellations and Fan Campaigns, as part of the Tube Team. That's around 2:30 p.m.

But before me will be Katee Sackhoff and Grace Park from Battlestar Galactica.

Beat.

Beat.


Oh yeah. I'm going early.

I Am Not A Hothouse Flower.

REALLY I'M NOT. But somehow, Uncle Jim Henshaw just has a way of prying the boards out from covering up the whole kissin-yer-cousin, doing nasty shit in the pews and sneakin smokes in the parlor nature of the Canadian broadcasting racket.

Even the stuff I knew already seems...shocking.

Remember that great moment in Lawrence of Arabia when O'Toole shouts "NOOOOO PRISSONERRRS!"

Well, how about Henshaw standing there, staring down the parliament block or the CRTC in Gatineau screaming, "NOOOO ACCCOUNTABILITYYYY!"

So, let's start with tax credits...

Allow Jim Russell, a partner at Heenan Blaikie LLP and expert at entertainment law explain them as he did in last Saturday's National Post...

"When the tax credits were first brought in, in 1995, the rationale was that they wouldn't be included in the financing plan for a show. They were designed to allow producers to build up their equity in their company between projects. And it took all of about two seconds for broadcasters, distributors and other stakeholders to say 'No, producer, that's your skin in the game'."

You can read the full article by Joseph Brean and its well-written primer on Canadian film financing here.

Prior to 1995, Canadian networks paid license fees on a par with the rest of the world, that being 60% of the total cost of a program. This meant for an average $1 million dollar hour of drama, the broadcaster would ante $600,000; receiving in return the right to all domestic broadcast revenue and usually a percentage of equity in foreign sales or future earnings.

With the advent of tax credits, the Broadcaster contribution dropped to around 20%, or $200,000 for that same hour with the same benefits in return. In other words, $400,000 in taxpayer and cable mogul money replaced their own investment without impacting their earnings.

Now this was specifically forbidden when the tax credit system came into effect. Yet it goes on every day and the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association (CFTPA) and others reminded the CRTC of that fact during last month's CTF Hearings. But it didn't change anything.

So your tax dollars and cable fees continue to be used to reduce the costs of Canadian Broadcasters in order to increase their profits.

And, in case you haven't noticed -- there never seem to be any profits to be shared with either the people who made the show or you guys who paid for it.

Apres lui, le deluge...?

I'm Guessing That Explains the Harlem Globetrotters Showing Up

I'M SORRY. THIS IS JUST AWESOME.

A surprise birthday party for Dawn Wells, the actress who played Mary Ann on "Gilligan's Island," ended with a nearly three-hour tour of the Teton County sheriff's office and jail when the 69-year-old was caught with marijuana in her vehicle while driving home.

ACTRA Got It Wrong

THERE ARE CERTAIN inevitabilities to the problem of Canadian TV. But none are more reliable than the duelling press releases of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and ACTRA, the national performers' union. It's gotten to the point where you don't even have to read them, because when any news event happens you pretty much know what they're going to say.

Here's the latest, on the subject of CBC cancelling MVP (whose name they get wrong), JPOD and Intelligence:

CBC'S CANCELLATION OF INTELLIGENCE, HOCKEY WIVES, jPOD
ANOTHER DEVASTATING BLOW TO CANADIAN DRAMA

March 10, 2008 - Toronto - The CBC's decision to cancel three shows for the fall season - Intelligence, The Secret Lives of Hockey Wives, and jPOD, is a clear example of inexperienced CBC executives who don't understand their mandate to support Canadian programming, especially drama.

"CBC is a public broadcaster, and they have a responsibility to actively support and promote Canadian critically acclaimed series like Intelligence, and work to build a bigger market share for new, distinctive and creatively exciting programming like MVP: The Secret Lives of Hockey Wives and jPOD, " said Richard Hardacre, ACTRA National President.

The CBC has an unfortunate history of cancelling quality Canadian productions before they have had a chance to build audience share - and without announcing replacements thereby abandoning their audience. Past cancellations include Da Vinci's City Hall, This is Wonderland and The Tournament.

"It appears that CBC executives don't even understand the basics of marketing and how to support distinctive Canadian programming. CBC's mandate is different from that of private broadcasters, that inundate us with U.S. production, yet the CBC's idea of supporting Canadian production is to kill it before it's given a chance to grow, "said Stephen Waddell, ACTRA National Executive Director.

"Canadian TV screens are swamped with U.S. programming that private broadcasters are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on to buy and market in Canada. We need our public broadcaster to show more commitment to supporting Canadian production, which is critically acclaimed around the world," added Waddell.

ACTRA has been sounding the alarm about the crisis in Canadian television drama for years, and demands that the CRTC fix its disastrous 1999 Television Policy. ACTRA is calling on the CRTC to set a regulatory minimum expenditure of 7% of broadcaster ad revenues on English-language drama.

You have to hand it to journalists, though. Sometimes when you have only the predictable way to respond, you gotta work hard to find your fresh angle. And -- heh heh -- Rob Salem in the Toronto Star today did a bang-up job doing just that.

Leafs blamed for CBC cancellations

It has not been a good season for hometown hockey wives – real or imagined.

Along with the hopes and dreams of long-suffering local fans, the Maple Leafs' characteristic end-of-season fizzle has allegedly had a devastating impact on the CBC prime-time lineup. Including, oh-so-ironically, the sexy, soapy MVP: The Secret Lives of Hockey Wives, whose final episode airs tonight at 9.

A CBC news release issued Friday trumpeted the new and returning series that were being picked up for next year, with the critically acclaimed Intelligence and the freshman efforts jPod and MVP noticeably absent from the list.

Unofficially, the inevitability of another Leaf-less playoffs, expected to cost the national broadcaster some $10 million in potential ad revenues, is being blamed.

Later in the article, Salem does quote the ACTRA position. So what's wrong with it? How did ACTRA get it wrong?

Well, first of all, they're wrong on the facts. Take this paragraph:

The CBC has an unfortunate history of cancelling quality Canadian productions before they have had a chance to build audience share - and without announcing replacements thereby abandoning their audience. Past cancellations include Da Vinci's City Hall, This is Wonderland and The Tournament.

Yes. DaVinci's City Hall was a one-season spinoff/retool of the once-mighty DaVinci's Inquest. The problem is that the show did not invigorate the ratings for DaVinci, which had been on a steady slide for years. Taken together, the two incarnations of DaVinci ran for something like eight seasons and 104 episodes. It went from being a hit of around a million plus viewers an episode to nearly a third that. How is that not giving the show a chance to build audience share?

This is Wonderland was canceled after its third season, with 39 episodes in the can. It was drawing around 300 000 viewers max. How is three years not giving the show a chance?

Intelligence. Now, at the risk of angering the passionate fan base of this show, of which I count myself a member -- there were two 13 episode seasons and one pilot movie. They never did better than slightly over 400 000 viewers, and in the end, the show on the main CBC network was being regularly beaten (as in EVERY episode was being beaten) by the ninth and tenth reruns of Blue Murder on Showcase -- a cable channel in less than half the homes reached by CBC.

We can quibble about ads and advertising support. And believe me, we have. But if you want to try to convince me that ads in every break would have pushed that 250 000 number back up to 700 000, I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

In the case of Intelligence, in fact, I'm afraid we have the most painful situation in the world. A really, really, really good show that the public, for whatever reason, simply did not buy into. That's life. It did get 26 episodes and a movie. And yes, I fully expect we will be talking about it in five years. But you have to ask yourself if ACTRA's position here is fair. DOES the CBC have a responsibility to keep on shows nobody's watching? Well? Um...Why again?

Because people are always gunning for the CBC. "Look no one is watching these expensive dramas," can become, "why are they making expensive dramas no one watches' in a heartbeat.

How can you save Intelligence if you canceled This is Wonderland, which was getting more viewers? What's the rationale there? Everyone's quoting Sophie's last number because it was a huge dip, but that's pretty unfair, since up to then the show has pretty much hit a rock-solid target and stayed remarkably consistent week to week. (And drew about 3 times the audience of Intelligence, by the way.)

There's a problem with campaigns to save our show in Canada, and it's this: they generally don't come from fans. They come from producers and interested parties, like ACTRA. And the act of condemning the CBC for trying to build on successes and cut losses is tremendously alienating to the one constituency that should really matter: The audience.

What does this attitude lead to? Something vaguely like what Jaime Weinman wrote here, (complete with an excellent clip from the Kids in the Hall):

This is dangerously close to advocating that the CBC should be airing series even though nobody watches them, which verges on unintentional parody of the traditional Canadian TV mentality (the mentality that it's not important to have good or popular shows as long as they're Canadian). MVP was a bad series that deserved to be cancelled; jPOD had some potential but not enough to make people like it. Intelligence is a sadder case because it was a terrific show, but its lack of popularity wasn't some kind of myth invented by the evil CBC for the purpose of destroying Canadian content; it really wasn't popular and shows that aren't popular tend to get canceled. If we want a stronger Canadian TV industry we have to accept one of the things that go with such an industry: the fact that shows can't just hang on indefinitely without being successful.

What else did ACTRA get wrong? Well there's this quote, for one:

"It appears that CBC executives don't even understand the basics of marketing and how to support distinctive Canadian programming."

This just takes whatever credibility ACTRA has managed to build up and shoots it straight out the Air Farce's chicken cannon.

Because anybody who actually watches CBC, or takes public transit in the three cities that were heavily targeted with outdoor for the current season can tell you that this winter, CBC's launch efforts were exemplary. Studies showed that people were more aware of their efforts. If they hadn't yet bought in ... they at least had been made aware.

The basics of marketing, at least where marketing of TV and films are done well, proves that you do what you can to support something, but you cut your losses if it doesn't work.

Question: when was the last time you saw saturation ad coverage in the second week of a release for a film that opened at number 14?

Answer: Try never. They pull the money. They cut their losses. That IS marketing.

Because in Canadian TV we're never going to have the money to pay for programs and not run them at all, like they regularly do down south, the closest we can get to cutting our losses is not spending two or three seasons on something the people do not watch. And CBC, finally, has done that. They've made hard choices. ACTRA can say that they were "abandoning their audience" (who weren't watching) by not announcing replacements -- but in the very press release they were responding to, CBC announced that they were going to announce their new shows in a few weeks.

Note to ACTRA: When ABC or NBC cancel a show, they don't immediately announce a new show. It's not a quid pro quo. That's NOT how marketing works.

So long as we keep mixing these things together -- bad calls like, "You should keep these shows that no one watches indefinitely" with "Broadcasters should spend 7 percent of their revenues on production," you're going to hurt the cause of creatives. Because there are a whole bunch of structural reasons why the latter is probably a good move. But if I'm a viewer, and I hear the former coming from ACTRA -- it sounds like Crazy Talk. So I'm going to think that everything that comes from ACTRA is crazy talk.

Because that's human nature, dood.

Alex Strachan's got a much better analysis of the CBC moves here. As does Brioux, here. And then there's Bill Harris in the Sun, here. Do I agree with everything they have to say? Hell no. But at least they seem to understand the medium they're commenting about.

ACTRA, on the other hand...

The Solution In Search of a Problem

OKAY, SO NOW it's on the record:

Bill C-10 fixes non-existent problem

No film with 'criminal content' has ever sought federal tax credit

Mar 10, 2008 04:30 AM

Peter Howell
Movie Critic

The federal tax credit change that sparked a film censorship uproar is designed to fix a problem that has never presented itself, a government spokesperson has confirmed.

Bill C-10, currently seeking Senate approval, contains an amendment that would allow bureaucrats to withdraw tax credits for Canadian films and TV shows deemed in violation of the Criminal Code.

Yet the problem is a hypothetical one, because no such film has ever been presented for tax credit consideration, said Andrew House, a spokesperson for Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

"Canadian Heritage has not received an application for a production containing criminal content," House said via email.

He was responding to questions from the Star regarding Verner's statement last week that Bill C-10, which the House of Commons approved last fall, will solve the "legal absurdity" of films facing Criminal Code prosecution seeking federal tax breaks.

The government's desire to fix a theoretical "absurdity" has prompted strenuous debate over the use of tax laws to censor films, a move critics say would put at risk a national film and TV production industry worth $5 billion annually.

"Mr. Harper's government is clearly responding to a problem which does not exist," NDP leader Jack Layton told the Star. "The Criminal Code is there to deal with any issues that might arise, and none seem to have."

So all this now boils down to the simplest of questions, which hopefully someone at the Senate Banking committee will ask the government this week:

If the problem you say the change in the law is supposed to fix has never once existed, then why is the change necessary? And how can the public be assured that the new, untested powers -- which are apparently completely unnecessary -- won't be used to impose politics on an area of tax law where it has no business being applied?

Or the short version...if there's no fire, then why are you REALLY pulling out the big fucking hose?

When Networks Don't Know What They Want.

JOHN DOYLE in the Globe uses the axing of Intelligence (moment of silence...........there) to posit that "CBC doesn't know what it wants to be."

So, in getting rid of Intelligence, CBC TV has left itself open to the rage of its fiercely loyal viewers. Over the weekend, numerous readers wrote to me, all latching on to the same theme: "Cancelling Intelligence pretty well sums up CBC's decision to scrap this brilliant program." As many of those loyal CBC viewers see it, CBC has simply swapped intelligence for stupidity.

CBC itself was obtuse about the cancellations. "We certainly recognize they were frankly terrific shows and in many cases they attracted quite a degree of critical acclaim, but unfortunately they were unable to attract an audience. Audience is not our only consideration, but it is an important one," the CBC's spokesman told Canadian Press on Friday, speaking about the cancelled shows.

There's the rub - CBC TV really wants to be a big shot broadcaster, just like the commercial channels, and boast about audience success. And there's the problem - CBC doesn't know what it wants to be. A shrink would ask, 'Do you want to be popular or do you want to be smart?' CBC would probably answer, 'Well, popular is not the only consideration but it's an important one.' Then the shrink would tell CBC to make a decision, grow up and quit alienating those who love and cherish it.

It's a good column, but I'd say he doesn't go wide enough. In fact, as I wrote the other day, this isn't just a CBC problem. All the Canadian networks are like this. In CBC's case it's because they're bureaucratic and swing based on politics and management whims (even if I think the current strategy to try and woo under 50 year olds back to the broadcaster is ultimately the right call. If you want a future in broadcasting, I mean.)

CTV and Global, on the other hand, don't really develop enough of their own shows to even HAVE an identity beyond, "what did we buy this fall?" I think that's why they send out so many duelling press releases. They're desperate to prove that the audience prefers them, when really, I think the audience couldn't care less. They've made sure of that by simply being clearing houses for someone else's creativity.

In fact, you could make a strong argument that the only channel with a strong brand identity that knew what it was over the last five years was Showcase. And in the takeover of Alliance Atlantis last year by Canwest Global, they promptly sacked most of their development department. So let's see how they go from here. Fingers crossed.

These disconnects between networks and their core audiences, or even their own development people, aren't even strictly a Canadian thing, though it's probably more acute here because of the lack of development of original shows.

You could argue that the Frankenstein-like creation of the CW from the dessicated corpses of UPN and the WB was disastrous because it took one channel that knew what it was (the WB) and grafted it together with another that was far murkier (UPN.)

One of my favorite shows of the last few years, Love Monkey, was dead out of the gate -- even though the very few reruns have become a big hit in reruns on VH1. Why? It had the bad fortune to be on CBS, a network where it just did not fit.

Plus, ask any genre fan and they'll tell you that the development department at FOX has, for years, been way more ambitious and original than their current department. Fox is famous for developing these really interesting, original shows and then throwing them on the air and abandoning them. (New Amsterdam looks like the latest casualty in this regard.)

In a time when exactly zero eyeballs are guaranteed, maybe a loss leader like Intelligence is appropriate for a public broadcaster.

Then again, between DaVinci and Intelligence, Haddock did have something like nine or ten seasons of shows on the air with the CBC. CBC stuck with Ken Finkleman through series that drew increasingly smaller returns. At what point do you shake it up and try something else?

Intelligence is gone, and that's sad. But we won't know the second verse of this tune for a few more weeks.

In the meantime, I wonder if Showcase has some money to burn? Some of us still really want to find out what happened to Jimmy Reardon.