Interesting Times

A SHORT BLAST from the Futon Critic brings with it many, many ripples.

LOS ANGELES (thefutoncritic.com) -- CBS has rescinded its decision to bring back "Flashpoint" this summer.

The first of nine new episodes had been set for Fridays at 9:00/8:00c starting July 17.

Network sources have confirmed the change as the Canadian import will now return at midseason. Repeats however will continue in said hour for the rest of the summer.

Now, there are several unanswered questions here that have interesting implications for the future of the "reverse simulcast" (CTV's term) model of selling-Cancon/CTF shows into the United States.

1. CBS pays a very small part of Flashpoint's budget; CTV pays a slightly bigger chunk. You and me (through the CTF, tax credits, etc) pay way more. Does CTV now have to wait til 2010 to show their hit show? Or will they forego the simulcast and choose to show the show first? Can they even do that if they want to?
2. What does this mean for the future of the show? CBS is going to delay "new" episodes for a year. But those episodes are being shot right now in Toronto. By the time they air, the production unit will have disbanded, unless there's an order for more episodes...
3. CTV has committed to more episodes; CBS hasn't. It's quite possible that CBS could call those 9 eps of FP "a new season." What happens to CTV's "3rd Season" order if CBS doesn't come in? Can they afford to make the show for less money? (FP's 1st season was 13 eps, and its second season was 18 eps. That's how they produced them. CBS (with CTV following suit) aired 9 of the first season, then delayed the back four and the first 9 of season 2 and ran them together. What we're talking about now is the "back nine" of season 2. Yes. I know it's confusing.)
4. Does this delay mean that FP will be able to find more of those rare, non-snobby writers?
5. Is it possible that the "made for America" model isn't the be all and end all that the Canadian networks and the CFTPA say it is?

Not as simple as it seems, now, is it, Doyle?

UPDATE: Playback's Amy Haggar has some original reporting today that clarifies and corrects some of the stuff in this post:

The first nine episodes of the season aired in simulcast on CBS and CTV from January through May. CBS had planned to run the remaining episodes from July into September out of simulcast. Mustos says CTV had previously decided not to air the back nine in step with the U.S. network, and instead planned to run them at some unspecified time in the fall.

A CTV spokesperson said the net has still "not confirmed its broadcast plans for the remainder of season two."

Mustos says CTV has ordered a third season of the show, another 13 hours, and there is hope that CBS will return to the series, too, which could see the third season bumped to another 18 eps.

Reprint: Sucky Canadian Broadcast Websites

Originally published 1/28/09

WHY YES, I AM having focus issues today. Gawrsh, how can you tell? Jill Golick weighs in with a short piece today on the paucity of follow-through by Canadian broadcasters on their series offerings. In her case, she picks on Canwest over Global and Da Kink in My Hair, but to be fair, neither of the other major broadcasters, CTV or CBC, do much better. In short, here's the number one disconnect in the world of Canadian TV, 21st Century style.

TV Guide or listings magazines have gone the way of the dodo in record time. Absolutely everybody under the age of about 40 now finds out program info either from some sort of on-screen menu system on their TV or through the web.

For the USA, you can go to Zap2it or Futon Critic, but the best way to find out is to go to the network site itself. There, besides streaming clips or downloads, wallpapers, docs, special web content and what have you, you're going to find the synopsis and info that you need.

Updated faithfully.

In Canada, smaller network advertising budgets are made even less effective by a haphazard strategy for getting info up on the website and keeping it updated. Back when TV listings books were the rage, you could usually count on the Canadian programs getting shafted. Half the time because they were moved to and fro or pre-empted at the last minute depending on which simulcast was being chased. But the rest of it was timeline stuff. They just wouldn't get the proper listings stuff in on time. That continues into the digital age. More than fifty percent of the time, when it's a Canadian program on my onscreen PVR menu, if the description of the show (beyond the title and the rating) comes up at all, it's usually a generic series description and not a specific episode description. The info isn't set up on time.

If there is a web page for the show, the info -- next episode, episode descriptions, pictures, whatever other stuff you might have, is usually updated haphazardly. The next page is not programmed and ready to go live after the end of the broadcast of the previous week's show. Information is wrong, or missing. Typos and misspellings are frequent. Cast information, information on the music in the show, credits, synopses, photos -- all the stuff show fans are accustomed to being able to access now -- none of it is availabe. And like Jill points out, if there is a program forum, nine times out of ten it's a ghost town without any official person designated to answer questions. If you do manage to attract fan attention, it quickly withers because they realize nobody's paying attention.

There's one other major structural thing that excacerbates this whole problem: The Bell Fund. The Bell Fund is a web/multimedia fund that you can access to partially fund a website for a TV show. The fund has way more projects trying to get funding than it has money to give out. (By about a three to one margin.) The fund also tends to favor out-there weird promotional websites that have some sort of new technology hook....webisodes or some sort of game or virtual space, or proprietary engine with all this wonderful ancillary content. You can see current examples for Canadian Shows like Being Erica or ZOS. What is often buried in this stuff, is the stuff that viewers actually want when they hear about a new show: meat and potatoes stuff like broadcast times, streams, downloads, and info. Sure, you can go on the virtual journey or share your stories or open your virtual locker or take part in a virtual interrogation or milk a virtual unicorn or something, but when is the fucker on? That's harder to find. And that's if you GET the funding. Remember, the fund is way oversubscribed. So what sometimes happens is that you get a super-flashy bells and whistles Mr. Kite Magorium Emporium Website Special for your first year, and then that disappears -- or sits unloved or un-updated for months and months afterward.

Then it comes to Season 2. And you have the big comedown. My Ex-show had that this year.

The Comedown involves the network off supporting another show, maybe one in its first season. (Remember, there are limited budgets, and Mommy has to feed the baby first.) So instead of animated dragons or hello kitty lite brite scalable profiles and virtual avatars that smack your ass and call you judy, you find yourself begging the network webmaster to change the card on the site that still says, "Season Two will return in Fall 2008!" In the case of The Ex-show, the network still holds the website, but updating is slow. So the new site -- such as it is, doesn't launch until the day of the broadcast. (And other shows on the same network have their premiere dates come and go before the site is changed.) Again, they're all like this. No company's better than any other at this stuff. They all kind of suck at it. It's low priority, and the attention to detail on a weekly basis is close to nil. From that bottom, as the show wears on, you realize that neglect before the first episode was actually the high point. Now, it's a sad and unloved death march to try to get even the simplest things changed: is the synopsis up? Is the episode title right? Have they posted the pictures from the ep? All that basic, meat and potatoes stuff doesn't get done unless you harass, harass, harass. You might be lucky, like the Ex-show, and have a savvy volunteer that keeps things moving on Facebook or tries their damndest to get the things updated on time. But it's not automatic, and it's never easy. It's quite a comedown from those heady first season website dreams. Of course, by then the web firm is on to the next Bell Funded project. It's sink or swim time, boys.

And as is our custom in the Canadian industry, we usually just sink. What there isn't, is a recognition on the part of the network that the firmament has shifted. Your website working with up to date program information when viewers want it is part of the cost of doing business. Except here it's not. They don't want to pay for it. They don't accept the responsiblity of doing it right. You hear tons of promises, which never materialize, and nobody particularly cares or thinks they're responsible.

And then they go to the CRTC and say the only way to save their business is to get carriage fees. I've been listening to Web and interactive people make promises about how the synergy between TV and the Web will work since 1994.

Seriously. Fifteen years.

The problems now are exactly the same. Nothing's gotten better. The Bell Fund, nice an idea as it is, does nothing to change that. We ignore the meat and potatoes. And then wonder why we don't get a million viewers for our shows.

If I did my job like this, in every one of the episodes that has my name under the written by, at about the 3/4 mark, actors would just turn to camera and stare, open-mouthed, for three minutes. Maybe somebody would fart. But hey, the Bell Fund deadline's coming up! Get those applications ready!

Oooh, a virtual Rock'em Sockem Dress up your virtual avatar in cheese and crinoline alternate reality roleplay with remixable clips and flash-animated build your own comic book random plotline generator, with exclusive documentary two way Ichat connectivity, XBOX-live hookup capability and echoes of MUD's running on the Grand Theft Auto engine? How delightful! When's the show on again? And who's the hot chick who plays the scientist? Oh. Okay. Thanks anyway. Wonder what's on FOX? By the bye, ZOS airs Mondays on TMN and Movie Central. Being Erica is Monday at 9pm on CBC. Da Kink in My Hair returns to Global Feb. 12. Check the volunteer-run, no Bell Funding TV-eh? site for details.

***

If you'd like to comment, please click through to the original post.

Class Act

HEY LOOKIE HERE.

One of the hardest working story rooms in Canada gives a little love to the new kid on the block on their first day of shooting.

Those Flashpoint writers -- that's class.

I just hope that nobody finds out that the cookie delivery guy was pushed to the limit because his wife just left him -- cause I hear that shit can go south real fast.

And Away We Go

FIRST SHOT, 8:12 A.M. NT.

Here we go.

I Don't Believe We're On The Eve of Production

SETS ARE BEING hammered and painted and dressed; the schedule arranged for exterior shooting first so as to extend those last few precious days to be ready. The drumbeat of people starting in the office has slowed to a crawl, and the last few will come in tomorrow.

Another new Director on the ground, ready to take up the call of the next script to prep.

The story department is already tight. My head's in the episode that shoots third. We need to speed up the delivery of that which shoots fourth. Five go on the blocks before the first hiatus.

It's nice, now, to see people as busy and engaged as the story department has been for weeks. Casting's in full swing, and I'm awash with Facebook and emails from friends back in Toronto who didn't realize they were auditioning for the show I work on.

So it all comes down to this. Seven A.M. NT, while the rest of the country is well asleep, but two hours after sunrise here, the unit for Republic of Doyle will assemble for the first time in St. John's. We'll be filming scenes for the third episode to air -- shooting it first so as to break in the crew and make sure they're a well honed and oiled machine before we tackle the script that the viewing public sees first.

That's a script I have to tackle myself later this week -- all part of the polish and prep that came from giving it an early read through last Thursday.

We talk a lot on this blog and elsewhere about what a Canadian show should mean; what it means to be "culturally Canadian." Whether or not trying to craft shows for an American network is a good or a bad strategy (I think it's a bit of both.)

And yet, here I am. Tomorrow I'll show up for first shot, and I'll see Robert Joy there -- who we're lucky enough to get for a guest shot. I was talking to Robert a bit at our kickoff party on Friday night, and he was thrilled to be here. From CSI: NY back to here. Joy was involved in early incarnations of Codco; he's just one of the actors with ties to Newfoundland that this show is proudly repatriating.

I'm looking forward to seeing Mike Clattenburg behind the lens; he's up from Halifax to take us into our first show and the Pilot, which shoots third. Back home, he's in post with the second Trailer Park Boys movie, so we're lucky to have him. If I stick around, or come back to set later in the day, I'll see the first scene of what I hope will be a recurring character in the show, played by Greg Malone, who Canadian comedy fans will remember from Codco. I'm re-reading Greg's excellent autobiography about his childhood growing up in St. John's right now, in my copious free time. I remember so clearly seeing the vibrant, hilarious, odd and wonderful Codco on CBC in the 80's when I was a university student. The one-two punch of Codco and Kids in the Hall kept Canada on the Comedy vanguard -- a proud line stretching from Wayne & Shuster to the Canadians who made SNL and SCTV what they were.

That's only tomorrow, too. In a few days I'll be able to watch the inimitable Mary Walsh, from Codco and This Hour Has 22 Minutes, command the showy guest lead at the heart of this ep.

I don't mean to be dropping names here; and the fact is that there are so many other artists who are engaged and ready to work and bring their best; not the least of which is the show's co-creator and star, Allan Hawco. I guess the point that I'm reaching for is, again, my utter amazement that we spend so much time lamenting the lack of caring about telling homegrown stories. And most of the new friends I've made here might even take issue with me calling this show a Canadian story. I have my Newfoundland Liberation Army t-shirt to prove it.

But for this come-from-away mainlander who spends a good portion of days wondering, "why DON'T I just decamp, quit fighting and go down to L.A.?" or if, in fact, Canadians will ever tire of having their TV culture colonized and learn to love and embrace it as well as they have their homegrown music -- for a guy who sits in WGC Council strategy sessions trying to plan the next tooth and nail fight just to hang on to a scrap of indigenous creative control, here I sit, the night before it all starts. And I think on the fact that tomorrow I see two generations of Canadian comedy royalty both in front of and behind the camera; that I spent last night watching Ron Hynes belt out the finest songs I'd heard in months in a small little blues club on George Street; that I curled up on the couch in the pouring rain today and laughed out loud at Malone's tales of playing doctor with his childhood friend, and I know, I know instinctively that I'm here, I'm in the place I always wished I could be -- a place that cares about itself and its own history and culture... I go to work tomorrow on a show, in a place, at a time where they have a fierce and sure sense of themselves, a vibrancy of history and culture and storytelling bravura; and I know this is it, the chance maybe for a Canadian Cracker....or maybe the cheeky Rockford Files on the Rock...an unabashed entertainment that knows what it is, and never apologizes; a show that finally achieves universality through essaying the specific, beautiful, wondrous, odd, strange and enrapturing culture I've had the pleasure of dipping my toe into these last two months. Not the caricature. The real thing. A distinct society, indeed. We argue the wrong things in our country, sometimes. Distinct society. My God, we have at least three or four!

But anyway, here I am. A place where stories flow and royalty mix and show up to bring it all together.

There will be knocks and bumps and rain and snags; but finally, oh finally, finally it's all about to begin. I have to go now. I have to be up early. I want a good seat in video village.

See you around, St. John's. We're here til December!

Reprint: Notes on a Frog

Originally Published 3/07/09

This was one of my most-linked and re-jigged posts ever. You definitely want to click through to the original, too, because the comments are golden.

WILL DIXON had some Friday Fun and posted my favorite Cartoon ever. And today I started futzing around with a comment on his piece which just sort of metastacized into this. So thanks, Will. First, again, here's the Cartoon in question: And here...are The Notes.

I was just looking at the Froggy Even cartoon again, and while I appreciate your enthusiasm that it is some sort of "classic," in the making, I'm afraid there are a few notes that I really think we should deal with before moving forward. -First, in the scene with the "Free Beer," the men rush into the theatre having been promised free beer. And when the curtain comes up they see the frog and get angry. Does this track? Are they getting angry about the frog not being able to sing, or the lack of free beer? In fact, the whole concept of the "free beer" and the loss of it seems to get lost. -Where do they get the rotten fruit to throw at the guy? They came in looking for free beer. Why would they suddenly have fruit? Could you rework so this makes sense, please? -I'm not feeling I know enough about the backstory of the construction worker. Who is he and where does he come from? Presumably, since we see his apartment and it seems to be modest, he is single, and you drop a hint that he is very mistrustful of traditional authority (ie: he hides money under the bed) Am very excited by this. Could we make more of this? -re: the frog. Have you done research on Frog's lifespans? Does it track that this frog could survive from 1892 to 2056? Is his long lifespan tied into his ability to sing? -Do they allow mental patients to keep pet frogs? Is it a companion animal thing? Will have to explain this, I think. The audience will want to know. -Please reconsider the choice to have the frog be the only one who speaks. I think this keeps the audience at a distance. Could you perhaps take a look at Family Guy, where they have animals who talk and other people can hear them? Just a thought. -Is the frog singing the right songs? Could we have him sing something that speaks to our demo better? -I'm just throwing this out there -- wouldn't it be more satisfying if, in the end, maybe by accident, the guy actually gets the frog to sing for someone else? Might make for a more uplifting ending -- give the guy more of a 'win.' We're very excited by this Froggy Project and we're sure that with these few minor changes it's going to be something really special. Best.

Reprint: Conversations With Writers Part XXV: Why Why Why?

Originally published 01/09/2009

NOT A LOT of blogging time today -- I have to bounce between jetlag and pitch-shaping. But I've had two separate conversations this morning with writers complaining that they've reached the "why why why" notes part of their development projects. A little serendipitous considering the repost I chose to go with the other day.

One other thing to come out of these discussions has to do with story real estate.

In the world of the 20 minute half hour and the 40 minute hour the problem with the "Why" obsession is that when execs insist too much on the explanation, the time you have to spend on that explanation is robbing time from the entertainment value of the show. (Oddly, film has the opposite story real estate problem. Because running time isn't finite, and it's Director-driven, and Directors are deferred to in a way that writers usually aren't, today you have comedies that should be 90 mins regularly clocking in at 2:10. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a movie that wasn't too long?)

The only alternative to robbing entertainment to explain 'why' is to make the 'Why' intrinsically hilarious or compelling on its own. But of course, the 'why' rarely is. Which is why you want to spend your time on the 'What happens next.'

Last time we got hung up a bit on concrete examples, which is why one of my conversationalists this A.M. really hit on something. The example is Groundhog Day.

If you think of Groundhog Day -- the only 'why's' that are ever explored is the 'why's' behind the individual choices Bill Murray makes during his endlessly repeating day. What you are NOT ever given the 'why' answer to is:

Why did this start? Is it God? Why did he pick Bill Murray? Why this particular Groundhog Day? In other words, Danny Rubin & Harold Ramis do not bog you down in any of the metaphysical questions of how this world came to be or why this is happening to Bill Murray because they know it doesn't matter; what people want to see -- what they willenjoy, is seeing what happens next: why Bill Murray makes the choices he does, and eventually, how he comes to see the world differently.

Well, wait, when he sees the world differently, why does the day move on?

Because it does.

But why?

I don't know. Why do you think?

And that's the movie, and the audience's experience of it.

Now a more recent example of the other way to go - Ghost Town. In this movie, Ricky Gervais' character suddenly starts seeing and being able to talk to dead people. Why? Well, in this case, the explanation of the 'why' IS inherently entertaining. It leads to a great little scene where Gervais slowly pulls the fact that he died for seven minutes while under general anaesthetic out of his reluctant Doctor and a hospital laywer. The scene doesn't particularly move the plot along, but it is entertaining, and helps to reveal Gervais' character a little bit -- you see how impatient he is.

So there you see, the difference in two films where a big "Why" is left unanswered, and where it is answered. And the difference between them is entertainment value. If you can answer the "Why" in an entertaining and inventive way that the audience will enjoy, then do it. But if you can't, it's probably better not to shoehorn in an explanation that may add a scene to a schedule and rob you of a minute of time that could be better spent on making the funny, or deepening the stakes or suspense -- whatever genre you're in. Remember that the total audience you're writing for is not the Simpsons' Comic Book Guy, who are specifically looking for any little thing they can pick apart so they have something to say on Television Without Pity. Civilians just want to be entertained.

In TV, the "Why" argument can go on and on for years. There are lots of people out there who want to say that the pain in his leg is the reason HOUSE is the way he is, even though the show has gone to great pains to suggest here and there that he was completely the same even beforethe thing with the leg. So why is he that way?

I don't know. Why do you think?

Though I'm a big believer in trying to accomodate notes whenever you can, the tyranny of the 'why' can be particularly destructive. Because it forces you to spend brain real estate on something that doesn't make the story better. If there is not an entertaining answer to your 'big why' question, then it doesn't belong in the picture, and this one of those cases where you might have to take a stand.

So, with that in mind: here's your homework: Besides Groundhog Day, can you name other comedy or dramas where a big "Why this Happened" went unanswered and worked -- where, in fact, an explanation of the 'why' would have ruined it.

(Which I firmly believe about Groundhog Day, BTW.)

If you'd like to comment, please click through and add your comment to the original post.

Reprint: The Difference

THIS ONE'S JUST for ironic counterpoint. And because right now I'm working with the great Mike Clattenburg, Guru of the Trailer Park Boys. Question for discussion: how much really has changed? Is Flashpoint really a change? Does the Yankee cut-dollar interest change the equation of the L.A. versus the Toronto meeting I speak of here?

Oh and here's the final punchline -- the projects I speak of so lovingly and promisingly here all died horrible deaths, save one, which I wound up leaving in Post and spent a year on the shelf before entering the Canadian TV Witness Protection Program.

Happy Thursday!

Originally Published 09/08/2005

"The Canadian Television Industry," I have often opined to my much-beleaguered friends, "is not really an industry so much as a toy."

It's tough living next door to the cultural equivalent of Wal Mart. Then you have those gallic cutups next door in Quebec, with their comfy language barrier, making all manner of hoo-hah and fun with their own healthy star system and hit shows.

Americans, you owe yourself a trip to Montreal, just to see a star system and celeb machine right there, right under your nose, that you've never, ever heard of. It's like the days before soundscan when the music industry hadn't yet realized that hip hop was the biggest musical form in the USA, and people were still paying attention, oh, I don't know...to Tim McGraw's hat or something.

Anyway, in Toronto, in what we on the hustings call "English Canada," the path to television and to creativity is at best, fraught, and at worst, suicide-inducing.

The number of hour long dramas on Canadian TV has precipitously declined in the last few years, and it's been the subject of much hand-wringing among Can Culture types. When Alliance Atlantis, who were the biggest production company around, got completely out of production a few years back (deciding to make bones running specialty channels and cashing CSI checks) their CEO left this rose in the middle of the room:

"I think," he said, "That Canadian production has suffered a permanent downturn."

Wow. Thanks for playing, we thought. Enjoy all that Canadian taxpayer money you scooped up over the years. That reminded me (as most things do) of a trenchant Simpsons moment, where Marge asked Homer, "Did you have to salt the earth behind you?" Homer laughed and said,"Yes."

Bottom line: It's been pretty depressing up here for the last few years. Canadian Networks exist on a sliding scale as to how much they really are committed to developing Canadian drama and comedy. All, save the CBC, really make their money by snapping up rights to U.S. programming. (Though the CBC isn't making much money doing anything right about now.) But lo, there have been signs of life, as of late. First came Trailer Park Boys. It shows on BBC America down in the USA, and it's so Canadian, it's almost...freaky. It's full of swearin' and dope smoking and stupidity. I saw the first episode and hated it. Two years later I watched three in a row and became completely obsessed with the show. I'm not the only one. Ivan Reitman signed on to Exec Produce a movie. Give'r. That show is made by Showcase, which is a Canadian specialty channel who does commission and develop interesting original stuff. (Showcase is owned by the aforementioned Alliance Atlantis: see how complicated it gets?) Anyway, after Showcase there came a little show called Corner Gas on the CTV Network. That show regularly pulls in 1.5 million viewers a week -- that's in a country of 30 million - so basically, if it was a U.S. sitcom, it'd be the equivalent of pulling in 30 million viewers. I think a U.S. Network would pretty much worship Baal to pull in 30 million for a sitcom right about now. Anyway, once Corner Gas took off, one of the biggest excuses that the networks had: "Canadians don't want to watch Canadian shows," kind of went away. And that broke the ice a bit.

All that is preamble to this. The difference between a meeting in L.A. and a meeting in T.O. is the attitude. In L.A., there's relentless positivity. After all, you might be the next hot thing! You may make someone a ton of money! What if it's not me?! Who do I have to kill to make sure it's me! You leave a meeting thinking that your penis is bigger, you weigh about 30 lbs less and you have the rugged good looks of the early Paul Newman.

In Toronto, often, the meeting is an excrutiatingly long dissertation of why you could never, ever do that. And what a problem it might be. And....BLAM!

I'm sorry, that was the sound of the flap of skin at the back of my head flying off with the force of the bullet.

That's why I'm pleased as plucky punch to say, that I have had meetings lately with people on a couple of projects that were just...great. Positive. People who are enthusiastic about material. Who want things to be good! Who want to make television that's full of quality just like me!Yayyy! Yayyyyy! In Canada! Could it be that this toy has some new, shiny batteries? My fingers are crossed.

And I never cross my fingers.

First One Over The Top!

SMELL THAT? It's the sound of a brand new TV show having its first script reading. Today, the cast and crew of Republic of Doyle gather to hear the first two scripts read by actors.

It's a thrilling and relieving time for a writer. The theoretical finally becomes practical. You hear something on its feet, and the story department sits and hears the metre and the awkwardness and makes little tsk marks and tic marks and scribbles alt lines in the margins; and the writer who always hated this one thing takes their last, desperate gasp at trying to change people's minds. And hopefully the actors are complementary and enthusiastic, as they mostly are; and they give a good and solid effort to the read, which they mostly do. And afterward they come up with all these little questions which new writers may find annoying or strange but salty vets tend to find kind of fascinating because it reveals a craft that we appreciate more and understand less each and every day.

And if they're smart they know not to say "My character wouldn't say that." And so many of them are, indeed, smart.

And to hear laughter after months of silence and the sound of clacking keys is a tonic. And to see the pictures conjured in the air just by the virtue of speech is magic. And to look across the table at the person who fought so hard for that joke and see them beam when it lands; or argued so eloquently for a character turn that unfolds with a gasp; to see the silent slow clap of a colleague or the scowl of the perfectionist who still wants it to be better. The cats in the bag get let out to play, just once, with the beautiful people -- and the result is hopefully -- kismet.

It's cotillion time. It's a movable feast. It's drama up and on its feet, finally, finally.

And today in St. John's in a beautiful gallery, we'll hear characters come alive for the first time. I hope their voices ring through your living rooms for years to come.

After three days of rewrites on three scripts, I think it's time for someone to tell ME a story.

And so it goes.

Canada No Way Day

WELL, TORONTO, you don't get fireworks. You get stinky garbage.

Here in Newfoundland, the Republic of Doyle crew is working. We took a Holiday Monday. Or I have it on pretty good authority somebody did.

Today we're having our first production meeting, at 8am NT. How's that for early, bird?

Happy Canada Day to Y'all. Please feel free to leave any and all comments about how you're a proud Canadian that hates Canadian TV below.

More repeat posts follow. I'll write something new, I swear. Just as soon as I have a moment where I'm not redrafting, typing an email, sleeping or ... uh ... I don't know. The other stuff I do.

Reprint: "Mom, Dad, I Have Something To Tell You, I'm A Writer..."

THIS ONE'S REALLY OLD, but appropriate.

Originally published 11/04/2005

I've mentioned a couple of times before that I teach a class at a local University here in Toronto. This year, the class isn't very onerous. It's got the vaguely pretentious course title of"Master Writers Workshop." In reality, the class pretty much boils down to "Professional TV writers come in and bare their souls about how and why the hell they do this."

I don't teach for the money. (Thank Dog, because it's like, beer money at best.) But it's extremely useful, because it gives me a weekly window into what a bunch of 20 year olds think - and it also forces me to think about and try to articulate what I do. I've learned quite a bit about writers I thought I knew already by leading them through questions for this class.

Striking the right balance is often the hardest part. Because you don't want to misrepresent the writing life. But when you talk about the reality, it's easy to seem negative. Especially in Canada.

When I'm procrastinating, occasionally I'll troll the sites of aspiring screenwriters and wonder,"why, exactly, do you want to do this?"

It's a question that's so important. And I'm not sure it's one that's answered truthfully or honestly very often.

I've yet to meet someone who got into writing for the money who actually made a go of it. Yes, I know how much Shane Black made for selling Lethal Weapon. Yup, I know that spec sales throw dollar sign dreams into the eyes of any doe-eyed newcomer.

But the reality is that you may very well polish that screenplay for seven years. It may indeed be good. And it might sell. But how much work did it take? And if you really wanted to make money -- if that was the goal, then wouldn't some currency trader route be, I don't know --easier?

I've got a cousin who's a Very Big Deal in the financial world. He's damn good at his job. I met him for a drink at the Royal York Hotel when he was in town not so long ago, and we had a great old time. He's decent, a good guy, a very good businessman...he works seventy hours a week and oh... he's a millionaire.

I wouldn't trade places with him for the world.

The truth is, most writers I know that achieve some degree of success are doubters. They constantly doubt their material. It's wrenching to send a script out there. You never feel confident about it. At least most writers I know who are good don't.

(By the way, this is the root of why I think writers -- especially TV scribes, need to really stay away from fansites. Cause that stuff can F you up proper, g.)

I know others. I know people who really think that what they do is just...great. Every finished script will change the world. Every script is the greatest thing they've ever done.

And without fail, it's the doubters who get further ahead. I tested this theory in a convo with my agent last night. He agreed immediately. "When I get a script, if the person talks about how they're not totally happy with it, it's inevitably better than the person who says, "this is the best thing I've ever done."

My agent is cool. He has long hair and everything.

So doubt works. So does finishing. The main thing that separates people I know who actually make a living writing from those who don't is that the ones who do are finishers. And the way they finish is by focusing on small, realistic signpost goals, and chipping away.

The analogy I can think of is that there are a lot of people out there who think of a writing career like it's winning the World Series of Poker. In reality, it's more like being agrinder...playing one game at a time, for hours on end, just chipping, chipping, trying to get by.

There's a price to be paid for all this. You do spend a lot of time alone. You sometimes find yourself feeling disconnected even when you're out. You have to step back and observe more often than you participate. You actually have to indulge a level of self-involvement that most people would try to avoid. (Not as much as actors, but still.)

There's a lot about this life that's actually quite negative, on balance.

So why do it?

Well, here's the rub:

Because I can't imagine doing anything else.

I'm serious. I may call one of my writer friends and have a full on bitch session laced with bitterness, with a side of bitterness. We can beat each other up til we're whacking away on some great big bitterness pinata. And then one or the other will say, "well, at least we're living the dream."

It may be a peculiar Canadian trait, to define yourself negatively like this, but the writers I know and respect all have a somewhat fatalistic view of what they do. They don't do it for lofty reasons. They don't do it for fame or even for fortune. There are a lot of petty humiliations, snubs, and indignities to suffer along the way, but in the end you do it because, if you don't,then what the hell else are you going to do?

In many ways, I think you don't decide to be a writer. I think you come out as a writer. It's not what you do, it's who you are. I know that sounds glib. But in times that are dark, I have often taken comfort from the fact that I know I would never be happy doing anything else.

So maybe the first thing you should ask yourself if you're thinking of trying to be a writer (not write on the side, not be a waiter who's working on a screenplay, not an actor who's working on a novel, but a real, honest-to-goodness-this-is-how-I-make-my living writer writer) is this:

"Could I be happy doing anything else?"

If the answer's yes, you should strongly consider doing that thing.

If not, well, welcome. Maybe you're a writer after all.

"We're here. We fear. Get used to it!"