Thursday, June 7, 2007

CTV and CHUM and CBC


WELL, CBC.CA is moving a CP story about the CTV/CHUM takeover which I've alluded to this week.

Tomorrow at 11am the decision gets handed down and I suppose CTV will probably have 30 days to come back with another deal.

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal broadcast regulator will hand down its verdict on CTVglobemedia's $1.4 billion purchase of CHUM Ltd. on Friday amid expectations that Canada's largest private TV network will be forced to sell some or all of five Citytv stations, a key element of the deal.

Sources have told The Canadian Press that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will make the selloff of at least some of the stations a condition for approving the takeover of CHUM. The Toronto broadcaster has an extensive network of radio and television stations, including six A-Channels and 21 specialty channels.

"CTVglobemedia isn't going to like this decision," one source said, on condition of anonymity.


In any case, it means more uncertainty in an industry with an awful lot of it already.

You See...

ESSENTIALLY, ALL writers are geeks.

And we geek out over strange things, sometimes.

I wonder what Sarah Vowell thinks of this?

Cause I think it's pretty dang cool.

Blood Ties Canadian Time Change

CHUM has changed the CityTV premiere dates for BLOOD TIES, essentially delaying the show an extra week so they can show the two-hour premiere episode all at once. The full skinny can be read about here.

(The show will also definitely air on the SPACE channel nationally this fall, but I don't know the day and time yet. If someone else does, please feel free to stick it in the comments below.)

Also, I just finished my first pass on my first episode of THE BORDER.

I am Ozymandius.

Dunno if I'll get a chance to post again before Banff. We'll see.

Mark Askwith is a Stone-Cold Gangsta

IT'S TRUE. Sure, one might think that there's nothing to celebrate in a team named after an Emilio Estevez movie winning Hockey's Golden Grail, but at least it provided those of us who care (all nine of us) with a breathtaking end to the semi-infamous writers hockey pool.

Jim Henshaw has all the relevant stats here, but as the only one in the pool who I believe knows Mr. Askwith personally, let me run down for you just what a truly amazing gangsta he is.

See, not only did Askwith pick his own team...he pretty much picked mine, too. I mean, really.

So sure, I finished down the middle of the pack. But when he gave me the choice of the two teams and he talked about it, he framed the discussion as, "do you want to have fun, or do you want to win?"

I said I wanted to have fun.

He took the team that won.

That's how much of a gangster he is.

Congratulations, Mark. You scare me.

And as for you, Mark Farrell, man it's a good thing you're funny.

Rumors Redux

I'M HEARING there's going to be a big announcement tomorrow sometime around 11 a.m. with major implications for the Canadian Television Industry.

And if the rumors are true, it's not the way the conventional wisdom expected things to go.

Remember kids, uncertainty is good!

Yayyyyyy!

Rebecca Eckler knocks up Judd Apatow

FOR WHAT it's worth, I've met Rebecca Eckler a few times. Back in the previous life, when she wrote for the National Post and I worked at the Sci-Fi Station, she came by and did an article on us and talked to me and some of my compatriots. Eckler and Leah McLaren have taken heat for years for being the young pretty female writers at their respective papers (the Post and the Globe.) Sometimes the criticism shot their way made me feel a little oogy, because you could never quite lose the feeling that at least part of it was sexist in nature. Ie: if the reporters were male and young and good looking, there wouldn't be quite the focus on the looks, or the dismissal. Then again, the young male writers probably wouldn't specialize in the confessional stuff. And both McLaren and Eckler did trade in a certain kind of solipsistic...

Oh, who knows? Anyway...

The news that Eckler is suing the makers of Knocked Up for copyright infringement on her similarly titled memoir is cringeworthy for a number of reasons.

First, any time writers sue other writers, it's bad. Second, it taints the rise of a guy who's done a lot for refreshing movie comedy in the last little while. Third, because you know at least somebody is going to try and make this a little Canadian vs. The Big American kind of thing, and I hate, hate, hate that shit.

But finally, the reason why it makes me slap my head is that it's probably completely bogus.

Now, there's going to be no shortage of people bashing Eckler, so I want to link to the story she wrote for Macleans, because I think at least it paints a sympathetic portrait.

Here she writes about the similarities:

The movie Knocked Up features a woman named Alison who becomes pregnant after getting drunk. While she gets drunk going out celebrating a promotion at work, I got drunk, and knocked up, celebrating at my engagement party. Both my book and the movie feature one night of passion and the nine months that follow. Fine. Whatever. But what got me was the fact that "Alison" was an up-and-coming television reporter; in my book I was an up-and-coming newspaper reporter.

There were other similarities that hit close to home. In my book, I have a best-friend- with-screaming-children named Ronnie, who I go to often for advice. In the movie version, Alison has a sister, named Debbie, with screaming children, who is her sounding board. Both "Alison" and I did numerous pregnancy tests. What also got my back up was that Ben, the man who gets Alison knocked up, is not only Jewish, but from Canada, like my man. (I still can't figure out why the fact that someone was Canadian would add value to any movie.) And then there's this one scene in the screenplay and movie, where Alison and Ben are having sex. Ben stops. Ben, in the screenplay, says, "My dick is like, four inches away from its head. What if it kicked on purpose 'cause it didn't like it?" I actually wrote in my book about a joke I once heard, "A man and his pregnant wife had regular sex throughout her pregnancy. When their son was born, the father held him in his arms. The baby looked up at his new father and, without warning, punched him. 'See?' said the baby. 'Now you know what it feels like to be bonked in the face.' "
Now. What the whole article does well is give you a feel for how sweaty and awful it must feel to be in Eckler's position. My heart goes out to her. It really does. But in that excerpt above, you start to see a lot of the inherent problems in this kind of thing.

Simply put: in the realm of "originality," none of the concepts she's talking about are that off-the-charts original. Calling a story of an accidental pregnancy Knocked Up? It's clearly the vernacular way to describe that situation. Having a character with kids as a sounding board? A Screenwriting 101 choice that most writers would look to make. She even admits that she heard the joke about the baby punching his father from someone else. Of course she did. We've all heard that joke. She makes other, similar points -- the image of a martini glass and a pacifier -- a simple, easy image that encapsulates the character she's talking about.

Right there in the excerpt is the line that blows everything away: Apatow's wife was pregnant at the time he was writing. And as for the "why make him Canadian and Jewish?" Well, by now you've probably read something about Apatow's comedy other half, Seth Rogen...who's...umm...Canadian. And Jewish.

Sigh.

I know that everybody thinks that their pregnancy experience is a unique and beautiful flower. But like weddings, like christenings, like most passage life experiences -- essentially, every one is the goddamn same.

The simple truth is that none of the concepts in either Eckler's book or the similarly titled movie are that original. They're both derivative, and recognizable. That's why she sold her book. That's why he sold his movie.

Once you get past that, it all comes down to execution.

In fact, this is what I was talking about a few weeks ago the last time when we talked about ideas, and where they come from, and the difficult concept of originality in film and tv media.

It's also, by the way, a spoke of the whole fanfic argument. The fanficcers continue to link here and go off stamping their feet on their little livejournals about what a big ol meanie I am. But this kind of ugly fight, this kind of thing, is exactly what skeeves me out about fanfiction so much -- and especially the out of touch members of the community who write extensions of stories already written and turn around when they show up on the real show and ask, "hey! did they steal from me?"

Originality vs. Derivative work. Ideas vs. their execution. Being hired vs. writing on the side. Fanfic vs. Spec Scripts. All of these can be nuanced arguments -- but not when you're coming from an utterly emotional, not-grounded in the real world kind of place. A professional attitude is just that. We don't get to stamp our feet. And we better think three times before filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

Eckler vs. Apatow shows the scorched earth result. I'm pretty sure that Eckler probably won't work in Hollywood now. She probably will have trouble optioning or selling any future book to the movies. And you know what? It does suck that now she probably could never sell film rights to her book. That's a pain. But it happens. As for Apatow, I'm not gonna be too worried about him, but... his movie is now under a cloud, whether there's merit or not to the suit.

The only one who comes out ahead in this thing, is, predictably, the lawyers.

Of course, there's the bogeyman lurking in the background. Dan Brown might have cadged from a whole bunch of better non-fic books (like, say, anything by Karen Armstrong) when he was writing his DaVinci brick. Or he might not have. But the guys who sued him didn't prove their case.

Then there's Art Buchwald...oooh...now there's a bogeyman to be feared. Because he won. The producers of Coming to America had to settle with him.

Occasionally, someone does try to rip you off.

But the Occam's Razor explanation -- usually -- is that similar experiences lead to similar stories being created at roughly the same time.

Which is all the more reason why -- if you're a powerless and just-starting-out writer, you may as well swing for the fences in the originality department. If you'd written Pan's Labyrinth I bet you could have shopped that script for a lot longer without seeing something similar on screen than if, say, you'd written that definitive slacker working in a video store movie.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

You Read So I Don't Have To?

THERE ARE really times I wish I had more time to read things on the internet.

I know.

Let me explain.

I'm still trying to get a draft out the door. But a couple of people sent me a link to this article by Antonia Zerbisias. It's interesting, because in her article, she makes an interesting linkage:

Last week, the Globe and Mail, which is in the same corporate stable as CTVglobemedia, ran an opinion piece by professor Paul Boin of the U. of Windsor's communications faculty. He argued that the CRTC, under its current chair Konrad von Finckenstein, was more intent on protecting corporate profits than consumers.

"Canada's private networks have forgotten that the public owns the channels their content is distributed on," he wrote.

Yesterday, the Globe ran an editorial shooting down Boin's arguments as well as the Broadcasting Act, which dictates that the system must "serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada." The editorial called for less regulation, not more.

Fine. So how about dropping the regulatory protection of simulcasts? CTV, which just picked up the NFL, should not be blocking and tackling the U.S. feed. Right?

As if the editorial mentions that.

Whadddya know! I suggested the same thing a couple weeks ago. Now I suggested it as a tactic. I can see the reasonable-ness of allowing a substitution mechanism so that Canadian broadcasters don't get steamrolled by U.S. signals and ads... (I'm reasonably sure Antonia does too.) I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in a position where you argue against protectionism for creatives, when you're already the benefit of a much, much, much larger piece of anti-free-market protectionism.

Anyway, point is, Antonia talks about Globe editorials and the funny thing that this hypocrisy STILL isn't being covered. So good for her for getting it into dead tree media.

Her article led me to this site. Again, I just don't have the time right now to suss out if this is going to be something that works. I'm extremely cynical about the prospect of getting average Canadians to actually care enough to write the CRTC. Their money isn't really involved and the last time I checked, everybody had more to worry about than tv. That's the whole point of tv, isn't it? It's the thing you do to make yourself feel better about your worries. What a mess.

But I don't want to pooh-pooh a new effort before it gets started -- so here's the site again. I'll certainly be giving it a read when I have a chance. Even if they don't include me in their conference calls.

Kidding.

(Not kidding.)

No. Kidding.

(Click, Beep.)

Hang on, I have another mental caller.

(Um, Denis, this is your script calling. Remember me?)

Oh shit. Yeah...gimme a second. I'll wrap this up.

One more thing. ACTRA stamped their feet outside the Global party yesterday. From their press release. (I can't do anything about the ugly formatting. I think it's like that because it's a press release from actors and maybe they weren't in the moment when they formatted it. Or something.) Anyway:

CTV and Global threw themselves some parties this
week to celebrate spending hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars to stuff
Canada's primetime television with American dramas. And hundreds of Canadian
actors and other industry workers were out on the sidewalk protesting.
"These private shindigs the broadcasters threw for themselves are
disgraceful. And so was their latest junket to Hollywood to sell out their
country's broadcasting system," said Richard Hardacre, National President of
ACTRA.
ACTRA members and others rallied in front of Massey Hall this morning as
Global Television followed up CTV's party Monday. Both networks are
celebrating their foreign programming purchases. Last year, private
broadcasters spent over $470 million on foreign drama and less than
$70 million on Canadian programs.
"These shameless self-serving parties clearly demonstrate that the
networks don't care about their own country's culture and can't be trusted to
do anything with their licences other than rebroadcast someone else's work,"
said Stephen Waddell. "It's time for the CRTC to live up to its regulatory
role, since the broadcasters don't have the slightest intention to live up to
theirs," added Waddell.
Canada's private broadcasters were let off the hook when Canadian drama
content regulations were watered down by the CRTC in its disastrous 1999 TV
Policy decision. The result is Canadian network primetime schedules dominated
by U.S. shows. ACTRA demands that the CRTC reinstate drama content regulations
on the private broadcasters before Canadian culture completely fades to black.

I'm of two minds about this. I really am. The thing is -- I actually get nervous at the stridency of ACTRA's actions because, deep down, I really want the Canadian Private Networks to remain viable. Honestly, folks, the only alternative is relaxing the rules on foreign ownership and then the whole Cancon game is over.

But the nagging feeling I keep getting is that though I perfectly understand the challenges the networks face, I can't help but feel that the concern for "homegrown" material on their side of the fence really is...well... an inconvenience.

I understand the challenges they face, and I want them to make money.

But I'm not sure it goes the other way. They're just not that into me. Or any of us. And when the corporate media continues to play only the one side of the argument, it's hard not to think that maybe the fix is in. And maybe ACTRA stamping their feet is onto something. At least they're not going gentle into that good night.

Dude, I don't know. I just want to write TV.

What do y'all think of this new group? Any shot at making a difference? Or, like me, do you hear the letters C-R-T-C in a row and find your eyelids starting to droop, droop, drooooop...

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

And the Mill Keeps Turning

BY THE WAY, anyone with any more skinny on that big, big Canadian media rumor that's floating around this week -- feel free to email me or let rip in the comments below.

You know the one I mean. C'mon. You do.

A Ninety-Four Cent Dollar Dream

NO, I haven't finished, thank you very much. And as someone mentioned at the CFC Event I went to last night, "You can always tell when you've got a script deadline. You start linking to other people a lot more."

It's called "treading water for your life." I know that my Agent likes to joke that I don't sleep -- but I do. Fitfully and occasionally pitching myself to the floor. But that counts. Doesn't it?

Before I head out West to Banff, there's an awful lot to do, but something occurred to me sitting on the stage at Revival last night. It came to me because the CFC had just screened their 2007 crop of short films, and they were good. Several were even funny.

When the Film Centre shorts are good, there's always a different vibe in the room. It smells suspiciously like... hope. And that got me thinking...

What if nobody left for two years?

Seriously. What if all the writers, directors and actors who systematically are forced to say, "fuck it" every year; who face the petty cruelties, bureaucracy, relentless mediocrity and insanity of the business here said, "No. You're not chasing us out. We're not going."

What if everyone looked at our 94-cent dollar, decided that Yankee greenbacks, on their way to being worth less than ours by next year -- weren't the holy grail -- not forever -- just for now?

What if, en masse, all those talents demanded better from networks? What if they put the boots and the shame to those who work the gears of the industry but don't produce satisfying and worthwhile work? What if they stomped down Playback's doors and say, "it's time you wrote about US?" What if they descended on Gatineau and looked up 'Ol Konrad Von CRTC and said, "Enough. Do better!" What if they talked, and laughed, and exposed the showrunners who don't showrun, the development people who don't really develop, the network people without courage? What if all the people inside all those aforementioned organizations who do desperately want to do better discovered they had allies on the outside? What if everywhere every newspaper or media writer went, they faced a pool of engaged and talented people who said, "we're not letting you drive us out. When we go to the USA, if we go to the USA, it will be on our terms?" What if they took succour and comfort and inspiration from those people and stood up to the other people? What if they got excited too, instead of being resigned? And what if the poor, beleaguered artists -- the good guys and girls -- the ones still toiling here for family, or loyalty, or reasons they can't even define, were able to look up and say, "thank God you're still here - now I don't have to work with the bad people anymore."

What if this industry finally, finally decided "good enough" wasn't good enough?

What would happen then?

And now a word from The Department of Pathetic Fallacy: The whole time I have been typing this, the sky outside my office window has been growing darker and darker. Seriously. The sky is almost black now. In the middle of the morning.

Oh man.

Ah well -- it was still a nice dream.

Monday, June 4, 2007

The Most Trusted Name in Fake Programming News

JON STEWART isn't just a truly funny comedian and trenchant commentator. This most American of Comedians may now actually be counted as one of the better stewards of Made-In-Canada Culture.

Not only did he pluck Sam Bee and Jason Jones from our shores (two talents who were, um...let's be kind...underutilized here, though I'm sure Jones loves that beer money now that he's, you know, known...)

Not only did he spin better satire out of our last leaders debate than our homegrown comedy shows could manage....last night, depending on how you read it -- he may have just spoken up for CanCon.

Speaking via videotaped message to the big CTV fall launch party at Toronto's new Opera House:

"You've done a great job there, airing all those American shows and taking credit for them,"

"The C in CSI doesn't stand for Canada."

From Lee-Anne Goodman's Canadian Press report:

The network's Canadian shows, in fact, weren't highlighted till midway through the launch, when Brent Butt took to the stage to promote the upcoming season of the beloved hit sitcom, "Corner Gas." "Degrassi: The Next Generation," "Whistler" and "Robson Arms" join "Corner Gas" on the slate of returning Canadian shows, but there were no new ones on the schedule.

A CTV official says the network will announce some new Canadian shows later in the year.

As Jon would say, probably straight to camera: Whaaaaaaaaa?


Pray For Canadian Comedy

IT WAS killing me not to write about The Altar Boy Gang -- not just because I actually thought it was hilarious, and not just because the Catholic League who frowsies over every supposed slight against Catholics are a bunch of wound up prigs.

And not just cause I was an Altar Boy. And no, I never did anything untoward with the host. I wouldn't dare.

And that's the G.D. point of comedy there, my son... but anyway. I don't have to write anything about it, because Kevin Baker took care of it in the National Post this weekend:

You may have read about the flap over The Altar Boy Gang, the pilot that aired without fanfare two Fridays ago and featured altar boys lacing Communion wafers with drugs. Some Catholics were upset. The Post published an editorial. Here is the fiendish bit: "Indeed, no Canadian should have to pay the CBC to make fun of, ignore or misreport their views." The slip from comedy ("make fun") to news reporting ("ignore or misreport") elides the difference between fiction writers and journalists...

Other objectors, too, wanted comedy writers to adopt the journalist's concern for accuracy and balance, and insisted cultural groups depicted in the CBC's fictional programs all be treated the same. When they are not, went the editorial, there's a double standard, "Gang being permitted to deride Catholic rituals, while the CBC hired an Islamic consultant to ensure that Little Mosque on the Prairie was in no way offensive to Muslims."

So in fact Little Mosque has armed people of other races, faiths and cultures. Whether there is an actual sensitivity consultant or the sensitivity consultant was a conceit released in a pre-emptive strike against offence-takers, we may learn in time. But if there was no consultant, no matter. Now
everybody wants one. There'll be a swarm of them. Comedy will be the victim...

What is sad, and ominous, about the furor over The Altar Boy Gang is that no one cared whether the sitcom was funny.


Amen. BTW, it was. No matter, though, right?