Last week, another Showrunner was fired off an in-production Canadian series. Tally up the writers (not all of them Showrunner-level) who have been let go, hustled out, demoted or superseded in the last few months, and so far as I can see the only top level shows that haven't experienced this degree of turmoil are Corner Gas, Murdoch Mysteries, The Border and Little Mosque. (And Little Mosque had a shuffle and turnover between Season 2 and 3.)
These kinds of changes and the unrest they suggest are significant not just for writers, but everybody working in Canadian TV. I believe the below-the-line people will have noticed by now, as the brand-new Filmport Studio in Toronto sits empty -- domestic series production is the only thing keeping people afloat right now.
Vancouver, I know your situation is different. But remember the WGA strike wasn't so long ago. Relying on the foreign service shoot hasn't done your production community any favors lately, either.
I know plenty of people out there are hurting. But it's quite a change from a few years ago when service production kept everyone humming and bought grips and electrics houses, while the writers reeled from the 1999 CRTC decision that cut the number of Canadian series in half overnight. Now, as the domestic picture slowly improves, things should be getting more stable. But yet there's all this turmoil.
What's going wrong? What exactly is the issue out there in writerland?
Some might point to the USA and say that there are replacements and changes made there too. And that's true. And there have been more of them in the last year than in previous seasons. If you read the Stepakoff book or follow Kay Reindl you might have some insight into what's going wrong there.
I think the business has been hurt more than it realizes by the breakdown in the mentoring and rising through the ranks that used to obtain. The WGA Showrunner program is trying to fill a gap that the breakdown in the system has made ever-more evident. The flip in power between network and production company hasn't helped things, either.
But the ratio of turmoil and turnover in the U.S. market is far lower than here. We simply have too few shows here to have the level of turnover we seem to be recently experiencing. Add to that the fact that in our brave new world of making pilots -- we don't actually seem to be fixing any of the problems getting a show up and running that a pilot is supposed to solve, and the elephant in the room becomes: "what really is going on here?"
In Canada, we have programs like the NSI, and the CFC and Canwest's new "Showrunner Training Program" trying to train people. In the case of the latter, though, you have to wonder at the value of the nascent program when it imports U.S. showrunners who don't know the challenges of lower Canadian budgets, or the peculiarities of the system here. Anecdotally, I guess there's some value to hearing how the pros in L.A. do it. But when you mix 'emerging writers' and 'showrunner trainees' in the same group, and don't deal with the real nitty-gritty problems that Canadian shows run into getting made -- the problems that even the networks here don't know about, you have to ask, "is this actually dealing with the problem at hand?"
Similarly, the CFC and the NSI send out new writers with series proposals. Some get optioned, fewer get made. But if there's a problem in talent management and system organization (and clearly there is) what value is there in injecting somone who doesn't have managerial experience, or even real-show experience, into the mix? Even as the CFC currently interviews potential new residents, I worry that when they graduate we're going to be throwing them to the wolves. Is the kind of attitude you see from emerging writers in threads like this and this helping, or is it making the problem worse? I know for a fact that when I came out of the Film Centre that I had a very, very different attitude about how I wanted to conduct the next few years of my career than I hear reflected back to me by the newer crop. Are new writers learning bad habits? Is that feeding the fire, here? Is the infatuation at the networks with "new writers" leading to management problems down the line? Are they being built up too much? Is this the best way to engender and build long careers?
Every series that's fired or replaced a writer this summer has got their own set of challenges and issues...so I don't want to generalize too much...but anecdotally, from what I've heard, I think all those problems have a common root:
Bad communication.
There's a peculiarity to the creative struggle here, that's got a particularly Canadian flavor to it. And that's the dominance of the passive-aggressive personality. Series, even Canadian series, are huge businesses. You're talking about a business that can employ a hundred people, and run through 20, 25 million dollars in the course of a season, in the case of the most expensive shows.
Yet it seems like rather than confronting problems as they arise, and negotiating the perilous creative waters, instead all there is is backroom maneuvering here and there and nothing happens until the drastic change is made.
I once heard what I thought was the best definition of a producer ever: "the person who can have any fight that needs to be had in under five minutes."
Avoiding the fight isn't a solution. Neither is putting off decisions. I've heard story of shows where producers argued over competing visions for what a show should be for the entire run of a show -- never coming to any accomodation or solution. No way you get a good product out of that.
In the midst of turmoil, the fear is that everyone will use this to push back on their own agendas:
- Writers will say that it's an example of not trusting the Showrunner.
- Producers will say that it's an example of writers getting too much power.
- Everyone will say that networks aren't picking the right shows or approving the right writers to staff them.
There's elements of truth in all of these, and probably half a dozen other theories, too. How do agents fit into the mix, for instance? What are they saying to their clients about how to be professional?
Becausee at the end of the day I think that's what this is. It's an issue of communication and professionalism.
Call a problem a problem. Then talk about how to solve it. Out in the open, head on, before it festers. Yes, it might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you feel icky. But there's too much money and creative energy at stake not to do it.
There's trouble down at mill. What are we going to do about it?
26 comments:
Communication is one of the first things I've had to learn as a newbie writer. Not just 'how' to say something, but 'what' it is I need to say.
How to identify the problems that I'm having, being able to know how to say things like "I'm losing sight of the plot to my character moments and I don't know how to balance them out."
I think the hardest thing for a lot of people (including myself) is being able to ask for help from your peers without seeming weak. I'm a newb, I can get off a bit easier because it's expected.
But I can only imagine being the showrunner and having that responsiblity to be a leader and a and have all the answers.
Can you have the freedom to be unsure and ask the hard questions at that level? Especially if you're not in a situation or an environment where you feel comfortable looking like you don't have it all pegged down (who does...?).
On the whole "Are new writers learning bad habits?" question, let me just say that as a newb one of the things that I've found infinitely helpful is the openness and insight from the community at large. But, with that said, I've had to get out there and be active in it, post questions (yes, some dumb ones too) and show that this is my focus. It's not always easy (I've got my 8-hour-a-day jo-job too) but that's the sacrifice I make 'cause that's how I want to learn. I put in my time and make myself available to every opportunity that presents itself.
I've found that, if you dig around enough and are willing to listen, there are a lot of people who're more than willing to help as long as you can show to them that they're not wasting their time.
I'm going to pimp Ink Canada -Karen' Walton's Facbook group - here. Get involved, ask questions but be respectful. Simple rules with great rewards.
Cheers,
Brandon
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2312266656&ref=mf
Derek McGrath, this is exactly the problem in my humble experience thus far-- poor communication. Everyone in this industry should read this blog entry and then take communications skills courses. It's undeniably a major problem in this nation across the board, really. Thanks for your candour. Perfect pitch. Let's hope we all listen, eh? Best.
There's more than enough blame for this situation to go around. And there's no one single event that's created this critical condition; but rather, we have a perfect storm of competing realities that has been building for a while and has finally and unfortunately arrived.
On the suit side, our nets are in financial trouble after years of not creating their own libraries of programming and ignoring the changes wrought by the new media.
Canwest stock that was worth $10 a year ago is hovering around three bucks today. In a very short time, they could be gone, so they need hits now. Likewise, CTV is about to come under the control of the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, a financial behemoth that will demand far better profit numbers with less regard for artistic merit (see the Toronto Maple Leafs).
So the pressure is on to deliver big time, but the experience of delivering is lacking.
In much the same way as the British military destroyed a generation by picking an officer corps that was well thought of at Sandhurst or from a good family, our nets often seem to apply showrunning credibility to people who come from the right schools as opposed to those with at least some actual experience in the trenches.
Furthermore, Hunter S. Thompson's quote about television being a place where good men die like dogs and your own about producers needing to be able to have a fight about anything in five minutes are both completely accurate. The acedemic theory of making a TV series and the reality couldn't be any different. It's a bloodsport and if you can't both dish it out and take it, you can't make a good show.
I have a pretty solid reputation for not suffering fools gladly. It's an approach that's seen me both quit and be replaced on shows. Sometimes that's hurt a little, but it has never succeeded in altering my philosophy.
To my credit as a visionary, every show I departed went into the tank. That doesn't mean that the direction I wanted to take was superior, it just means the environment wasn't one in which a solution could be found by all the participants fighting fair -- and fighting for the show.
But "Fools" come both wearing suits and with copies of Final Cut tucked in their laptops.
If you're a writer who's been rewarded with a producer moniker, that's not a medal, it's a responsibility. And while the suits may let the compact between your show and the audience get in the way of their corporate needs, you can't.
Beyond being on time and on budget and delivering an entertaining show, they have no right to expect you to solve their other issues.
If you're a writer of any stripe and you got into this business to pay a mortgage and buy a 42" Plasma screen, do us all a favor and get out now. You're here to own an island in the Caribbean with an IMAX screen in the den. And if you're not working toward that and fighting to make it happen, you're doing any audience demanding to be inspired, moved and entertained a disservice.
Too much of what I've heard about scripts in Canada not being good, on time or endlessly revised is a result of writers just not standing up for their own work or the visions of their creative partners.
If you've been hired only to take orders from a network exec, experienced or not, you're a patsy who's only there to preserve their career. Please cop to that. The minute Lee Harvey Oswald uttered the words "I'm just a Patsy", he was a dead man walking -- and he probably knew it.
If you want to call yourself a writer, please at least have some respect either for yourself or your profession. If you know something is wrong dramatically, then have the courage to point out that it's wrong. If you honestly know your stuff you can change the mind of whoever is directing you down the wrong path.
If that doesn't work -- move on. If you're good you'll get another job and if you're not -- well, it's a big world full of really interesting things to do.
Life's too short to waste it making bad TV.
Um... what Denis said. And what Jim said.
Yes, news all weekend from fellow writer types buzzing re. news of said showrunner's departure. An absolute mess. Competing networks. Whole lotta inexperienced cooks in da kitchen. Unfortunate too, as said showrunner has rep as one of the most professional, fun and generous mentors in the biz. This year has been a BLOODBATH. Coutdown to CanWest's implosion...3...2...1...
For the life of me, besides pure bloody-minded schaedenfreude, I can't imagine why anyone would gleefully hope for the demise of Canwest.
How in God's name would that be good for *anybody?*
Well I feel maybe I'm the only guy on this thread who doesn't know who got fired, but I'll wade in...
My experience has been there will be a lot of people who get in the way of you making a good show. Everyone will SAY they want a good show. But often they have other agendas -- non writing producers with no background in entertainment want to play TV. Actors want to advance their characters at the expense of the rest of the cast. Directors are concerned with getting a cool shot for their reel. Etc.
(Not to malign entire professions: not all producers actors and directors are like this. Just enough that you're going to run into them.)
Some of these people you can reason with or overrule. Others will have the power, directly or indirectly, to undermine you. The result is this, and I will put it in caps: IN CANADIAN TV YOU ARE STRONGLY INCENTIVIZED NOT TO CARE WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR NOT.
If you try to make it good you're going to piss off a lot of people. Weighing against that, the show might be better. But, in my experience, often the powers that be can't tell whether a show is good or not. They certainly can't tell whether it's good vs. better. And if they do think it's good often the credit will go to a nonwriting producer anyway.
So, rationally, you're far better off trying to get along with everybody, especially those who could undermine you, and not try too hard to make the show good. People won't know the difference, and, hey, that's a nice guy to work with.
(Is it the same in the States? I have no idea. I expect at the end of the day people are more experienced there and so they can tell a good show over a not so good show. I also think it's more competitive and the core business is to make entertainment which isn't really the case in Canada.)
Personally, I'm not rational. I remember when I was a bitter outsider looking at lame TV shows (Canadian and American) and thinking "is that the best you can do?" Now that I'm at the other end of the tube, I feel like I have to live up to the angry young man version of myself.
So I try to be a nice guy, treat everybody with respect, etc, but I'll make waves if I think it's going to help the show.
But I can't argue that it's a good idea. You can probably survive in Canadian TV even if you perversely insist on trying to make shows good. But you're swimming against the stream.
PS: I just read over this an it occurs to me that this reads like maybe I'm just an asshole who pisses people off rather than there being some endemic problem with the entire TV industry. Hmm... occam's razor draw your own conclusion...
so who got fired?
I would actually appreciate it if people kept that out of the comments.
That's not the kind of news I want to break. And considering that a lot of people post here under pseudonyms, singling out people by name for getting let go aint a game I want to play. Hope you understand.
sure, no problem -- didn't mean to cause offense -- but really, we're all gonna get fired once or twice doing this job it's kind of what happens if you stick up for the show.
Sorry for any offence re. CanWest. Just feel terrible for peeps involved, one of whom gave me my 'big' break. What was mistaken for glee was more angry despair. Again, this year, as you yourself noted? Kind of a bloodbath.
Indulge me for a second here -- I can only look at the problem as it relates to me but I think there is some value in that.
the problem is not a lack of mentorship, the problem is in the criteria networks and producers are using when hiring people to "run" their shows.
this is the "indulge me part"
i had a run where I ran a show for five years. we won awards, we were respected and ten years later almost every single member of the cast still has a career -- some have become "stars", some are "recurring regulars" on both US network and Canadian network shows and others are still working actors.
I bounced from their to run forty episodes of a one hour drama that, while it may have had less than stellar viewership, was something of a critical success.
After that I was brought out to "close down" a show. four seasons later it ended.
During that time I worked with quite a few writers, most of them are now running, or have run, their own shows.
Most people in this community think I am good at my job.
I have not had a chance to do it in four years. Now I have kept myself busy and am not suffering (eleven straight seasons of showrunning will afford that) but I have not been approached by anyone to do my job again (despite the number of Canuck TV shows on the air).
this is a curious situation -- i don't think i've gotten worse at it and i do think i have as much energy and drive as I did ten years ago --but what i do have now is experience.
and at this particular point in time that is working against me.
or maybe it's just spelling that's my downfall
hahaha...Frank finally figures it out.
Actually, what Frank is saying is sad but oh so true. I'm smaller time then him but I've run a couple shows...one when i wasn't ready, and one when I was ready. The first time around turned out okay and didn't crash and burn, but i always felt like i was barely keeping afloat...while the second time around was a really great experience, for everyone involved. I know that, not just saying it...yet haven't been approached to run one since. This when I know I could do it with confidence and some sense of expertise. What the huh?
And to go back to one of the original comments that started this thread, it's not sour grapes. I really don't know why it happened, for me and a lot of my colleagues...some have said I've gotten old (but not out of touch i don't think)...some say it's because by running shows for almost 5 years I (unintentionally) priced myself out of what Cdn networks and the primarily publically funded system are willing to pay for showrunners...others have said it's because not the 'right show' has come along in terms of genre subject matter (sorry, not true).
I tend to put a lot of it on our Canadian way of fair play and everyone getting a shot...because with govt assistance such a big factor in financing (as opposed to creating and running financially independent 'hits'), there seems to be a real unspoken agenda with broadcasters and funding agencies to not be seen as supporting/subsidizing a select few individuals, even if they are really good at their job and turn out solid entertaining dramatic series TV. Nobody wants to be accused of playing faves in a side of the biz (indiginous drama) that really hasn't been worth the trouble to make waves about for past 10 years.
There...my 2 cents that I know doesn't really answer or solve anything...so it goes.
Agree absolutely with Jim, Frank and Will.
I watch friends in the US work their way up through story departments to run their own show and then to create and exec their own shows. It doesn't seem to work that way here.
Oh, and those friends now running US shows, they couldn't find work here after running Canadian network shows.
Okay - there's the drift (which I've heard before) of the actual experienced showrunners being passed over in order to give untested and in some cases unready people a shot.
I've also heard, darkly, that this is due to networks not wanting people who have more experience than them at the helm - that it's an ego issue.
What else?
Why are the pilots not working?
What is the chronic talent management problem?
How is it there's no shame in seeing these "don't work" types go south and succeed?
All these are the old stories, and I have to say that though it makes some kind of dark sense to me -- there's also the nagging thing bugging me that once again, and still -- why has no one said anything about this up til now? What is with the fucking silence? What does it take to rouse you people?
Have we come far at all? Is there progress? Is it a growing pain? Are things better or worse? And what the fuck is the next step? Don't tell me "don't fight city hall," because that seems to have been the strategy of the last 20 years and that hasn't gone aces, either.
What you're looking for is clout and we don't have any. Subjective opinions are not something that one can use to go on strike. Writers and Showrunners are usually fired "for cause" - otherwise there are generally penalties attached in their contracts. If you read the IPA you'll see there are paragraphs under which producers are legally entitled to fire you. My advice there is to commit everything to paper.
I heartily agree with Jim that when the creative divide becomes too great, you do yourself and the show a disservice by remaining on it.
One of the first rules I learned - a hundred years ago - was that he who controls the money, has the last say.
Writers and Showrunners do not control the money. The networks control the money.
There is nothing we can do about network decision-making. They are entitled to greenlight whatever show they think will work for them.
To bring up another very Canadian problem, networks are sometimes hamstrung by the government checklists attached to the government money. Does their programming meet regional, ethnic, and other diversity requirements? The US doesn't have this problem because their industry is a business, not a government hand-out. And the reality is that they have a more diverse industry without creating a point system for it.
And don't get me started on the paltry amounts of the required license fees. But I'll respond to your other post about that.
This may sound counter-intuitive, but any good flim-flam man will tell you that for someone to give your their confidence they have to want to risk something. Nothing to risk, no need to put your trust in others.
The nets do not give their confidence to the creatives, because there is no risk attached. Canadian show fail. So what? There's always CSI: Fresno in the hopper. Their bottom line does not depend on the success of domestic drama. In fact, successful product hurts them in the short term.
If the fate of the network -- or, more importantly, the job of a network exec. -- was tied to your show, then they would have to put their trust in you. They wouldn't have a choice.
Otherwise, they can goof around all they want. And they do.
The changing distribution landscape will force them to become more adventurous. Bub-bye protections. Sink or swim on your own product.
Betcha Frank's phone starts ringing off the hook. Because the other thing a good flim-flam man knows is that the mark will always jump at the less risky option, and in this case, that is going with experience.
What Denis is also looking for are some new stories...
"Why are the pilots not working?" Perhaps the network execs picked the wrong shows to pilot.
It's not the pilots, per se. It's carrying on from the pilots that seems to be a problem. But that said, there are only two pilots of which I am aware that had some difficulties.
And of course when you bring in new players after the pilot is shot, they want their kick at the can. In the US, pilots are regularly rewritten, recast, reshot, etc. So if you play with them, you have to be prepared to do likewise.
Only if you're very lucky does the other player have minor problems - like they want the dog to be a golden retriever. True story.
A few years ago it became clear to me that, as far as TV movies went, you always wanted to be the 2nd writer. The first writer could NEVER get it right, usually because the producers and/or broadcaster were figuring out what they wanted by figuring out what they didn't want from your two drafts and a polish.
Now it looks like in series TV, maybe you want to be the 2nd showrunner.
*sigh*
damn you zmak! you were supposed to be looking at the other hand.
Am I the only one who thinks that this is the best time ever to be working in Canadian Television?
The writing has never been stronger, the quality of production has never been better, and the audience has never been more open to giving home-grown shows a shot.
I can't tell you how many things drive me crazy about this industry daily: the fickle tastes and obvious greed of networks, the short-sighted policies of the government and unfounded hubris of many artists and producers.
But I'm stupidly optimistic.
I'm one of the lucky ones that's part of the Showrunner's Program... and if all we did was sit in Banff and listen to American's talk about how they run a show I might be concerned... But that's not exactly what I happened... We did talk to americans about running a show and every one had a different story.. and we talked to Canadians who worked here, got frustrated and went to the states and kicked butt... and most importantly by the end of our banff session we began conversations with one another about what we've done, what we're doing... and what we dream about doing... and that was enough to make it worth my while... and there's still two more phases to go.
one of the common threads that i picked up on during all those talks and that resonated with my own experience is this:
things work best when everybody is doing their job and challenging one another... our job is to do our thing as best we can, to kick against the pricks without sinking into bitterness and seize this m-effin' opportunity.
victory will go to the most tenacious.
ox
dave
Glad to hear other people talking about this. You start to feel like the only crazy person who's noticed the emperor has no clothes.
I think a couple of these comments nailed it: Canadian TV isn't expected to be good by the Networks or anyone else.
A lot of the problem stems from two sources: producers who aren't writers. This has been discussed in Denis's blog before. But it continues to undermine our business and the quality of our content. When the person who is in effect a line producer believes he/she is the creator and creative showrunner, there is a huge incentive for them to keep turning over the writer-showrunner. That way the power stays in the line producer's court. No one can take credit for doing a better job than the talent-less line producer.
And secondly, the Canadian Network's survival isn't dependent on the show being good. So had can good creative people ever have any power? How can they stand up to the indifferent Network and the decidedly antagonist line-producer/exec producer? In the U.S., bad shows mean a bankrupt network. Great shows mean millions, even billions of dollars. So while in Canada a bad show means the network has successfully met its CRTC drama quota and can now buy that good U.S. show cheap, in the U.S. a bad show means that every possible angle is addressed to either get a good show next time...and that often means returning to the creative individuals--the writers--who have the ability to do just that.
A lot of good stuff said already, no need for me to re-hash Henshaw or Dixon or McGrath.
I think this is an interesting time. In some ways, I do feel like there are a lot of people working in business (on the network and the production side) that are passed their sell-by date. Not because of their age, but because they insist on doing things the same old way and are kind of phoning it in.
It hasn't been an easy couple of years. But I'm seeing the strongest people surviving and wanting to stay. The ones that are phoning it in ... they're already looking to work in advertising or new media or ad sales or opening spas.
No doubt the system has a lot of flaws, but the biggest problem of late for me is people who have lost their passion for what they do. And the cahones to stand up and defend their work and their vision. If you are true to yourself and the project, someone's going to listen. Too many people looking to follow and not so many stepping up to lead in a meaningful way.
Post a Comment