Flashpoint: Relax and Take a Breath

I'VE BEEN INSULATED from it somewhat, seeing as I've been in prep or shooting two episodes of The Border over the last little while, but of course, who can miss the fact that Flashpoint, one of the Canadian shows bought by a U.S. net, debuts tonight at 10pm on CTV and CTV.

According to CTV, it's "reverse simulcasting." Heh. Positively Canwesticular.

Whether you buy that or not though it's undeniable that this is a tense moment for Canadian Creatives.

People are wringing their hands, and wondering "if." Everyone finds that "Due South" for whatever reason, is not far from their lips.

Whatever.

What you need to remember...the only thing that's relevant, really, is this:

The project originated as a TV movie at CTV. I know, because two friends of mine originated the project. You might not know that, because unless you've listened to Diane's podcast, they've kind of been cut out of just about every interview or publicity mention in the pre-press.

Mark and Stephanie, the creators of Flashpoint, started as actors. They're still actors, I mean. But. Steph was in The Sweet Hearafter. Mark (full disclosure: not only did I go to high school with Mark, but he's actually thrown up on me. Fucker) was featured in the Youth Series Dark Oracle on YTV.

A lot of times when Actors turn to writing, you can spot the results a mile away. Solipsistic monologues, overwrought sturm and drang -- results that are not pretty.

Mark and Steph, on the other hand, have always proceeded in their projects from a place of precision and research. A few years ago, a short they did called Remembrance -- about a man with a remarkable condition recruited for spying in WWII, won many awards and cash prizes based on the reality of the characters and the simple human reality on display. And all of that came out of meticulous research.

So, too, did Flashpoint. Several years back there was a hostage taking at Union Station in Toronto. In the middle of rush hour, a bystander was seized by someone who was later taken out by an ETF sniper from the Toronto Police Force.

The event mesmerized Mark and Stephanie. They developed a TV movie based on the incident with CTV. And at some point, the idea that maybe the characters were interesting enough to sustain a series was born.

I don't wish to take anything away from the team of writers who have crafted the series iteration of Flashpoint. From Tassie Cameron, to Esta Spaulding, to Tracey Forbes, the staff reflects some of the most accomplished writers working in series TV in Canada today. Playwright Jason Sherman (currently developing the Giller Award winning book Bloodletting and Miraculous Cures for TMN) is also on board, as are two other up and coming talents: writer Adam Barken and John Callaghan, the story coordinator who once upon a time, helped me out on my own series.

But for those who carp or doubt, note the impulse: Mark and Steph's interest in the Toronto ETF (renamed the SRU for Flashpoint) is based in truth: a squad, that, unlike most SWAT teams, actually takes tactical command of a sit, and emphasizes peaceful resolution.

That is a pure writer impulse. They found the thing that was different and interesting to them, and from there inspiration sprang.

Canadian press will seize on low numbers if Flashpoint doesn't open big, but that might not be the whole story. You don't know what the real story is until you start hearing from CBS. You can't compare numbers to CBS fall numbers, though people will. I don't know what CBS' summer number expectations are, and neither do you.

What I think is more interesting (even as an American-born guy living in Canada) is the incredible chauvinism in some of the early reviews. Some of that's expected, from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter -- this is a show perceived, like it or not, as a CBS hedge against the WGA strike. But about the fifth time I hit phrases like, "not much to get excited aboot," I thought, "oh man."

Which brings us back to what we were talking about here yesterday. The entire idea (born partially out of that Flashpoint sale) that the pinnacle of producing Canadian TV programs should be to get validation from Americans...well.. it's focacta. Only when we ignore that bullshit do we come up with things that are truly, definitely, wickedly different. Americans will always prefer their own stuff. There's just no way around it. Engage with the world.

Flashpoint airs tonight at 10pm on CBS/CTV. Do check it out.

Un. Be. Liev. A. Ble.

HE DOESN'T KNOW it, and it may not even happen. But by rights, an ABC Studios Exec named Howard Davine quite possibly changed the Canadian Television Industry today.

Of course, Nikki Finke, who broke the story, helped.

Finke obtained and posted excerpts from an internal ABC memo which... well, by rights, she got the scoop -- let's let the lady tell you herself:

the memo blesses anyone who brings foreign formats to ABC first so that the studio can steal the idea without paying the fat licensing fees that would accompany an up-and-up deal. Obviously, ABC doesn't want to repeat what happened with a show like Ugly Betty, which is the American version of the Latin telenovela. This now proves they would rather just rip it off.

Let's sit back and think about the implications for a moment here.

You have Canadian networks and Producers who now are laying their whole idea of how they're going to get stuff made off selling to the USA, or maybe exporting that great format idea.

It goes without saying that when you enter business arrangements with the American nets, it's not going to be an equal relationship -- but the implications of something like this? Well, if I was the person staking my business model on chasing that U.S. dream, I'd be, you know, doing a big, "Ulp" right about now.

And check out this very telling paragraph:

e) Deals regularly get bogged down or sometimes break down entirely on issues relating to our ability to sell the US series without restriction internationally and issues relating to the desire of the foreign rightsholder to sell episodes of their underlying series in the US market. Here, it is not a symetrical two-way street. Whereas the economics of producing a foreign series are not dependent on a vibrant US marketplace for the product, the economics of US network production do indeed depend on our ability to sell our series internationally without restriction.

(emphasis is mine)

I would encourage any Canadian creatives or producers who read this blog to write in and tell me of the number of conversations you've had lately that support this view - that in fact, acknowledge that "the economics of producing a foreign series are not dependent on a vibrant US marketplace for the product."

Clearly Howard hasn't been in many meetings with Canadian producers or development executives or networks. Because there's a whole lot of people who seem to be saying exactly the opposite every time I blink.

And therein lies the rub: we are foolhardy, we who chase and chase and chase this "American sale" chimera like it is the thing that will get our series made, or get it noticed above the pack. We matter so very little, and are of such little consequence to these guys -- that someone seems to be suggesting that ripping off anything we do bring to them might be better, or more profitable.

THAT is your creative future if you go down this road. Not a partnership -- an at-best unequal and dependent union -- maybe even funded by Canadian taxpayer money. Ugh.

Canadian creatives need to engage with our own audience, and an international market that might look for offbeat product that isn't American. We need to come up with our own bold concepts. Clearly the future of doing slightly retooled, generic, American seeming series is dubious at best. There is no magic sale at the end of the rainbow.

A POV or a Brand that isn't a pale photocopy of XFiles or CSI or one of a hundred other Yankee shows isn't just the future -- it's the future of how not to get ripped off.

So ...who's got the guts to greenlight something that the Americans wouldn't touch? And then reap the benefits? Warning: it requires thinking outside the box and taking a creative risk.

Anyone?

Yoo hooooo?

EDIT: It's also interesting a day later to drop back in on the comment thread on Nikki's post -- to see that America-first viewpoint. The last comment there talks about foreign producers having to give up their "huge back end" etc, etc...which also belies the reality that whether it's a format sale or a sale of the original show - the great thing that most people in Canada don't talk about is how these "big U.S. sales," -- most of 'em are for, like, milk money.

Your Brand New Shiny Word

WELL THE POLL is now closed. As outlined in the post here, the new jargon word, chosen as the favorite by 29% of voters is "Canwesticular."

That definition again:

Canwesticular- pertaining to or describing a great bit of shameless spin.

Please go forth and begin using this term immediately. And while you're at it, you may wish to try on for size a couple of other terms suggested by loyal Sticksers:

Actra Fraturinal: A disease affecting screenwriters whereby they only discuss issues affecting their common welfare when drunk in the bathroom at WGC events. The condition is now largely contained by drugs, blogs and Maureen Parker.

"I tried talking C-10 to that ink-wretch, but they still suffer Actra Fraturinal"

Shawshank: bad advice that, when followed, can destroy an industry.

"Man, that two fund thing the CRTC came up with is a total shawshank."

Um, Yeah.

I GOT BORED. Carry on.

When You're A Jet, You're a Shark...

STRANGELY, THOUGH We come from different worlds and opposite sides of the line, I feel, because we're both currently in prep, like Ken Girotti and I share a bond that is realer than real, and closer than close. For a writer, this kind of how the other half lives should be de rigeur.

By the way, I feel an equal sense of connection with Kate Beckinsale. No, I can't explain it. Must I?

True story: a few weeks ago, I was on set, shooting my first episode of The Border, in a downtown Toronto alley, and down the alley comes Ken. Disoriented, slightly puzzled, definitely bemused. Turns out someone was scouting while I was praying to get a Tiger to deliver the goods for Director Michael DeCarlo.

It was like a little Love Boat cameo. I feel sorry that we couldnt' deliver Charo for you, Ken. But know that in the solidarity of the prep-smashed, I feel your pain...

I've been surprised at times how well badly prepped shows have turned out. Go figure.

I find the more difficult scenario to be the one where you have a script, you've committed to it, you've found all or most of the locations, it's been cast, most of the requisite meetings have taken place...and now you're told on the eve of shooting that a major rewrite is to come. Of course there's always the proviso that production won't be affected because all of the aforementioned elements are already in place, and that the rewrite will stay the course in those areas. But what about my needs? What about the actors' needs? What about all the elements we've put in place...like...I kind of liked that script the way it was (sometimes because I simply had to commit to the material) or, I wanted to shoot that scene with the car on its side and the ambulance guys climbing in the elevated passenger door because it's going to look great in the location we picked? Now what? You mean we're doing the climactic scene in an elevator lobby. Hey, on Law & Order I wouldn't blink...but this ain't...that.

Largely prep on a TV show is about answering everybody's questions...except those of the director. Prep is a series of Q & A sessions with various department heads across the table demanding answers to questions I haven't yet had time to consider or apply in any kind of overarching storytelling way. I'm still trying to figure out what the centre of the story is and I'm already answering detailed questions that will give that centre its shape and feel. It's an odd, counter-intuitive way of doing things. But it's what television is. Perhaps it's that challenge I relish. Or perhaps it's the simple fact that many of the questions I'm asked only require a yes or a no. In that case, whether I know what the hell I'm talking about or not, I have a 50/50 chance of being right. With the wrong answers I can always fall back on the director's prerogative and say I've changed my mind.

E1, Sky Not Falling?

THE TORONTO STAR'S Martin Knelman has the possible positive spin on the "well, guess we better wait and see," merger news I wrote about yesterday.

To anyone not involved in the film business, all this may seem like a bewildering game of chess, or possibly musical chairs. Why should we as mere moviegoers or taxpayers care?

Here's why. The government of Canada invested millions of dollars in Alliance Entertainment, a company founded in the mid-1980s with Loewy and his old friend Robert Lantos among its principals. Prior to its 1998 sale to its chief rival, Atlantis, Alliance was a huge operator that produced major movies and TV shows seen around the world, with huge subsidies from Ottawa.

But after 1998, Alliance Atlantis (as the company was renamed) gradually retreated from the risky business of producing films. Instead the new owners, led by Michael MacMillan, focused on the less dangerous business of acquiring channels.

Then in a controversial deal last year, MacMillan and cohorts sold the company to the New York financial giant Goldman Sachs and its partner CanWest Global (which took over the broadcast empire).

What may be most significant ultimately is that for the first time since 1998, Canada appears to have a strong film company capable of producing movies and TV shows here and selling them to the rest of the world. We can hope.

We certainly can. You know hope, right? It's the thing with feathers.

Little ee cummings shout out for you there.

Vote "Yes" to the WGC Contract Extension: Here's Why

AS HAS BEEN written about here and elsewhere, The Writers Guild of Canada and the Producers' Associations of Quebec (Francais) and the rest of Canada have come to a mutual agreement to extend the IPA -- the basic agreement that covers professional screenwriters in Canada. Approximately 1900 WGC members now have until July 17 to vote Yes or No to ratify the agreement. (All members should have received packages in the mail or in their email; voting can be accessed online on the member only section of the WGC site.)

The terms are very simple: extend the IPA by one year, until December 31, 2009. In exchange, WGC members get a healthy (better than recent) bump in almost all script fees, and a bump in the Production Fee (which is much more significant, because when you actually get something made, that's the bulk of how you get compensated.)

Now why go for a year extension? And why do I say that the script fee increase and terms -- simple though they are -- are better than we probably would have gotten in a negotiation?

Well, it comes down to the very idea of bargaining itself. It is a give and take. In order to gain something, you have to have something the other side wants. For them to give something up, there has to be a compromise.

In this case the compromise is this: neither the WGC nor the Producer's Association can afford to be in bargaining right now. There are several high-profile CRTC hearings and licence renewals that are coming up -- a year and a half cycle that will result in a changed industry. For good, or for ill. The WGC and Producers want to go forward in that process speaking with one voice -- and the idea of fighting over a contract at the same time would be counterproductive in the extreme.

Since the original deal extension was announced, I've heard a bit of grumbling from feature writers, and especially from animation writers. The feature writers are (understandably) upset that the one script fee that doesn't get a bump is theirs. (Though the 3% bump in the Prod Fee is arguably way more significant if your movie gets made.) And animation writers, who were only recently covered under the WGC, were hoping for minimums -- to counteract a market where fees for scripts seem to be shrinking.

It's instructive, I think, to look south for the example of how bargaining actually works. The WGA went on strike for months over internet royalties.

They were also talking about extending coverage to reality and animation, and that never got past the post. It went nowhere, even in the face of their ultimate threat: the witholding of their labour.

I know animation writers deserve minimums; there's not a writer anywhere who will dispute that. When Animation was brought under the WGC agreement, minimums actually might have hurt some writers, because there was a spectrum of fees and once you set a minimum, the people who were earning more than that are going to feel downward pressure because they're "priced out of the going rate."

But understand that minimums for animation is going to be a huge fight: and it's a fight that the WGC isn't going to be able to do alone. In the current climate of fear and with these hearings looming, I think, personally, that any attempt to go in with a bold expansive agenda like that would have gotten smacked back like Venus returning Serena's serve.

For the WGC to take on that fight in the next negotiation, animation writers need to be active, and ready -- and up to now, I haven't seen a lot of that. I've asked a couple of times for animated writers to write in and talk about their work experiences here; there's been silence. I hosted one of Jill Golick's Toronto "Writers Talking TV" events last month on animation. Usually these talks draw anywhere between thirty and forty writers. For the animation discussion and screening, we had about six.

Six.

Animation writers, you need to vote 'Yes' for this deal not just so we've got a shot at a better bargaining position next time; but so you guys can have the time to organize, get on the same page, and find your voice so that the WGC can help you channel it.

I know it's hard, and there's intimidation out there. But really, the quiet Canadian way is going to get us all steamrolled. A fight is tough. You have to be resolved. We have to be serious about it.

Vote yes, and then let's talk about getting serious when the next round comes up near the end of 2009.

As for the feature writers, well, guys, I know it's a drag. But a lot of the same applies. We need to go into negotiation when we're strong, and when we've accomplished something, and when people aren't saying the sky is falling. And I know there's always an element of that in Canadian film and TV -- but with uncertainty piled upon uncertainty right now and a hostile government environment, never mind increases -- I'm pretty sure a full out negotiation at this point would probably involve exactly what the WGA faced -- a significant call for clawbacks.

The entire next two years is a gamble on the viability of this industry. The gamble is going to happen whether you vote yes or not. But if you do vote yes, and the contract is ratified with a great percentage of members in favor, then we will at least demonstrate that we have the resolve to go forward as one. And believe me, that's something.

You have til July 17th. Think it over. And Vote.

Mergeriffic!

THE BIG STORY in Canadian entertainment circles yesterday was this, a big production merger.

Entertainment One swallowed Barna-Alper, Blueprint, Oasis and Lantos' shingle, Maximum Films.

What's the result?

On Monday, the company, once dedicated to wholesale CD sales, said it bought Blueprint Entertainment of Los Angeles and Barna-Alper Productions of Toronto.

It's also taking over TV distributor Oasis International, which has offices in Toronto and L.A., and Maximum Films, a film distributor co-founded a year ago by producer Robert Lantos, who previously created Alliance Communications.

The price was not disclosed, but Entertainment One, or E1 as it likes to call itself, said it will be paid mostly in shares, along with some cash.

"We thought that the television production businesses in the Canadian marketplace... was a great place to go," said Darren Throop, CEO of Entertainment One, in an interview.

"It gives us huge access to an already established catalogue and access to new content."

To be perfectly honest, I've fielded the same phone call four or five times. "What's your take on it?" And from the perspective of the "we who make things" the quick reaction seems to be a bit of a head scratch.

On the one hand, as we've all learned by now, being bigger supposedly makes it easier to compete.

On the other hand, going the bigger and bigger company route in the USA hasn't exactly resutlted in a huge boon and more jobs and better product.

And whispers point to some of the elements in this deal and say, "well, based on that track record, is it going to actually be about making stuff here in Canada?" or is it more like, "how can we access Canadian money and make shows where we want to make them?"

Is this bound to be one of those long-storied Canadian Production stories where the deal was better than the result?

And the whole thing seems to be a precursor to going public. Does stockholder price concern and shareholder responsibility mix well with developing good projects?

And doesn't anyone remember Alliance Atlantis' "permanent downturn" greatest hit from a few years back. You know, how production in Canada was never going to go anywhere. Is that true? False? What? Bueller?

My stars, Beatrice, I just want to write good.

Whatever does it mean? Whatever does it mean?

"I Like Reality TV Because It's So Much Less Predictable Than Those Boring Scripted Shows."

FURTHER TO THAT little Q Reality talk last week...



Uh huh. Fonzie, Meet Shark.

H/T to DJ Eli G

Dancing Matt and the Gatsby Problem

THIS MORNING'S FOOD for thought comes via a piece I first saw on Diane's page yesterday.

Now, upfront I should say that I have a pretty hit-and-miss track record with Internet trends. I'm an early adopter for some, and trailing edge for a growing number of them. It seems like maybe more fit into the latter category with every passing year. That's inevitable, I guess, seeing how busy I've been. I may procrastinate, but I don't have hours to surf YouTube. And then there's that other part, the part of me that rhymes with the phrase, "Sweating Colder."

So I understand if this is old hat to you. But I spent about an hour tossing and turning last night, and another little while over coffee this morning, trying to explain away my reaction to Matt:


Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.

I mean, isn't that just great? I watched that last night about three times all the way through. In a way, I'm glad I didn't discover the earlier videos (he's done two previous versions, in 2005 and 2006) or Harding's internet semi-fame, because to me it's the 2008 edition that packs all the power.

I started with 'why' and my emotional reaction to the piece. The music is extremely effective, of course, but for me the key to the reaction starts with the fast series of shots where all the people join him dancing. I find that section of the video unbelievably moving. I mean, I physically felt like I was going to cry when I hit that point. (I didn't, I mean, Jesus, I'm still a man, and don't you say different, varmint.)

This speaks to me with all that is important and key about video content on the internet: it must punch, and be immediate, and evocative, and most of all -- convey its message in a short, sharp burst.

What is the message? I don't know, exactly. I mean, that's what's great about this, too. At root, it's just a guy dancing. But what does it say about you, how you react to this? What does it say about me? Is it about how small really our world is? Is it about the necessity to connect with other people as best you can? Is it about beauty being where you find it? Is it a different message when passed from country to country? Is it about Carpe Diem? Is it a plea for tolerance? A challenge to find adventure in your life? Or a simple, pure, joyous celebration of what it can and should be like to be alive?

Yes.

It's all of these things.

It occurs to me that TV used to embody a lot of this, too. And not so long ago. When I would watch Sports Night or The West Wing, even though people talked fast about subjects people might have been cynical about (TV, sports, presidential politics) contained in that rapid fire were multiple meanings and emotional states left for you to uncover. You can still find that level of complexity, but largely, it's on cable, in great American dramas like The Sopranos or Six Feet Under or Deadwood, or Mad Men.

The popularity of a few current dramas, among them House, and maybe the most sophisticated of the Law & Orders, Criminal Intent, can rely on that complexity too, at times. But they speak to an older age. A rapidly growing fogey contingent of which I'm increasingly a member.

The other big news (industry news, I mean) that broke while I was snowed under last week, was the greying of the Television Audience.

I don't know who was really caught by surprise by the fact that the dominant TV audience is over 55 and mostly female. But I sure wasn't. And, unfortunately, much like the reaction to Hillary Clinton's flameout candidacy, we who toil in the trenches of TV have a couple of perilous steps ahead of us. Advertisers will be cruel and tell us that that audience -- the audience that does watch TV -- is not relevant. They don't want them. And we are being charged to go ever younger in our appeal. But woe betide us if we anger that audience that actually is there, and watching. They might not vote for us. And then the exodus from TV will become a mass desertion. And then we're cooked. The Hillary supporters, as we've seen, tend to take being marginalized a little personally. (Gee, I wonder why?)

Yet here's a funny thing: the decision makers -- the gatekeepers at networks and elsewhere, are increasingly part of that cohort. Not necessarily female (though they are, to a point) but older. So we have older people obsessed with reaching youth.

I know, I know, I know... it was ever thus. But I don't think that's true, necessarily. I think something's changed and we haven't even begun to face it yet.

In my own writing and career, I'm finding myself stymied in my instincts to pull this younger crowd. Instinctively, I know we're doing things wrong. I look at shows like the CBC's "Maria" Sound of Music contest and the shows that me and my friends work on and I think, "we are not going to hit that younger mark." We are being asked to reach an audience and then actively prevented from structuring stories, and telling them in a way that could have a hope in hell of reaching them.

I joked on Jaime Martin's Macleans blog that it would be five years before the Canadian networks get the message that the audience is over 50. That kind of "news travels slow" feeling is part gallows humor and part defence against a growing, mounting problem: the disconnect in attitude between younger viewers (and I'm not just talking 18-24 here, I'm talking about my cohort, too, 25-39) and the people who are trying to reach them. The decision makers flail and push for safe, and for what's tried and true -- yet keep repeating like some sort of zombie mantra -- "reach a younger audience."

Well we all know the old saw about what it means when you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. That seems to apply everywhere but in Television.

I don't necessarily know what the answer is -- how you do reach and engage that younger audience?

But I can't help but think that maybe it has something to do with Matt.

And so we all dance on...to quote a story of an earlier time that was, in its own way, equally obsessed with youth:

"tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther....And one fine morning----- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."