Rumo(u)rs Good & Bad

I'VE HEARD FROM more than four separate sources now -- one from within Telefilm -- that Telefilm has been told that the New Media Fund will cease to exist as of March 2009. For anyone counting, that's yet another attack on the arts by the current Canadian government, made without consultation or debate.

Things look really peachy for the future of the CTF, doesn't it?

2500 people marched in Montreal yesterday to protest against the cuts and the lack of consultation. The Heritage Committee has planned a meeting for next week. But it's likely that it will never happen since any election call will pre-empt it, and the word from everywhere fast and furiously is that that election call will come next Thursday.

Harper's already said he expects another Minority, but the poll signs in Quebec are encouraging enough to take the gamble.

This government's open hostility to anyone who works in the creative fields is unprecedented. And then there's the war on Elections Canada. Government Departments. Doctors over Medical Ethics. The Press. The Government without a strong mandate is about to cost us 300 million dollars for nothing. It's incredible. The continued ability of Canadians to just shutup and take it, no matter what, to never be roused by anything, ever (and to continue to tsk tsk tsk about the Americans' many faults at the same time) makes me increasingly ill. What does it take?

On the Dead Things front, the sideboard poll about commenting was illuminating. I wish I hadn't written it as I was rushing off to do something else, because the poorly worded first choice made it seem like I was trolling for praise when I really wasn't. Still, it bears noting that nearly 30% of respondents agreed that the main reason they didn't comment was because they were fearful of being identified, or of suffering "reprecussions" for speaking out.

I don't know if these were people who voted that way or not, but I also got ten emails from people apologizing (of course, they're Canadian) and saying they'd like to comment, but they work somewhere where people might guess it was them blah blah blah.

To be honest, I don't know what to say about this anymore.

For three years I've been told the same thing. And certainly, there's plenty of stuff that can't be said in a blog like this. There's much that is openly discussed about shows or production companies or business practices that are happening right now, that I know about and a lot of you probably know about too - and we can't talk about it. For one reason or another, but usually coming back to the same reason in the end: the industry's too damn small.

Yet these things are all related. A combination of cowed fear and timidity and apathy defines the arts in this country. We're in the position we're in with this goverment because we take it. Because we make our case badly. Because we're either out of touch with the people, or allow others to say we're out of touch with the people. And we can't really discover which of those things is the truth, because we can't talk about that either. We leave attacks unanswered and we let others -- too few others -- do our fighting for us.

We don't have money or access to the halls of power. Yet we don't speak out because we fear, what? That what little influence we have will be further eroded?

Well guess what? That time is here.

A bunch of writers went to the CRTC last year to defend creative workers in this country and they were met with contempt from the bench. Yet they spoke for you.

This government cancels programs without consultation, and dares us to resist and -- except, always, in Quebec -- there are crickets and they know they can get away with it.

Please don't send me emails about how you'd love to comment, but you're afraid. Everyone's afraid. Everyone has something to lose. Suit up and wear a cup, or accept what comes after. You don't get to whine behind the sidelines anymore.

In about a month, most likely 60 percent or more of the electorate will stand up and say that they do not want the Conservatives to govern. And yet govern they will.

So it goes. So nothing changes. Because the mice refuse to squeak.

It's depressing and funny at once.

I said there was a good rumour in there so here it comes:

In a boardroom at TFS yesterday, three of the biggest comedy showrunners in Canada got together to discuss a project. Could the next Corner Gas be gestating there?

Let's hope so.

I got a feeling we could all use the laugh.

You Don't Need Me to Depress You! You Can Let Stephen Bochco Do That!

FROM A STEPHEN BOCHCO profile article in Forbes. (H/T to Caroline) -- think of this as sort of a mint to the ageism discussion some of my fine colleagues have weighed in on:

Between Hill Street Blues and LA Law, among others, you raised the bar for all network drama, and now here you are on cable. Why the move?

I think the broadcast television universe has kind of, on a certain level, devolved, if you will. It's overrun with the kinds of programming that I'm simply not good at or have any interest in doing: reality programming and very sort of fantastical concepts. I'm more of a reality-grounded drama guy.

For that reason alone, I find myself drifting from broadcast television. There's just not a lot of room in that world for what I do. Additionally, the working environment in broadcast television has really shifted radically over the last half a dozen years or so.

How so?

Well, we used to be pretty much left alone to do our jobs--and we did those jobs pretty well. We didn't always succeed, you can't guarantee a hit, but we knew what we were doing.

But broadcast networks today tend to so micromanage every single aspect of production that it's an impossible chore. You really sort of become a moment-to-moment warrior in defense of the show you're doing, and it's very hard to do it. If you don't give them what they think it should be creatively, they'll get rid of you. I find that the cable environment, because it's much more of a boutique environment, is much more respectful of what we do.

The flip side of that is you're working on a cable budget (about $2 million per episode rather than broadcast's $2.5 million or more). How do you make that work without sacrificing good content?

I think you do sacrifice something. You know, you figure out how to make adjustments. Fundamentally, you're still telling complex stories with interesting characters, and you're raising complex questions. What you may have to give up on here, and there is a certain level of production value, which if you do what we hope we're doing well is something the viewer won't actually miss.

This is a show which because of budget constraints really doesn't allow us to go outside very much. So it's an interior show. But because it's a courtroom drama, you sort of belong inside. I haven't seen to many outdoor courtrooms.

We're all making Canadian Television now.

Will People Walk Down The Halls Really Fast While Poking Each Other?

GOT THIS ONE through Sepinwall.

Lord help us, seems like Aaron Sorkin is writing a movie about Facebook. And so... he's on Facebook.

The real Aaron Sorkin.

Ulp.

From the group intro:

Welcome. I'm Aaron Sorkin. I understand there are a few other people using Facebook pages under my name--which I find more flattering than creepy--but this is me. I don't know how I can prove that but feel free to test me.

I've just agreed to write a movie for Sony and producer Scott Rudin about how Facebook was invented. I figured a good first step in my preparation would be finding out what Facebook is, so I've started this page. (Actually it was started by my researcher, Ian Reichbach, because my grandmother has more Internet savvy than I do and she's been dead for 33 years.)

Some of you might be familiar with some things I've written. I'm the author of two Broadway plays--A Few Good Men and The Farnsworth Invention, five feature films--A Few Good Men, The American President, Malice, Charlie Wilson's War and The Trial of the Chicago 7 which is in pre-production, and three television series--Sports Night, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and the first four seasons of The West Wing.

I honestly don't know how this works, which is why I'm here. If anyone has any questions I'd be happy to answer them as best I can. If anyone has any comments I'm glad to listen. And if anyone has any Facebook stories I think they might be helpful.

Aaron Sorkin and the Internet. It's a well of goodness that just keeps right on giving.

I have to admit, I'm intrigued by the idea of the Facebook movie.

Will there be long, passionate speeches about the intrinsic value of buying and selling your friends?

Will the plucky computer social networking heroes be menaced by vampires and zombies and werewolves halfway through? Because I'd pay ten bucks to see that.

Will a couple scenes be devoted to creepy people you don't know coming up and being your friend?

Will the marketing campaign be built somehow around not being able to actually see the movie before inviting 20 of your friends?

The mind boggles.

And wait a second, didn't we already see a movie about Facebook ?



Or, um, this?



Good Luck anyway, Aaron. Watch out for the muu-muus.

I Was Lost But Now I'm Found

AT THE RISK of setting major bad precedent, in the comments section of the previous post on the NYTimes article on J.J. Abrams, a commenter named Chris had this to say:

I call bull. They have changed Lost so many times it is now a confusing mess, too many questions left unanswered and to say they always knew what they were going to do, is crap.

I answered him and tried to contextualize a bit what the article was going for -- but Chris was not appeased.

Saying "knowing the goal posts but being able to move them" is a copout. They have zigged too many times for me to believe them anymore. One example, 'Ben' was supposed to be a 3 eps role. Now he has spent two seasons as the main bad guy? I agree the flashforwards were a brilliant idea, but I know for a fact that was not planned at the beginning, therefore changing many storylines. I think I'm pissed off because I loved Lost so much I feel cheated.

I found Chris' comment interesting on a few levels -- and started answering, and at some point the comment became so long that I thought, "hey, free post!" So don't feel singled out here, Chris. Thanks for sparking.

Chris, you have me at a disadvantage here because I don't really know anything about you.

But based on your take on this I'm going to make the bold prediction that you're not a working television writer.

This blog, and just about everything in it, is written from that perspective.

So while I understand the fan point of view that might think that being able to "move the goalposts" is a cop out, the primary audience I'm talking to understands that it's actually an on-the-job necessity. The only way around it would be to know at the outset that you were guaranteed 48, or 88, or 102 episodes and out. And the business just doesn't work that way.

And your point about Ben, in fact, is the thing that delineates most clearly the wide gulf between the way a writer needs to approach a show, and the way a viewer approaches a show.

See, to a writer working on LOST, seeing those first dailies come back on Ben had to have been the most satisfying, electrifying experience imaginable. Because so often it goes the other way. You cast someone for a key role, and they don't really deliver -- a combo of they messed up and you messed up, or maybe it was just one of those things beyond everyone's control. Anyway, when that happens, often you have to junk the whole plot. Which is why threads get dropped and friends disappear on shows.

But sometimes, a great actor steps up and surprises you.

On The West Wing, Janel Moloney had such chemistry with Bradley Whitford, that what was supposed to be a minor role was bumped up - and an actress that was supposed to be a major part of the show got shuffled out.

And when they saw those dailies come back on Ben, I bet they whooped -- and chattered their way back to the story room full of high-wire excitement. "Oh My God," they said. "How do we write more for this guy?" "What if, what if..."

See, Drama TV is a quirkly little art form. The only thing I can think to compare it to is writing a story in serial form for print, which doesn't happen very much anymore. That's how Charles Dickens wrote most of his books, which is why his stories have such well-drawn and memorable minor characters.

Before I seriously turned to writing, while I was still in high school, in fact, Rolling Stone Magazine serialized an early Draft of Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of The Vanities. I read it chapter to chapter, and then immediately devoured the book when it came out in Hardcover. The differences between the two forms were illuminating and incredibly interesting, both from the point of view of the art, and from the point of view of the craft. It upended the usual process of a reader reading a book in its finished form. Because the finished Bonfire was quite a bit different than the serialized, publish as you go version.

And yet in another way, it wasn't that different at all. Wolfe knew where he was going, if not precisely how he was going to get there.

In metaphorical terms, it's that thing that drives women crazy sometimes when the guy in the front seat next to them insists they're not lost. In his mind, they're not, because he knows the direction they're going in, and roughly where they are, and where they need to be. And the woman's POV is "do you know exactly where you are RIGHT NOW? No? Then we are LOST."
(Gentle readers, I'll stipulate the stuff about this being gender stereotyping, ok? I got to watch about 25 years of this from the back seat, and have experienced roughly another five or ten from the driver's seat. I'll agree that I'm stereotyping, if you agree that we're just gonna let this one slide by and not get bogged down in a sidebar, k?)

Now, Chris -- you're the woman in this scenario.

(I think I just heard about 40 thousand Hillary Clintonistas snap their pencils in half. heh heh. I am such a bad, bad man.)

Anyhoo, the great, high wire act of TV is that unlike film where it's all done and in the can, and posted and release dates picked out and whatever, whatever -- most TV is on the air at the same time as later chapters are being made. It makes for a radically different level of engagement, and it requires a radically different type of writer. You have to be someone who can let go of what was in your head if you see something that's better. You have to know how far you're deviating off the beam, and when to bring it back. The LOST writers have been more candid then most about when and how they got off the beam. (Pablo and whats-her-name?) And in our shark-jumping age, the coolest thing is seeing people through the work, find the rhythm again and bring it back.

Hopefully HEROES gets to do something similar. I've said before that my favorite part of the BSG podcasts is how freely Ronald Moore cops to when a mistake was made in the writing.

TV series are invented beasts, made as you go along by craftspeople, all who you hope are working at the top of their game. But it's also a machine, and that rolling, 25 or 50 million dollar machine makes compromises along the way. The best shows seize on their happy accidents, and hopefully find a way to bury and overcome their shortcomings.

In a way, Chris, what you've stumbled into here is the other side of what I was talking about a long time ago when I talked about how what happens in the room has to stay in the room, and how writer/creators need to stay out of fan forums, no matter how tempting it is to go there. (And no matter how many times you may slip and do it anyway. I was raised Catholic, so hell -- you confess and say a novena and vow to do better next time.)

Just as the fan reaction to stories and to shows should be pure -- and overlord writers shouldn't wade in there and try to tamp opinion or blunt it by "sharing their knowledge," fans who take craft points they don't understand and use them to justify why they didn't like something can seem foolish, if they're not careful. Just because someone says they have evidence that we never walked on the moon or that men walked with dinosaurs doesn't make them, well, credible.

In a way, we were all a little bit better off when it wasn't so easy to see the man behind the curtain. Which is exactly the implication of what Abrams was saying in the Times article.

The moment in that article where I reeled back and realized, "wow, so much really HAS changed" was when Abrams was talking about Star Wars. I haven't thought about it this way, but yeah, back then we really did wait three whole years to find out if Darth Vader was telling the truth about being Luke's father. That boggles the mind now, in the era of 24/7 spoiler sites, where I can have instant access to Lindsay Lohan's dental records if I want them. No wonder the complexity has amped up.

And yet, and yet, and yet -- all this knowledge doesn't lead to happiness. You knowing that Ben was supposed to be in 3 episodes didn't make you like the show more - it in fact did the opposite.

That's why those who manage the information flow about projects like masters -- and Abrams is definitely in that realm -- have my undying admiration.

Of course, you're free to think that LOST sucks, and you're free to say it here. Just don't be surprised if people like me disagree with you. It's not that we don't respect your opinion. It's just that we look at it in a very different way. You think LOST is lost -- and we know that getting a little lost is just how you find your way to the final destination in your head.

Gemini Erratta

IT WAS POINTED out to me by a couple of people yesterday that I wrote the following:

Border co-creator Janet MacLean was also nominated -- though not for The Border.

Which of course isn't true. See, as the co-creator of the series and one of the Producers, her work was recognized in The Border's Best Series nomination. Which is, of course, entirely appropriate.

I have fired my Stickstitian. We regret the error.

Complexity Without Commitment

THIS IS NOW a little late, too -- but in case you missed it, Dave Itzkoff had a very high-value writer-wonky preview of J.J. Abrams Fringe in the NYTimes last Sunday. What really caught my eye were a couple of paragraphs about the balancing act of serial vs. standalone elements, and what Abrams has learned over the years. This is exactly the stuff that everybody creating series after J.J. has to deal with now, because, let's face it -- to some extent his shows created the taste in the audience that demands complexity....sometimes.

IF you’ve ever been utterly baffled by a television show that J. J. Abrams had a hand in creating — too confused to follow the serpentine plot twists of “Lost” or “Alias” or, heck, even “Felicity” — know that Mr. Abrams, the prolific writer, producer and director, has been annoyed too. With you.

I just got tired of hearing people say to me, over and over, ‘Yeah, I was watching it, but I missed one, I got really confused, and I stopped watching it,’ ” he said in a recent phone interview.

“The evolution from your ideas and expectations and intent to what actually occurs in the series is a massive gulf,” Mr. Abrams said. “It’s a best-effort scenario. But I think that’s what a series is anyway.”

The solution to such narrative puzzles, Mr. Abrams and his colleagues said, is to have a game plan with clearly defined goalposts that can be moved around as a season and a series unfold. Know the ending to your series when you begin it; hope your show continues in perpetuity but always be prepared to wrap it up. (In this spirit the producers of “Lost” announced last year that the series would conclude at the end of its sixth season, in 2010.)

In the case of “Fringe” its creators say they have figured out a finale — naturally, they declined to describe it — that could be deployed at any point in the series. “If we’re canceled at Episode 13,” Mr. Orci said, “we’ll tell you at Episode 13, and if we go on, you could literally find this out in seven years.”

Recollections differ as to how much of the increasingly complicated “Fringe” story line was pitched to executives at Warner Brothers and at Fox when the series was ordered. “You always have to be on the up and up with your studio and your network,” Mr. Burk said. “There’s too much at stake, and they’re taking the biggest gamble.”

But Mr. Abrams cautioned against too much candor. “There are certain details that are hugely important,” he said with some mirth, “that I believe, if shared, will destroy any chance of actually getting on the air. These are the kinds of things that scare people away.”

The whole article (link above) is well worth your time.

Blighty-Border

WOW LOTS OF STUFF today.

Just announced -- FX in the UK has picked up THE BORDER:

Produced by Toronto-based White Pine Pictures in association with Canadian pubcaster the CBC, the 26-part skein will premiere on FX in the U.K. next spring, alongside such U.S. imports as “Dexter,” “The Wire” and “24.”

Starring James McGowan and Sofia Milos (“CSI Miami”), the series follows the members of an elite immigration security unit.

In Canada, the CBC has already ordered a second season after the show premiered to strong ratings in January.

Skein also has been licensed to France, Belgium, Luxembourg and South Korea, with Germany’s Beta Film picking up the rights to continental Europe excluding French-speaking territories. Broadcast agreements are also in place for Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.

Flashpoint Redux

AND I'M DEFINITELY last on the log on this one, but congrats to Flashpoint for getting an early -- deserved -- pickup for 13 more from CTV.

Andrew Ryan in the Globe has the skinny here.

Golick thinks you should spec it. Not a bad idea.

Dept of Heritage Emergency meeting, 1pm EST

APPARENTLY the Heritage Committee of the House of Commons has scheduled an emergency meeting for 1pm today to take up the issue of the over 40 million dollars in Arts Funding cuts being dropped by the Conservative government.

It might be worth a moment of your time to flood them with an email or two before then. Be passionate but calm. Speak of economic impact, and remind them that the arts employs over 600 000 people in this country, and is a multi billion dollar industry.

And if you happen to know your MP is Conservative, remind them that the Arts is actually big politics in Quebec.

You know, the place they're trying to troll for more seats....

H/t to Margaret Dinsdale (via Ink Canada)


HERITAGE COMMITTTEE MEMBERS:

Denis Coderre Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca
Gary Schellenberger schelg1@parl.gc.ca
Andy Scott Scott.A@parl.gc.ca
Jim Abbott Abbott.J@parl.gc.ca
Ed Fast faste@parl.gc.ca
Luc Malo Malo.L@parl.gc.ca
Bill Siksay Siksay.B@parl.gc.ca
Michael D. Chong Chong.M@parl.gc.ca
Dean Del Mastro delmad@parl.gc.ca
Hedy Fry fry.h@parl.gc.ca
Francis Scarpaleggia scarpf@parl.gc.ca
Jim Prentice Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca

(T)here are the over 600,000 Canadian artists and other cultural workers who help to brand Canada to the world and inject over $43 billion annually into the Canadian economy." - JOSEPH L. ROTMAN, CHAIR, CANADA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS

"Both PromArt and Trade Routes are modest programs, but remain crucial to Canada’s art and cultural sector. These programs have a high return on their investment and some estimate the return on investment ratio is as high as 10 to 1.... Public funding for the arts is a proven economic and cultural stimulus that the majority of Canadians embrace." - PEGGY NASH, MP, LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER

"Canada must compete in the Global Entertainment and Cultural economy. And the competition is well-armed and very aggressive. Brits and Swedes travel to Japan annually to sell music. The Americans have the "biggest" (of course) stand at MIDEM. And everyone sings in English. Federal funding provides a bridge to markets which we couldn't otherwise access...the recent returns, both in terms of artist recognition and economic benefits have far outweighed the small amounts invested by the Federal government. Now the Chinese are in the game, we are looking at the largest market in the world, with fewer resources to reach it." - DUNCAN McKIE, PRESIDENT/CEO, CANADIAN INDEPENDENT RECORD PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION (CIRPA)

"Cultural investment pays off in jobs! It pays off in royalties earned from foreign territories! It's GOOD BUSINESS." - DAVID BASSKIN, PRESIDENT/CEO, CANADIAN MUSICAL REPRODUCTION RIGHTS ASSOCIATION LTD. (CMRRA)

"I put on gigs here in Sheffield, England and have had several Canadian acts play over the last 18 months. We've had some great nights and I know a large part of these shows having happened is the support the artists have had from your government enabling them to tour. Many have played to new listeners and helped broaden their fanbase, making connections that simply wouldn't have happened without the support they received." - CRAIG ALLEN, MUSIC PROMOTER, SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

"To sabotage investments in culture that generate money for the economy not to mention what it generates for the soul, is not only scary in what it says for the future of culture in this country, but it is also simply gross economic mismanagement." - HEATHER MORGAN, alt.COUNTRY MUSICIAN

"These programmes are defensible on two important grounds. One, they pay for themselves in promoting Canadian music and arts abroad; Canadian music alone has returned millions to the Treasury thanks to the success our artists have achieved around the world. Secondly, they give the world a picture of this country as something more than hewers of wood and exporters of oil and harvesters of wheat." - RICHARD FLOHIL, PUBLICIST/PROMOTER, LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER

"The often relatively small amounts granted under (the PromArt and Trade Routes) programs have had a leverage effect for many artists and organizations as they sought support to develop markets abroad, contribute to our national image and lend valued support to other general trade development efforts of our missions abroad. At the time of writing, there is no clear indication that the government intends to replace these programs with more performing ones." - CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF THE ARTS BULLETIN 27/08

"Government money is pump-priming money. Success breeds success. The irony is, if you double the grant to an arts body, you probably end up doubling the amount of private giving to it as well, because people say, 'I want to invest in something that has the backing of government'... From my point of view, the arts don't win or lose you an election, but I think the arts are a powerful voice." - ED VAIZEY, CONSERVATIVE, BRITISH OPPOSITION CULTURE CRITIC (in the National Post)

For Those Who Care About The Numbers Game

FROM THE PRESS RELEASE:

"Canadian drama leads the 2008 Gemini Award nominations with Murdoch
Mysteries receiving 14 nominations followed closely by Durham County with 13
nominations; The Tudors and The Englishman's Boy received 12 nominations each.
News information series the fifth estate received 11 nominations, while The
Border and CBC News: The National tied with 9 nominations. The TV mini-series
Would Be Kings received 8 nominations and Across the River to Motor City and
Mayerthorpe each received 7. Marketplace, ReGenesis, Rent-A-Goalie and Cowboy
Junkies - Trinity Revisited all amassed 6 nominations."



I promise. Last Gemini post today.

Gemini Impressions

FULL GEMINI NOMINATIONS are now up at www.geminis.ca .

(Thanks to Will and Jim for noticing that the link I had went to a horoscope site. D'oh.)

The Best Comedy Noms were:

Cock'd Gunns
(Tricon Films & Television)
Andrea Gorfolova, Brooks Gray, Andy King, Shaam Makan, Leo Scherman, Morgan Waters

Corner Gas
(Prairie Pants Productions Inc., Vérité Films, 335 Productions)
David Storey, Brent Butt, Mark Farrell, Virginia Thompson, Kevin White

Kenny vs. Spenny
(Breakthrough Films & Television, Blueprint Entertainment)
Ira Levy, Abby Finer, Noreen Halpern, Kenny Hotz, Amy Marcella, John Morayniss, Trey Parker, Spencer Rice, Kirsten Scollie, Matt Stone, Peter Williamson

Odd Job Jack
(Smiley Guy Studios)
Jonas Diamond, Adrian Carter, Jeremy Diamond, Denny Silverthorne

Rent-A-Goalie
(RAG-TV-2 Inc.)
Chris Szarka, Christopher Bolton

This Hour Has 22 Minutes
(Hour Productions XV Inc.)
Michael Donovan, Geoff D'Eon, Mark Farrell, Jack Kellum, Susan MacDonald, Jenipher Ritchie

Strikes me as odd that Mosque didn't make that list, but whatevs. Nice to see RAG up there -- and with a writing nom for my man G.Manson, too. Dope!

Then there's the fine actors of The Border -- Jonas Chernick, James McGowan, and Catherine Disher -- all recognized for their fine and dependable performances. And the ensemble cast of Rent-A-Goalie, deservedly nominated for best ensemble.

Border co-creator Janet MacLean was also nominated -- though not for The Border. She snagged a writing nomination for Murdoch Mysteries. And believe it or not, I actually did MISS the first time through that I scored a nom for Across The River To Motor City, along with my collaborators Robert Wertheimer and Jocelyn Cornforth. Awesome! Across the River also scored a nomination for Best Dramatic Miniseries. (Although someone seems to have left off the Co-Executive Producer from the Producer names. Shhhurely some mishtake?) David Greene was also recognized for his beautiful DOP work on ATR, too.

There's other stuff in there too that I'm sure shall be pondered over -- like no Comedy writing noms for Mosque or Gas -- wha?

...and I'm also chuffed to see that the great Dmitry Chepovetsky, who will ALWAYS be my Maverick from Top Gun! The Musical, was recognized for his winning and offbeat performance as Nikolai Tesla in an episode of Murdoch Mysteries...

...And Bayo Akinfemi, who made my second Border episode, Family Values, so memorable last year. Would have been nice to see the kid in that ep, Isiah, get a nom, too -- but I have a feeling he'll have plenty of hardware in his future.

Anyway, that's my first impressions. Congrats to Alan McCullogh and Meredith Vuchnich, two writers I know on their Drama series writing nods -- and also Laurie Finstad Khniznik -- who picked up much deserved love for Durham County.

What do you all think?

23rd Geminis: The Writing Noms

WHICH IS, OF course, what we care about most here in Sticksville:

Best Writing in a Children's or Youth Program or Series

Emily Andras - Instant Star - Like A Virgin

Dennis Jackson - Wapos Bay - The Guardians

Bob McDonald - Heads Up! - What Will Cars Look Like In The Future?

Terry McGurrin - 6Teen - Silent Butt Deadly

Robert Pincombe, Shelley Hoffman, Karen Moonah - Iggy Arbuckle - There's Something about Berries/Idle Worship


Best Writing in a Comedy or Variety Program or Series

Brooks Gray, Andy King, Leo Scherman, Morgan Waters - Cock'd Gunns - Ready, Aim, Fire

Graeme Manson - Rent-A-Goalie - Everybody's A Fag

Paul Mather, Irwin Barker, Greg Eckler, Chris Finn, Rick Mercer, Tim Steeves - Rick Mercer Report - Episode 8

Adam Reid, Max Reid - Billable Hours - One Hit Wonder

Jennifer Whalen, Andrew Bush, Gavin Crawford, Mark Critch, Nathan Fielder, Geri Hall, Albert Howell, Dean Jenkinson, Tim McAuliffe, Gary Pearson, Kyle Tingley - This Hour Has 22 Minutes - Episode 3


Best Writing in a Documentary Program or Series

Denis Blaquiere - Mars Rising - Search For Life

Neil Docherty - Darfur: On Our Watch

Steve Lucas - The Dark Years - Episode 1

Terence McKeown, John Zaritsky - The Suicide Tourist

Paul Myers - Long John Baldry: In the Shadow of the Blues


Best Writing in a Dramatic Program or Mini-Series

Paul Gross, John Krizanc - The Trojan Horse

Esta Spalding, Tassie Cameron - Would Be Kings

Robert Wertheimer, Jocelyn Cornforth, Denis McGrath - Across the River to Motor City

Gerald Wexler, Howard Wiseman, Joe Wisenfeld - St. Urbain's Horseman

Andrew Wreggitt - Mayerthorpe


Best Writing in a Dramatic Series

Laurie Finstad Knizhnik - Durham County - What Lies Beneath

Michael Hirst - The Tudors - Episode 108

Janet MacLean - Murdoch Mysteries - Til Death Do Us Part

Alan McCullough - Stargate: Atlantis - Tabula Rasa

Meredith Vuchnich - ReGenesis - La Consecuencia


Best Writing in an Information Program or Series

Gillian Findlay - the fifth estate - Overboard

Linden MacIntyre - the fifth estate - Brian Mulroney: The Unauthorized Chapter

Colin McNeil - Crime Stories - The Laser Man

Barbara Shearer - Pretty Dangerous - Elena Kiejliches

Andrew Younghusband - Canada's Worst Driver 3 - Road Test

Gemini Nominations

THE TOP GEMINI AWARDS nominations were just announced on 680 News here in Toronto. Didn't catch all of them, but was able to here that the nominees for Best Dramatic Series were,

THE BORDER
INTELLIGENCE
THE TUDORS
THE MURDOCH MYSTERIES
DURHAM COUNTY

That's a pretty good field, though I'm sure some will quibble about The Tudors.

I also heard that David Fox was honored with a nom for his lead performance in my show, Across The River To Motor City. Awesome!

More to come, I guess, when the rest of the noms are up.

Where the Current of History Meets This New Tide of Hope.

“And you know, what struck me when I first met Barack was that even though he had this funny name, even though he’d grown up all the way across the continent in Hawaii, his family was so much like mine.

He was raised by grandparents who were working class folks just like my parents, and by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills just like we did. Like my family, they scrimped and saved so that he could have opportunities they never had themselves.

And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”

“All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be. That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack’s journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope. That is why I love this country."

That's writing and rhetoric, kids.

You Will Be Shocked By How Much It Didn't Happen.

WITH ONE WORD, "Don..." Mad Men takes the interesting-but-character building take it's had over the last couple weeks, drops the clutch and stretches the hell out for a muscular cruise down the drama highway. And how cool was it that last night's ep was credited to Robin Veith, the staff writer who pops up engagingly in the Season One interviews on the Box set -- a clear protege to Matthew Weiner.

See, folks, once upon a time in the TeeVee business, that's what you did. You encouraged and trained people.

But that's neither here nor there. I don't know whether it's a quick look at the calendar, and the sickening and cruel realization that Labor Day is as early as it can be this year -- September 1; or the pomp and whizzing lo-jockeys from the Beijing Closing Ceremonies I caught in five minute bursts of trying to show my parents how to work their new tv...but I think the implication is pretty clear: it's time to stick a fork in the summer.

And looking ahead, what do we have? A disturbing, almost gut-wrenching lack of buzz ahead.

Oh sure, there's new stuff. I've seen the first two eps of True Blood, and will have some stuff to say about that closer to the airdate.

But as for the other stuff?

Hmm. We'll see.

On the other hand, I did think The Dark Knight was surprisingly meaty for a comic book movie. Right around the time I started thinking "this is getting to be too long, " it pulled me back in and got way more interesting. Yup. That's me. Trailing edge all the way.

This week my drama shifts to the Democratic National Convention. Oh, yes, I know, the cooler than school kids may giggle and gufffaw and say, "politics nerd," but the reality is that if you're a TV writer, scripted or no - the drama on the floor in Denver is the place to be this week. Watch closely and you could learn a thing or two about performance, and the supple nature of the language.

There's so few places to see rhetoric today. Deft turns of phrase and cadence and echo that you can only see in a great bit of public speaking. And nobody does rhetoric like the Americans. Well, the British. But they don't do it nearly as much anymore either.

Canadians will carp from the sidelines as they usually do. No matter. I'll be listening to the cadence of voice and music of words.

It'll be like going to the symphony.

And as for the Olympics? Psshaw. You'll be shocked by how much it didn't happen.

Things To Ponder on the Culture

I JUST DON'T HAVE the energy to do a big, pull-it-all-together Jim Henshaw-style post right now. So instead I'm just going to point you to the various pieces that had me thinking.

First, let's move a bit to context. It's no secret that politicians often feel freer to say what they really think when they get out of office. Even still, I was struck by the candor of the criticism by former PM Jean Chretien in the Globe and Mail the other day.

What's funnier is that Marcus Gee responded with a feel good, Canada-does-matter retort piece the next day. In there was a line I found particularly interesting:

Canada may not be the world's heaviest hitter, but it's not Togo, either. A member of the Group of Seven, it has the world's ninth-biggest economy. A reputation for fair dealing has made us a respected voice in the world – when we choose to speak. Canada spoke up about racism in South Africa and played a leading role in ending apartheid.

Which may or may not be true. But here's something else that's true: in five months living and working in Cape Town, South Africa, I got to have many, many conversations with South Africans -- black, white, and "colored" (their term) about the end of apartheid.

Never once did Canada come up.

And they knew I was there working on a Canadian co-production.

You know what did come up? The United States, especially when Reagan died. Reagan was not a beloved figure in South Africa, thanks to his dragging heels on apartheid.

Gee's "aw shucks, people really want to hear what Canada has to say" is exactly the same kind of myopic pap that feeds Canadians' collective ego. And the cancellation of the programs promoting Canadian artists abroad is exactly the opposite action to take if you, like Gee, want to feel comfortable in that "everybody loves Canada" bubble.

But then again, the Tories don't seem to mind putting fiscal prudence, common sense, or even science behind the all-important ideology.

For my money, the juice of what Chretien had to say was this:

Mr. Chrétien said Canada has to keep in mind that it is too small a global player to hector the Chinese or try to hurt them with boycotts.

"We have to live with reality," he said. "It's 1.3 billion people, and I'm telling you that they are moving fast. You think that Canada is very important in the world? I remember when I was going to China … the press saying: 'Mr. Chrétien, you have to tell the president of China to do this and do that.' Oh really?

"You want me to the tell the president of a country of 1.3 billion people you should do this and do that, but I don't dare to say what to do to the premier of Sask.? You have to put things in perspective."

Speaking to reporters afterward, Mr. Chrétien continued his fusillade. "We are at the bottom of the ladder in terms of having any influence with China. Ask any businessman who has been to China, and he will tell you the same thing."

Whenever anyone says anything vaguely like this -- it pierces the orthodoxy of Canadian thought. And the counter-reaction comes swiftly, as it did in the Globe & Mail editorial, and the Gee piece. It's still rippling.

The funny thing, of course, is that the very people who'll bitch loudest about "yousspending orrr txxxxdllllrs" n arts, also usually think that Canada is loved and talked about and respected to heck out there in the world.

Ignorance is bliss, truly.

Next, amidst the gaping silence offered by Josee Verner, who has managed in her short tenure as Culture Minister to make Bev Oda look like Sheila Copps, the Ontario and Quebec culture ministers made the important point that the "boondoggle" of the Arts is actually big fucking business in this country.

The culture sector plays a vital role in the Canadian economy. In Quebec and Ontario, the sector contributes close to $30 billion to both provinces’ GDP, which represents 68 per cent of the national cultural sector. The sector also employs roughly 616,000 people across the country of whom 68 per cent call Quebec and Ontario home.

Culture is one of Canada’s fastest growing economic sectors. It’s spin-off benefits include growth and diversification in tourism and local economies, and skills development for the knowledge economy. Investing in our home-grown talent on the international stage encourages foreign investment, opens new markets for export and promotes our country as a cultural tourism destination.

And there was an increasing indication -- leaked no doubt from the Conservatives -- that part of this arts funding money is being redirected toward amateur sport.

Don't believe the hype, chickens. In fact, though he couldn't manage to go to the games, seems like the PM is learning a thing or two from China.

The Harper government says the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony must reflect its agenda as the price of its $20-million commitment to the event, an internal government briefing memo says.

The memo, marked secret and released under an access-to-information request, describes the role of the Canadian government in wording that appears to mix politics and sports, despite widespread criticism of China for politicizing the Beijing Olympics.

"The Minister has recently confirmed with VANOC in writing that the Department of Canadian Heritage intends to invest $20-million toward the opening ceremony of the Olympic Winter Games in order to ensure that the event adequately reflects the priorities of the Government and helps to achieve its domestic and international branding goals," the memo says.

No, this wasn't an issue for the Calgary 1988 games. Thanks for asking.

Seems like if you want to have yourself an opening ceremonies in 2010, you gotta push the old Conservative line, too. Or take your place on the enemies list.

That list is getting mighty long.

This video comes to me courtesy of Camilla, a friend of mine who stretches every penny to try and make the arts mean something to one corner of Canadian culture. Yeah, it's not the funniest one of these -- but it's Friday and I'm deaf in one ear. My entertainment threshold is a little low.



Have a good weekend.

Which Way to the Intuitive Counter, Please?

JAIME WEINMAN does his usual thoughtful job on a posting about the reason why mixing old and new characters on revival shows rarely work.

...there are two big, interconnected problems with bringing the original characters onto a revival, even in small or recurring parts. One is that the old characters are so well-established that the new characters, by definition not established yet, can look bad.

The other is that disconnected from the original cast, the original characters don’t seem that great any more.

Here’s a weird comparison to 90210 but one that fits: Remember that WKRP revival that MTM produced for syndication in the early ’90s? The idea behind that show was that it was the same station with mostly new characters, but three characters from the original came back as regulars. The revival didn’t work for a whole bunch of reasons, but there were two things that went through my head when I watched it: one, that the presence of the familiar old characters made the new characters seem even worse by comparison, and two, the familiar old characters weren’t funny any more because they depended on their interactions with the other original characters to make them funny.

This is one reason that spinoffs are so hard to do, that when you remove a beloved character from his surroundings, he’s no longer the same character. Joey on his own show was a terrible character because ten years’ worth of writing for Joey had been based on the presence of characters who weren’t there.

Jaime's nailed it there, I think, but at the same time, I think back to a session I had years ago with Peter Casey, one of the Writer/Creators of Frasier (and before that, Wings.)

He talked at length about the process of setting up Frasier. There's brilliance, of course, in the idea that Frasier came from a blue collar regular guy cop father. Gave the show an opposites crackle from moment one.

In a way, that element kind of makes Weinman's point, too, in the sense that that all-important element of Frasier was a direct contradiction of the history offered in Cheers.

digression

Were Frasier a sci-fi show -- say one of the Treks -- that would have induced something like apoplexy in the faithful. Trek did a couple of episodes to try and explain why Klingons in the original series looked different from Klingons in the movies, and STILL, some fans weren't happy. Even though to my mind, the most brilliant, simple explanation was offered by Worf in the ep where they went back and retold some of the Trouble With Tribbles. When greeted by his crewmates confusion at the non-bumpy-headed Klingons, Worf scowled (as usual) and said, "they are also Klingons, and we don't talk about it to outsiders." Or something like that.

See Also: Force, The & midichlorians, things that never needed explaining in the first place goddamnit.

/digression

Anyway, they had established in Cheers that Frasier's parents were both dead, and exactly like him: effete intellectuals. He also never mentioned a brother. And here's where guest shots by the original cast from Cheers actually HELPED a show -- when they showed up they teased out an important part of Frasier backstory: Frasier lied because he was ashamed of where he came from.

A nice retcon, because it rippled through to the new show and actually changed stuff up. It gave the new show juice.

Anyway, this has all been a long winded and particularly disjointed (I'm fighting an inner ear infection, so screw you, hippie) way of getting to my main point: the magic of TV is that you can just never, ever tell what will work, and for all the sturm and drang from the network, and notes here and notes there and testing, and tone meetings and dry runs and conceptual circle jerks, the cold, hard and inescapable truth is this:

brilliance only ever seems that way in hindsight.

Because the most brilliant thing the creators of Frasier did was completely counterintuitive...the one thing that should have never, ever, ever worked: they gave him a brother who was exactly the same as him, did exactly the same thing for a living, and was, in fact, Frasier -- the Frasier we'd known from Cheers. He was MORE FRASIER THAN FRASIER.

Now, there's no question that if not for the fact that David Hyde Pierce (who'd been brilliant in a so-so sitcom called The Powers That Be) was cast the gambit might not have worked. But he was, and by doing this crazy thing, fans got to have their cake and eat it too.

Is that why Frasier, from that very first episode, seemed like a show that had been on for years, in a way that Joey, the New WKRP, and probably, sadly, 90210 never, ever could?

I don't know.

There's no way that move should have worked.

But it did.

Take that, Weinman, you inglorious bastard!

The Final Step In All Future Product Testing

...SHOULD BE A dry run under normal circumstances with my retired parents.

Please understand, I do not mean this as a slight against them.

Rogers, You suck. Suck. Suck.

Three Potato, Four.

WELL, TODAY IS the three year blogaversary of Dead Things ON Sticks.

Three years is the leather anniversary. I've certainly felt my hide a bit tanned and flayed over the last little while. A lot of strange portents for the TV writing game over the last twelvemonth. If you've been following along, you've seen a share of righteous outrage, and some optimistic posts and some pessimistic posts. I'm a big believer in catharsis -- I've always been one of those people who listens to sad sad songs in order to make yourself feel better.

Similarly, speaking up or calling bullshit on something, from when I was very little, was the way I was taught to be. I was schooled that if you see something that you know is wrong and you don't speak up agin it, then you're saying yer for it.

But three years in, a lot of leather, shoe or otherwise -- and I've started to seriously wonder if maybe fighting City Hall on this one is too daunting a proposition.

We have some interesting discussions here about craft, and about industry, but the more serious posts seem to have trickled back to the same few people speaking out and up. A few times I've discussed animation and tried to encourage people to write in about their animation experiences, and we've heard crickets.

As someone put it to me in email the other day, talking about my "money shot" post...

I loved this post and the subsequent comments (some very clever and funny)...but it still speaks loads about us as Canadians and our industry. You'll write something serious and thought-provoking about the Cdn biz, put out a call for comments/support/suggestions/thoughts/opinions and get next to no response or the same 3 people saying something - but when it comes to 'making fun' or 'sarcasm' or 'poking' (even if or especially at ourselves), and everyone comes out of the closet. It's kinda our way to 'back into the issue' as opposed to confront it head on.

Yeah. Ida know.

I'm going to put up a poll a little later today. If you'll indulge me, I'd particulary encourage the Canadian readers to vote. (No one will know who you are.) Just trying to suss out the audience's mindset.

There's one other thing that's been a great source of both inspiration and knowledge for me in the last year. And that's INK CANADA. Ink is Canadian Screenwriter Karen Walton's Facebook group. It's always a great place for discussion and debate -- and Walton is a heckuva ringleader.

Thanks to Waltz, and the other Canadian scribo-bloggers -- Dix, Jim, Jill, (how could I forget Jill first time through? And, um, yeah, also -- Alex, the first of us in the scribosphere. I swear - I was running to a read through when I wrote this...) and all you who read Dead Things. I can't promise where we go from here. But hopefully it'll be more fun than a test pattern.

Tories That "Get It"

BIT OF AN eyeopener today in the National Post, which neatly contrasts (without saying so) the attitude of the U.K.'s Conservative Party towards Arts Funding, with our own Paleo-Reform Party Tories. The article liberally quotes Ed Vaizey, the Shadow Culture Minister for the Conservative Party.

Vaizey's immediate superior in theConservativeOpposition's shadow cabinet is Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary (the Westminster counterpart, in other words, to Liberal heritage critic Denis Coderre). Hunt told a gathering of British arts leaders in June that his party "absolutely supports a mixed economy for the arts, in which funding continues to come from government, the lottery and private donations.

"When art and politics clash, art wins. Politicians beware," Hunt also said in a speech in which he name-dropped British artist Tracey Emin, who once displayed her messy bed strewn with used condoms as an installation (and today belongs to the elite Royal Academy of Arts).

What are we to surmise from this?

One, that David Cameron's Conservative Party is confident and thinking it's going to win the next election. The article freely goes on to admit that the Tories know that most artists don't support them. Yet they still support arts funding.

Well, why? Whatever for?

Lo and Behold, they even make economic arguments:

Part of the Conservatives' argument is that the culture sector spends money wisely. As Hunt said in his June speech, "every organization we visit seems to be effective, imaginative and passionate, more than justifying the public investment they receive. The arts in Britain are a huge success. I have only one task -- to help you make them even better."

Vaizey says his party wants to encourage more private support of the arts, noting that philanthropy in the United Kingdom is not as developed as in the United States. However, he says, public funding will always be part of the picture in the culture sector.

"Government money is pump-priming money," he says. "Success breeds success. The irony is, if you double the grant to an arts body, you probably end up doubling the amount of private giving to it as well, because people say, 'I want to invest in something that has the backing of government.' "

Parochialism or 21st Century, Enlightened Branding and Discourse?

It does beg the question -- what are the Canadian Conservatives so deathly afraid of?

Skins

SO U.S. VIEWERS this week will get their first chance to see what a teenage series that actually pushes what teenagers do and think about looks like: sex, drugs, drinking, and bad behavior. It's called SKINS.

BRYAN ELSLEY recalls the humbling conversation in 2005 that inspired “Skins,” the popular and provocative British series he helped create that will have its American premiere Sunday night on BBC America. He was preparing for a pitch meeting and decided to run his concepts for TV shows — a global warming drama, a political corruption thriller — past his 20-year-old son, Jamie Brittain.

Words were not minced. “He said: ‘These are all boring, middle-aged ideas for boring, middle-aged television executives. Why can’t you think of something with a little bit more oomph?,’ ” Mr. Elsley said. When Dad challenged Son to come up with a better alternative, Mr. Brittain cited the morally oppressive, unfun nature of most adolescent-oriented shows on television. “He said that being a teenager, by definition, means behaving badly, having sex, flirting with drink and drugs,” Mr. Elsley said, and all teenage dramas either pretend such things don’t happen or make sure that if they do, “people die as a consequence.”

“He said, ‘Why don’t you do a teen show that just for once really has some edge?’ ” Mr. Elsley said.

The BBC America audience might not be so surprised. But to a nation that still clucks over Degrassi and Gossip Girl, it should, by rights, be a big shock to the system.

(Of course, we in Canada are going to be spared for now, BBC Canada doesn't seem to be running the show. At least I don't think they are. The BBC Canada website and online schedule is so bad that it's hard to tell.)

Jill Golick wrote about Skins around the time it went on the air in Great Britain. Thanks to a couple of pals with UK Itunes Store accounts, I've seen the entire first season of Skins and about half the second.

The New York Times Preview article also had some interesting info on how the room for Skins works.

To live up to the promise of reasonable authenticity that “Skins” was sold on, Mr. Elsley, then 44, hired a team of television veterans, along with his son (who receives co-creator credit) and a group of writers whose average age is 22 and average experience is nil. Then he formed a sort of mentor-and-newbie laboratory.

Holed up in the basement of the Northern London production office, Mr. Elsley’s creative coalition watches gold-star teenage fare like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” every day. To keep the focus simple for a staff inexperienced with juggling multiple story lines, “Skins” was structured so that the raucous tone stayed the same but each week’s episode was devoted to a single character.

When it came to developing knowing dialogue and convoluted scrapes, Mr. Elsley said, his youthful employees were the gift that kept on giving. But he admitted to one truth-stretcher: The fictional friends — a mix of races, religions, classes and sexual orientation — might not be so nonchalant about their differences in real life. “It aspires to a certain way of being,” he said.

I actually think the show loses the plot a bit in its second season. But they sure aren't concerned about burning through story. And look at the bold move they've adopted for season 3:

No one can say that Mr. Elsley and company don’t mind breaking rules. Although the “Skins” actors are now star-sighting-worthy in England, the entire cast except for Kaya Scodelario, who plays Tony’s younger sister, Effy, has been replaced for Season 3.

The thing that's interesting here, is that Degrassi took several seasons to accomplish this. You don't have the American problem of stars getting too big for their britches, or repeating yourself.

This is one of those happy accidents where it bears repeating that Canada is a bit further ahead than the United States (but nowhere near as far out as the UK.) In the United States, you have the whiplash-inducing spectacle of Miley Cyrus (and before her, Hayden Whatshername from Heroes, Britney, etc, etc.) being hyper-sexualized in terms of image, and then the simultaneous recoil when, lo and behold, the very thing that you do to make money off teens comes back and bites you in the ass once they show that, um, you know what, they're teenagers.

Even Degrassi -- which was considered bold in the USA for the frankness with which it presented teen concerns, did so with that teachable, "there are always horrible consequences to every actions" model that underlines the hypocrisy of the American approach.

Skins is refreshing and almost transcendant -- even though what it is is actually a pretty by the numbers teenage soap. But goddamn, it's a whole lot more real and engaging than anything you ever saw on The O.C. (And they actually got to have actors who weren't 30.)

Yet another case of where the bald ideological nature of the current Canadian government guarantees further marginalization of the audience. I grok fully the kind of creative that Skins has. I know that, reading the polls and surveys, that Canadians could handle a franker show like this. But with the twin shibboleths of always having to make a U.S. sale and the new Philistine Guard hanging over every ounce of funding, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Here it is, kids, the show that could appeal to a younger audience.

And we can't make it.

Chew on that one awhile.

EDIT: Will Dixon points out that the reason why Skins can't be found on the BBC Canada Website is that they don't have it. (It's actually a Channel 4 show so that's hardly surprising.) Instead, the Canadian Pay Channel SuperChannel has the rights, and has been airing both seasons for some time.

If you've never heard of SuperChannel, well, that's another story.

But for the record, old Will did get there first.

Fiction TV: Keeping You Safe

ONE OF THE persistent brainteasers at work in any TV drama writing room is trying to come up with plot points that seem plausible, without seeming cheesy or farfetched. You want the feel that this could happen, without necessarily being 100 percent true to the science. (this is why, for me, shows like Re:Genesis miss the point. Yes, the truth is often stranger than fiction, but there's a whole (several) genres for TV that can explore that.

With drama -- I want to know what's in the realm of possiblity, not what's likely, and in the choice between the accurate and the best story, I choose story.

I'd rather, in other words, be accurate about how people treat each other by setting it in a world of sentient robots (BSG) than just do an old kitchen sink drama where people say things to each other that we probably never say to each other in real life.

People come down in different ways on this point. And inevitably human nature comes into play, too. In my experience, writers are a whole lot more forgiving of the nitpick leaps they leap on the way to their story, then they are of yours. If you're not careful, the nitpick menace can enervate any story team. It's a constant struggle to keep the right perspective.

Which is why every once in a while, it's great to read stories like this: A failed, four year old TV show helped science out.

Aug 17th, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- Nearly a century after history's most lethal flu faded away, survivors' bloodstreams still carry super-potent protection against the 1918 virus, demonstrating the remarkable durability of the human immune system.

Scientists tested the blood of 32 people aged 92 to 102 who were exposed to the 1918 pandemic flu and found antibodies that still roam the body looking to strangle the old flu strain. Researchers manipulated those antibodies into a vaccine and found that it kept alive all the mice they had injected with the killer flu, according to a study published online Sunday in the journal Nature.

The 1918 flu killed about 50 million people worldwide and nearly everybody else was exposed to the virus, Crowe said. The specific 1918 virus was lost to the world for decades, until it was reconstructed about three years ago using genetic material from victims. When scientists tested the antibodies from survivors on infected mice, they did so in a high level biosecurity lab at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

The idea for the new study came from an old TV show, said Altschuler. In an episode of the since-cancelled TV series "Medical Investigation," a town improbably gets infected with the 1918 flu and the doctors treat everyone with the reluctantly donated blood of an old butler who survived the original pandemic, he said.

That prompted Altschuler, a professor of rehabilitation medicine who doesn't normally study flu, to look into the idea of testing people more than 90 years old for antibodies. The National Institutes of Health, which paid for much of the study, connected Altschuler with experts in the field and he found the elderly antibody donors.

Cool! Thank you, Medical Investigation!

Oh, The Money (Shots) We'll Make...

SOMETIMES THE GLEE with which which I greet the news is completely unbidden.

The CRTC approved a bunch of new discretionary channels this week. Some are predictable and YAWN-y. Like Rogers Baseball TV -- real exciting sounding right? The sad thing is I'll probably get that one.

But I want you to think back of the fooferal that recently came down the pike about the Government's games with Bill C10. Buddy Boy Charles McVety clucking on and on about the horribly unwholesome tax credits extended to movies like YOUNG PEOPLE FUCKING.

Think, too, on Jim Shaw, Fatuous Gasbag and High School Chum of Prime Minister Shiny Hair, and his terrible pique over the disgusting and inappropriate antics of the Trailer Park Boys.

Think on those things as I tell you about the other new channel they approved: Northern Peaks.

Northern Peaks is, drumroll, please..."Canada's first adult video channel offering significant Canadian adult content."

The CRTC definitely did their job here, though, because they have required that Northern Peaks (get it? heh heh get it?) spend ONE MILLION DOLLARS on original programming in its first year of operation.

Other flies in the Canadian broadcast ointment will be undoubtedly pleased to know that the CRTC also demanded all the programming on this channel be close captioned. Thank heaven for that.

So, yeah, while your head is spinning -- your government doesn't want to be involved with YPF or icky movies or TV shows that might, you know, involve the gays or people doing morally questionable things...

But they WILL encourage that thing that we were ALL CLAMORING FOR...

..A DOMESTIC PORN INDUSTRY.

Because, damnit, we Canadians don't get hepped up unless everybody's really pasty.

It's comforting to know that if the whole rest of the industry goes in the tank, because of government and regulatory idiocy, maybe I can get work as a fluffer. I'm sure I'd be a good fluffer.

Oh, wait, you want more? One little nugget more? Okay. Here you go.

You know how every time there's an article that talks about the arts and etc, etc, all the trog complaints about "myyy txxxx dllllrrRRRS" seem to echo loudest from one particular province? You know, with the oil and stuff?

Well, guess who owns "Northern Peaks?" A numbered company based in....you got it... Alberta.

Say it with me, kids...

"Ma'am, I'm here to clean the pool..."

shwwakkka-wakkka-wakkka-wakka

H/T to Magee.