TV Series Scripting: Part One: Setting the Table

IN MANY WAYS, the process of writing specs and scripts to get you hired as a writer couldn't be more different than the actual process of production. It's a hard thing to get for the uninitiated. When you're trying to break in, you might spend months on your original pilot spec, or episodic spec, polishing it just so, getting it to the point where you feel you can submit.

The day-to-day reality of the job on an ongoing series is that you'll rarely have that kind of luxury. Which is why it appeals to a certain type of writer, and why development doesn't really prepare you for the production line that is series production.

In the traditional series production model used in the USA and Canada, one of the reasons you employ a writers' room is to be able to compensate for the short timeframe between greenlight and the start of production. (If you have a long, long timeframe, you could also develop all the scripts ahead of time, but that takes much longer, so it's generally not done.) It's like the difference between single processors and multiple, linked processors in supercomputers. If you have one story engine, coming up with stuff takes one amount of time -- if you have multiple engines, and the right person directing them, you can solve problems, and challenge concepts as you go along -- and what comes out the other end will be stronger, having been tested and challenged as part of the process.

What does this mean for you as a writer? It means that you have to be somebody who is comfortable defending your ideas. You have to be open to challenge in the story room, and flexible enough to incorporate and recognize good and bad suggestions. Ego and experience (as you gain it) help you to define and sort these choices as you roll along. It tells you when to incorporate and when to challenge. This is a sophisticated high-wire act -- and it's what we're really talking about when we say, "best idea wins." When you think about it, there's a lot that has to go into that phrase: 1) You have to be flexible about your idea. 2) You have to be able to incorporate changes that are good, and that make that idea stronger, even if it changes things about it that you were attached to. 3) You have to be able to recognize when the ideas of others are taking you down the wrong path. To some extent, as a writer, you're insulated from that last task by your showrunner -- but it's still a good sense to hone on your own. The closer you get to being able to take and incorporate room ideas while staying true to the core of the story you want to tell, the faster and more effective writer you will be.

The reason I keep saying "fast" is because it's important. Traditionally, there's an idea that you get two weeks to write a first draft. I can't remember the last time I've had that when I was in production. A week is more normal. [All of these timeframes I'm talking about are Canadian timeframes. U.S. series have more resources and are most likely quite different, though with every staff having shed one or two writers this year, they're starting to meet in the middle.]

I've also written a first draft in two or three days (from a really good outline -- and that's the key.) I've done page-one rewrites overnight. I've done "Frankenwrites" -- where you're writing Act One and Two, say, while another writer works on the back half simultaneously.

You might scratch your head and say one of the following:

"uh, that doesn't sound like much fun."

or

"Oh my God, how do you do that and not come up with a pile of crap?"

These are both good questions, and the answer to them both, though incomplete, hint at the challenge and the psychological makeup you need to be a good Television staff writer.

Because for most of us, having to work that fast -- though never the ideal, and never something that you can do for very long -- is incredibly exciting. We get juiced by it, and we miss it when we're not doing it -- in those long stretches in development. It's not like pondering over and turning over an idea for months; the exciting thing about it is that it's like very well paid improv or slam poetry or something -- at some level you're writing this from your gut. You know that it could change; and you write it from a place that keeps you loose, connected and immediate. You can be influenced by what's going on in your world, your life, your environment -- you bring the immediacy of life and the working environment to the work, which gives it zip and energy.

The second part is trickier. And if you're not as experienced, it might be more terrifying. But it comes from having seen the process work, and knowing how each piece results in the final product. If you take the burden on yourself of writing the perfect first draft, one that tells the story elegantly, is totally produceable within the schedule, balances the in/outs and locations and day/night splits and everything else, you're going to be on a stretcher to hinky town before you say, "boo."

But if you have a sense of which each stage is designed to accomplish, you can do what you need to do to accomplish any huge task: break it into manageable bits, so that you're always moving forward and never feel overwhelmed.

Now, what I'm going to be going over for the next several days is my impression of the scripting process -- from start to finish, on an ongoing television series -- and how and when the writer balances the concerns of production and the concerns of creative. This is subjective, my thoughts only, and should be read as such. I'll be more than happy to hear different impressions from fellow scribes below in the comments. Seriously. Have at it. Feel free to disagree with my categorizations and offer your own impressions.

First things first.

Every story starts with a card. An idea spun out, mulled over by the group. From that, the next step is the pitch. In most cases, the network gets to approve the idea before you go to outline. Sometimes this is done verbally in a phone call, sometimes the pitch will be delivered in the form of a one-pager -- a document that's got a lot of handwaving, but gives a general idea of the action and emotional action in the episode, maybe hints at twists and what's cool about the story, and gets you hyped to see how it will develop. You might have a couple of cool turns at this point, but the idea is still very fluid, because you don't want to invest too much time in it until you've got signoff. (This part of the process is very much the same when you're in development.)

Once the pitch is approved, you break the story and prepare the outline.

Which we'll talk about next time.

XX and XY on TV

KAY REINDL's Seriocity is always a good read, but she had a particularly sharp piece today on what's happened to the writing of female characters --

All I see on network are female characters created the way men think they are, rather than the way they really are. And it's not like I'm saying only women can create female characters. That's obviously bullshit. But why are so many of the female characters created by men just exactly the same? Where are the male writers who can create those wonderful female characters? And where are the FEMALE writers? Nobody seems able to grasp or understand the myriad internal lives of women. Instead, they graft quirks onto them, quirks that usually involve their wombs in some way, and always end with the unimpeachable fact that these women are FUCKING BEAUTIFUL. I just don't buy these women. At all. But the problem is that if you're pitching a realistic female character, you're talking to executives or producers who have come to believe in the quirky ball-buster who's just looking for the right guy. Women don't have to be whores or former strippers. Their hurdles don't all have to be sexual.

And because these people are the gatekeepers, a real, honest portrayal of a female character is going to have a tough time getting on TeeVee.

The whole piece is definitely worth a read, and a further muse. I've got an original sample for a series I had in development a few years back that I still send out with a young, female protagonist. I tried my damnedest at the time to make the character as complex and non-stereotypical as possible. At the time I guess I wasn't quite over my dating actresses phase, and suffered through a lot of moaning about "the wife and girlfriend parts."

Then I went and did Across The River To Motor City, whose central relationship was between a man and his adult daughter.

One of the pilots I have on the go right now features a female protagonist, who I'm really trying to invent out of whole cloth as a flawed construct that doesn't rely too heavily on traditional female tropes. I draw most of the time on the wealth of strong female role models I've seen up close -- sisters, my mother, grandmother, and several of the teachers I had along the way, too. And yeah, I shamelessly steal from female friends and former girlfriends -- I'd like to think only the good parts -- but it is a tightrope. And I definitely find myself writing those characters with more -- awareness -- than the instinctual way I write other kinds of stories.

This devolution of the female leading role is kind of puzzling, since, of course, during the same time frame the viewership of TV has continued to skew ever more female. It makes you wonder who these stock characters are trying to please. The female audience is the bedrock of TV. The data I've seen says they're more reliable than male viewers, more apt to try something new, and since they aren't afraid of scenes where two people have a conversation for thirty-two seconds without something blowing up, they tend to be more cost effective to reach, as well.

What's even more puzzling is the fact that here in Canada, we have female network executives at the top of all the networks and close at hand in all the commissioning suites, but I'm not sure we're doing any better creating vibrant, three-dimensional female characters or stories. And we certainly also suffer many of the same overarching prejudices about women in the writing room.

We also do the "false reverse" a lot. You know this -- it's when you just flip it, and make the woman the aggressor -- put her in the traditional "male" role in the scene. Flipping a stereotype papers it over -- it doesn't really solve anything. Giving the role of sexual aggressor, tough girl, what have you usually just buys you comparisons to the Magical Negro. It doesn't solve anything.

I've been watching back a bit of the last season of Battlestar Galactica on DVD, and for whatever reason, even before Kay's article, what's getting me this time is the interesting work from all the female performers -- the incomparable Mary McDonnell, of course, but also Katee Sackhoff's Starbuck, Grace Park's different iterations of Number Eight and the extremely welcome return of Kate Vernon as Ellen Tigh.

Then there's Stargate. Caught an old rerun of SG-1 the other day and there was Amanda Tapping, doing solid genre work that managed to never skimp on the heroics or the humanity. Why are our popcorn shows doing a better job of writing females than a lot of serious dramas or highbrow comedies? I mean, has a woman on Entourage ever had anything to do?

Makes you wonder what Ronald Moore has figured out that so many others don't.

Makes you wonder if we'll get over whatever it is before our audience leak turns into a deluge.

Of course, not to play Devil's Advocate or anything, but somebody's watching all those Lifetime Movies. And it aint me or the guys I play poker with.

No solutions here from me, necessarily. Just things that make you 'hmm' on a Monday morning.

Further To John Hughes

MY FRIEND ALLI (and a few others, besides -- ah the internets!) hipped me to this -- simply extraordinary -- blog entry from a woman who was John Hughes' pen pal when she was a teen. It's simply lovely, and a little heartbreaking, and I don't want to excerpt any of it. Just go to her site and read it for yourself.

Flashy, but not too Flashy

BILL BRIOUX has a typically well-summarized account of the pickle Flashpoint finds itself in. As the man said, "An interesting problem to have..." but still:

On CTV, the police drama was a big hit, averaging 1.4 million viewers a week. On CBS, it did a decent job on different nights, finding a steady 10 or 11 million viewers a week and winning its Friday night slot.

Then came an opportunity for CBS to acquire a show it has more of an ownership stake in - NBC's "Medium" - bumping "Flashpoint" into mid-season status. Worse, CBS still has not made a decision to pay its share of production costs beyond the nine original unaired episodes it still has on the shelf.

CTV went out on a limb in June and announced it would order a third season of 13 episodes. But without a major American partner, there is some question as to what that show would look like and if it could even go forward.

"Flashpoint" may be a victim of the new TV math. A fifth season of "Medium" just has a bigger upside for CBS. They cash in on back-end revenues from future syndication and DVD sales. "Flashpoint" is three or four years away from cracking the magic 100 episode barrier.

CBS could ask for an extension on the decision beyond October, a delay which would allow them to more fully assess which if any of their new fall shows might fail. If that were to happen, having "Flashpoint" on the bench - a series that consistently won its timeslot in households and has already established a fan base -would be a competitive plus.

It is no plus for "Flashpoint" producers Mustos and Anne Marie La Traverse, however, to stick with CBS into November or December if CBS only sees the series a short-term solution. Its currency as a property to shop elsewhere goes down every month it stays off the air.

Mustos mused at the press tour party that the versatility of "Flashpoint" might actually work against it. CBS sees it as a proven if unspectacular draw it can slap in on any night to plug a hole. It is like the utility hockey player who can jump over the boards and win face-offs, kill penalties and doesn't come at a superstar salary. You'd rather have the player on your bench than on that of your opponents.

Tender.

I'M STEALING THIS from Will Dixon's Facebook. and I don't care.

If you're currently between 32, 33, and about 45 you already get it. But it's still hard to explain what John Hughes was and what he meant. Not because he was an auteur, but because he was an entertainer first. A chipper. He made it happen. And damnit if his stuff didn't have the resonance others lacked. Did John Candy ever have a better role than Uncle Buck? I'm not sure.

Jaime Weinman -- as usual, the #$@% smartypants, nails it when he says that Hughes was always really a writer first. (I link to his entry there, but I think that observation was one he Tweeted.)

And that's so. But ... still.

Would that 15 percent of the teen movies that come out now had as much heart as this guy's stuff.

I don't think I have yet - but if I ever do write, and see executed, a story as affecting and as real and as emotionally true - while being FUNNY, remember, as John Hughes, I will consider my career a great cracking success.

Oh, and VSL reminded me today about how awesome Whit Stillman was, too. But that's another story for another time.

You know who writes scripts with that kind of punch and heart? Elan Mastai. Hey. How's he doing?

Oh John, John, John, for all the respect you never got or awards you never received, there are we who are legion who venerate you and your output.

We accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole Saturday in detention for whatever it was we did wrong. What we did *was* wrong. But we think you're crazy to make us write an essay telling you who we think we are. What do you care? You see us as you want to see us - in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. You see us as a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal.

Thank you. Rest in Peace.

UPDATE: I've got this in a separate post above -- but if you're looking for appreciations of the man's life -- this is the one that you need to read.

Are Canadian Writers Going to Continue To Be Able to Write Canadian Dramas produced with Canadian Tax Dollars?

NORMALLY ALEX is craft and I am wonk. But seriously, if I have to say something -- one thing -- about the CRTC or the CTF this week I'm going to go Clockwork Orange. So, uh... Alex explains the stakes here.

Next week, the WGC will weigh in, and I'll have more then.

Save the Cat and Celebrate the Screenwriter

I NEVER GOT around to reading Blake Snyder's Save The Cat, I guess because I've been working a lot since it was published. Ironically, it was on my to-do list for this month. But I've known enough people who did read it with joy, or who attended one of his seminars, to know that the guy was a force for positivity in this industry -- an inspirational figure who helped a whole lot of word jockeys roll the boulder up the hill.

So his sudden death from cardiac arrest caught me by surprise, same as everybody.

Here's the dirty little secret of teaching screenwriting. It's something that McKee or Snyder or even my buddy Alex can't put in a book in quite this way:

You can't really teach it.

Oh, you can give people tools, like Snyder did. You can instruct, you can talk structure or process to help people along, but the most important part of any working writer is what they have, themselves, in there -- the thing that can't be taught; the thing that's there from the first day they start -- that probably is there, quietly honing themselves through life's petty humiliations and triumphs until the day of that first sale. It goes beyond talent or will. It's the essence of being a writer.

I taught screenwriting at Ryerson University for about ten years. Probably, all told, to a little under five hundred students. And each year the ratio was about the same -- one, or two, or sometimes (rarely) three students had 'it.' That's in my estimation, of course -- and there were definitely a few who surprised me along the way. But only a few. Most of the people I read for the first time as callow nineteen year olds and said, "this person's got it," are writing professionally now. A few of them even made their first sales before I did -- my students' successes kicked my ass to overcome my own fear.

Seeing that rough diamond, and doing whatever you can to polish it, is almost a compulsion. It's just so rare, that you feel honor bound to try and do something to help the person along. The thing about Snyder is he seemed to do that in such a positive, effortless way. His impact in the few short years he was lecturing after his book hit big cannot be overstated.

Because here's the flipside of what I was talking about above: you can never really know for sure about 'it.' Sometimes people need to get past their shit before they can access 'it.' I've had people ask me, flat out, "do I have talent? Am I wasting my time?" And it's the question you can never really answer. Because you can never know for sure -- and who are you to crush somebody's dreams?

Nope. Better to be a force like Blake Snyder, however you can be. You hold in your heart the possibility that anybody really could make it -- even if you know that's not really true. And rather than rage at the "lottery winners" who don't deserve a success, and give in to that negativity, you do your part to bring out the diamond in the rough. Writing is hard. You work to make it less so.

In his last blog entry, Snyder started off with one simple sentence: "I love writers."

He proved it. Every day. "I love writers." Definitely not the worst epitaph for a man who did a lot to inspire people in our business. He'll be sorely missed.

Playback Sets The Showrunner Table

PLAYBACK's new editorial direction may finally be taking flight. I was pleasantly surprised in the latest issue to read an article by Etan Vlessing that evenhandedly examined one of the issues that's currently bubbling around -- whether to relax the rules to allow American writers into story rooms. (Which to me begs a simple question of fairness -- is this going to mean that Canadian writers can go to U.S. producers with lots of experience and a great track record to realize their ideas -- and still qualify for CTF/CMF funding? If not, why not? This is the problem with opening Pandora's Box -- you never know what will fly out.)

Anyhow, this all leads to a larger question, and a bigger series of posts that I'm going to pull together for a few weeks from now: a look at the current state of creative in the Canadian TV racket.

For now, the Playback article's a good primer about where things sit now. Playback has a pay firewall, so I'd encourage you to pick up a newsstand copy if you want to read the full thing, including interesting clarifications from Maureen Parker from the WGC, and Christina Jennings from Shaftesbury.

A short excerpt:

E1 Television president John Morayniss praises Canada for its TV writers and showrunners. But he argues the classic TV writer/producer - someone who has the vision of a series in their head and can oversee every stage of production - is a product of the American studio system. So when Canadian producers pitch their series in Los Angeles, talk turns quickly to who's the showrunner, as opposed to Canada where non-writing producers tend to stick-handle productions after writers complete scripts.

"The networks are putting up a lot of money and they [Americans] want someone they trust," Morayniss insists. He adds the Canadian system can benefit if funding rules are tweaked and American talent can lend its expertise to Canadian writing rooms.

But former Columbia TriStar and Paramount TV executive Tom Mazza, now executive vice-president of worldwide television at Cookie Jar Entertainment, sees no need for a host of passports in Canadian writing rooms.

"You don't have to bring people from different places to make something better. There's great talent in Canada. I'm excited about tapping into that [Canadian] talent, and working with them," Mazza says.

Recent debate over possible changes to funding rules for 10/10 dramas began in Banff, and gathered momentum after recent comments by Shaftebury Films CEO Christina Jennings that Canada faces a shortage of local showrunners (Playback, June 22).

The WGC's Parker insists Canada has more than enough showrunners, and further questions Jennings' claim of a shortage given that one of her series, The Listener, had a revolving door of showrunners and head writers on its first 13 episodes.

Will We Choose Liberty, or Will We Choose Tyranny?

THIS IS HOW tangential we get on this blog now. Ready? Ok. Here goes.

This was brought to my attention by @badlady, who's a hell of a writer even when she's flu-ey. She got it from Semi Chellas, who is another ... writer.

That's it. That's what I got.

But man it's funny.

People In TV Aren't Invincible

WELL, IT SEEMS like the CBC has more or less broken the story now, so I guess it can be told:

Swine flu has suspended the production of a CBC Television series in St. John's.

Two cases of H1N1 influenza have been confirmed in people working on The Republic of Doyle and shooting has been put on hold.

My thoughts and concern, of course, are with the hardworking crewmembers and my colleagues who have taken sick. It's a nasty bit of business, and I hope everyone's hale and hearty in short order.

(CBC has the story but is trailing in the numbers; but perhaps that's a function of 'official' and 'confirmed.')

Did you know the H1N1 test took two days to come back?

I didn't.

So...here's the part where I tack on and bury the footnote in the lead of the much bigger story:

In the first few weeks of Production, I saw a crew who worked flat out no matter what. From the A.D.'s to the Art Department, to Locations and Props -- some of the nicest, most hardworking people I've ever had the pleasure to work with. But, after three months that were alternatively thrilling, tiring, and frustrating, I left the employ of Republic of Doyle about 10 days ago, (weirdly, just before all of this started. And no, ReGenesis fans -- all thirty-eight of you -- there's no connection.)

In my time in St. John's, I oversaw the breaking of about ten stories. I also kept the promise I made to have drafts of six scripts done before we started production, so I feel pretty good about that. And I've got one more script to write from here, from my home in Toronto.

I've had friends say to me for awhile now that even when we don't talk, they feel they're caught up by reading the blog, and suffice to say this is one of those situations that put the imperfections to that little theory.

There's no dirt, nothing really to say, except for perhaps the larger truth made self-evident to me in the last few months. In the USA -- the system that still produces 85% failures for 15% worth of successes -- the Showrunner is the Quarterback of the creative vision of the show. It just doesn't work as well any other way. And there simply wasn't the time or the inclination or the creative trust that would allow me to do the job effectively.

The worst thing you can do in series TV is to get into a disagreement about how variant and competing processes would lead to a final product. So I got out of the way. And now, the task of Showrunning falls to the Co-Creator/Lead Actor/Executive Producer of Doyle. I wish Allan Hawco and his Producing team the best, and wish them all creative success -- just as soon as they get through the really important task of getting their team well, and back up and running.

Fingers crossed, and all good wishes to my Newfoundland friends and colleagues. I enjoyed your company so much, and I hope you all get well, stay well, pace yourselves, rally, and pull together to make great TV in the months ahead. I'll be rooting for you.

Get well soon!

Bitchslapping The Emmys

NIKKI FINKE's got the letter and the story.

Just so it's clear to everyone that it's not all in a vacuum. Y'know, people here will be quick to jump on writers being whiny, but the Emmy fracas proves that the devaluation of the writers' contribution to the process of Television is not exclusively a Canadian phenomenon.

Maureen Ryan at the Chicago Trib has a particularly cogent (and angry) reaction at her digs:

The fact is, if the Emmy people were worried that viewers wouldn't know about or care about those eight categories, why didn't they have the courage of their convictions and just exile those categories to the technical awards ceremony?

But no, their proposal is this jerry-rigged "solution" which will please almost no one.

Perhaps we should have seen this coming. The Oscars are undergoing a similar crisis: It was recently announced that in future there will be 10 Best Picture nominees. The thinking appears to be that if more popular fare gets nominated or celebrated, more people will tune in. Sure, that will work out great when some drippy, formulaic romantic comedy gets nominated and makes a laughingstock of the ceremony.

The fact is, this is a niche-ified world. Desperately scrambling to fight that tide is not going to work, and all the Emmy folks have done is alienate people who make TV and those who follow it most passionately. In other words, the people who would be most likely to watch the Emmys in the first place.

Craig Ferguson Comes Up With The Grand Unified Theory

AND AS FAR as I can make it, it's pretty airtight.

What Are You Trying to Say...Exactly?

YOU KNOW, the occasional network type aren't the ONLY ones who'd like things made, you know, a little clearer.

Shmubtext.

McFerrin & The Audience: Music Meets Plot Prediction

AH TWITTER, HOW you serve things up to us in the dead of night in bite size portions.

I can't take credit for this -- I got it off the insanely great KH -- @kazza323, but also I think, @badlady was all over this too. Point being - this is from Boing Boing, with all their attendant usual goodness.

It makes an important point about the audience, I think.

It makes an important point about the audience that Canadian Producers, Writers, Development and Production Executives would do well to heed.

The audience?

They's smarter than you think. They see patterns and shit like that.

And with that, take it away Bobby McFerrin:

World Science Festival 2009: Bobby McFerrin Demonstrates the Power of the Pentatonic Scale from World Science Festival on Vimeo.

Sometimes Writers Can't Help Being Twits

WRITERS, AS THE saying goes, write.

The funny thing is that writing tends to be so all consuming that one finds oneself in the need of a diversion now and again. Many writers who work a lot develop different kinds of hobbies. I know many who are obsessed with Golf (yawn.) And others who become serious, like, CRAZY serious foodies. There was a bit of a vogue a few years back to go heavy into the scotch realm -- which carries its own dangers, the personality being what it is and all. Poker caught many a fancy a while ago.

But there are a sad subset of us that just can't let go no matter what. I know writers whose hobbies are to write novels. Andy Borowitz made so much money off Fresh Prince of Bel Air that he has the enviable position of having the greatest writing related hobby of all time: he writes humour columns in the New Yorker. Others dabble in playwriting. I wrote the book and lyrics for a couple of musicals - but that doesn't count since it was before I was really getting heavy dramatic writing work.

It's too late and my fingers are too clumsy to entertain notions of the guitar. I bought an expensive camera at Christmas and I'm still taking stupid baby steps on how to use it.

But there's one funny bit of community that keeps popping up every few days on Twitter. It's one I embrace with glee. The first one I noticed was #firstdraftmovielines (a # tag before a subject on Twitter makes it an easy search term or something.) This was people deliberately mangling or rewriting movie lines. I think the one I came up with that I liked the most was "No Luke, I am your paternal Uncle."

Not highbrow, by any means, but fun. The great thing about Twitter, of course, is that it's all a great big mess. You follow people and they follow you and if you want to search a #hashtag you can see a whole bunch of people you don't know posting on the same subject.

Memes like these are interesting because the quality of the professional writers' output isn't always as inspired as some random thing that somebody else comes up with. And the greatest cultural "props" you can get is someone RT (re-tweeting) your message. That's when they pass it on to everyone on THEIR "follow" list. Imagine a big internetty version of that old shampoo ad: "and they told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on, and so on..."

It's also like that long-ago game I remember when people would try to come up with the best porno-title for a then-popular movie. (I still have nightmares about "Terms of En-rearment".) But like everything else in our globalized, capitalist world it seems, that died the the Adult Entertainment Business soon found it couldn't afford the entendre. There's no room for subtlety there anymore. No, no. If you want to stand out, you better be plain and clear. No room for wordplay anymore -- it's "Teenage Toesuckers#18" for you, bub.

But I digress.

Anyhow, the latest meme to fire up the Twitosphere and take my fancy yesterday was #failedchildrensbooktitles. I read a few that made me guffaw -- some real cleverness out there, both from my writer peeps and from the civilians on my list besides.

To give you a flavour for it -- this simple dash of post-internet chuckling, here's a few of mine that got big retweets:

Anne of Gangrene Gables

One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Mercury Poisoning

Where The Sidewalk Ends in a Hail of Gunfire

A Wrinkle in Tim

Aladdin and the Relentless Carpet Bombing

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret Thatcher

Bob The Builder Who Doesn't Show Up

Horton Hires a 'Ho

The Tragic School Bus

See? Not exactly Leacock Medal level humour here, but undeniably fun. And it was also kind of a trip to remember some of those books I loved as a kid. I also think one of the reasons why I find it so fun is because in a weird way it's a lot like a story room. That's what you do in a story room: you toss out idea after idea after idea.

You try to make people laugh.

Some ideas are dumb and die slow deaths of silence, (usually punctuated by some variation on 'hahhaha yeah, fuck you guys!) and some hit.

And that's why it's a joy being around story rooms when they're on.

So if you've ever wondered what the story room thing was like, get on Twitter. Every once in a while, a meme breaks out and the boundaries between the pros and the people fall.

And yes, it's been pointed out, there's something a little sad about writers in their off time procrastinating from their paid writing work by trying to write for free to make a bunch of strangers laugh, but hey, it's better than stalking, right?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go buy a new lens for my Nikon. There comes a time when a man must put away Twitter things and get a real hobby.

Get The Most Out of Your Telly

FAT-PIE.COM's David Firth shows you how. (NSFW)

Take Back The Art

I MISSED THE specials. Didn't watch. Didn't watch the memorials, barely glanced at the coverage, kept my head down and kept working. Because at the root of it, I knew I couldn't think about the hagiography and the excuses, and the simplifications for the troubling, troubling legacy - both of what he did to himself, and finally, maybe, murkily, to others. But that route, the route of totally ignoring it, solidifies its own kind of poison in you, too. Not participating seems to take a stand -- even if taking a stand was the thing you wanted to avoid in the first place.

That's why this little clip, from Montreal, is so powerful to me. It restores what was good. It makes me smile. It reminds me once again that whatever trouble may dog or stain or ultimately destroy the artist, the point is, the art endures.

In a culture that seems to value that so little, where programs in the schools are the first to be cut, and governments play politics with the vulnerable and disguise it through bogus talk of fiscal responsibility and not ideology, it's important to remember, finally, finally -- the work endures.

I hope this finds you as it did me. Enjoy your day.

Ah, the Shining Promise of Youth...

VIA CHARLIE BROOKER, that is.

You were warned.

Gross Slaughters the Co-Pro "Magic Bullet"

PLENTY TO TALK about in Sticksville, lots of changes round the joint (and I'm not just talking the spiffy new three column layout) but it's going to keep for a little while so I can enjoy the Avalon Penisula.

But today, in a fine article by Gayle MacDonald, Paul Gross follows up on the comments he made last month, and that I first wrote about here. Considering the turns in the news of late, and some odd miscategorizations of Writers' takes on the same subject, I have never been so happy for an actor to take the lead on an issue.

But then again, Paul Gross is hardly just an actor. He's, as my friend and colleague Matt MacLennan might say, "the sauce."

From today's Globe & Mail: TV Partnerships are Great, Until They're Not:

In early June, while attending the Banff World Television Festival, actor Paul Gross sat down with a reporter to give his opinion on the current rush of Canadian TV producers, distributors and broadcasters vying to team up with American networks. Never one to hold his tongue, Gross – whose show Due South was the first Canadian-made show to win a prime-time slot on a major U.S. network – said things that very few in the gung-ho-to-sell crowd wanted to hear.

First, he warned that the Canadian industry should not rely too heavily on the U.S.-Canada co-production model, saying there is a danger of becoming “an assembly branch plant” for the American networks. “You might be putting in the lion's share of the money, but you do not control the fate of the production,” Gross said. “Sure, it's extraordinarily attractive. You get big exposure in a way you can't generate out of Canada alone. And it certainly helps with foreign sales to have ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox behind it. But it does bring some handcuffs that aren't all that attractive, creatively and for broadcasters.”

Jump ahead one month, and Gross's words seem oddly prescient. A little over a week ago, broadcasting giant NBC, which had teamed up with CTV to simulcast this summer's The Listener , announced it had decided to pull the plug on the Canadian-made drama halfway through its inaugural season.

“Canadians just need to be wary of certain pitfalls,” he adds. “While it's nice to have a U.S. partner, they can take a disproportionate amount of creative control over the show,” and without the U.S. licence fee, the production quality could decline. “On Due South , CBS had a huge amount of input,” Gross says, of the Mountie drama that ran on CBS – simulcast by CTV – for two seasons before the American network cancelled it. (Produced by Alliance Communications, Due South survived for four seasons in all thanks to CTV, the BBC and France's TF1.)

“It's an interesting thing,” adds Gross. “We'd all like [this model] to work seamlessly. But what people forget is that the American failure rate is unbelievably high: 85 to 90 per cent of new shows don't succeed. The Canadian market is slightly more forgiving.”

Another Toronto producer, who asked not to be identified, worries that Canadian broadcasters will begin to rely too heavily on the bilateral model – and only order series based on Canadian-made pilots if there is an American broadcaster attached. “Some writers are reacting strongly against the unfairness of American networks putting in a minute amount of money and having so much creative control over casting and scripts,” he says. “And they worry that Canadian stories could suffer because the thinking seems to be: Unless you sell into the States, your show isn't worthy. That's the risk of playing in these leagues.”

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the paper today, a different kind of CanCon story that I first heard about from my friend Peter Mohan a while back. What happens if you don't go the U.S. sale route? Well with a little luck maybe you can inspire an entire nation:

It's a koo-koo article, right up until you hit this paragraph:

Slaughter's clumsiness and Homer Simpson-like fallibility had also always appealed to the Serbian sense of humour, which is self-deprecating – a trait Stewart believes Serbs share with Canadians. Stewart and Vespi heard time and again that Serbians loved the TV character because he would always come back after being beaten down in a fight. “The most powerful alliance in the world was bombing them, and they had a dictator, but they just kept getting up every morning and trying to get through it,” explains Stewart. “They responded to the goofiness of the character rather than anything heroic.”

So, you know, the next time it's said, "ah what does it matter if we try to get a Canadian sensibility up there on the screen? What possible difference could it make?" the answer is, "Fuck you. It could make the kind of difference you'd never even dream of. But you won't ever know that, because you won't even try."

Screw the presentations and position papers. Let's sic Nick Slaughter on the CRTC.

Now THAT would be some kind of shit to see.

The World

STILL TURTLING FOR NOW, but just a quick head poke to show you all the difference between the world of TV and the world we live in.

TV:

The World We Live In:

Via my once-and-future colleague, the great Matt MacLennan.

Time for a Rest

SOMETIMES THE FEVER burns, and sometimes it breaks, and sometimes you just wake up one day and don't remember if you're sick or well.

In any case, I'm taking a little break from this blog. A bit of exhaustion, a bit of ennui, a bit of, we'll, what else is there to say, really?

Don't know when I'll be back. Maybe a couple weeks. We'll see.

The Way It Is/Was

MY FRIEND HOWARD has one of the best takes I've read on the life and legacy of the last important Television Journalist.

Unfortunately there will never be another Walter Cronkite. Sure there will be great news people, great television hosts, but the world has changed. Television news will never be as important as it was. The internet has seen to that. The opportunity to speak to and sometimes for all the people just does not exist anymore in any medium.

The TV news business has changed too. It used to be a reporter centric medium where the guy on the site of the story provided the all the answers. Today it’s the news desk that writes and produces the stories. The reporter in most cases is just a face holding a microphone. It’s not a lack of reporting talent, it’s a lack of time. In the golden age a reporter had to produce one quality news story per day. Today they have to file for radio, TV, the internet and in some cases for multiple newscasts all day long. They have no time to think let alone assess a story.

Speed has become as important, if not more, than accuracy. And the technology allows for live reporting from any scene anywhere in the world. That means an anchor sitting in New York or Toronto is expected to comment on a story that’s happening right now in Teheran or Beijing. If we have the live pictures we go to air. The technology that was supposed to make TV news more accurate has in fact devalued the news. How can a man or woman sitting at a desk really know what’s happening 10,000 miles away?

A more important change has occurred since the Vietnam War. Politicians came to understand the power of TV. President Lyndon Johnson, I believe was first when he was quoted as saying that when he lost Walter Cronkite’s support for the war in Vietnam, he lost the American people. He decided not to run for re-election. Smart politicians since that time have learned the art of spin. Spin doctors are among their most important staff members. The purpose of all of this is to manipulate the media. In Walter’s time the media, to quote Marshall McLuhan, was the message. Today they are pawns to the message. The power has shifted. The Carl Roves of the world are better at getting their stories out than the reporters that cover them. Carl and his buddies have the time, the expertise and the money. All the reporters have is a camera and a microphone…easy pickings for the pros.

In the end it is no surprise that TV news just isn’t what it used to be. There are too many factors weighing against television journalism.

So when we look back at Walter Cronkite’s career and his amazing accomplishments we should shed a tear not just for the loss a great pioneer and icon but for television journalism. Walter Cronkite is both an example and a symbol of what it has lost and what it has become.

Hung Done

THIS IS WHAT passes for correspondence and discourse (and blogging) in my life right now. Today's blogging entry is entirely composed of a comment I made on Facebook from a friend asking me "What did you think of Hung?"

Hate it. Hated the script. Watched the show. Hated it. Usually like Anne Heche and Jane Adams. Hated them. Watched 3 episodes (got preview discs) for professional curiousity, got forty five minutes into ep 3 and said, "Eff this." Life is too short. I don't understand the hook. I don't understand why I should care. The thing is, this is a show that could only have been greenlit in Hollywood. The "hero" is the golden boy from High School that everyone secretly knew was peaking. Now we're supposed to care that his life is shit. No sale. Boo hoo. Don't you get it? We like that this guy failed. This guy failing validates the universe that the rest of us live in, where we were uncomfortable weirdoes in high school and had to fight to come into our own later. We had to fight to be interesting. The fact that the whole premise is that an uninteresting guy falls back on his big dick is just... well, it's a spectacular, spectacular miss. Feh.

Sadly, I think that actually about covers it.

Hack Hack Hack

THIS IS UTTERLY AWESOME.

Screenwriting Tip #30

How you treat your minor characters says a lot about the kind of person you are. I don’t want to spend 110 pages inside your head if you’re a douchebag

And BTW, I found it here. Nice catch, oh new blogger on le block scripto-canadien...

Throwing Stones

SOMETIMES PILOTS don't go. It's a fact of life. And lots of times when they don't, because of CTF requirements, they get burned off with little or no promotion in the summer.

There's a pilot on CBC on Wednesday night this week called Throwing Stones. (Wednes

day, 9pm...uh, 9:30 in Newfoundland? Is that right? Am I ever going to get that right?

It's about women's curling, and it's one of those things that, you know, came close. It's instructive to watch and speculate why you think the network didn't pick it up.

Part of the heartbreak of series tv is that I guarantee you one of the reasons the show didn't get picked up WAS NOT because people didn't work hard on it.

Making TV is gosh darn hard.

I'm pretty sure we'll be hearing from the writing talents behind this pilot -- Lara Azzopardi and Julia Cohen, again soon. But in the meantime, why not check out what they put out there with hope, and hopes of what might have been?

A bit about the show...

Meet Patti, Shirley, Annette, Cindy and Marge – Five very different women just trying to stay afloat amidst the chaos of life: demanding children, high-maintenance husbands, mortgages that keep them awake at night, uninspiring jobs, and all the challenges that come from being a wife, a mother and more significantly, a woman. They’re working class women who do it all and more. And they’re just desperate for a little me time. They are the real desperate housewives.

BUT…all is forgotten, all is left behind when they are together, playing, training, and competing for their true love…curling. They are proud members of the West Kildonan Curling Club in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Don’t worry – this is NOT a show about curling. For our women, curling is just their escape, their girls’ night out and, frequently, a metaphor for life.

The Canadian Showrunner. An Endangered Species?

THERE WAS AN article in the last issue of Playback that really cheesed me off. It cheesed me off because, once again, it was a standard Producer-driven line about Canada not having enough writing talent to do their shows.

You hear this a lot; it's a standard line that certain companies and members of the CFTPA use to try and encourage another agenda: loosening the rules so that "American" writers can be brought in, as the holy grail to save us. That chorus, while not universal, has certainly increased since Canadian shows started selling to the USA -- despite the fact that there is zero evidence of the need. If you look at the list of commercially and/or artistically successful Canadian shows from the last few years: Durham County, Slings & Arrows, Corner Gas, The Rick Mercer Report, Trailer Park Boys, Flashpoint, Intelligence, DaVinci's Inquest, Being Erica, and Murdoch Mysteries -- to name just a few -- the commonality is that none of them had "American writers" on to "save" them. A bunch of other shows that did go that route, I will not name here. They were not so lucky. They were not saved.

The problem with the "loosen the rules so we can hire real writers" formulation, of course is that they never get to bring back David Shore or Hart Hanson -- guys who are doing just fine in the Hollywood system, thanks. No, this blinkered, short sighted, self-hating-Canadian tub of codswaddle catches 3rd or 4th tier American talent and holds them up because -- Gasp! -- they once worked down in the Ewwwe Esss of Ehhhh. See that, Martha? We done gone got ourefs some 'Murricans!

Make no mistake. As the "industry consultation" process goes on in the promotion of the new CMF (Canada Media Fund, the successor to the CTF) a lot of people behind the scenes are agitating for the relaxation of the 10/10 rule for domestic tax credits. "If you want better shows," the whisper goes, "we need to be able to import American talent! American showrunners!" For they, you see, are the grail.

Mary Darling from Little Mosque on the Prairie has been saying this for years. New behemoth Entertainment One makes this pitch frequently to those with ears in the right places. The latest was Shaftesbury's Christina Jennings.

Luckily, Canadian writers have Maureen Parker and the WGC on point. Here was Maureen's response to that interview in the last issue of Playback. I don't know if there's any truth to the rumor that Playback edited Maureen down, but knowing Maureen, I have to tell you she has plenty more to say on the subject of defending homegrown writers and Showrunners.

Thanks Maureen. (And Playback, too, for printing the response, in whatever form.)

From the latest Playback:

In the Playback article "Who's Minding the Store?" (June 22) - after noting that The Listener's initial ratings were a little soft - Christina Jennings is cited lamenting that Canada has "too few showrunners to fuel its drama-making machine." So if the "winning streak" of Canadian shows airing in U.S. primetime stalls with The Listener, it seems we're to understand that a lack of Canadian showrunning talent is to blame. I completely disagree with this conclusion - so let's talk facts before pointing fingers.

Ms. Jennings is right about one thing - after the disastrous 1999 CRTC Television Policy decimated drama production in Canada, some skilled Canadian writers and a few showrunners went south. However, despite this, we have retained and developed many exceptionally gifted and experienced showrunners. And with only seven one-hour dramas in production, and just six more in development, there's demand for only 13 showrunners in Canada right now.

A recent Writers Guild of Canada showrunner roundtable drew 30 of Canada's most experienced showrunners - so shortage of Canadian showrunners is not the issue. The fact is there are more seasoned and talented showrunners in Canada than there are shows to run. And on top of that, we also have an outstanding crop of potential showrunners readying in the nation's story departments.

But Canadian showrunners must have the professional respect that allows them to do their job. They must be given the creative control necessary to realize the original vision of the show - the vision that was the very reason the networks picked up the show in the first place.

Maureen Parker,


Executive director, 


Writers Guild of Canada

Working on Sundays

Really, really blows.

MJ & The Wicked Crooked

DAY OFF. THEORETICALLY. Today we shift to a Sunday to Thursday week with a Friday-Saturday weekend. It's something a lot of shows do because it's easier to get into locations on a Sunday that you would never be able to shoot in during the week -- an office, or a courthouse, or a bank, for instance. Even a Bar is more likely to close for you on a Sunday than, say, a Thursday.

The Story Department is also switching over, because, well, if you don't -- you kind of wind up working six days a week anyway.

So today is my weekend. And it's a gorgeous, Sunny day in St. John's. So that's something.

Except...

I have a big rewrite to do on the show after the show that's prepping now. Again, it's the third script I've passed this week. Boo hoo for me. I expect no tears -- that's the gig. But does the sun have to be quite so shiny? Does the reflection off the water have to be so beautifully brilliant?

Sigh.

In other news, I've had wearying and disconnected thoughts about the whole Michael Jackson thing and just didn't even have the energy to articulate them. Luckily, my friend Howard has. Go read his new blog, Medium Close Up on the subject. It's a bracing dose of "how the hell did we get here really?"

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to leave this dark coffee shop now and find somewhere to set up the laptop where I can at least see the Narrows. I'm thinking The Rooms.

Enjoy your weekend.

You Aint Going Nowhere

ONE OF THE funniest things about working and living in St. John's is trying to get around, when you come from away.

It's something my friend Jeff told me just before I left Toronto. "Wait til the first time you have to ask for directions."

I didn't know exactly what he meant, but I had a slight gleaning. You look at a map of St. John's and environs and you see the million little cowpaths that make up the city's road system; eddies and gouges worn through long before motorcars or locomotion entered the equation.

Add in steep banking hills and constantly changing topography, and ... well, no, actually, it still doesn't prepare you for

Rawlins Cross. Nothing prepares you for Rawlins Cross.

The first time I found myself at Rawlins Cross, I had to pull over once I'd cleared it and have myself a good little cry.

But for the most part you learn your routes and your ways of getting places, and you never, ever, ever try to find a different way, and town isn't all that big, so you get by.

Unless you have to ask where you're going.

"Oh, if you want to get there, b'y, you gotta go up past the old church and turn left at where the Drugstore used to be; then keep going straight and when you've hit the North Atlantic station you've gone too far."

Um. Sorry?

"Yer going to go past the old Rec center, past that restaurant that used to be the Afghan place."

Are either of these things marked? The rec centre? The Afghan place?"

"Are you retarded? They're not there anymore."

Oh. Thank you.

[Drives away aimlessly and sadly]

I have been here almost three months. In that time, I've been directed to go up past the where the funeral home is, told to turn left at the "ugly green house" and told to go the address on Water Street "where the motorcycles are usually in front."

My lovely Story Coordinator, K.MacRhubarb, who will henceforth replace Jimmy the Bat in stories of yore, (Sorry Jimmy, and ladies, he's still single, and also available for work -- I can send you a resume and a glossy) just yesterday, told me about a way to get somewhere that required me to go past the "Old Zellers Mall." Now, understand, there is no Zellers in this mall. You don't describe it in terms of the name of the Mall, which is fine, because it's not like there's a sign at the mall, either.

They all know the reference points, how to get around, where to go, and the best way to get there. And they'd love to tell you, they're only too happy to do so -- but sadly, it's like that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Picard was marooned on the planet with the dude from the species who was only able to talk in metaphors that referenced his people's past history.

So, yeah, I'd really like to go find the place they're scouting to shoot Thursday, but I'm not entirely sure I'm ready to go seek out Darmok at Tanagra where the walls fell. I mean, I haven't even had a fucking coffee yet.

I started laughing about this yesterday, and one of the other writers, Perry, (co-creator of Republic of Doyle) said that he remembered being bewildered as an adult when someone asked him how many blocks away something was.

They just don't think this way. Where a road dead ends up a hill and circles around, and an intersection has four or five choices -- what's a block, anyway?

I think of my early socialization, numbered streets, East-West, where the direction changes, the grid, long New York blocks and realize anew how different your reference points can be, and how that shapes the way you relate to distance.

That still doesn't mean, you know, that an address wouldn't help now and then. Cause it's hard getting that out of people sometimes. And here's the kicker: Google Maps is wrong. Seriously. A lot of the time, their directions in St. John's suck.

Still, even if it was accurate, I'm not sure that this morning at 8'o'clock that I would have gotten much luck with putting in, "_____Scrapyard, Blackhead Road in Shea Heights on the way to Cape Spear."

I mean, Google Maps is cool. But not that cool.

Thank God the 2nd AD called as I was in my car, thinking about...I don't know... driving aimlessly till I hit a cliff.

Ah well.

You know, this is probably all because the day after they joined Confederation, we made them switch to driving on the right. Seriously. People have ways of getting back at you.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find a phone charger. I think I'm going to start out looking at the store by the thing on the way to the Capelin, hang a left at that place the whale beached back in 92.

Interesting Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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