Mmmmm. Fresh From the Oven Banffy Goodness

OH YES, WILL DIXON, Mmm. Tell us of your parties and lunches with the hoity-toits of Showrunner stardom, like Friday Night Lights' Jason Katims:

As far as writing and producing the show, Katims spoke at length about the FNL process...which also fell into the groundbreaking category. As he told it, they have no standing sets or even swing sets. No sets...that's like unheard of for a TV series, no?! Apparently it's shot in small town Texas, and they just walk onto a location, light to shoot (not for 'shots' or 'coverage'), and off they go. No rehearsals...no marks...no measuring with tape measures...just 3 camera's roll as the actors start performing and they 'discover the blocking of the scene' as it happens.

They call their camera operators 'snipers' because they just have to find the shot and take it.

Cool.

Katims likened it in some ways to the shooting of The Office, but for a one hour ensemble drama filmed on location, it's pretty unique. And they move really fast. He said they had 8 days to shoot an episode when they began, took it down to 7 days last year, and are going to be shooting them in 6 days this summer. That's fast...and he attributed it primarily to the speed with which they can burn through scenes filming them in this way.

I know this style contributes to the authenticity and 'reality' of FNL, but I wonder if we don't see more and more drama shows being shot this way.

Mmm. Yess...Mmmm. Let's suck the marrow. Mmmmm. Goood..

In other news, looks like Little Mosque on the Prairie finally wrapped up not a U.S. sale -- but at least a U.S. Format sale, as reported by the Canadian Press:

The deal also involves another Westwind Pictures show currently in development; Fox will help Westwind develop the show and then determine if it wants to buy it.

The CBC show, about a community of devout Muslims living in a small prairie town, won't be changed drastically for an American audience, Darling added.

"It'll be 'Little Mosque in Minnesota,' if I have my way," the Minnesota-born Darling said with a laugh.

A year ago, U.S. cable network the CW debuted the critically acclaimed "Aliens in America," which explores Americans' cultural ignorance of the Muslim community.

Darling speculated that by securing the "Little Mosque" deal, Fox was "trying to broaden their horizons and become a bit more of a serious player."

Well, that's good news. Great to see Fox trying to become a serious player.

Fox.

As in, "Twentieth Century."

Jesus Martinez.

Well, that's it for Banff updates. I have to go to set now.

Serious player. Wow.

Reprint: Rebecca Eckler Knocks Up Judd Apatow

This is a little out of date -- but seeing as the "how do I keep somebody stealing my idea" stuff still seems to be number one with a bullet on the questions list, I thought it beared a bit of revisitin' Does anyone know if this lawsuit is still ongoing?

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

Oh, who knows? Anyway...

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

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

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

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

Here she writes about the similarities:

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

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

Now. What the whole article does well is give you a feel for how sweaty and awful it must feel to be in Eckler's position. My heart goes out to her. It really does. But in that excerpt above, you start to see a lot of the inherent problems in this kind of thing.

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

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occasionally, someone does try to rip you off.

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

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

Reprint: Book Review: "Billion Dollar Kiss"

THERE'S A VALUE for any young aspiring TV writer in reading books on the craft. Everyone's got a few that they'll recommend as Gospel. And there are sites like Jill Golick's and Jane Espenson's that are invaluable when you're trying to put together those first, all-important sample scripts.

But after a while, if you're not careful, it's easy to descend into a pit of script porn -- where you discuss format or technique endlessly; where discussing the minutae of craft starts to crowd out the ass-in-seat time that's actually going to get you somewhere. For all the resources now available to the aspiring, there are very few, I think, that offer the one thing you desperately need: perspective. A leg up so that your baby-writer gaffes aren't fatal, a way for you to understand what you're getting into before you're too far down the path.

Billion Dollar Kiss: The Kiss That Saved Dawson's Creek and Other Adventures in TV Writing (available right now as a bargain book from Amazon...5.99!) isn't just the truest, most straightforward tome I've ever read about the actual life and process of writing for TV, it also serves as a pretty decent history of the last twenty years of the business -- and it's now particularly timely as a backgrounder to how we found ourselves in the morass of the current WGA strike.

This book is also the only TV-writing related book I'd recommend to a fan -- somebody who has no intention of ever writing themselves, but is interested enough in how the game works to want to know more. Billion Dollar Kiss sometimes reads like a good thriller, sometimes like a psychological study. If you read this book, you'll definitely be the smartest cookie in the sleeve when anyone wants to talk about realityTV, or the strike, or how a show gets made, or why TV sucks so often -- and why it's good, when it's good.

That's a pretty tall order, but Stepakoff's straightforward prose and his willingness to explore his own mistakes and shortcomings makes for a refreshing, and ultimately inspirational read.

He also nails the personality of a TV writer to a T:

It's hard to explain in succint terms just what makes a good TV writer, and by association good TV, because of course you're dealing with something that is subjective. But by this time, just like I saw a pattern in the pathology of all my colleagues, I saw similarities among the most talented. Obviously, they all have good skills, a mastery -- or at least an intuitive understanding -- of craft. But with hard work and commitment that can be picked up. There's something else, too. The best way I can explain it is tha they have a sensitivity to the world around them, a sort of sixth sense. They pay attention to the little things that others miss. Every outing to the bank, mall, or post office is a chance to people-watch. They listen for subtext instead of just what someone is simply stating. They watch body language, what someone is wearing, how someone is behaving. They always look for the inside joke. They examine and consider how everything tastes and smells, to the point where even a simple lunch from Baja Fresh is subjected to extended critical analysis. Everything is turned over, reflected upon. They look for connections in the chance. Meaning in the random. Metaphors in everything. Their interactions with the world beocme a process of looking for secrets and clues that will unlock the Great Truths, so that these things can be examined and written about for the ever-approaching next episode...

At times, frankly, this life can be downright exhausting...Simply put, TV writers are original and whacked-out people.

That last part's important. Elsewhere he puts it in less diplomatic terms, describing himself and other TV writers as "nutjobs."

And we are.

But that's not what makes Stepakoff's story compelling. What gives Stepakoff a leg up is the peculiarity of his timing. He entered the business -- thanks to a break from University alum John Wells -- just as the 1988 WGA strike got underway.

Besides evocative passages describing how he came to sign with his first agent, the author relates a story about his struggle with being a brand new writer, not yet union, in a time of labor unrest. A top exec offers him a secret deal to scab for $10 000 -- at a time when he's flat broke, and fresh in town. The struggle is something that I imagine several people are going through right now as I type this. You owe it to yourself to read about his experience, and how he came to turn the offer down.

Stepakoff's career straddles the end of 80's style schlock tv like Simon & Simon, to stints writing for The Wonder Years, Sisters, and Disney animation. He witnessed first hand, the gold rush into TV writing that defined the 90's (he runs down the numbers...and they're staggering) and the end of fin-syn rules that profoundly changed the relationship of studio and network to writer, and led to the rise of the conglomerates (and in many ways led us to the brink of the current strike.) And for process wonks, the insight into the story room and production process behind Dawson's Creek (where Stepakoff worked starting in a very troubled season 3) is worth the price of the book on its own.

But there's other wisdom in here too. Why is TV so white, and why does the industry consistently fail to deal with its diversity problem? It's in there. He's also sympathetic to actors in a way that many writers aren't:

For a writer to work on a troubled show, your career is not on the line. For one thing, everyone around town knows it's a troubled show, and for another your agent is already working on getting you another. The most important thing for a writer's career is not the show, not the credit, it is to work hard, contribute to the Room, write scripts that satisfy the showrunner -- basically to get along. If you do these things you get good recommendations, your showrunner and your colleagues want to hire you again, and good buzz follows you, no matter how stupid the show.

However, if you are an actor on a stupid show, it's your face saying those stupid words. You become forever associated with them. Actors' businesses are the characters they are associated with, and if the characters on the TV show they are doing are not being cared for, they get tense.

The effect of POD deals, Vertical Integration, how MTM invented Quality Television, why a pitch is easier to sell than a script, and how the end of independent studios damaged the training up of young talent...it's all in there. If you read this book, you'll understand TV a lot better...you'll understand why this strike is so bitter, and you'll hopefully see why writer-driven TV is really the only sure path to putting out a decent product.

Interestingly enough, though Stepakoff works in L.A. there's a lot of parallel wisdom in here that informs the Canadian industry. The problems aren't the same, not by a long shot. But in reading Stepakoff's explanation of fin-syn, I saw parallels to the 1999 CRTC decision that killed drama in this country. That's the thing about clear-headed prose. It helps you see things -- even things you already know -- just a little bit differently. I'll be working that into a separate post in a few days.

Billion Dollar Kiss is like the Cliff's Notes of how to live as a TV writer. It's a fast read, just over 300 pages -- and it's wise. And like any good TV story, it even ends on a note of hope.

Which I know we all could use right about now.

Reprint: Questions From Newbies

It takes a while to learn how to throw your feces really effectively, and become a real, gush-durned word monkey. So as a public service, I will be periodically answering questions from you, my readers. This is the first in an occasional series.

Dear Dead Things On Sticks Dude,
Is it acceptable to accept other forms of payment besides cold hard cash?

Good question. In the beginning, before you have credits, you might find yourself doing all sorts of work, non union style. It's good to become a pro writer and join the union and all, and if you find yourself competative for union jobs, you should join the union. But once you do that, you can never go back. In both Canada and the US, once you're union, you can't take non union gigs. Timing when to join is very important.

Until you join, you may find all manner of payment awaiting you. I know someone who got paid in clothing. Someone else had to defer their salary, but got four or five pairs of hockey tickets right away. That's pretty sweet, if you ask me.

I once offered to do spec field producing work for a show I was on for the price of six pints of Guinness. And they turned me down. The fools.

But here's one thing to always keep in mind. It's very important. Never, ever agree to be paid in conflict diamonds. That shit will come back and fuck you up proper. Make no mistake. Karma IS a bitch.

Dear Dead Things On Sticks Dude,
What is with Robert McKee's eyebrows?

They are fearsome and awe-inspiring. The way they pick up the chemicals from the more or less constant chain-smoking he engages in on breaks, sometimes makes them shimmer in the gloaming like those wondrous images of oil wells burning, burning in the Iraqi desert. They hold shaman's power. Do not look directly at them, lest ye shall be lost utterly.

Dear Dead Things On Sticks Dude,
What's your favorite screenplay, and why?

Dramatic screenplays, it's a tie. Chinatown, and Network. For comedies, I'd probably say Broadcast News. And if you have to ask why, you haven't seen those movies. And if you haven't seen those movies, you should be ashamed of yourself. No banana for you.

Dear Dead Things On Sticks Dude,
Do writers masturbate as much as Charlie Kaufman seemed to indicate in Adaptation? Because that's nasty.

Fine sociological query. The answer is no. Most writers actually would rather keep their masturbation keystroke related, like, say, answering fake letters from readers.

Dear Dead Things On Sticks Dude,
Seriously, what's with the Geena Davis thing?

Oh for crying out loud, it's a thing, okay? Same with Mary Louise Parker. It also extends to Rachel McAdams, okay? I'm a man. I'm a straight man. I'm a straight man who lives by myself. Who died and made you Judgey Judgerson?

Dear Dead Things On Sticks Dude,
I'm writing a spec for Two and a Half Men--

I'm sorry.

...Uh, I wasn't done.

Yes you are.

Real Life Gets in the Way of The Blog

AND SORRY TO SAY, in those cases, the blog loses.

I''ve got a read through at lunch today for my first episode. Tomorrow we start shooting. I'll be continuing to refine my outline for the next episode I have to do on set. And I'll be spending long hours on the set starting tomorrow.

So I've spring loaded some loving craft posts for your (re)perusal through the week.

I'll pop in if I have a chance. But til then, play nice. Stay cool.

Inside The Temple of the Holy...

TODAY'S NY TIMES has a special EMMY AWARDS pullout section, and nestled in there theres' a fun little peek inside writers rooms!

Writers' rooms are as idiosyncratic as writers themselves: a system of organization has to be devised to keep track of plots and characters. Some writers prefer lots of stress relievers to play with during their usual marathon script-writing sessions; others like to stay as focused as possible. Food — what's permissible, when and where it can be eaten — has to be negotiated. And often the sensibility in the room ends up being reflected on screen in the finished show. Here's a look inside the rooms where the staffs of five of this season's acclaimed series ply their trade.

Writer Elisabeth Jensen then takes the reader on a quick tour of the rooms for House, Damages, How I Met Your Mother, Flight of the Conchords and Weeds.

THERE is a rule in the “House” writing room: No eating on the pool table. It’s left free for the show’s creator, David Shore, who can be found playing a game with a colleague there nearly every afternoon. The rule is important because the table is a tempting surface in a room that is more a daily lunch spot than the site of writing sessions, for a staff of more than a dozen. Mr. Shore — who is also an executive producer of this Fox series, starring Hugh Laurie as the cantankerous Dr. Gregory House — said the “basic gumshoe-type work” of researching the obscure maladies that form the core of each episode is done by individuals outside the room, as is much of the script writing.

The writers’ room really comes into play only when it is time to map out the multi-episode arcs of the characters, Mr. Shore said. “Every few weeks we get together in that room and discuss where we are with the characters and where we’re going and options we should go with,” he said. The sessions clarify “little character traits that are coming out with or without writerly help.”

He noted that the staff members take advantage “of those white boards the same way House does” when trying to make a diagnosis. Although they probably wield their markers with more tact than House. The process is “quite amicable,” he said. “We mock each other’s ideas, but good-naturedly.

Check out the full article here

Those F$&*@ing Young People, Again.

WHAT'S IN A NAME? Did Young People Fucking bring the new censorship debate on itself? Or is it doing what it's supposed to do?

(Or, Denis caps off a busy week by pimping his commenters as fresh content. Again.)

From the Con side, regular commenter ladycanuck:

While I'm against Bill-C10 (I just wanted to make that clear) I think the producers of YPF were just asking for trouble giving their film such a controversial name. After all, as it's funded partially by government money, it's gonna show up on a lot of government documents. The censorship/familyfocus type lobbyists were looking for an excuse to change the film/television system and the YPF producers gave them a goodie. I think the current Bill C10 problems can be placed partially on the shoulders of YPF.

I know what the movie is about and the content is good but I do have a problem with the title. I know the F-word still upsets a lot of people. Try explaining to a person like my mother (for example) who immensely dislikes swearing how a film called Young People Fucking has been financed with government money. The producers crossed the line by giving the film the title they did. Sure the controversy got the film a lot of attention but at what cost?

And the Pro, courtesy of the Mad Pulp Bastard:

For every one of you that is "disappointed" by the choice of the title, there will be 20 who will want to see this movie based on the title alone. Many will see this on DVD and believe me - this title sells.

The producers are smart because yes, controversy sells. It sells their movie and it sells the idea that left wingers who want to stick it to an "oppressive government who wants to censor critically acclaimed movies" needs to see this movie.

See, it builds a movement of anti-censorship and places its must-see movie directly at the center of it. It is a clarion call for people to wake up. You don't have to like the title or the movie for that matter - you just have to hate the idea and the execution of censorship.

If the title were the innocuous "Young People in Love" or something equally "oatmeal", so as not to offend anyone, then the movie would disappear into the landscape and die a well-deserved bland death. But YP FUCKING gets press. Millions and millions of dollars of free publicity that says "YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE. NOW."

The title is not "costing" them anything.

YOUNG PEOPLE FUCKING is a GREAT FUCKING TITLE.

And there it is, kids, very cleanly stated, the entire shape of the argument. Both have good points. Both things are actually true. At the same time.

It's all about choices, in the end. What's yours?

Have a good weekend.

Banff TV Fest 2008

WELL, I'M NOT going to be there. Sadly, I have a script shooting starting Tuesday, so it's just not a good time. But if you want to catch all the reportage straight from the front lines, you have a couple of other blogger options.

Fearless Will Dixon will be rockin it over at Uninflected Images.

And Diane Kristine of TV, Eh? Fame will be doing her usual fine reportage for Blogcritics, unencumbered by the need to tsk me for my apparently unending bitterness. Heh heh.

Now I better go. I have to go to my tiger meeting.

That's right, bitches. You heard me.

Oh, and even as we speak, I'm pouring out a 40 of Colt 45 for Robson Arms.

Respeck.

Canadians Get Mad

FOR CANADIAN VIEWERS who don't get AMC, remember that this weekend is your chance to see Mad Men, the best show of last year, over the air, on CTV.

The first ep airs Sunday at 10pm.

WGC's Got Your Back

TECH SURVEYS ARE really odd. A dozen people tromping to location after location in a antiseptic smelling bus, poking through alleys and hotel corridors and parking garages.

It gets really weird when, for instance, twelve people find they have to stay in a room for a minute because the RCMP won't let you out because you're scouting the same floor where Her Excellency the Governor General is staying. Whoops.

And I'm not even wearing my good sneakers.

Then, just for laughs, let's say you manage to drop your cell phone down in the heating vent between the bus and the metal thing covering the bus, and you have to get crew people with coat hangers and pliers and screwdrivers to help you out. Would you feel like a loser then, writerboy? I'm guessing yes. Yes you would.

(Thanks, Bruce, and the other guy whose name I don't know but will learn soon, I swear.)

Anyway, it's a loser kind of day in Canadian Writerland. Good thing that all we nasty, pasty, scribbler types have peeps on our side.

Those peeps had a lot to respond to today. And just because they do it so much better than I ever could -- here's the WGC response to both the CRTC decision regarding the CTF, and the Canadian "Upfronts."

First, about the CTF decision, they prefaced the release with the following backgrounder:

Canadian Television Fund – The Sequel

The CRTC issued its recommendations today on the Canadian Television Fund. You all remember the CTF: it’s that essential support of Canadian television production that is partially supported by portion of a subscriber fee the cable and satellite companies are supposed to direct to the Fund. Though the Fund has been scrutinized and refined over the years – including a positive review by the Auditor General in 2006 – it has come under attack by certain cable providers (Shaw and Videotron withheld payments into the fund, and Jim Shaw initiated a very public media campaign against the Fund). Their charges led the CRTC to commission a Task Force Report on the Fund, the proposals of which pleased no one. This led in turn to a week-long CRTC hearing. Today’s release is the result of those hearings.

As you will remember, the WGC fought hard on this one, understanding that what was at stake was the dismantling of a working program that was only getting better at what it did - that is, supporting the production of high quality Canadian programming. We responded formally in writing to the Task Force Report, and we presented at the public hearings. Several of our members – David Barlow, Aaron Martin, Karen McClellan and Karen Walton – also presented at the hearings. We lobbied in Ottawa and we held special meetings in Banff.

The WGC voiced its opposition to a number of the Task Force recommendations, chiefly the proposal to divide the fund into a ‘cultural’ and a ‘commercial’ stream, with the commercial stream having lesser (8 point as opposed to 10 point) Canadian content requirements. During the hearings, the terms of the discussion shifted from “commercial” and “cultural” to “private” and “public.” The WGC made clear that it is all public money, and that there is no proof that using non-Canadians in Canadian shows (8 point) guarantees greater success. The facts lead us to conclude exactly the opposite – Corner Gas, Rick Mercer Report, and Little Mosque – the most popular Canadian shows on TV right now, are all 10 point shows.

Today’s decision makes several key recommendations, chief among them, dividing the Fund into two streams – one public-sector (primarily CBC) and the other private-sector, with two separate Boards. The good news is that they are not recommending an 8-point fund, and the CTF will continue to support only 10-point Canadian programs. From the Report itself:

-------

Key recommendations: In its report, the CRTC recommends that:

The CTF's funding be split into private- and public-sector streams. The private-sector stream would support the production of commercially successful programming and be accessed by private commercial broadcasters. The public-sector stream would be set aside for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, educational broadcasters and other not-for-profit broadcasters.

Two separate Boards of Directors be established, with one having oversight of the private-sector funding stream and the other being responsible for the public-sector funding stream. However, both streams should share the day-to-day administrative services of the CTF to reduce operating costs.

Increased emphasis be placed on audience success as a criterion for access to the new private-sector funding stream.

The CTF maintain its current practice of funding productions that score 10 out of 10 points on the scale developed by the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office (the CAVCO scale).

The proposals by two companies that distribute broadcasting services to opt out of their contributions to the CTF, as required by the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, be rejected.

The CTF establish a new funding stream to support the production of Canadian programs for broadcast on new media platforms.

Actions by the CRTC

While the majority of the report's recommendations require action by the CTF Board and other government entities, the Commission is able to act in certain areas. Among other things, the Commission will amend:

its policy to allow tangible benefits stemming from ownership transactions in the broadcasting industry to be directed to the CTF, and

the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations to make mandatory the monthly contributions of companies that distribute broadcasting services, once the Department of Canadian Heritage has resolved the major issues.

We are pleased that the CRTC has made mandatory the monthly payments into the Fund, closing the loophole that saw Shaw and Videotron withhold payments.

The Guild will have the opportunity to discuss the CRTC recommendations further with the relevant organizations as the Banff World Television Festival next week. In Banff, the Guild will be meeting with representatives of CRTC, which is bringing a large delegation to the festival. The Guild is also meeting with the CTF itself, and has a meeting scheduled with representatives from Canadian Heritage. The WGC will recommend to Heritage that they do not accept the CRTC’s recommended restructuring.

Then they released this to the press:

CRTC’s Two Streams for CTF an Unnecessary Complication

Toronto – June 5, 2008 – The CRTC today delivered its recommendations on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) to the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) is disappointed that the Commission felt it necessary to split the Fund into two streams with no clear distinction between them other than the source of the money.

“There was no evidence presented in the CRTC’s Task Force Report or the hearings in February that the CTF was not working,” says Maureen Parker, Executive Director, Writers Guild of Canada. “Now they’ve broken the Fund in two with no clear rationale. This introduces new layers of complication, duplication and bureaucracy into the Canadian TV production financing process – and all because cable companies like Shaw didn’t want to contribute to a system that has made them wealthy.”

The WGC is relieved that both streams of the Fund will continue to support only 10-point Canadian productions, but questions the “increased emphasis” on “audience success” of the so-called “private-sector fund.” Audience success was already a key criterion in the CTF model. And evidence indicates that those shows most distinctly Canadian – shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie, The Rick Mercer Report and Corner Gas – had the best success with Canadian audiences.

“As screenwriters,” says Rebecca Schechter, President, WGC, “audience success is always the goal whether we’re writing for the CBC or one of the private networks. Our objective in all cases is to make a show of the highest quality possible and to go after the largest audience possible. The recommendations create an artificial distinction for shows written for the private broadcasters.”

At the same time, the WGC applauds the CRTC’s decision to make mandatory the cable and satellite companies’ monthly contribution to the Fund. Shaw and Videotron’s withholding of their regulated CTF contribution created a crisis in Canadian television production.

“It was not their money to withhold in the first place,” adds Parker. “Shaw, Videotron and Rogers laid claim to public money, and the CRTC listened. This just goes to show that if you treat something as yours for long enough, people will start to believe it. And now, in order to close the loophole in the funding structure and give the cable companies something in return, they are introducing unnecessary complication into a system that didn’t need fixing in the first place.”

And the release about the Upfronts...gotta say, not the biggest fan of the pun, but this one kinda works:

Canadian Nets Not Upfront About Lack of Canadian Original Scripted Drama.

Toronto – June 5, 2008 – Canadian broadcasters CanWest and CTV held their upfronts this week, allowing a sneak peek at what Canadians can look for on their TV screens come Fall. To the Writers Guild of Canada, the new season is best summed up in the title of CanWest’s new show: “True Hollywood Story Canada” – the Canadian networks are filling their best time slots with U.S. programming, and offering very little new original scripted Canadian drama.

To the opening strains of “Baba O’Riley” (Teenage Wasteland), CTV’s Ivan Fecan referred to his network as a “major originating force.” But the lineup unfolded by President of Programming Suzanne Boyce reflected a schedule dominated by U.S. dramatic programming. They proudly touted that 75% of their prime time schedule is in simulcast with the American networks. With Flashpoint and The Listener the exceptions, the rule for new Canadian programming was copycat reality shows like Canada’s Next Top Model.

The story was much the same later in the week at CanWest’s upfront. They talked of building on a “strong foundation” with “new programming that is both diverse and distinctively Canadian.” Yet their foundation of Canadian dramatic programming has been crumbling for years, and this year they are throwing a patch on it with just one new half-hour animated series (Producing Parker) and one mini-series (The Last Templar) written by Canadians. Included in the CanWest lineup of so-called “Canadian Original” programming are an international co-production with limited Canadian involvement and a Punk’d-style production starring long-time Los Angeles resident Howie Mandel. And, like CTV, CanWest too pastes the word ‘Canada’ into the American title and calls it Canadian, offering shows like Project Runway Canada.

“Even Bob and Doug Mackenzie come to us via American writers,” says Maureen Parker, Executive Director, Writers Guild of Canada. “Calling programs like The Hills After Show and True Hollywood Story Canada original Canadian programming is confusing the mirror-image for the real thing.”

Last year, broadcasters outside of Quebec spent almost half a billion dollars ($461,770,968) on non‐Canadian drama. These same broadcasters spent just over $36.5 million on Canadian drama last year. Spending on Canadian drama by conventional broadcasters has dropped from 5.1% of advertising revenues in 1998 to just 2.3% of advertising revenues in 2007. And this figure would be even lower were it not for incremental benefits arising from CRTC approvals of media consolidation and new licences.

The WGC also learned, following the CTV celebration, that the broadcaster has killed the award-winning and critically-acclaimed series Robson Arms. The loss of this showcase for Canadian talent is a major blow to Canadian programming, and is further evidence of broadcasters’ minimal commitment to original scripted drama – the true identity pieces of Canadian television. Just tacking on the word ‘Canada’ doesn’t make it Canadian, and Canadians will not be fooled.

For more information, please contact David Kinahan, Writers Guild of Canada, at 416-979-7907 or 1-800-567- 9974, or by email at d.kinahan@wgc.ca

CTF, CRTC: Two Funds Good!

HOO BOY. This is breaking. I'll edit and attach the WGC release when it goes out later today. The CRTC decision is in on the CTF. Sooprise, sooprise. They're splitting the fund in two.

You may remember that this contretemps started when fatuous gasbag Jim Shaw stamped his little troll feet and said, "why do I have to write a check for Trailer Park Boys?"

Oh, what fun was had when rich cable companies decided to shirk their responsibilities -- the commitments they'd made for market protection and the right to gouge you and I more -- and decided they simply wouldn't pay!

They prompted a whole nice big 'ol review, and a disastrous report that nobody liked recommending the CTF be split into two funds -- one for "cultural" programming and one for more "commercial" fare. The commercial fund would be able to fund so-called 8/10 programs -- that means they could use either American stars or writers, and still qualify.

The outpouring of attention and letters to the CRTC on the matter led to hearings, and near the end of those hearings it became pretty clear by the attitude of some of the commissioners that this two fund thing was a done deal.

Well, so it is.

But not so fast, because Jimmy Jims didn't get all he wanted.

Both funds, the "commercial" and the "cultural" will still have to fund only 10/10 fully Canadian programs.

The CTF will also administer both funds. I'm sure that Jim will be happy to hear that.

So the worst part of this whole stupid, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic affair was beaten back, thanks in no small part to the tireless efforts of organizations like the Writers Guild of Canada.

I would love to know, now, seeing as I'm right in the middle of a Blue Draft of The Border -- is that show cultural, or commercial?

Should I throw in a string quartet? Irish dancing? Boobs? What?

In case you're scoring along at home, the net result of this is yes, they have actually found a way to introduce another level of paper-shuffling and bureaucracy to the process of making TV in this fine country.

So you see -- we all win!

Sharpen those pencils, kids....we gots more forms to fill out! Yeeee-hahhhh!

See No Evil, But Judge it Anyway...

I KNOW I'M late on this, but considering that YPF is getting a big release now and it really is a sweet little movie, I think it still bears noting:

A special screening of Young People F—king, the film at the center of the Bill C-10 debate, was held in Ottawa on Thursday at the World Exchange Plaza in Ottawa. However, very few of the 40 high-ranking politicians that signed-up actually attended.

Nonetheless, the theatre was packed with young parliamentary aides and assistants, including Victoria van Eyk. Van Eyk was the assistant to Conservative MP Gary Goodyear until earlier last week, when she was fired for ordering tickets to the show under her boss’ name.

The film’s distributor set up the screening so politicians could judge the controversy over the film for themselves, rather than rely on the word of opponents who are mostly basing their opinions on the title.

Young People Fucking has been used as an example by proponents of Bill C-10, which would allow the Heritage Minister power to deny tax credits to Canadian television and film products deemed offensive or contrary to public policy – even if government agencies have already invested in them.

The website describes the film as “a scathingly honest and hilarious portrayal of four couples, one threesome and a crazy night of sex.” The filmmakers have insisted the comedy about sexual relationships isn’t pornographic and they wanted to prove it by showing the movie to those who might be voting on the bill.

Several Conservative MPs were amongst the 40 MPs and senators that originally signed up to see the film; however, they later said their names were listed by mistake and they had no intention of attending the screening.

Is there a single thing in the article above that's in any way surprising to anyone? Up to and including the firing of the admin assistant?

But remember, kids, your government doesn't want to censor you.

Fuck.

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie

IT'S LIKE RUNNING into an ex-girlfriend on the street. Kinda exciting, but at the same time, a little weird.

A full four years after we made it, the first and only season of CHARLIE JADE is finally going to the Sci-Fi Channel in the USA. The show's site on SciFi is here.

Four years on, and five or six shows later (and those are the ones that got made) it's interesting to return to those days, the mindset of that writer. Who was that guy? He had a bit more hair, and said things like, "Here's why I hate that."

Nice room manner. Geez. Although I guess if you asked my intrepid colleague, she might tell you I haven't come all that far. Let's just say that there is a way to call someone's writing, "just like Shakespeare" and have it, um...not be a compliment.

That McGrath. What a maroon.

Anyway, I feel like a different writer now, that's the main thing. But it's been a couple years since I've seen Charlie Jade. I wouldn't mind checking it out again.

Alex Epstein has an entry on the show here. That's another reason to have great affection for CJ. I had to go to Cape Town, South Africa to meet another native New Yorker. Funny old world.

I'm pleased that, true to form, exactly ZERO of the publicity materials on the show mentions me as one of the writers. Typical. (To be fair, the EP did actually take steps to let them know that. Ah, whatever. They'd probably spell my name wrong anyway.)

If you're a U.S. viewer and are thinking about tucking into CJ from the beginning, it's a very challenging narrative. Ambitious. A little confusing. And if you're a writer, you should watch it just because of how instructive it is to a lot of the process that gets discussed on TV writer blogs.

Charlie Jade had a lot in common with Bionic Woman from a process standpoint. Through about the first eight episodes, you can see a struggle to try and decide, to frame, what kind of show it was going to be. There's flashes of about three shows in there -- it could be this, it could be this, nope... hmm.

Nail the template, folks. It's the hardest part of the heavy lifting. And (he said, self servingly) it's one of the most telling reasons why a show that's not writer-driven has such a hard time finding its feet. (vis Bionic Woman.)

I was part of the writing team that came on in Episode 9 -- so we're weeks away from having anything that I wrote show up on SciFi. In any case, I'm sure glad it's finally getting seen in the USA. I think there are real flashes of trippy brilliance in the show.

For comparison, here's one of the posts I wrote about the show when it aired in Canada.

Anyway, enjoy the show, Yankees. It's an interesting ride. I'll probably write more about the show as it unspools.

Oh Yeah, All Right.

SOMETIMES WHEN DADDY is snowed under it's the little things that help recharge. Like taking a little time out just to be a face in the crowd.

So the kids aren't buying CD's anymore, hmm? Whatever. Some of us remember the smell of vinyl and the feel of three chords and the truth, baby.


Heh heh. He played "Rebel." Heh heh.

Make it last all night.

Pimp My Show

SORRY. I'M HEAP snowed under with writing work right now. And I'm not sure I've got much to say anyway. I mean, really, about what? CTV and Global's launches?

Okay: they're buying a bunch of U.S. shows. They think they're going to kick each other's asses. You get these shows on the U.S. Nets anyway. They should do more Canadian stuff.

Corner Gas going goodbye is a drag, and it'll be missed. Hopefully Brent Butt's new show will be good. Pretty smart of CTV not to drop that ball.

Ummmmm...

Yeah, I got nothing. I'm prepping Season 2, Episode 2 of The Border, reading episode 6, and trying to write Episode 4 at the same time. So, uh, how about this interview with Nazneen Contractor on Q?



Oh, actually, one more thing to say -- interesting bit off the top when Jian quotes one of his delightful letter writers.

Are we really this ugly as a culture? Really? I mean, I know all the provinces hate Toronto and it's very fashionable to hate the CBC, but are Canadians really this pissy? I haven't seen a lot of generosity of spirit lately and it's getting me down.

Back when I can.

David Cole

DAVID COLE passed away late last week in Toronto.

David is a writer/producer whose credits read like a history of Canadian TV for the last couple decades: Due South, Bob & Margaret, Traders, Black Harbour, Cold Squad, Seeing Things -- just to name a few.

He also gave freely to educational efforts like the Canadian Film Centre, where he took a turn mentoring a new generation of screenwriters who went on to success in the industry. He worked with everybody, and had stories about everything.

I didn't know David well. I only worked with him once, on an animated program called Skyland. We kind of were ships that passed in the night on another project, too. What I recall most from the Skyland story meetings we had in his house was that he looked for a good laugh, and didn't take himself too seriously. He had a pleasingly irreverent attitude toward contradictory network notes, was generous with praise, and was a wonderful storyteller.

He'll be missed. Writers who knew him well, please feel free to pipe in in the comments below.

EDIT: The Writers Guild of Canada just sent out this email to members:

It is with sadness that we report the passing of longstanding member and contributor to Canadian television, David Cole. David has been a member of the Writers Guild of Canada since 1990. He was a screenwriter on such iconic Canadian television series as Street Legal, Due South, Cold Squad, Black Harbour, and ENG. He was also a frequent contributor to children’s television and animation, writing for such shows as Di-Gata Defenders, Skyland and most recently, Ricky Sprocket. Many of you will have seen the obituary in the Globe and Mail suggesting that the family would be especially grateful to those inclined to write any memories of David you may like to share. There will be a place to leave these notes at the memorial. The memorial service will be held at Trinity-St Paul United Church in Toronto (427 Bloor Street West) at 3 p.m. on Friday, June 6th, with a wake afterwards at Sarah and Tom Milroy's house at 73 Linwood Avenue. There will be a service in Nova Scotia at a time yet to be decided upon.

Scott McClellan is Not My Hero. But.

THERE'S SOMETHING DELICIOUS about the whole story.

I don't think I can add anything of substance, really, to the shitstorm of complaint McClellan's memoir has raised. There are things that I find funny and compelling in the coverage, though.

I think it's hilarious that the right wing dittoheads, (who surely have to be on the endangered species list by now -- don't hold your breath for protection there, boys) scream bias because Weasel boy Ari Fleischer's memoir opened dead.

Memo to the frothing, let's do this one more time: Man bites dog is the story. Dog bites man, not so much. And the dog gets bit in Scotty's book.

I also think it's notable that the "cashing in to get rich" argument (besides, you know, being an argument that Republicans should be able to get behind) is so easily refuted by the reality -- a five figure advance for a book like this? That's poking through the cushions money. Nope, McClellan's that most dangerous of things: the true believer who got burned.

And what really has me fascinated, watching this story play out, is the denial and the somersaults you see media types going through to try and douse McClellan's most explosive point -- that the media haven't done their jobs. Not after 9/11, not in the leadup to the Iraq war, and not now.

I find that interesting because a few years ago I had to make a choice. I was supremely uncomfortable working in "journalism" or "factual", because everywhere I looked, I saw people clearly writing with bias and then denying that's what they were doing. I saw obsequious toadying to those above, no matter what the facts on the ground were, to reflect the corporate agenda. I saw people clinging to this little torchlight of truth, when in reality, there was none. I saw self-censorship because nobody wanted to be accused of being "typical left wing media," so the most ridiculous nosestretchers from the other side got free passes.

In Canada, you get an extra level of deliciousness, because most of the time those same people will tsk tsk at the US media, and think we're better here. More measured, somehow. That may be so in certain pockets, but it's done while closing their eyes to the fact that, if anything, we're even more deferential to the power structure here.

I saw all that and felt queasy about it and somewhere in there I made the decision that somehow I had to get out of that business, because the premise was fundamentally broken. The things that James Brooks posited in Broadcast News had all come to pass. Hell, Network seemed to be playing like a doc. The poor, brittle, deluded few, left claiming objectivity in a sea of spin and bias; that was a lie, and that if I really wanted to stab at truth, maybe I should figure out a way to make things up the way I think they are, and get someone to pay me for that.

So I did.

As far as I see, I pretty much do the same job now I did then.

Yet somehow it feels more honest.

Reprint: As Prep Continues

IT WAS PROBABLY a little ambitious to try and run down prep day by day. Those days easily get away from you. Then it's 10:00 pm and you've been here 13 hours and you're suddenly thinking that life would be better if we didn't have to use the word "and" so much. Really, look at it there on the page. "And." It mocks you. What kind of stupid motherfucking word is "And?"

And don't even get me started on prepositions.

Anyway, I think I left you on Day Four with the Pink Draft out to people, and getting ready for the Blue Draft.

The problem is I kind of forget now what changed from Pink to Blue.

On Friday, there were a couple of more meetings. The first was very long -- and difficult. It's the Playback meeting.

The Border is kind of a tech-y show -- and there's moments that involve seeing information come up on a video screen...news stories, maps, computer searches -- anything that you see on a computer or TV screen has to be edited together, and played back on the day.

One of the signature elements of our set is a very cool looking technical station where one of the characters monitors incoming data. This is where we get a lot of the exposition and story out, and also where the character, who's irreverent and fun, plays a lot of his scenes. There are seventeen monitors there. Each one has to have something up on it. It has to be fed from the other room. If things need to change during the scene, those changes either have to be edited together and played back in sync so it looks like our guy is driving those changes -- OR, it has to be in such a way that the guy behind the scenes really is driving the changes live, in essence doing for real what the character on screen seems to be doing.

So our Graphics & Motion Designer, Jae, has to put together, design and make ready for the day it plays every single element that appears on a computer screen or a TV screen. There's another way you can do this, if you lock off, you do what's called "a burn in." That's where people basically watch a blank (or green) screen and you put it in in post. Canadian TV does this a lot because it's cheaper and it's way faster than trying to coordinate playback on the day -- but it also doesn't look nearly as good. And -- our visual esthetic is handheld -- so it wouldn't really work for our show anyhow.

So you find yourself sitting through a meeting and going...through... every...single ...image. It's great training. Seriously, you will never lazily write "so and so looks up on the monitor and sees a giant condor streaking across the screen then exploding into a frog's anus" again.

Not that you would. Just saying.

Anyway -- it's a loooong meeting. Once again, I'm impressed by the dedication of all the people who work to actualize something that I just cavalierly throw down on a page.

Later in the day, there's a spirited discussion surrounding costumes for our guest lead. The action in my script is compressed so it all takes place in one day. But my guest lead is supposed to be a huge movie star, so we're trying to motivate costume changes. There is, believe it or not, a long and involved discussion on the mechanics of how and when she would change, and why. I have her in a bathrobe for a scene. Really? Ruth, the costume designer wants to know, why would she be in a bathrobe then? She's under great stress at that moment for a reason I can't go into because of spoiling the fun.

And you know what? It's a legit question. All these things that never occur to you -- and they're good questions. It takes a village, man. And once again I remember one of those things about film that really gets to me:

"A film by." Wow. That credit really is bullshit. If only the DGA had an ounce of shame.

It's finally decided that she can get in the bathrobe, but it needs to happen earlier. Also, our timeline through the day is a little off, and we need to adjust time somewhere in the second act so that there's enough time elapsed for the actions we have to play out. I decide to add a running timeline in the scene heading slugs so it's clear how much time has passed from scene to scene.

The Blue Draft came out on Monday. I started work on it over the weekend and came in and did some more stuff, sending it out about midday. I seem to recall that it was tweaky stuff -- lines of dialogue here, a bit of different staging there. One scene changed significantly -- a psychiatrist scene that I wasn't really getting the flavour of, so one of the showrunners took a pass and I integrated that with my changes.

Because I've added that slugline timeline, though, what is a minor set of revisions still pushes the draft from pages to a full draft. Once you go to production, you lock the script, and then every change you make generates the next coloured page. If you change more than half the pages, you issue a full new draft. Less than half, you issue pages, and people collate the revisions into their last full coloured draft.

People in the other departments kind of hate it when you issue too many drafts. Production has to run the drafts, and that's way more work for them -- and every member of the team : art, costumes, construction, set dec, props -- have all made notes. Every time you make a new draft, they have to go through and transfer those notes across. It's a drag. You learn to dread having to put out a full draft.

The story coordinator looks at you with those damaged soulful, "don't make me do this" eyes, and you just say, "full draft, bitch..." because you're cold like that.

The rest of Monday is easy enough for me, I guess. They're still scouting locations, and finalizing casting of some of the smaller parts.

Tuesday -- Day 7 of Prep

Everything's going Green.

Green Draft, that is. The day starts with a "tone meeting," which is exactly what it sounds like. The story department sits down with the Director to talk through the tone of all the scenes. We've been sneaking a little more emotional heft into the story in the last few drafts. Once you get the story working structurally, suddenly you have room to deepen this note, or that note. The exact turn of phrase you were struggling with suddenly seems to present itself.

There's one more thing we're there to do: cut scenes. The board still looks fearsome on a couple of days. So with fresh eyes, we figure out a way to lop off a scene in Act One and get the essential info out in a later scene. And there's another series of three scenes that we figure can play as one long scene with a walk through.

The problem is that every time you break out a scene, that's a setup. The unit needs to block, light, go in for coverage. If you have too many scenes -- even if they're short, you start to add up the time you spend in that setup and pretty soon you've burned an hour you don't have. The funny thing is, now you know the story so well that you can be ruthless: cut a scene here, combine two, all to make it fit the board.

But it leads to...another full draft. That's right, story coordinator, Jimmy the Bat, Take it! Take it!

There's also a bit of back and forth with the art department. I've called for passports, a newspaper headline, a visa letter -- all of these need to be created. I wind up writing a fake letter for the visa application. I'll save you the freeze frame time next year -- there are no dirty words, just a fun bunch of strung together legalese and officialspeak. It's actually way more satisfying to write that stuff than to open up your mailbox and have to read it. Is it possible that real lawyers get secret fuzzy jollies coming up with this shit for real?

Prep Day 8

The major event today is the production meeting. Once through the shooting schedule, day by day. By now, the story is pretty set. The locations are chosen. We're cast. And so through the meeting, the script pretty firmly passes out of my comfort zone -- as a collection of story beats and scenes, to the realm of the first A.D., Michael -- now it's just a bunch of pieces -- numbers of extras, props needed, cars, playback, art. Here it is, story deconstructed into its component parts. It's in that in between phase -- for the moment, not a story to be told -- but a product to be manufactured.

Then, after, one more playback meeting. I want to kill myself.

There are a few change pages for the Yellow, but we're going to hold them off until the read through. Hopefully the read through will only mean dialogue tweaks. You hear how the actor reads a line, sometimes a substitution they make that works...you answer their questions.

Which brings us to today.

There's a bunch of prop photos that play in my ep, too. (Playback and Prop photos -- I can't make it simple, can I?) They were shot this morning, Cherry Beach standing in for the Sudan. Magic of TV. The Director comes in to tell us they look great.

Actors are trickling in for their costume fittings with Ruth. Our guest lead is flying in from Los Angeles later this afternoon. The Producers will meet her later.

Then, at the crew lunch, the read through, some quick and dirty changes and hopefully we'll issue Yellow pages tonight. And hopefully it won't be a full draft.

Tomorrow we shoot. And another episode starts prep.

So it goes.

Nailed It!

FOR THE LIFE of me, I can't figure out Alex Strachan. Sometimes I think he's out to lunch and desperately wrong, and sometimes he cuts through and makes sense like nobody else writing about TV in Canada. Well, maybe that's the point. Maybe you shouldn't always agree.

And sometimes, after all, Strachan actually manages to nail it in a way that others simply don't. So it is on his latest column about the CBC Fall Launch. An excerpt (but you really should click through and read the whole thing.)

Earlier this week, CBC-TV executives got to have their say, at their annual fall-season announcement in Toronto.

Then the Toronto media weighed in with their 75 cents' worth. The critics' notices — where they weren't bored, apathetic or dripping with condescension — were downright pissy.

Like Don Cherry, snow in June and constant hand-wringing over the Leafs, is there anything more predictable than the whinging and whining of the Toronto press corps?

Just one example: Could there be a bigger non-story in this country right now than CBC's decision to air Jeopardy! five nights a week, and hold the one-night-a-week Marketplace back until January. Yes, yes, I know. Chances are, you've never heard of Marketplace, let alone watched. Welcome to North American network television in the 21st century.

Personal disclosure: I'm no fan of CBC-TV, either in concept or in practice. I used to be. I used to be a fan of CBC's flagship newscast The National, but they lost me around the time that, with everything else going on in the world, their lead story was an interminable health item about how eating too much canned tuna might be bad for you.

I used to think CBC-TV was important to the cultural fabric, until I saw one too many hamfisted miniseries about uncouth, unsophisticated, Tory-voting, middle-aged white males being uncouth and unsophisticated. Okay, I get it: Uncouth, unsophisticated, Tory-voting, middle-aged white males who are uncouth and unsophisticated are bad people. I get it. Can I switch over to Jeopardy! now?

But you know what? In today's multimedia landscape, none of that matters. I'm predisposed to disagree with nearly every decision that CBC decision-makers make, but the Toronto media conflagration over Jeopardy! has made me realize that the public broadcaster truly is in a no-win situation.

If CBC-TV sticks with self-important, low-rated programs like Rene Levesque and The Tommy Douglas Story, on the off-chance they will find an audience, it's accused of being elitist and using taxpayers' money to entertain and edify a tiny minority at the expense of the larger majority who pay taxes.

If, on the other hand, CBC-TV favours populist entertainment that appeals to the broadest possible spectrum of viewers, then it's accused of pandering to mass tastes and being no different than the private broadcasters, whose sole responsibility it seems is to deliver eyeballs to advertisers and keep the shareholders happy.

CBC-TV made a terrible pact with the devil in a past life to allow commercials. That decision has been made, however, and it's too late to change now.

That pact with the devil is the reason CBC uses taxpayers' money to outbid private broadcasters for NHL hockey and the Olympics — and it's the reason CBC is vulnerable to criticism in a way that PBS and BBC aren't.

The reality is that CBC needs hockey and the Olympics, because it's hockey ads that help pay the bills the rest of the time.

Here's a curious fact that went unmentioned in all the Toronto media hand-wringing earlier in the week. CBC program director Kirstine Layfield noted in a private conversation with yours truly that The National got a ratings boost over the past season, thanks to decent lead-in audiences from 9 p.m. shows like The Tudors and The Border.

That won't convince me to watch, as long as The National continues to feature eight-minute stories about how eating too much canned tuna might be bad for you, but I see Layfield's point.

Strachan is also no fan of The Border, which currently pays my bills. But that, and the fact that he doesn't necessarily like a lot of the decisions CBC has made, actually raises his credibility in this case.

It's just nice to read someone finally making that point.