I was just curious why showrunners in interviews, articles, always seem to make the comment that they prefer to read original spec material(pilot or film) instead of just another C.S.I. spec etc...as a writing sample?
My guess would be because they'd rather read a
great spec pilot than a great
CSI. After all, a great
CSI is just a perfectly executed intellectual exercise (that's me being snarky about the show). You can watch a great
CSI by turning on the television. A great pilot is something fresh and exciting. Reading the script is (if it's a great script) like watching the pilot to a new show that you want to start watching.
But you want to know what's the best script for
you to pour your effort into. It takes much longer to learn how to write a great pilot than a great
CSI.
Labels: spec pilots
5 Comments:
June 2006...
A spec pilot helped me get my first job. It wasn't my only writing sample, but I (and the guy who hired me) agreed it was the best of the two.
I think the trick is to find out what a specific showrunner wants to read, because everyone's going to be looking for something slightly different. For example, the "rule" that you shouldn't submit your spec to the show you specced has been broken by a number of working writers, but they presumably knew it was okay to break that rule with those people.
Also, as someone who's staffed a couple times - - the sheer VOLUME of scripts is numbing. Afte ryour 10th CSI, an original anything sticks out from the crowd and generally brightens my day.
I guess that's a good reason to spec something other than CSI. For all the difficulties in speccing Lost, you can do more original stuff in a Lost spec than you could for a procedural.
QED your teachers are idiots. For three prelim staffing spots I read 40 writers. Which specs do you think got me to call? The "weird" ones.
Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.