Complications Ensue:
The Crafty Screenwriting, TV and Game Writing Blog


April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

March 2018

April 2018

June 2018

July 2018

October 2018

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

November 2019

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

August 2020

September 2020

October 2020

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

May 2021

June 2021

November 2021

December 2021

January 2022

February 2022

August 2022

September 2022

November 2022

February 2023

March 2023

April 2023

May 2023

July 2023

September 2023

November 2023

January 2024

February 2024


Friday, May 20, 2005

Here's more of my interview with Paul Guyot, bloggist of Ink Slingerfame, and a fine professional television writer who knows whereof he speaks...

AE: How do you deal with network notes that seem wrong to you?

PG: It depends on your position on the show. As a staff writer or story editor you deal with it by keeping your mouth shut and letting the producers take care of it. Chances are, by the time the script is being read by the network you're off it as a story editor level writer.

How I would deal with it is to always appease them when they give the note. Don't commit either way - say something like "Oh, okay, I'll take a look at that." And then what I do is try and figure out what they are really saying with their note. For instance, say I know that my last scene in act three is terrific, but the exec says, "The act three out doesn't work." What they are really saying is that the story isn't carrying enough tension or suspense for them up to this point. More often than not I will go back and fix something in another part of the script or story - without messing with the scene they had a problem with - and when they read it again they love it, thinking their note was taken. And it was more or less.

There is a misconception in Hollywood that all network execs are idiots who give notes simply to justify their jobs, and they know nothing about story or writing. This is bullshit. Yes, there are some idiots working at the networks, just like there are some idiot writers out there. But I have found the vast majority of execs to be decent people working to try and make the best show possible. Now, my idea of best might differ from theirs, but if you communicate well with each other and have no hidden agendas, the process is usually helpful.

AE: How about director and actor notes that seem wrong?

PG: Okay, now we have a different animal. In television - and I'm going to piss off the DGA here - the director is a hired hand. I mean no disrespect by that. I simply mean that they are hired by the executive producers (usually writers) of the show to come in and keep the vision of the series. A director that understands and respects that is wonderful and will usually have really great notes. The directors that come in trying to add to their reels will often end up giving notes that might be really cool within a specific scene, but will hurt the overall story. When you get bad notes from a director, you simply tell them no - in the most decent way possible - and try and explain why.

When actors give you bad notes... well, it all depends on the actor's power level. An actor who has an Exec Producer credit is very dangerous because 99 times out of a hundred they're given that credit simply to make the deal, without any thought to what creative storytelling ability they may or may not possess. When a star gives notes, you deal with it the same as you do the network, just with more care. Much more care. Actors' egos are hand-blown glass. The slightest bump and they can shatter, you as the writer can get cut badly. :)

AE: How can you tell which things production really needs changed and which things they'd just like changed because it would make their lives easier?

PG: This comes with experience. I don't know of another way to learn. Again, it's all about communication. If you have a good UPM that you trust and that trusts you, it will be obvious. If there is tension or if production is at war with the writers for whatever reasons, then you have to figure it out and that's where you need the experience. They will usually be much more like script cops on things that need changing, whereas on the stuff they'd like changed, it tends to be more of a creative argument they try and make.

AE: What makes a great showrunner, aside from great writing and a vision for the show?

PG: The job is so difficult to do well. There are so many things a showrunner must know to be good. Now, it can be done by idiots - it is all the time - but to do it well, you have to know everything from writing, to story, to production, to the business of television...

But for me the number one quality of a showrunner is the ability to manage people. One of the best showrunners I've seen is not that great of a writer. He's good, but very by-the-numbers. But he is a GREAT showrunner. He knows production, knows how to balance what the writers want with what production needs and what the actors want. He makes the studio and network feel like they are a welcomed and important part of the process - even if he hates them. He knows how to keep a staff happy and excited. I really believe great writing is overrated for a showrunner. Yes, it's an outstanding attribute, but I will take a great manager who has a staff of excellent writers to help him/her over a genius writer who has no idea how to deal with the myriad of showrunner problems any day.



Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.

This page is powered by Blogger.