Reprints

I've seen various bloggers put up reprints of articles when they don't feel much like blogging. My assumption has always been that if you like the blog, and you haven't read the archives, and I'm not writing enough for you, you'll read into the archives. After all, this isn't a daily paper, you can access the whole thing any time you like. I generally try to avoid repeating myself, for the same reason.

What do you think? Do you guys want me to reprint stuff from time to time? Do you ever browse the now ridiculously deep archives?

Agonizing over VO

I'm struggling a with my comedy pilot and my brain sees that so many problems could be solved by V.O. I'm not talking exposition problems, I'm talking pace issues. I feel like I could put a lot more energy into my show if I had the character narrating it along. But then my gut asks if I'm just using the V.O. as a cop-out because I don't want to do the work to whip the story into shape. I'm positive you've talked about V.O. before, but I'm wondering if you can talk a little about making this type of choice in the development process and how experienced writers come to make that decision. There are a lot of great shows that use it.

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT, for example.

In a comedy, the rule is simple: does it make the show funnier?

ARRESTED uses the VO to skip over the dull, sane parts and get to the juiciest, most over the top awkward moments. Personally, I find it choppy for the same reason. I want to be pulled into the narrative more and the VO alienates me. You pays your money and you takes your pick. The danger with VO in a comedy is that you might be telling the audience, "HEY, I'M TELLING A JOKE HERE," and nothing kills a joke deader.

My rule for VO is whether it tells us something that cannot be communicated in some other way. For example, that scene in GREY'S ANATOMY where two people are speared through with a pipe and the doctors have to decide which one gets to live, and which has to die, and Meredith Gray's VO is telling us that she is stressing over whether McDreamy will kiss her or not. You definitely couldn't get that from the action or the dialog. She would never say anything so inane out loud.

SEX AND THE CITY used VO to bind together four often barely related story lines.

There are other uses for VO. I've noticed a lot of teen and tween shows seem to use them to get inside the hero or heroine's head. Is that because the lead actor isn't that good at communicating thought or emotion? Is it because the tween audience needs a second audio track to explain what is going on? In that case it is, perhaps, technically, a bit of a cop out, but it seems to work for the audience, who are presumably watching while also texting and "doing" their homework.

The VO is a great tool when used in counterpoint to what's happening on screen. ("He bought that???") You can even go with the ole untrustworthy narrator, who seems like your friend, but begins to stray more and more from what you're actually seeing.

VO is a perfectly valid tool, alongside the other unfairly maligned tool, the flashback. They both do things efficiently that would require a great deal of shoe leather to show otherwise.

They can also both be used as a crutch. But so can snappy dialog, or sweeps week lesbian romances.

The ultimate decision is in your gut. Do you want to make the voice of your show an explicit voice? Will the VO alienate your audience by breaking the fourth wall, or will it bring them further in? Will the VO bring things into text that want to remain in subtext, or will it twist an otherwise bald narrative into a psychological intrigue? Only you know whether you're adding more than you're subtracting. Just be brutally honest with yourself.

I will say this: If you're even asking yourself whether your VO has become a cop-out to avoid whipping the story into shape, then you already know the answer, don't you? Go back and fix your damn story. And then see whether VO is really your friend, or just some freaky stalker who keeps trying to friend you.

Get Your War On

DMc is on my feed list, and he should be on yours. If for some reason you're not reading him regularly, check out this awesome guest post by his story coordinator.

Denis makes an interesting point about the Twitter Generation being disinclined to get coffee. I have noticed a number of young 'uns in this business have lousy attitude and don't even know it. Some people don't take notes. Some people don't pick up their cigarette butts even after it's been pointed out that tossing them in someone's driveway isn't cool. You call to recommend them and they don't call the person you recommended them to. They don't go to parties or poker games you invite them to. They figure it will all come to them in due time when they're ready.

When I was in my 20's in the biz, I took a lot of crap. My first boss was a screamer, and I had to take his Jag in to be washed now and then. It was a great job because I learned a ton about development, packaging and production. I asked people advice, and took it, and went to every party, and even sent thank-you notes. (If you don't know what a thank-you note is, ask your grandmother.)

Show business is odd because it is creative, but it is hierarchical. (I have yet to see a good "open-source" screenplay.) So if you are a private, you should not feel like it is an imposition to do what the Sarge says. Or to salute the LT. I find the people who get ahead are those who instinctively understand that a peacetime mentality can get you killed in show business. Yes, those people are shooting at you. So do like the Sarge says and keep your fool head down, and start running when he says "run."

In other words, get your war on.

Too Long? What to Cut?

Q. I have solid pilot. It has good dialogue, fleshed out characters, fun action, solid structure, etc etc... basically people like it. Quite a bit actually. Unfortunately, it's now hitting 75 pages. You've talked about how page count varies wildly based on writer's voice and style. I think that's a large part of this, but it's still one of the longest pilot I have ever seen.

Maybe there's a scene or two that can be cut without major loss, but that's only going to give back, max, three pages. Cutting into most scenes, I fear, will compromise how the script presents to the reader and how the dialogue flows, which is working really well right now.

Do you have any advice? Perhaps I can leave it as is? (Fingers crossed) Or is there a particular strategy that you use when a script runs over and serious cutting needs to take place.

75 is way, way, way long, unless you are Amy Sherman-Palladino. In other words if your characters all talk like they're in HIS GIRL FRIDAY you're okay, but they probably don't. Even Aaron Sorkin's scripts are in the 60's, and they do go on.

An hour drama script should be about 52 pages.

Here are a few ideas how to fix it:

a. Start later. Could some of the story be backstory? Are you spending time setting things up that we could probably figure out without the setup? Could your Act One out be your Teaser out?
b. End earlier. You're writing a series. You want to end on a great cliffhanger so people will stick around for ep. 2. What if you end the episode sooner?
c. Cut a subplot. Odds are you have multiple subplots. Kill one. Save it for a later episode.
d. Jump the plot forward faster. Assume the audience is intelligent and sophisticated. Say you have a cop finding the murder weapon. Then they examine it. Then they argue about what it means. Cut the examination. We'll learn everything we need to know about the weapon from the argument.
e. Are your scenes too long? My scenes run one to one and a half pages. I might have a few two page scenes. A three page scene is a looong scene on TV. Can you get into your scenes later and get out of them sooner?
f. Kill your darlings. There are a couple of scenes that are in there because you just love them so. You know you don't strictly need them for the episode, but they're the reason you wrote the show. Cut them.

The key question is: these people who are liking it, are they professionals? There is such a thing as a salable 75 page script. But it's a fast-moving, talky episode. If professional screenwriters are liking it, you might be able to get away with it. But if your friends who are liking it aren't pros, then you may have trouble with your pilot.

Bad Language?

Q. Do you think when writing spec [feature] scripts, we should keep 'bad language' to a minimum? That way it's open to more people! Also, TV seems to be going into the dark realsm of language, what with the likes of True Blood and Dexter. More swearing etc. Personally, I think you have to use the language that fits the story. can you ever have a story about really really nasty people without the bad language? Would be unrealistic right?

I think the issue is gratuitous bad language. Where the f-bomb replaces character, you're failing.

You also need to think about who you're writing for. If you're writing for the adult audience, then you can use bad language. If you're writing for the mainstream audience, keep it down. But that applies to violence, adult situations and sex as well as the complexity and subtlety of ideas and the portrayal of characters. Think of who you're writing for. If you're doing a realistic-style gangster movie, bad language isn't going to turn anyone off. If you're doing a high-gloss gangster movie (OCEANS n), it might be a turn off.

In other words: don't try to make your script "open to more people." Try to make your script dead on for the audience you're looking for, whatever that is.

A fortiori, if you're writing a spec pilot, of course you write to the standards and practices of the type of network for which you have lovingly crafted your pilot. If that's broadcast, use broadcast standards. If it's family, use family standards.

I'm developing a pay cable series, so I can write as much coarse language as I want. Personally, I don't want very much. I like to use it for contrast. If you can have ten pages without a curse word, then a particularly transgressive character saying,

• RICO
• Chow hai, some people just won't fuckin' listen!

just before he shoots somebody, it has an effect it wouldn't have if every page is a stream of David Milch.

Vamps Like Shade

Slate has an article about how movie vampires break the rules. Garlic - useless. Mirrors -- no problem. Crosses -- gornisht helfen.

I have to say, some movies and TV shows I like are quite cavalier with the vamp canon, to the point where we see Angel showing up at Buffy's house steaming a bit because he's run through sunlight with his coat over his head. And in BLADE, vamps can go out in motorcycle leathers and helmets.

It's fun to muck reinterpret the legend. After all, what exactly is the physics of vamps not showing up in mirrors? Makes no sense. And if every vamp bite creates a new vamp (as seems to happen in Stoker), math suggests we'd all be undead by now. So there has to be mutual blood suckage to create a new vamp.

But it's dangerous to muck with canon too much.

If vamps can go out in full sunlight with, say, sunblock on, they're not vampires any more. Why? Because losing sunlight is part of the devil's bargain of being a vamp. You gain indefinite life span, but you can't go out in the sun any more. So it's not the UV rays, dig?

Your reinterpretation should feel more true emotionally than canon. That's why it's a reinterpretation. Not "what would fit my story," but "this is the legend as we know it; but what is the reality behind it?"

They Used My Spec Idea!

Q. You've commented in the past that a good spec should last a few seasons, but what happens if the show uses one's premise? I had the lovely experience of watching "House" last night, only to find that the show used the same disease and unusual treatment as I'd used in a spec I wrote over the summer. The episode's B-plot was a conflict between House and Foreman about Foreman's career development; I included a similar conflict in my spec. Granted, the reason I wrote the spec was to submit it to fellowships over the summer, which I did, but now I worry that I can't use the script going forward.

I know most readers won't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the show, but the last thing I want is for my spec to land in the lap of someone who does and who then thinks I recycled an episode. Am I worrying over nothing? Or should I just suck it up and resign myself to another spec, another month of medical research so all-consuming I wander around muttering to myself about the distinctions between hypoperfusion, hypoxia, hemoptysis, and hypotension?

Hmmm, interesting question.

I'm torn. I doubt that many agents watch HOUSE consistently, or pay close attention to the medicine when they do. I would worry more if you have the same patient. I'm not a big HOUSE fan myself, but I think the attraction of the medicine is to watch HOUSE fence with the patients. The memorable moments probably aren't the medical ones. You can probably still use it.

After all, I doubt there are very many ailments HOUSE hasn't used by now. And showing your chops as a researcher -- though it sounds like you have great ones -- is less important thanshowing that you can catch the voices and reproduce the template of the show.

But you're right, it has gone down in value. I wouldn't spec another HOUSE though. No one's going to read two HOUSE specs from you. I'd spec something else next -- something character-based, not procedural.

Any agents care to comment on this?

Deal Terms for Newbies part 2

OutofContext comments:

So, if I understand correctly, a studio deal essentially mirrors an option from a producer. An independent producer will take out an option which spells out the terms (payments and guarantees) that a studio (or producer with actual money) will want to secure and attempt to sell those rights for a profit and maybe attach themselves to the project. The difference with dealing directly with a network then is cutting out the middle man.

Right. Generally even if it's a network deal it's done through the producer, at least all of my deals have been with producers. The difference is if a network is involved before I do the deal with the producer, then (a) the network will have to approve the deal and (b) I will get to ask for a much nicer deal, since it's already a project a network wants. I think the exception would be where the showrunner has his own production company; Joss Whedon's deals are between his company, Mutant Enemy, and the network.

You mention developmental scripts as opposed to production scripts. Is that essentially what development is; the generation of enough good scripts to convince the studio that the project is viable?

That's it precisely.

Also, at what threshold does a writer who is brought in to an existing project get a 'developed by' or an actual 'created by'? Is it guild determined or a negotiated credit?

The "Created by" credit usually belongs to whoever writes the pilot script. If a heavy hitter showrunner rewrites someone else's spec script, then he might share Created By credit, or get a Developed By credit. Who gets the Created By credit is something you'd definitely want specified in your deal memo when you option your spec pilot. My deals say I get the Created By credit. A less established writer's deal might guarantee "no less than shared Created by credit."

Deal Terms for Newbies

Q. 1) What does it mean when a studio wants to buy a pilot script; what are they buying?

They are buying all rights. The script, the characters, the series concept, spinoffs, prequels, movie rights, book rights, everything.

Q. What opportunities and/or obligations does that impart to the writer?

Whatever's in the contract.

There are two flavors of this deal. One is with a potential showrunner. One is with a writer who is not considered a viable showrunner. Either deal spells out how much money the writer gets for the option; how much he gets if the series is produced; what kind of royalty he gets per episode; whether he has a right to be similarly compensated, or even to work on, spinoff series, movie spinoffs, etc.

Either deal specifies what the writer's involvement on the show will be. In the case of the showrunner, that he'll run the show, at least until fired; also how much he'll get paid, how many scripts he's guaranteed etc. A less experienced writer should also be guaranteed a certain number of scripts and a staff job on salary.

Q. Can a lawyer handle a deal like this, or is it imperative that I have an agent?

Most contract lawyers, even most entertainment lawyers, are only able to make sure the contract says you get what the other side agreed you'd get. (Or, on the other side, to write language that makes sure the studio doesn't have to pay you what the studio agreed to pay you. Which is why you need a lawyer or a smart agent.) Top entertainment lawyers, and all good agents, know what deal terms to ask for and what not to ask for. However if you actually have someone optioning your pilot, it shouldn't be hard to find an agent willing to negotiate.

Q. What does 'development' entail? If the project is not bought outright and I'm to be involved in the production, what are my possible roles in the development process?

The project is never "bought outright." It's optioned. Then the studio (or prodco or network) commissions scripts. Depending on your stature in the biz, you may be able to insist on writing all the development scripts (my contracts do), or at least co-writing them. When the project gets a greenlight, then you move on to production scripts.

Note: I also blogged about this here.

Tricking the Reader

Q. I have a script for a short film with no on-screen dialogue where we see the main character running errands in all the scenes, and hear a voiceover which we assume to be his voice, only to find out in the final scene when we actually see/hear his adversary speak that the voiceover belonged to him the whole time, and not to the main character.

The issue is with naming in the script. I need the reader to believe the same thing the viewer will believe, that the voice of the voiceover is the voice of the main character. There's no other dialogue in the script, and no indication of any of the characters' names.

If I name the narrator in the script, then I have to name the main character the same thing:

• ROBERT holds his wife's hands.


• ROBERT (V.O.)
• I never believed in...

Then, in the "reveal," I could explain to the reader that the voice of the voiceover belongs to Robert's adversary, not to Robert.

• The MAN AT THE DOOR speaks. We've been hearing his thoughts all along, not Robert's.


• MAN AT THE DOOR
• But now I have no choice but to...

But that seems clunky. So I'm wondering how to approach this.

Wow, yeah, that is a conundrum. Because if you label the voiceover "MAN'S VOICE" then the alert reader will immediately twig what you're going to do.

First of all, note that the above example won't quite do. If you are going to reveal the trick, make sure the reader can't possibly miss it.

• The MAN AT THE DOOR speaks. And we realize it's his voice we've been hearing all along -- not Robert's!

I don't think there's a good answer here -- you have to pick one. I would probably be honest and say "We hear a MAN'S VOICE we assume to be Robert's."

I do wonder, though, if the most interesting way to go is the surprise at the end. Would it be more interesting if we start to get clues halfway through that it's not the onscreen hero's voice? Rather than pushing that revelation at the audience, would it be more fun for the audience if they start to twig on their own? Just thinking out loud...

Hey, readers... which way would you handle this one?

Tinkering

I'm going through my beat sheet, making little improvements. One of them might be instructive:

Kid thinks Mom betrayed him. (Let's says she tried to get a doctor to prescribe drugs for him.) Mom defends herself, then gets mad and says "Dad wanted to do it too!"

That's dramatic. But this is a family. They know each other pretty well. Let's make this scene specific to their relationship. Kid knows Dad really well and can hear what he's not saying.

Kid thinks Mom betrayed him. Mom defends herself, but as she talks, Kid gradually realizes the truth: Dad wanted to do it, too. Didn't he?

That's a good, handy sort of generic tweak that very often improves a scene: have a character pull the truth out rather than having the other character push it out there.

But in this story, Mom is a bit of a jerk, and Kid has is on the autistic spectrum -- he doesn't get subtext. So an even better tweak makes the scene specific to these specific characters and not just their generic relationship:

Kid thinks Mom betrayed him. Mom defends herself, but as she talks, we begin to realize that Dad wanted to do it, too. But Kid doesn't pick up on Mom's use of "we," and keeps blasting Mom. Finally Mom loses it and blurts out, "It was Dad's idea!"

Your first stab at a scene will often be functional. It gets information across. It gets information into the hands of the characters. It puts characters into conflict.

Then see if you can tweak it to make it more specific to who these characters are. Can you accomplish the same plot goals by having the characters react in ways that only people with their specific flaws would react?

As I've said elsewhere, good dialog is when the character only says stuff that character would say; great dialog is when the character says stuff only that character would say.

This is the same thing on the scene level. Good scene craft has the characters doing and saying only things those characters would do. Great scene craft has the characters doing things that only those characters would do.

It's a tough standard, but I'm told that Jack Nicholson will do a script if it has "three great scenes and no bad ones."

Pestering Your Agent

Q. How often are your periodic conversations with your agent? Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or bi-monthly. Is there such a thing as engaging with your agent too much (or producers and development people for that matter)? What happens if you pester them so much they won't take your calls, let alone work with you?

Then they won't take your calls or work with you.

It depends where your career is and how much you have to talk about. I never call Amy to chat. If I have info for her, I email her. When I have questions, I call. If I'm busy writing, that might not be more than once a week. If I'm actively trying to round up business, or forward my own projects, that could be several times a week. If we're in a contract negotiation, that's several times a day.

Even if I'm hunkered down in the middle of a script, I'll usually send her a weekly "roundup" email of all my current projects, where they stand, ideas for things I'd like her to do (what about sending script X to guy Y?), and questions about new avenues to pursue. Then I call to go over the roundup email. That way we don't forget anything current. Nothing focuses a meeting like an agenda.

I try to be very sparing of her time. The point of the call is to determine (a) what I should be doing (b) what I'd like her to do. It's all about the doing. Neither of you make any money from her talking to you. 

I let her know where I would like her to focus her energies. Sometimes, I'm overloaded and I can't take on any more work; then I would like her to push my finished material. Sometimes I'm running low on work and I'd like her to find me a rewrite or a free lance script or a commission.

You can usually tell if you're calling too much, or if your agent has lost interest, because the time to return your call starts to deteriorate. I fired my last agent after a couple of phone calls went unanswered within a week. (There was a hostile email, too!) Amy almost always responds within 24 hours. If you're a newbie, response time may be closer to a week than a day; but if it gets to be much over a week, your agent may not be beating the bushes for you. Is that because you haven't provided her with fresh material? Write something new and brilliant. But if you've sent in a new spec and you haven't even had an acknowledgment, time to quietly reach out and start looking for a new agent.

Give your agent time to read new material. At least two weeks to read anything longer than six pages.

Don't call to nag. If you haven't heard back in a reasonable while, send an email. If that goes unanswered, don't send a follow-up. Wait until you have fresh info or a fresh question.

Yes, it's agonizing to wait. But keep the relationship professional. She has other clients. If you're not getting served the way you want, figure out what you're doing wrong, or move on.

Agents like to hear from their clients. But they like to hear positive, useful things from their clients. They want to hear "I have a fresh spec." Or, "I met a development guy at a party and I wanted to chat with you what to send to him." Or "I have two great ideas, which should I write first?"

They don't want to hear, in essence, "I'm lonely and sad and you're the only one who'll talk to me." 

(If you're lonely and sad, volunteer.)

Like all relationships, put yourself in your agent's shoes and ask: "would I want to be on the other end of this phone call?" That should tell you whether to call.

Agent Your Agent

Q. What do you mean, "agent your agent"?

Many people come into the biz thinking that "an agent gets you work."

It is true that the best agents will beat the bushes looking for work for you. They will send out your samples. They'll keep their ear to the ground to hear of upcoming jobs, and put you up for them.

But no agent is perfect, and no agent has unlimited brain cells available for you. They have other clients, y'know.

So you have to agent your agent.

At a basic level, that means not only providing a steady stream of new material to sell, or sell you with: spec scripts, spec pilots, spec features. It means also suggesting places that you'd like her to send your stuff. Ideally, people with whom you have relationships, or at least people who've read you before and liked you, and maybe even met you. Keep lists of those people, and when you send in your latest new thing, have a chat with your agent about where she should focus her energies.

You should be reading the trades and talking to people about upcoming shows and upcoming projects. Is one right for you? Drop your agent an email, or call.

Engage with your agent as if you were another agent representing you. Consider yourself as a product. Where should we send my stuff?

I have periodic conversations with my agent, Amy, who may possibly be the best agent in Canada. I remind her of each of my current and available projects. We discuss: what's the next step with each of them?

Agenting your agent also means being involved in the deals. You always want your agent to negotiate for you. But you should be right behind the scenes discussing the deal terms with her. What do you want? What are you willing to settle for? How willing are you to walk away if the deal's not right? How important is money up front? How important are guaranteed scripts or rewrites? My philosophy is to push hardest for money that won't affect the budget -- e.g. guaranteed scripts that someone will have to be paid for -- and least hard for things like option payments that come directly out of the producer's pocket. Essentially I just want enough to know the production company is serious.

I almost always leave the pure money points to Amy. I want as much as she can get me, of course. But we discuss issues like creative control, continued involvement, print rights (I try to keep them), etc.

Amy reads every contract looking for language that needs to be negotiated. I also send her memos listing my concerns.

A successful writer is a businessperson, not just a creative. You never want to negotiate on your own behalf; but you are the key figure in the negotiating team. You will not get the best deal if you drop the whole problem in your agent's lap and head to the beach.

Agenting your agent really means continuing what you were doing to support your career before you had an agent. Only now you've got a partner who shares many of your goals. Give your partner the information and support she needs to succeed.

Deal Terms

Q. I have just received a contract offering to option a pilot and bible I've been working on. [Long list of deal terms follows.] Is that a fair deal?

Probably not. Producers write contracts to give themselves loopholes and outs. They lowball their offer a bit. Even if they're honest, they figure you'll want to negotiate, and so they give themselves a little room to negotiate.

If someone is offering you an option deal, it should not be hard to find an agent to negotiate it for you. They'll take 10% of what is likely a small upfront fee with a bigger back end. They will almost certainly boost your deal by at least 10%, so they cost you nothing. In return you get their knowledge of what a fair deal is, and you won't piss off the producer by asking for more than they offered.

Q. I am a 45 year old first-time writer (ridiculous, I know), so I'm willing to take a less than industry standard offer.

Nothing ridiculous about you if you have a property someone wants to option!

But more importantly: don't negotiate against yourself. You want your agent to get you as much money as you can without pissing the producer off. The more he pays, the more he'll value the property and you.

You don't get what you deserve. You get what you negotiate.

Where your being a newbie comes in is what you want to struggle for and what you'll give up. Obviously you're not going to be the showrunner. On the other hand you should insist on being on staff and writing as many scripts as they'll let you have. Ask for 25% and settle for 20%. You won't get control but you can insist on involvement. In a TV deal, it costs the producer very little to guarantee you scripts. Someone will have to be paid Guild scale for them; and the writing staff can always rewrite you if you suck.

Producer will use Producer’s reasonable best efforts to have Owner engaged as a writer on the Series on terms and conditions as generally prevail in the television industry comparable to those of Owner’s experience as a writer.

This is why you need an agent who knows how to read a contract, or failing that, a lawyer. You want "best efforts," which is a term of art, not "reasonable best efforts" which doesn't mean anything. "Terms and conditions ... comparable to Owner's experience" is useless if you have no experience. You want "Owner shall have the right of first refusal to write the first draft of the series pilot. Owner shall right of first refusal to be hired to write no fewer than 20% of all scripts commissioned during the first season of the Series." That is an enforceable right. The language you've got can easily circumvented. ("We asked the network, and they said no.")

Remember the legal axiom: "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Never negotiate on your own behalf if you can avoid it.

This rule is even more important where the people with whom you're negotiating are friends or family. You will either piss them off (don't you understand what a big favor they're doing you???) or seriously undervalue yourself. Or both.

The correlary to this is: don't abandon the negotiations to your agent. Discuss the terms and the language in depth. Ask questions. Insist on what you need to get. Explain what you're willing to give up. Go over the contract yourself. Your agent fronts you, but the decision is yours.

And always be willing to walk away from a deal that doesn't feel right. It's almost impossible to get a fair deal unless you're willing to walk away.

No, no, no. They pay you.

Q. A producer is interested in optioning my material, but asked me for a thousand bucks in order to [snip]

Gonna stop you right there.

A producer should NEVER, EVER ask you for money for ANYTHING. You bring the intellectual property. They bring the money.

An agent should NEVER, EVER ask you for money for ANYTHING. (Years ago, they sometimes wanted a newbie client to pay for copies and postage, but who mails scripts any more?)

Any producer who wants any money from you is, at best, not a real producer, and much more likely a scammer.

Should I Move to Canada?

Q. My Canadian wife says we should move to Canada, where there are fewer screenwriters. My career is not catching fire down here in LA. Would my writing career be better there?

I began my career in the US, and moved to Canada because of its more nurturing cultural environment. Canada supports emerging writers, established writers, producers, and production, in various ways, through various government programs and subsidies. Canada funds grants and training programs, and has a truly awesome film school (the CFC). Because of that network of support, once you establish Canadian permanent residency (the equivalent of a US green card), it could be easier to make it up here than down there.

Establishing permanent residency takes about eighteen months. Unlike the US, Canada has a fairly sane immigration policy, which encourages educated people with professional experience to come here. You're looking at spending a couple thousand bucks if you do the paperwork yourself, or about five thousand bucks if you hire an immigration lawyer. You wouldn't actually come live here until you're granted permanent residency, which is also when most of the fees come due.

There are indeed fewer screenwriters up here. Of course, there are also fewer jobs. Herman Mankiewicz lured Ben Hecht out to Hollywood with a telegram that read "There are millions to be grabbed out here and your only competition is idiots. Don't let this get around." Nobody is making millions in Canada, and the competition includes some very smart, talented people.

However, as someone who's knocked around Hollywood, you might have a bit of an edge. People in the Canadian industry often have an inferiority complex about the US industry. Anyone who's worked down South gets a bit of hero worship. Some of that is undeserved, but you have probably also absorbed the LA work ethic. Many writers in Canada do not hustle much. They don't write spec scripts, because even newbie writers can get development deals. They don't agent their agent. They fail to send samples when you ask for them. They don't go to every party they conceivably could. Some of the most talented writers don't have agents.

Also, we do periodically lose some of our best and brightest to LA. We lost K-Walt years ago; she lives here but works there. DMc keeps threatening to go down to LA to test the waters.

So you would probably be welcome here. Canada is probably one of the most welcoming countries to immigrants in the world. We're a melting pot like the US, without the anti-immigrant hysteria.

And then there's the free health care. If you're free lancing, it's nice to know you can go to the hospital if something's wrong.

The major downside to working in the Canadian industry is that, if you decide to go back to La-La-Land, I don't know how transferable Canadian credits are Down South. (Otherwise we would have lost DMc long ago.) I generally tell Canadians that the only good times to move down South are when you have no credits, or when your Canadian show is getting good numbers in the US. (I hope Heaton and Barken aren't reading this.)

How do you break into the Canadian biz? Same way you break in to the US biz. One kickass spec script of a popular US show. One kickass spec pilot. And lots of networking.

So... move to Canada? It is a biiiiig step. It is another country. You will have to make new friends. You'll have to make new contacts. But it could be the break you need.

Now, would I encourage writers to move to Canada? Aren't I increasing my competition? I don't think that's how we think up here. We're mostly in competition with you down there. The more brilliant writers we have up here, the more shows we can get into the global marketplace. The more shows shoot up here, the better the crews, and the more credibility Canadian shows have overseas. What's good for FLASHPOINT is good for me.

It's a small enough community that you can get to know everyone. The weather outside is variable, but the weather inside is pretty warm.

UPDATE: Tim asks if it's harder to make a living in Canada. My response in the comments is: it's easier to make a living. It's harder to make a fortune.

UPDATE:

Q. regarding your comment that to get work you need a kick ass TV spec and a kick ass spec pilot, what about a spec feature? is it worth it to write one in Canada?

If you want to get paid to write movies, then write spec features. The Canadian English-language feature market is not strong. (The Quebecois one in French is tiny but strong.) But about half my business is writing features, so there you go.

Plots Should Be Revelatory of Character

I've been revising episode 1.02 of the pay cable series I'm developing. One scene just wasn't working, between a kid and his recently separated dad. There was conflict but the scene felt mushy to me. It was boring Lisa, who felt that the scene was something we could see in any show, between any kid and his recently separated dad.

In other words, the scene was not revealing the dad's character. And that was, in turn, because the dad's plot wasn't revelatory of character. It was basically a conflict between him and his new girlfriend, which created a conflict between him and his kids. Move along, please, people. Nothing to see here. You've seen one train wreck, you've seen them all.

What I had to do was rethink the plot so it was revelatory of the father's character. This is hyper-important in such an early script, especially because he hadn't got a lot of air time in the pilot. But it is really important in any character drama. Ideally, you should never have a story about one of your core cast that could be told in the same way about a different character. The story has to come out of who that character is. 

In fact, every scene should be revelatory of character. The one scene that was blowing the whistle on my plot lacked flavor because it had nothing to say about the dad except that he was an okay guy and he loved his son; which, hey, is great, but doesn't get you on TV. 

As it turned out, the beats I had for the dad plot weren't bad. The scenes I needed were the scenes I already had. But they weren't working because I hadn't pinned down the underlying story structure. I hadn't pinned down what the dad wanted, and what it was in his character that made it hard for him to get it. 

Once I nailed those structural elements down, then the beats weren't too hard to rewrite. Even some of the dialog still worked, but it meant something fresh and new now. As it turned out, the dad came off as much more of an asshat, but in one scene we learned that it wasn't from selfishness so much as emotional blindness. Which is exactly the character I was shooting for.

If something's not working -- or even if it is -- doublecheck to see if each story is saying something distinct about its central character. If it isn't, figure out how to make it do so.

Remember, on screen (as, philosophically perhaps, in life), we can only judge someone's character by what they do, not what's merely said about them. 

Twelve Showrunner Rules

In case you missed it on DMc, Jill Golick has posted Jason Katims' 12 Rules for Showrunners. (Jason Katims is, as you know, the showrunner of FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS.)

Happy Fourth of July!

Name Trends

When I'm coming up with a secondary character, if I'm not trying to suggest ethnicity (MR. AZAD, CHELSEA FRIEDMAN), I'm often trying to suggest age. The Social Security website will give you the most popular names by year, and the incredibly neat Baby Name Wizard NameVoyager shows how the popularity of a given name waxes and wanes.

But many names are popular every year, e.g. Michael, Robert, William, Katherine, Margaret. Fortunately NameTrends will show you the uniquely popular names from each era. Kaden just learned to walk. Cody is probably in high school about now. Lindsay's in college. Damon and Misty are probably having their first baby. Todd and Sherri are fighting over custody.

The site includes historical popularity of each name, and even breaks it down state by state.

I love this stuff!

One Producer, Two Producer, Three Producer, More

Q. Two producers are interested in a show that I'm developing. Producer 1 is the obvious choice as he has the right network contacts and I have worked for him before. This is the first time I've talked with producer 2 and he seems like a good guy, but this show probably isn't for him.

Producer 1 is ready to take this to the network. So how do I take the show away from producer 2 without burning my bridges and leaving the door open for future projects? It's also a VERY small industry where I live and getting off side with one producer could be a bad thing.

The key question here is: where are you at with producer 2? Have you already told him he can have the project yet? Are you still discussing under what terms he could have the project? Or is producer 2 just your first bite and you haven't said he can have it yet?

I don't have a deal with him; we've just been talking about an idea. Generally in my country you approach one producer at a time and often I develop projects with a specific producer in mind (I think this is different to the situation in the US and Canada?). However, in this case I pitched the idea at a Round Robin pitching event. Two people were interested and now I have to take it away from Producer 2.

Technically I have no obligation to Producer 2. But I want to work with him in the future and this idea served as a great introduction. I expected to receive a 'thanks but no thanks' email with a 'feel free to send me other ideas you might have'. But he really likes the idea and might even consider producing it himself.

Basically I have to say no to him without killing my chances of talking to him in the future about other shows. He's probably one of the top producers in the country, his shows are some of the best on TV here and he has managed to secure large amounts of cash from government funding authorities. But at the end of the day producer 1 is the best choice for this show.

If you pitched at a Round Robin dealie, then it is clear to everyone that you've pitched it multiple places. If producer 2 hasn't jumped on it yet and signed you up, then morally you are free and clear. I would talk to the guy and explain yourself exactly as you have here. You like him and you want to work with him on this, but you have another producer interested who you feel would be better for this particular project. If producer 2 is a grownup, he'll be okay with that, and he'll learn the lesson to jump on your projects faster. 

I had interest on my pay cable series from some producers, before I had a network, but they didn't option it. When I went to the CBC, the CBC preferred a different producer to whom I'd also shown it. The network exec had more of a relationship with the second producer, and I felt it was a matter of getting a "no" with the first producer but a qualified "yes" with the second. So we (meaning my agent) withdrew the project from the first producers.

Then we sold them a feature.

And we had to withdraw another project from the second producer, because I felt that it wasn't really up his alley.

No problem. Grownups, see?

Not all producers are grownups. Some will get their panties in a knot because you have other options. Too bad. It shows your material is desirable. If a producer seriously holds a grudge against you because you withdrew a project that they hadn't optioned, then they'll probably be a pain in the ass to work with if, God forbid, you actually get a project going with them.

Just be straight with everybody. And tell the big name producer before you give it to the other guys. He may be able to convince you that he's the best producer for this project after all. Or he might even offer you money!