We watched the GLEE pilot. I was surprised at how rough it was. There were a lot of what seemed to me like beginner's mistakes, which may account for the plunging ratings over the course of the airing. (According to Entertainment Weekly,"it held on to less than half of its tailor-made Idol lead-in and, more worrisome, dropped 3.5 million viewers over the course of the 60 minutes.")
SPOILERS...
1. It's a show about a high school glee club and the teacher who supervises it. Yet, weirdly, the teaser showed cheerleaders going through their paces, and ended with the cheerleading coach telling them, "You think this is hard? Waterboarding is hard." What? No glee club. No glee club teacher. The teaser for a pilot for a series wants to be the series in microcosm. It either shows you who it's about -- Meredith Grey waking up from her one-night stand and then discovering he's a doctor at her new hospital -- or it shows you what it's about -- the clever BUFFY pilot teaser which shows you that vampires are alive and well, uh, or at least well, in Sunnydale's high school.
2. Then you want to quickly set up the driving question for the episode, so we know what we're rooting for. The episode ends with the glee club teacher deciding to coach glee club after doubting whether he should, because his wife wants him to be an accountant, not a teacher. Therefore Screenwriting 101 tells you that the episode needs to start with that question: can he / should he / dare he coach glee club? Because we want to be rooting for the eventual ending.
Instead, it starts with glee club auditions. And then the hero volunteers to coach glee club. Even offers to pay $60 a month to do it. (Huh?) It doesn't become clear that coaching glee club will be a problem for him until act 3 or 4 or so. So we're not rooting for him to coach, because he already is coaching. Instead, we're rooting for the club to win a regional competition, because we're told that the club will be canceled otherwise. That's different jeopardy.
Meanwhile, the audition sequence belonged to a pilot where there was no glee club to begin with. Tragically, though, we didn't get to hear anyone sing except the kids who were chosen. It's always fun to watch people audition badly. That's one of those Sequences that Always Work. But if the pilot is supposed to be about whether this teacher will get up the gumption to coach glee club, then you don't have auditions because there already is a glee club. If there isn't a glee club already, then we don't really need to worry about glee club being shut down because there wasn't one to begin with!
If you are going to end with the glee club teacher braving his wife's displeasure (!) to coach glee club after all, then you'd think the story would be something like this: previous glee club teacher is fired for feeling up a student. Principal says "we're going to have to shut down glee club unless we can find someone qualified to coach it." Hero teacher says, "I can't afford to do this permanently but I'll do it until someone qualified comes along." And then he comes to love the kids and when they finally say, "we can't find anyone permanent, we're going to shut it down" he finally decides to do it.
Oh, and you have to throw in some better obstacles to his saying yes. Not "we can't find a space to sing in." The club is a mess. The kids hate each other. They fight over parts. They're singing the wrong parts for their voices. They sound like crap. They're all on the verge of quitting.
3. Be brave. The show is supposedly about what misfits glee club kids are. And they've got a bunch of misfits: geek in a wheelchair, sassy fat black chick, Asian lesbian, suspiciously high-voiced effeminate boy. And we all love misfits who succeed, because most of us have felt like misfits at one point or another. But what happens is that the teacher blackmails a handsome football player into joining glee club because he heard the guy sing in the shower, and no one will support the glee club unless the "popular kids" are in it. So now the fantasy is ruined. The moral stops being "you can sing your way out of being a loser" and now it's "only handsome jocks need apply." It doesn't help that the handsome jock can't actually sing anywhere near as well as the effeminate boy. Meanwhile, the sassy fat black girl (! what is this, the 80's?) with the killer voice gets relegated to backing vocals because, um, she's a fat black girl.
What if the lead guy is more like Adam Lambert? Instead of a handsome jock, he's a pudgy red-headed bisexual kid who gets the crap beaten out of him? But onstage he becomes a star. And the sassy fat black girl is the lead girl?
That show I'd watch.
I know, America voted for Kris Allen. But I don't think Kris Allen can carry a show. He's nice enough, but no one tunes in every week for "nice enough." And there were 32 million votes for Adam Lambert. Who knows how many actual voters there were (those 12 year old girls are pretty handy with their text messaging), but there ought to be enough to carry a show.
4. You sure you want this show to be about a teacher? Is that some kind of weird co-viewing deal because it's a 9 pm show? the show seemed confused about this, too. The two cute white singers got a backstory sequence each, complete with voice over. The teacher didn't. The fat sassy black chick, the Asian lesbian, the effeminate kid and the cripple don't get any introduction at all. We spend a lot of time with the teacher and his wife, whom we're supposed to hate; could we spend some of that time getting to know the students in the glee club, and in particular, setting up a love triangle or two in there?
It's theoretically a show about a glee club, but the kids spend almost no time interacting with each other. So it comes across as a show about a mopey high school teacher who's trying to relive his glory days as a high school glee club star. Which, let's face it, is a bit pathetic.
If you're chasing the tween and teen audiences, especially the HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL audience, why on Earth would you make it about the teacher instead of the kids?
5. Tone. Was this show trying to be a realistic drama? Or a campy send-up? The teachers seemed cartoonishly fun. But we're actually supposed to take the handsome jock's angst seriously. But the jock bullies are outlandishly vicious. (Seriously, picking on kid in a wheelchair?) But we're supposed to believe they're real. I remember watching ROBIN HOOD PRINCE OF THIEVES and thinking that I'd like to watch the movie Alan Rickman was in, but I wasn't very interested in the movie Kevin Costner was in. The characters didn't seem like they were in the same TV show.
6. Period. Relegating all the minorities to supporting characters? What is this, the 90's? Myspace pages? Isn't that, like, so fifteen minutes ago?
I don't think this show will be on the air long. But it was certainly instructive to watch. It's often easier to learn from a show's mistakes than from its successes, because the mistakes show where the seams are.
Showing posts with label pilot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pilot. Show all posts
Monday, May 25, 2009
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Pilot, Premise Pilot, Backdoor Pilot
Carl P writes:
Traditionally, networks shoot the pilot, and then make their decision to pick up the show or not based on how they feel about the results. There are drawbacks to this system. You can write a kickass pilot that paints the series into a corner; since the networks don't commission more scripts until they've shot the pilot, they won't find that out right away. Also, you spend months waiting to see if the network likes a pilot, then you have to jump into your story room on short notice and start cranking out scripts. In Canada we usually don't pilot (only the CBC goes to pilot). Instead you write a bunch of scripts and the greenlight decision is based on them. That means the writers have some scripts in the bank when the greenlight decision comes down. On the other hand there's no opportunity to recast after the pilot as there is in the American system.
A premise pilot is a first episode that sets up the circumstance of the pilot. In the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA pilot, the Cylons attack and the Battlestar Galactica goes on the run. In our NAKED JOSH pilot, Josh returns to McAllister University as a professor. In the BUFFY pilot, Buffy comes to Sunnydale, which turns out to be infested with vampires.
I've heard that you should try to avoid a premise pilot if you can. It's hard to re-air a premise pilot because it is often quite different from the regular show. The SEX & THE CITY pilot is just an episode of S&TC; no explanation how Carrie met the other girls, or how she got her column. The WEST WING pilot starts with Josh about to be fired. However, often you can't avoid a premise pilot. You need to explain who the Cylons are and why the Battlestar is running from them. You need to explain what the LOST island is and how all these people got stranded there. Often, too, it is easier to introduce characters if one of the characters is "coming into the family." Cop gets a new partner. Betty gets a new job. We see the characters through the new person's eyes, whether or not the new person is the hero.
A backdoor pilot is a feature film or TV movie that is made with an eye to an eventual television series. It works as a feature film, but also sets up the characters and situation for the series. If you have a TV series you haven't been able to get off the ground, one possible approach is to write a feature using those characters, that ends up more or less where your series starts. If the feature is a hit, or even well liked by the right people, you can go back and repitch the TV series. TV execs may dig your concept more if they can see it in action.
Greetings from Austria, where the Europe Cup is driving everyone crazy. I am writing my masters thesis on serial narration in childrens literature and I need to work with the term "pilot" or rather different types of pilots (backdoor, establishing etc.) but I can't find any definitions.A pilot is the first episode of a series.
Traditionally, networks shoot the pilot, and then make their decision to pick up the show or not based on how they feel about the results. There are drawbacks to this system. You can write a kickass pilot that paints the series into a corner; since the networks don't commission more scripts until they've shot the pilot, they won't find that out right away. Also, you spend months waiting to see if the network likes a pilot, then you have to jump into your story room on short notice and start cranking out scripts. In Canada we usually don't pilot (only the CBC goes to pilot). Instead you write a bunch of scripts and the greenlight decision is based on them. That means the writers have some scripts in the bank when the greenlight decision comes down. On the other hand there's no opportunity to recast after the pilot as there is in the American system.
A premise pilot is a first episode that sets up the circumstance of the pilot. In the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA pilot, the Cylons attack and the Battlestar Galactica goes on the run. In our NAKED JOSH pilot, Josh returns to McAllister University as a professor. In the BUFFY pilot, Buffy comes to Sunnydale, which turns out to be infested with vampires.
I've heard that you should try to avoid a premise pilot if you can. It's hard to re-air a premise pilot because it is often quite different from the regular show. The SEX & THE CITY pilot is just an episode of S&TC; no explanation how Carrie met the other girls, or how she got her column. The WEST WING pilot starts with Josh about to be fired. However, often you can't avoid a premise pilot. You need to explain who the Cylons are and why the Battlestar is running from them. You need to explain what the LOST island is and how all these people got stranded there. Often, too, it is easier to introduce characters if one of the characters is "coming into the family." Cop gets a new partner. Betty gets a new job. We see the characters through the new person's eyes, whether or not the new person is the hero.
A backdoor pilot is a feature film or TV movie that is made with an eye to an eventual television series. It works as a feature film, but also sets up the characters and situation for the series. If you have a TV series you haven't been able to get off the ground, one possible approach is to write a feature using those characters, that ends up more or less where your series starts. If the feature is a hit, or even well liked by the right people, you can go back and repitch the TV series. TV execs may dig your concept more if they can see it in action.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Les is Moore
Q. I am currently working on a spec pilot and have a series bible to accompany it. In the bible, I give synopses of each of the characters--long, one-page descriptions of the major characters, a few paragraphs for the supporting characters, and brief blurbs for the rest.A pilot should stand by itself. It should read like an episode of a show. It should leave you with a sense of having experienced a great episode of television, while clearly showing the reader what each episode of the series is going to be like (its template).
My question: how much of these descriptions should I carry over to the pilot, and embed into the teleplay?
On the one hand I don't want to clutter the script with a lot of material that is found in the Bible, both because it's redundant and because it breaks up the pace.
On the other hand, just introducing the lead character with "Claire, 23, has long hair, wears little makeup, and tends to favor clothing with a 60's and 70's flair" doesn't provide any context for her actions, and it seems likely that whoever is reading this thing is going to do so before plowing through the Bible.
I keep description down to a minimum. I try to show what the character is like by having them immediately bust out a line that only they would ever say, and do something only they would ever do. So instead of saying, "JESSICA, 16, sarcastic and sulky," better to have Jessica just start in with, "Go ahead, be a dick about it."
Show, don't tell.
I generally avoid physical description of core cast because an actor reading for the part may be perfect, but feel dissed if you said "tall" and they're short, for example.
Try to avoid telling us overall details, anyway. How do we know Claire tends to favor clothing with a 70's flair? Just put her in a tie-dyed blouse.
In the US you generally go out with a pilot script, not with a bible. In Canada, because there's more development money floating around for political reasons, you can set up a project with a one-pager or a six-eight page pitch bible. I use the latter because I find it's hard to sell my ideas off a single page. These both contrast with the kind of bible you might see in a writer's room, which would have synopses of all the produced episodes, detailed character descriptions, etc. You would never go out with one of those. No one has the time to read one unless they're staffed on a show.
I wouldn't overdo descriptions in the bible, either. Tell us who the character is, not what he or she looks like. Tell us what he wants, what he's scared of, what is going to put him in conflict with the other members of the cast. You probably don't need to describe more than the core cast in the pitch bible, unless you have heavily recurring characters. If your show goes into production, someone may or may not put together character descriptions of minor characters, but those will change regularly anyway, so no need to do it now.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
No More Upfronts?
Partly as fallout from the strike, NBC says it is ditching the September-to-May television season and going to an "endless season" where they put shows on when they're ready.
If the other networks follow suit, it means no more lavish "upfront" presentations of next year's shows to advertisers. It means no staffing season as such. Most importantly, it means no pilot season. Instead of every production company in town scrambling to grab the A list directors and cast for their pilots, they can cast and hire who's available now; and a couple of months later, if that pilot hasn't been picked up, another production company will have those guys available for their pilot.
It also means that shows will be coming on the air at different times of the year. Right now all the new shows come on in the Fall, and compete for viewers while they're finding their feet. In an "endless season," there will only be a few shows on at the same time, which means it's easier for viewers to check them out.
All of this is good news for the medium. The only people I can think of whom it does not benefit are B listers who previously got work because no one else was available during pilot crunch...
UPDATE: However, the other nets will continue with upfronts.
If the other networks follow suit, it means no more lavish "upfront" presentations of next year's shows to advertisers. It means no staffing season as such. Most importantly, it means no pilot season. Instead of every production company in town scrambling to grab the A list directors and cast for their pilots, they can cast and hire who's available now; and a couple of months later, if that pilot hasn't been picked up, another production company will have those guys available for their pilot.
It also means that shows will be coming on the air at different times of the year. Right now all the new shows come on in the Fall, and compete for viewers while they're finding their feet. In an "endless season," there will only be a few shows on at the same time, which means it's easier for viewers to check them out.
All of this is good news for the medium. The only people I can think of whom it does not benefit are B listers who previously got work because no one else was available during pilot crunch...
UPDATE: However, the other nets will continue with upfronts.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Journeyman pilot
Kevin Falls' new show JOURNEYMAN has a premise with some potential for good or gloppy science fiction. A San Francisco reporter (played by Lucius Vorenus, er, Kevin McKidd) begins inexplicably traveling back in time. Not far. Just ten or twenty years. And when he goes, he disappears in the present. Immediately. As in, raptured out of his speeding car.
This brings up obvious questions. How? Why? And what is he supposed to do about it?
And why the specific times and places, where he runs across certain specific people?
I'll talk details after the warning below. But I found the way the premise is structured well-crafted and intriguing. I'll be going back for a second bite, for sure.
JOURNEYMAN premieres Monday (tomorrow) at 10 pm on NBC and Global. Okay, so watch it, and come back to this post, k?
SPOILERS
Journeyman belongs to what seems to be almost a genre these days. He's an Everyman Character with a Supernatural Issue who's caught up in Something Mysterious That's Bigger Than Him. He is simultaneously trying to get to the bottom of the mystery (series arc) while solving individual episodic mysteries. Remember that show last year where the guy kept waking up on the same morning, trying to avoid being framed for murder? You can probably name a couple more. Oh, LOST, for example. Oh, and X-FILES.
Sometimes the character has a superpower he exercises intentionally or unwillingly, sometimes just a problem caused by supernatural forces. The character solves episodic mysteries, but the ongoing questions of How Did I Get This Power and Why and What Am I Supposed to Do With It? keep you hooked on the continuing serial story. Hopefully.
The prototypes for this kind of show didn't always have the Big Mystery arc. I don't remember there being an überplot in TRU CALLING; Tru just found herself a day backwards in time, trying to save someone from becoming a corpse. And in JOAN OF ARCADIA there wasn't an unfolding mystery. It was just, God wants you to do thus and such this week, and the cleverness of the show was how that would turn out in an unexpected way.
The pilot handles this rather nicely.
First of all, kudos for putting some serious heart into the core of the show; that's going to keep us coming back even if the story department loses control of the conspiracy arc. The heart of the show isn't that he's being used in a pawn by, probably, Future People with Supertechnology. (I don't know this, I'm just guessing because someone seems to be sending Dan Vassar back to specific parts of time.) The heart of the show is that Dan lost the love of his life, then stole his brother's girl, who had been madly in love with him all along. Now he's got a kid with her, he loves her, and he's being sent back in time to when the love of his life was still alive.
And he can sleep with her if he wants to. And oh, he wants to. But he can't. ... Can he? Is it cheating if Present You sleeps with your Then Girlfriend back when you weren't even dating your Present Wife?
Oh, and then it turns out that Present Deceased Girlfriend is really still alive, and is involved in the Mysterious Organization that is sending him back in time.
Ouch. That's personal, yo.
As for the conspiracy arc, you get just enough to know that it's going to make sense. They know exactly when and where he's going to be. Which means they presumably know why. But are they sending him? Or are they just following him? And how are they doing it? And why him?
I imagine we won't know the answers till at least the Season One finale, and presumably not all the answers until the series finale.
The website describes the show as "Dan Vassar travels back in time and helps people." Fortunately, it seem to be more complicated than that, since he gets at least one person killed.
Which is an interesting take on time travel. We've seen Marty McFly change his present circumstances by interfering with his past, and the various Enterprise captains interfere with time constantly (to the point where they made the amusing "Trials and Tribble-ations" DS9 ep). What's new is that there is an organization that is apparently tracking these changes and making sure they happen according to plan. How's that supposed to work?
And there's that beautiful moment where Dan, having just turned down sex with the lost love of his life, Past Livia, runs into Future Livia in the hallway. And he knows he's being set up for this, and she's in on it, he puts it together right quick, and asks, "What if I get it wrong." And she says, basically, "You're supposed to."
I bet she knows what happened in Tecumseh, too.
While the episode hits the obligatory note of the wife doubting his sanity, it doesn't waste too much time on him trying to convince her, or her trying to convince him. She jumps right to the intervention. And when that doesn't work, she's ready to end it, until he rather neatly turns her around.
It's always a sticky point in the narrative, when the hero has to tell his main squeeze/sibling/parent the supernatural truth. That secondary character has to doubt his sanity because she'd have to be crazy to believe him without proof. But the audience knows he's not crazy, so we're hoping the screenwriters don't hang out here.
I think the solution is to pack that argument with as much revelatory insight as possible. Show us what sort of people the hero and his significant other is, and what their relationship is. Is she willing to trust him? If not, is it because he's let her down before? (There's a hint of past substance abuse in JOURNEYMAN.)
Does he trust her enough to tell her? And if not, what does that tell us about the relationship?
Then get on with it. She believes or she doesn't believe. Just tell us which and get the hell on with the story. We've seen it so many times before, you can get away with some serious shorthanding. We'll get it.
(Oh and please, don't let all the hero's problems derive from his kneejerk unwillingness to trust his wife with the crazy truth, 'cause that's lame. Though I had an enlightening conversation with Lisa. It turns out that if she explained that she had traveled in time, but in no other way seemed crazy, I would at least consider the possibility that she might have traveled in time. If the situation were reversed, she would figure I was nuts.)
I liked how Kevin Falls handled his revelations in the pilot. I'll be watching the second episode rather closely to see how he keeps it up.
How much are we going to find out about the Mysterious Organization in each episode? I'm guessing very little. I'm guessing it's 95% the episodic story.
The überplot is another sticky issue. How much revelation do you dole out in an episode? Too little and the audience feels cheated. Too much and you have to keep complicating the hidden truth in order to keep your show going. That's where X-FILES wound up getting damn silly.
So here's why Journeyman is particularly interesting to me. I'm developing a contemporary urban metaphysical. I have an Everywoman character with a Supernatural Issue. And beyond the episodic stories, there is an überplot, with a hidden truth she's trying to find out. And a Mysterious Organization. My entire first episode is basically, "Am I crazy"? And I'm wondering how much truth to dole out.
Fortunately, because my network is fond of limited runs, I can measure out the truth in precise doses. I'm writing for a certain number of seasons. I know what revelation my heroine gets at the first season finale. And I know how many episodes I need to get to the series finale, which I also know. If the show goes, I have the liberty to write to that conclusion. I simply have to figure out what revelations want to happen where along the path. There's nothing easy about that, but it's a much saner environment to work in... and you know, I feel blessed.
This brings up obvious questions. How? Why? And what is he supposed to do about it?
And why the specific times and places, where he runs across certain specific people?
I'll talk details after the warning below. But I found the way the premise is structured well-crafted and intriguing. I'll be going back for a second bite, for sure.
JOURNEYMAN premieres Monday (tomorrow) at 10 pm on NBC and Global. Okay, so watch it, and come back to this post, k?
SPOILERS
Journeyman belongs to what seems to be almost a genre these days. He's an Everyman Character with a Supernatural Issue who's caught up in Something Mysterious That's Bigger Than Him. He is simultaneously trying to get to the bottom of the mystery (series arc) while solving individual episodic mysteries. Remember that show last year where the guy kept waking up on the same morning, trying to avoid being framed for murder? You can probably name a couple more. Oh, LOST, for example. Oh, and X-FILES.
Sometimes the character has a superpower he exercises intentionally or unwillingly, sometimes just a problem caused by supernatural forces. The character solves episodic mysteries, but the ongoing questions of How Did I Get This Power and Why and What Am I Supposed to Do With It? keep you hooked on the continuing serial story. Hopefully.
The prototypes for this kind of show didn't always have the Big Mystery arc. I don't remember there being an überplot in TRU CALLING; Tru just found herself a day backwards in time, trying to save someone from becoming a corpse. And in JOAN OF ARCADIA there wasn't an unfolding mystery. It was just, God wants you to do thus and such this week, and the cleverness of the show was how that would turn out in an unexpected way.
The pilot handles this rather nicely.
First of all, kudos for putting some serious heart into the core of the show; that's going to keep us coming back even if the story department loses control of the conspiracy arc. The heart of the show isn't that he's being used in a pawn by, probably, Future People with Supertechnology. (I don't know this, I'm just guessing because someone seems to be sending Dan Vassar back to specific parts of time.) The heart of the show is that Dan lost the love of his life, then stole his brother's girl, who had been madly in love with him all along. Now he's got a kid with her, he loves her, and he's being sent back in time to when the love of his life was still alive.
And he can sleep with her if he wants to. And oh, he wants to. But he can't. ... Can he? Is it cheating if Present You sleeps with your Then Girlfriend back when you weren't even dating your Present Wife?
Oh, and then it turns out that Present Deceased Girlfriend is really still alive, and is involved in the Mysterious Organization that is sending him back in time.
Ouch. That's personal, yo.
As for the conspiracy arc, you get just enough to know that it's going to make sense. They know exactly when and where he's going to be. Which means they presumably know why. But are they sending him? Or are they just following him? And how are they doing it? And why him?
I imagine we won't know the answers till at least the Season One finale, and presumably not all the answers until the series finale.
The website describes the show as "Dan Vassar travels back in time and helps people." Fortunately, it seem to be more complicated than that, since he gets at least one person killed.
Which is an interesting take on time travel. We've seen Marty McFly change his present circumstances by interfering with his past, and the various Enterprise captains interfere with time constantly (to the point where they made the amusing "Trials and Tribble-ations" DS9 ep). What's new is that there is an organization that is apparently tracking these changes and making sure they happen according to plan. How's that supposed to work?
And there's that beautiful moment where Dan, having just turned down sex with the lost love of his life, Past Livia, runs into Future Livia in the hallway. And he knows he's being set up for this, and she's in on it, he puts it together right quick, and asks, "What if I get it wrong." And she says, basically, "You're supposed to."
I bet she knows what happened in Tecumseh, too.
While the episode hits the obligatory note of the wife doubting his sanity, it doesn't waste too much time on him trying to convince her, or her trying to convince him. She jumps right to the intervention. And when that doesn't work, she's ready to end it, until he rather neatly turns her around.
It's always a sticky point in the narrative, when the hero has to tell his main squeeze/sibling/parent the supernatural truth. That secondary character has to doubt his sanity because she'd have to be crazy to believe him without proof. But the audience knows he's not crazy, so we're hoping the screenwriters don't hang out here.
I think the solution is to pack that argument with as much revelatory insight as possible. Show us what sort of people the hero and his significant other is, and what their relationship is. Is she willing to trust him? If not, is it because he's let her down before? (There's a hint of past substance abuse in JOURNEYMAN.)
Does he trust her enough to tell her? And if not, what does that tell us about the relationship?
Then get on with it. She believes or she doesn't believe. Just tell us which and get the hell on with the story. We've seen it so many times before, you can get away with some serious shorthanding. We'll get it.
(Oh and please, don't let all the hero's problems derive from his kneejerk unwillingness to trust his wife with the crazy truth, 'cause that's lame. Though I had an enlightening conversation with Lisa. It turns out that if she explained that she had traveled in time, but in no other way seemed crazy, I would at least consider the possibility that she might have traveled in time. If the situation were reversed, she would figure I was nuts.)
I liked how Kevin Falls handled his revelations in the pilot. I'll be watching the second episode rather closely to see how he keeps it up.
How much are we going to find out about the Mysterious Organization in each episode? I'm guessing very little. I'm guessing it's 95% the episodic story.
The überplot is another sticky issue. How much revelation do you dole out in an episode? Too little and the audience feels cheated. Too much and you have to keep complicating the hidden truth in order to keep your show going. That's where X-FILES wound up getting damn silly.
So here's why Journeyman is particularly interesting to me. I'm developing a contemporary urban metaphysical. I have an Everywoman character with a Supernatural Issue. And beyond the episodic stories, there is an überplot, with a hidden truth she's trying to find out. And a Mysterious Organization. My entire first episode is basically, "Am I crazy"? And I'm wondering how much truth to dole out.
Fortunately, because my network is fond of limited runs, I can measure out the truth in precise doses. I'm writing for a certain number of seasons. I know what revelation my heroine gets at the first season finale. And I know how many episodes I need to get to the series finale, which I also know. If the show goes, I have the liberty to write to that conclusion. I simply have to figure out what revelations want to happen where along the path. There's nothing easy about that, but it's a much saner environment to work in... and you know, I feel blessed.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Slightly Milder Language Than "Deadwood"
I don't get it. Yet. But I'm willing to invest some time and effort because after all this is David Milch.Yep, that's how I feel, Jill. Lisa and I watched the JOHN FROM CINCINNATI pilot. Well, I watched all of it. Lisa fell asleep.
I am all in favor of pilots in which a mysterious stranger shows up and supernatural powers manifest. And it's interesting when the mysterious power is not instantly reducible to a canonical character -- vamp, vamp-killer, angel, demon, werewolf, alien, Endless. And I never get tired of hearing portentuous dialog like "The end is near" thrown away with no one really listening.
While dysfunction is the essence of drama, on the other hand, I am not sure I need my tv families to be so heavily dysfunctional that they go around yelling at each other all the time. That's not singing, that's shouting.
I don't know where this is going. I trust that it is going somewhere. I am not sure I will like where it goes -- I'm sure my sensibility and David Milch's are at opposite ends of various spectra. But pay cable is the medium I'm working in, so I will be sure to stick with this show for a bit, at least. And if you're interested in a show that pushes the envelope along various axes, you will too.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
How Long? How Much?
Q. How much will it cost me to have a pilot script written for my one hour drama? Also how long would it take to write? How much for a pilot script and two additional scripts?WGA scale for an hour episode is $31,000.
WGC scale for an hour pilot is around CAD $20,000 -- say around 17K US. Scale for an hour episode is about CAD $12,000. That's an advance against a production bonus, should the episode be produced, of roughly 2-3% of budget, split among the credited writers.
However, writers you would want to write your pilot are usually overscale writers.
The fellow who writes a pilot is considered to be "creating" the show, whether or not he came up with the idea. (Sometimes he'll agree to co-create, but don't count on it.) In Canada that usually entitles him to a royalty of, say, 1%-2% of the budget of every episode ever produced. Not sure what the deal is in the States.
The creator is not necessarily the showrunner. If the network doesn't consider the creator up to running a show, they'll pick a showrunner they like.
How long a pilot takes to write something depends on how easy a concept it is to write. I've written a draft of an hour script in four days, but that was on a show I was up to speed on, with a detailed outline. The pilot I just wrote took six weeks for a first draft, based on a finished pitch bible. If the concept needs reworking, add more time. If you choose to write without reworking the concept first, double your time estimate.
With writing as with all craft, the same tripod applies. Fast, cheap and good: pick two.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Execution Independence
I have a series I've been pitching to some very smart people at networks. They're all quite intrigued by the idea, but can't quite wrap their heads around it, and can't always pinpoint why.
I think what is going on is that the concept seems execution dependent.
That sounds like a funny thing to say. Isn't every show dependent on how it's executed? Well, in some ways. But in some ways not.
Take LAW & ORDER. I could describe that show to you in 60 seconds, and you could go off and create the show by yourself. It might not be exactly Dick Wolf's LAW & ORDER. But it would be pretty close to the hit show that's hived off so many clones.
Or CSI. And so on.
The shows I like to watch are mostly execution dependent. I could describe THE WEST WING to you in 60 seconds, but I couldn't tell you how to make it good. Ditto THE SOPRANOS. Ditto most HBO shows. It's not the concept that makes it worth watching. It's the way the concept is executed.
I think when people spark to this particular show that I'm pitching, they ask, "But how are you going to get 100 episodes out of that?" And I point to the 15 or so springboards in the pitch bible, and I tell them I've got another 10 or so territories on top of those. But they're still wondering: but how is he going to make TV shows out of this idea?
And the real answer is: by banging my head against the wall in the middle of the night. By having a great story room that works their asses off. Not to put too fine a point on it: not easily.
Which is not at all the same as saying I won't be able to come up with the eps. I know I can come up with the eps. There isn't a story problem I've run across in this show -- and I'm two acts into the pilot, with other episodes broken down into acts -- that I haven't been able to resolve. They don't resolve in 5 minutes. They resolve in a day. But they resolve.
But I'm asking these network people to put their faith in my ability to execute the show. It's not a show they'll be able to help me out on if I paint myself into a corner.
Network people are generally more comfortable with execution independent shows. Practically all my other pitches, I could hand off to any of my writer friends, and they'd be able to execute them. This one, not so much.
When you're formulating a spec pilot, unless you have a great relationship with network people who trust you -- or even if you do -- you may be better off with a concept that is relatively execution-independent.
I think what is going on is that the concept seems execution dependent.
That sounds like a funny thing to say. Isn't every show dependent on how it's executed? Well, in some ways. But in some ways not.
Take LAW & ORDER. I could describe that show to you in 60 seconds, and you could go off and create the show by yourself. It might not be exactly Dick Wolf's LAW & ORDER. But it would be pretty close to the hit show that's hived off so many clones.
Or CSI. And so on.
The shows I like to watch are mostly execution dependent. I could describe THE WEST WING to you in 60 seconds, but I couldn't tell you how to make it good. Ditto THE SOPRANOS. Ditto most HBO shows. It's not the concept that makes it worth watching. It's the way the concept is executed.
I think when people spark to this particular show that I'm pitching, they ask, "But how are you going to get 100 episodes out of that?" And I point to the 15 or so springboards in the pitch bible, and I tell them I've got another 10 or so territories on top of those. But they're still wondering: but how is he going to make TV shows out of this idea?
And the real answer is: by banging my head against the wall in the middle of the night. By having a great story room that works their asses off. Not to put too fine a point on it: not easily.
Which is not at all the same as saying I won't be able to come up with the eps. I know I can come up with the eps. There isn't a story problem I've run across in this show -- and I'm two acts into the pilot, with other episodes broken down into acts -- that I haven't been able to resolve. They don't resolve in 5 minutes. They resolve in a day. But they resolve.
But I'm asking these network people to put their faith in my ability to execute the show. It's not a show they'll be able to help me out on if I paint myself into a corner.
Network people are generally more comfortable with execution independent shows. Practically all my other pitches, I could hand off to any of my writer friends, and they'd be able to execute them. This one, not so much.
When you're formulating a spec pilot, unless you have a great relationship with network people who trust you -- or even if you do -- you may be better off with a concept that is relatively execution-independent.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Pilot Thoughts
I'm working on a spec pilot right now. Here are some questions I'm asking myself:
- Does it tell a story with an emotionally satisfying conclusion that nonetheless leaves you compelled to tune in to ep. 2?
- Does the pilot set up enough of the world that you have a sense of it, without uploading so much information it becomes about the expo? (Does it avoid pilot disease?
- Is there anything in the story that is only explicable through having read the pitch? (In other words, do the story beats only make sense if you know some backstory that you haven't introduced in the pilot itself?)
- Can you think of any scene I'm missing, either for the story to make sense, or a missed opportunity to do something fun and spectacular that would add value?
- And since the genre I'm in is speculative fiction:
- Is it weird enough to satisfy fantasy fans?
- Is it emotionally strong enough to pull in the mainstream audience?
- Is it weird enough to satisfy fantasy fans?
Monday, September 25, 2006
AGAINST BIBLES
I have a meeting in a few weeks with people who can greenlight development on one of my projects. I've got a pitch document that intrigues them. But, they ask, what will the show actually look like?
A pitch document or a pitch bible can tell people about your show, but it's a descriptive document. It doesn't prove the concept. What I'm working on now is breaking down a few episodes so I can show the Powers that Greenlight what my show is. I've got the pilot broken down into five acts. (Five act drama is all the rage now.) Now I'm working on a "center cut" episode.
Of course, I'd like to get paid to write these episodes, but if you love something, you go that extra mile.
Sometimes you write the next step without even planning to show it. You do it so that you know the concept will work. If something's wrong, writing the next step will often bring the problems into view. You can fix them without anyone knowing there was anything wrong.
A pitch document or a pitch bible can tell people about your show, but it's a descriptive document. It doesn't prove the concept. What I'm working on now is breaking down a few episodes so I can show the Powers that Greenlight what my show is. I've got the pilot broken down into five acts. (Five act drama is all the rage now.) Now I'm working on a "center cut" episode.
Of course, I'd like to get paid to write these episodes, but if you love something, you go that extra mile.
Sometimes you write the next step without even planning to show it. You do it so that you know the concept will work. If something's wrong, writing the next step will often bring the problems into view. You can fix them without anyone knowing there was anything wrong.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
ONCE AND AGAIN
On my friend Shelley's recommendation, we rented Once and Again, Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick's 1999 series. Very charming pilot. Adorable characters, cleverly written. We get the characters' thoughts through black and white interviews that intercut with and counterpoint the scenes. We wondered instantly where the writers could possibly take the series since the pilot is essentially your basic romantic comedy, and by the end of it, the two adorable people are dating.
Shelley says the series broadens out into the lives of the secondary characters. Not surprised there, because how far can you go with "will they or won't they" if the show is actually about "will they or won't they"? (You can go for a long time if the show is about "will they solve the mystery" or "kooky characters populate a sports bar". That is, incidentally, why you don't want any of your episodes to directly be about the central question of the series, since if you resolve it, the series is done, and if you don't, the episode is unresolved.)
Well, we're certainly going to keep checking this series out...
TWO DAYS LATER: We found it hard to sit through the second episode, which seemed to be about how hard it is for two divorced 40-year-olds with kids to manage dating. Maybe it's because I haven't dated in 15 years, but I had trouble believing it could be that hard. I mean, just tell your kids that mommy's dating and if they don't want mommy to interfere in their dating life when they finally have one, they better be cool about mommy getting some.
But hey, that's me. I've had relationships, I've been married twice, but I never did much dating. If you were going to make a series about me, it wouldn't be about dating.
I guess if you're doing a romantic comedy series, you have to create obstacles, and that means you have to make the characters not that good at getting together. Which, considering they each have their kids only half the time, ought not to be all that hard. You're forced to make the characters a little extra neurotic just so they won't become a happy couple right away and end your series. (In a movie, the end of the pilot would be the end of the movie. You'd just assume they live happily ever after.) So when the guy calls the woman's house, he's actually dumb enough to leave a message with her 11 year old daughter, even though any parent would know the reliability of that message getting through is poor. And they can't find a place to have sex, though they both drive large SUV's. And the guy takes the woman to his favorite dinner place so of course they run into the other woman he's been dating, who he hasn't cut it off with yet. And so on. The stories are cute but they feel like stories that should star twenty-year-olds; 40-year-olds ought to know better.
That's one of the perils of TV being a young writer's game. So many shows about grown-ups feel like they're written about teenagers with adult jobs. Gray's Anatomy is, as someone cleverly pointed out, a high school show set at a hospital. On The O.C., the high school stories are far more convincing than the parent stories.
But on the other other hand, if your characters don't do dumb things, it's hard to come up with stories that can be resolved within the hour. So maybe it's a function of the form.
Shelley says the series broadens out into the lives of the secondary characters. Not surprised there, because how far can you go with "will they or won't they" if the show is actually about "will they or won't they"? (You can go for a long time if the show is about "will they solve the mystery" or "kooky characters populate a sports bar". That is, incidentally, why you don't want any of your episodes to directly be about the central question of the series, since if you resolve it, the series is done, and if you don't, the episode is unresolved.)
Well, we're certainly going to keep checking this series out...
TWO DAYS LATER: We found it hard to sit through the second episode, which seemed to be about how hard it is for two divorced 40-year-olds with kids to manage dating. Maybe it's because I haven't dated in 15 years, but I had trouble believing it could be that hard. I mean, just tell your kids that mommy's dating and if they don't want mommy to interfere in their dating life when they finally have one, they better be cool about mommy getting some.
But hey, that's me. I've had relationships, I've been married twice, but I never did much dating. If you were going to make a series about me, it wouldn't be about dating.
I guess if you're doing a romantic comedy series, you have to create obstacles, and that means you have to make the characters not that good at getting together. Which, considering they each have their kids only half the time, ought not to be all that hard. You're forced to make the characters a little extra neurotic just so they won't become a happy couple right away and end your series. (In a movie, the end of the pilot would be the end of the movie. You'd just assume they live happily ever after.) So when the guy calls the woman's house, he's actually dumb enough to leave a message with her 11 year old daughter, even though any parent would know the reliability of that message getting through is poor. And they can't find a place to have sex, though they both drive large SUV's. And the guy takes the woman to his favorite dinner place so of course they run into the other woman he's been dating, who he hasn't cut it off with yet. And so on. The stories are cute but they feel like stories that should star twenty-year-olds; 40-year-olds ought to know better.
That's one of the perils of TV being a young writer's game. So many shows about grown-ups feel like they're written about teenagers with adult jobs. Gray's Anatomy is, as someone cleverly pointed out, a high school show set at a hospital. On The O.C., the high school stories are far more convincing than the parent stories.
But on the other other hand, if your characters don't do dumb things, it's hard to come up with stories that can be resolved within the hour. So maybe it's a function of the form.
Friday, March 31, 2006
THE BEDFORD DIARIES...
This is just nit picking, I know. But can we all agree that introducing a character by having him wake up late and then run to class is a tired go-to?
Actually, introducing a character by having him wake up at all is a tired go-to.
Ironically, in our first version of the Naked Josh pilot, we had Josh being late to a meeting on campus. (At least we didn't have him wake up late.) Then we scrapped it. It creates a false sense of urgency, but contributes very little to character.
I tried watching the whole episode. I mean, when people borrow the basic concept of your show, you at least owe them the courtesy of watching their pilot. But it was pretty tedious.
I don't think you can get away any more in a pilot with spending most of the episode introducing characters. "Hi, I'm a freshman." "Hi, I'm the girl who jumped off a building." "Hi, I'm the editor of the paper. And you're the teacher who had an affair with a student." These days I think the audience wants you to start your characters off in motion. Just give them interesting stories as if it were a "center cut" episode. We'll pick up who they are from watching them in action.
I'm sure if I'm missing a wonderful show, you'll let me know to keep watching...
Actually, introducing a character by having him wake up at all is a tired go-to.
Ironically, in our first version of the Naked Josh pilot, we had Josh being late to a meeting on campus. (At least we didn't have him wake up late.) Then we scrapped it. It creates a false sense of urgency, but contributes very little to character.
I tried watching the whole episode. I mean, when people borrow the basic concept of your show, you at least owe them the courtesy of watching their pilot. But it was pretty tedious.
I don't think you can get away any more in a pilot with spending most of the episode introducing characters. "Hi, I'm a freshman." "Hi, I'm the girl who jumped off a building." "Hi, I'm the editor of the paper. And you're the teacher who had an affair with a student." These days I think the audience wants you to start your characters off in motion. Just give them interesting stories as if it were a "center cut" episode. We'll pick up who they are from watching them in action.
I'm sure if I'm missing a wonderful show, you'll let me know to keep watching...
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
WILL THEY BUY YOUR SPEC PILOT WITHOUT A SHOWRUNNER?
Q. A friend has contacted me about a TV show idea. I know nothing about TV, but I told him that it is virtually impossible to get a pilot sold without a showrunner attached. [But] he's trying it anyway. Does he need to write the whole pilot now, or could he take out a pitch as a package with bible, concept, and maybe a scene or two written.It is not at all impossible to sell a pilot without a showrunner attached. If they love your pilot, they can always attach a showrunner they like. See Shaun Cassidy's WGA interview about The Agency on the WGA site. Michael Frost Beckner sold the pilot, and because he was better known as a feature writer, he took second chair while Shaun ran the show. Other writers have sold pilots; check out Paul Guyot's blog if he hasn't taken it down yet.
However, they don't much buy bibles. They buy pilots. No one in the States much wants to read a bible. A bible is a promise that the show will be like something. A pilot is proof of the pudding.
In Canada, prodcos and networks do buy bibles (I've optioned all my stuff off bibles), but there's government money available to fund development, so people figure why write something for free when a producer can get the government to pay for them to write it.
Q. Yes, but is there any harm in going into a pitch meeting with a bible, and then getting the script done if there is interest?Well, the most they're going to tell you in the pitch meeting is, "Great. We'd love to see a pilot when you have one."
The worst is they don't dig how you've written the bible (if they even really read it), and now you can't bring in the pilot. Or, even worse, they're iffy about the bible, but you've given them an idea, which seeps into another pitch meeting with someone they know better, and they commission a related (but not identical) idea from him. Now you're really hosed.
So your "friend" will have to write the script.
As a general rule, don't give execs anything you know they won't buy. Unless, of course, it's a writing sample.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
ER PILOT
Watched the E.R. pilot, which now seems slowly paced. It struck me how the technology of the medical ensemble show has improved since 1994. In the pilot we see a dozen plus patients but we don't get to follow any of them (it is, after all, an emergency room); and all the cases are who you'd expect. There's a guy who got cancer from -- wait for it -- smoking. There's a baby who's been beaten. A pregnant underage girl. A pretty girl who o.d.'s. Every go-to in the book, if you will. Compare that to Gray's Anatomy where the medical problem is often not what the doctor thinks it is first time around, or House, where the patient is lying.
There's something to be said about throwing all the clichés into your pilot, though. Josh Schwartz remarked that he put every glamour soap cliché into his pilot for The OC. Clichés work, after all. In E.R. you start with a patient who flatlines. They put the paddles on her and she's okay. There's a baby that's born after, honestly, very little fuss as these things go. These are two things that always get me, a patient who comes back after flatlining and a baby crying for the first time. If those don't get you, check your pulse; you may not be human. And after all the only requirement of a pilot is that it gets the audience to tune in for the second episode. You can bet in the Exposure pilot, which is about models, we have a fashion show. And pretty girls in lingerie. And some other big ole Things We Wanna See in a Model Show.
So don't be afraid to go for the throat the first time out. Or you may not get a second time out.
There's something to be said about throwing all the clichés into your pilot, though. Josh Schwartz remarked that he put every glamour soap cliché into his pilot for The OC. Clichés work, after all. In E.R. you start with a patient who flatlines. They put the paddles on her and she's okay. There's a baby that's born after, honestly, very little fuss as these things go. These are two things that always get me, a patient who comes back after flatlining and a baby crying for the first time. If those don't get you, check your pulse; you may not be human. And after all the only requirement of a pilot is that it gets the audience to tune in for the second episode. You can bet in the Exposure pilot, which is about models, we have a fashion show. And pretty girls in lingerie. And some other big ole Things We Wanna See in a Model Show.
So don't be afraid to go for the throat the first time out. Or you may not get a second time out.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
WRITING THE PILOT
Writing the pilot is the toughest part of writing television. You're writing an episode, creating a template, and setting the tone for the show. You're creating the voices for the characters. You're teasing the audience, giving them a sense of what the show's going to be like.
You're creating the show. And, oh, you don't have a writing staff yet. And if you get it wrong, you won't get a writing staff, or another episode to make it right. This is it, baby. This is where you prove that you really have a good concept -- or not.
Yikes.
What is the hook? The pilot has to sell that.
What is the attractive fantasy -- what is the wish fulfillment your show gives the audience, if any. (Not all shows have it. Oz has a negative fantasy; so do most comedies.)
Who's the central character?
What happens every week?
Who's core cast and who's just recurring?
By the time I get to writing a pilot, I've already written what amounts to a show bible. That's just me; other writers with more impressive credits don't do that. (It's also the Canadian TV system, which seems more oriented to written pitch bibles than the US does.) I've got a dozen pages of sizzle about the show, descriptions of characters and possible springboards for episodes.
The moment you start writing the pilot, you start realizing that some of the stuff in the pilot won't work. The character you might have thought was central may not work. Another character may come alive and insist on more attention. You have to trust yourself. No one ever won a battle without a battle plan -- but smart generals are ready to change their plans when obstacles or opportunities demand it. Same with writing a pilot...
You're creating the show. And, oh, you don't have a writing staff yet. And if you get it wrong, you won't get a writing staff, or another episode to make it right. This is it, baby. This is where you prove that you really have a good concept -- or not.
Yikes.
What is the hook? The pilot has to sell that.
What is the attractive fantasy -- what is the wish fulfillment your show gives the audience, if any. (Not all shows have it. Oz has a negative fantasy; so do most comedies.)
Who's the central character?
What happens every week?
Who's core cast and who's just recurring?
By the time I get to writing a pilot, I've already written what amounts to a show bible. That's just me; other writers with more impressive credits don't do that. (It's also the Canadian TV system, which seems more oriented to written pitch bibles than the US does.) I've got a dozen pages of sizzle about the show, descriptions of characters and possible springboards for episodes.
The moment you start writing the pilot, you start realizing that some of the stuff in the pilot won't work. The character you might have thought was central may not work. Another character may come alive and insist on more attention. You have to trust yourself. No one ever won a battle without a battle plan -- but smart generals are ready to change their plans when obstacles or opportunities demand it. Same with writing a pilot...
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
EVEN SORKIN WRITES SPEC PILOTS
According to Variety, Aaron Sorkin is going out with a spec pilot -- a behind the scenes show about a Saturday Night Live type program. Sports Night, if you will, at a variety show.
You'd think that the more successful you get, the more you'd be willing to write on spec. After all, when you write on spec, you get to make the show exactly the way you like it before anyone else meddles. The more successful you are, the more likely someone will actually buy it. Most of us, though, as soon as we can get paid to do stuff, go for the money rather than the freedom. Partly that's because the more involved the network is in development, the more likely they'll support it getting on the air. Partly because so few things get on the air that you need the development money to stay afloat. (And when I say afloat, I mean, afloat in a styrofoam chair in your pool in Bel Air. But you knew that.) But partly it's because we've had enough rejection, thank you, and enough risk, and now we'd like to know we're getting paid for stuff. But there's a creative cost for that.
I think the trick is to keep a good mix of commissioned stuff and original stuff going. All commissioned stuff makes Jack a dull boy. (Though writing other people's stuff can be creatively engaging too.) All original stuff makes Jack a poor boy unless Jack is phenomenally lucky...
The other trick is to make sure you spend a lot less than you make. The more money in the bank you have, the more you can write what you want. The more you write what you want, often, the more people like it. One of the most lasting bits of screenwriting advice I ever got was from my teacher Sterling Silliphant (In the Heat of the Night). "Don't get divorced," he said. He stopped writing original specs after his first alimony payments kicked in. Keep your annual nut below what you can make in 9 months, and you will always have 3 months available for creative thinking...
You'd think that the more successful you get, the more you'd be willing to write on spec. After all, when you write on spec, you get to make the show exactly the way you like it before anyone else meddles. The more successful you are, the more likely someone will actually buy it. Most of us, though, as soon as we can get paid to do stuff, go for the money rather than the freedom. Partly that's because the more involved the network is in development, the more likely they'll support it getting on the air. Partly because so few things get on the air that you need the development money to stay afloat. (And when I say afloat, I mean, afloat in a styrofoam chair in your pool in Bel Air. But you knew that.) But partly it's because we've had enough rejection, thank you, and enough risk, and now we'd like to know we're getting paid for stuff. But there's a creative cost for that.
I think the trick is to keep a good mix of commissioned stuff and original stuff going. All commissioned stuff makes Jack a dull boy. (Though writing other people's stuff can be creatively engaging too.) All original stuff makes Jack a poor boy unless Jack is phenomenally lucky...
The other trick is to make sure you spend a lot less than you make. The more money in the bank you have, the more you can write what you want. The more you write what you want, often, the more people like it. One of the most lasting bits of screenwriting advice I ever got was from my teacher Sterling Silliphant (In the Heat of the Night). "Don't get divorced," he said. He stopped writing original specs after his first alimony payments kicked in. Keep your annual nut below what you can make in 9 months, and you will always have 3 months available for creative thinking...
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
PITCHES AND SPEC PILOTS
... my American counterparts (some of them multi-award winning screenwriters/producers) said you never, ever write word one of the script until you've been hired to do so, and bibles should be somewhat limited with the information it has about the show, since the network suits will probably change 70-90 percent of it on you before the first draft of the pilot script is even finished.I don't agree about network suits changing 90 percent of your show, because they're buying your show, so they must like most of it. We changed Naked Josh very early on from a show about a college student to one about a college professor, but it was the same show, just aged up 7 years. The basic relationships were the same, and the structure was the same (themed half hour comic drama).
So, I compromised. The bible runs about 35 pages and includes a detailed synopsis of the pilot episode, plus synopses of another 40 episodes or so right up to the two-hour series finale. But I will not write a single word of any script until the show gets the green light for production and I am hired/paid to do so.
Not that I'm an expert at this or anything, but I'll write a 10-15 page pitch bible and then try to get a producer and network on board. You should be able to get structure, template, characters and springboards into a dozen or so pages. Remember you're selling the sizzle, not the steak, so more detail than that and you're just making exec's heads ache. 35 pages might be right for a writer's bible, but too much for a pitch bible.
A lot of shows in the States are sold off spec pilots. After reading a pilot, an exec can sense whether there's a show there or not. Though as John Rogers pointed out recently , a hot pilot is no guarantee the writing staff won't have a gun in its collective mouth by January because the template isn't really there.
I'd say, if you love the project and you haven't got it set up, the next step is to write the pilot. If you can get people to buy the pitch and pay you to write the pilot, great, but if not, write the pilot. If nothing else you'll probably learn a lot of things about the show that will feed back into making a better pitch. Actually having to write stuff that will need to be shot will change a lot about your show, especially if it's in the fantasy genre.
Likewise, if you've got a great treatment for a movie, sure, try to get paid to write it. But if not, write the movie and try to sell it.
Also, don't stick forever on the same project. I'd love more than anything to get Unseen set up, but it's a hard sell. I'm letting it lay fallow a bit. I wrote the movie version as a backdoor pilot. I'm pitching other shows. I'll come back to Unseen and the show will probably be better for it. Certainly I'll be a more plausible showrunner.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
RENTED "PROFIT"
... starring Adrian Pasdar. Terrible pilot. I didn't like anyone. Didn't believe the main character, who was unconvincing as the too-arch or not-arch-enough villain. The ponderous v.o. didn't work for me. I don't care if main characters aren't likable, but I found him uncompelling.
Denis ... why do you like this show?
Denis ... why do you like this show?
Monday, June 20, 2005
GLOBAL FREQUENCY PILOT STILL ON BITTORRENT
FYI, according to TorrentSpy, there are currently 44 seeders and 50 downloaders for the Global Frequency pilot. That means you can download it pretty fast. If you do download it, courtesy suggests you should then upload ("seed") it, keeping the torrent going. Bittorrent will do this automatically if you leave it running.
The network would probably consider file-sharing their unaired pilot to be a copyright violation, but from a moral point of view it's something they tossed in the trash. I don't see how they could argue they've been "damaged" in any way, except that whoever chose not to air it is probably feeling kinda lame right now.
UPDATE: Now there are 80 seeders and 140 downloaders...
The network would probably consider file-sharing their unaired pilot to be a copyright violation, but from a moral point of view it's something they tossed in the trash. I don't see how they could argue they've been "damaged" in any way, except that whoever chose not to air it is probably feeling kinda lame right now.
UPDATE: Now there are 80 seeders and 140 downloaders...
Sunday, April 10, 2005
BIBLES VS. PILOTS
I'm feeling a little dumb about pilots and bibles.
In Canada, where I work, you sell a show off the pitch bible, a ten page document like a short version of the show bibles of eld. That's because the government subsidizes the development of scripts.
In the States, though, it appears you can sell a show off the pilot episode. You don't have to have a bible at all. Many shows have no bible. Marc Cherry sold Desperate Housewives off a pilot. Josh Schwartz, apparently, ditto. Medium has no bible, except what's in Glenn Caron's head.
On the other hand, and this is where I'm confused, you read things like this post, from the brilliant, not-terribly-incognito writer of Why Television Sucks:
But then, she's comedy.
Thoughts, guys?
In Canada, where I work, you sell a show off the pitch bible, a ten page document like a short version of the show bibles of eld. That's because the government subsidizes the development of scripts.
In the States, though, it appears you can sell a show off the pilot episode. You don't have to have a bible at all. Many shows have no bible. Marc Cherry sold Desperate Housewives off a pilot. Josh Schwartz, apparently, ditto. Medium has no bible, except what's in Glenn Caron's head.
On the other hand, and this is where I'm confused, you read things like this post, from the brilliant, not-terribly-incognito writer of Why Television Sucks:
12. When pitching your pilot to the brand new head of the Network, who came over from FEATURES, do not get angry when she stops you two minutes from the end of said pitch and says, "I'm sorry, but I have other meetings, can you just get to the pilot story?"Which strongly suggest an oral bible, at least. And where there's a long involved oral pitch, there's usually gonna be a leave-behind. Which would be a bible. Wouldn't it?
13. Then, when everyone gets all panicked because she has just insulted you, and they gently explain to her that "That's not how it's done in Television. We have to sustain 100 episodes, so we start with a world and the characters." And then, when she turns to you and says, a little snottily, "Sorry, this is all new to me." DO NOT SAY, REALLY SINCERELY, "Oh, really? What... what did you do before? (Perfectly timed beat) Sell shoes?"
But then, she's comedy.
Thoughts, guys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)