Digital is Not a Wonder Drug

[Cancon]

OTTAWA -- Heritage Minister James Moore on Wednesday offered support, but no new concrete initiatives, for the ailing over-the-air TV industry. [snip] "There is tremendous opportunity for Canadian broadcasters to harness these new trends in digital technology, to become more innovative and consequently more profitable," he said. "The efficiency of digital technologies and the dropping prices should leave room for effective solutions."

A lot of people keep throwing around the word "digital" like it's a wonder drug. I have yet to see much in the way of synergies between television and the Net. Yes, some people are streaming shows instead of watching them on TV. The only way that helps broadcasters is that on the Net you can prevent people from skipping commercials, which you can't do when they've recorded your TV show.

But the additional promotional content on the website, the additional minutes of the Jon Stewart interview, the Alternate Reality Game -- these are all "added value" for the consumer of TV that don't necessarily put more money in the pocket of the broadcaster.

It's disingenuous for the Conservatives to say, "Hey, you need less money now 'cause there's DIGITAL!" Prices aren't "dropping." Broadcasting TV is actually really cheap. Transmitters don't cost a lot, and the customers buy their own TVs. What costs is making quality programming that people want to watch. You don't save anything broadcasting a sitcom over the Net. It still needs to have decent production values, great acting, great directing and great writing.

Technology is actually a threat. For over the air (OTA) broadcasters, technology is a tsunami and they're the low-lying coastal areas. In the medium run, the advertising model for television is untenable. People are watching fewer and fewer commercials. Cable channels can laugh it up, 'cause they're paid for by subscription. But I think free broadcast is doomed within the next 10 years, and maybe in as little as 5. Product placement isn't going to fill the gap. Broadcasters are going to have to replace airing stuff for free with iTunes-style downloads, pay-per-view streaming, and more subscriptions.

Or explain to me how I'm wrong.

I have no idea how we're going to rework Cancon so it works in the new environment. The current model forces broadcasters to air a (pitiably small) number of hours of homemade programming. As more and more content shifts to other delivery systems, we'll need Cancon requirements for those, too.

Don't count on the Conservatives to provide them. But dollars to doughnuts there's an election in the Fall, and I think Michael Ignatieff gets it. (I know Justin Trudeau does 'cause I've had him over for lunch.)

Meanwhile, when some Minister says, "Hey, you don't need money, you just need to go all DIGITAL," just ask him how, exactly, "digital" is supposed to fix what's wrong with broadcasting.

His and Hurley's

I throw an irregular get-together at Hurley's Irish Pub for all my friends, and future friends, in showbiz. We're getting together again on Thursday, May 14, from 7 to 10 pm. (That's when I leave. Some people never leave.) If you think you might be in Montreal then, save the date. Or even better, RSVP on Facebook.

Screenwriting Collaboration Agreement

Here's a pretty good, basic Screenwriting Collaboration Agreement. If you're considering co-writing with someone, you probably ought to sign one of these.

Or, if you have something else in mind, alter it accordingly. For example, we could draw up an agreement where you have a 50% stake, but I have control over the rights, and can decide to sell or option or not sell it as I choose. You could have a financial stake but I could retain final say over the creative form of the screenplay. And so on.

There are fewer things more frustrating for a writer than to have a good script tied up because your ex-partner no longer agrees with you about a screenplay. Get the main points in writing, even if you're writing with a friend. It will never be easier to make a fair deal than when neither of you has put any work into the project. Later on, people start to feel a sense of ownership, and things get sticky.

Writing Not Typing

In Crafty Screenwriting your advice, as I understand it, is to not write your story down, to mull it around in your head, and tell it out loud to people until you're sure it's a good story. Then write it. I'm trying to reconcile this method with the mantra of most creative writers: "Write every day." What do you write if you're not writing the story in your head? The obvious answer is "another story." But what if all your stories are in the embryonic stage?

Working out your story in your head or by telling it to other people is writing.

It's just not typing.

I have a creative jones, to the point where if I don't write something during a day, I get really cranky. My addiction is completely satisfied by talking through a story.

Writing pages is good, but most people spend far too little of their time working out their story before they start typing, and consequently spend much more time fixing their story once it's written down. You often hear of a writer and director spending a week or even a month talking through the movie. It's really hard to spend too much time talking through your story. When it stops changing, or you're starting to get bored (not just fidgety), you're good to start typing.

It's the Personal Journey

I had an interesting back and forth over the weekend with a fellow whose query I was evaluating, whose script is about a Famous Historical Person. The first few drafts of his query were all about FHP's external struggle against the Powers That Be. But I kept plugging away at the question your movie should always answer: what is the hero's personal struggle? What drives him? What haunts him? Or to put it another way, Why him? What picked him to face these challenges?

Film and TV are personal media. They don't do sweeping stories well. They do stories about a small group of people well. You wouldn't write a script about the Siege of Malta. You'd write a script about Some Dude at the Siege of Malta.

If you have a historical event you want to put on screen, think about what sort of protagonist best tells the story. Do you want an outsider? An insider? Do you want an Achilles, who made the story happen? Or a Titus Pullo, who lived through the events and participated in them, but wasn't always in the thick of things?

How do you personalize the events?

Uncomfortable Plot Summaries

BATMAN: Wealthy man assaults the mentally ill.
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST: Peasant girl develops Stockholm Syndrome.
BLADE: Obsessed loner stalks minority group.
CHINATOWN: Father desires closer relationship with his children.

More at PostModernBarney.

How Can I Own a Title?

I just read an article regarding the Stan Winston directed 'Pumpkinhead' where the producer states that he 'owned the title Pumpkinhead.'

Is it possible to own a film title?

ie, I have a cool title - how can I own it?

You can't copyright a word, and I'm pretty sure "pumpkinhead" was in the dictionary before the movie. Moreover, there are any number of movies with the same title, especially if it's a common word or phrase. I have a credit on a picture called WARRIORS, which is not the famous one.

The producer may have registered the title with the MPAA. I'm not actually sure what this does, but I imagine there are some restrictions on putting out similarly-titled movies at the same time; of course all the MPAA can really do is withhold their rating.

The producer may also have trademarked the title, at least as it applies to horror movies about big rangy ugly monsters. I'm not sure how much protection that gives; I think it just entitles you to threaten a lawsuit, not necessarily win one. But who wants to buy a lawsuit?

I don't think you can practically "own" a film title without producing a movie. Otherwise people would just get our their BREWER'S DICTIONARY OF PHRASE AND FABLE and squat on movie titles the way they squat on Internet domains.

One Hour Too Long?

Where can I find the structure breakdown of a 2hr pilot?

Can I use a two hour spec pilot as a writing sample or is that too long for someone to read for a sample?

Why would you want to write a two hour pilot, spec or no spec?

A pilot is supposed to create the template for the show. It doesn't just set up the characters and the premise. It tells the audience what the show is.

A two hour pilot for a one hour show, by definition, fails to create the template for the show. It may set up the characters and the premise, but it's a movie, not an hour of television.

There are successful two hour pilots, but they're really two episodes that work well back to back. Later they can be shown separately. I think actual two hour pilots, conceived and aired as such, tend to make very bad pilots. They are self-indulgent and clunky. Give me the discipline of a pilot that tells a good hour-long story, and incidentally introduces the premise, characters and world.