OKAY, SOME POINTERS
Reading a little further into the Jerry Springer book, here's what I pick up:
a. It's all the producers. Jerry's the personality. The producers do all the work finding the -- I wanna say contestants -- guests. He finds out what the show is about five minutes before the show. Literally. Interesting.
b. It was Universal's idea to show the fights. Originally they were edited out.
c. It was the exec producer's idea to keep the Jerry Springer name, and the show topic, in the frame throughout the show, so you always know what you're watching. Their goal was to have a show you'd find compelling with the sound off.
d. I guess what the guests are looking for is approval. The guy who goes on Jerry Springer's show to let everyone in the world know he has sex with his horse is hoping that when his secret is out, people will still love him, and he won't be carrying around this secret. I suspect that what really happens is he loses almost all his friends. But I don't think it's about seeking fame or notoriety. I think it's about approval.
Friday, December 03, 2004
RINGMASTER
I've been reading Jerry Spring's book Ringmaster. I know. Don't ask.
Irritatingly, he leaves out the single most interesting bit of information. He mentions that in his first year, he was doing happy shows about uniting mothers and their children. Then he got into his groove.
But how did he get into it? Did he go sleazy out of sinking ratings? Because he tried one crazy thing and it paid off? Did he plan ahead? Did he get flack from the network?
I mean, it's fun to know he was mayor of Cinncinnati, and that he was a newsman after that. It takes a newsman to truly appreciate sleaze entertainment, and he is the first to point out how little network news is really news you need. But how did he find his template?
The book does answer the interesting question "how do they find these people." It turns out they don't have to. Those people call in. Thousands of them every week. Wanting to confront lovers, etc., on national TV. They're not even paid.
Yikes.
I've been reading Jerry Spring's book Ringmaster. I know. Don't ask.
Irritatingly, he leaves out the single most interesting bit of information. He mentions that in his first year, he was doing happy shows about uniting mothers and their children. Then he got into his groove.
But how did he get into it? Did he go sleazy out of sinking ratings? Because he tried one crazy thing and it paid off? Did he plan ahead? Did he get flack from the network?
I mean, it's fun to know he was mayor of Cinncinnati, and that he was a newsman after that. It takes a newsman to truly appreciate sleaze entertainment, and he is the first to point out how little network news is really news you need. But how did he find his template?
The book does answer the interesting question "how do they find these people." It turns out they don't have to. Those people call in. Thousands of them every week. Wanting to confront lovers, etc., on national TV. They're not even paid.
Yikes.
E.G. HERE'S A QUESTION
E.g. "What are you watching? Why do you like those shows? What writers and shows do you find the most interesting? Are they always the same as the shows you watch regularly?"
I, for example, watch Boston Legal because it's cleverly and amusingly written, but I know I should be watching Desperate Housewives because it's a hit. Boston Legal is very much not a hit, which suggests it's a bit risky to watch it. It might infect you with its unpopular cleverness.
E.g. "How analytical are you when you come up with a core cast? Do you always have a love interest, a nemesis, a mom, whatever? Or do you just fool around with it until it feels right?
E.g. "What are you watching? Why do you like those shows? What writers and shows do you find the most interesting? Are they always the same as the shows you watch regularly?"
I, for example, watch Boston Legal because it's cleverly and amusingly written, but I know I should be watching Desperate Housewives because it's a hit. Boston Legal is very much not a hit, which suggests it's a bit risky to watch it. It might infect you with its unpopular cleverness.
E.g. "How analytical are you when you come up with a core cast? Do you always have a love interest, a nemesis, a mom, whatever? Or do you just fool around with it until it feels right?
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?
I'm going to start interviewing TV writers and producers for the book ... what do you want to know?
What questions would you like the answers to? Aside from "how do I get a job" and "will you read my script," I mean. Questions about hooks and templates and signatures and how to structure a cast, etc.
I'm going to start interviewing TV writers and producers for the book ... what do you want to know?
What questions would you like the answers to? Aside from "how do I get a job" and "will you read my script," I mean. Questions about hooks and templates and signatures and how to structure a cast, etc.
CRAFTY QUESTIONS
I'm getting ready to send my lovely and talented book agent the proposal for Crafty TV Writing. Everything's in shape except the outline, which is a work in progress. I think the hook for this book is something like: how do tv writers think about TV. And then how do they write it.
When a chess master looks at a chess board, he sees structures I don't see, lines of force, combinations, etc. When a crafty TV writer watches, or when he sets out to construct a new show -- and I'm just learning to do this -- he has a sense of how the characters interrelate. What are the possibilities? Whereas when a not-so-crafty writer does it, he just throws a few interesting characters in there and hopes they're the right ones for each other.
Teaching how to do that -- learning how to do that -- is a tall order. But I'm convinced it can be distilled.
I keep wondering if I should put off writing this book. I'll know more about TV writing in a year, y'know? On the other hand I'll learn about it by writing about it. Particularly because I'm going to interview people who are undoubtedly crafty.
Which brings me to my next question...
I'm getting ready to send my lovely and talented book agent the proposal for Crafty TV Writing. Everything's in shape except the outline, which is a work in progress. I think the hook for this book is something like: how do tv writers think about TV. And then how do they write it.
When a chess master looks at a chess board, he sees structures I don't see, lines of force, combinations, etc. When a crafty TV writer watches, or when he sets out to construct a new show -- and I'm just learning to do this -- he has a sense of how the characters interrelate. What are the possibilities? Whereas when a not-so-crafty writer does it, he just throws a few interesting characters in there and hopes they're the right ones for each other.
Teaching how to do that -- learning how to do that -- is a tall order. But I'm convinced it can be distilled.
I keep wondering if I should put off writing this book. I'll know more about TV writing in a year, y'know? On the other hand I'll learn about it by writing about it. Particularly because I'm going to interview people who are undoubtedly crafty.
Which brings me to my next question...
WRITING WHAT YOU KNOW
Lisa was suggesting I write a fish-out-of-water TV series pitch of some kind, because there's money out in them thar Prairies. But I am a confirmedly urban boy. I've lived in New York, Paris, Los Angeles, New Haven and Montreal. None of them exactly Big Sky Country.
It's funny but I know the fae, for example, but I don't know country folks. I'd be in danger of mocking them, or failing to mock them enough. We watched two episodes of Corner Gas last night, my favorite sitcom at the moment. It's full of gentle mocking of country folks. Coming from me, that'd be like prejudice. Coming from Brent Butt, it's a fair cop, guv.
And it's too bad, because I have a great title for the show.
Lisa was suggesting I write a fish-out-of-water TV series pitch of some kind, because there's money out in them thar Prairies. But I am a confirmedly urban boy. I've lived in New York, Paris, Los Angeles, New Haven and Montreal. None of them exactly Big Sky Country.
It's funny but I know the fae, for example, but I don't know country folks. I'd be in danger of mocking them, or failing to mock them enough. We watched two episodes of Corner Gas last night, my favorite sitcom at the moment. It's full of gentle mocking of country folks. Coming from me, that'd be like prejudice. Coming from Brent Butt, it's a fair cop, guv.
And it's too bad, because I have a great title for the show.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
WHAT IS TO BE DONE
I've been trying to figure out what the next thing to do is, a ritual I perform whenever I'm not in the middle of a million things already.
Decided I should be thinking about getting some new TV pitches together -- not the full fledged 10-15 page thing I've been going out with on Exposure and Unseen, but maybe 3-5 pagers, something I can bat out in a day. Which in turn means meeting with production companies and finding what they're looking for. Had a long chat with my agent, and there are a few places we'll pursue.
At some point I should also spend a week coming up with ideas for a small budget feature that's produceable here, i.e. a contemporary drama of people talking in rooms and maybe driving around in the countryside, rather than, say, an epic miniseries about the French and Indian War (or whatever they call it here). Then I can write up one of those ideas into a 5 page pitch and see if the Telefilm Screenwriting Assistance Program would like to fund another script o'mine.
Came up with a good title for a show I would never write, because it's set in the Prairies, and what the hell do I know about the Prairies? Aside from that there's a lot of money to shoot there these days.
So: meetings -> tv pitches; feature pitches -> SAP app.
And going to the big Crafts Fair at the Bonaventure Hotel, to buy yet another wool and leather winter hat to replace the one I keep losing!
I've been trying to figure out what the next thing to do is, a ritual I perform whenever I'm not in the middle of a million things already.
Decided I should be thinking about getting some new TV pitches together -- not the full fledged 10-15 page thing I've been going out with on Exposure and Unseen, but maybe 3-5 pagers, something I can bat out in a day. Which in turn means meeting with production companies and finding what they're looking for. Had a long chat with my agent, and there are a few places we'll pursue.
At some point I should also spend a week coming up with ideas for a small budget feature that's produceable here, i.e. a contemporary drama of people talking in rooms and maybe driving around in the countryside, rather than, say, an epic miniseries about the French and Indian War (or whatever they call it here). Then I can write up one of those ideas into a 5 page pitch and see if the Telefilm Screenwriting Assistance Program would like to fund another script o'mine.
Came up with a good title for a show I would never write, because it's set in the Prairies, and what the hell do I know about the Prairies? Aside from that there's a lot of money to shoot there these days.
So: meetings -> tv pitches; feature pitches -> SAP app.
And going to the big Crafts Fair at the Bonaventure Hotel, to buy yet another wool and leather winter hat to replace the one I keep losing!
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
A THOUGHT ON SF & F
I've been watching a few eps of an as-yet-unreleased kids show with lots of CGI. A couple of thoughts:
a. the fantastickal creatures, if there are any, should be interesting as characters, not just as fantastickal creatures. One of the reasons Winnie the Pooh holds up is that all the Pooh characters are recognizable people. I always get a distinct sense that Eeyore is a particular friend of A. A. Milne who must have had a habit of oh-poor-me-ing. That's the sense you want: that there's a real person in there, even if the person is a Wookiee. Jabba the Hutt was a terrific repulsive bandit leader -- he'd have been almost as much fun if he weren't a giant slug.
b. the human characters should be more interesting than the fantastickal creatures. We're supposed to care about and root for them, right? So if we're more drawn to the fantastickal creatures, because they're more compelling, something's wrong.
Of course characters aren't interesting on their own, just laying there like a lox. They have to be doing something interesting. That's why Dorothy is running away from home to save Toto before the twister whisks her away to Oz. If you're doing your job right, we'll have a sense that your character is worried about the end of the world -- but really worried if his girl will still hate him if the world doesn't explode.
And this particular show doesn't do that.
Ah, well.
I've been watching a few eps of an as-yet-unreleased kids show with lots of CGI. A couple of thoughts:
a. the fantastickal creatures, if there are any, should be interesting as characters, not just as fantastickal creatures. One of the reasons Winnie the Pooh holds up is that all the Pooh characters are recognizable people. I always get a distinct sense that Eeyore is a particular friend of A. A. Milne who must have had a habit of oh-poor-me-ing. That's the sense you want: that there's a real person in there, even if the person is a Wookiee. Jabba the Hutt was a terrific repulsive bandit leader -- he'd have been almost as much fun if he weren't a giant slug.
b. the human characters should be more interesting than the fantastickal creatures. We're supposed to care about and root for them, right? So if we're more drawn to the fantastickal creatures, because they're more compelling, something's wrong.
Of course characters aren't interesting on their own, just laying there like a lox. They have to be doing something interesting. That's why Dorothy is running away from home to save Toto before the twister whisks her away to Oz. If you're doing your job right, we'll have a sense that your character is worried about the end of the world -- but really worried if his girl will still hate him if the world doesn't explode.
And this particular show doesn't do that.
Ah, well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)