You Read It Here in December

A few months ago, I blogged that the entertainment sector should do well in the recession. So I was gratified, but not surprised, to read that movie ticket sales are up 17%.

This in spite of a really scary conversation I had with a director friend of mine in LA, who says that the market for new independent movies -- meaning the market in buying distribution rights -- has collapsed catastrophically. Indie movies are made on credit, and credit is tight. It may be a while before ticket sales pump money back into the indie sector.

TV is still a problem. When the tide goes out, you find out who's been swimming naked, as they say. Ad revenues are down, partly because of the economy, but partly also because advertisers may actually be coming to terms with the DVR. As more and more people buy digital video recorders, how many of them are actually going to watch the commercials? And it's patently idiotic to suggest, as some have, that people "watch" them on fast forward. A network exec friend of mine said she asked about DVR's in a meeting, only to be told "we don't talk about that." It seems likely that advertisers are now talking about the problem, whether or not network execs are.

So broadcast TV is facing a technological issue that strikes at the very heart of its business model, and the tide has run out, leaving its naughty bits swinging in the sea air.

Meanwhile, pay cable is doing well. And more and more people are watching "on demand" or downloading to their computer. Ironically, via computer, it is possible to sell your show for money, iTunes style, or offer it for free download with commercials you can't skip.

That's fair. If you don't like commercials, buy the show. If you'll watch the commercials, we'll show it to you for free.

Of course with 60 million Americans still unwilling or unable to grapple with the analog-to-digital switch, any technological solution will likely leave a chunk of the audience behind.

I still feel sanguine about the basic market for television, however it's delivered. TV is about the cheapest way to have someone entertain you. But in the mean time, I wouldn't take out any new mortgages.

That's "Mr. Bolormaa" to You, Buddy

Here's the Wikipedia's page on the most popular names by region.

Who knew "Lachlan" was the third most popular name in Australia? Who knew Bolormaa is the second most popular name in Mongolia?

Well, now you do.

Kick the Rat

There's "pat the dog" scenes, where you show that the hero's likable because he's kind to animals. And there's "kick the dog" scenes where you show that the villain is a big meanie, because he's rude to his underlings or steals candy from a baby.

Another way to make your character likable is by showing her being mean -- or at least secretly wishing ill -- to someone we dislike, too. I have a scene where my wedding planner character is dealing with an atrocious bride. By the time the scene's over, she's a little more lovable -- because she had to put up with the kind of idiot we have to put up with way too often. We'll sympathize with her at the expense of the atrocious bride.

Just another way to get us on your character's side...

Musical Montage

Q. When writing for a show that uses the two minute or so musical montage near the end of the episode, how is that generally conveyed on the page? would the writer suggest the song, or is that left up to the producers/director?

That's really done in post-production by the editor and the showrunner. You might suggest the nature of the feeling the song is intended to invoke.

I generally try to avoid montages in spec scripts because they read so poorly. It's very hard to convey the feeling of a montage on the page. I'd write a montage in a script I was hired to write, but in a selling script I'd stay away from them if possible. Of course if the show always uses a montage, you have to respect the template and use a montage.

Podcasts

I've been listening to the amazing Ron Moore BATTLESTAR GALACTICA podcasts. And I've checked out some of the Creative Screenwriting podcasts. What else should I listen to while I'm walking the dog?

De Callithricis

Studio Reader Stan takes a potshot at marketing people in his latest comic strip.

C'mon. Taking potshots at marketing people is shooting fish in a barrel. All creatives have instinctive disrespect for the people who tell them broad truths about the audience, taken out of context ("Everybody likes monkeys!") and draws lame conclusions from them ("We want Seinfeld! But with a monkey!)

The truth is, though, that we creatives work in a relative vacuum. Most of our friends are creative people who work irregular jobs. I can take a wild guess at what the guy who works in the auto plant in Mahwah (at least till last month) likes to watch on TV, but only because of the numbers. Apparently he likes to watch comfort food TV -- crime dramas where the heroes are heroes and the villains are vile and the heroes always get the villains by the end of the hour. I like to watch MAD MEN, where if you get up to go to the fridge in the middle, you'll miss something important.

Which is where marketing people come in. And focus groups. And testers. If focus groups didn't work at all, networks wouldn't use them. Granted, they can become insulation for network execs ("How was I supposed to know it would tank? The testing was through the roof!") But sometimes creatives need to be reminded that if the show is all over the place, changing genre in mid-episode, writers may think it's cool, but watchers will think it's confusing. (Cf FIREFLY.)

Marketing feedback is like all feedback. You can't take it literally; you have to interpret it. But all feedback is useful, if you figure out how to use it.

Politics By Other Means

Here's a fine discussion of whether or not Felix Gaeta was right.

Yes, I read all the comments. And FWIW, we seriously need some elected leaders.

Possible CRTC Bombshell

There's talk of the CRTC enforcing a $1-$1 ratio of spending on US programming to spending on Canadian programming. Currently the ratio is $775 million on US programming to $619 million on Canadian programming.

This seems like an excellent idea. There's no good reason for the Canadian networks to fight it, because it wouldn't actually reduce the amount of US programming they can buy. It just means they'll all have less money with which to compete for US product. They can still compete on a program-by-program basis, but they'll be competing with fewer dollars.

That means that US distribs will have to bring down prices. If Canadian networks have only $619 mil to spend on US programming, that's how much US distribs will sell the programming to them for.

Programming isn't a commodity. If you sell CSI to Canada, you don't have less CSI to sell somewhere else. Ultimately US distribs are going to sell CSI to Canada for however much or how little is on offer, because it puts dollars in their pocket and not selling it doesn't put any dollars in their pocket.

The nets probably can't afford to step up to $775 mil spent on Canadian programming. CanWest is in severe financial jeopardy right now as is. But the more money they save by not spending it in the US, the more money they have to spend in Canada. Which in a recession is probably an even better idea than it usually is.

Excellent idea, CRTC. Hope it goes through.