Script Notes by Chad Gervich - Interesting Talking Points

Diversity in Writers Rooms? Think Again...

Chad — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:14:31 GMT

Interesting, but sad, article in this morning's Variety... detailing the WGA's 2009 Hollywood Writers Report about diversity amongst writers. And it turns out... there isn't much.

"White males continue to dominate in both the film and television sectors," says Darnell Hunt, the UCLA professor who wrote the study. "Although women and minorities closed the earnings gaps with white men in television a bit, the earnings gaps in film grew. These findings are clearly out of step with a nation that elected its first African American president in 2008, a nation in which more than half of the population is female and nearly a third is non-white."

Based on 2007 statistics, one of the more noticeable differences is in the annual income of "diverse" feature writers versus the annual income of white male feature writers. Minority writers earned $61,912; white male writers earned $98,875; this is an even wider gap than four years earlier in 2003, where the difference was only $87,392 versus $90,476.

Click HERE to read the entire story...

Or click HERE to get the actual WGA report.

Don Draper > Barack Obama?

Chad — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:01:53 GMT

Is Don Draper (the main guy in Mad Men) more influential than Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, and Simon Cowell? According to 500,000 men who read AskMen.com-- YUP.

Check out this poll abput the 49 most influential men in the world... pretty interesting!

(And people say scripted programming is dying! Uh, apparently it's more influential than THE PRESIDENT.)

The State of Hollywood... from a Mogul

Chad — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:01:49 GMT

Hey, folks-- check out Nikki Finke's post of former Fox Films CEO Bill Mechanic's (Coraline, The New World) keynote speech at yesterday's Independent Film & Television Production Conference. Great insight into the state of movies today...

Click HERE to read the speech...

Defending Josh Olson

Chad — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:02:32 GMT

When I was in grad school at UCLA, one of my professors always said one of a writer’s most important skills was the ability to see things—without judging—from different characters’ perspectives, especially villains’ and bad guys’. He used to give us an exercise, asking: “How was Hitler right?” (And before I continue, let me say: I am NOT NOT NOT comparing anyone to Hitler. That’s obviously ridiculous and grotesque… and the best way to invalidate an argument. It’s simply an exercise a professor used to illustrate a point.) As a result, whenever I’m writing a story… or in an argument in real life… I always try to see things from the opposite perspective. I try to put myself in the other person’s skin and look through their eyes. What are they thinking? What do they want to accomplish? How do they see me? How are they right? Where am I wrong?

I have spent the last weekend thinking about this bizarre battle of words with Josh Olson. I’ve talked to writers of all levels: amateurs, professionals, writers in different mediums. Some people agree with Josh; some people don’t. Others agree with me; others don’t. Some think Josh was right on the money; others think he was too extreme and unnecessary. I have reread Josh’s original post, as well as all the responses on The Village Voice, across the web, and in my personal inbox.

But the comment that helped me the most came from a conversation with a friend, a professional TV writer, who said…

“The first time I read Josh’s post, I thought he was an arrogant prick. The second time I read Josh’s post, I thought he was an arrogant prick. The third time I read Josh’s post, I thought, ‘He’s not being a prick, he’s begging for mercy. He wanted to do the ‘right’ thing, help this acquaintance, and he got shafted. He wants us to understand why he can’t do this anymore. And yeah—it’s painfully frustrating. He would LIKE to help this guy… and others like him… but every time he does he gets hurt.’”

Now, keep in mind—in my original post, I agreed with almost everything Josh said. I said, “It’s unprofessional, and a massive imposition, to ask strangers or acquaintances to read your work.” I said, “Part of your job as a professional writer… is to be able to gauge relationships and know when to ask favors. If you can’t do this, you’re not ready to work professionally.” I even agreed with Josh’s anger toward the “inappropriate screenwriter.”

My ONLY issue was: I have no problem encouraging people to write for the sheer sake of writing. I have been soundly smacked for this, by Josh, Kay Reindl, and a host of other people… but I stand by it. I wish more people—talented or not—DID write… and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with encouraging this.

Having said that… when reading Josh’s piece through my friend’s lens, something interesting happened…

I didn’t see Josh as someone who wanted to discourage people from writing. I saw him as someone who constantly WANTED to be encouraging-- or at least honest and supportive, even if that honesty and support came in the form of hard-to-hear criticism-- but every time he tried, he got hurt. He would give feedback, advice, suggestions… and in return, he got insulted, screwed, rebuffed. Reading his “friend’s” treatment was the last straw. He just couldn’t be encouraging anymore.

And as I thought about this more, here’s what struck me:

Josh's article has dredged up scorn and resentment on both sides...

Some people are resentful that Josh has “forgotten where he came from.” Others, those who champion Josh, feel emboldened to wield scorn or resentment toward aspiring, unprofessional writers.

They’re both wrong.

I don’t think Josh is trying to convey scorn or resentment at all. I think he’s trying to convey the agony and frustration of a man who feels tortured. A man who wants to do the right thing, help, support, and even-- when appropriate-- encourage other writers, and can’t. Because whenever he does this favor, he winds up feeling abused, insulted, taken advantage of. This experience with his "acquaintance" is just the latest incident. He's begging us to understand his position and let him off the hook. “Please don’t ask me to read your script. It’s unprofessional, it damages us both, and I can’t do it anymore.”

He’s angry... but he's also HURT.

People on BOTH sides have misread him. Again, some have viewed Josh's piece as a personal, scornful attack… and others have taken his piece as a permission to BE scornful.

Kay Reindl on her blog: “…You suck as a writer. How do I know this? Because I've read your fucking script. I read it when you submitted it to an agent or a TeeVee show or, God help me, a screenwriting competition.” HankG in the Voice's comments: “Here's a strategy all for you bitter little screenwriter wannabes… if you're interesting and generous and not too annoying, maybe, just maybe, that professional [screenwriter] will OFFER to read your shitty, pathetic script.” Michael Zavis: “Enjoy crawling over each other in the Valley of Obscurity, losers.”

NONE of these seem to echo Josh's initial attitude, when he agrees to read his acquaintance's script, give some feedback, and offer suggestions. He doesn't necessarily want to do it, but since he agrees, he wants to do a fair and honest job. In fact, it's a big leap from Josh's "Do you have any idea how hard it is to tell someone that they've spent a year wasting their time?... You want to make absolutely certain that it comes across honestly and WITHOUT CRUELTY" to "You suck as a writer"... "your shitty, pathetic script"... "the Valley of Obscurity, loser."

In other words, people on both sides have picked up on the same element-- a tone which, whether you call it "arrogance" or not, is certainly in the piece. And whereas some have taken it as a personal affront, others have taken it as the RIGHT to arrogance.

So whose fault is it, if fault is to be given, for misunderstanding? Is it readers’ fault, including mine, for not reading Josh's piece closely or thoughtfully enough? Maybe. Josh’s piece was clearly meant to be provocative, to elicit a strong response… but maybe people ran with their instant reactions of hurt, indignation, or righteous superiority and didn’t bother to read further.

Is it Josh’s fault? If the piece didn’t accurately convey what he was feeling/thinking, then it certainly didn’t fulfill its intent. And I’m not saying the piece DIDN’T fulfill its intent; I’m just saying that Josh has taken a lot of heat and continues to defend himself, and—at some point—you can’t just claim, “People are missing my point.”

(And if Josh’s detractors are missing the point, so are the supporters who use his piece as license to mock and disparage other people.)

So where does this leave us?...

I will admit: I have a new understanding and appreciation of Josh's post, even if I don’t necessarily agree with how Josh said all of what he said… and I think his tone sometimes muddies his message. (Josh claims he's only on the "receiving end" of arrogance, but it's certainly been easy for readers, both Josh's detractors and supporters, to find arrogance in that piece. It may not be intentional, but even his "friends" seem to find it.)

I also stand by what I’ve said this past week. More people SHOULD be writing… and should be encouraged to write… and many-- perhaps sadly, even mistakenly-- took Josh’s piece, or parts of the piece, as a massive, personal “fuck you” to all aspiring writers... or as permission to echo a "fuck you" to aspiring writers.

I don't think this was Josh’s intent, although I certainly think this was the intent of some of those who responded in support of Josh.

And if Josh is going to take issue with people who misread his piece in one way, I hope he takes issue with those who misread it in another. Using his words as a license to spit on, insult, and mock aspirants is as much a bastardization of his thoughts and intent as anything else.

So ultimately, I think Josh’s piece… or parts of Josh’s piece… were misread because they were so easily capable of being misread. I don’t know if that’s a writer’s fault or a reader’s fault, and it’s probably a bit of both.

(And two final thoughts:

1: Attacking Josh for a best ADAPTED screenplay nomination (or for doing Peter Jackson's Halo adaptation) is ludicrous. Adapting someone else’s work-- whether a graphic novel, a short story, or a video game-- is just as difficult—and sometimes MORE difficult—than writing something original.

2: Josh—attacking me, however subtly, as a teacher is also ludicrous. We can disagree and debate the points and topics in these writings, which your piece launched in a very public forum… we can even disagree on the merits of McKee or screenwriting classes in general… but having never taken one of my classes, it’s not fair or relevant of you to suddenly comment on my qualifications as a teacher. I may be the best teacher you’ve ever seen… or the worst… but you certainly don’t know.)

Dear Kay and Josh...

Chad — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:50:36 GMT

First of all, huge thanks to Mary for her comment pointing out Kay Reindl’s Seriocity blog post “ripping me a new one!” (Kay wrote a response to my response to Josh Olson's Village Voice piece, "I Will Not Read Your Fucking Script.") Josh Olson then posted a response to this blog in Kay's comment section. Click HERE to read Kay's response and Josh's comment (once you're there, scroll down a bit to read Josh's comment).

Secondly, huge thanks to Kay and Josh for reading this blog and responding… even if you gave me a whipping. I genuinely appreciate you guys taking the time to respond, even as you’re kicking my ass.

Having said that…

KAY — I think you misunderstand me as much as you contend I misunderstand Josh.

In response to my notion that “you should encourage everyone” who wants to be a writer, Kay writes…

“I do NOT believe everybody should be encouraged. That kind of thinking leads to what we have now, which is a grandiose societal sense of entitlement. THIS IS BAD. No, you DON'T get encouragement if you suck at something. And if you are desperate to keep doing it, then you GET BETTER AT IT. You prove them wrong. And guess what? The win is greater. People treated you like a capable adult. They didn't lie to you and hold your hand and tell you that even though you have no talent at this, YOU STILL DESERVE A SHOT JUST AS MUCH AS SOMEONE ELSE. That's bullshit.”

You are totally correct. That IS bullshit. And that’s also not what I said. (Or as Josh suggests, I never said we should “encourage people to do what they can’t.”)

I don’t believe in telling someone their crappy script is gold. I don’t believe in telling someone who’s talent-less that they’re talented. I don’t believe we should give overall deals to people who win reality shows. AND I DIDN’T SAY THAT.

What I’m saying is…

IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THEY’RE GOOD OR BAD… AND YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE TO PUT YOURSELF IN THE POSITION TO FIND OUT. As Josh would say, “Don’t read their fucking script.” (In fact, I'm pretty sure I agreed with this, saying, "You don’t have to read someone’s work… and, to be honest, I think you’re perfectly right not to," and "It’s unprofessional... to ask strangers or acquaintances to read your work," and even-- "Part of your job as a professional writer... is to be able to gauge relationships and know when to ask favors.") BUT…

You can still applaud them for writing.

Most people leave high school or college and are TERRIFIED of putting pen to paper… as perhaps they should be, because it’s FUCKING HARD. Like Kay says, “it's a CRAFT, people. And a craft needs to be practiced and perfected. A craft does not just happen out of nowhere. The anonymous writer who sells the big spec probably did not crawl out of a swamp with 120 pages of magic in his flippers. That guy's got ten other scripts that didn't sell. He's been working in the business for awhile, either as a writer already or in production or development.”

You are totally right, Kay.

But those that can’t hack it will fall to the wayside with or without your encouragement. Hell, not a day goes by that I don’t think of falling to the wayside. This business SUCKS. It kicks the shit out of me. But I also can’t imagine doing anything else.

Having said that, every struggling screenwriter out there was US not too long ago. And by “us,” I don’t mean A-list screenwriters, because I’m certainly NOT… I simply mean anyone who has ever made their living with their words: TV writers, screenwriters, journalists, non-fiction writers, novelists.

I also say that as someone who—quite honestly—would love to have either Kay OR Josh’s career.

(Not to mention, every struggling wannabe could be us AGAIN. How many great screenwriters have been at the top of their career one day, then pounding the pavement, begging for a job, the next?)

And the truth is: I DO want more people writing. A) If they’re good, I want as much great writing in the universe as possible. B) If they try and fail, maybe they gain a new understanding of exactly how hard it is, both creatively and professionally, to succeed as a writer. And C) Whether it’s aspiring screenwriters, brilliant journalists, unpublished novelists, terrible poets, or private diarists… YES—I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD BE WRITING.

I don’t care if you fail. I don’t care if you succeed. JUST WRITE. Put your thoughts on paper for your kids, an agent, an editor, your husband, your mom—I don’t care. Express yourself through a screenplay, a short story, a song… whatever puts a little truthful piece of you into the world. And if you’re terrible—FINE. Do it again. And again. And again. Whether you sell something or not, you’ll get better at understanding your own thoughts and how to convey them through words. You’ll develop a love and passion for playing with language. You'll start to understand why stories are told the way they are and characters work the way they do. You’ll learn hidden secrets about yourself you never before knew.

None of that is “insulting” the profession. I think we have the greatest profession in the world. It’s hard, it’s painful, it’s brutal... but if you have the talent, passion, and perseverance to succeed, it’s totally worth it. And “success” is not defined by making a million dollars. If you publish a poem—AWESOME. If you sell a magazine article—CONGRATULATIONS!

Success if USING YOUR WORDS TO MOVE SOMEONE. And more people need to do that. (If you can move someone enough to pay you-- even better.) Sure, more people need to respect the craft and hard work of professional writing… yes, I go crazy when I hear someone say, "I think I'm gonna pound out a spec script this weekend"... absolutely, it’s unfair to misguide someone by telling them writing’s NOT hard… but people also need to NOT BE AFRAID OF THE SIMPLE ACT OF TRYING TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES-- whether that's in a story, an essay, a haiku, or a screenplay.

I also don't believe that simply asking someone to read your screenplay means you're a crappy writer. It's a faux pas, definitely. It's a sign of immaturity, sure. It means you're not yet professional enough to navigate this business, without a doubt. But it doesn’t mean you don’t have talent and can never make it… it just means you’re GREEN. And being green shouldn't earn you the scorn and derision of your “superiors,” people you admire.

I mean, come on, Kay-- "...You suck as a writer. How do I know this? Because I've read your fucking script. I read it when you submitted it to an agent or a TeeVee show or, God help me, a screenwriting competition."

Sure, these aren't the best or most professional ways to break in. But not everyone doing this is-- as you say-- an "asshole" or "liar" who simply "wants that million dollar check." There are certainly assholes and liars out there, yet I think most people are just green... or over-eager... or live in Topeka... or don't mind trying any dead-end route they can to realize a dream. But does entering a contest mean they "suck as a writer?" Does that mean we should condemn them for TRYING? Is their mere attempt really that "fucking insulting" to you? I mean, hey-- maybe they haven't learned their craft, but maybe they were inspired to try by watching or reading something YOU wrote.

So by saying to someone, “Great job-- I applaud you for simply sitting down and WRITING,” you’re not saying, “Hey, kid—I think you deserve to be in the game.” You’re simply saying, “I know how hard this is… so whether you make the team or not—and frankly, I don’t give a shit—I hope you come to try-outs.”

You can even say, "Listen, kid-- I won't read your script. And when you ask strangers and acquaintances, you look like an immature amateur. I'm telling you this not to be a dick, but because if you're genuinely talented, I truly hope you make it. God knows the world need more good writing... and maybe you're the one to provide it."

If saying THAT to someone is insulting or threatening, your issues might run deeper than simply taking pride in your craft.

JOSH — re: your comment that I have a “lack of respect [you] find to be common among people who think a little success qualifies them to teach.”

You’re right… I only have a “little” success. However, you are COMPLETELY WRONG to suggest that “success” has ANYTHING to do with teaching ability or qualifications. And to borrow a concept from Kay, THAT is insulting to the profession of teachers.

Writing and teaching are two completely different skill sets… and I have to believe that you know that.

Writing is writing; it requires structuring skills, dialogue skills, knowledge and experience and hard work in plot and character development, joke-writing, etc., etc., etc.

Teaching requires an understanding and appreciation of a subject—whether it’s biology, history, math, or screenwriting. You have to know how to articulate ideas… make them understandable and applicable to novices… you have to inspire people to try things.

I have taken screenwriting classes from professional, top-notch screenwriters who couldn’t teach to save their lives and had no business being in a classroom… but they’d been hired because they had impressive writing credits.

I’ve also taken classes from people who had meager credits as writers… but had a MASSIVE talent for connecting with people, conveying complex ideas, inspiring students to try new things.

Robert McKee has barely worked as a screenwriter… but it’d be tough to deny that he’s an AMAZING TEACHER.

Personally… I teach because I love it. I love helping people, I love passing on knowledge and experience, and I love talking about a subject I adore: writing. And frankly, I’m pretty good at it.

Maybe I’m not as good as Robert McKee… and as a writer, I may not be as good as Joss Whedon or Tony Gilroy… but if I keep plugging away, and don’t get discouraged… maybe someday I will be…

Josh Olson Is Wrong

Chad — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:04:01 GMT

A few days ago, I posted a link to screenwriter Josh Olson’s Village Voice column, "I Will Not Read Your Fucking Script,” in which he rails against an aspiring screenwriter who asked him to read his script.

Now, first, let me say this… Josh is fairly vitriolic in this column… and on certain points, Josh is right. For instance…

It’s unprofessional, and a massive imposition, to ask strangers or acquaintances to read your work. This is why writers groups are valuable… or a tight group of friends, fellow writers, whom you can always go to. Part of your job as a professional writer (whether you’re getting paid or not) is to be able to gauge relationships and know when to ask favors. If you can’t do this, you’re not ready to work professionally… no matter how talented you may be.

Josh is also right that most people trying to be writers will never make it. But so what? If everyone could make it as a writer—or painter or lawyer or bricklayer or soldier—it probably wouldn’t be a goal worth pursuing.

I also think Josh is justified in his anger toward this inappropriate screenwriter.

However, there’s one place where Josh is wrong. 100 percent WRONG.

He writes: “…not only is it cruel to encourage the hopeless, but you cannot discourage a writer.”

And while you can’t discourage a real writer, I disagree that you should discourage ANYONE. In fact, I think you should ENCOURAGE EVERYONE.

A) Today’s shitty writer could turn into tomorrow’s Ernest Hemingway… but only if they keep writing. At some point, Michael Chabon, J.J. Abrams, Virginia Woolf, and Josh Olson were all terrible writers. But they kept at it. Relentlessly. And to do that they needed encouragement. Or at least, they didn’t need DIScouragement.

B) You could be wrong about someone’s script. Years ago, I was working at a TV production company and my boss handed me a feature script for a teen comedy called Grand Rapids. It was one of the WORST things I had ever read… I couldn’t even finish it. A few months later, it came out as a movie—American Pie—and it was one of my favorite movies of the year. I had been totally wrong about the script… not necessarily because it was a bad script, but because scripts sometimes need to be read by someone with the right eye to understand what they are. Clearly, I had the wrong eye; Chris and Paul Weitz didn’t.

C) Why would you NOT encourage artistic expression? Whether it’s a screenplay, a novel, a magazine article, a poem, or a personal diary—why would you not want to encourage someone to WRITE? To express themselves creatively? Personally, I think MORE people need to write! Who cares if they never get published, produced, bought, or read? Isn’t the simple act of writing, of plumbing our inner-most fears and desires something everyone should spend more time doing? In fact, more people—and it sounds like Josh especially—need to write for the sheer joy of it, for the fun and thrill of exploring who they are.

Personally, Josh, if you think writing is something best left to the professionals, or the “non-hopeless,” you’ve forgotten what writing is all about.

So you don’t have to read someone’s work… you can turn them down when they ask… but it’s an insult to your craft and your fellow writers to DISCOURAGE them… especially people who admire and respect your work enough to ask your opinion. You don’t have to give it to them—and, to be honest, I think you’re perfectly right not to—but how hard is it to say…

“Unfortunately, I can't read your script. If I read every script handed to me, I wouldn’t have time to eat. However—the fact that you’ve taken time to FINISH a script… and that you have the courage to put it out in the world… says you’re already miles ahead of your competition. So if this script is meant to get made, it will. And if it’s not, it won’t… and you’ll sit down and write another one. Immediately. Because that’s what real writers do… they never stop writing. And I can tell you’re a real writer.”

So you’re right, Josh. Aspiring writers have a responsibility to act professionally. But professionals have responsibilities, too… and one of the main ones is not to discourage people who want to be in your shoes.

Why Leno Will Fail... Maybe?

Chad — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:12:36 GMT

Jay Leno's new not-the-Tonight-Show-version-of-the-Tonight-Show hits the airwaves Monday, and Hollywood is anxious to see how this will play out for NBC. It's been a huge controversy in the world of television... with some people applauding NBC for finding inexpensive, ratings-proof (possibly) programming, other vilifying them for axing 5 hours of scripted programming, and others mourning them for seemingly giving up on trying to find high-quality new shows. Wherever you stand-- the next few weeks will be interesting.

Anyway-- Tim Goodman had an interesting piece in the San Francisco Chronicle this morning. Take a look...

Click here to read Tim Goodman's "Leno's Show Will Backfire on NBC"

WGA/Bullying Update - I get put in my place (thankfully)

Chad — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:59:40 GMT

Thanks to "WGA Writer," who posted the following response in the comment section of yesterday's post...

"So it was okay for him to cross a picket line and take a WGA writer's job (Daytime is a WGA covered area) while they were on strike? That's called being a scab and it will bar you from admission in any union anywhere."

My response: WGA Writer, you are totally right-- and thanks for the bitch-slap (although it wasn't really a bitch-slap-- you were pretty nice).

We talked about this last night at the Guild, and the general point of debate was: while the guy is certainly a scab and should be barred from the WGA, did he really need to be publicly outted? Since he's NOT a member, and wasn't breaking rules that pertain to him, it's one thing to say, "Okay, fine-- you can never join our organization"; it's another to shame him in public. Couldn't his name just go quietly on a list of people who are barred? Some people felt the public shaming of a non-member was unnecessary... others felt it gave the WGA some balls.

Is the WGA Bullying Non-Members?

Chad — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:25:34 GMT

Hey, folks--

At long last, I am finally back to civilization, after 8 days of no Internet access or cell service, which was-- strangely-- AWESOME!

So first of all-- thank you to everyone who has emailed over the last week... I promise I'll get to your messages, questions, and posts asap. In the mean time, an interesting topic I wanted to talk about...

I came home to find an email debate going on between some of my writer-friends. Last week, the WGAW (Writers Guild of America, West) Board of Directors sent out a guild-wide email publicly outting three writers who had violated the union's strike rules last year.

As the email states, "the Board of Directors [is authorized] to adopt Strike Rules that members are required to follow in the event of a work stoppage. The purpose of these rules is to enable the Guild to achieve the best possible contract for writers. The Constitution also establishes disciplinary procedures under which any member accused of violating the Constitution or the Strike Rules is afforded a due process hearing before a Trial Committee consisting of five rank-and-file WGAW members."

The email goes on to explain that three writers violated these rules, and it identifies two of them by name:

One is Jon Maas, a WGA member who worked on a one-hour pilot during the strike and was fined "a fine equal to 110% of the compensation Mr. Maas received for writing the pilot teleplay."

The other is David Hensley, a non-member who "was found guilty of writing and submitting scripts to a struck company for a daytime serial. As a penalty, the Board ordered that he be permanently barred from membership in the Guild."

My friends were debating the ethics of publicly outing these writers. Did it smack of HUAC-era vindictiveness? Some said yes; others said no, explaining the importance of unity amongst writers fighting for fair and equal treatment.

I'm torn, but here-- for me-- is a slightly different issue, and where I think the Guild is behaving wrongly and thuggishly. (And I say this as a huge supporter of most unions, especially the Writers Guild. In fact, I'll be there tonight for a meeting on organizing reality...)

David Hensley is not a member. He does not pay dues to the organization of the Writers Guild. So he shouldn't be held accountable, or be punished, for breaking their rules. The Guild should have no right to punish someone who's not part of their organization.

Now, the argument against that is that writers must stick together and support each other, especially in times of crisis, and if Hensley ever WANTS to be part of the Guild, he needs to play by their mandates.

Okay, sure, maybe-- I get that, in the happy world of theory... but the Guild can'd demand support and obedience from people who A) don't pay dues, and B) don't receive the Guild's support in return. It would be one thing if Hensley were a former member who had quit the union (like Robert Rodriguez and the DGA)... or a member who had gone fi-core (like George Clooney)... but it's another thing entirely to punish, threaten, or intimidate non-members who are simply trying to feed their families. (It seems, to be honest, to be much closer to the intimidation and blacklisting of which the WGA was accused by the studios during last year's strike... and to which the WGA took particular offense. After all, they're the organization where the historic Hollywood blacklisting most hits home.)

I'm no expert in union laws and politics, but it seems to me that if the Guild wants support from writers who are non-members, it should make them members.

It wouldn't be hard for the Guild to say to daytime writers like Hensley, or reality and game show writers, or non-union animation writers...

"We know we don't have jurisdiction over your genres, but we're willing to offer you membership into the Guild. You can pay dues like other members... and receive full membership benefits (health insurance, access to resources, etc.)... but you'll have to give up all your non-union work. Or you can choose NOT to join the Guild and continue doing your non-union work... but you'll receive no support, protection, or benefits from us."

This seems just to me. And mutually beneficial.

And while I'm a big supporter of the Guild, punishing and banning non-members for trying to make a living doing what they do-- writing-- doesn't seem like the behavior of an organization claiming to stick up for the little guys, writers, an often dumped-on group of Hollywood artists. In fact, it seems like behavior I'd expect from the other guys: the bullies. I fully believe in supporting the Guild and writers of all stripes. But this is not support; it's discouragement, oppression, and an abuse of power. The Guild is better than this... or should be.

The Future of Television?

Chad — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:12:41 GMT

Hey, folks--

Wanted to point out this awesome article from Chuck Ross in today's TVWeek. Reporting from the TCA Press Tour here in L.A., Chuck was at a seminar with Dave Poltrack, Chief Research Officer at CBS, who has broken down a myriad of numbers and statistics on TV-facts, trends, etc... and has an interesting analysis/vision for the future.

The end result-- that we'll soon all be watching TV via the Internet, but not on our computer, on our television sets (which will soon all have Internet connections)-- isn't necessarily a huge shockwave, but Chuck does a good job of making complicated statistics accessible and understandable... and then explains how this could change the business for the networks and cable/Internet providers.

Click HERE to check out the article...

Writers Protest the Emmys

Chad — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:20:38 GMT

Interesting little news story... as many of you know, Don Mischer, the producer of this year's Emmy telecast, has revamped the show to make it shorter and more entertaining... and to do that, he's slashed some of the awards in the directing, writing, and acting categories. (They're not actually eliminating the awards, just not making them part of the live telecast.)

Well, a lot of big TV writers (Carlton Cuse, Ron Moore, Victor Fresco, Damon Lindelof, Seth MacFarlane, Doug Ellin, etc.) are protesting the move, claiming that writers already have far fewer categories than actors. James Hibberd covers the protest and the writers' letter in his latest post on "The Live Feed;" it's pretty interesting... click HERE to check it out!

Road Trip to No Piracy

Chad — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:21:35 GMT

Hey, guys--

Wanted to post this great blog, courtesy of Charlie, written today by Brad Riddell, a screenwriter (American Pie: Band Camp, Road Trip: Beer Pong, and Slapshot 3: The Junior League) who also writes The L.A. Dime, a blog about life in LaLaLand.

He's got a GREAT piece today about movie and video piracy. I know we all hear about piracy, but I feel like sometimes it all tends to sound like teachers showing us anti-drug videos... we understand the message, academically, but it's rarely presented in a way that feels personal and relevant.

But Brad not only does a terrific job illustrating the personal effects of piracy, he has a great (and funny) story about outing the pirates out there...

Hope you enjoy!

http://www.bradriddell.com/?p=1508

American Idol Contestant Strikes a Blow for Reality Writers

Chad — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:37:57 GMT

Who says reality doesn't have writers? Certainly not American Idol semi-finalist Ju'Not Joyner (to be fair, I think the guy's a little bitter... but bitterness aside, he still spills the truth)...

http://www.popeater.com/music/article/junot-joyner-says-idol-is-fake/596370#atabc

READER QUESTION: What if drinking means drowning in Hollywood?

Chad — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:50:54 GMT

Hey, all—

Wanted to reprint an interesting email I got from Rebecca, one of our loyal friends and readers, in response to the book review I recently posted for Tom Malloy’s, “Bankroll: A New Approach to Financing Feature Films.” I don’t agree with her, but I thought she raised some interesting points that warranted discussion. So here’s her email, and I’ll respond afterwards…

Although the book itself has some extremely useful information, I would not recommend it for one main reason.

The author encourages go-along-to-get-along, pimp-yourself-out, anything-goes-to-ingratiate-yourself, values.

In several sections, he says to do anything to please the guys who may have the money. He applauds himself for getting out of bed in the middle of the night, and leaving his wife, to meet with a potential financier.

And he repeatedly says that if the potential financier or attachment is drinking, you should match him in chug-a-lugs.

What if the guy is really trying to score on a female producer by drinking with her? What if you're an alcoholic? What if you are just opposed to drinking alcoholic beverages? What if you just don’t like the taste of alcohol? What if, for any number of reasons, you just don’t want to drink alcohol.

According to the author, you should do it anyway.

And while you’re drinking, what if the potential financier wants you to snort a little cocaine? Your resistance is already lowered by the alcohol. And the author seems to condone doing what the potential financier does.

I have a close personal friend whose clients were always taking her to Vegas and giving her thousands to gamble with. Now that the economy has tanked, neither her company nor the clients have the business they used to.

No more free trips and chips. But, now she is addicted to gambling. So, she’s up there using her own funds, quickly dwindling.

So, I just think it's irresponsible to encourage people, especially young people who may take his word as gospel and people just entering the business who don’t know any better, to abuse substances just to fit in and close the deal.

That's not called being a good producer. That's called being a whore.

Just my opinion.

Rebecca

Like I said—I don’t agree with Rebecca, but I think she touches on some interesting points and raises questions that confront many people in Hollywood. How important is it to fit in in Hollywood? What if someone asks me to do something I’m uncomfortable with? Where are the lines drawn for acceptable social/business behavior?

So here’s my response…

First of all, I don’t think Malloy is suggesting that alcoholics need to fall off the wagon or women should let themselves get rudely hit on in order to succeed in entertainment. I’ve actually had many drinks with friends or colleagues who don’t drink, and they simply order something else or tell me proudly, “Six years sober,” and I say, “Congratulations—that’s awesome,” and we move on.

Malloy is operating under the assumption that both parties share a mutual understanding that this is a legitimate, above-board business meeting… which MOST Hollywood drinks meetings are.

But what he IS saying is that, for better or worse, Hollywood has a specific culture… and if you want to have as much success—and control over your success—as you can, you must participate as much as possible in that specific culture.

This doesn’t mean you need to chuck your ideals and belief system, but you do need to fit into the culture and the cultural rituals embraced by the industry… and drinks meetings are a big part of the Hollywood culture. If you don’t like going to drinks, find a suitable alternative… go to lunch, dinner, grab coffee. But drinks meetings ARE a pervasive part of Hollywood, from one-on-one drinks at Social or Lola's to industry mixers at Spanish Kitchen or St. Nick's, and eventually, you’re probably gonna have to do some drinks meetings. They’re part of the culture, like it or not.

(Similarly, I run a summer internship program for Vanderbilt University, and last summer we had an intern working at a major production company/mini-studio here in L.A. After two weeks, he left because he was uncomfortable with all the swearing in the workplace. Now, I’m not necessarily condoning foul language, but the truth is—Hollywood offices are lax, and four-letter words are commonplace. If that bothers you, I’d recommend looking into another career, as you’re going to have a VERY tough time surviving here. That doesn’t mean you’re not talented or ambitious or can’t figure out another way in, but it does mean you’re going to have a tough time being comfortable in places where much of Hollywood’s business takes place. People swear here. A lot. It’s how it works. You wanna join the fray, deal with it.)

Malloy’s also giving you Sales Advice 101; to make a sale, you need to connect to your buyer. Make them feel you speak the same language, like the same things, think in the same ways. And if your buyer’s a big drinker—not an alcoholic with a problem, but someone who enjoys a bar after work—then it HELPS you to join him and prove you speak the same language. It’s not necessarily required, but if Joe Buyer has a choice between doing business with you—and you don’t like drinking, talking sports, or whatever other things Joe Buyer likes to do—or another guy who LOVES doing all the things Joe Buyer like to do… who do you think he’s going to choose? The other guy.

Malloy’s NOT saying, “You need to match him drink-for-drink, even if you get wasted and can’t drive home.” And he’s NOT saying, as Rebecca posits, “Even do cocaine if the producer offers.” That would be ludicrous… not to mention illegal. He’s simply saying, “Immerse yourself 100% in the culture and language of this business, then learn how to read your buyer and connect with him. Make him feel like you're kindred spirits.”

So while you obviously have to use your head and avoid situations that feel sketchy and dangerous, I do agree with Malloy—if you want to make it in Hollywood, you DO need to learn to fit in as much as possible.

I’ll be honest—there are areas where I DON’T fit in… and I often encounter moments where I’m outside the conversation and can’t participate. For instance, I hate sports. I have never followed a sport in my life. But men in Hollywood LOVE talking sports, especially the Lakers. And when those conversations come up, I sit woefully on the bench. It’s a point of disconnect between me and whomever I’m talking to… I wish it wasn’t—I’m just not a sports guy.

Anyway, Rebecca—thanks for the great email and the great points it raises, and I’m interested to see what our other readers think. So…

Readers? What do you think on all this?

The Future of TV: CBS vs. NBC

Chad — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:11:14 GMT

Hey, all--

Just wanted to point out a great article from Brian Steinberg in this morning's Ad Age... he does a nice job of pointing out how NBC (which is seemingly in a deadly tailspin) and CBS are both programming their air in vastly different ways-- and how their two strategies reflect the seismic shifts going on across television.

Click HERE for "NBC, CBS Have Conflicting Visions of Broadcast Future." (Also, I'm linking to TVWeek's pickup of the article, since Ad Age usually takes their pieces down after a day or two.) (Damn those businesses that actually want to get paid for their services!)

More on Ageism in Hollywood...

Chad — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:59:57 GMT

Some of you may remember, a few weeks back when loyal reader Jon sent in a question and we had an ongoing discussion about ageism.

Well, thanks to Jon for sending in "What Hollywood Is Not Letting You See," a recent piece from Robert Elisberg in The Huffington Post.

It's a great piece... click HERE to check it out!

Are Emmy's Writing Awards Inaccurate?

Chad — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:31:29 GMT

Hey, guys-- just wanted to let you all know about a piece I have in today's issue of Variety about the Emmy's "Outstanding Writing" category... and whether or not it's fair and accurate. Take a look... and lemme know if you think the Emmys' process is fair, accurate, or dead-on!

Click HERE to read...

Older Writers - Part II

Chad — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:27:54 GMT

Hey, folks--

Sorry I've been awol for a few days... I was actually out of town with very little Internet access, and I just got back late last night-- so I haven't been able to post for a while!

Second of all, thanks for the posts and emails re: last week's ageism question from Jon in Iowa.

First-- kudos to Lisa, who is moving to L.A. to be a TV writer after discovering "that the main thing holding me back is me and not my age." Congratulations, Lisa-- I'm so excited for you, and please keep in touch and let me know how it goes! I'll probably need you to hire me someday!

And then Jon wrote in with a follow-up question...

"Do you think your comments apply equally to feature film screenwriting, as
opposed to TV writing? As you pointed out, a TV writer will be looked at with the thought, 'Can this writer function on our writing staff on a day to day, season to season basis?', versus a one time feature film writer, where the script should speak for itself, it's either good or it isn't, whether written by a 24 or 64 year old. There is no continuing relationship with the film writer, like there would be in TV. Do older writers face slightly fewer obstacles writing a feature film as opposed to trying to write for TV?"

Well, Jon-- I think it often can be "easier" for a first-timer to sell a project in film than it is in TV (and "easier" does not mean "easy") because of exactly what you say: selling a project in film doesn't require a long-lasting relationship with the writer.

Having said that, 2 (and a half) things:

1) There are many "older" screenwriters working in Hollywood today. Playwright David Hare, who wrote "The Reader," is about to turn 62. Thomas McCarthy, who wrote the Oscar-nominated "The Visitor," is 43. Susannah Grant ("The Soloist") is 46. (Although for the record, I don't think 40's is that old in Hollywood anymore.)

1.5) A caveat just to torpedo my own thesis: last summer, ICM settled a lawsuit from a bunch of over-40 writers who sued ICM for age discrimination. Click HERE to read.

2) It's still incredibly hard for a first-timer to sell something, and I think the obstacles that face older newcomers are the same obstacles facing younger newcomers. Namely: it still takes an infinite number of man-hours to write a sellable script... and it still takes contacts and relationships.

A little over a year ago, Hollywood was abuzz with the story of Michael Martin, a 27-year-old toll-booth-worker who wrote a spec feature called "Brooklyn's Finest"... and sold it. People loved-- and were shocked and amazed-- by this underdog story... which I think is relevant here because MICHAEL WAS ONLY 27. In other words-- it's shocking to Hollywood when ANY "noboby" sells something... even if he's only 27, which is certainly not old by Hollywood screenwriting standards.

Now, a couple other interesting (and often overlooked) things about the Michael Martin story...

A) Michael wasn't exactly a first-time screenwriter. He'd studied film in college, so he had some knowledge, and maybe even some contacts.

B) Michael submitted "Brooklyn's Finest" to a contest... and contests are open to anyone, regardless of age. He didn't win... and contests don't always (even rarely) result in scripts making their way to producers, but his managed to get to someone. If the script is as good as "Brooklyn's Finest," the same thing could happen to anyone, anywhere, of any age.

C) "Brooklyn's Finest" didn't sell immediately. It actually landed Michael a job... writing "New Jack City 2." I think this is important, because many screenwriters NEVER sell anything-- but make a very nice living getting hired onto projects and doing rewrites. But in order to do that... you must LIVE IN LOS ANGELES (or maybe New York, like Michael) and have the time and flexibility to take meetings, meet the appropriate contacts, nurture the appropriate relationships, etc. And like we discussed before, "older" people often don't have that flexibility... not because they're "older," but because they often have lives and lifestyles-- full-time jobs, families, obligations-- that don't allow them to commit to the 24/7 lifestyle of being a budding screenwriter. (Of course, Michael Martin blows that whole theory to hell, but Hollywood is an industry of exceptions... and he is CERTAINLY an exception. So the next Michael Martin we read about could be a 59-year-old plumber in Dallas!)

So what's all this mean? Selling ANYTHING in Hollywood, especially for a newbie, is hard... near impossible... whether you're a 27-year-old in NY or a 64-year-old in IA. Is it harder for someone older? Yeah, probably. Does that mean there's ageism? Not necessarily.

But as writers, I think the question we should be asking ourselves-- no matter how old we are-- is NOT "Why can't I sell something?" It's "How can my work be better?" And once it's better: "How can it be even BETTER?" And once it's even BETTER: "My work's not good enough... how can I make it still BETTER?!"

The truth is: THOSE are the questions that will make your script good enough to sell... no matter your birth date.

Also, for a great article on ageism, check out "How Old is Too Old To Be a Screenwriter?" by D.B. Gilles, author of "The Screenwriter Within: How to Turn the Movie in Your Head into a Salable Screenplay" and "The Portable Film School."

JON'S QUESTION: Can older writers get into Hollywood writing programs?

Chad — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:40:04 GMT

Today’s reader question comes from Jon, who lives in Iowa and writes in response to Monday's post about the network and studio writing programs (NBC’s Writers on the Verge, the Disney Fellowship, the FOX Diversity Program, etc.). Jon writes…

“Why there isn't such a program for we victims of age discrimination? I'm being facetious, but I suspect that even with a good script or writing samples, someone in their 50’s, like me, would have a hard time getting a meeting. Do the diversity programs look for young talent, or just new talent? It should be the latter but I suspect its the former.”

Well, Jon, age discrimination is always a hot topic in Hollywood discussions, so I’m glad you asked.

First of all, there are many “older” writers in Hollywood—especially in television, where shows’ head writers and producers have spent decades working their way up the ladder. David Chase, who created “The Sopranos,” is 63 years old. Writer/director Nancy Meyers is 59. Carlton Cuse, the showrunner of “Lost,” is 50. Howard Gordon, who runs “24,” is 48. Linwood Boomer, who created “Malcolm in the Middle” and this year’s CBS pilot, “The Karenskys,” is 54.

Secondly, a lot of studio diversity programs DO consider age a part of “diversity,” at least in theory. I was in the Warner Brothers Drama Workshop a few years ago, and they made a conscious effort to find “older” writers… there was a woman in my program who was from northern California and had two college-age children (she commuted to Los Angeles once a week for our classes). So while I can’t speak to every studio’s program, I think many of them DO try to seek out talented older writers.

Having said this, it doesn’t always happen… but that’s not necessarily because of a malicious “age discrimination” conspiracy. I think because Hollywood is youth-obsessed—especially when it comes to actors, actresses, models, etc.—we like to apply this to other areas, too, but personally… when it comes to writers… I don’t think there’s a ton of age discrimination.

Now, I’m not saying that makes it easy for “older” writers to suddenly break in and get writing jobs, but I am saying this…

I don’t think a dearth of older writers is necessarily due to “age discrimination.” I think it’s more due to a couple other factors. Specifically…

1) Breaking into TV-writing or screenwriting is a full-time job. More than full-time. As I often point out on this site, breaking into screenwriting takes MUCH more than mere talent… it often means spending years working in the trenches of Hollywood, learning the business and—most importantly—building up a solid Rolodex of contacts and relationships. Most people who have already spent many years building another career (regardless of their actual age) are very hesitant to do this.

I frequently have “older” people come to my classes and seminars asking how to break into Hollywood… and when I say the BEST way of breaking in is to get a PA gig, an internship, or some kind of assistant job… starting at the bottom and working their way up… they scoff, telling me this is unrealistic for someone their age or of their professional stature. Well, unfortunately, it’s HOW IT WORKS… whether you’re 22, 42, or 62.

I suspect, if I were to suddenly switch careers and try my hand at being a contractor, or a lawyer, or a plumber, or a politician, I’d have to start at the bottom… learning the ropes and working my way up. Hollywood is the same way. Yet somehow, people always think that because Hollywood is about “art” or “creativity,” the rest doesn’t matter; if someone’s creative, talented, and intelligent, they should just be allowed in. But this isn’t true… Hollywood IS a business… and many of the rules, official and unofficial, that apply to other industries apply here as well.

Having said that, if you have the time, energy, and tenacity required to try and break in—and breaking in IS a full-time job—it can be done… no matter how old you are. I have a friend in his 40’s who left a successful banking career to break into TV writing. He had to start at the bottom, working as a PA for less than $500 a week, but he worked his way up the ladder. Nine years later, he’s now writing on staffs and selling pilots. It was a long road, but he was willing to do it.

2) Sometimes Hollywood employers ARE reticent to hire “older” people into entry-level jobs… because they’re afraid older people will quickly get bored and move on.

And there’s truth in this… as there is in every industry.

I have another close friend who works in the financial industry, and she’s spent the last several months job-hunting. Although she needs a job, she’s frequently told she’s overqualified; places don’t want to hire her because they assume she’ll get bored or frustrated and leave. She hates hearing this… especially because she WANTS the jobs she is applying for… but I think this is the way the business world works, from Wall Street to Hollywood Blvd. She may be as passionate and hungry as a 60-year-old writer trying to break into screenwriting, but the thought that someone is over-qualified and could leave is daunting to employers.

3) There’s also, for better or worse, the difference between being a good writer… and being a good writer “for your age.” In other words—the expectations of a 25-year-old writer are different than that of a 50-year-old writer… people expect the 50-year-old writer to be better, more seasoned… which I think is fair.

About ten years ago, Hollywood was all abuzz when Riley Weston, a 19-year-old prodigy, was hired to write on “Felicity”… and then fired when the producers discovered she was actually 32. Many people cried “age discrimination.” But I knew one of the execs who covered the show, and she had an interesting honest take…

“Riley was good,” she once told me, “for a 19-year-old. Her talent was very raw, a great find in a 19-year-old… but for a 32-year-old, she wasn’t that impressive. You expect a 19-year-old to be a little green… but a 32-year-old should be more ‘refined.’ They should be more ‘cooked.’ Riley wasn’t.”

There’s truth in this. If you’ve been writing for 50 years, or even 32, you SHOULD be more seasoned. You should have honed your craft, found your voice, learned how to mine and tell your own personal stories. If a 50-year-old—or even a 32-year-old—is displaying the same level of skill as someone almost half their age… whether they're a writer or an architect... yeah, I’m gonna hire the younger person… because they have more time ahead of them to grow and be molded.

Of course, by "skill," I don't just mean sheer talent. I mean the whole package: talent, social skills, business acumen, etc. Hiring someone is an investment... and hopefully a long-term investment. That's not saying older people are gonna kick the bucket sooner, or even retire, but younger people have-- strictly numerically speaking-- more time in which to invest. And yeah-- there's a learning curve. So all things being equal-- talent, acumen, interpersonal skills-- I'm probably gonna go with the person who can give me the most time.

Along those same lines, younger people tend to be able to dedicate more time to a job, whatever that job is. They don't have the demands of marriages, families, hobbies, etc. And-- especially in television-- writers can often work 16-hour days. I want someone who can easily work those hours. Maybe it's unfair to think an older person has more responsibilities than a younger person, but I think it's an assumption based in truth. (Even as I write this, I feel like I'm maybe reinforcing age-ism and prejudice, but realistically-- MOST older people DO have families, marriages, etc... there are always exceptions, but let's be honest-- as we grow older, our lives grow. It's a simple fact. When we're younger, we're less fettered.)

4) Lastly, I think aspirants of ALL AGES underestimate exactly how many amazing writers are trying to break into Hollywood... which means the bar is set INCREDIBLY high, no matter how old you are. There are plenty of bad writers, to be sure, but Hollywood is full of thousands upon thousands of extremely talented storytellers—both working and not working.

I think people often look at bad TV shows or bad movies and say, “I could write something better.” Or, “These writers are terrible.” The truth is—many of these bad TV shows and movies come from highly talented writers and beautifully written scripts… but there are a million factors that can transform a wonderful script into a horrible product: bad acting, low budgets, personality clashes, misinformed rewrites, time crunches, bad directing… you name it.

Again, this isn’t to say there aren’t bad scripts, it’s just to say that the bar is set VERY HIGH for writers in Hollywood… and you can’t underestimate that, no matter how old you may be. BUT—in the context of age-ism—it’s very easy to look at an “older” writer who doesn’t seem to be getting her break and say, “She’s so talented… but Hollywood won’t hire a 55-year-old writer.” Yet the truth is: what’s keeping her out is probably the exact same thing keeping out all the 25-year-olds… she’s talented, but she’s not talented ENOUGH.

So all of this is to say…

I am SURE there’s subtle age-ism in Hollywood... just as the whole world is full of subtle racism, reverse racism, sexism, and every other ism.

But I also think there’s an infinite number of other things keeping writers of ALL ages out of Hollywood… yet when that writer is older, especially if they’re older and somewhat talented, we like to scream “age discrimination.”

Sometimes it is. Most of the time it isn’t.

So, old fogies, I'll tell you what I tell all them young whippersnappers... if you want it, and you have the time, energy, and commitment to go after it-- you'll get it. It won't be easy, but hey-- it ain't easy for anyone!

Now… on a totally unrelated note… a music recommendation: go buy the new Great Northern album, “Remind Me Where the Light Is,” which just came out Tuesday… it’s AMAZING!

Join Me for a XX Chat About TV... on the Internet

Chad — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:46:53 GMT

Hey, everyone--

Just wanted to invite you all to tune in this Sunday, when I'll be a special guest on The XX Factor, Susan Schofield and Kim Gruenenfelder's political/pop cultural Internet radio show on LATalkRadio.com. We'll be talking about the state of television... where it's going in the near future... and some of today's hot TV-related topics like NBC's recent Jay Leno move, the potential Screen Actors Guild strike, and how the economy is taking its toll on Hollywood. Here's the scoop...

Sunday, December 21, 2008
10 a.m.
LATalkRadio.com - just click to listen live!

UPDATE (12/20/08, 7:30 pm): I just found out that we can take live calls on the show tomorrow, so if you have a question, comment, or wanna say hello, please drop us a line between 10 and 10:50 at 323-203-0815! Hope to talk to you then!...

READER QUESTION: How Will the New "Jay Leno Show" Make Any Money?

Chad — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:01:40 GMT

Hey, guys--

Hope you've all had a good weekend! And thank you in advance for all the emails, questions, pitch workshop submissions, etc. I promise you-- I'll get to all of them... but I wanted to answer a quick email from loyal reader Charlie, who asks a question in response to Wednesday's post about NBC moving Jay Leno to primetime. Charlie writes...

"I noticed you spent a good deal of time defending the Leno decision. My question is, based on what I understand about how networks make their money... they
put shows on air at a loss... gambling that they will recoup in syndication. Is the model with Leno that it's produced at a cheap enough margin that it makes its profit from the ad buys? And if not, are they just putting it on the air at a loss? How do they make money?"

Well, first of all, Charlie--NBC's Leno move has been the most hotly debated topic in Hollywood this past week... mostly because no one knows if it'll work. Many people think it will... although others are disappointed that it's removing five weekly hours of potential scripted programming from NBC's schedule.

As for how it'll make money, however... you're exactly right (almost). Most expensive scripted shows are "deficit financed" by the studio that produces them, then licensed to networks for less than it costs to make them. NBC, for instance, doesn't own My Name Is Earl, even though it airs it every Thursday night; that show is owned by 20th Century Fox, the studio that finances and produces it, then "rented" to NBC for less than it costs to make it. (If it costs 20th just under $2 million per episode to make it, NBC probably pays around a million per ep...) NBC then makes its profit by selling advertising during the show (last fall, My Name Is Earl averaged $151,000 per 30-second spot), and 20th makes its profit by re-licensing the show into syndication to local stations and cable networks.

(So a slight tweak to what you'd said in your question: the network itself doesn't put shows on at a loss, the STUDIO sells its shows to a network at a loss. The network-- ideally-- isn't really taking an intentional hit because its shows are-- hopefully-- taking in more ad revenue than the network paid for them. When a show starts taking in LESS ad revenue than the license fees the network paid to the studio, the show is probably going to get canceled.)

Late night shows, however, like The Tonight Show or Jimmy Kimmel Live!, are exponentially cheaper to produce than a primetime scripted show. One hour of a primetime drama may cost its studio more than $3 million (meaning the network licenses it for about $1.8 million)... and sometimes more... but one hour of The Tonight Show costs about $400,000 (which-- just to put that in perspective-- is less than it cost to buy a single 30-second ad spot during last season's Grey's Anatomy). So many late-night talk shows are owned by the network that airs them. (Also, talk shows have very little syndication value-- i.e., they can't usually be rerun-- so there's no point in a studio deficit financing them.)

Of course, The Tonight Show commands lower ad dollars than many primetime scripted shows. One 30-second spot in The Tonight Show costs $50,877... which is significantly lower than the $124,353 NBC currently gets for 30-second spots during its Monday night 10 pm time slot (when Jay moves to primetime next year, he'll be on each weeknight at 10 pm). It's also lower than the $70,239 NBC rakes in for each 30-second spot on Friday nights, one of its lowest-rated evenings.

But remember... a single episode of The Tonight Show also costs about one sixth what it costs to make a single episode of a 10 pm drama. So NBC doesn't need to set its expectations as high in order to make a profit.

In fact, NBC grosses an average $2.3 million in ad revenue during its 10 pm weeknight time slots. So let's say it's shelling out $1.8 million per episode for each of those 10 pm shows... it's making an average profit of $500,000 per episode.

The Tonight Show grosses about $926,000 in ad dollars in its current 11:30 spot each night. But if it costs $400,000 to make, that means its making NBC a nightly profit of $526,000! (This is also much more "reliable" income for NBC, because once a talk show is successful, a network can lock it in for many years, guaranteeing itself that ad revenue. In primetime, however, shows succeed and fail much more frenetically... new shows are constantly popping up, schedules are constantly being rearranged, etc. So the ad revenue of a particular primetime slot is much more tenuous than that of a successful late-night slot.) (In fact, as if to prove how reliable this income is-- and how much lower NBC can afford to set its expectations-- the network has reportedly already contractually committed to four years of Leno's new show, with a two-year option. To put that in perspective, most successful scripted shows rarely get more than a 22-week commitment... and untested new shows usually only get 6 or 13.)

Now, there are definitely more viewers watching TV during primetime than late-night. The question is: will those viewers tune in to the new primetime Jay Leno Show? And more importantly, will the viewers who tune in be NBC's coveted younger demographic? (Right now, the median age of NBC's primetime audience is 46... but the median age of its late-night Leno audience is 56, a demo that's less valuable-- and therefore gets lower ad rates-- to advertisers.)

NBC is betting they'll get the viewers. Critics aren't so sure. Obviously, only time will tell... but even if Leno doesn't get the numbers and ad dollars of a successful scripted show, his inexpensive show is much less of a gamble for the floundering NBC. And he'll probably do better than the failures NBC programmed there this year: My Own Worst Enemy and Lipstick Jungle. (NBC is also losing its successful Thursday night 10 pm show, E.R., which pulled in about $140,000 per 30-second spot last year.)

Hope that answers your question, Charlie... thanks again for reading... and for anyone else who has questions, please feel free to email me at WDScriptNotes@FWPubs.com.

Jay Leno & NBC: Smart Move... or Sheer Stupidity?

Chad — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:22:08 GMT

Hey, folks—

I wanted to take a few minutes today to weigh in on what everyone seems to talking about this week… NBC’s announcement that Jay Leno is moving to primetime (10 p.m. PST) with a new nightly talk show (tentatively titled The Jay Leno Show) that will mimic his Tonight Show format, which is being taken over and revamped by Conan O’Brien.

I’ve heard a lot of complaining and criticism about the decision, especially from others writers, but I gotta say…

I think it’s a smart move. Maybe a really smart move.

Here are the basic criticisms of NBC’s decision…

• It reduces the number of primetime hours NBC has to program, from 22 to 17 (meaning less time for scripted comedies and dramas that could air at 10 p.m., like E.R.)

• It could hurt local TV stations by reducing their hours of scripted programming

• It’s a move designed to save NBC’s floundering financials, rather than actually foster quality original programming

• It hurts Conan by forcing him and Jay to compete for guests, also diluting The Tonight Show brand

• The last time a primetime strip (daily show) was tried—with ABC’s Who Wants To Be A Millionaire—they exhausted the brand and decimated their primetime lineup

• It’s a desperate band-aid which can only fix a symptom, not a systemic NBC problem (that being NBC’s near-total failure to develop any successful new scripted shows)

Now, there’s some definite truth in many of these criticisms, but I think—for the most part—they’re unfair and inaccurate. But before we look at exactly why, it’s important to understand where NBC is right now, financially, creatively, and commercially.

Basically… NBC is in trouble. BIG trouble. Over the last decade, they’ve fallen from their perch as the most successful and powerful network in television history to fourth place. The hit shows of the ‘90’s and early 2000’s—Friends, Seinfeld, E.R., Frasier, Will & Grace, The West Wing—are all but gone. Last year, NBC-Universal CEO Jeff Zucker fired NBC president Kevin Reilly for developing too many shows that were critical darlings but not commercial successes (you know, like 30 Rock, The Office, and Friday Night Lights). Zucker replaced Reilly with Ben Silverman, a cocky agent-cum-producer who developed The Office and Ugly Betty… but had no experience working at a network. Since then, Silverman hasn’t given NBC a single hit, driving its ratings further into the ground.

Now, to be fair, ALL the broadcast networks are floundering. Ratings are down, ad revenue is plummeting, and every one is starting to sweat. Meanwhile, cable networks are nipping at their heels, and the Internet is threatening to wipe out both broadcast AND cable technologies, completely revamping the way our TV sets receive content.

To make matters worse for NBC, however, Peacock execs decided four years ago to replace The Tonight Show host Jay Leno with Conan O’Brien in 2009, feeling they needed a younger, “hipper” audience. Unfortunately, for NBC, Leno’s ratings have remained high… and as soon as Hollywood learned Leno had been set free, rival networks and studios came calling. Zucker claimed he would do his best to keep Leno at NBC, but Leno did little to hide his anger at NBC brass…

Until this week, when NBC made their surprise announcement, claiming the Leno-to-10-PM move was a win-win for everyone, allowing NBC to keep Leno… and bolster its primetime lineup.

So let’s go through the move point-by-point and look at the criticisms levied by its naysayers…

• REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PRIMETIME HOURS NBC HAS TO PROGRAM.
This simply isn’t accurate. What IS true is that in this weak economy, Jeff Zucker, the CEO of NBC-Universal, and the heads of the other broadcast networks, have publicly contemplated reducing the number of primetime hours each network needs to program. Right now, most of the big broadcasters program several hours of TV each day, including about 3 hours of primetime and a handful of late night and daytime. The rest of each day’s hours are programmed by individual local stations that get paid to broadcast their network headquarters’ shows. If a network WERE to reduce the number of hours it programs, giving some hours back to the local stations to program themselves, it would reduce the network’s costs (by shrinking the money it’s pumping into buying new shows) and reduce the amount of money it pays affiliates to air its content.

So yes… reducing its number of primetime hours would be a cost-saving move by a network. But that’s not what this is. NBC still owns all its primetime real estate; it’s simply filling five hours of it with talk show programming instead of traditional scripted programming. Now, sure—this may be a step toward reducing the number of hours it programs… and Zucker has been a proponent of doing that… but it hasn’t actually happened yet.

Having said that, The Jay Leno Show WILL be significantly cheaper than any primetime scripted show NBC could program. Primetime scripted programming usually costs about $3 million per hour; so the five hours NBC is revamping would total about $15 million per week. This new Leno show will cost NBC less than $2 million per week. Which not only means NBC will be saving money, it means it won’t need to take in as much ad revenue to turn a profit. In fact, The Jay Leno Show will only need to reach between 6.5 and 10 million viewers to slaughter its predecessors, like NBC’s canceled My Own Worst Enemy (which averaged a pathetic 5.9 million viewers per episode) or Lipstick Jungle, and if it finds 10 million viewers, it’ll be a legitimate hit.

So, not only does NBC get to KEEP its primetime hours, it gets to program them with a more cost-effective show.

• IT COULD HURT LOCAL STATIONS BY REDUCING THEIR HOURS OF SCRIPTED PROGRAMMING.
Also—not entirely accurate. Sure, it’s fewer hours of scripted programming… but local stations, like networks, want RATINGS… and they don’t care if those ratings are coming from scripted shows or non-scripted. In fact, they’d much rather have a successful primetime talk show from Jay Leno than a scripted failure like Kath & Kim… and Leno, unlike a new scripted show, comes with his own built-in audience. In other words, The Jay Leno Show has no greater chance of hurting local stations than any other show.

In fact, if the Leno show is a success, it will only help local stations... as well all the shows around it. A successful 10 pm Leno show can not only boost the ratings of its lead-in, the show before it, it can boost the ratings of its lead-out, the show AFTER it… which, for most local stations, is local news—one of their most profitable timeslots. And as ad revenue declines even at local stations, local newscasts—a huge part of stations’ bread and butter—need all the help they can get.

• IT’S DESIGNED TO SAVE NBC’S FINANCIALS, RATHER THAN FOSTER SCRIPTED PROGRAMMING.
Yesterday, Peter Tolan, creator of FX’s Rescue Me, said, “It's too bad that NBC is making choices primarily from a financial consideration vs. putting on the best possible work.”

I have to be honest… I find this comment ridiculous. Has Tolan SEEN the mediocre crap Ben Silverman has been putting on NBC? This may BE the best possible work! And while I am certainly a huge fan and supporter of scripted TV, it’s NOT always the best form of television. Scripted TV doesn't get the title of "best" just because it's scripted. I’d argue that The Amazing Race is one of the most innovative (when it first came out), compelling, sophisticated shows out there. It certainly constitutes some of TV’s “best possible work,” even though it’s not scripted (and Survivor’s still pretty good, as well). And there are plenty of scripted shows that certainly DON’T deserve to be on the air (yet you never hear writers bitching about shitty scripted shows, clamoring for their cancellation so we can get new and better unscripted series on air; shouldn't we-- as artists working in television-- be striving to create the BEST SHOWS POSSIBLE, whether they're dramas, comedies, reality shows, or talk shows?)

Now, to be fair—I understand this sentiment from writers’ perspective. NBC’s decision DOES mean there are 5 fewer hours of broadcast programming to fill with scripted content, which makes it that much harder to sell a show. But we’re also in an age where cable channels are thriving, opening up countless new places to sell series. Plus, with the Internet poised to become the next big distribution mechanism, there’s bound to be even more outlets for storytellers and content creators.

(And by the way, what better proof of quality scripted television rising up on cable than Rescue Me, Peter Tolan’s own show?! It’s a perfect example of the changing landscape of television. I mean, come on—party of NBC’s dilemma is that cable is eroding its audience… thanks to great cable shows just like Mr. Tolan’s!)

Here’s what I find ironic about all these big-name writers bashing NBC for revamping its programming model: it was less than a year ago, when writers were striking for fair compensation, that writers were championing cable and new media as the future of TV… but now that they fear their livelihoods are more directly at stake, they’re ridiculing a network for abandoning its old models in response to the very changes they were endorsing!

In fact, if the Leno move succeeds, it may HELP scripted programming. It could certainly give a boost to whatever scripted show NBC chooses to program as its lead-in, but it could also help NBC bounce back as well. And as a writer, I’d certainly rather have an NBC with 17 hours of STRONG programming than 22 hours of crap.

• IT WILL FORCE LENO AND CONAN TO COMPETE FOR GUESTS.
I just don’t buy this. A movie star, musician, author, or athlete wanting to promote her work wants as much promotion as possible… and wants to appear on as many shows as she possibly can. Not to mention, Conan and Leno have slightly different audiences, meaning guests can reach more—and different—people by going on both shows. If Leno were to leave NBC, he’d still have a show—probably scheduled directly against Conan’s—but it would be at FOX or ABC. This way, he’s not only NOT competing directly against Conan, they’re benefiting the same network.

• THE LAST TIME PRIMETIME STRIP, WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE, RUINED ABC
This one’s open to interpretation. I mean, first of all—Who Wants To Be A Millionaire was a MASSIVE hit, and while yes—ABC eventually pounded it into the ground, it also opened the door for networks to schedule more (and more and more) hours of primetime non-scripted programming. Now, I know this can be interpreted as the show’s biggest negative, but I don’t think that’s fair… Who Wants To Be A Millionaire paved the way for Survivor, The Amazing Race, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, American Idol, etc. And while it’s easy to rag on reality as a genre, let’s be honest: these are some damn good non-fiction shows. (Who Wants To Be A Millionaire also spawned The Littlest Groom, The Swan, The Will, etc…. but hey—there are plenty of crappy scripted shows out there, too.)

So ABC may have eventually sabotaged its own Millionaire success, but it also planted the seeds for some of the biggest shows in its (and television’s) history.

• IT’S A BAND-AID WHICH FIXES A SYMPTOM, NOT NBC’S REAL PROBLEM
This I totally agree with; the Leno move IS a desperate band-aid… although it’s a band-aid that may work.

But the real problem is: rather than investing in developing great original material, NBC president Ben Silverman has spent most of his tenure adapting foreign shows, like Kath & Kim, and updating tepid remakes, like Knight Rider. In fact, anything of note on NBC’s current schedule is a leftover from other presidents’ reigns: Law & Order (Brandon Tartikoff), E.R. (Warren Littlefield), The Office and 30 Rock (Kevin Reilly).

And NBCU CEO Jeff Zucker has, for whatever reason, rewarded Silverman’s utter lack of success not only by keeping him around, but by firing the development team below him… as if Silverman has somehow been kicking ass, only to be undermined by those working beneath him.

Now, I want to be fair in my criticism here. It’s easy to make punching bags out of Zucker and Silverman. People love to lambaste Zucker for driving NBC from first to fourth place… but he was also instrumental in expanding and strengthening the rest of NBCU’s TV empire: emboldening Sci-Fi and Bravo and making USA America’s top cable network in target demos. Some might say—and trust me, I’m not—that Zucker saw the writing on the wall years ago and realized how network and cable TV were swapping places. (And again-- I'm NOT saying that, I'm just saying... you could make that argument if you wanted to.)

As for Ben Silverman… he was a great agent at William Morris and a great producer at Reveille, where he proved he had an eye for nabbing foreign TV formats like The Office, Kath & Kim, and Ugly Betty and turning them into hit shows. But finding already-existing successes, then overseeing their adaptation, is a markedly different skill set than programming an entire network… and so far, Ben Silverman has done nothing but fail at that (and then blame other people).

I say that because: I don’t think Jeff and Ben are idiots. I think they may be arrogant (Silverman was off skiing this week when his entire staff was unexpectedly fired… and 500 other NBC staffers were laid off), and they may be self-preserving, but they’ve both accomplished impressive things. What they don’t seem to be able to do is recognize their own infallibility and realize the misguided-ness of their creative development strategies.

So yes… the Leno move is a desperate band-aid from desperate men trying desperately to save their network (and their own asses). But it just might work.

After all, the TV landscape IS changing. We read every day about how the broadcast networks are dying. Yesterday in the New Jersey Star-Ledger, Alan Sepinwall lamented that “NBC is becoming less a big broadcaster than just another channel in the NBC Universal cable empire.” And I was like, “Uh— yeah, it basically already it is.” NBC brings in less than 25% of NBCU’s total revenue... the rest is from cable and movies.

Having said that— I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I mean, yeah— it’s a huge change from the old way of doing business... but I’m not sure the death of the broadcast networks is something worth mourning. I also don’t think “death” is the right concept... I think we’re seeing a huge leveling out, where broadcast nets are shrinking while cable is rising up, and soon we’ll be in a landscape where there are just many, many channels... but the broadcasters won’t necessarily rule. NBC and CBS will be equals and rivals with USA, FX, Bravo, etc. Is that such a bad thing? I’m not sure it is... especially since many of those cable networks are producing better shows than the broadcasters anyway (Mad Men, Californication, Monk, Psych, BSG…)

So who cares if broadcast TV goes away? Writers and producers certainly shouldn’t be. The explosion of cable—and eventually Internet outlets—just means we’ll have even more places to sell our stories and ideas.

The only ones who should be genuinely worried are the broadcast networks themselves… but being worried doesn’t mean “hit the panic button.” NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX aren’t going away any time soon. They may change shape. They may become cable networks. But there is still a place for them in the TV universe, providing quality content to that box in people’s living rooms. They may not be providing that content over radio waves, but again—is that such a big deal? I don’t think so… and I don’t think audiences do, either. Viewers want the most entertaining programming possible… whether that’s a brilliant scripted show like Grey's Anatomy or Family Guy or House… or a talk show like The Jay Leno Show or Conan O’Brien’s Tonight Show. The networks simply need to realize that change is inevitable… and survival depends not on them scrambling to salvage outdated business models, but on experimenting with adaptation and evolution. (Which—whether it fails or succeeds—I think is exactly what the Leno move is about.)

So where does all this leave us…?

Well, basically—I think it leaves us with a once-great network that has been cannibalized from the inside out… and at an unfortunate moment in history when the broadcast business model needs some serious revamping. Which means NBC is at the center of a perfect storm, being battered from all sides by many forces—some under its control, others not so much.

I don’t know, honestly, if the Leno move will work in the long haul… but I think it can. And I think it’s a smart attempt at plugging—at least temporarily—a dangerous leak in the boat.

The truth is, the person with the most at risk is Jay Leno. If the show fails, he’s out of a job (not that he’s hurting for money). But NBC will just replace it with another sensational reality series… or perhaps a new stab at a scripted show. In other words, NBC itself doesn’t have much to lose.

And if the maneuver works… well… Leno wins, Zucker and Silverman are happy, and—hopefully—NBC finds itself back on the road to being a kick-ass network… which is good news for ANYONE working in television.

TV Writing Interview: Part III... Take a Listen

Chad — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:17:31 GMT

Hey, everyone--

Here's the third part of the 3-part podcast interview I did with Judith Parker Harris and the Alive! Authors Network. Take a listen... we talk about the politics and logistics of being a TV writer, frequent mistakes aspiring writers make, and how to break in and launch a successful career.

Click HERE to check it out!

(And here's Part I and Part II...)

And coming up, we've got some great reader questions... book reviews... and more pitch workshop entries!

Fight for Writers' Rights... THIS WEEKEND! (And hey-- free lunch!)

Chad — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:23:52 GMT

Hey, everyone--

As you know, reality TV writers rarely receive wages or benefits comparable to their scripted counterparts... even though they're writing scripts, shaping arcs and stories, defining characters, punching up jokes, etc.

So this Saturday, the Writers Guild is hosting a lunch event to educate and unite writers of all genres and mediums in the fight for fair and equitable treatment. Here's all the info... help join the fight-- this isn't just about reality TV; it's about fairness for writers everywhere...

The Real Deal: Writers Guild-Covered Reality & Game Shows

Why don’t writers on shows like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Survivor receive portable health insurance, pension, proper credits and respect like the writers on Intervention, Dog Whisperer, and Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? The difference is a Writers Guild of America contract.

Join WGAW President Patric Verrone, writers and producers from some of the top reality and game shows in a lively panel discussion about how writers can win industry-standard benefits. Come learn strategies that could benefit your career as a Hollywood writer. Save the date for this exciting opportunity to network with ‘reality’ and game show professionals!

Panelists include:

• Jim Milio, WGAW members and co-owner of MPH Entertainment (producer of The Dog Whisperer)
• Dan Partland, WGAW member and writer (Intervention)
• Jay Wolpert, WGAW member, screenwriter and game show producer (Pirates of the Caribbean, The Price Is Right)
• Lou DiMaggio, WGAW member and writer (The Weakest Link, The Singing Bee, Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader)

More participants TBA!

Saturday, November 15th
12 PM – 3 PM
Sheraton Universal Hotel
333 Universal Hollywood Drive
Universal City, CA 91608

Lunch and parking will be provided.

This is a non-transferrable invite. Must RSVP to attend.

RSVP: Talbert@wga.org

TV Writing Interview: Part II... Take a Listen!

Chad — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:23:02 GMT

Hey, everyone--

A couple weeks ago, the Alive! Authors Network posted the first part of Breaking In and Breaking Through the TV Business, Judith Parker Harris's 3-part interview with me about TV writing... how to get your foot in the door, get noticed, and excel in the world of television.

Well, Judith has now posted Part II... so please CLICK HERE take a listen to the next installment, and lemme know what you think!

In the mean time, have a great weekend... enjoy your extra hour... and Part III will be up soon!

Chatting About TV Writing... Take a Listen!

Chad — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:47:10 GMT

Hey, everyone--

Just wanted to invite you all to listen to a recent podcast interview I did on the Alive! Authors Network... all about TV writing and the TV industry.

This is the first of a 3-part interview I did, called Breaking In and Breaking Through the TV Business, with podcast host Judith Parker Harris. We talk about finding your own voice, common mistakes, ageism in Hollywood, how to deal with criticism, show business myths and misnomers... and more!

Click HERE to go to the podcast...

Take a listen and lemme know what you think... the next two segments will be available over the next few weeks!

READER QUESTION: Protecting Your Work: Part II (an afterthought)

Chad — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:27:11 GMT

First of all, special thanks to Heather, a lawyer who responded to yesterday's post about protecting your work with the following advice:

"It may be that writers don't typically register scripts with the US copyright office, but I can tell you (as an attorney) that the ONLY way to get into federal court with a claim of copyright infringement is with a US copyright.

The WGA registration won't be enough (which is probably why screenwriters don't use it in court to claim copyright infringement).

Mailing a copy of the script to yourself (and leaving it unopened with the postage dated) won't do you any good either, legally.

This is not to say that Chad's advice here is incorrect; what is written here may very well be what screenwriters do. But legally, the US copyright is the only one that will stand up in court.

But even that will only protect the *expression* of the idea in your screenplay. Ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, so the script must be extremely close to yours to fit the definition of copyright infringement. A similar plot won't be sufficient."

Heather-- this is a terrific, valuable info-- THANK YOU!

Secondly, Heather's post made me realize I didn't mention the #1 way most working Hollywood writers protect their work when sending it to studios, networks, production companies, producers or other readers and buyers...

They send it through an agent, lawyer or other type of middleman.

Most professional screenwriters use an agent, which-- in California-- is a representative legally bonded by the state and empowered to procure work and negotiate contracts (different states have different rules about who can be an agent and what they can/can't do).

Others use a manager, which-- technically-- are simply supposed to be career advisers and can't legally procure work or negotiate contracts (but this doesn't mean they don't do it... the lines between agents and managers have become very fuzzy).

Rarely are lawyers used to submit material or procure work, but this doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, most lawyers simply negotiate, proof, and execute contracts.

Of course, if you don't have an agent, lawyer, or manager, it's tougher to submit work this way. If you have a lawyer friend-- even if they're not an official entertainment lawyer-- perhaps you can ask them to submit your material anyway. It's not the usual mode of business, but at least there's some layer of legal protection... or, at the very least, the appearance of legal representation.

Having said all this, there's still no guarantee of protection. As Heather points out, the only way to TRULY protect a piece of writing is through the U.S. Copyright Office, and-- to be honest-- I've never heard of a writer doing that. And as I pointed out yesterday, I don't believe ideas DO get stolen in Hollywood... at least not on a regular basis.

At any rate, as a writer struggling to break in, what you should be worrying about isn't how to protect your ideas... but how to get them in front of as many official buyers as possible...

READER QUESTION: How Should I Protect or Copyright My Writing?

Chad — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:30:29 GMT

Hey, everyone--

Today’s reader question comes from Joseph, who writes…

“I have recently finished my first spec script and am about to start the revision process. I am planning to give the first draft to some writer friends of mine, one is a professional screenwriter, in order to get some feedback. Although I trust them, I want to be sure that my investment and work are secure. When should I register my script with the copyright office?”

Thanks for the question, Joseph! I hear this question a lot, so you’re speaking for a lot of writers out there.

Also, be prepared… I know my answer is going to stir up some controversy, so be prepared. And if it does stir up controversy—if anyone reading wants to comment—please comment below! (I love getting good heated chatter on the comment boards!)

So, here goes…

Part One (non-controversial):

Screenwriters don’t actually register scripts with the U.S. Copyright Office. They register them with the Writers Guild of America, the labor union which represents and protects most writers working in film, TV, and even radio. This is a super-simple process which you can now do online for $20 (click HERE to go right to the WGA’s registration page). You don’t even have to be a member of the Guild to do this—anyone can register their script, treatment, reality TV idea, etc.!

(To be fair, you probably COULD register your work with the copyright office, but I’ve honestly never heard of anyone doing this, and I have no idea how it’s done. The WGA is the standard registration outlet for screenwriters. I’ve also heard you can put your script in an envelope and mail it back to yourself. Then, simply keep the unopened envelope in a safe place; the postmark indicates the date on which the contents were created, proving you wrote the script before that date. But again—the real registration place is the WGA.)

Having said that, everything you write is—in theory—legally copyrighted as soon as you put it down on paper. So a WGA registration isn’t necessarily better proof than simply mailing your script back to you. Sure, the WGA registration process is more specific and specialized than simply mailing a script to yourself, but it’s not necessarily BETTER.

(To be honest, I’ve never heard of anyone claiming their script was stolen, then using WGA registration as proof to win their case. Maybe it has happened; I’ve just never heard of it. I will say: the Guild often steps in to arbitrate rewrite disputes, like when George Clooney went “fi-core” early this year over Leatherheads, and the WGA is usually very fair in these disputes.) (I don’t know why Clooney was so upset… if I were him, I wouldn’t have WANTED rewrite credit on Leatherheads.)

Part Two (here comes the controversial part):

While I never discourage anyone from registering their scripts with the WGA, I don’t usually “encourage” it, either. Mainly because: IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTER. Here’s why…

TV and movie ideas rarely get stolen. I know people think they do… and we’ve all heard legends and horror stories of “I know a guy who wrote a script just like Quarantine, he tried selling it, and two years later another company came out with a movie just like it”… but the truth is…

IDEAS RARELY GET STOLEN IN HOLLYWOOD.

First of all, there are no new ideas out there. My old screenwriting teacher used to say, “Whatever you’re working on, you must always assume there are five other identical projects in development at the exact same time”… and he’s right. I once had a student approach me at one of my classes, claiming he had an original idea that had NEVER been thought of—he was sure of it—and he wanted to know how to protect it. But when he pitched me the logline, it was just like a TV series already in development at two different networks.

Now, just because there are similar projects out there isn’t reason enough to not worry about protecting your work. What it means is this:

IT’S RARELY YOUR IDEA ITSELF THAT HAS VALUE… IT’S THE EXECUTION OF THAT IDEA.

In other words, ideas themselves are almost worthless; it’s a writer’s unique take on any idea that gives it value.

I often use the example of The Cosby Show and Everybody Loves Raymond. On paper, these are nearly identical TV shows: befuddled dads attempt to maintain control over their worlds as they navigate marriage and fatherhood. But the execution of these shows—how their storytellers see the worlds in which they live—is drastically different, and no one would accuse Raymond creators Phil Rosenthal or Ray Romano of ripping off Bill Cosby.

You can probably come up with a million different examples, shows or movies that are similar but have very different takes… Fringe and The X-Files, The Sixth Sense and Stir of Echoes, etc.

Executive, producers, networks, and studios know this. After all, they’re not just looking for good ideas… they’re looking for good writers who can EXECUTE those ideas. Writers who have unique perspectives and fresh ways of seeing the world. Which means if you’ve done your job well, in both developing and writing your script, your story can’t be told without you.

Thus, the best protection your script has is to make sure you’ve told a story ONLY YOU CAN TELL. Or rather: make sure you’ve written a story only you can tell in the way you would tell it… and in someone else’s hands it becomes a different story.

So, am I suggesting you don’t protect your work? NO. If spending $20 on a WGA registration gives you peace of mind, I say GO FOR IT. (And for $20, why not?) But I certaily wouldn’t let NOT being registered stand in the way of showing my script to people or getting feedback.

And whatever you do, DO NOT—repeat: DO NOT—put your WGA registration number on the front of your script. Don’t even write “WGA registered,” which some fledgling screenwriters do. THIS IS A SURE SIGN OF AN AMATEUR. Professional screenwriters do not do this… and the moment producers, execs, or agents get a script with this emblazoned on the script, the thought that flashes through their mind is: “amateur.” And while they’ll still judge the script on its own merits, you’ve already planted a tiny seed that may—even a tiny bit—affect their read.

So, to sum up: go ahead and register your script. It can’t hurt. But know that you’re simply paying for peace of mind, to quell your own fears (which, as a neurotic writer, I know can be overwhelming)… not necessarily any genuine protection or stamp of professionalism.

Letter from the WGA: Ozzy Doesn't Rock

Chad — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:24:08 GMT

Hey, everyone--

You may have heard this news, which broke yesterday afternoon, but the Writers Guild of America is going to head with Ozzy Osbourne's new FOX variety show, The Osbournes: Loud and Dangerous, for refusing to pay its writers standard wages or agree to a union contract. Yesterday afternoon, WGA presidents Michael Winship and Patric Verrone sent the following email to Guild membership...

To Our Fellow Members,

Last week, you may have become aware of our ongoing dispute with Tyler Perry’s production companies, which fired four writers because of their efforts to organize Perry’s series, House of Payne. Pickets were up at his new studio’s grand opening Saturday night in Atlanta.

Now, we write to inform you of another labor dispute.

Fox has ordered a primetime comedy-variety show featuring Ozzy Osbourne and his family, and has engaged FremantleMedia North America, the company behind American Idol, to produce it. Because they wanted to hire WGA members to write the show, Fremantle contacted the WGAW to see if we would agree to a sub-standard contract. Attempting to pay as little as possible to the writers on the show, Fremantle asked to treat it as “half-scripted” and pay greatly reduced writing fees to those writers who wrote skits, interview material, intros, and “outros.” Although all of the writing on the show is of a type traditionally covered by our MBA (in such shows as The Carol Burnett Show and Laugh-In), Fremantle wanted to treat certain portions of the show as “reality content," not cover the writers who create it, and lower the compensation of the WGA-covered writers, arguing that they would only be responsible for writing part of the show.

We refused to agree to such a deal because it would drastically undermine hard-won minimums and standards. While we have covered some shows produced by Fremantle, they insist that other shows, including American Idol, The Price is Right, and Million Dollar Password, do not have writers and should not be covered by a WGA contract.

Now it is clear that Fremantle’s intention is to bring their low cost, non-union business model into traditional genres – first game shows, then comedy-variety. Soon, no WGA-covered writing will be safe from their aggressive undermining of our contract. We cannot allow this encroachment to continue.

Accordingly, WGA East and West members may not write for the Osbourne variety show (working title: The Osbournes: Loud and Dangerous). Any members who perform writing services on that show do so at their own peril as they will be violating WGA Working Rule 8 and could be fined up to 100% of their compensation for that work. Both Guilds notified agents and other representatives of this development through an Action Alert issued yesterday.

The alert also reminded agents that they cannot send clients who are members of either Guild to write for Tyler Perry's production companies. The WGAW has filed unfair labor practice charges based on the unlawful discharge of the House of Payne writers and continuing bad faith bargaining. Members who accept these jobs will also be in violation of Working Rule 8.

We believe that denying Fremantle and Tyler Perry members of the Writers Guilds East and West may convince them that they will be unable to produce professional quality entertainment content and that they will see the wisdom and creative advantages of signing a WGA contract.

There is already far too much writing done in our business by men and women without WGA benefits. We cannot let writers of sitcoms and comedy-variety programming join their ranks, as we also work to reduce the amount of animation, reality, nonfiction, and other so-called “non-scripted” writing not covered by a WGA contract.

Thanks for your attention and your continued support.

Best,

Patric M. Verrone
President, WGAW

Michael Winship
President, WGAE

GUEST PERSPECTIVE: Tyler Perry's House of Shame

Chad — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:10:19 GMT

Hey, everyone--

A few days ago, I posted a piece about screenwriter Tyler Perry and the four writers he fired for attempting to organize his hit TBS show, House of Payne, according to Writers Guild standards.

This weekend, the WGA hosted a protest at the grand opening of Tyler Perry Studios, in Atlanta. Although I wasn't able to go, a fellow writer and WGA member, Vince, was on hand and sent me this report...

I flew from LA to Atlanta this weekend to support the four writers who were unjustly axed from Tyler Perry's "House of Payne" for the crime of trying to secure decent working conditions -- on a show that has already earned Perry's company about $300 million dollars in license and syndication fees!   I got into Atlanta Saturday afternoon, just in time to join the picket gathering outside the Tyler Perry Studios in southwest Atlanta, where Perry was hosting a black tie gala to celebrate the opening of his new movie lot. Obviously, our goal was to send a message about Tyler Perry's abysmal labor practices to the Hollywood royalty he'd invited to the black tie affair.

With picket signs emblazoned with the slogan "Tyler Perry's House of Shame" in hand, we set up our picket line across the street and a few yards down the road from the studio gate (which, unfortunately, was as close as the local constabulatory would allow us to get to the studio.)   As it turned out, that didn't matter.   Despite our less than perfect proximity to the lot's entrance, we made sure we were seen--and heard--by every guest in every limo that made that sharp right turn into the studio gates.   As loud as we were, I'm fairly confident we were the talk of the celebs and well wishers who gathered on the red carpet a few yards just inside the gates.

Fortunately, at least some members of the local press were willing to venture across the street to see what all the hubbub was about. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution included a couple of scathing quotes from the picketers' side of the street in their coverage of the Perry gala the next morning. We also spoke to a New York Times stringer, as well as a reporter from the local alternative weekly.   But the best coverage of the day came from the local CBS affiliate, who filmed us for a piece they ran the next morning.   According to one of our people, who happened to have the TV on when that piece was broadcast the next morning, the local news anchor teased the story by announcing, "Coming up next: Tyler Perry throws a big party at his new studio...but all is not well outside the gates. Stay tuned."   If nothing else, we definitely prevented the local media from settling for the kind of fawning coverage Tyler must have been hoped for.

Even more effective than the Saturday night event outside the studio was the picket we organized the following morning in front of Tyler Perry's mansion, where the mogul was hosting a Sunday Morning gospel brunch. Unlike the night before, this time we managed to set up our line directly across the street from the millionaire's front gate, in full view of every limo and town car that pulled into the mogul's gated driveway.

Beyond the positive press we were able to generate for the cause, I think the weekend offered a well needed morale boost for the four fired writers. They had to be heartened by the near unanimous support we got from every one of the few community people who managed to get through the police line to our picket line on Saturday night.    Once they heard the woeful story of our writers' unceremonious firing four days earlier, most of these locals were more than happy to grab a sign and march right along with us.   One outspoken local was a beautician who insisted that her two teenaged sons join our picket as well. Another, an older woman and self described Tyler fanatic, insisted that she was "shocked in awe" to discover how poorly Tyler treated his workers. Before she left, she vowed to post a message on the Tyler Perry fan website demanding that the star explain himself. Equally gratifying was the local, and very vocal, Atlanta SAG member who took it on herself to lead most of our pointed chants.   We were also joined by a local, and very vocal, Atlanta SAG member, as well as a handful of folks who worked below the line on some of Perry's other shows.   One supporter who sometimes worked as prop man actually turned down a chance to work at the party that night in order to stand with us outside the gates.

All in all, it was clearly a worthwhile event, and provided a righteous kick-off to what I hope is a very short campaign to convince Tyler Perry to do right by his writers!

Thanks to Vince for the front-lines report... and to all the writers and friends-of-writers who showed up to help Perry's staff fight for fair wages, residuals, and health and pension plans!

Click HERE to sign the WGA's letter of support... and to join the Guild's fight against Tyler Perry and unfair labor practices and to help fired writers Kellie Griffin, Christopher Moore, Teri Brown-Jackson, and Lamont Ferrell!

From WGA President Patric Verrone...

Chad — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:31:40 GMT

Hey, guys--

Thought this was an interesting little piece from Patric Verrone, president of the Writers Guild west, on the state of TV writing, reality TV, and Sunday night's Emmy broadcast. He posted this yesterday on the WGA's POV webpage...

What Matters More Than Nothing

For those of you who saw the 2008 Emmy Awards telecast (and consider yourself a rare breed as it was the smallest Emmy viewership ever) you saw further proof of the essential role that writers play in television. In a year when writers shut down television for three months, the TV Academy chose to honor its 60th anniversary by having five reality show stars host the show. Their opening routine was built on the concept of "nothing" (and not the good kind of Seinfeld "nothing" but the boring, confusing, head-scratching variety of "nothing.") They eventually took full credit for the routine, admitting that they had no writers, and the bit fell flat on its face.

The long term tragedy of all this is that each of them would return to their day job where they do have writers who do the kind of work that earns these performers an Emmy nomination. Yet, with the exception of Dancing With the Stars, none of these shows gives those writers proper screen credit, health insurance or the other standard benefits that writers earn in this industry.

The more immediate shame was that all the witless time-killing forced producers to cut away from acceptance speeches, including that of Kirk Ellis, who wrote the brilliant miniseries John Adams. In an attempt to remedy that oversight, here is Kirk's speech in its entirety:

"I'd like to dedicate this award to two people. My own Abigail, my dearest friend, my wife Sheila. And David McCullough. Not only a great mentor, but a friend. Thank you Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, Colin Callender, and Michael Lombardo for this opportunity to portray a time in American politics when articulate men could articulate complex thoughts in complete sentences. They forged a new nation with words. Glorious words married to bold actions. John Adams believed that the right words, spoken or written at the right time, could change the world. And they did. Lately we've heard a lot of punditry about whether words matter to us as Americans anymore. I'm just a writer -- what do I know? But, in answer to that question I can only say, yes, they do. Yes, they do. Yes, they bloody well do. Thank you."

Congratulations to Kirk and all the WGA members who won Emmys. And to all our writer colleagues who toil in obscurity in reality television: We think your words matter, too. Without them, your hosts have "nothing."

--Patric M. Verrone

You Must Be Kidding Me, Roger (UPDATED: ...And Maybe You Are)

Chad — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:34:03 GMT

UPDATE: Okay, everyone-- before you read on, let me say this: Roger Ebert may be entirely crazy... or he may have just earned my respect 100 times more than before. Here's the scoop...

Earlier tonight, I posted the following bit with a link to an outrageous piece he published on his blog today...

• • • • •

"Okay, guys--

This isn't directly related to TV and screenwriting, but it IS directly related to Roger Ebert... whose opinion I previously respected (even if I didn't always agree with it). But I had to put this out there...

This is undeniable, irrefutable proof that our parents were right... watching too many movies rots your brain.

Like, REALLY rots it.

I will NEVER take this guy seriously again.

CLICK HERE and brace yourselves... I'm not sure if this leaves me confused, saddened, or absolutely terrified..."

• • • • •

I'm not gonna lie... I totally believed it was real... and apparently, judging from all the chatter on the Internet, so did a bunch of other people. But now, no one seems so sure. Is it real, or have is he totally punking us?

If it's the latter, and I'm starting to believe that is, then I have to give Ebert props for being awesome. I love this kind of Borat satire, comedy that illuminates ridiculousness and hypocrisy by embracing and heightening it (although I admit-- it's funnier when I'm not the one falling for it).

Check out this 2005 article Ebert wrote, in which he seems to be a pretty strong opponent of Creationism. And many sites point out that Ebert has defended evolution in the past (I'm not gonna link to them all because there's too many, but a quick Google search will give you plenty).

Anyway, the jury's still out on whether or not this is real. But I'll say this... it has everyone talking. So if it's intentional satire, I applaud Ebert 100%... BRILLIANT. If it's intentional NON-satire, and honest commentary... then I stick to my "confused/saddened/terrified" position. And if the site was hacked... well... I guess Sarah Palin's a better computer geek than I ever gave her credit for.

So the question is... REAL? NOT REAL? SINCERE? SATIRICAL? Whaddaya think?

In Defense of "Bad TV Writing"

Chad — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:55:31 GMT

Hey, guys—

Wanted to take a moment and respond to an interesting comment posted recently from reader JNG.

First of all-- thank you, JNG, for the comment! I LOVE it when people comment here, and I’m always hoping/trying to get people to chat and discuss creative, business, social, or political issues concerning the world of television. So I really appreciate your comment, and I hope it’s a conversation starter!

For the rest of you-- JNG responded to my post about Amanda the Aspiring TV Writer’s blog, and here is what he/she writes…

“No wonder most TV writing is so bad. When writers spend their formative years working within the industry itself--rather than actually experiencing life in the outside world--it's hardly surprising that they have nothing interesting to say about that outside world. Dick Wolf was right. It's a shame that TV has constructed barriers to entry that ensure its continued mediocrity.”

I thought this was an interesting point… because I think JNG is very right… and also very wrong.

I completely agree with JNG… great writing comes from great living, and the best writers are those who spend as much time experiencing as much life as possible, then use those experiences to fuel their writing. I think this applies to ANY art… painting, sculpture, acting, photography. Art is a comment on and expression of the human condition and the world around us, and the more you know about the world and humanity, the more you have to say about it. Using myself as an example, I went from undergrad right into a graduate writing program, and I’ll be honest… I sometimes think my writing would have been helped more by traveling the world, or working as a deep sea fisherman, or farming lentils, or any number of things that would’ve dropped me into interesting places and situations.

Having said that, I’m also not sure one person’s life experiences are more valuable than another. I once read a saying that I often think about, and it went something like this: “As an artist, it’s not what you choose to look at in the world, it’s how you choose to look at it.” And I think that’s probably very true. Living life is important, but it’s less about where you go, what you do, and who you meet… than how you experience what’s available to you.

Now, while I agree that writers—both individually and as a collective—should always be striving to improve, here’s where I DISAGREE with JNG…

“No wonder most TV writing is so bad… It's a shame that TV has constructed barriers to entry that ensure its continued mediocrity.”

The thing is, JNG: I actually think there’s a TON of OUTSTANDING writing on television right now. In fact, I think television right now—and over the last few years—has had more brilliant writing than at any other time in its history. I mean, just think about shows that have been on over the last few years: The Sopranos, Mad Men, Family Guy, Lost, The Office, Grey’s Anatomy, House, 24, The West Wing, Arrested Development, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Monk, The Wire, The Simpsons, Sex & The City, Six Feet Under, 30 Rock… the list goes on.

This isn’t to say there haven’t been some wonderfully written shows in other times (The Twilight Zone, Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, Hill Street Blues…). And it’s not to say there aren’t some horrible shows on TV right now. And it’s not to say even today’s great shows haven’t had some not-great episodes, arcs, or even entire seasons. But I would venture to say there are more top-notch shows on TV right now than top-notch movies in the theater. And if you compared the good-shows-to-bad-shows ratio to good-movies-to-bad-movies ratios… TV shows would win. (Which isn’t necessarily to use “well, there’s bad writing in other mediums” as an excuse; it’s just to say, “I think bad writing exists in EVERY medium, TV included, but I think we happen to have a lot of strong, creative writing on TV right now.”)

As for the “constructed barriers to entry that ensure [TV’s] continued mediocrity,” I agree that there ARE barriers, unfortunately, that keep out some talented writers. But I think that’s also a function of the fact that TV-writing is usually about much, much more than writing. In other words, television has more factors than any other medium which affect what you perceive as a show’s “writing.”

In almost any other medium, a writer can sit in his office, pour stories onto paper, deliver them to a producer or publisher, and not be bothered with them again. This couldn’t be LESS true in TV writing. (Also, I know this is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea.)

Not only is TV writing intensely and necessarily social, but there are a million non-writing factors which affect the “writing” that appears on screen.

For example, a writer (or writing staff) might write a BRILLIANT story, or story arc, about a new character. They then cast a brilliant, talented actress to play the role. But then the actress, who was stunning in her audition, shows up to shoot her scenes… and she can’t pull it off. For whatever reason, she’s not funny... or she’s not convincing… or she’s unlikable. Suddenly, the writers must rewrite the entire role, often on-stage as production continues, so the schedule doesn’t get thrown off. This not only changes the character, but it has ripple affects into all the stories and characters around it. And suddenly, when the story appears on screen, the writing is no longer as brilliant as it once was.

Or… a writer might write a terrific scene that takes place on a creepy boat dock in the middle of the night. But when it comes time to shoot the scene, the production can’t afford the dock. Or it won’t fit into the schedule. And the best solution is to rewrite the scene so it can be shot at a location already being used… like a golf course in the middle of the day. So the scene must be rewritten, as well as possible, to accommodate the change and still keep the scene’s intent. Obviously, this not only changes the scene itself, it changes everything around it. And suddenly, when it appears on screen, the writing doesn’t seem as brilliant.

Or… a writer might write a wonderfully complex action sequence, a perfect example of pacing, tension, and build. All the locations are available. All the resources are ready. But then, once the crew is on set, they find the sequence is more complex than they had thought. Or a traffic accident slows them down. Or it rains. Or an actor is late. And suddenly, they don’t have time to shoot the entire sequence the way it should’ve been shot. The best solution?... Do a quick rewrite, simplifying the sequence. The result still works… just not as well as the original. And suddenly, the brilliant writing doesn’t seem so brilliant.

Now, obviously, these kinds of challenges arrive in any collaborative production medium: film, theater, etc. But here’s the difference…

A film shoot can be stopped or postponed in order to fix problems. Not so in television. A TV show—once it’s up and running—must churn out new episodes EVERY SINGLE WEEK. It’s a train racing forward, full speed ahead, and it can’t be stopped. (Some of you may have read about 24 and Dollhouse recently stopping to fix script problems… but these shows, while in production, aren’t on the air yet… so they have some wiggle room.)

These examples illustrate why TV writing is often the product of much more than just the “writing”… and why it’s tough to truly assess a show’s writing based only on what you see on screen. Sure, there’s bad writing… and the writers deserve some of the blame for it. But TV writing also goes through so many layers and filters that “bad” writing isn’t always the result of bad writers.

But these examples also illuminate why barriers to entry are so high for TV writers. The good ones do much more than just write. Most take on “producer” responsibilities as well, helping with casting, supervising on set, working with designers, etc. The best become showrunners, overseeing virtually every aspect of a show’s production. But even those lower on the food chain are writer-producers… and those who aren’t, those who do nothing more than just “write,” rarely excel very far.

As a result, “the constructed barriers to entry” help weed out those who can’t hack it as a bona fide writer-producer. Working in the industry gives young writers—like Amanda the Aspiring TV Writer herself—experience in the business… experience in production, relationships with writers and directors and designers, opportunities to read scripts, visit sets, or participate in development meetings, etc. Sure, it’s all industry-related experience that may not be “experience” in the “outside world,” but as a friend of mine who writes on Lost always says, “If you want to just sit in a room with a pad and pen and write, go be a novelist or a poet or a playwright… but you’re probably not cut out to be a TV writer.” That’s not a slap in the face, it’s just a simple fact: different jobs take different skills, and writing for TV requires more than just words on paper.

Having said THAT, TV’s “barriers to entry” aren’t perfect… and I’m sure they do keep out some deserving writers. But that just means you have to work harder. No one said this would be easy… if it was, it wouldn’t be worth doing.

Anyway, that’s my long-winded response to JNG’s post, as well my defense of “bad” TV writing… and of all the Amandas working at agencies, studios, or networks in hopes of breaking into the writers room. (Next week, I’ll be writing in defense of sweatshops and child labor.)

Feel free to respond (please!). Agree, disagree, bash me, or extol my many virtues (and my great hair).

TALKING POINTS: Does Marketing Affect the Quality of a Film?

Chad — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:11:50 GMT

Hey, guys--

So, I wanted to do something a bit different today... which is basically just: pick your brains and chat about stuff.

A couple weeks ago, I posted my "review" on Vantage Point... or at least, some thoughts on the writing of the movie. One of my biggest gripes is that the movie, like all mysteries, inherently asks the audience to go along for the ride and have the fun of trying to solve the riddle. This is the point of mysteries. And Vantage Point's marketing campaign supports this with the straightforward (although no less ridiculous) tagline: "Can you solve the puzzle?" The problem is: no, you can't solve the mystery, because the movie intentionally cheats you out of the clues necessary to do so. Which, I think, breaks the unspoken covenant between mystery storyteller and mystery audience.

Anyway, several of you wrote in, both in the blog's comments section and via email, with some interesting thoughts of your own, and one in particular caught my eye. Loyal reader Jake writes:

"Isn't it possible that the bigger problem is the marketing machine at whatever studio put this out? Isn't it at all possible that they made the film they wanted to make, and then the marketing machine said: hey, let's make it a puzzle in need of solving?"

Well, before I get to the larger, more interesting question in Jake's post... lemme throw in my two cents worth for Jake.

In answer to: "Isn't it possible that they made the film they wanted to make, then the marketing machine said: let's make it a puzzle in need of solving?"...

No. It's not possible. Or rather, if it is possible, then I'm even more dismayed by the filmmakers. Because regardless of its marketing, Vantage Point does not work. It is fatally flawed as both a mystery and a story, so if it is the movie the producers set out to make, then... well... the producers have even more egg on their face, because they set out to make a crappy movie.

In fact, I think Vantage Point's marketing was the best thing about the film. It had great marketing! The trailers were cool... they clearly articulated the gimmick and the story of the movie... they made me want to see it! I actually think the marketing campaign was marketing the movie the producers had hoped to make... they just didn't pull it off.

Now, Jake also writes-- "At least the film was different. Give it some credit for that." And I agree. I appreciate what the film was trying to do... but that doesn't mean it didn't fail miserably. Which is also why I don't think the filmmakers "made the film they wanted to make." They had a vision, sure, but their final product fell far short. And that's not the fault of bad marketing.

However... the more interesting question buried in Jake's comments are: "How does movie marketing affect our enjoyment of a movie?"

In other words, if a movie's marketing campaign leads us to believe one thing, and it leads our expectations in a certain direction, but then the movie turns out to be something different... even if it's a good movie... how do we react? Do we hate the movie? Are we surprised but pleased?

I'm just thinking out loud... and I'm trying to think of examples where the trailers and marketing campaign made the movie look like one thing, and it was actually entirely different. And when a movie is mis-marketed, does it affect how much you like the movie? Can good storytelling and acting still shine through and trump an audience's misled expectations?

I dunno... I'm wondering...