Star Trek

Post image for Square One

Today is TV Calling’s two-year anniversary.
It has been a long time coming, and I must say I’m proud of all the great content, and of all the visitors who have passed through our doors.


Perhaps the greatest change in this past year has been the redesign which prompted a two-month long hiatus.
But let’s not dwell on this.

There has been a more recent lack of posting (and tweeting), for which I must now come clean.
Truth be told, I could write pages of (actual) reasons of why this happened, ranging from two hard-drive failures to being “too busy” (with a Star Trek marathon).
For the most part though, I just didn’t feel it.
I did not have much to add to the ongoing “conversation” so, instead of blabbering around, posting empty meaningless content, I decided to take a step back.
Nothing is better than irrelevant, right?

This short break incidentally allowed me to take care of more pressing matters.
In the past month, I have begun to finally break a pilot I had been holding off.
More importantly though, I was able to plan more thoroughly my move to L.A.
I started this blog two years ago in part to tell you guys about my own experience and steps toward becoming a (future) television writer. I did talk about my various visits to the West Coast and how I successfully obtained my Green Card (yay!).
But being both geographically and temporally so far away from this life-change (let’s call a spade a spade), I admit I did not have much to tell about what went on–until recently.
This is obviously why the blog has been diverging at times from its original purpose to center on a more analytical aspect of television (though with great articles).

Maybe this post seems either like bragging or a list of personal accomplishments, and maybe I wrote it for cathartic reasons, but I wanted to let you know how important this blog and your support have been to me.

And now, we are about to arrive to our final destination.
In a month, I will be moving to Los Angeles.
Square one.

This jump into the unknown is both thrilling and, dare I admit it, scary.
Perhaps this site, this log of my daily struggles, will ease the transition. (Bonus points for actual advice in the posts.)
I will continue to sporadically update the blog, bringing it back to its roots.

I hope you will continue to follow me on this journey.
Here’s to you fellow reader, and to another two years of TV Calling!


Email This Post Print This Post

3 comments

Post image for Lost Finale Thoughts: Artificiality at its best (and worst)

One word can describe the Lost series finale: Artificiality.
Don’t get me wrong, it was not easy to be Darlton while writing the series finale of, arguably, the most-talked about TV series since the creation of the Internet. But summarizing that the show would be satisfying only for “believers”, a.k.a. viewers that wouldn’t obsess over mythological answers given in the finale, is ultimately a very cynical way of saying “if you don’t like that your version of the show living in your head is not the story we want to tell, that’s YOUR problem”.

I’d like to point out that however, it wouldn’t be fair stomping on the series finale for the lack of answers or mythology galore. It is a point that has been stressed by Darlton ever since the beginning of Season 6, that it would be all about the characters. I accept it as such, and will focus my criticism for what it is: essentially a character-driven series finale.

With its final twist, “Lost” has once again pulled the rug from under the feet of its devoted fans, except maybe those who were paralyzed by the emotion of characters they followed during six years leaving their screens forever. What Darlton didn’t realize is that there’s nothing wrong with being a little predictable, even more so during your endgame.
In fact, this is the second time viewers are proven completely wrong. After Season 4, everything pointed to a war between Benjamin Linus and Charles Widmore for control of the Island as the endgame of the show. It was rooted in characters, and the mythological knowledge of both those men would prove fertile territory for a decent endgame, as far as answers were concerned. There’s little doubt sacrifices would be made, Monsters would be used, alliances would be forged. Not unlike what we’ve seen in season 6. Except that both were made irrelevant by the introduction of Jacob and what we now know as the Man In Black, divine incarnations of the protector of the Island, and the Evil who’s trying to escape and be unleashed upon the World — or so we’re led to believe.

This was the endgame of “Lost”, and I’m ready to accept it. However, the big mystery of the season was the nature of the “flash-sideways”, where it appeared that all the survivors and characters live in a world where the Island sunk many years ago. They also remember little by little the events of their life on the Island, and they’re all led to meet each other. The emotional impact of the final scene left some viewers wrecked, and it would have been powerful…

…had it not been the Purgatory created by them after they died to come to grips with their issues, in a perpetual happy ending.

The “alternative timeline” was, to me, the more satisfying resolution, that would have implied they all died on the Island and were “projected” in Flight 815 by Jacob, who would give them back their free will, and a better set of choices for some characters. So, seeing all the cast fading into the white light to Heaven while Jack closed his eyes on the Island, with Vincent next to him, felt corny instead of powerful.

Yes, I actually laughed at the reveal made by the ultimate deus ex machina: Christian Shepard. Having this kind of sentimentality kicking off was just a cheap way of ignoring the fact that it could have gone another way. Having all these characters, almost, uniting at the Driveshaft concert, would have been as satisfying and emotional as what we got instead. Having them “projected” as a reward for preventing MIB from being unleashed upon the world was great, it also made them all heroes in the most noble sense. It reminds us of another HBO show I won’t name for those who don’t know how it ends, but that dealt with them better. Revealing that half of the final season was actually the characters evolving in a Disneyworld afterlife timeline, where everything would turn out “fine” in the end, far from the hassles of Craphole Island, was really more artificial, and also the worst way to end the show right behind “it was all a dream”. It’s also kind of sacrilegious to think that Darlton devoted a season showing characters in a Purgatory where they got what they were looking for, after debunking the Purgatory theories for the Island during the ENTIRE run. But it would have been predictable, and therefore the showrunners would feel like hacks just following the direction the fans thought they would go into.

Another amazing fact, not to be overlooked, is that we witnessed the Island losing its “specialness” during the finale. It actually should have relieved Ben and Hurley to know that they now have a desert island all to themselves, with no dangerous electromagnetism, Others, or angry deities to take care of. Really, having some characters escaping Craphole Island in the plane that was there all along without the potentiality of finding themselves in an electromagnetic cloud of danger was….convenient. This is also why Jack smiles while seeing a plane passing by: never will other people live what the survivors lived again. Pretty definitive ending for a show that’s supposed to be like “Star Trek” for ABC Studios.

You could feel that Darlton didn’t know when or how to make the characters die. In a way, I expected everyone to be dead, since they would be alive on “the other side” (which turned out to be just that). Maybe it was that two disappointing seasons made it feel easier to let go, for me at least. But faking the Jack death in the cave of Light so that he could die where he woke up, and thus obtain the iconic shot to close the series with, was laughable at best, ridiculous at worst.
Seeing the Jack/Locke scenes in the last few episodes also made me realize how much making Locke die in the season 4 finale was wrong, especially since that was to make way for the Man In Black, who turned out to be the least interesting baddie/foe on the show. (Unite the three baddies of the show in “What They Died For”, see who steals the spotlight.) There should have been a way to keep this iconic character as is for the remainder of the series, since the long con of MIB as John Locke for the latter part of Season 5 wasn’t very convincing to me. (It did provide humorous moments with Ben Linus, former most intriguing character on the show who is dumbfounded by the resurrected Locke, that gets him to do whatever he wants.) But if you replaced John Locke by Titus Welliver in those episodes, I don’t think the shock and mystery would have been that different.

This post is getting long, so I’ll get to my point. There’s nothing wrong, for a show that has been very unpredictable for the last six years, to be predictable with its finale. Giving a sense of alternate reality as opposed to an alternate afterlife would have worked. And I strongly feel that the sense of “letting go”, “moving on” with their issues, didn’t have to be translated through death. Especially since this alternate world gives them the keys to move on to every character, with largely better circumstances. So, stopping the sideways at the Driveshaft concert as opposed to the church would have felt satisfying to me. Same with everybody dying on the Island, at the same time, so that MIB dies with them and can’t escape. This is the time where the “version of the ending living in my head” makes more sense, and is more satisfying, since it basically boils down to the same thing. Since these characters’ most important moments are on the Island, projecting their bodies would have given them the unique opportunity to live a life with their loved ones outside of the Island, without all the trauma and death. That would have been as powerful an ending. But, like I said, that ending would have been predictable. I guess Darlton couldn’t accept to get away with that.

Author Image

About the Author

Based in Southwest France, Lordy is a local reporter in all areas of France (really, look it up). As a hobby though, he has a keen and often deconstructing look on the entertainment business, even as a simple fan. — You can follow him on @lordofnoyze






Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment

Post image for Five ways Lost could continue

Though the mothership ends its run next Sunday, the Lost franchise however seems to have endless possibilities.
And Disney is not too keen on letting this cash-cow die.
As Carlton Cuse puts it:

The Walt Disney Co. owns Lost. It’s a franchise that’s conservatively worth billions of dollars. It’s hard to imagine Lost will rest on the shelves and nothing will ever be made with Lost.

Here are five possible ways the ABC show could survive…


I) Spin-off show


Either the best or worst idea, depending on who you ask.
Admit it, you’ve always dreamed of a Ben & Locke spin-off.
Truth be told, that won’t really happen since Terry O’Quinn is apparently shopping around a bible for a “TNT-type show” that would pair him once more with Michael Emerson as “suburban hit men juggling family issues.”

The apparent futile nature of a Lost spin-off hasn’t stopped pretty much everyone from joking about it though.

On the other hand, what some have dubbed Lost: The Next Generation is apparently not that big of a stretch.
Mike Benson, executive VP of marketing at ABC declared a few months ago:

We’ve been talking about this for a couple of years now. We want to keep it alive but make sure we maintain the integrity of the franchise. We’re not about milking this thing for all that it is right now; it’s important to see this live for years to come. What ‘Lost’ becomes after it ends its run is up in the air. It really depends on who comes in to interpret it next. We do believe ‘Lost’ can be a ‘Star Trek’ for us.

So what would a spin-off be about? At this point, it’s really just guess-work and can be virtually anything from some DHARMA-related storyline to Egyptians, Romans, and, let’s say, magical lights inside a cave.
The mythology of the show basically spans the entire history of mankind and has created a near-endless array of characters to chose from.



II) Alternate Reality Game

Already three of them have been made over the course of the series, and the first one was explicitly done to explain the numbers (what many consider to be a major mystery of the show).
Yes, The Lost Experience did serve a purpose. And best of all, it’s canon.
It is not totally unconceivable to think that further down the line, another ARG will be made both to entertain the fans and expand on one of the plot threads and layers of Lost (like DHARMA or something else).

The only question left would be the reason behind ABC’s willingness to do another ARG. The only answer possible is: to promote something.
Still today, ARGs are mainly made not for their narratives but for their mass and viral appeal, and a new Lost ARG would only be made if Disney had something to gain from it.



III) Tie-in novels & comics

This one is a given.
There has already been three novels published (excluding Bad Twin) and a Lost Encyclopedia is coming out soon.
Past mythological shows have also a history of continuing their stories through the comic art-form.
Would it be that much of a shocker if you’d suddenly find a book entitled Henry Gale’s Mysterious Adventures or a comic around the construction of the Four Toed Statue?
It’s the cheapest of all the options here, and an official book that is both canon and full of mythological answers would be a best-seller before it even came out.



IV) Theme park attraction

Though at first it might seem preposterous, it is actually one of the most anticipated and, yes, most plausible idea on this list.
You just know Disney will do a ride for one of it its amusement parks.
Think about it. How does ‘Lost Island’ sound to you?
Epic, that’s what.

There’s even a petition calling for the following locations to be built inside one of the theme parks:
– The Frozen Donkey Wheel behind the Orchid Station testing chamber.
– The Swan station
– The Hatch ride
– A submarine ride to Palu Ferry.
– Dharmaville Barracks.
– Ruins
– Jacob’s Cabin
– The Egyptian Statue and Jacob’s Lair

A Harry Potter theme park about to open in a few weeks, so a Lost one can be done.
What about a ‘Roller-Smoke-Monster’ or an ‘Oceanic Six Rescue Ride’?



V) Movie

I’m just kidding on that one.
I’ll let Damon Lindelof answer for me:

It’s funny, you know, we hear like 24 is going to do a movie and you always have to think like, I don’t know how they or when they do that. The reality of it is we’re shooting the show for ten months out of the year and the other two months we are spending, cumulatively recharging our batteries but also beginning to generate stories for the following season and you can’t shoot a feature film in two months even if we went right into it. So as long as the show is on the air as a TV show, logistically there could be no movie. And more importantly, it’s somewhat exploitative to kind of say to the audience who watches the show, “Hey, now you’ve got to go and pay eleven bucks and go into the theater in order to stay caught up with the show.” It’s not like 24 where we could do a self-contained movie. The movie would really have to answer definitive questions, move the plot forward, you know and we just don’t know how to do that or whether or not it needs to be done.

Yup, he did just say they don’t know how to “answer definitive questions” and “move the plot forward.” Guess there’s no movie to be made then.



Lost is indeed a franchise, perhaps dissimilar to Star Trek, but it does hold the potential for many other stories to be told. Whether it will be a disservice to the main series remains to be seen. It is highly unlikely though that either Carlton Cuse or Damon Lindelof will participate in any potential continuation of the franchise.
That’s what they’ve said anyway.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for How Lost revolutionized storytelling

Before telegraphed flashsideways and magical caves, there was a time when Lost told its complex and often surprising story through other means. The mythological show brought to television seldom used attributes to entertain and mystify its audience.
Here’s how the groundbreaking series revolutionized television storytelling.


The first thing to notice about Lost is undoubtedly its unusual use of flashbacks.
At the time (and dare I say still to this day), it was a groundbreaking way to tell a story.
No, I’m not talking about the flashback itself, rather its use in network primetime.
Could viewers keep up with two simultaneous narratives involving the same characters at different times of their lives?
Since its first inception, flashbacks have not only become the staple of the show, but also populated the television landscape.

So much actually, that fans quickly grew tired of what appeared to only be a gimmick.
I guess now we can peak behind the curtain and reveal that, yes, it was at first an opportunity for the writers to stall.
Don’t take my word for it, here’s what Damon Lindelof had to say on the subject:

We knew early on that the flashbacks were going to have to be a prominent aspect of the series but we didn’t use flashbacks in the pilot other than to tell the story of the crash. We knew as we were shooting the pilot though that the only way to do the series would be to use the art of the stall. In any given season of 24 there’s not that much happening, but they give the illusion of constant suspense. On Lost if every episode were about discovering the mysteries of the island than we would be sunk, because there’s an inevitability to that where if the characters decided ‘we’re going to explore this island and figure out what this place is’ whereas if it’s ‘we’re going to figure out how to live with each other and figure out what this island is’ and we’re going to learn about the characters before the crash so that they’re emotionally compelling, that was the only way we saw to do the show.

The bottom line of it all is that, beyond its apparent uselessness, flashbacks on Lost (save for, let’s say, Fire+Water and Stranger in a Strange Land) were compelling both narratively and emotionally. You can’t say that about Damages’ flashforwards (more on that in a minute).
One of my personal favorites is the final flashback of Walkabout where it is revealed Locke was in a wheelchair.
The tour de force of Lost was to intertwine two narratives and therein create a seamless emotional journey that could resonate both in the past (off-Island), and in the present (on-Island). Those “flashes” were actually useful to the show.
As revealed by Lindelof, this back-and-forth between present and past was partly based on the storytelling method of the Watchmen graphic novel as well as Slaughterhouse-Five.


And since we’re on the subject, if you’re going to talk about one, then you’ll need to talk about the other.
I am of course referring to flashforwards (or prolepses).
Remember the time when you had never heard the term “flashforward”?
Me neither.
And yet, before the twist ending occurred during the Season Three finale (Through the Looking Glass), only a few people knew that the technique existed, let alone its usage.
You could say the series finale of Six Feet Under, The O.C., or even Star Trek: The Next Generation used flashforwards to offer viewers glimpses into the future of the show’s characters, but those were just that: glimpses. Like with flashbacks, Lost juxtaposed its timelines in such a unique way that you couldn’t look at prolepses as ‘just that’.

Flashforwards in Lost gave weight to something that was rarely used, or at least not for their sake, but just to give hints of the future. It was the ABC show that truly revealed the potential of such a storytelling technique. The series had showed again that audiences could follow simultaneously two very different timelines. Not since La Jetée have we had such a complex array of timelines, combining both analepses and prolepses. One could argue the writers are trying to catch the lightning in the bottle once more with this season’s flashsideways technique. But all they’re actually creating is a fake sense of nostalgia.

This true revolution gave way to a few series that probably would not have been green-lit had it not been for Lost.
Damages certainly succeeded in using flashforwards with its first season, but could have gone without it with its following seasons. They were as well only used as glimpses into the season finale, not true parallel storytelling. In addition, we can talk a bit about the now-canned FlashForward (based on the 1999 book of the same name) that proved a show could not sustain on mythology alone.

Ultimately, Carlton Cuse describes his show as “a giant mosaic”:

At various points in the journey you’re going to be standing in various spots and you can define them as past, present, or future. We like fractured storytelling, and the way we’re going you’ll be looking at various aspects of our characters’ lives in the story we are telling. We want to explore that from various perspectives.


Another revolution in the network landscape is the scope of the show.
And I’m not just talking about the size of the Four-Toed Statue.
From its cast and sets, to the score and cinematic visuals, Lost was pretty much unprecedented as a network drama. The show is de facto massively expensive (large crew and Hawaii shoot), but it also premiered during a time where networks were slowly moving away from scripted dramas into the realm of cheaply-produced reality shows. Whatever you might say about the mythology of the show, you can’t deny that the series had a lot of layers.

Comparing the show to video-game storytelling, Carlton Cuse went on to say:

We also felt that since Lost was violating a lot of rules of traditional television storytelling, including having a large and sprawling cast and having very complex storytelling, we felt that videogames were one model that showed that if audiences get invested, they love complexity. In fact, the more complexity the better, and the challenge of that complexity was an asset as opposed to a liability. Those are the games that people actually respect, you know?

As for the characters, even though an ensemble cast is far from being new, Lost distinguished itself from others thanks to the innovative “centric” aspect.
And regarding the mythology, well it seems to span literally thousands of years, though we’ll have a lot of things to say about that in the coming days.

Television storytelling was also revolutionized in another surprising way when, after a few months of back-and-forth talk between ABC and the Lost execs, an end-date for the series was announced on May 7th, 2007. Clearly, this move was done as a gesture towards the fan that both answers and the end were in sight. It was also an unprecedented move in network history that is unlikely to happen again, though it shaped in many ways other mythological series. Finally, the announcement led to three shorter seasons (around 15 episodes each), and, as we can see from the current renewals, such “cable seasons” are now becoming more and more in vogue.


Last but far from being least, we can now talk about the final two fundamental changes Lost brought to television storytelling: Crossmedia & Transmedia.
Simply put, crossmedia is distribution of one “story world” across multiple platforms, and transmedia is the usage of said platforms to tell the story.

Think of it this way: the ‘Lost world’ has many stories told through various mediums, the main one being the mothership (the television show on ABC). The rest of the (less important) side-stories can be told through, for instance, a series of books. This is crossmedia.
The show explored Information technologies as a way to distribute its stories. Case in point in December 2007 when Lost: Missing Pieces was launched on the Internet and mobile phones. The thirteen short videos (about three minutes each) were actually mini-flashbacks comprised of mostly deleted scenes. It wasn’t the first foray into mini-episodes (see 24 and Battlestar Galactica), but it certainly was the most effective of its time.

You also have transmedia, which is basically a more engulfing version of crossmedia. The most obvious example is what is called “Alternate Reality Game” (ARG), or, as Wikipedia describes it, “an interactive narrative that uses the real world as a platform, often involving multiple media and game elements, to tell a story that may be affected by participants’ ideas or actions.“
One of the best ARG was The Lost Experience in 2007. I won’t go here into the dirty deets of what made TLE so great (Ivan Askwith deconstructed the ARG pretty thoroughly in his paper), though I have to congratulate one of the masterminds behind it, Javier Grillo-Marxuach.
Though their later attempts were much less successful (Find 815, the Dharma Initiative Recruiting Project), what you had with TLE and other Lost crossmedia was a unified viewing experience that allowed the audience to decide on which level it wants to be involved with the series.
You could be an über-fan and follow The Lost Experience, or just a casual viewer and simply watch the series on TV.


At the end of the day, Lost may be most remembered for complex mysteries or lack of answers, but its most overlooked aspect will certainly be the one that will have the greatest impact on television: groundbreaking and timeless storytelling.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for Ten Spec Writing Rules (and why you should care)

While giving her ten spec commandments in an interview a few years ago, Jane Espenson thought that “this could be a good blog entry.“
She wasn’t wrong.

Her comment made me reminisce about some of the standard spec writing ground-rules. I find that having some does not hinder creativity, but rather focuses it.
Here’s a little (albeit detailed) reminder of some of them, starting with the most obvious.

- Don’t spec a dead show
For the love of God, we don’t want to know what Carrie did with Mr. Big’s underwear or Ross’ latest honeymoon with Rachel.
If the show is buried, leave it there.

- Don’t spec a show you want to get hired on
This might sound crazy for some but if you think about it, it’s pretty logical.
Of course there are first some legal issues that might become involved, but more importantly it’s hard for an outsider to nail a spec right on the money.
As Martie Cook explains it in Write to TV:

If you are anyone on the Desperate Housewives writing staff, you know each of the characters intimately […], you know absolutely every minor detail. As a freelance writer, no matter how much you study a show before you write it, you simply won’t have the same inside track that the show’s writers and producers do. It is quite probable that here and there throughout your script you may have things that are slightly off. [The Desperate Housewives writing staff] will no doubt pick up on the flaws in your script instantly.

Go for the next-of-kin, meaning the next show closest (regarding genre/voice/stories) to the one you want to get hired on.
There have been some successful rule-breakers, but these are extremely rare cases.

- Spec a show you like
Not speccing the series you’re aiming at doesn’t mean you shouldn’t write something you don’t like (if anything, it’s gonna show in your writing).
Don’t spec a show simply because it’s hot, but also because you’re into it and have some kind of appreciation for it.
Passion is what drives you to be a writer, so why not use the same fuel for your script?

- Don’t write mythological episodes
You know these little toys you had as a kid and didn’t want anyone else to touch?
Well the characters you’re using belong to someone else.
You’re allowed to play with them a bit, but the show-runner expects you to bring them back safely to him/her.
When you spec a show, go for the memorable stand-alone episode, not the big season finale.
If House suddenly learns he has a tumor, or Meredith Grey finds out she’s pregnant, you’re doing something wrong.
You can obviously play with characters’ relationships and/or use bigger mysteries/arcs, but one of the (many) questions you should be asking yourself is if your episode can neatly fit anywhere in a given season of the show. If the answer is yes, congrats, you’ve got a stand-alone episode.
This doesn’t mean though that your script should be pointless.
You need to provide the reader with an emotional ride, and perhaps even some thought-provoking content.
Use the already-defined protagonists; they’re here just for that reason.
For overly-serialized character shows you wouldn’t be able to understand without a Previously, the WB Writers’ Workshop advises to “set up your episode:”

If you are writing a serialized show (e.g. Gossip Girl or Grey’s Anatomy) please include a “Previously On” page that lists where your main characters are within the series when we come across them in your spec. This page should come after your title page and before your teaser.

- Dont write around new characters
You’re trying to prove that you can “blend in” a writing staff, and more importantly “get” the voice of a show.
Writing the backstory of Don Draper’s hairdresser might be fun, but it certainly doesn’t show how you can write the other Mad Men characters (the ones in suits and dresses).
And in case you’re wondering, limiting the amount of screen time a new character has doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any guest-stars.
If you’re writing a procedural, you will definitely need to introduce new people (victim, murderer, suspect, etc.), just make sure they’re not the protagonists of your episode.

- Don’t go for the obvious
If you have thought of it, chances are other writers on staff have too.
Think of why the show didn’t use that particular storyline.
The aim is to write better TV than what’s on TV. You have months, they have two weeks (at best).
Don’t be that guy/girl who throws an empty can of beer at your screen yelling “My dog can write better than that!”, and then come up with a body-switch episode.

- Don’t think too big, your spec must be realistically producible…
Jane Espenson once told the story behind a failed Star Trek spec she did:

It was all epic. And unfilmable. I had demonstrated a complete lack of ability to tell a story with an eye toward real-life budget constraints. And, as a result, I had ended up telling a story that they simply wouldn’t do on their show. Writing a filmable spec, keeping it small enough, is an important part of the process.

- ..but don’t expect it to get produced
Specs are mainly here to showcase your talent as well as show you can blend in a predetermined ensemble.
One of the greatest ironies of TV spec writing is that, even though you’re striving to prove you can successfully write a one-hour drama, your “proof” won’t be made.
You can use that to your advantage by going bigger on some of the stories.
Alex Epstein in Crafty TV Writing also makes an interesting point about censorship, and how your material can be “slightly edgier” to what’s on TV:

If you are going to push the envelope, it should be in a direction that the show would naturally take if the network censors were all on holiday that week.

With that said, don’t go too far. Although you can thematically go beyond the usual, don’t go overboard and start putting “fuck” every pages (unless it’s The Sopranos — but what the hell are you doing speccing a dead show?).
Like getting staffed on your specced show, there have been very rare instances (mostly in sitcoms) where specs ended up being made. There’s also that guy who got struck by lightning twice. You know what I mean.

- Keep it fresh
This is both about your choice of main storyline (who wants to see a rehash of a plot done to death?), as well as arcs you might have to use in your spec.
Your Grey’s Anatomy script about Izzy Stevens won’t be of much use now that Katherine Heigl is off the show.
Try to keep it updated enough so as not to make your spec stale. Doing this on a serialized show is obviously harder.
But like Botox, too much nip and tuck on your finished script, and it quickly becomes a mess.
As Jane Espenson puts it:

It’s better to let a spec show a few of the signs of aging than to keep fattening its lips and lifting its keister until even you can’t recognize it anymore.

Fellowships find that 6-month old scripts are fine as they consider it the correct amount of time for a good polish/new writing. However, if it’s a couple seasons old, cross it off.

- Watch, read, and study
Perhaps the single most important rule here.
You’re aiming to mimic an already-existing show and its format.
The best way to know how it works is to do the three things listed: watch their episodes, read their scripts, study their structure. If you can, you should definitely try to get your hands on the series’ bible (though that’s going to be a hard thing to do).
Ask yourself: What would a typical A, B, or C story be? How long are the teaser and the tag? Why are the act breaks here but not there? And for that matter, how many acts are there altogether? The list goes on. You should also have a feel of how the characters talk, and even think.
Basically know the show by heart.

Remember that this is art, not science.

You could forget about everything and write for the double-edged sword that is ‘stunt speccing.’ If you’re on top of your game and make the perfect script, kudos to you. However if not done correctly, it could bomb massively (and you’d have wasted a lot of time writing it).
Rules are meant to be broken, but some are also meant to be respected.

And since I did mention Jane Espenson’s own ten commandments of TV Spec writing, here they are:

- Don’t spec a show you don’t respect.
– Don’t make your spec about a guest character. Focus on the main character.
– Get sample scripts of produced episodes. Study them.
– Follow the show’s structure exactly.
– Find a story for your spec that plays on the show’s main theme.
– Don’t write an episode that resolves the show’s mystery or consummates its romance.
– Place the story turns at the act breaks, and give us a reason to come back after the commercials.
– In a comedy, spend time polishing the jokes, especially the last one of each scene.
– Spelling, formatting, clarity of stage directions – they really matter.
– Use strong brass brads.

Write on.


Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment