Writing

Post image for Focus on Writing for Genre Television

Focus on Writing for Genre Television

by Alex on August 29, 2010

in Daily Business,Entertainment Talk,Writing

On Friday evening was a round-table at Meltdown Comics featuring some of the greatest minds behind the best genre TV series currently on the air.
The panel was hosted by Sax Carr & Tim Powers and entitled ‘Writing for Genre Television.‘
It was comprised of the following awesome people:
– Amy Berg
– Josh Friedman
– Bob Goodman
– Javier Grillo-Marxuach
– Deric A. Hughes
– Ashley Miller
– Benjamin Rabb
– Laura Valdivia

Since there wasn’t much to do on a Friday afternoon, I decided to come to Meltdown Comics way earlier.
Turns out, that was pretty pointless, though I did buy a couple of comics and graphic novels.
Anyhow, once it was finally time to sit down into the Meltdown Gallery, it quickly became clear that we were going to wait some more as Josh Friedman hadn’t yet arrived.
Fortunately for everyone already present (and especially Javier’s appetite), a deliciously disgusting food truck was present on the scene of the crime.

And once everyone was ready, it was time to shine.
The panel was very fun and informative with a lot of awesome writing advice.
Probably (one of) the greatest and most memorable was undoubtedly Ashley Miller’s three rules every writer should abide to:
1) Write every day.
2) If you can’t write, read.
3) Finish things.

Javier had his own version of these same rules:
1) Write every day.
2) If you can’t write, read.
3) If you can’t read or write, then you’re illiterate.

A few writing debates were raised throughout the night.
The first was about the (non)inclusion of inside jokes into a genre show.
Josh Friedman apparently got mad one day after one of the writers snuck the name of a fan inside a script.
Why?
Constructing a believable genre world takes a lot of time and credibility, which can be instantly ruined by a mere ‘wink’ to the audience. This is tantamount to breaching the fourth wall.
It’s however a totally different thing if the in-jokes are part of the world itself and pop-culture talk is relevant to the characters (the example given was that of two characters talking about red shirts on Warehouse 13).

You are also doing something very wrong if you are stating the obvious in your dialogue.
If someone says either “Listen. Everybody knows that…” or “Now let me get this straight…”, rethink your entire scene. Josh also said the same about someone reading a case-file (therefore listing a person’s background to the audience).

Then came the delicate subject of killing off (regular) characters.
Sax Carr kind of wrongfully used Doyle’s death in Angel as an example of a gutsy move to kill a main cast member so early on in a series. Though that was quickly proven to be a bad choice as Doyle was in reality killed for practical (read: on-set) reasons, not creative ones. The point is that certain decisions made by writers are not always made solely for the sake of the story. They can also be done because of contractual or even personal obligations.
Another on-screen death discussed was Derek Reese being (randomly) killed by a Terminator (in The Sarah Connor Chronicles). In my mind, this still represents one of the greatest and balsiest deaths on a TV series.
If you’ll recall the episode in question, Brian Austin Green’s character was swiftly killed in action by a Terminator. No dramatic music, no smash cut to black, no heroic sacrifice. Just one minute he’s there, and the next he’s gone.
And we move on.
This is exactly why this death is so memorable. As explained by Josh himself, Derek was a soldier, and not all soldier die in the glory of battle. Derek knew he was going to die at some point and he accepted that.
If anything, his death made the world even more real.
Unsurprisingly, this gutsy decision had to be battled for by the writing staff (which even before that had a debate about it amongst themselves, raging for weeks).
The writers on the panel did tend to agree though that now act breaks and cliffhangers are not really about ‘life or death’ situations, rather about personal character stakes (see Breaking Bad).

This doesn’t bring me to the next topic, but I’ll talk about it anyways: anciliary online materials during the hiatus of a show, such as ARGs or webisodes. Is it becoming an obligation?
There again, the consensus seemed to be that it was a two-way street. The networks want it, and the writers love it. It’s just a question of finding the right balance between the two needs.
It is also difficult to make the ‘extra-curricular’ content canon. Case in point with The Lost Experience. Javier talked about his experience crafting, arguably, the best TV ARG made and how, even though the story explained the true meaning of Lost’s numbers, fans just wouldn’t accept this as an answer.

The panel continued with a question about the zombie (sub)genre and if there is anything left to tell in it.
The bottom line of the discussion that followed was this: Regardless of the genre you want to work on, your story needs to be about something. You can’t say “my story is about vampires,” but maybe it’s more a coming-of-age story? (akin to Jessica in True Blood) It is also not because you’re introducing X or Y into the pot that you’re “elevating” the genre, that’s just ridiculous.
If the allegory works then go for it, but you shouldn’t start a project just to use a creature.

Last but not least, there was also some talk about…exposition.
I know, it’s a pain for us all.
Exposition can sometimes be delivered successfully by actors, but everyone agrees that it is best not to write an expository scene or dialogue. Rather, do both exposition and character at the same time. Every scene in your script should hold more than one piece of information.
On the same line of thought, Javier added that every scene and every story can potentially be brought back to the same basic rhythm of three (beginning, middle, end). He used as an example an early scene in Saving Private Ryan that used the same principle as a joke (set-up, development, pay-off) but wasn’t necessarily one to begin with.
If a scene isn’t working, maybe that’s one of the reasons.

So there you have it.
I’m sure there’s a lot I didn’t put down here, so once a video of the event is online, I’ll be sure to edit it in.
Until then, happy writing.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

What the World Cup can teach you about television writing

by Alex on July 11, 2010

in Daily Business,Entertainment Talk,Featured Posts,Writing

Post image for What the World Cup can teach you about television writing

As the 2010 World Cup in South Africa is about to close, you might come to realize that association “soccer” football is closer to the world of television writing than you realize. You don’t have to be a fan, or even care about football to appreciate a few valuable lessons that can be applied to TV writers.
Let’s start off with the most obvious.

Be in shape to play the game
For the same reason you don’t see overweight people running around the field, you won’t see a professional TV writer who is ignorant of act breaks, A/B/C stories, character arcs, script formatting and grammar.
Learn, write, and learn again.
You don’t need to be a master at everything, but at least be aware of the rules before playing.

You don’t have to be big to become big
I’m a firm believer that, even if you’re an unknown, at the end of the day everyone has their shot.
Take a cue from underdogs like Uruguay, Ghana and, yes, the U.S., whose teams managed to defeat and even outlast most of the favorites. Finalist Spain was even beaten in the group stage by Switzerland!
It’s not because people don’t see you right now as important that you won’t be in the near future. You can aim high.
Trust yourself and your writing.

Be ready
Upsets and surprises can happen anytime, whether on the field or in real life. Hollywood is an unpredictable place (except for the weekly superhero movie), so when opportunity comes knocking, you better have your awesome specs ready. In football, the offense must be at all times prepared to receive the ball, and score. Do the same.

Don’t be cocky
You’ve heard the adage, “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Well even if you’re halfway there, you still need to make the next step. Translation: even if the writing job you’re given isn’t what you’ve dreamed of, think twice before saying no. You can be sure someone else is ready to tackle you and take that job in your place, and you might regret it. If you drop the ball, you will lose it.

Passion is key
Being a soccer player in America is kind of like being a television writer. It’s a full-time gig, you’re underpaid compared to other writers/athletes at the same level, and no one outside your profession takes you seriously.
So why do you really want to become a TV writer?
Ironically, the U.S. team went far because of their gusto. You could feel from their game that they were playing because they loved the sport, they loved their teammates, and they loved to give a hundred percent of themselves for it all.
On the other hand, spoiled Italian and French players were “playing” as if it was a burden. The passion was gone.
Please, don’t be that guy.
Find a way to remind yourself daily of why you want to be a TV writer.

Don’t put all your eggs in one basket
If this World Cup showed us anything, it is that favorites may not be as amazing as previously thought. Brazil, Italy, Argentina, Portugal, England, how many of them ended up disappointing their fans – and the people who bet on them.
Instead of going all-in by supporting your one script, you need to have a wide variety of specs ready to show. You might have a favorite, and that’s okay, but don’t let it deter you from writing other spec scripts from other genres and formats.
You came here to write, prove it.

It’s a team sport before all
Perhaps the greatest comparison between television and football is that both are based on team play. Everyone is working together to attain a common goal (literally). You will be surrounded by teammates, so play ball (figuratively). Pass it around, trust your comrades, and respect the process. No matter how great, rarely can a single player save the whole team. Case in point this year with Messi and Ronaldo.
If you put faith in other people, the ball will come back around (in a good way).
With that said…

Take the shot
Don’t expect that everyone will constantly be holding your hand (or foot for that matter). If you’re lucky, you might be guided along the way by kind writer souls (aka mentors), but when everything is in alignment, you need to score. There can be so many passes between the players before someone needs to step up. Sometimes, it is good to take the initiative.

Know that people will blame the coach
There will come a time where you will be an exec, and perhaps even a show-runner.
The sad truth is that, like in football, the main guy who gets blamed for all the problems is the coach (you). Yes, we just said it was a team sport, but still. Whether with the audience (“that episode was sh*t!”), with the VP (“that episode was expensive!”), or with your players (“fire him or I quit!”), when something goes wrong, you will be at fault.
Nine times out of ten, you will need to accept this and move on. The one time you might pull a Fabio Capello, and get your contract renewed, even if all has failed.

The game is sometimes unfair
Like with Suarez’s handball which prevented Ghana from moving on, you might be surprised at some of the tactics used by some to move ahead, as well as the shows being made compared to those that aren’t. This is no reason to be bitter at other people’s success. Embrace this opportunity to prove once more your originality.

Never lose hope
Even if you think you’re outplayed and you may get eliminated, never despair. The best example this tournament is undoubtedly Landon Donovan’s last-minute goal. This example actually can be extrapolated to the entire performance of the U.S. team. Indeed, in every game they seemed to be both outmatched and losing (1−0 for England, 2–0 for Slovenia, 1–0 for Ghana), but every time, the team was able to overcome their apparent inferiority and actually transform a downside into an upside. The team was reacting instead of suffering.
When you are down, get out of this vicious circle and realize that you can get back up.
This brings me to my next point.

If at first you don’t succeed, try again
We’ve had our fair share of incredible matches with the German team, but the semi-final where Spain defeated them was for most non-aficionados a bore. Why? Not a lot of goals means no action, right?
The truth is that during the whole 90 minutes of play, both teams were probing each other’s defense, trying to find holes, and exploiting them to score.
It might not have been spectacular for outside viewers, but it is very effective.
In the TV world, this can be compared to ideas being pitched.
You might not be able to get them through the first few times, but the more you try, the greater your chances are at having a few of them heard, and perhaps getting made. It takes some work, and a lot of patience, but with such fierce competition on the other side, you can’t expect to score on your first try.

Believe in yourself.
Write the future.
Score.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for Show, Don’t Tell: Mamet’s rules and Breaking Bad

Show, Don’t Tell: Mamet’s rules and Breaking Bad

by Alex on March 24, 2010

in TV Analysis,Writing

David Mamet wrote a few years ago a letter to his writing staff on CBS’ The Unit talking about what makes drama (written in caps).
This is a must-read for everyone involved with writing.
As Amy Berg described it: “Check out the latest viral writing porn.”

Comments about the content follow the letter.

TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.

IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT *WILL* BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.

SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS *YOUR* JOB.

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY *CAME*. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET *WILL* LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO *FAILURE* – THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS *OVER*. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE *NEXT* SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE *PLOT*.

ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”

AND I RESPOND “*FIGURE IT OUT*” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE *ABOUT* HIM”.

WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE *WILL* BE OUT OF A JOB.

THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. *NOT* TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”

WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO *REALIZE* THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

YES BUT, YES BUT YES *BUT* YOU REITERATE.

AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.

*HOW* DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? *THAT* IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO *DO* THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.

FIGURE IT OUT.

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE *SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC*. IT MUST START BECAUSE THE HERO HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.

THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, *YOU* ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.

HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

DO *NOT* WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR *AND* HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. *MOST* TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE *RADIO*. THE *CAMERA* CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. *LET* IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS *DOING* -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY *SEEING*.

IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.

IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION, INDEED, OF *SPEECH*. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM — TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)

THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO *START*.

I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE *SCENE* AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT *ESSENTIAL*? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.

LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05

(IT IS *NOT* YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO *ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS* OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)

Although there is no one rule for writing “dramatic” scenes, I do find his various points thought-provoking.
What is also interesting is his rant about television not being like radio (despite its origins).
Seldom are TV shows treated with the same respect as movies, especially visually.
I recently listened to a Vince Gilligan interview linked last week where he did talk about how Breaking Bad, unlike any other series, “aims for the widescreen”, which is definitely something that can be both seen and sensed when watching the show.
Case in point in the season three premiere, where extreme wide shots were used to film an execution in the middle of nowhere (tip of the hat in this case to Bryan Cranston, who also was the episode’s director). This is still a visual medium, and this is a TV Show.
Paradoxically, Breaking Bad does employ a lot of great dialogue scenes which might seem to contradict the rule that “any logline reading “Bob and Sue discuss” is not describing a dramatic scene.” However there are also a lot of “silent moments”, and as Mamet says: “If you pretend the characters can’t speak, and write a silent movie, you will be writing great drama.“
It seems Breaking Bad is the current master in that department.

It is true that sometimes the audience doesn’t need that much information to watch a show (Lost anyone?), but can an entire episode sustain without any kind of exposition in it?
What do you guys think?


Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment

Ten Spec Writing Rules (and why you should care)

by Alex on March 20, 2010

in Featured Posts,TV Analysis,Writing

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

Drama Spec Script 2010 — What is hot and what is not

by Alex on March 17, 2010

in Featured Posts,News,TV Analysis,Writing

Post image for Drama Spec Script 2010 — What is hot and what is not


UPDATED:
A brand new 2012 list has been posted.
Click here to access it.


After criss-crossing several sources, it is now time to review what dramas are good to spec, and which are not.
As usual, when available, a sample script is offered for each show listed — usually the pilot episode.

Let’s do again a quick recap of how this works.

The shows are divided into five categories regarding their appeal to readers and how well they are known/read:
– Over-specced (shows that have passed their prime, try to avoid doing them)
– Mainstream (shows that have matured enough that they have become on-the-nose speccers — and a lot of people are speccing them)
– Wild Cards (soon, everyone will spec those, maybe you can get a head start)
– Outsiders (specs that will get you out from the pack)
– Gamblers (newcomers that could potentially become popular down the line — if they’re not canned first)

There is also a grade regarding the show’s longevity in relation to specs of said show.
Meaning, how long can you keep your spec script without having to throw it in the trash?
To do this, we use what I think is the greatest grading system on Earth; stars:
★★★★★ — Excellent
★★★★★ — Very Good
★★★★★ — Average
★★★★★ — Fair
★★★★★ — Poor

And here we go.


Over-Specced
Re-tool your spec if you have one, but you probably shouldn’t bother beginning a new one for those shows.

CSI/Law & Order (CBS/NBC)
Type: Police procedurals
Past their expiration date.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — Nothing’s A-Changin’ for this one. It still will get “real old, real fast.”

Dexter (Sho)
Type: Serialized crime drama
As predicted last year, the Dexter time has passed, killed by its own popularity (commonly known as the hotness monster).
Longevity: ★★★★★ — If you’ve seen the end of season four, you know what I mean when I say your spec won’t survive the fifth season premiere.

Grey’s Anatomy/Private Practice/House (ABC/FOX)
Type: Medical procedurals
It is harsh putting these three shows at the same level, but the truth of the matter is that they’ve all already been done to death(s), literally.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — Renewed, and renewed, and renewed.

Mad Men (AMC)
Type: Serialized historical drama
This might be a surprise for some, but it’s the same reasoning as 30 Rock: everyone is doing it. Sure, you won’t go wrong with a Mad Men spec, but it certainly won’t be an original choice.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — And not only that, but who knows what’s going to happen with all the massive changes at the end of last season? You would need to stumble on major plotlines to get this spec going, which is never good.


Mainstream
The current and new widespread shows in town that are getting read.

Bones (FOX)
Type: Police procedural
Still a mainstream procedural that’s probably living its last year(s) as a tangible spec.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — Doesn’t mean the show is going to die soon though (you know, strong ratings and all that).

Breaking Bad (AMC)
Type: Serialized character/family drama
Although it was last year a “Wild Card”, the series has now become pretty much mainstream, replacing Mad Men as one of the most sought-out speccable shows. As much as this is true, I would still not recommend beginning a new spec for three reasons: first, the show is way more popular than you’d think (meaning more competition), second it’s heavily serialized, and third…
Longevity: ★★★★★ — …the end of season two hinted at a different character dynamic altogether for season three. See Mad Men on why that could be problematic.

Chuck (NBC)
Type: Light spy/action procedural
On the one hand, Chuck is still an offbeat drama that has a lot of potential, so you shouldn’t throw your current spec out the window.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — On the other hand, the series recently scored its lowest rated episode ever. Beyond that however, the status quo is simply not quo anymore, so it’s hard to find the correct balance between serialized stories and “mission of the week.”

Fringe (FOX)
Type: Police/Science-fiction procedural
At this point, the show is more fantasy-fiction than science-fiction. With that said, its procedural side is undoubtedly attractive to many.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — It got beaten hard in its new Thursday timeslot, and despite this, the notoriously-fickle FOX network renewed it. Yeah, it’s safe. Plus, the core dynamics of the show will probably not change much in these next episodes.

Gossip Girl/90210 (The CW)
Type: Teen dramas
When it comes to this subgenre, there’s no debate that, yet again, these are the shows to spec.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — The CW is hanging tight on those two.

The Mentalist (CBS)
Type: Police procedural
Surely the hottest specced procedural right now. Maybe you can play with the Red John storyline.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — This one is pretty much safe.

True Blood (HBO)
Type: Serialized fantasy drama
At one point an “Outsider”, it has now become surprisingly common. I say surprisingly because it is a hard speccer, given both its dense mythology and the fact that it is based on a series of books.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — HBO is certainly not going to can it. Maybe you can predict the future of the show via said novels, but Alan Ball has already changed major stuff. Would your season one spec really fit into a season three narrative?


Wild Cards
Not quite fully widespread but will get there given the chance.

Burn Notice/Psych (USA)
Type: Light action and crime procedurals
Although less popular than a few months back, story ideas have not been exhausted yet…
Longevity: ★★★★★ — …and USA isn’t letting them go anytime soon.

Caprica (Syfy)
Type: Serialized science-fiction drama
This category choice might also surprise some people. If you look at Caprica, unlike the early days of Battlestar Galactica (or SGU), you don’t have a standard formula, at least regarding a potential ‘procedural’ aspect. There are overarching stories that more or less get expanded throughout the various episodes, but you don’t have a stand-alone crisis each episode. If you do decide to spec this, tread lightly…
Longevity: ★★★★★ — …especially considering the regular character and mythological developments, as well as its lukewarm ratings.

Castle (ABC)
Type: Police procedural
Will most likely take over Bones’ place in the spec world.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — Strong 10PM ratings means its nearly-assured renewal. Its classic ‘case of the week’ format is also a crowd-pleaser.

Glee (FOX)
Type: Light serialized high-school drama
Probably one of the most difficult specs out there, despite its overwhelming popularity. It is indeed hard to get past the serialized aspect of the series, as well as its primary use of popular songs which contradicts with the need for a spec script to be realistically producible.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — Glee is definitely in for the long run. Try to be careful with the arrival of new cast-members and soapy twists.

Leverage (TNT)
Type: Light heist/con/action procedural
Most likely will become one of the hottest spec, the series proved this season it could go beyond the basic “con of the week” and offer actual season-long arcs (and big pay-offs). Regardless, the show’s procedural formula can still be applied to your spec. John Rogers’ blog has tons of other behind-the-scenes info about the writing.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — A major drama for TNT getting renewed early. I would say wait until the season three premiere (and Gina/Sophie’s comeback) before going the hands-on approach.

NCIS:LA (CBS)
Type: Police procedural
A spec as worthy now as its older brother was in its heydays…
Longevity: ★★★★★ — …thanks in part to phenomenal ratings.

Southland (TNT)
Type: Police procedural
The little cop show that could. Saved by the bell, it is still the underdog police drama on TV and a speccer with great potential.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — Don’t take it as granted though: the ratings are going down fast. You should wait for a definite yes from TNT before beginning a breakdown.


Outsiders
The shows (mostly cable) you may be tempted to take a risk on, getting you on top of the reading pile. Beyond that, it depends on the willingness of the reader and his/her knowledge of the show. Who knows, maybe the showrunner is into less popular shows and will value your risk-taking.

Eureka/Warehouse 13 (Syfy)
Type: Science-fiction procedurals
Yes, believe it or not they are getting specced; and for good reasons. Stand-alones are easy to place inside any of their seasons. Even Eureka, soon in its fourth season, still has some spec potential as a procedural. Not to mention the fact that there are not many other science-fiction shows out there.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — You can count on them being on TV for some time, and major mysteries/arcs can be easily avoided in a potential story.

The Good Wife (CBS)
Type: Legal procedural
IT is hard to define this show, but one thing’s for sure: it will become a hot speccer very soon.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — You shouldn’t be worried for Julianna Margulies anymore, she has found her goldmine.

Stargate: Universe (Syfy)
Type: Serialized science-fiction procedural
This might seem antinomic, but the truth is, SGU is way more serialized than its two predecessors. Still, some episodes can center around the usual “problem of the week,” and therefore give a more procedural aspect to the show, which makes it much more speccable than you’d think.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — Long live the Stargate franchise. Be careful that future episodes don’t change major events in your spec.

White Collar (USA)
Type: Light crime procedural
This year’s dark horse, it could down the line become a major speccer for light procedurals.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — It definitely seems it’s going to be here for a few seasons.


Gamblers
For one reason or another, these are much riskier specs to do right now. You have been warned.

Dark Blue (TNT)
Type: Police procedural
This is a gambler simply because it is virtually unknown compared to the other police procedurals. This might be a good thing usually, but I’d hold off speccing this…
Longevity: ★★★★★ — …until it’s deep into its second season and more acknowledged.

Human Target (FOX)
Type: Action procedural
As virtually the only reliable (formula-wise) action-drama on television, you’d think it would be the go-to show to spec. But if you look at it more carefully, there are just too many unknown variables for now.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — If anything, the series is in strong danger of getting canceled. Try to wait for a renewal before starting on your script.

Parenthood (NBC)
Type: Serialized family drama
Are you seriously considering speccing this one? Let’s get real.
Longevity: ★★★★★ — Despite a possible second season, already finding a formula you can lean on for your spec is near-impossible this early.

With over thirty shows reviewed, we can spot of few trends.

Showtime is almost totally absent from this list mainly because of their lack of dramas (they’re more into half-hours it seems). FX is also not listed thanks to their current programming renewal. The basic-cable shows from AMC, TNT, and even Syfy and USA, continue to rise on the spec market.

A lot of new shows are already getting specced right off the bat, primarily due to some early pick-ups, shorter seasons, and dying classics.
I would advise against getting too invested into a spec unless you know for sure the show has been renewed.
Besides the cancelation factor, you also have to consider if the show is heavily serialized or not.
I didn’t include series like FlashForward, V, or even Sons of Anarchy, as they are all nearly impossible to spec at this time. Your spec would be hard to put into “stasis mode” due to the ever-changing storylines.
(Semi-)Procedurals are still the norm, though a lot more serialized shows are getting some sense of success. Even what appear to be classic procedurals such as The Mentalist still have a few arcs you can play with.
The bottom line is the same as usual: chose a show that reflects your voice, your aspirations, and what you like. You really do have a wide array to choose from.

So now, let me ask you this: What are you speccing?


Email This Post Print This Post

20 comments

Page 5 of 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
13