facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “BBF”

One Year of Writing (and Tips)

One of the major points of this blog, or at least supposedly, was to give interesting links, tips and thoughts around writing, both in general and especially regarding TV.
Hopefully, you appreciated and continue to appreciate the various thoughts gathered on the issue.

You’ll be Swimming with Sharks in no time.


Greatest reference ever?

As we saw again this week, I like to talk about the future of entertainment.
Nonetheless, in November I wrote a piece on “Why TV is where you must be“.
Although the article could be seen as an argument on why TV is a good place to be as a viewer, it is mostly in regards to why I (still) believe television is the best place to be, as a screenwriter.

Very early on I rounded up writing books dedicated to writing, especially television-wise, as well as the TV or Entertainment industry in general.
A lot of my earlier posts on writing were somehow linked to myths and heroes.

I had just seen The Dark Knight and was deep in my reading of Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces and was very into this whole “Hero/Myth” thing so I wrote two articles on “mythic structures and hero psychology”.
One more centered on TDK and heroes themselves:

It especially got me thinking about a post I read a while back about (super)heroes and their flaws.
I believe TDK correlates directly to that idea, especially for both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent.
To make a hero believable, we need him/her to be flawed. We need him/her to have limits. We need him/her to be vincible.
Bruce Wayne is a human that becomes a vigilante at night. But he is still a human behind his (too-much-technologically-advanced) suit. This is reminded to us early on in the movie when he is bit by a rottweiler (physical failing).

Another a more general one about structure and myths:

Structure has been analysed for centuries, even millenniums, way back when Homer wrote (or rather told) his Iliad.
In the last decades, this analysis has been transposed to scripts and screenplays. Scripts and movies were broken down and compared to other literary pieces to try to found out the common links, not the least of which being Robert McKee’s Story.
Besides script acts, and structures, “heroes arcs” and “heroes journeys” have been analysed and also broken down. These mythical archetypes lead obviously to mythic structures.
This is one of the specialties of mythologists, including Joseph Campbell.
Campbell wrote a fascinating book around his theories of the journey of archetypal heroes in various mythologies from around the globe. This book led to a memo written by Christopher Vogler (a development exec) to Disney studios about how to use Campbell’s book for screenwriting. This memo led to various critically-acclaimed movies Disney movies such as The Beauty and the Beast, Aladin and The Lion King. Vogler also worked on a small movie called Fight Club.
Soon after, Christopher Vogler expanded his memo and published a book around it where he explored not only Campbell’s work (and Jung’s) but expanded it to correlate directly to screenwriting.

Continuing on straight tips and links, there were some about the basics of script registration, an interest technique to land a job on television, as well as interesting online links (when I’m too lazy).

One of the most vital writing step in breaking in TV is making a spec script.
Back in March, I gathered some info to make a guide on “What is hot and what is not” to spec.
I also made a guide to Spec Flashpoint.

Education-wise, I unearthed a secret Showrunner program at UCLA’s TFT.
And last but not least there were a few TED talks on creative writing and technology.

Hope you got some good advice out of those articles and you’ll be able to get some writing done.
An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
A page a day keeps your procrastination at bay.
Speaking of scripts, see you tomorrow.

Tips and stories from around the Web

Even though we’re soon arriving to this wonderful blog’s one-year anniversary, I currently have a bit less time to post exciting fresh content.
Don’t worry though, it’s coming.

In the meantime however, other peeps out there have been much more fruitful in their postings.
Case in point with what I found in the last few days:

First up, a nice article that you probably have read by now at John August’s great blog.
It’s a first-person account by a “25-year old nascent screenwriter” named Jonny Sommers of what it’s like being a showrunner’s assistant: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Continuing on the great insight of a writers’ room, we have a Life executive producer (Diana Peterson) interviewing a Life writer’s assistant (Melissa Scrivner).
Again, an informative interview that nicely sums up what it takes to be an assistant in H-Wood.

Two perfect almost-how-to guides in becoming a writer’s assistant.

Moving up the ladder, both Variety and THR have Emmy-centered articles around the site, including a couple that I found interesting:
Emmy Watch: Writer-Director is a post about how many writers have become directors and vice-versa, playing both fields (Movie/TV) at the same time.
On the other hand we have a pretty self-explanatory article with Emmys ignore writing staff contributions, about how all TV shows are really a group-effort (especially comedies) yet the Emmys with their individual noms “leave no room for collaboration”.

Nikki Finke has one of those rare interesting post telling about how The Hangover came to be.

And finally, we have a more humorous link with SideReel‘s Honest Network Taglines.
Sneek peak:

If I were to speak on the networks’ behalf, I would say “Touché“.

Syfy is a serious condition, please consult your doctor immediately.

By now, you most likely have heard about the Sci Fi channel name rebranding.

I like how there’s a massive backlash going on around regarding the change, and for good reasons.

Says Tim Brooks:

We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi. […] But even the name Sci Fi is limiting.

Seriously?

Let me get this straight.
You want to change everything from your logo to your slogan, and from the brand to your core audience (you know, the one that made you what you are now). And do all that for absolutely no reason at all (given the channel’s top-10 network status)?

Distancing yourself from the SF pseudo-“geeks” just by changing the name and the logo is not going to get you very far, and it’s downright disrespectful.

Tim Brooks adds:

The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular.

I think you lost me there somewhere.

You can’t both loose your core audience (by literally insulting them) and at the exact same time try to make them stay to watch the very thing you lost them on.

That’s like saying you make quality science-fiction products and then you put Battlestar Galactica next to something called Spring Break Shark Attack.
Oh, wait.

Jason Ramboz said it best:

You continue to perpetuate the very stereotypes from which you wish to distance yourselves. Instead of acknowledging what the literary and academic worlds have known for at least two decades, that SF is more than just “space, aliens[,] and the future,” you’d rather continue to sucker audiences in with lowest-common-denominator drivel and derivatives of ideas that intelligent audiences were calling inane ten years ago.

Exactly.

Many will tune out after the Battlestar Galactica finale.
I personally will continue to watch some of the “Syfy” original series (most likely not on the actual network though).
The channel has some great new shows coming up.
Namely Warehouse 13.

As for the other series, it’s funny how Sci Fi (or is it Syfy now?) tries to detatch and distance itself from what has come before the change.
And by that I mean they’re making spin-offs.

You want to rebrand yourself by trying to cash in on the same stuff you revile?
Way to go!

Sci Fi Channel’s attempt at rebranding is utterly ridiculous, especially when there is going to be massive rating drops starting next week.
Add that to spin-offs no one will watch because the audience is being dissed, and you get a total disaster.

Implosion in 3, 2, 1…