facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “Games”

Seven Years of Featured Posts

Let’s begin the celebration of seven years with some of our classic TV Calling featured posts.

It used to be you’d pin a post to the top of your blog, and call it featured. Well–
“Featured Post” is somewhat of an outdated concept with this site, especially since we’ve never really had a slider to begin with (*shudder*). TV Calling has been a mostly linear design, with a few in-depth articles highlighted occasionally. And since I now only post worthwhile content, everything is highlighted (i.e. everything is a de-facto featured post).

We’ll take a closer look at the TV writing and TV business sides in more details (starting tomorrow), but in the meantime, I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight a few forgotten gems from our earlier days.

Our very first featured post was, unsurprisingly, a crazy rant of mine on why I hate French “television”.
Although the French TV industry still has a lot of catching up to do, it’s refreshing to see the amount of progress from 2008. In fact, I’m writing this very post from Paris (not the one in Texas) so I’m getting to see a few recent French TV shows. Not the worst.
It’s also funny to see that a few French shows have even made waves in the US (namely Les revenants).
I also attended last October at the Writers Guild Theater the second edition of “Direct to Series”, a “showcase dedicated to French television series”. No, I didn’t bawl my eyes out.
Speaking of International fanfare, a few of my other earlier featured posts were about visa/green card issues. We’ll get back to those when I post about “Seven Years of My Life 101 (or Life of Alex)” on Saturday.

When it comes to story issues, I wrote back in 2008 about mythic structures and hero psychology.
The instigating post was mainly focused on The Dark Knight (I had just seen it), in relation to the concept of flawed (super)heroes.
The second one, still an off-shoot about hero psychology, was on Joseph Campbell’s books–and how others have tackled a variety of issues through the prism of screenwriting.

Vices, virtues and dilemmas should also not be forgotten in the world of screenwriting. Identifying the “moral premise” behind a story is essential to understanding why this particular story touches us, affects us. It is also what will ultimately give dimension and consistency to a great story. Few books deal with this in direct correlation with screenwriting. The Moral Premise by Stanley D Williams appears to be right on target by clearly and easily linking past and present stories, both in theory and practice.

On the other side of mythical stories and structures we have what is inside the character’s head, the character’s psychology. A lot of books have been written on the subject but few aimed at screenwriters. William Indick’s Psychology for Screenwriters seems to be one of the only books I have come across dealing exclusively with this. Comprehending the psyche of your characters can only benefit your writing and your story, especially in the television medium where characters are the medium.

Deep stuff.

As pointed out previously, the concept of “featured post” has been phased out, with most articles now relating to TV writing or the TV business. We did have occasional floaters to mark events.

In 2009, Lordy had a series of very interesting guest posts on unsung artists (at the time): Don Bluth and Craig Ferguson. Of course, Craig Ferguson has since become more well-known, but Lordy’s posts are still worth the read.

I talked about technology, with the iPhone, the iPad, and the future of eBook readers.
I had a one-off interview with CSI:NY’s Hill Harper. Because why not.
I ranted about the unsavory televised spectacle that was Michael Jackson’s funeral.

During the first year of TV Calling, I wrote 11 movie reviews (8 based off of the screenplay).
My most popular was The Cabin in the Woods, which finally came out in theaters over three years after my article.
Others include The Box, Watchmen, Star Trek (the reboot), Inglorious Basterds (Cannes 2009 version), Buried, Prisoners (four years before it came out), Orbit (still waiting on production), Unknown White Male (two years before release), MacGruber, and Paul.

Movie talk still continued after. In the days of Ed Norton’s Bruce Banner, I took a look at “The latest about Marvel and DC Movies” and I brought up “five under-the-radar movies you should watch.” (A few of those have since gained notoriety.)
Given Hollywood’s fascination with IP, I had a talk about “Hollywood’s Trivial Pursuit of Games” (get it?), and most recently how “You die a brand or live long enough to become an IP“.
I also wrote about the advent of 3D (and Avatar) in a big way with three dedicated posts on the issue.

And, for some reason, there were these two amazing posts about: the Weinstein Company being on the verge of bankruptcy while doing a movie adaptation of the 1970 Broadway musical Pippin (“Pippin my studio: The Weinstein way of dealing with problems“); and Taylor Lautner trying to be Stretch Armstrong (“Taylor Lautner: Badder, Bulkier, and Sparklier“).

Good times. I can’t wait for the TV writing advice.

Survivor: A Storytelling Experiment

It’s a great time to be a Survivor fan.

The show is standing very strong, often finishing number one in its timeslot. Next season is ‘Second Chance‘ (Season 31). It is a very anticipated season for many reasons. For one, it is the first All-Star in over half a decade (third overall). It is also bringing back both new-school and old-school contestants, spanning the thirty seasons. And for the first time in its history, the choice in Survivor‘s casting is going to come down to people’s votes.
That’s right, there’s a big Survivor election campaign going on right now. All the famed contestants are becoming very involved with the various fan communities, and cranking a lot of awesome content all around. (Unrelated shout-out to Rob Cesternino‘s great podcast empire).

Survivor S22E10 Rice Wars Jeff ProbstDon’t get on Jeff’s bad side.

If you’re a TV Calling follower, you know that I’m a big Survivor nerd. Way back when, in the very first year of this site, I wrote about the show’s first HD season at the time (in Gabon). Although I used to watch the French version of the show (Koh-Lanta), I do believe the American version is truly superior. Both on a strategic/game level, and in terms of narrative. Yes, narrative.
There’s a reason why, thirty seasons deep, Survivor is more compelling than ever. And it ain’t just twists and backstabbing.

Sure, CBS Survivor is a great social experiment, but it is just as much an amazing storytelling experiment. I’d go so far as saying Survivor is still one of the best shows on TV as well as being, week-to-week, one of the best stories told on TV. Take great players/characters, put them in provocative dilemmas, and you have a recipe for thirty seasons of success. That’s your basic template, but like any great backdrop, it is only a stage for the story to be told. A structure with its own acts. Favorite characters get eliminated, underdogs rise to the challenge, rugs are pulled from under them.

An interesting example of Survivor storytelling is the now-iconic Survivor: Vanuatu (Season 9) and its winner, Chris Daugherty. Vanuatu came out right after the first All-Star in 2004, and it has been somewhat forgotten because of it (or at least gotten a bad rap). Daugherty is considered to be one of, if not the series’ unlikeliest (and most polarizing) winner. He blew the first immunity challenge on Day 3, and was on the chopping block in the first tribal council of the season. He was also the last man left standing by Day 27 (out of 39) in a “Men vs. Women”-type season. An underdog, he end up surviving an extra five (!) tribal councils, outlasting everyone to win and become the sole survivor.
Funny 115‘s Mario Lanza has argued that Vanuatu‘s entire structure was crafted around a very specific goal:

I have always believed that the producers of Vanuatu wanted to see what would happen if the men and the women really did have a gender war, like they had expected to have happen back in Amazon. So they baited the women in the first episode, they sent them into a furious “woman takes all” gender war, and it all backfired when Chris ended up taking home the million dollar prize. The producers did all they could, they did everything they could to ensure that the men would be hated and the men would then be destroyed.. and then it backfired in their faces when a borderline-sexist unlikable slob defeated everybody. So yes the producers got their gender war, yes they got the women (and the audience) to hate all the men, but no they didn’t get the winner they had been hoping for. And if Vanuatu ended up unpopular because of this, the producers really have nobody to blame but themselves.

Whether or not a “gender war” was really the goal behind the season, it is undeniable that the entire narrative of Vanuatu primarily revolved (and evolved) around this “Men vs. Women” mentality. Right down to its last twelve days and Daugherty’s last stand. He was an unlikable person in an underdog position within an unpleasant tribe. So who is the audience supposed to root for? Well, that’s up to you.

Survivor Vanuatu Cast PhotoPick the winner.

Survivor has over thirty seasons of complicated, compelling, and not-so-compelling story arcs. Sometimes the edit telegraphs the winner (so-called “winner’s edit”). A great season keeps the audience on its toes. Like any good story, you want to know what happens next, and you are surprised when it does. Survivor winners are no exception.
So, what makes or break Survivor? Simple answer: its players. Casting is truly the key component of the game.
As Jeff Probst said himself, what they’re looking for is a player who is “a great storyteller”. When you get a bad cast, you get a bad season. Survivor: Nicaragua (Season 21) is an infamous example of bad storytelling. Few compelling players, few compelling stories to tell. Survivor: Samoa is also a sore spot for most people, thanks to an edit that completely drowned every player (winner included), except for the villainous Russel Hantz. He would return in the following season, the second All-Star, aptly named Heroes vs. Villains (Season 20). HvV turned out to be one of the most seasons beloved of the franchise. It had great casting, great dynamics, and it concluded many “character arcs” of previous Survivor legends. The true tent-pole of the series so far.

Over the years, Survivor has crafted its own mythology of characters you want to see return (and some you wouldn’t). That is why the upcoming Second Chance is already such a fascinating season. Usually, when contestants are revealed to the public, it’s months after the season has been shot and edited. This time around, we get to interact and vote for the cast itself before it even begins. And it’s all returnees! On some (small) level, we are the instigators of the story.

Survivor Second Chance Voting Pool The 32 candidates for Second Chance. Worst. Yearbook photos. Ever.

This concept of players being characters in Survivor‘s bi-annual story didn’t get any more self-referential than on Survivor: Philippines (Season 25). All thanks to one of the best players to truly leverage the show’s own narrative: Jonathan Penner. He was playing his third go-around in Philippines when Penner actually said the following to The Facts of Life‘s Lisa Whelchel—all on the show itself:

I’m like a storyteller, that’s what I do, you know? Survivor is a big story. What’s the story that’s going to be told this season? Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Who are the underdogs? Who is the audience going to be rooting for? What does the audience want to have happen?

The audience is going to watch you, and they’re going to say, she’s being loyal, to the people that she’s been loyal to all along, and that is a wonderful thing. But they are not going to be happy that you are helping these three guys go further. And I’m not going to try to get you and Skupin to come over to my side, but I hope that you and Skupin do the right thing, and tell a better story.
Listen, I don’t want to get in your head, I’m not trying to, I’m just talking, this is just my perspective on story. And you’re in the thick of it. You might be the fulcrum character.

Talk about being meta.

Survivor S25E09 Jonathan PennerJonathan Penner deep in thought.

The trend has continued in recent seasons, with many players banking on projecting a specific persona and (trying to) craft their own narrative on the show. They’re usually unsuccessful. The production and editors—the real storytellers of the show—have their own narrative in mind (often dictated by the story they want to tell and/or the winner and major players). See the aforementioned Vanuatu.

This “meta” component of casting self-aware contestants might have reached its apex in the last few seasons. Players who were raised as fans of the show were referencing previous seasons in their own games (something production was vehemently against for the longest time). One of the show’s biggest fans famously even won Survivor a few seasons back. It will be interesting to see how it continues to evolve in years to come.

Bojack Horseman writer Scott Chernoof and Rick & Morty composer Ryan Elder recently started their own Survivor podcast: Snakes, Rats and Goats. This week, the duo chatted with one such player. Max Dawson, one of the players of this season and potential Season 31 returnee, taught a class on Survivor and is now media consultant. The three dug deep into the show’s storytelling and the narrative of it all. It is pretty insightful and I suggest listening to the episode (at least its first 90 minutes).

Earlier this year, NPR’s Linda Holmes did an engaging expository article on why she loves Survivor (I recommend any non-fan to at least take a gander). Holmes pointed out:

I’ve met a certain number of people who have been on these shows, and never have I thought, “Wow, my feelings were the result of careful editing, because this person is not the way they appeared on television at all.” Nor have I ever had one say, “You know this other person who was on the show with me? Really not the way they appeared at all; that was manufactured by the show.” People are more complicated than they seem, sure, but that applies in any setting — people you know only at work are more complicated if you see their home lives. All perspectives on other people are limited and lacking in nuance when they occur at a distance, whether it’s on television, on the internet, or in person.

The discussion about the role of storytelling in Survivor has really just begun. There’s a lot to say about the show and its narrative evolution over the years (thirty seasons and counting!), so it’s likely I’ll come back to it at some point.
In the meantime, I hope you appreciated this brief overview of the show. If you did, I recommend checking out the lineup for Second Chance, including the players’ videos, and how they present themselves. (You can even vote for some them!)

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.