facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “Mad Men”

Spoilers and Sweeps (Emmys 2015)

Everyone was predicting the ugly rise of monolithic Emmy sweeps due to the award’s change in voting process.

Last night confirmed everyone’s fear.

samberg emmys 2015

If you’re unaware of the Emmy voting change I’m referring to, it all boils down to a major shift in who decides the award winners.

Basically, the process went went from a small “blue-ribbon panel” of voters that could be supervised into watching the nominees’ screeners (and have some basic knowledge of said nominees), to everyone of the 19,000+ ATAS members being able to vote in their categories.
(You can read more about these new Emmy rules in Alan Sepinwall’s HitFix article and Todd VanDerWerff’s Vox piece.)

Theoretically, that’s an admirable idea. Power to the people!
In practice though, not everyone—and in fact virtually no one—watches the screeners. Since there are so many shows in competition, a lot of ATAS members and (now-)voters don’t know much about some shows on the ballot.
Things were so desperate that the Academy gave away Chromecasts to every member so they could stream the nominees’ episodes.
Even Andy Samberg himself mocked the mere idea of watching every major TV show on the air in the Emmys’ own opening song.

When you couple lack of nominee awareness with thousands voting based on name-recognition and not merit, you get one thing: sweeps.
No, not the ratings kind.

I’m talking a sweeping of important wins by singular “popular” shows. And for all intents and purposes, that’s what happened in all four major sections (Comedy/Limited/Variety/Drama).
When nominated respectively (with a couple exceptions), Veep, Olive Kitteridge, The Daily Show and Game of Thrones won all their awards.
HBO ended up shattering a record over 13 years long. Same with Game of Thrones, which beat The West Wing‘s previous win record with 12 Emmys (and all for its weakest season).
Even Peter Dinklage himself admitted on stage that Better Call Saul‘s Jonathan Banks deserved the win more than him.

What is this, the People’s Choice Awards?

dinklage emmys 2015
And did I mention “Mother’s Mercy” beat The Americans and three of Mad Men‘s finest episodes?
Shame!

Look, I understand having only a few dozen people decide who wins and loses isn’t the greatest.
But neither is putting the power in the hands of everyone without checking they actual can weigh merit in relation to all the nominees in play during that season.
When you hand that decision to 20,000 people, the award is watered down into an obvious “brand awareness” popularity contest instead of being based on qualitative judgments.

In fact, everything became so predictable with this year’s vote-switch that most people correctly predicted almost all winners of the major categories a while ago.
And here we are in the aftermath.

That isn’t to say there weren’t amazing winners among the lot.

I’m a fan of virtually all the acting wins.
Allison Janney was superb in her song rendition of her acceptance list. In fact, she should sing everyone else’s name-drops.
Congrats are equally in order to John Hamm (finally!) winning his long-overdue Emmy for Don Draper.
Viola Davis’ and Uzo Aduba’s speeches were in their own right fantastic, and historic.

viola davis emmys 2015

I do have to voice my disappointment in Amy Poehler’s lack of Emmy for Leslie Knope, an already-iconic TV character. Hell, it’s even a travesty that Parks and Recreation has been completely shut out of the Emmys (how has Nick Offerman never been nominated for his role as Ron Swanson?).

And no “Emmy acting” discussion would be complete without me mentioning Orphan Black‘s Tatiana Maslany also getting snubbed by the grand prize.
To be fair, who actually expected a win. We got lucky she was even shown on screen.
In a very dull, taped bit.
Ugh.

As for the other winners, it was great to hear Jon Stewart say goodbye to the ceremony (especially after he, with Colbert, gave us some amazing moments over the years).

Jimmy Kimmel was kind of a dick to the nominees and future winner of the best comedy lead actor category he was presenting.
Not only did he jerk the whole audience around, he destroyed and chewed a key piece of memorabilia for the winner: the Emmy winner’s envelope.
Maybe Jeffrey Tambor wanted to frame the envelope with his name written on it? All he got was that heavy golden trophy!

kimmel emmys 2015

Moving on to the actual show itself (because this is a post about the Emmy program as much as its outcome)…

Surprisingly, there weren’t any big “show-stopping” moments. It was overall a very low-key ceremony.
I enjoyed Andy Samberg’s stand-up routine, although he seemed pretty nervous during that opening monologue. I can’t blame it all on him—the audience was frigid (despite the 100-degree heat). People were probably trying to cool off and enjoy the AC after the 100-degree weather we’ve been having.
With that said, they had Scott Aukerman and the Lonely Island, yet the only other “moment” they were able to pull was that “Emmys Can Kill” song.
Okay.

emmys can kill

The one “big” show thing that happened was the laughable (and controversial) spoiler reel that aired.

Whose idea was it to show literally every final scene of this past year’s series finales?

I also did appreciate the last moments of the show, specifically seeing Tracey Morgan back on his feet and ready for the TV world.

tracy morgan emmys 2015

Overall, I’m not annoyed by this year’s Emmys as much as I’m disappointed in the predictable sweep outcome of this whole voting mess.

I really hope they either switch back to previous years’ model, or at least have some control over the voting process.
An idea would be to limit what you can vote for by having a basic way to verify actual knowledge of all nominees in the categories you’re voting for.

Until that happens, brand awareness will be the name of the game. Or to put it in other words: the Emmy Awards will entirely be the popularity contest they were always on the verge of becoming.

Seven Years of TV Analysis

We’ve taken a long glance at a lot of TV shows over the past seven years.
In fact, I’m usually pretty vocal about shows I love, and shows I…do not.

Before the age of Ultron TV marathons and binge-watching had arrived, I pointed out “why mythological shows are often idolized.” I’d probably broaden the scope to “serialized shows” now, but most of my points still stand:

In marathon-like screenings, the mind is somewhat submissive to the story told and the episode. The brain is passive, not active. You don’t have time to really think about the many twists and turns since you’re watching them unfold. You’re “eating” away the episodes, not “digesting” them. Everything will probably seem to blend into a unified storyline instead of finite stories broadcast every week or so with hiatus lasting months in-between seasons. Watching the first three seasons of Battlestar back-to-back won’t be the same thing as having been there since 2003.
For one thing, you didn’t theorize during Season One or Season Two. That might not seem all that important, but not being able to think for several months or years (or even only days in the case of a marathon) about who the twelve Cylons are won’t make you aware of how preposterous the introduction of the Final Five during the show’s third Season is. If you care a little bit about a show, you’ll surely think about it, start asking yourself questions. Let’s be honest, we all have way too much time on our hands and we love to theorize. Shows such as BSG or Lost work because you can theorize about them all day long… Until you can’t due to a faulty mythology.
Turns out, when watching episodes back-to-back you don’t have months to think about “what’s in the Hatch” or anything else that deserves theorizing. You’re not expecting special answers either, so you rarely end up disappointed either.

Since we’re on the topic, I did expand in another article on my love-hate relationship with Battlestar Galactica (as the show concluded six years ago).
And speaking of finished shows–
There was this post on why Dollhouse might be renewed, and a counter-post on why Dollhouse would be canceled. Turns out I was right on both ends. It would get a second season, thanks to some of the elements I brought up, and then subsequently would get canned, again mostly due to the aforementioned reasons. Looking back, it’s interesting to see that even at the time I was alluding to the concept of “brand” for writers. Namely, Joss Whedon’s geek appeal. (Part of which would get him the Avengers gig later on.)

As I said previously, I often voice (or write) my opinion on shows, even if it’s a negative one. One such example (and disappointment) was with the series premiere of FlashForward. For over a year, I had hyped the show. I loved the script, Iloved the cast, I was anxious for the final result. Unfortunately, the finished product left a lot to be desired:

Overall, what worked on the page didn’t work on screen.
I don’t blame the writing though, I blame the plain directing and editing.
A two-hour premiere would probably have given enough time to develop both the story and the characters. Sadly, this wasn’t the case. Better luck next time.

Although more optimistic, Lordy wrote at the time about two cult-adjacent series in Better Off Ted and Medium.

In science-fiction show news, I expanded on the unoriginality of Fringe. First I tackled its resemblance to The X-Files, before comparing its alt-world dichotomy to that of Sliders.
And we shan’t forget Heroes, now incidentally coming back from the dead. During its third season, I explained why Heroes should not set an end date.

Haters gonna hate.

Case in point: my 2009 article on the heydeys of Mad Men, or as I called it, “Mad Men: demystifying the overhyped“.

When a single series occupies 80% of all writing nominations despite obvious worthy contenders, when Times Square dedicates a whole evening to said series’ season premiere, when virtually everyone declares it the best series of the year, no matter how good the show actually is, that’s Mad Men.
And Mad Men is being overhyped.

Finally, let’s transition to more positive thinking, and three of our biggest talking points over the past seven years: Lost, Star Trek, and Breaking Bad. Trek was more writing (and Terran)-related, the other two were about their end.
To celebrate all three, we dedicated for each an entire week of brand new in-depth articles. Kind of like what we’re doing now with this site, except with original content.

The first one was the end of Lost, and our Lost Week. On top of articles covering Lindelof/Cuse quotes, Lost parodies and the future of the brand, my main focus was on a big aspect of the show: how Lost revolutionized TV storytelling. One example were its use of flashforwards:

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.

On September 2013, I decided to spec and release a pilot for a new Star Trek show (Terran). We already covered that aspect earlier in the week, which is why I wanted to bring up another post I did on the subject: “Why Star Trek?” — The State of an Enduring Franchise. Beyond my own spec experiment, it was a way to express why we needed (and still need) a new Star Trek series. Here’s a taste:

One of the most interesting trait of the genre has always been that it could serve as an echo of reality. And the world desperately needs a reflection of itself.
You could make a pretty long list of contemporary issues that are begging to be explored (surveillance, social class, role of government, etc.). These are issues that would still be prevalent within the Trek-verse. In fact, the franchise has always been great at taking on societal and moral issues throughout its series (some more contemporary than others).

Even more importantly, Star Trek endures because it always has been forward-looking.
Star Trek stands for hope. Reaching for the sky and going where no one has gone before. It is sending a positive outlook about people. A better humanity, united, and equal. We need Star Trek on TV to inspire society, but also a new generation, people growing up to be explorers in their fields. This is about believing in a better future and striving to better ourselves.

We need a new Star Trek series, not for the fans of the franchise, but for everybody else. We need it for the bigger picture.

What a rallying cry!

Last but certainly not least, we had the end of Breaking Bad, and our Breaking Bad Week. I’m actually even happier with the amount of great, thoughtful articles we did on the show. (Maybe I’ll edit a book with these fancy posts!)
I covered the amazing experimental storytelling of Breaking Bad:

The show took the time to breathe and embrace the real world around it, and feed the humanity of its characters. Consequences and repercussions mattered because of the time spent at building these relationships, this status quo being broken apart. Like a steady hand on the wheel, it knew where it was heading towards. It was spending its time on meaningful moments. Bad was about real emotions, real greed, real jealousy, real fear. All of it stemming from smaller scales. The series was not trying to milk these moments, it was trying to establish context. Even in the craziness of season five, you still had family moments and humorous moments, like Skinny Pete and Badger’s Star Trek conversation.

We talked about the realism of Breaking Bad:

The show was hyper-serialized, and given its time-frame (one year within the story), it couldn’t afford being “ripped from headlines” topical. Nonetheless, it was still relevant. We’ve already seen how the series embraced its everyday roots by showing the “moments between the moments”. And the show proved to be even more receptive to its cartel storylines. Most notably, in the second season, the now-iconic image of a drug informant getting beheaded (and later put on a tortoise). “Extreme” moments that are, actually, completely believable (and similarly happened later in real life). Another great example of an atypical sequence is Los Cuates de Sinaloa’s narcocorrido track inspired by Heisenberg in 2×07 (“Negro Y Azul”). Narcocorridos are traditional Mexican songs with lyrics usually inspired by illegal criminal activities, often cartel-related. Although not a music genre well-known in the States, it nonetheless cements his story within the “real world”.

We braced ourselves for the failings of Breaking Bad:

As a fervent viewer of the show since day one, that season two buildup was one of the biggest cock-teases in recent TV history. It wasn’t as bad as Lost’s smoke monster, or Battlestar Galactica’s Cylon plan, but for a season-long mystery, it was definitely a miniature version.
It may not play out the same now, as you binge-watch the show, but when it came to a weekly viewing, the resolution of such an extended teasing was nothing short of a slap in the face.

A little too harsh? Only time will tell.

And then we talked about the legacy of Breaking Bad, most notably its serialized binge-viewing:

With the advent of Netflix and other great streaming services, Breaking Bad was able to capitalize on its serialization where other shows had previously failed. Word-of-mouth coupled with amazing cliffhangers (i.e. the need to watch the next episode) cemented its online boom.
It started out as a niche show that caught on with the popular success only coming the last couple of seasons. It is without a doubt thanks to the unprecedented access to Breaking Bad’s previous seasons that viewers were able to not only catch up on the show but tune in live for the final episodes. Bad was the first drama to fully benefit first-hand from the one-click-away access to its serialized episodes. Everybody caught on just in time for the final season. With only a couple million viewers watching the series “live” during most of its run, it isn’t a stretch to believe that more people actually watched the show on Netflix than on AMC.

Lots and lots of shows. Lots and lots of great analysis.

I can’t wait to see what I’ve been up to.

Seven Years of TV Industry

The television industry has evolved more in the past seven years than in its previous seven decades.
That’s a bold statement, I know. Let’s take a look at the business-related stories I did in that time.

One of my very early posts was a manifesto entitled “why TV is where you must be“.

Who would have thought 2 years ago that a small basic-cable movie channel was going to make not only one but two innovative shows, let alone one that wins Best Drama?

That was 2008. The network was AMC. The two shows were Mad Men and Breaking Bad.
Seven years later, AMC’s TV shows are everywhere. Hell, television shows are everywhere. It’s even a banality to say that.

We’ll dig into some of my TV industry predictions tomorrow, namely my “Nine ideas to save television“, also from 2008. In the meantime, let’s take a look at some other classics about the business.

The big NBC 2009 move was to put Jay Leno in primetime, every day. No more NBC dramas. My reaction was, maybe, an over-reaction. “Is NBC killing television?“, I wondered.

If everyone would pull a Zucker, and every network would simply remove dramas from the 10PM slot, original primetime content would be swallowed by clones of clones of clones of shit. […] I’m hoping that FOX/ABC will wake the fuck up and seize this great opportunity to be the underdog; bringing alternative, groundbreaking content to this 10PM slot.
Don’t ruin this for us, guys.
Please.

This reaction led, in turn, to a counter-over-reaction: “Is NBC reviving television?
What I was actually talking about though was simple—

As I pointed out yesterday, the 10PM slot is begging to be changed.
Well, not really “begging”.
CBS’ Les Moonves himself declared the other day that “Taking a third [broadcast] competitor out of the marketplace will make us even stronger”, though he said that for different reasons (“‘CSI: Miami’ on Monday at 10 o’clock will beat Jay by a lot. Remember that. By a lot.”).
The Leno-move should not be without consequences for the 10PM slot on the other nets.
I am not talking about drastic schedule changes here (even if I’m guessing it’ll unfortunately come to that — affiliates anyone?).
I am talking here more about quality changes.
We have in one corner C.S.I., and in the other Jay Leno.
Bring on the alternative!
And if there aren’t any alternative on the Big Five, then we sure as hell will tune to other content-providers.
Like Cable.

Yup, still sounds about right seven years later.

We could also talk about my Emmy (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) and Oscar (2009, 2010, 2011) recaps. I miss doing them. Maybe I should start covering again.

There’s hundreds of industry stories we covered over the years, but there’s only be a handful I really cared to dedicate lengthy articles for. Some we’ll talk about tomorrow (Netflix, the future of the TV industry, etc.).
Others, well, I’ll mention them right now.

Since we’re on the subject of alternative programming, Lordy wrote about potential “new outlets for scripted fare” in the days of 2010. Namely: A&E, Starz, EPIX. Kudos on the foresight.
He also did a great piece about “what’s it gonna take to bring your bubble show back?” Among his solutions: international/DVD sales, other networks, and a producer with clout. Rare options five years back, but now mainstays to save (or bring back) TV series.

On my end, I wrote last year two pieces on the great Stephen Colbert, one in reaction to his Late Late Show announcement, and the other for his last Colbert Report episode.
Now I’m bummed.
Let’s cheer up by reading my review of the Jay Leno Show.

Overall, it was your typical Jay Leno talk-show.
There was no “revolution” here, just me being mostly bored.

Ah, the good old days of NBC bashing. I’m feeling nostalgic.

Reminds me of the time I asked Lorne Michaels “what he did”.

Everyone (including the President himself) is telling you to hire someone being able to do a good Obama impersonation, so you audition great comedians, and then you don’t hire any of them?
What. The. Fuck.

And now, he’s adding two new female cast peeps.
Okay, that’s a good thing.
But then he subsequently fires two other female cast members (Michaela Watkins and Casey Wilson)?!
What. The. Fuck.

[And] according to E!‘s Ted Casablanca, Wilson was asked to loose 30 pounds during the hiatus (and was fired because she didn’t).
What. The. Fuck.

At least Casey Wilson got Happy Endings out of all of this.

Can you believe I’ve been crying about the TV business for seven years now?
I can, but I don’t want to. Otherwise I’ll start crying again.

Let’s see where the TV industry is heading next.