facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “NBC”

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.

Profiles of Television: Jill Weinberger – TV Writer/Story Editor (Chicago Fire)

Profiles of Television is an ongoing interview series showcasing the variety of professionals in the TV industry, from writers and producers, to those in development, representation, and post-production. These are the many talents involved in television, and the personal journeys behind them.

Our guest today is Jill Weinberger. A hard-working TV drama writer, she got her first staffing job last year on the third season of NBC’s Chicago Fire.
Since this interview, Jill has written three of the most memorable episodes from the current Chicago Fire season: Nobody Touches Anything (3×07), Three Bells (3×13), and Forgiving, Relentless, Unconditional (3×18). She also got her contract not only renewed, but upped to story editor. (Massive congratulations!)

The Medium

First things first: why the television calling?
I was writing TV before I knew that it was even a thing. When I was little—maybe six years old—I was lying awake in bed at night writing episodes of my favorite TV shows in my head, going back every night and re-writing the scenes. I did not know that that wasn’t something all children did. Then I did kind of go the route of trying to seek out something with more security—maybe a lawyer. It wasn’t until part way through college—I had been writing specs for fun—that I kind of figured it out. My parents were also fortunately very supportive. That’s when I decided it was what I was going to actually try to do.

What kind of specs did you write?
All kinds. I did shows that were on and off the air. I did both comedy and drama. I wasn’t aware at the time that you were supposed to do one or the other. When I was in high school, I remember writing a Wonder Years spec which was awful. Then, going into college, I did Northern Exposure, a Buffy and an X-Files. Later I actually did two Friends. One was absolutely terrible, but the other wasn’t bad.
When I was starting, I was ordering hard copies of scripts off the internet from Script City and the like. In my mind, it wasn’t actually something I was seriously pursuing. I didn’t really think a lot about structure or the difference between comedy and drama or anything like that.

Three words to describe what you write.
Small human truths.

Three words to describe how you write.
Like a demon. Not in the sense that I’m evil, but in the sense that once I have a grasp on what I’m writing, I’m fast, and I tear through it. People tell me: “Well, you don’t really need to turn it over that fast. We have nothing to do with it. We have a schedule and we’re fairly far along in the season.” I’m like—well, it came out.

Name—
—the television series that has influenced you the most:
Both Northern Exposure and Buffy. They struck me as very mold-breaking shows in which you could tell the exact story you wanted, in the exact words you wanted. It wasn’t until I became more educated in the depth and breadth of TV that I found series from much earlier that were also very groundbreaking. When I was even younger, and I was watching TV with my parents, the first things that were really brought to my attention by them were—even though I was too young to really watch them when they were on—Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere. It was television you would watch because it was really good and something worth watching, as opposed to just—this is how we end the day by entertaining ourselves. This was something that was respected and had artistic merit and had intellectual merit.

—the one episode of television that defines you:
The episode of television that I think about the most in terms of just really getting to me—because it’s so small—is an episode of Mad About You. It’s interesting because the episode is nothing like anything I’ve written. The entire episode [The Conversation] is the two of them sitting outside the closed door while the baby cries. I don’t know if it defines me as a person or a writer, but it’s always been very profound in that they’re taking their own personal journey. Their relationship is being discussed, and them as parents being discussed. It’s also funny because it’s a comedy. In the end, the baby stops crying, so in a sense, they’ve won—they’ve trained the baby and themselves. One of them, I think it’s Jamie, says, “We’ve just taught her we won’t always be there when she needs us.” To me, it’s just that tiniest of storytelling being so rich and profound, and all of it on a multi-cam sitcom.

—the television episode that impressed you the most:
It’s also kind of a small episode, this one of HomicideSubway, with Vincent D’Onofrio. We were just talking about this the other day [in the room]. It’s so intense, but it’s so small. It’s closed, it’s claustrophobic. Vincent D’Onofrio is not necessarily the most likeable character, but he’s in the most vulnerable position. It’s just a great episode of television for me.

—the show you wish was still on the air:
I wish there were more West Wing, if there were more Aaron Sorkin West Wing. Kind of starting from when Aaron Sorkin left. And I didn’t have as much of a problem with the last three seasons as other people—it was just a completely different show. It just wasn’t my show that I fell in love with. If I could get more those characters and that world, I would eat it with a spoon. [laughs]

—the show you would never publicly admit to watching, except right now:
Does it have to be a scripted show? [laughs] I love Mob Wives on VH1. It’s like a documentary of this insane world, this entire mindset that is so different to ours. Plus they share all these weird common experiences. All of them know the experience of having your house raided in the morning at 5AM by the Feds—because 5AM is when the Feds come. And they know this. The very first episode, one of the women had been away, and her father had turned evidence, putting someone else’s dad away. She was kind of coming back into the community years after that happened. There’s a lot of hostility towards her. And at the same time, two of them are off talking at one point, and they go, “You know, we are more hostile towards her because her dad was a rat than because her dad killed 13 people. That’s kind of fucked up.” [laughs] It just fascinates me. I can’t look away.

—the show you wish you had worked on:
I would love to have worked on Buffy. Not only was it a great show, but you see most of the people coming out of that show had great success. People seemed to come out of it feeling that it was a good learning and working environment. Nobody’s saying: “Yeah, it looked great, but it was a nightmare to work on.” You do hear about shows like that. Buffy just seems like it was a really good—it made fantastic television, and it gave us a lot of fantastic television writers who gave us even more fantastic television.
jilll weinberger landscape

The Journey

What has been, so far, your journey in the television industry?
I took a long time, but I went a fairly traditional route that almost nobody takes. I wasn’t an assistant, I didn’t go through a program, and I just got hired as a staff writer. This doesn’t happen for most people anymore, but that’s what happened to me.
I came out intending to write television; spent a couple of years writing by myself, not showing it to anybody—not the best way to advance your career. Then I won the spec teleplay competition at the Austin Film Festival with a House. One of the judges in my category was my now-manager, and she really liked that spec. I didn’t have a pilot, and she didn’t think my other specs were as strong, so basically she said: “when you have the material, just keep sending me stuff”. I then spent another year writing scripts. I wrote three pilots and two specs in those twelve months. And I kept sending her everything. She sent the one pilot she really loved to an agent friend of hers—she had been an agent before she was a manager—and he loved it, gave me notes. Then when I turned around really quickly the re-write on his notes, he was like: “OK. Now you’ve got an agent.” I now had both an agent and manager. And then the writers’ strike happened a month later. Halfway through it, my agent left the agenting business. I was still thankful that my manager stuck with me—I was with my manager basically without an agent for several years.

A couple years ago, again through my manager, I met my current agent. My manager has worked crazy hard for me for years now, for no money. Now I had this one-two punch of this crazy team of these really brilliant and active and involved women. They’re very good at communicating with each other; I’m very lucky in that way. That’s when I started getting more showrunner meetings, then generals. Still, I was a three-time finalist in the Warner Bros. Workshop. I was a finalist for Writers on the Verge. I was a semi-finalist for Disney. Never got in. I had several jobs where I thought: “This is going to be my job.” I would get comments afterwards like: “They thought you were great. They like this, this, and this about you.” And then they went another way, or they ended up not hiring at the staff level.

My manager got super excited once I got the meeting for Chicago Fire—she’s a really huge fan of the show. She told me: “This is my favorite show! No pressure.” [laughs] I went in, met with Matt Olmstead, Derek Haas, and Wolf Films’ Danielle Gelber. I had a good meeting with them, but I really sold myself. The thing is that I learned the way to sell myself honestly—not trying to tell people what they want to hear. I learned to say, without sounding crazy desperate: “Look. I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I’m ready to do the work. I’ve put in the pre-work time, and I’m ready to hustle my ass off for you.” I think that may have made a difference. I wouldn’t recommend going in and being scary intense, because I wasn’t. Also, have humor! [laughs]

How was the process of getting hired on Chicago Fire?
I had the showrunner meeting with the guys [Matt, Derek and Michael Brandt] and Danielle on a Monday. Before I even had that one, I also got the call to set up the network and studio meeting on Thursday—which is fairly unusual. It can go in either direction, but usually you need one and then they give you kind of the stamp, then you go onto the other. When I came home Monday and nobody had said, “It’s OK, you don’t need to come in on Thursday,” I knew that meeting had gone pretty well.
I had the network and studio meeting on Thursday. It was good because I had a little time to reflect. Think about anything that I might have wanted to say in the other meeting but hadn’t gotten in. Also talk more in detail about some of the story lines on both Chicago Fire and Chicago PD. Can you describe the differences between the various meetings (general, showrunner, development, etc.)?
I’ve had a bunch of experiences and they’re definitely different. I actually also have had some development meetings, thanks to a pilot that people really liked. Last summer, I was pitching a network on that pilot, but it didn’t get sold—pitching is a whole other beast.
General meetings, network studio meetings—those are by and large very similar. A lot of the general meetings I’ve had, you’re meeting really early in the pilot season. You’re meeting with the person who’s covering all the new ones. The pilots haven’t been picked yet, so they don’t even know what they’re not hiring for. They’re just reading scripts, building up an arsenal of writers they might like. Those are very casual meetings, like a first date. “Tell me about yourself,” and, “Please don’t be insane.” Nine out ten of those, you do well, but nothing comes of them because half of those pilots don’t go. The huge part is sitting around, talking with somebody else who loves TV about how much you both love TV.
Then I’ve had showrunner meetings where we meet at a restaurant instead of in their office, or things like that. Those are very much different and specific according to their personality and style. Those meetings are a little more intense. [laughs]

How was the development of your pilot?
We had gotten a lot of staffing meetings off of this one pilot I wrote. Even though I hadn’t gotten hired, my reps told me: “Wow, people seem to really love this script. Let’s see if we can package it.” They sent it out to production companies and studios to see if anybody wanted to come on board. I teamed up with a couple of producers who had a great track record of developing new writers. One of them was friends with Angela Bassett, and my script called for an African-American female lead. They had already decided to package with me to pitch it, so I pitched Angela Bassett over the phone while she was in her car—she was getting ready to shoot American Horror Story. We already had meetings set up based on the relationships and reputations of these producers, but once we had Angela attached, everything got moved up. More and more important people started getting folded into the meeting up until they told me: “And Nina Tassler will be there!” I was like—“Wait, what?”

How is your pitching process?
People pitch very differently. I only pitch the one way because I was basically coached the whole way through. Some people pitch with cards. The way I did it—it’s basically like a book report. [laughs] You just talk for about 20 minutes straight. There’s like four to six people just all sitting in a semi-circle, staring at you, possibly taking notes, hopefully occasionally laughing at the jokes. The way we pitched was: paragraph setting up the world; set up all the main characters—again, like a paragraph each; a brief synopsis of the pilot; and then a little bit about where things are going to be at the end of the first season and where ideally things will be at the end of the show. It works out to be, maybe, ten printed pages. Like I said, a 20-minute essentially non-stop speech. It’s a freaky process. [laughs]

Can you talk about your experience with your first script on Chicago Fire?
I’m still in the process, so there’s stuff that’s not for open discussion. We have a very specific process here. Traditionally, new writers on staff get paired with one of the showrunners to write our first episode or our first few episodes. We have three guys here, which is unusual, but I’ve been on my script paired with Matt Olmstead, who is fantastic. The way our process works overall is: first we meet in the writers’ room and we beat out the basic ideas of the first half of the season. Once it’s your turn to develop your script, you sketch it out on a white board; you work on the white board with the rest of the writers; then you pitch it to the guys. They suggest their changes, and then you go from that board to outline. If the changes are major, you may have to re-pitch the board again. That’s not usually like you’ve done anything wrong—it’s just due to the course of the season changing as other things develop.
So you write your outline—in my case, working with your co-writing showrunner—and then it goes up the chain of command. It goes past the show runners, past Wolf films, past network and studio, and then gets revised according to people’s comments. Once that gets cleared at the final level, you go to script, and go through the same process again.

How is your writing room?
Our room is a great room. It’s very open, diplomatic and supportive. There’s a lot of give and take, every idea is heard—it’s not “competitive” at all. That’s part of drama VS. comedy. I think comedy is a little bit more competitive in getting your jokes on the board. You kind of go in knowing 80%-90% of what you throw out there isn’t going to work, so you don’t feel like, “Everybody thinks I suck.” You think: “Hey look, I got that thing on the board!” We have a grid for the first half of the season, with the episodes across the top and the characters down the side. Everyone has a little square in the grid for each episode. That’s where you put up the little beats—the little arcs.
And when we’re in the room, it’s just us. Talking and talking and talking. 10AM to 6PM with a break for lunch. What people would maybe not realize on our show is a giant percentage of it is about character, about story, about emotion. We always want to have our fire fighters and our paramedics go on interesting calls. It’s got to be visual because it’s a TV show, but number one rule of thumb is: there’s a reason we have gone with these people on this call today. They go on dozens of runs in a day, maybe. If you’re in an ambulance, half the time you don’t even come back to the house. You run for 10 hours straight. So why are we following them on this?  And it’s not because it looks cool. It’s because it has an emotional impact for one of the characters or it’s significant. We absolutely work to show interest, and we also spend a lot of work on making it authentic and respectful. Sure, we condense for time and take some artistic liberties. But we have our working consultants who we run everything by. It’s very important to us. At the end of it though, it always comes down to character and who these people are. What this journey is for these or the next three episodes.

What is your day-to-day like?
When the season started out, we were all in the room. People then individually peel off to work on their episodes. We’ve been on our own offices for the most part because we’re in production right now. For the past few weeks, we haven’t really been in the room, but we’re going back in. We’re starting to spend some time looking at the seconf half of the season. It’s all about keeping everything going.
For actual production, most people go out for their own episode. Usually as a writer you go out for part of the shooting, not all. That’s at the discretion of the director and what the director feels they need. If things are going to explode, they don’t need me there. But if it’s going to be an emotional scene, and all of a sudden they need to film in another place because of production issues, that might need a last-minute rewrite to address the different physical circumstances.

What is the hardest thing about being a TV writer?
Personally, I want to make sure that I am contributing and being valuable. I want to stay. [laughs] In addition to the fact that I really like the job, I really like it here. I don’t think I could have landed anywhere better for my first gig. It’s a fantastic education and a fantastic environment. It’s just amazing.
For our show, the hard thing is keeping it fresh. Keeping on producing stories that are really significant. By season 3, we do want new viewers, but we have people who are really loyal to the characters at this point. They really care what happens to them. They really want to see something that reflects the two years we’ve been following them. They want all of that to pay off. They don’t want to see someone knocked down for no reason, just for drama or something like that. Of course, we’ve also taken them on a lot of these adventures in terms of the rescue or fire calls they go on. It’s really just a question of giving that audience that same show they have an appetite for, but, at the same level, with some “newness” that pays off what they’ve already invested in.

What is the easiest thing about being a TV writer?
Coming to work every day. I love it. I get up, I get here half an hour early every day. My favorite thing—I was just thinking about this—walking from the garage to the office every day. It’s a very short walk, but I am so happy every day to be making that walk. I’m not going for a meeting, I’m not going to impress somebody, I’m going to my job. I belong here. I get to come and I get to make TV, which is all I ever wanted to do. Just the fact that it is as good as, if not better than I imagined it—I’m still high on it, even a few months in.

Who do you look up to in the television industry?
We already discussed Buffy. I think Joss Whedon is a great creator. I think the pilot for West Wing is one of the best pilots ever. Also we talked about David Milch, Steven Bochco. Actually, since we were discussing St. Elsewhere—I got to meet Mark Tinker just in the hallway here. It just blew my mind. I’m still crazy about St. Elsewhere. I’ve now gone back and watched all of it. If it were not literally for the quality of the film that tells you that’s in the 80s and the fact that people are smoking in their hospital rooms, you could think that was filmed today. It’s amazing. Of course, I also love a lot of the female creators. Julie Plec, Jane Espenson, Amy Berg, Marti Noxon. People who are not only great writers, but also people who really make an effort to be accessible to up-and-coming writers, sharing their knowledge. That’s a really big deal for me.

What is the ideal job you would like to ultimately have?
It would be fantastic to be creating. I definitely do want to be developing. Eventually. I’m happy to be working on someone else’s show for a good few years, just because I feel like I have so much to learn. I spent a lot of time getting as good as I could in the vacuum of my own space. I worked hard and I got good enough to get the job. Now, it’s like the whole learning of how thought turns into television. The process. I literally learn something new every day. Obviously I haven’t been here very long, but I feel like I have no problem being part of somebody else’s team or somebody else’s vision.

When people from outside the industry ask what you do, what do you tell them?
I tell them that I work for a TV show. [laughs] I think a lot of people don’t really understand how the writers’ room works. Some people think that—I guess there are some comedy rooms like this—but some people think that we all kind of sit in a room and write all the shows together. I do kind of explain what I just explained here. We figure out the basics of the season, and then we’re on our own writing our script.

What is your best professional advice to someone who wants to do what you do?
One of the most important things I say to people is: it’s going to take longer than you think. Even though a tiny fraction of the people who think they can do this can do this, there are still way more of those people than there are jobs. Once you are on the playing field, just with all the other people who can actually do it, and who are good enough, then it’s just waiting until the odds play out in your favor. It’s going to be somebody else’s yes, and you’ve got to wait through your no’s. You have to practically make sure that you can support yourself financially, not go into debt. Really support yourself, don’t just stay afloat while you wait for your chance. Don’t be the person who gets so, so close, and then has to move out of LA because you can’t afford to live there anymore. I feel like I had a lot of near-misses and a lot of bad luck. It was somebody else’s day for a long time for me. I did however have good luck in that I was able to financially support myself.
Ultimately, you either can write or you can’t. Once you can write, you either put the work in to get good enough or you don’t. That’s just the basics of it. But if you are good enough, and you’re going to be the person who works hard enough, then you have to be the person who can make it past the odds.

What is your best personal advice to someone who wants to do what you do?
Have a life. If you spend your whole time thinking of your life until your break as kind of the meantime, you miss out on a lot of life. Life is what makes you a good writer.
Have people and have different sorts of experiences. We live—especially as aspiring writers in LA—very insular lives. We sit around and watch TV together—which I love to do—but we need to get out. Get some experiences, do some volunteering, join some adult sports league, spend time with people who have nothing to do with the industry, or activities that have nothing to do with the industry. You don’t want to stay, emotionally and experience-wise, 22. Because then what are you going to write about?

What is your next step?
Getting hired for the rest of the season. [laughs] Getting my contract picked up, that’s the next step.

Any last words?
Take in as much as you can. Read all the scripts you can. Read all the books you can. Read non-fiction. Watch television and film and documentaries and things that you might not think would be interesting. Everything makes you a better writer and a better human being. And being a better human being makes you a better writer. Empathy is at the core of great TV writing. You have to get people to empathize with the characters.
I said small human truths earlier—you have to be able to see the connections between all kinds of life experiences, and all kinds of people’s stories. So for that, again, you kind of have to live. You have to be open to all sorts of stories. It will translate to a completely unrelated story in your writing. It will be that emotion, that human experience, that truth which helps you make it real for someone watching.

Many thanks to the super awesome Jill Weinberger for this great interview!
You can follow her on Twitter.
Watch Season 3 of Chicago Fire, Tuesdays at 10PM on NBC.

6 Screenwriting Lessons from Parks and Recreation

A key part of writing for television is watching television. And learning from it.
Screenwriting lessons from tackles series past and present, analyzing them through the prism of screenwriting.

It was only a few months ago that NBC’s Parks and Recreation concluded its seven-season run. From absurd government action to now-iconic characters, the show offered us some of the funniest moments in recent television history.
Time to take a look at this amazing mockumentary-style comedy. Because time is money. Money is power. Power is pizza. And pizza is knowledge.

[As usual, I’ll be talking about the series as a whole. I highly recommend you watch the entire show before reading this post—it’s worth it.]


Lesson 1: Don’t let a format define your story

When Parks and Recreation started airing in 2009, a large amount of viewers quickly dismissed it as a “carbon copy” of NBC’s The Office. It didn’t help that both were basically made by the same people. Leslie was reduced as Michael Scott’s dimwitted protagonist clone, and the tone of the show was being described as “mean-spirited”. Its first season was promptly ridiculed and set aside.
Six years later, Parks now stands as one of the greatest mockumentary-style comedies ever to appear on TV. Sure, there have been a few lackluster episodes, but its (somewhat-)handheld format never shackled the series. One could even argue the series thrived in spite of it.
Co-creator Michael Schur explained back in 2011 why the show used the specific format:

We wanted this to be a mockumentary show because in the world of government, the difference between what goes on behind closed doors and what people present to the public is a huge issue. Plus, the single-camera format can be alienating, and the talking heads help us relate directly to the audience, and provide breaks in the action.

Notice how there is no mention of the mockumentary style as a narrative component. The idea is (or was) about contrasting what we see and what is said, not experiencing a fake documentary. This specific mockumentary format is only a “take” on the government world. It isn’t meant to be a story element in of itself (unlike, again, The Office).
Forget using the meta structure of a documentary crew as one of your plotlines. The hell with confessionals rooted in realism. We were treated with awkward and multiple angles, jump-cuts, and a less voyeuristic approach overall. Hell, we even saw our characters evolve right up to the year 2048. As long as it services them as well as their story, there is no “real” reason not have a camera present. In fact, the series almost completely abandoned its format in the latter-season episode “The Johnny Karate Super Awesome Musical Explosion Show” (7×10).
At the end of the day, Parks and Recreation was able (and willing) to grow out of The Office‘s shadow because it transcended the format it was born in. Similar style. Completely different world.
Learn how to move past the limitations of your own structure and style, or thrive within them.

Lesson 2: Supporting characters are as important as your main cast

Many comparisons can be made between Parks and FOX’s The Simpsons: talking heads (Perd Hapley/Kent Brockman), sex scandal-embroiled politicians (Dexhart/Quimby), rival towns (Pawnee/Springfield vs. Eagleton/Shelbyville). Both shows also brilliantly use the mob mentality. Citizens are easily swayed to vote against their own best interests on multiple occasions.
The overarching commonality however is that both shows excel in making their respective towns three-dimensional. Parks always tries to deepen Pawnee (and Eagleton), especially when it helps both story and humor. JJ’s Diner is as identifiable with Parks as Apu’s Kwik-E-Mart is to The Simpsons. The Gryzzl startup (and its CEO) were objects of ridicule as well as catalysts for conflict in the final two seasons. We learned of Dennis Feinstein’s existence several seasons before Jason Mantzoukas started inhabiting the role (in “Indianapolis” (3×06)). The same holds true for the cavalcade of recurring characters. The series excels with them for one simple reason: they are not just obstacles or sources of conflicts for our protagonists, nor are they just jokes in of themselves. They are shades of this world. They are living and breathing Pawnee citizens.
Never underestimate your secondary characters. In fact, use them as a continuously-untapped layer to enrich your world and stories.

Lesson 3: Know when to move on

Raise your hand if Mark Brendanawicz was your favorite character on the show. Probably half of you just said: “Who the hell is–Oooh, the guy from season one. Brendanaquits!” Yes, Brendanaquits. If you’ll recall, Leslie’s long-standing crush on Mark was promptly swept under the rug right after the first season because it didn’t seem to work for the writers. The character himself made his departure following “Freddy Spaghetti” (2×24). He was supposed to come back, like the real-life city planner he was based on, but I guess that didn’t work out as planned. Either way, the voluntary decision to exile the character shows that Parks and Recreation was always willing to move on. It always tried to stay fresh and avoid some perpetual status quo.
Quoting Michael Schur on this concept:

All of these decisions fall under the general heading of character development. My own preference is that everyone on the show should be in a different place at the end of a season from where they were at the beginning of the season. I don’t like shows where you catch an episode in repeats and it could literally be from season 2 or season 8. People change in real life, and I think they should on TV as well.

Another example is the “pit plot“. It’s an iconic storyline in the show, yet it barely lasted two seasons. Most comedies would have dragged on the plot for the duration of the show. Instead, the area promptly got filled in year two so we could move on to newer, better stories. Shows should never be afraid to evolve.

Lesson 4: Take risks within relationships—when it makes character sense

We just talked about how Parks was able to keep a fresh pace with its plot. The same can be said with the many relationships in the show. When April and Andy got married out of the blue during “Andy and April’s Fancy Party” (3×09), it caught off guard everyone (including viewers). This wasn’t just because it was a joke. The shock came from the fact that the wedding actually happened. Even better, it completely fit the relationship in question and the characters’ impulsive nature. Continuing with Michael Schur’s own comments:

All we knew was that we wanted to avoid the standard-issue TV romance plots: fights, other men/women driving them apart, and so on. We just thought about who they were – two impulsive goofballs who don’t approach their lives in a responsible, adult manner – and decided, what the hell? What if they just make a rash decision and get hitched? As soon as the idea came up we felt it made sense, and as a bonus, the stakes would subsequently be higher for every story we told about their relationship.

Herein lies one of the great things behind the writing of Parks and Recreation: realistic character development. The idea is to always organically push the characters in their logical direction instead of having them run circles. Ben’s understated (and perfect) marriage proposal to Leslie in “Halloween Surprise” (5×05) is another great way to show a leap with two central characters.
When it comes to your own series relationships, commit forward instead of taking a step back. There is rarely (if ever) a need to stagnate. Fresh paint needs time to dry, not a TV show (with exception).

Lesson 5: Make Flanderization work for, not against you

“Flanderization” is a famous television trope that describes the act of “taking a single (often minor) action or trait of a character within a work and exaggerating it more and more over time until it completely consumes the character.” As you might have guessed, the trope got its name from The Simpsons‘ Ned Flanders. He initially was a friendly neighbor and attentive father, but has over the years become solely defined by his obsession with religion.
Much like one now thinks of “religious zealot” with Flanders, you could define most scenes with Parks‘ Ron as featuring an “anti-governmental meat-eating secretive woodsman”. The same could also apply to Andy and “lovable idiot man-child”, although it really wasn’t until the beginning of his life outside of Ann’s house that he became a kinder person. So, how did the show avoid “Flanderization”? Well, it didn’t. It used it to its own advantage.
An entire mythology was built around Ron’s enigmatic aura. Sometimes it got reduced to “steak and eggs”, but when it worked it built the character instead of diminish it. Andy similarly had layers developed around being a simple goofball (Burt Tyrannosaurus Macklin and Johnny Karate being two persona extensions).
It could even be argued that the characters went through a “reverse Flanderization” process. The characters were more defined by a singular tone in the first season than in later years. Andy was a lazy and clingy ex-boyfriend, Leslie was an (even more) obnoxious Tracy Flick (or, as described above, reminiscent of Michael Scott), April was, like, whatever man, and Ron said two words.
A bad way of dealing with the trope is to not only define a character by that one aspect, but specifically limit him/her with that layer. Parks not only embraced those characterizations, but went deeper. The “good way” isn’t necessarily about making the trait less “over-the-top”, it is about humanizing it in the process. In other words, you do not reduce a character down to the trait, you expand on it.

Lesson 6: Being positive does not have to mean being sappy

Earnest comedy and positive relationships. Two of Parks and Recreation‘s unsung strengths. While everyone is trying to add some form of edge to their show, this NBC comedy never shied away from having actually nice characters (or silly ones) with heart. And making it all matter in the end.
Even with Leslie’s intense care for everyone she loves (in planning birthdays or other surprises), that “crazy” intensity was never played against her on the show. Parks rarely (if ever) undercut the true sincere emotions of characters for cheap laughs. Ann or Ben were often overwhelmed by Leslie’s antics, however none of them were the butts of jokes. In “Anniversaries” (6×14), we smiled with Leslie at Ben’s awestruck expression while he was sitting on the Iron Throne (one of the truer portrayals of a nerd), but we were all playing (including Leslie, trying to make him happy). Everyone was “in on it”.
A lot of the relationships on the show also led to affairs of the heart. Every major character ends up being linked to a key romantic pair by series end: Ben and Leslie, Chris and Ann, April and Andy, Ron and Diane, Tom and Natalie Morales’ Lucy, Jerry and his wife Gayle (a pre-series romance putting him at odds with the rest of the cast—and played that way), Rita and Keegan-Michael Key’s Joe. Even Craig finds “true love” in the series finale.
In that respect, the show’s true success is playing those romances not as sappy ideals, but as realistic relationships (albeit kind ones). Just because they are positive does not make them impossible. Ben and Leslie, the closest lovers on the show, still have to deal with their triplets (and Jennifer Barkley). Chris and Ann’s romance is never portrayed as “true love”, only the most ideal match for their baby.
If anything, Parks and Recreation is a great example of a show that embraces its sincerity and heart without compromising humor, story or character. Refreshing, in an age of gritty everything.

What to take from the show

In a word: character. If you don’t underestimate the heart of the series, then the relationships you create will carry the momentum forward. This is also why there’s no reason to be scared of big story moves, or to be anxious about dropping stale storylines. As long as you fulfill the characters’ potential, and develop them properly, you can’t betray the spirit of your show.