facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “One-Hour”

Drama Spec Script 2011 – What is hot and what is not

Drama Spec Script 2011 – What is hot and what is not


UPDATED:
A brand new 2019 list has been posted.
Click here to access it.

It is now time to review which current dramas are good to spec, and which are not.
A sample script is provided (when available) with the corresponding show.

Let’s do another quick recap of how the list works:
The shows are divided into five categories regarding their appeal to readers and how well they are known/read:
– Over-specced (shows that have passed their prime, try to avoid doing them)
– Mainstream (shows that have matured enough that they have become on-the-nose speccers–and a lot of people are speccing them)
– Wild Cards (soon, everyone will spec those, maybe you can get a head start)
– Outsiders (specs that will get you out from the pack)
– Gamblers (risky shows that could pay off, or bomb)

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

And here we go.

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

CSI/Criminal Minds/Law & Order/The Closer (CBS/NBC/TNT)
Type: Police procedurals
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – If you’re really thinking of speccing these, you’re pretty much five years too late.

Dexter (Sho)
Type: Serialized crime drama
Once upon a time, Dexter was a clear favorite. Now however, the show has past its expiration date for specs.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Since every season reinvents the show (in an interesting or bad way), it’s never good to put one’s spec stories to the test like that.

Grey’s Anatomy/Private Practice/House (ABC/FOX)
Type: Medical procedurals
Honestly, there’s just no real point in crafting a brand new spec for one of these three.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Shockingly, they’re all getting another season. Doesn’t mean it’s a good sign.

Mad Men (AMC)
Type: Serialized historical drama
Putting Mad Men as over-specced may once again ruffle a few feathers, but if you know what’s good for you then you’re pretty much aware already that this won’t be an original choice.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Although there’s a very low risk of AMC ending its flagship drama, treading on serialized plotlines is virtually impossible to avoid.

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

Bones/Castle (FOX/ABC)
Type: Light police procedural
Bones still has a year or two ahead of it, while Castle joins the mainstream list by becoming the go-to light police procedural specced.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Both are going strong and the ‘case of the week’ format is a proven crowd-pleaser.

Breaking Bad (AMC)
Type: Serialized character/family drama
The show continues to grow in fame and is probably reaching its peak, which means this might one of the last mainstream years for it.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – The problem isn’t that the show won’t get renewed (it will), it is its serialized aspect. I’ll slow-clap anyone who successfully specs a stand-alone episode of Breaking Bad.

Chuck (NBC)
Type: Light spy/action procedural
Everybody loves Chuck. Sadly this means that it is pretty much on the verge of being over-specced.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Definitely not as much on the bubble as a couple of seasons ago.

Fringe (FOX)
Type: Police/Science-fiction procedural
The number one science-fiction show specced presently (mainly because there aren’t so many out there). Fringe is a strong option, although…
Longevity: ★★★★★ – …you already know how “on the bubble” this show is, so I’d probably wait to see what FOX choses to do with it.

Glee (FOX)
Type: Light serialized high-school dramedy
As predicted, last year’s major Wild Card is now on top of the Mainstream pile. Still a very hard show to spec mainly because of its atypical world. Also might not be the greatest way to showcase your talent given that a third of the script will probably end up being music lyrics.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – It’s always a good bet to spec the number one show on television, right? Be careful when juggling with all the soap elements (they might give you a headache).

The Good Wife (CBS)
Type: Legal procedural
Jumping from Outsider to Mainstream is no easy task, but The Good Wife has proven times and times again these past few months its popularity. This is clearly a smart show to spec (watch out for the serialized elements).
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Strong ratings and a great procedural/serial balance allows room for a potential spec.

Gossip Girl/90210 (The CW)
Type: Teen dramas
It’s not as if there’s an overwhelming array of teen dramas out there, right?
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Never-ending.

The Mentalist (CBS)
Type: Police procedural
A new classic police procedural to spec. It’s hot all right.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – No need to double check, this one is safe.

NCIS:LA (CBS)
Type: Police/Action procedural
Last year it was about to break big, this year it is big. Its older sister show would be proud.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Another secure CBS procedural.

True Blood (HBO)
Type: Serialized fantasy drama
Somewhat common in the spec pile, despite its heavy reliance on the books’ mythology. Making a loner out of this one will prove difficult.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – True Blood is a big success, but its stories are all over the place (i.e. it is hard to find a status quo to base a spec on).

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

Boardwalk Empire/Treme (HBO)
Type: Serialized historical drama
Now those are hard shows to spec. If you think you can make a Mad Men or even a True Blood spec work, I’d recommend taking a gander at these two first. Especially Boardwalk Empire (which definitely has a lot of potential).
Longevity: ★★★★★ – With all the acclaim, it’s no wonder HBO is keeping both series tightly where they are.

Hawaii Five-0 (CBS)
Type: Police/Action procedural
Like NCIS:LA last year, this is undoubtedly the breakout procedural hit of the season, which is sure to become Mainstream real fast.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Hit show, clear-cut formula and procedural aspect leads to a long spec life.

Justified (FX)
Type: Police procedural
A critical darling and great numbers means Justified is getting hotter by the second. It will probably enter Mainstream land by next season.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – The show that keeps on giving (certainly for FX).

Leverage (TNT)
Type: Light heist/con/action procedural
With its fourth season about to debut, Leverage is becoming more popular and the series has matured enough that it’s an almost-perfect light action/heist procedural to spec.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Finding a solid con that stays unused by the show might prove tricky.

Nikita (The CW)
Type: Action procedural
It’s CW, meaning it’s not that watched, although it also means not that many people are speccing it.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – It is doubtful the network will let this one go seeing as it’s one of their only (relative) hit.

Parenthood (NBC)
Type: Serialized family drama
Speccing this one last season was pretty much a gamble, but since the first year has passed and storylines are settling, it might be an interesting choice.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Solid numbers indicate renewal, but can you make the family stories work?

Sons of Anarchy (FX)
Type: Serialized ensemble drama
Sure, Sons of Anarchy is FX’s most popular show, yet its extremely serialized aspect makes it very difficult to write for. If you can make it work, go for it.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Storylines are shaking up every season so it might be tough to keep an SOA spec current.

The Walking Dead (AMC)
Type: Ensemble/horror drama
If a surprise hit was made last year, this is the one. The enormous success of the show and its amazing potential makes it destined for great spec material.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Great news for potential speccers (not for viewers): The Walking Dead has obviously abandoned the comics’ serialized nature for a more procedural-like aspect.



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

Burn Notice/Psych (USA)
Type: Light action and crime procedurals
On the limit of being over-specced if only for the fact that they never were mainstream.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – They are both nearing their death bed (even if it’s still a couple of seasons away).

Eureka/Warehouse 13 (Syfy)
Type: Science-fiction procedurals
With Fringe winding down and Stargate: Universe gone, those two are almost the only science-fiction options out there. They are still strong spec shows all around.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Original stories might be harder to find, especially with Eureka, entering its fifth season already.

Southland (TNT)
Type: Police procedural
Southland is definitely getting more traction with its third season and it’s one of the only cop dramas right now with a real grittiness to it.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Renewal beyond the current season is still pretty much on the line given the substantial budget cuts needed.

White Collar (USA)
Type: Light crime procedural
White Collar continues to be the dark horse among light procedurals. Undeniably, the show is still continuing to grow in demand.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Pretty much a success for USA’s standards and a perfect candidate for a more atypical spec show.

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

Blue Bloods (CBS)
Type: Police/family drama
It was a surprise Friday-night hit for CBS, which might make Blue Bloods an interesting spec choice, yet this might still be too unknown.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – It worked for Fridays but not for Wednesdays, so it’s still a toss-up regarding its renewal.

The Chicago Code/Harry’s Law (FOX/NBC)
Type: Police procedural/Legal procedural
Come on, you want to spec this one already? Too soon.
Longevity: ★★★★★ – Chances are Chicago Code is getting the boot sadly. Harry’s Law meanwhile will probably live to see another season.

Forty shows are listed this year and, like last season, a few trends can be observed.

The basic cable market has never been stronger with a big presence by AMC, FX, Syfy, USA and TNT.
On the premium side, beyond the symbolic Dexter presence, Showtime is still pretty much absent from the list due to the lack of dramas. HBO meanwhile is slowly rebuilding its “epic TV” brand (I’m sure Games of Throne will pop up on the list next year).
Network-wise, CBS is still the procedural king, although FOX and ABC are recouping the field with lighter dramas, while NBC is virtually MIA.

Unsurprisingly, a vast majority of the top shows are procedurals with light character serialization. They are the ones which offer a wide range of storylines without compromising the status quo.
Interestingly enough though, the harder shows to spec (relying on more complex mythologies and serialized plots) are still considered attractive. They are indeed a great platform to showcase more in-depth writing skills, but they come at the price of spec longevity.

The bottom line is the same as usual: select a show that reflects your voice, your aspirations, and what you like.
The choice is yours.

Click here for the Comedy Spec Script list.

Focus on Writing for Genre Television

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments about the content follow the letter.

TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.

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

FIGURE IT OUT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

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

LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05

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

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

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