facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “Specs”

Introducing the TV Spec Test

One of the most popular posts on TV Calling has always been my annual Spec Script List, where I list the “hot” (or not) television shows that people can spec (both comedies and dramas).

Although the list gives a thorough overview of the TV spec script field, it isn’t very individual-centric.

To put it simply, everyone has different needs when it comes to the show they want to spec.
Some want to do it as an exercise, others for the fellowships.
Or maybe you’re into one genre over the other.

Well…

Before I start a TV spec script, I ask myself nine specific questions to make sure the TV show I choose to write is the right one for me.
It’s like my very own litmus test.

And given the popularity of the TV Spec List (plus the follow-up questions I get asked), there’s a clear need for people to make sure the show they pick to spec is the right one for them.

That is why I’ve decided to compile my “litmus” spec script questions (with bonus explanations) into a brand-new PDF guide for the followers of TV Calling!

I call it the TV Spec Test.

Here’s the breakdown:

  • 5 personal factors to find the spec for your taste so you don’t have to bet on what’s popular.
  • 4 external elements that use attributes of the show so your script lasts more than two days.

Whether you’re applying to the TV writing programs, contests, or simply want to make sure the show you’re speccing is the right pick for you– you’ll definitely want to run your choice through the test.

Oh, I almost forgot…

I’m making the Spec Test completely free!

If this sounds useful for your TV writing, click here to find how to access this awesome, free PDF guide:

I want the Spec Test!

Write on.

How to write TV specs for adapted series? (Readers’ Mail)

On this week’s Readers’ Mail, Jason wonders:

I wanted to ask about writing a spec script for an existing series that is itself an adaptation.
Let’s say I want to write a spec for a TV series based on a comic book – Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Arrow, The Flash, etc – or one based on a series of novels – Hannibal, Game of Thrones, etc. What would be your advice on how to utilize the source material in the spec script?
Say there’s a particular story from the source material that I’d love to adapt for one of these series – would that be fair game for a spec? Or would you recommend avoiding any use of the source material, and creating something completely original – as though the TV series existed in a vacuum?

This is an interesting and complicated question that ties into several factors: faithfulness of the adaptation, faithfulness from your own spec, and originality.

Let’s start off with…

Is it fair game to use inspiration from the source material when you’re speccing an adapted show?

A spec is in of itself an adaptation of a show (the same could be said of fan-fiction).
The real issue behind the question is where “inspiration” ends, and where “plagiarism” begins.

If you are using the source as only a jumping-off point, then that’s probably fair game.
There’s really nothing wrong with being inspired by something. It’s all about how you use that inspiration.

That’s why we also need to look at how the show you’re speccing uses its own material. Ask yourself: how closely (or not) does the series tie to its original format?
Does it actively seek out to copy narrative arcs? Or does it only bear the names of characters, but without any of their attributes?

Daredevil and Jessica Jones have very serialized arcs that relate to particular comic arcs and villains. The same could be said of The Walking Dead (just look at who’s coming in).
On the other hand, Arrow, The Flash and Supergirl are inspired by the comics, but they really make the various DC villains and characters “their own”. Even some iconic comic elements present in the series (e.g. in Flash, characters like Zoom, Vibe, Jay Garrick, Reverse Flash) are truly infused with the personality of their TV adaptations.

The number one “spec rule of thumb” dictates you should strive to mimic the style of the original show; meaning also its faithfulness to the original work.
But if a show is too faithful to its original source, where does your own originality come in?
Well, this brings us to another question…

Should you avoid using the source material altogether?

I’d argue it is downright impossible to write a great spec of an adapted series AND be like Jon Snow (i.e. know nothing) about the original source.

Game of Thrones has a complex mythology and populated world because of George R.R. Martin.
The Walking Dead has emotional baggage behind Negan because of Robert Kirkman/Charlie Adlard.
The Flash has its iconic Rogues gallery because of all the talent behind DC comics.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and ignore the source material. Because that is not how the shows you’re trying to spec operate.
If anything, you need to understand all the rules of the world, and those of its adaptation.

That usually means you shouldn’t transpose a complete story arc and just add some TV dialogue on top of it.
Greg Berlanti shows are notorious for first looking at their central character’s episodic conflict before even glancing at the DC roster. The writers want to nail what the characters are going to go through first, which will then dictate what villain is the best antithesis to that problem.

In fact, there are several issues at play with copying something beat-for-beat for a spec:
1) It defeats the point of a spec. As is oft-repeated, a spec is here to show you can blend in with the source, which in this case is the show not the comic/book it originated from.
2) You run the risk of the series doing a similar run of storylines down the road. And they’ll probably do it better than you could (since they know their own show better).
3) Depending on how major the story arc is, there’s a strong chance someone out there is already speccing it.
4) You risk being branded a copycat, especially if a reader is very familiar with the material and sees you copied it. Do you really want that reputation?

To summarize:
Will you be penalized for using an existing DC Comic villain in a Flash spec? Probably not.
Will you run into trouble for copying an entire issue of said DC villain? It’s a definite possibility.

Since all adaptations have their own degrees of faithfulness, and people tend to imitate that same for their specs, it’s therefore not surprising that Game of Thrones (a close adaptation of its novels) is not accepted by the Warner Bros. program.

So, if you want to have some inspiration without copying it…

How do you utilize the original source material?

The answer is clear: do your research on how the show compares to the OG book or comic. Read, learn, and more importantly look at the differences.
Don’t just look at the contrasts in story, or how characters are portrayed on the show, but understand why the writers decided to diverge from the books.

There always are specific idiosyncrasies of adaptations; thematic ideas that they focus on over others (vis-à-vis the original).
How central was Catholicism in Netflix’s Daredevil compared to some classic Daredevil comic runs?
How different was Tyrion’s portrayal in the books versus a show where he’s played by a popular actor?
How important is Cisco’s character journey to becoming Vibe/Reverb in the Flash comics?

Once you have answered that, you’re a step closer to figuring out what makes the show “the show” and the book “the book”.

If you’re drawn to a particular story, then you’ll need to find your own take of the material, all within the tone of the show.
Although you may run the risk of someone using that villain in the future, if you really made that character your own, then you may still be able to use the sample.

Infusing that original creation with your own personal take, and the spirit of the TV show, is ultimately what will separate stealing from adapting.

If you’re a reader with a question of your own, feel free to send me a message!

Write on.



Writings from WonderCon 2016

This past week-end was WonderCon 2016, which moved from Anaheim to good ol’ Downtown LA.
That meant taking the red metro line instead of finding parking around Disneyland.

Lately, I’ve been enjoying WonderCon more than the San Diego Comic-Con.
There’s evidently a huge cost difference. At SDCC, you need to book a hotel for 2-5 days, which ends up costing you hundreds of dollars (even split) if you want a halfway decent place. Add to that having to go out 1-2 times a day, and the train from/to Los Angeles.

It’s also interesting to see the difference in attendance. WonderCon 2014 was around 60,000 people. On the other end of the scale, Comic-Con hosted about 167,000.
100,000 is a huge gap, and a crucial reason why WonderCon ends up more appreciated than SDCC by seasoned con attendees.
You have breathing room. You can walk the floor easily (or easier). Lines are not hours long.

Well. Up until this year.

wondercon 2016 pro line

Right out of the gate, professional badge “registration” was a nightmare. In 2015, 15-20 minutes was long enough to go through the whole process of getting one’s badge. This time, I (and many others) had a two-hour line wait. Yes, two hours. Keep in mind, this is to pick up your badge.
It became so bad that, as we approached the checking point, one of the volunteers ended up handing us our badges without printing a name label on them.

I’m one of the proud owners of a WonderCon ghost badge!

wondercon 2016 badge

Another ridiculous aspect of this year’s WonderCon was a new RFID system which forced everyone to tap their badge at every entry and exit point of every room.
Do you have to go on the floor? Tap in. Need to exit? Tap out. Need to go to a panel? Tap in again.

This may not sound that convoluted… Except when you have nearly 100,000 people moving around a tight convention center. Lines beget lines.
With the temporary Los Angeles move, I wouldn’t even be shocked to find WonderCon 2016 nearing 100,000 people itself.
Let’s hope they drop the concept for Comic-Con–where twice the number of attendees are present.

With the aforementioned professional line wait, I missed out on most of my first panel of the con: a discussion about the ABC-Disney programs.

wondercon 2016 abc disney panel
Fortunately, I caught up on a compelling portion about what constitutes a “personal story”. During the writing programs (and arguably any other meeting in Hollywood), you will be asked to tell “your” story. In fact, being able to define who you are as a writer–and connecting it to your own experiences–is a key part of my TV writer roadmap.
People will often focus on periods of their lives that impacted them in a negative way. Traumas are inherently more memorable than an average positive influence that may not be as quantifiable. But it’s not all about the bad experiences. As someone on the panel said:

There’s greater drama in surpassing something rather than dwelling in it.

People want to see characters overcome obstacles and transform because of them. That’s character growth. And for all intents and purposes, you are a character in your own TV writing journey. Yup, this is an industry of storytelling through and through.
Your personal story is therefore not just about the bad moments that made you a knowledgeable writer, it is your entire growth that brought you to this moment.

Once the panel was over, I headed to the convention floor. Surprisingly, there were not many (if any) television/feature production companies, studios or networks booths.
I say surprisingly because the evolution of Comic-Con/WonderCon into a pop-culture mashup of mediums is one of the reasons why so many people attend them.
Guess they didn’t find it worthwhile to advertise in a con taking place in Los Angeles.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the countless amazing cosplays I saw. My favorite was a circle of Flash characters fighting each other.

They stood like this for a good 20 minutes. (Some of us have pictures to take…)

wondercon 2016 flash circle

Saturday was the big day for TV writing panels.

I had to skip the showrunners panel, but I ended up attending one my favorites: the bi-annual “Inside the Writers’ Room“.
Much like the last go around, were present: Mark Altman, Gabrielle Stanton, Amy Berg, Jose Molina, Ashley Miller, Sarah Watson, and Steve Melching.
It’s all about going over the process of making an hour of television. There’s nothing really groundbreaking said (unless you’re brand-new to TV), but the panel is always a good solid hour of entertainment.

This was followed by an extremely informative “Writing for TV” session, moderated by Spiro Skentzos.
Usually, this is a panel dedicated to the NBC Writers on the Verge program; however this time the panelists were EP-level writers: Glen Mazzara, Natalie Chaidez, Richard Hatem, and Meredith Averill.

wondercon 2016 second writing panel
It was great to hear directly from “decision makers” what their thoughts are on speccing, staffing, and everything in between.
One of the great moments of the panel was Glenn Mazzara discussing spec pilots. Specifically, he pointed out that spec pilots should not leave the reader hanging. In other words, it should be a self-contained satisfying story that is cinematic and visuals, with maybe a few open questions. It should not just be a set-up for future episodes.
Simply put: there is no need to bring a convoluted plot to a spec pilot. As long as you deliver an emotion to the reader, you’ll get far.

This incidentally reminded me of the current trend in franchise features–iconized in the recent Batman v. Superman–which have to serve as both precursor to a whole cinematic universe, and skimping on being a satisfying movie experience in of their own.
Instead of delivering the story at hand, Batman v. Superman spent a ridiculous amount of time on a ponderous introduction to characters meant for sequels.

But back to WonderCon.

Sunday came, and it started off with another Brandon Easton panel on “Breaking into Comics and Hollywood Scriptwriting“. Panelists included Ubah Mohamed, Erika Alexander, and Tony Puryear.

wondercon 2016 third writing panel
Once again, a lot of time was spent on the concept of branding yourself as a writer.
*cough* TV writer roadmap *cough*
I did learn about a comic-writing book I wasn’t aware of: Writers on Comics Scriptwriting.
The two volumes seem to be out of print, although Amazon has second-hand sellers (same for Volume 2).
There was also some talk about how you need to put your work out there. (Don’t just let a script sit on a shelf somewhere.) It reminded me of my exploration about publicly sharing my Star Trek spec pilot script.

As the floor was closing down for the year (at 5PM!), it was time to call it quits on WonderCon.
Yes, I only went to four panels. I’ve cut back on the sit-downs since I end up spending most of my convention time running into people I know, or making new connections.
(Also, discovering new comics to read.)

And that’s that for WonderCon 2016.

Can you believe Comic-Con is in less than four months? I’m already exhausted thinking about it.