facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “Star Trek”

How Lost revolutionized storytelling

Before telegraphed flashsideways and magical caves, there was a time when Lost told its complex and often surprising story through other means. The mythological show brought to television seldom used attributes to entertain and mystify its audience.
Here’s how the groundbreaking series revolutionized television storytelling.

The first thing to notice about Lost is undoubtedly its unusual use of flashbacks.
At the time (and dare I say still to this day), it was a groundbreaking way to tell a story.
No, I’m not talking about the flashback itself, rather its use in network primetime.
Could viewers keep up with two simultaneous narratives involving the same characters at different times of their lives?
Since its first inception, flashbacks have not only become the staple of the show, but also populated the television landscape.

So much actually, that fans quickly grew tired of what appeared to only be a gimmick.
I guess now we can peak behind the curtain and reveal that, yes, it was at first an opportunity for the writers to stall.
Don’t take my word for it, here’s what Damon Lindelof had to say on the subject:

We knew early on that the flashbacks were going to have to be a prominent aspect of the series but we didn’t use flashbacks in the pilot other than to tell the story of the crash. We knew as we were shooting the pilot though that the only way to do the series would be to use the art of the stall. In any given season of 24 there’s not that much happening, but they give the illusion of constant suspense. On Lost if every episode were about discovering the mysteries of the island than we would be sunk, because there’s an inevitability to that where if the characters decided ‘we’re going to explore this island and figure out what this place is’ whereas if it’s ‘we’re going to figure out how to live with each other and figure out what this island is’ and we’re going to learn about the characters before the crash so that they’re emotionally compelling, that was the only way we saw to do the show.

The bottom line of it all is that, beyond its apparent uselessness, flashbacks on Lost (save for, let’s say, Fire+Water and Stranger in a Strange Land) were compelling both narratively and emotionally. You can’t say that about Damages’ flashforwards (more on that in a minute).
One of my personal favorites is the final flashback of Walkabout where it is revealed Locke was in a wheelchair.
The tour de force of Lost was to intertwine two narratives and therein create a seamless emotional journey that could resonate both in the past (off-Island), and in the present (on-Island). Those “flashes” were actually useful to the show.
As revealed by Lindelof, this back-and-forth between present and past was partly based on the storytelling method of the Watchmen graphic novel as well as Slaughterhouse-Five.

And since we’re on the subject, if you’re going to talk about one, then you’ll need to talk about the other.
I am of course referring to flashforwards (or prolepses).
Remember the time when you had never heard the term “flashforward”?
Me neither.
And yet, before the twist ending occurred during the Season Three finale (Through the Looking Glass), only a few people knew that the technique existed, let alone its usage.
You could say the series finale of Six Feet Under, The O.C., or even Star Trek: The Next Generation used flashforwards to offer viewers glimpses into the future of the show’s characters, but those were just that: glimpses. Like with flashbacks, Lost juxtaposed its timelines in such a unique way that you couldn’t look at prolepses as ‘just that’.

Flashforwards in Lost gave weight to something that was rarely used, or at least not for their sake, but just to give hints of the future. It was the ABC show that truly revealed the potential of such a storytelling technique. The series had showed again that audiences could follow simultaneously two very different timelines. Not since La Jetée have we had such a complex array of timelines, combining both analepses and prolepses. One could argue the writers are trying to catch the lightning in the bottle once more with this season’s flashsideways technique. But all they’re actually creating is a fake sense of nostalgia.

This true revolution gave way to a few series that probably would not have been green-lit had it not been for Lost.
Damages certainly succeeded in using flashforwards with its first season, but could have gone without it with its following seasons. They were as well only used as glimpses into the season finale, not true parallel storytelling. In addition, we can talk a bit about the now-canned FlashForward (based on the 1999 book of the same name) that proved a show could not sustain on mythology alone.

Ultimately, Carlton Cuse describes his show as “a giant mosaic“:

At various points in the journey you’re going to be standing in various spots and you can define them as past, present, or future. We like fractured storytelling, and the way we’re going you’ll be looking at various aspects of our characters’ lives in the story we are telling. We want to explore that from various perspectives.

Another revolution in the network landscape is the scope of the show.
And I’m not just talking about the size of the Four-Toed Statue.
From its cast and sets, to the score and cinematic visuals, Lost was pretty much unprecedented as a network drama. The show is de facto massively expensive (large crew and Hawaii shoot), but it also premiered during a time where networks were slowly moving away from scripted dramas into the realm of cheaply-produced reality shows. Whatever you might say about the mythology of the show, you can’t deny that the series had a lot of layers.

Comparing the show to video-game storytelling, Carlton Cuse went on to say:

We also felt that since Lost was violating a lot of rules of traditional television storytelling, including having a large and sprawling cast and having very complex storytelling, we felt that videogames were one model that showed that if audiences get invested, they love complexity. In fact, the more complexity the better, and the challenge of that complexity was an asset as opposed to a liability. Those are the games that people actually respect, you know?

As for the characters, even though an ensemble cast is far from being new, Lost distinguished itself from others thanks to the innovative “centric” aspect.
And regarding the mythology, well it seems to span literally thousands of years, though we’ll have a lot of things to say about that in the coming days.

Television storytelling was also revolutionized in another surprising way when, after a few months of back-and-forth talk between ABC and the Lost execs, an end-date for the series was announced on May 7th, 2007. Clearly, this move was done as a gesture towards the fan that both answers and the end were in sight. It was also an unprecedented move in network history that is unlikely to happen again, though it shaped in many ways other mythological series. Finally, the announcement led to three shorter seasons (around 15 episodes each), and, as we can see from the current renewals, such “cable seasons” are now becoming more and more in vogue.

Last but far from being least, we can now talk about the final two fundamental changes Lost brought to television storytelling: Crossmedia & Transmedia.
Simply put, crossmedia is distribution of one “story world” across multiple platforms, and transmedia is the usage of said platforms to tell the story.

Think of it this way: the ‘Lost world’ has many stories told through various mediums, the main one being the mothership (the television show on ABC). The rest of the (less important) side-stories can be told through, for instance, a series of books. This is crossmedia.
The show explored Information technologies as a way to distribute its stories. Case in point in December 2007 when Lost: Missing Pieces was launched on the Internet and mobile phones. The thirteen short videos (about three minutes each) were actually mini-flashbacks comprised of mostly deleted scenes. It wasn’t the first foray into mini-episodes (see 24 and Battlestar Galactica), but it certainly was the most effective of its time.

You also have transmedia, which is basically a more engulfing version of crossmedia. The most obvious example is what is called “Alternate Reality Game” (ARG), or, as Wikipedia describes it, “an interactive narrative that uses the real world as a platform, often involving multiple media and game elements, to tell a story that may be affected by participants’ ideas or actions.”
One of the best ARG was The Lost Experience in 2007. I won’t go here into the dirty deets of what made TLE so great (Ivan Askwith deconstructed the ARG pretty thoroughly in his paper), though I have to congratulate one of the masterminds behind it, Javier Grillo-Marxuach.
Though their later attempts were much less successful (Find 815, the Dharma Initiative Recruiting Project), what you had with TLE and other Lost crossmedia was a unified viewing experience that allowed the audience to decide on which level it wants to be involved with the series.
You could be an über-fan and follow The Lost Experience, or just a casual viewer and simply watch the series on TV.

At the end of the day, Lost may be most remembered for complex mysteries or lack of answers, but its most overlooked aspect will certainly be the one that will have the greatest impact on television: groundbreaking and timeless storytelling.

Ten Spec Writing Rules (and why you should care)

While giving her ten commandments on writing a spec script in an interview a few years ago, Jane Espenson thought that “this could be a good blog entry.”
She wasn’t wrong.

How to write a spec script for TV is a broad question that has many answers. Her comment made me reminisce about some of the standard spec writing ground-rules. I find that having some does not hinder creativity, but rather focuses it.

Here’s a little (albeit detailed) reminder of some of them, starting with the most obvious.

1. Don’t spec a dead show

For the love of God, we don’t want to know what Carrie did with Mr. Big’s underwear or Ross’ latest honeymoon with Rachel.
If the show is buried, leave it there.

2. Don’t spec a show you want to get hired on

Where to send spec scripts is another issue, but your sample television script should not be destined for the show you’re basing it on. This might sound crazy for some but if you think about it, it’s pretty logical.
There are, firstly, some legal issues that might become involved. More importantly though, it’s just very hard for an outsider to nail a show right on the money.
As Martie Cook explains it in Write to TV:

If you are anyone on the Desperate Housewives writing staff, you know each of the characters intimately […], you know absolutely every minor detail. As a freelance writer, no matter how much you study a show before you write it, you simply won’t have the same inside track that the show’s script writers and producers do. It is quite probable that here and there throughout your script you may have things that are slightly off. [The Desperate Housewives writing staff] will no doubt pick up on the flaws in your script instantly.

Go for the next-of-kin, meaning the next show closest (regarding genre/voice/stories) to the one you want to get hired on.
There have been some successful rule-breakers, but these are extremely rare cases.

3. Spec a show you like

Not speccing the series you’re aiming at doesn’t mean you shouldn’t write something you don’t like (if anything, it’s gonna show in your writing).
Don’t spec a show simply because it’s hot, but also because you’re into it and have some kind of appreciation for it.
Passion is what drives you to be a writer, so why not use the same fuel for your script?

4. Don’t write mythological episodes

You know these little toys you had as a kid and didn’t want anyone else to touch?
Well the characters you’re using belong to someone else.
You’re allowed to play with them a bit, but the show-runner expects you to bring them back safely to him/her.
When you spec a show, go for the memorable stand-alone episode, not the big season finale.
If House suddenly learns he has a tumor, or Meredith Grey finds out she’s pregnant, you’re doing something wrong.
You can obviously play with characters’ relationships and/or use bigger mysteries/arcs, but one of the (many) questions you should be asking yourself is if your episode can neatly fit anywhere in a given season of the show. If the answer is yes, congrats, you’ve got a stand-alone episode.
This doesn’t mean though that your script should be pointless.
You need to provide the reader with an emotional ride, and perhaps even some thought-provoking content.
Use the already-defined protagonists; they’re here just for that reason.
For overly-serialized character shows you wouldn’t be able to understand without a Previously, the WB Writers’ Workshop advises to “set up your episode:”

If you are writing a serialized show (e.g. Gossip Girl or Grey’s Anatomy) please include a “Previously On” page that lists where your main characters are within the series when we come across them in your spec. This page should come after your title page and before your teaser.

5. Don’t write around new characters

You’re trying to prove that you can “blend in” a writing staff, and more importantly “get” the voice of a show.
Writing the backstory of Don Draper’s hairdresser might be fun, but it certainly doesn’t show how you can write the other Mad Men characters (the ones in suits and dresses).
And in case you’re wondering, limiting the amount of screen time a new character has doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any guest-stars.
If you’re writing a procedural, you will definitely need to introduce new people (victim, murderer, suspect, etc.), just make sure they’re not the protagonists of your episode.

6. Don’t go for the obvious

If you have thought of it, chances are other writers on staff have too. How to write a TV script isn’t about using the low-hanging fruits.
Think of why the show didn’t use that particular storyline. Now look at your spec script outline.
The aim is to write better TV than what’s on TV. You have months, they have two weeks (at best).
Don’t be that guy/girl who throws an empty can of beer at your screen yelling “My dog can write better than that!”, and then come up with a body-switch episode.

7. Don’t think too big, your spec must be realistically producible…

Maybe you should edit your spec script down. Jane Espenson once told the story behind a failed Star Trek spec she did:

It was all epic. And unfilmable. I had demonstrated a complete lack of ability to tell a story with an eye toward real-life budget constraints. And, as a result, I had ended up telling a story that they simply wouldn’t do on their show. Writing a filmable spec, keeping it small enough, is an important part of the process.

8. …but don’t expect it to get produced

Specs are mainly here to showcase your talent as well as show you can blend in a predetermined ensemble.
One of the greatest ironies of TV spec writing is that, even though you’re striving to prove you can successfully write a one-hour drama, your “proof” won’t be made.
You can use that to your advantage by going bigger on some of the stories.
Alex Epstein in Crafty TV Writing also makes an interesting point about censorship, and how your material can be “slightly edgier” to what’s on TV:

If you are going to push the envelope, it should be in a direction that the show would naturally take if the network censors were all on holiday that week.

With that said, don’t go too far. Although you can thematically go beyond the usual, don’t go overboard and start putting “fuck” every pages (unless it’s The Sopranos — but what the hell are you doing speccing a dead show?).
Like getting staffed on your specced show, there have been very rare instances (mostly in sitcoms) where specs ended up being made. There’s also that guy who got struck by lightning twice. You know what I mean.

9. Keep it fresh

This is both about your choice of main storyline (who wants to see a rehash of a plot done to death?), as well as arcs you might have to use in your spec.
Your Grey’s Anatomy script about Izzy Stevens won’t be of much use now that Katherine Heigl is off the show.
Try to keep it updated enough so as not to make your spec stale. Doing this on a serialized show is obviously harder.
But like Botox, too much nip and tuck on your finished script, and it quickly becomes a mess.
As Jane Espenson puts it:

It’s better to let a spec show a few of the signs of aging than to keep fattening its lips and lifting its keister until even you can’t recognize it anymore.

Fellowships find that 6-month old scripts are fine as they consider it the correct amount of time for a good polish/new writing. However, if it’s a couple seasons old, cross it off.

10. Watch, read, and study

Perhaps the single most important rule here.
You’re aiming to mimic an already-existing show so that your own spec script format matches theirs.
The best way to know how it works is to do the three things listed: watch their episodes, read their scripts, study their structure. If you can, you should definitely try to get your hands on the series’ bible (though that’s going to be a hard thing to do).
Ask yourself: What would a typical A, B, or C story be? How long are the teaser and the tag? Why are the act breaks here but not there? And for that matter, how many acts are there altogether? The list goes on. You should also have a feel of how the characters talk, and even think.
Basically know the show by heart.

Remember that writing a spec script is still art, not science.

You could forget about everything and write for the double-edged sword that is ‘stunt speccing.’ If you’re on top of your game and make the perfect script, kudos to you. However if not done correctly, it could bomb massively (and you’d have wasted a lot of time writing it). Perhaps I’ll post a spec script example or two next time around.
Rules are meant to be broken, but some are also meant to be respected.

And since I did mention Jane Espenson’s own ten commandments of TV Spec writing, here they are:

– Don’t spec a show you don’t respect.
– Don’t make your spec about a guest character. Focus on the main character.
– Get sample scripts of produced episodes. Study them.
– Follow the show’s structure exactly.
– Find a story for your spec that plays on the show’s main theme.
– Don’t write an episode that resolves the show’s mystery or consummates its romance.
– Place the story turns at the act breaks, and give us a reason to come back after the commercials.
– In a comedy, spend time polishing the jokes, especially the last one of each scene.
– Spelling, formatting, clarity of stage directions – they really matter.
– Use strong brass brads.

Write on.

The unoriginality of Fringe (Part Two)

Following yesterday’s post (where we saw why The X-Files still surpasses Fringe), we’ll now be discussing how the Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman show is actually getting its ideas from another source.
It seems that with this “parallel universe” story, the writers are beginning to get “inspired by” another science-fiction show, Sliders.

Yet again, I’ll be talking about Fringe up to, and including, its Second Season premiere. In addition, I’ll be making numerous references to major Sliders plotlines, so tread carefully (even though the show has been off the air for almost a decade).

Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Fringe is no more “science” than it is “fiction,” especially now that we’ve been officially introduced to parallel worlds.
In reality, it’s just a convenient way to answer everything that’s unanswerable. Unsurprisingly, a self-cutting neck is not scientifically realistic, despite what the writers want us to think. Stop wondering why someone has a bionic arm, the answer is obvious: it comes from another universe!
And if you’re still thinking that the writers know their science, just take a look at who wrote (and directed) the season premiere: Akiva Goldsman, the writer behind the 1998 movie adaptation of Lost in Space with Matt LeBland (no typo). If I recall correctly, that movie was actually a documentary about space exploration. I mean, its use of “time bubbles” was simply astonishing.

In the meantime, here’s a brief history of Sliders.
From 1995 to 1999, the series ran for five seasons, including three on FOX. Created by Tracy Tormé & Robert K. Weiss, the series dealt with a group of people that get sent to parallel dimensions. Tormé and Weiss “left” the show after several problems with the network. Ultimately, SciFi Channel took over after the series’ third season, but by then David Peckinpah, who’d been made showrunner the year prior, had already ran the show into the ground by completely abandoning the concept of alternate histories and going into a more action/adventure direction. Sliders at its core was a show about the exploration of parallel worlds (which isn’t what Fringe is about–yet), but the series shifted focus during Season Three with the introduction of the Kromaggs (more on that in a second).

Sure, as soon as the multiverse is used on a show, Sliders is always brought up, but this time though it’s with good reason as the similarities between the two are beyond eerie.
Ironically, the writers seems to take from Sliders its worst storylines.

The main one being of course the Kromaggs, a parallel version of humanoid primates, and “a technologically advanced and highly militaristic race bent on conquering all human-dominated alternate Earths.”
They also have psychic abilities, such as the power “to project illusions and plant post-hypnotic suggestions into human minds. One episode had one Kromagg attempt to force data out of someone’s minds by touch, similar to Star Trek‘s Vulcan “mind meld”.” Moreover, they also have “healing powers, whereby they can heal people with their minds.”

Okay, so now that you know what Kromaggs are, let’s take a look at the two main opposing forces in the Fringe ‘verse, symbolized by the mysterious group called Zerstörung durch Fortschritte der Technologie (“Destruction through Technological Progress” or simply ZFT).
io9 briefed us on the group’s motives:

Bioterrorist group ZFT is responsible for many of the experiments the Fringe team investigates. ZFT’s extensive network of scientists perform bizarre and often deadly experiments on other human beings — like infecting a woman with a form of vampiric syphilis or growing fast-aging humans. In addition to their biohacks, ZFT possesses some technologies developed by Walter Bishop, including a teleportation device.
But there’s also a method behind ZFT’s biological madness. ZFT members operate according to a manifesto that states two key things: there is another dimension more scientifically advanced than our own, and in the coming interdimensional war, only one dimension can survive. ZFT is out to create an army of biologically enhanced supersoldiers who will fight for our dimension in that war. But there’s also a chapter missing from ZFT’s manifesto — one that outlines ethics.

In the second season premiere of Fringe, we got introduced to this enemy from the “other side,” notably a shape-shifting soldier that is both very agile and very resistant.

So, to summarize, we have, on both shows, technologically advanced supersoldiers with powers, from a parallel universe, trying to destroy humans and other worlds.
It’s pretty much the exact same story.
Oh, and the shape-shifters also look like Kromaggs.


The similarities do not stop there.
Peter Bishop’s parallel world origins seem oddly comparable to that of another main character from Sliders, Quinn Mallory. Even though for the majority of the series we believe Mallory is from Earth Prime, it turns out that he’s not.

[Quinn Mallory is] from Kromagg Prime, an Alternate earth where humans and Kromaggs coexisted until a civil war broke out between the two species. He learned that he was transported to Earth Prime when he was a baby and left with his parents’ doubles. When his parents came back to get him, his adoptive parents were too attached to him so they hid Quinn, and Quinn was raised on Earth Prime.

Replace “Quinn Mallory” by Peter Bishop, “parents” with Walter Bishop, and “Kromaggs” by parallel world enemies, you’ve got the whole series’ arc for Peter and his enigmatic past.

Arguably, one might even say another major plotline was ripped from Sliders, its fifth season’s borefest around Mallory (also known as Quinn2 or Quinn Mallory 2.0).

In the show, two of the main characters (Quinn and Colin Mallory) were “fused” into one. During the whole season, they’re trying to find a way to unmerge the two.
Sounds familiar?
That’s because the same storyline ran for half a season on Fringe. The consciousness of John Scott gets inadvertently transferred into her former partner’s mind, Olivia Dunham. There was even an episode where Olivia’s persona was about to be lost forever. Fortunately, John finally leaves Olivia alone midway through the series’ first season.

Last but not least, we have the mysterious character of William Bell, who seems to overshadow not only ZFT but several parallel universes thanks to his Massive Dynamic conglomerate.
In the second season premiere of Sliders, we meet a mysterious character named the Sorcerer (turns out, he’s an alternate version of Quinn Mallory). Anyways, this “Sorcerer” seems to be able to control the multiverse technology in the same way William Bell does.

For one, he knows much more about the tech than anyone else who’s ever been encountered on the show. He’s also able to capitalize on his interdimensional knowledge, the same way Massive Dynamic exports the numerous advancements it gets from other worlds.
Ding, ding, ding! You’re a winner.

If we look deep enough, other resemblances will probably be found with other science-fiction series.
Who knows, perhaps the writers will totally shift focus and lose their “evil alternates” stories. Probably not
though.
But at least now, you’ve been warned about Fringe‘s unoriginality.