facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts published in “TV Business”

#WGFestival 2016

The 2016 WGFestival occurred this past Saturday on 3rd and Fairfax.
Panels were pretty stacked with one about The CW’s Crazy Ex-Girlfriend (with Rachel Bloom and Aline Brosh McKenna), another with the room of Netflix’s Jessica Jones, a third with John August and Craig Mazin talking to Lawrence Kasdan, and a last one with DCTV writers from the Berlanti camp.

I was unfortunately unable to attend, but a few Twitter aficionados were in attendance.
On Sunday, I checked out the event hashtag to see what people tweeted about. This led me into a rabbit hole of compiling interesting/relevant tweets from folks in the audience (most notably from the super-duper Mike Roe).

Here is the curated #WGFestival list:




Granted, there aren’t that many, probably because people were busier listening than typing tweets.

Speaking of, I should probably get back to my spec…

Write on.

The demographics of dialogue

Last week, an interesting study got posted on Polygraph from Hanah Anderson & Matt Daniels.

The pair scoured over 2,000 feature screenplays, using the written dialogue to break down the character demographics of these mainstream movies. Specifically, disparities in gender and age.

The study wasn’t completely scientific however, as they themselves pointed out:

We don’t need to follow a perfectly structured academic study because…
1) This is the Internet. Not academia.
2) We’re publishing on a .cool domain, not an MIT Journal

Their methodology basically centered around extracting dialogue from particular script drafts, and extrapolating that data into gender and age categories.

It quickly becomes obvious that this selective dataset may lead to multiple limitations:

For each screenplay, we mapped characters with at least 100 words of dialogue to a person’s IMDB page (which identifies people as an actor or actress). We did this because minor characters are poorly labeled on IMDB pages.

One of the most interesting aspect in looking at “how” they came to their outcome is to discover which scripts (and versions) the study worked on.

Take a look at their Google doc spreadsheet to find the 2,000 scripts and their relevant source.
You’ll notice a hefty amount of Academy Award drafts, and multiple older versions of scripts; undoubtedly linked to the (lack of) “public availability” of shooting drafts.

The draft for Pixels turns out to be the 2013 version leaked during the Sony Hacks.
The script version used for The Big Short does not include, among other things, the Margot Robbie bathtub scene. (Admittedly not the best representation of a woman character in a feature.)

This isn’t to undermine the study. Their FAQ already tackles a lot of similar objections to their findings.

Given the sheer volume of data extracted, and regardless of how updated those drafts were, I would still consider this a fair bird’s-eye view–and indictment–of representation in mainstream film dialogue.

Just look at this gradient breakdown of words given to men and women from the 2,000 screenplays:
male female dialogue words

You can search for individual films in the website’s dataset.
It’s quite interesting (read: damning) to see where some cinematic classics fall on.

One is pleased to learn that Pokémon: The First Movie: Mewtwo Strikes Back is at a 54/46 split, thanks to Ash Ketchum and Meowth being voiced by ladies.

Frozen however, with its two woman leads, still ends up with a 57/43 breakdown for men. Place your bets on the non-stop talking sidekick character voiced by Josh Gad.
The same goes for Mulan, which gets a 75/25 split. (Damn it, Mushu!)

No word on any of the Mad Max movies.

The stats are equally as sobering when it comes to age:
39% of male dialogue written for men 42 to 65-year old.
38% of female dialogue written for women 22 to 31-year old.
The male/female curve-bells are actually the exact opposite. There are more male roles available the older actors get, while roles for women over 40 decrease dramatically.

So, where does this leave us?

Well, there is a critical limitation to this study that we need to address–
What we are talking about here is dialogue relating to specific drafts of specific screenplays.
And given the topic at hand, the natural follow-up question to that statement could be:
Is it a fair assessment of representation to reduce the entire issue only through the amount of words said by a character?

I would argue this approach limits the discourse (no pun intended).
Which is why we should be asking a different question to begin with–

What is an accurate gauge of representation?

Screen time? Number of characters? Nuanced portrayals?
Probably no unique correct answer among those. Nor should there be.

Fair representation is an ongoing dialogue with which our industry is still struggling.
As long as this discussion continues–with more findings, more light being shed on specific issues–the closer we will be to addressing the problems at hand.

Incidentally, there is another conversation going on currently about television representation and the writers’ relationship with their fandom. (The 100, Sleepy Hollow, casting/staffing diversity…)
I won’t address much (or any) of it here since this is a post (or many) on to their own.
For now, I’ll just direct you to read some of the tweets from the past two days by Terminator: The Sarah Connor ChroniclesJosh Friedman and Agent Carter‘s Jose Molina.

In fact, I don’t have a groundbreaking revelation to add right now, if only to remind people that “representation” is an amalgam of factors.
It isn’t just how much you say. It’s also what you say, how you say it, and why you say it.
Quantifying any of these values is pretty much impossible since they are mostly a matter of perspective, not objective data.
The one thing we can all do is be mindful of the current landscape, and continue to improve on it.

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.