The Comedy Debate Continues

WARNING: Donald Trump is not part of this debate. There are no angry responses, no personal attacks, no grandstanding, no hidden agendas. If it were televised it would be on C-SPAN-6 not CNN or Fox News. Don’t expect to see portions of it discussed in op-ed pieces. If you’re okay with that then please read on.

Fellow writer Earl Pomerantz and I have had differing points of view recently on the “new” style of television comedy (geared almost exclusively to Millennials) where showrunners purposely avoid doing anything that might feel like a conventional joke. I took them to task for this. Here’s one of my articles. I contend the end result is tepid shows that aren’t funny. I don’t want to recap the whole piece. You may have been bored reading it in the first place.

Earl Pomerantz has credentials as good or better than mine. In his terrific blog on Friday he felt this new trend was not as a result of showrunners being lazy or less talented or arrogant. The full text of his article is a click away. But here’s the crux, excerpted from his piece:

the point I am focusing on today is that a mini-movie’s (Read: “single-camera” comedy’s) sensibility feels realer than a mini-play’s (the artistic antecedent of the studio-audience situation comedy.)

And with that preference in format comes a commensurate alteration in writing style.

Meaning (at the undeniable cost of greater laughter):

No “Big Jokes” (or traditional joke-writing structure whatsoever.) No “accidental misunderstandings.” No “mistaken identities.” No comedic “reveals.”

Nothing, in conclusion, that would only happen in a sitcom.

(Like you expect one thing and you get not something surprisingly different from what you expect but its diametrical opposite.)

As dependable as those comedic devices may be, they are incongruous with the template, by which I mean, not only the “single-camera” format itself, but the sensibilities of today’s viewership, most particularly, the younger viewership the networks are struggling hardest to attract, which prefers comedy more reflective of their everyday experience over the comedy – albeit brilliantly conceived and executed – of contrivance.

Earl makes some excellent points. And I would agree with him except for this:

It’s not working.

These shows get terrible ratings. Even among Millennials.

I don’t like Hip Hop music. I don’t get it. It doesn’t speak to me. But if I owned a record company I would sign as many Hip Hop artists as I could. Hip Hop music is HUGE. I tip my hat to Hip Hop artists. Their music might not be my cup of tea but those artists have obviously tapped into something that really resonates with the 12+ crowd.

And I would tip my cap to showrunners of this new comedy style if indeed it was attracting a large following the way Hip Hop is. But it’s not.

Fox tried to justify it a year ago when they inexplicably renewed THE MINDY PROJECT. There was room for niche comedy. A year later they couldn’t cancel it fast enough. (It has been picked up by a streaming service where a sizable audience is not the goal – getting and keeping paid subscribers is.)

One only need to look at the performances of THE BIG BANG THEORY and the new show that follows, LIFE IN PIECES. BIG BANG aggressively tries to make you laugh (at times exhaustively so) while LIFE IN PIECES opts for “realism” and avoiding comic tropes.

BIG BANG gets huge ratings (among young people) and PIECES drops 50% of its audience. 50%! That’s a staggering drop off.

Meanwhile, much maligned out-of-touch multi-camera shows bring in the ratings.  What's disturbing to me is they don't even have to be good.  2 BROKE GIRLS has made 100 episodes, and you know the only new sitcom that is doing well this season?  It's also the show with the single worst reviews.  DR. KEN.   Not only do Millennials want jokes; it seems they want ANY jokes.   Good God!

The only multi-camera shows that don't work for Millennials are the ones that are self-conscious or apologize for being in that format.  MULANEY and WHITNEY are two such offenders.  

From what I understand, there is currently a big renaissance for FRIENDS among young people.  Re-runs are flourishing as a new generation has discovered it.   That makes me happy.  FRIENDS is a good show.

I'm sure there are new formats and fresh ways of making Millennials laugh.  Someone will come along with "their" FRIENDS.  But the key take away is make it a COMEDY.

And by the way, this is nothing new.  In the early '80s they were saying that sitcoms are dead and "dramadies" were the new thing.  Same reasoning.  The form was old and musty and baby boomers wanted something "different."   A few years later CHEERS came along, and then FAMILY TIES, and COSBY, and NEWHART and by the end of the decade there were something like 60 sitcoms and dramadies were nowhere to be found.

Peering down your nose at anything that resembles comic conventions is not working.  Try something else.  What's the next Hip Hop?

I still contend when a comedy writer says to me he doesn’t DO jokes, what he’s really saying is he CAN’T do jokes.

Prove to me you’re funny. Or at least that lots of other people find you funny.

Earl-o? Back to you.  

A few fun fotos

For all the baseball fans in LA who can't get the Dodgers because of TWC, this one's for you.  The Mets' Lucas Duda hit a home run in batting practice yesterday that did this:

For anyone about to go on trial:

And I should be writing instead of surfing the net for pictures.  But then again, that's part of my process.

PROGRAMMING NOTE:  Tomorrow I respond to Earl Pomerantz's response to my rant on the new wave of comedy.  The debate continues.  Chairs will be thrown. 

Lost in Translation

When my writing partner, David Isaacs and I did a rewrite on JEWEL OF THE NILE for Michael Douglas we had to have the script approved by the Moroccan government before they'd be allowed to film there. Make sure no international crisis would be caused by one of our jokes. So the screenplay was translated into French. I was given a copy of the French version. I don't speak French (or any language including English sometimes) but my wife does. She knows at least enough to yell at desk clerks in Paris.

She read the new version and said it made absolutely no sense. Jokes were translated word by word. So characters were just speaking gibberish.

The script was approved. (Oh, if only networks had the same high standards.)

And recently I came across an episode of ALMOST PERFECT that was dubbed into German (German being the universal language of comedy). I have no idea how faithful the translation was. All I know is that everybody seemed to be angry with everyone else, even in the love scenes.

I have a lot of readers abroad so let me ask you -- do US comedies make sense in different languages? Other than pratfalls, are they remotely funny? (Watch – YES DEAR is considered the funniest US sitcom on three continents.)

There's a reason action movies do better in foreign markets than comedies. You don't have to appreciate irony to enjoy a good explosion.

I've seen a few French comedy movies and have enjoyed them, even with subtitles. And you know a joke is bulletproof if the subtitle can get a laugh. But if the comic premise is clever and the actors are good the movie should work. Interestingly, I've seen several US remakes of French comedies and despite the English-friendly dialogue, I always prefer the originals. Maybe it's just the relief of never having to see Jim Carrey.

I always wonder how faithful the subtitles are to the actual dialog. Haven't you seen this before? A character chatters for thirty seconds. And the subtitle is "Sure". Huh? Or when the subtitle occasionally gives directions. I've seen "nodding" and "takes a puff". Uh, we stupid Americans can see that.

I'm going to try to find someone German who can translate ALMOST PERFECT now. I'm dying to see if our frothy little romantic comedy became Nancy Travis in DAS BOOT.

UPDATE: Here's an example. It's funny even when you don't know what they're saying, right?


This is a repost from four + years ago.

One of those truly uncomfortable moments in life

From time to time, folks in show business try to use contacts to get house seats for various plays and musicals. Some participants of a production – like playwright, director, actors – are entitled to a certain number of house seats for each performance and often they don’t use them. So through agents, casting directors, friends, or on those rare occasions, actually knowing the participants yourself, you can sometimes score their house seats.

A number of years ago at the Huntington Hartford Theatre in Los Angeles there was a new play by Herb Gardner starring Judd Hirsch that my wife and I wanted to see. In this case, I did not know anyone. I had met Judd on a couple of occasions when I was on CHEERS and he was still doing TAXI on the same lot. But those were only momentary “Nice to meet you” encounters. Still, through the casting director of the show I was working on at the time I got Judd's house seats.

We go to the theatre, they’re great seats, and about ten minutes before the performance Judd’s assistant approaches and says Judd would like us to come back to his dressing room after the show. Okay. That’s a little strange. Often as a courtesy, you will go backstage to thank the person for the seats or just leave him a note acknowledging your gratitude. It’s a little odd to be summoned.

All through the play I’m wondering – what does he want? Does he have an idea for a show he wants to pitch? Is he just a big fan of my shows? Does he want to go out with my wife?

After the show the assistant reappears and escorts us backstage to Judd’s dressing room. And here’s where it gets weird.

We walk in and immediately, by the look on his face, it’s clear he doesn’t know me from Adam. He must’ve thought I was somebody else -- someone that he did know. But of course he doesn’t want to be rude so he pretends that he does know us. At which point we don't want to embarrass him by saying he doesn't know us so we pretend that we know him as well.

So now the three of us engage in the most excruciatingly awkward conversation ever. I don’t recall what we talked about. I just remember a whole lot of pauses. All the while I kept hoping the assistant would pop her head in and say there were other well-wishers or the theatre was fire. Nothing. There was no escape.

After what seems like an hour (it was probably ten minutes) we go to the babysitter card and gracefully make our exit.  Moments later our car screams out of the parking lot. 

The next day the casting director who arranged for the tickets said Judd called her and asked, “Who the hell was that?” Then, when she told him, he said, “Oh. Glad he stopped by.”

The next time I’m just buying tickets.

This is a repost from before there was electricity. 

Friday Questions

Friday Questions – come and get ‘em.

Peter gets us started.

What’s your opinion on the news that Cate Blanchett will play Lucille Ball in a biopic written by Aaron Sorkin?

Aaron, you have some ‘splainin’ to do. Actually, I think Cate Blanchett is inspired casting and Aaron Sorkin is a tremendous writer. It’ll be interesting to see how he does writing Cubans, but if anyone can pull it off he's the man.

Shawn K. asks:

Have you ever seen a joke, or gag, on another show that made you say, "How in the world, have I never thought of that?"

Yes, but I sheepishly confess I forget the show. It might’ve been THE DREW CAREY SHOW. If not, I apologize to whatever show it was.

A character said, “The penis -- mightier than the sword.” I thought, “I’ve seen the expression written out a million times – The pen is mightier than the sword – but never made that connection." Well done… whomever.

From Brian Phillips:

I've seen your entries about the men that warmed up the audiences, yourself included. Who are some of the warm up women?

There are not a lot. The only one I know is the one we used on ALMOST PERFECT – Wendy Hammers. She was terrific!

There are probably others but I just don’t know who they are. There needs to be more.

Mark has…

An odd question, but are sound stages air conditioned? In several MASH episodes that were clearly shot on the stage, the actors seem to be dripping in sweat. And I'm talking about episodes that were not set during a heat wave. Overall, what are sound stage conditions like? In the 20th Anniversary special Alan Alda talked about a rat problem on Stage 9.

They are air conditioned but some better than others. And hot bright lights are required for shooting so depending on the stage and scene it can get toasty.

Newer stages have better air conditioning and the lighting has been improved as well.

Those old sound stages on 20th go back to the ‘30s and ‘40s.

As for rats – all sound stages have that problem. Lots of corners and crawl spaces. And if there is a lot of prop food sitting around, especially overnight, it is not uncommon to have visitors.

A show I wrote for in the ‘80s, OPEN ALL NIGHT, was set in a 24 hour convenience store so there were lots of food items on the shelves. Ratatouille and his buck tooth pals had a field day.

Getting back to Stage 9, one day someone on the lot was giving away kittens and one of the writers took one. The kitten got loose and scampered way up into a crawl space. And the poor thing was meowing so we couldn’t shoot. It took several hours of coaxing to get the cat down. She was fine by the way. No animals were harmed in the filming of MASH.  God knows how much the three-hour shutdown cost the studio. 

And finally, from Magnanimous:

Ken - If you know someone is a jerk, treats their staff miserably, treats their own family pretty miserably, does that make you unable to enjoy a show that they work on?

For example, years ago I had a terrible professional experience with someone who is now a high level producer on Empire and because of it I can't be unbiased about the show. You seem like such a professional, but I wonder if you have this issue too.

Of course.   I’m human. There are certain actors I just can’t enjoy because of their off camera tyranny or general scumbagidness. I hesitate to mention a certain comedian turned sitcom star because I don’t want another fifty comments on the subject. But you know who I mean.

And there are producers whose shows I just won’t watch because of their bad behavior.  Don't care how celebrated their shows are. 

Being talented does not give you the right to treat people like shit. And I have little respect for those industry people who wield their power or success to steamroll over others. Especially when they’re two-faced and have this sweet public persona on camera and off camera are holy terrors.

The irony of course, is that more often than not the horrible behaving person is NOT that talented.  So it's easy to skip their show.  

ON ANOTHER NOTE;

Last week I wrote a rant on how many sitcoms today don't even try to be funny.   My friend & colleague & fellow blogger Earl Pomerantz today offers a thoughtful rebuttal.   Here's my original article.  And here's Earl's response.   I think next week I'll respond to his response.  But check out Earl's.  He's been out for awhile with Legionnaire's Disease (yikes!) so I'm thrilled he's recovered and back.  Bookmark his site.  It's terrific.

The truth about network casting

Here’s a Friday Question that became an entire post.

It’s from Grant Woolsey:

I know you've mentioned a few times in the past about certain high-end Hollywood types interjecting their own favorites or "pet projects" into certain casting calls. In one of Bill Carter's books, he refers to Jennifer Aniston being one of these, and got an audition for "Friends" because of it. Same with William "Gil Grissom" Peterson on "CSI".

How many times has that happened to you? Does some studio head interject in the casting process and make "suggestions", or do they try to form whole shows around actors they like? Does the choice of actor they're backing sometimes seem completely arbitrary? I find this more noticeable in movies (remember the year of a million Jude Law movies?), but I assume TV gets it a lot, too.

Studios and networks definitely have their agendas. And they exert more and more of their will into the process.  No, let me be clear.  They CONTROL casting.  They make ALL the final decisions.  We producers just do the leg work for them. 

Each network has a casting director. Each network casting director has actors they like and actors they don’t.

When a writer/producer gets his show greenlit to pilot he submits a list of possible actors for each part. The network responds. They cross certain names off that list.  Bullshit that there's not blacklist.  If you're an actor (or writer) on the non-desired list you don't get hired.   )This is especially disconcerting in areas like acting where judgment is purely subjective.)

Networks will then provide you with their list of “recommended” actors.

Like I said, networks fall in love with certain people. And in some cases I don’t know why. But they will jam them into any project they can.  Kim Raver gets series after series. Not that she’s that bad, but she’s sure not special, and there are hundreds of other better actors who can’t even get in the front door.

So if you have a show that features an attractive forty-something woman as a lawyer, or executive, or CIA operative you may well have Kim Raver shoved down your throat.

So you begin the casting process, seeing first the network recommended people. And guaranteed, some are going to be jaw-droppingly wrong for the part. You also see people your casting agent finds.

At one time this meant the actor would come in a room and audition for three or four producers and studio reps. Not anymore. Now those auditions are all taped. And they’re all sent to the networks. So if you’re an actor and you have a bad day, or you read for a part you’re not really right for, your bad reading gets seen by the network. And you can quickly go on the “no” list. That’s like, if you’re an outfielder in baseball, your manager tells you to pitch, you can’t get the ball over the plate because you’re not a pitcher, and the team releases you as a result.

Not fair, you say? Damn right, it’s not fair.

The next step: You narrow your choices down to three for each part. You make deals with them contingent on studio and network approval. The actors must audition for the network now. Talk about pressure. Imagine you’re one of three actors going up for the part of Chandler on a new pilot called FRIENDS. How different is your life if you get the part versus not get the part?

Usually of the three actors, one will be a network favorite going in. And the other two may give better auditions and be better for the role, but the network will approve their darling anyway.

Again, not fair? You betcha.

We had a pilot ten years ago where we had to fight hard to get a certain actor.  The studio didn't love him.  The network sure didn't love him.  But we argued that he was special and different and had an amazing presence.  After bringing him back several times to read, the network finally begrudgingly approved him (but only after we agreed to take an actor they wanted for another part who was terrible).   The actor we fought for:  Aaron Paul.  

For comedies, the fights are usually over the producers’ desire to hire funny people and the networks’ insistence on hiring attractive people. Guess who always wins.

Networks have gotten so ham-fisted these days that even for one or two-line parts like for waiters or clerks, the producers have to submit tapes of at least three candidates to the network, and the network makes the selection.  They don't even trust producers to hire one-line guys. 

It’s maddening and another reason why network television is so bland. They want to go with safe, cute, known, and fuckable.

Do you think James Gandolfini would be hired to play Tony Soprano if it were for NBC? Not a chance. John Stamos would get the part.

Rachel Dratch was supposed to be a series regular on 30 ROCK, but NBC made Tina Fey replace her good friend with Jane Krakowski for the obvious reason.

There are probably fifteen examples of this every pilot season. Or fifty. 

Networks dictate everything. Casting agents may love you and producers may think you’re a genius, but that means nothing if the network doesn’t think redheads are in this year.

My heart goes out to actors. Especially the Rachel Dratch’es. They’re sure braver and tougher than me.

Hey, you know what's a good show? BREAKING BAD

Okay, I admit it. I’m a little late to the party.

I just finished watching BREAKING BAD.

Didn’t catch it when it first came on. The buzz really didn’t really start until the second or third season – at least in my circles.

And you know how it is – you’d have to start from the beginning and set aside 20 hours, which is fine unless you have other more pressing obligations like Tetris.

So you figure – a) it’s probably not as good as people say, and b) you’ll get to it eventually (maybe once you’ve gotten to level 10).

Then more seasons go by, everybody’s talking about it, but now you’re 40 hours behind. You’d have to give up Tetris and baseball and the Roy Orbison concert they always show on PBS during pledge drives.  So we're talking a major commitment here. 

But now you really feel like an outsider. There’s this whole shared national experience that you’re not a part of and in fact, are actively avoiding since you're sure you’ll get to it someday and don’t want any spoilers.

The zeitgeist can be a cruel mistress when you shun her for Sportscenter.

As if I needed any more incentives to watch, I had met Bryan Cranston a few times and found him delightful, Aaron Paul was in one of our pilots, and I directed Jonathan Banks in a sitcom years ago. I saw them all at a TCA Awards dinner and they all remembered me fondly.  So add guilt.

In fairness, I had a plumbing mishap last year that destroyed my ability to run Netflix on my living room flatscreen. And recently I put in a new system and it’s up and running again. (NOTE: water and electronic equipment mix as well as me and Kim Davis.)

So I finally bit the bullet and decided to binge-watch BREAKING BAD.

OhmyfuckingGod!

It really IS as astounding as everybody says. Season one was good, by season two I was hooked, and the last two seasons knocked me on my ass. As interesting and complex as MAD MEN was, BREAKING BAD was in a whole different stratosphere. There were episodes in which I was literally breathless. Tetris be damned!

I don’t want to get too specific because part of the reason for this post is to encourage other procrastinators to finally hop on board, and I don’t want to spoil anything.

I’ll just say every character is rich and nuanced, anyone who doesn’t empathize with Skyler doesn’t have kids, if you’re considering getting into the meth business you might want to rethink it, no one in Albuquerque is safe (and that includes the Isotopes mascot), and Gus was the Barack Obama I thought I was voting for.

All of Bryan Cranston’s Emmys were richly deserved. Sorry Jon Hamm. In “Walter White” you see a man evolve into a chillingly scary monster. In “Don Draper” you see a successful guy who’s moody. Anna Gunn was sensational, Dean Norris can do no wrong, Bob Odenkirk was a riot, and Aaron Paul was a revelation.

You’re probably laughing because you knew all this three years ago. What am I going to praise next – the 2008 Summer Olympics?

I’m sorry I wasn’t part of the craze at the time. On the other hand, I don’t know if I could have watched this series off the air. I don’t know if I could have waited a week, or in some cases months, for a new episode. Binge-watching was the way to go.

It’s going to be tough transitioning back into real life. At least I have BETTER CALL SAUL to ease my re-entry.

Congratulations to Vince Gilligan and all the brilliant writers, directors, actors, prop people – everyone associated with this extraordinary series. If television can produce shows like BREAKING BAD there’s still hope -- for the medium... and us.

Yo, bitch, go watch it.

Misc-Takes

Some random rambling…

The fall used to mean holidays. Now it means pumpkin coffee.

The movie THE WALK is causing people to throw up. Can you imagine what those theaters must smell like by the 10:00 PM show?

Since I personally prefer not to vomit, I am avoiding THE WALK. And THE INTERN.

Netanyahu may be a jerk but he never met with Kim Davis.

Stephen Colbert’s show is now pretty good… if you tune in ten minutes late.

John Oliver’s show is great… if you only tune in for ten minutes.

The baseball playoffs begin tonight. Exclusive TV coverage can be found on ESPN, MLB-TV, Fox, Fox cable, and TBS. Let me make this easier – the only network not covering the playoffs is BABY FIRST TV.

When you’re listening to networks hype their great new shows, just remember – the big out-of-the-gate hit last season was CRISTELA.

Red Sox Nation – I feel your pain. Don Orsillo is a wonderful announcer. I wish him the best in San Diego. But it’s not like the Padres have a national following. Their fan base extends to El Centro. Don Orsillo deserves a bigger stage.

An annual pass at Disneyland now costs $1000. Walt’s heirs can’t afford that.

What did they call bed bugs before there were beds? Or did they come after and it’s just part of evolution?

Trevor Noah is getting there. Give him time. But he’s already made me forget about Craig Kilbourne.

What does it say about the season premier of SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE when the only funny person on the show was Hillary Clinton?

Hey kids, dress as Donald Trump this Halloween.  That way, when you go trick-or-treating you can just grab as much candy as you can regardless of anyone else. 

Huffpost Headline: Kirsten Dunst thinks TV Is Way Better Than Film. There you have it. The final confirmation.

Another HuffPost Headline: Just Two People Having Sex On Cannes Red Carpet. Just two people? How many usually do it?

There’s going to be a TV adaptation of LETHAL WEAPON. Skinheads are invited to audition for the Mel Gibson role.

Hey, my Cincinnati Bengals are 4-0. I know. Shame on me for not rooting for my local NFL team.

If Hillary loses as President she can play the head nurse on DR. KEN.

Rehearsals continue for HOLLYWOOD SHORTS at the Whitefire Theatre in Studio City (the liver of Broadway) opening Oct. 19th.  I have a one-act play that I wrote and directed called WAITING FOR GO.  Here's my sensational cast of Paul Pape and Elizabeth Bliss-Bley finding laughs where I didn't know there were laughs.  Come see.

How QUANTICO got on the air

Recently I got ahold of the BLINDSPOT pitch meeting. Today I’ve been fortunate enough to get the transcript of the QUANTICO pitch meeting between the show’s writer/creator and ABC.

Writer/Creator: We understand you have a development deal with Priyanka Chopra, the hot Bollywood star.

ABC: (holds up a framed photo) Yes, here is a photo of her.

W/C: Uh, that’s a photo of a different Bollywood actress.

ABC: Oh. Right. I get them confused.

W/C: Well, I’ve got the perfect vehicle for Priyanka.

ABC: Okay, but I warn you, we’re already developing a sitcom for her. An Indian family show to go along with our black family show, Asian family show, Jewish family show, and Korean family show.

W/C: I’ve seen film on her and she’s not funny.

ABC: There’s film on her?

W/C: Yes. She’s an international movie star.

ABC: Can she act?

W/C: That’s the great thing about my idea – she doesn’t have to.

ABC: Thank God.  We spent a fortune on that deal. 

W/C: We put her in an hour drama, but we load it with so many tropes and make it so busy and absurd that no one notices. The only thing we ask of her is that she look hot.

ABC: Yes, yes, yes.

W/C: Good acting might get in the way.

ABC: Absolutely. And we have Viola Davis so as a network we’re covered in the good acting department.

W/C: Here’s the premise: Priyanka is an FBI recruit. She’s in training boot camp with the other recruits. Then there’s a big terrorist attack – haven’t figured out what or where yet –

ABC: Could it be the CBS building?

W/C: What? Uh, sure, let’s say it’s that for now.

ABC: Doesn’t have to be. It could be NBC.

W/C: I think terrorists are destroying that place from the inside but okay.

ABC: So there’s a big terrorist attack. From who?

W/C: That’s the hook. Well, one of several. The terrorist is one of the recruits.

ABC: So it could be her?

W/C: It could be her.

ABC: We don’t want it to be her.

W/C: Of course it’s not her.

ABC: But the audience thinks it’s her?

W/C: Absolutely.

ABC: But do they like her if she’s a terrorist?

W/C: If she’s hot enough.

ABC: She is hot enough.

W/C: They’ll love her.

ABC: As long as we don’t show her blowing up something and killing hundreds of people.

W/C: She’s not the terrorist.

ABC: Unless she’s in a thong.

W/C: She’s not the terrorist.

ABC: (holding up photo): Can’t you just see her in a bikini planting a bomb?

W/C: That’s the other Bollywood star.

ABC: Oh. Right. Sorry.

W/C: Now some things about the show. All the recruits are incredible looking.

ABC: What about diversity?

W/C: Every color of the rainbow. Smoking hot cheerleader, smoking hot Muslim girl, elegant African-American boss, Mormon kid…

ABC: Mormon isn’t diverse.

W/C: You’re right. We’ll kill him in the pilot.

ABC: You have to have a gay recruit.

W/C: We got one.

ABC: He can’t be stereotypical.

W/C: We make him a New York Jew.

ABC: Never seen that before. Great.

W/C: It’s a fuckin’ melting pot.

ABC: But a good looking New York gay Jew -- he can’t look too gay or too Jewish.

W/C: We’ll have an open casting call in Nebraska.

ABC: Do you think it’s a problem that in reality pretty much every FBI recruit is male and white?

W/C: Not if Priyanka is hot enough.

ABC: And you’re sure she can act enough to get by?

W/C: It’s hard to tell because of the subtitles but she can run.

ABC: In heels?

W/C: I don’t know if she’s that skilled.

ABC: Well, we can always get a double. (holding up the photo) What about this girl?

W/C: Who is she?

ABC: I don’t know. I’ll send the photo to the promo department. Maybe they’ll know.

W/C: Make sure they don’t accidentally post this girl in an ad instead of Priyanka.

ABC: Come on, that could never happen.

W/C: Okay.

ABC: So let’s go over the tropes. FBI show – check. Hot babe action star – check. Big mystery to solve – check. Which one is the terrorist, by the way?

W/C: The actor who questions his lines.

ABC: Gotcha. There are still some tropes missing.

W/C: Everybody has secrets.

ABC: Check.

W/C: There's not a moment in the show that's even remotely plausible.

ABC:  Big check there.  

W/C: Our hot star sleeps around, always one night stands – so the nerd in the basement watching this shit will fantasize that she’s saving herself for him.

ABC: Or for me.  Check.

C/W: Authority figures that may or may not be good guys.

ABC: You've done your homework.

C/W: The star has to clear her name.

ABC: Oooh, you got THE FUGITIVE trope in there too. Nicely done.

C/W: A wildly expensive super slick pilot with explosions and car chases and sex and violence. Once we get a pick up, all subsequent episodes will cut every corner we can.

ABC: All of this sounds awesome, but I worry about the longterm prospects. What if this show goes seven years?

C/W: You mean, how long can we keep this premise going? At what point do we have to identify the terrorist and then what is the show about?

ABC: Huh? No. We don’t care about any of that crap. In seven years will she be hot?

C/W: If not, we’ll shoot her character and find someone who is.

ABC: Wait a minute. “Who shot Priyanka?”

C/W: Exactly.

ABC: Okay. I love it. We just have to call Shonda Rhimes and see if it’s alright with her that we’re developing a pilot without her.

C/W: (grabbing the photo) Get back to me soon or we’re going to NBC with this girl.

Writing under less than ideal conditions

When my partner and I started out we would lock ourselves in a room whenever we wrote. We couldn’t have any distractions. Most of the time that meant working in one of our apartments so it was easy to do… except for the neighbor across the courtyard who kept playing the Jethro Tull WAR CHILD album over and over. But we eventually killed him so that problem was solved.

When we finally went on staff of a show and got our first office we would always keep the door closed. Just the idea of people going by or our secretary answering a phone was too distracting. How could we be funny if we saw two people walking down the hall?

Then we stepped into our first writing room. The showrunners were the great Tom Patchett & Jay Tarses, two of the funniest men I’ve ever known. The writers sat around a kitchen table and just dictated the script. There was a writers’ assistant right there in the room taking shorthand. Yes, an actual intruder! Besides that, the door was open and there was always steady traffic in and out of the room. The casting director had questions, the prop guy needed to show us crossbows, the P.A. dragged in a new foosball table.

At first this was very intimidating. Like in the seventh grade when I first had to shower with everybody in gym class. And unlike school, I had to get over it in under two years.

What you learn real quick is that part of the skill of sitcom writing is the ability to concentrate and perform on demand. You’re always under pressure. You’re never going to be able to control the conditions. So you just have to deliver.

By the end of that first week I was starting to feel comfortable enough that I could pitch a joke now and again. One, I remember, actually made it in! I was so proud of myself – coming through under the toughest of all conditions.

Or so I thought.

Then came show night. This was a multi-camera series (THE TONY RANDALL SHOW for MTM if you’re scoring) and the writers all stand around the floor behind the cameras looking important. During a scene one of the jokes bombed. After the director yelled, “Cut!” Tom and Jay got us all in a huddle. We needed a new joke NOW. Holy shit! There were two hundred people in the audience waiting, another hundred crew members waiting… all on the clock. All looking at us. This was like having to shower in front of a school assembly.

I was frozen while the more experienced writers, Gary David Goldberg and Hugh Wilson fired joke suggestions at Tom & Jay as if it was nothing. One was selected, the scene was re-shot, and the new joke got a huge laugh. Yep. This was the Big Leagues. And I was a rookie.

Through trial by fire I eventually felt comfortable contributing in that aspect of the job as well.

The next season we moved on to MASH. That’s a single-camera show. No audience. So you’d think it would be easier, right?

Uh…no.

The first day of filming every episode was a rehearsal day. The cast would move from set to set on Stage 9 at 20th Century Fox and rehearse their scenes. Once they were satisfied, David and I were summoned to come watch the scene and then go off and do any rewriting that was necessary. But since it made no sense to keep schlepping back and forth between our office and the stage every half hour, we just did our rewrites right there on the stage. We commandeered a table in the mess tent and that’s where we worked – with actors, crew people, extras, God-knows-who walking by. And in some cases just sitting down and joining us. We’re trying to fix a scene and some extra plops himself down at the table and begins eating a burrito. We eventually killed him, too.

Again, it’s a skill that most writers have to learn. But schools never teach it. That was one of the reasons why I started the Sitcom Room. Sure wish I had had the chance to experience what room writing was like before I was on a network show.

I have no plans however, to start the Shower Room seminar.

This is a re-post from four or five years ago.

Dance Me to the End of Love

I LOVE this video.  Leonard Cohen's great "Dance Me to the End of Love" with a montage of Cary Grant dancing.  Maybe the coolest guy EVER. 

Friday Questions

The Friday Questions of October begin this week.

Andrew starts us off.

Did the cast and crew of Frasier and Seinfeld get along, since they were always in competition for Emmy's, etc.? Was their attitude mutual respect, friendly rivalry, or disdainful competition?

I never got the sense that the actors felt they were a “team” in competition with other “teams” from other shows. I’m sure there are some actors who bristle that they always lose Emmys to some other actors, but for the most part I think actors appreciate the good performances they see from their peers.

It’s the same for writers. When I would watch a “competing” sitcom (notably SEINFELD) I was thrilled when it gave me some genuine laughs.

From Powerhouse Salter:

What current drama series would you say has a good sense of humor? By sense of humor, I guess I mean a relaxed and subtly comic air that relieves the overwrought drama and succeeds in doing so without resorting to one-liner jokes or a wacky supporting character.

THE GOOD WIFE to be sure. I get more laughs from THE GOOD WIFE than most comedies. SUITS provides some hearty chuckles as well. I don’t watch CRIMINAL MINDS but I’m guessing they’re not a laugh riot. In fact, I don’t watch a lot of current hour dramas so I imagine there are a few that do employ humor that I just am missing.  Is WALKING DEAD funny?

In the recent past I’d say JUSTIFIED (Dewey Crowe was the funniest character on television period), MAD MEN, and particularly BREAKING BAD.

Ike Iszany asks:

Watching Cheers on line I notice they put a title card in where the first commercial break would be. When you write and direct a show do you use the breaks to your advantage or are they something that gets in the way? When I watch some sit-coms on DVD I feel like they suffer without the breaks. You can feel the show changes tempo a bit in the second segment without the break.

I finally found a person who likes having commercial breaks.

Actually, we design our stories around the commercial breaks and try to build to our act break. We want the moment of greatest suspense to come right before the commercial. That way we (in theory) hold the audience through the ten minutes of endless spots.

If there were no commercials (e.g. our show as on AMAZON) we probably would break stories differently.

DwWashburn has some observations and questions about MASH:

In my opinion, the only two "missteps" that the series took was the introduction of Loudon Wainwright III as the camp's minstrel and the marriage of Margaret. Since you were there during the latter, can you give any behind the scenes insight for this storyline. Did they know from day one that this was a mistake? Was it dropped quickly because of fan reaction, network notes, realization that storylines were limited, a combination of these or other reasons?

The Loudon Wainwright balladeer idea was an experiment in the early Larry Gelbart/ Gene Reynolds years. It didn’t work but I love them for constantly trying to think out of the box and stretch the form.

The decision to marry off Hot Lips came the year we were writing freelance for the series. So we were not in on the reasons for the decision.

We just inherited it. The problem was we were dealing with a long distance relationship and could only see one side. And it meant Hot Lips couldn’t be interested in anyone else. It cut down on her storylines. 

Plus, any value there was to a long-distance relationship we were getting from B.J.

We tried to do some one-sided stories, and those resulted in Hot Lips screaming at unseen-hubby over the phone. It just made her a shrew. So we quickly abandoned that.

We even brought her husband in for an episode. If memory serves we had to cast a different actor because the original Donald Penobscott wasn’t available. There wasn’t much chemistry.

The storyline just didn’t work so we bailed the beginning of the next season and broke them up.  That was our decision.  We received no pressure from the network or studio. 

Oh well. Some things work and some things don’t. But you gotta try.

What’s your Friday Question?

Help me Rhonda, or anybody

I’m not alone.

I’ve been hearing this song my entire life and have never figured out what the opening lyric meant. It’s from “Help Me Rhonda” by the Beach Boys. The thrust of the song is that a guy is hoping his new girlfriend Rhonda will help him forget about his old girlfriend who dumped him. (Or, some suggest “Rhonda” is actually his new car. Seems a big stretch. but the song is included in an album of their car songs so who knows? But that’s for another deep esoteric blog post.) For the moment let’s assume “Rhonda” is a girl. (It could also be a pet. STOP IT! It’s a girl!)

Here’s the first line of the song:

Well, since she put me down I’ve been out doin’ in my head

The second line is:

Come in late at night and in the mornin’ I just lay in bed.

Okay, I get line two, but explain line one.

Pat St. John, a great disc jockey, who hosts the midday show on the Sirius/XM ‘60s channel, also was confused and tried to get an answer. He went to Al Jardine, one of the original Beach Boys and he too was not completely certain. He gave Pat a vague explanation and Pat tried to communicate it on his show recently, but I’m still totally baffled. (This is like the original movie version of THE BIG SLEEP. I defy anyone, even Raymond Chandler who wrote the book, to explain the plot.)

So what’s your take? If you have an explanation I’d love to hear it (or read it in the comments). If I find one that’s really clear I’ll pass it on to Pat.

Thanks. And here’s the song itself.

Andy Ackerman's approach to directing

Here’s one of those Friday Questions that not only became a whole post, but required a guest blogger to answer it.

Andy (not Ackerman) asked:

What is it like for someone (such as Andy Ackerman) to work on two shows simultaneously with such different approaches to comedy?

Andy directed FRASIER and SEINFELD simultaneously, among others.

For those who don’t know, Andy Ackerman is an Emmy winning director who directed 87 episodes of SEINFELD. He has also directed pretty much everything else. He directed the pilots of both ALMOST PERFECT and BIG WAVE DAVE’S, and directed every episode of BIG WAVE DAVE’S – all six of them.

Oh, and he was one of my mentors. I learned directing by watching him on WINGS.

Anyway, I reached out to Andy to see if he would answer the question and he graciously did. It’s a great answer and also tells you a lot about his personality and approach to life.  Here's his answer:

That's an interesting question from your reader. Here's a possible thought:

I've never really approached a given show as being that different, even though they are different. I suppose, for me, it would be akin to my approach as a parent. Meaning, I've four children, all with their own individual voices, sensibilities, tones, styles, personalities, etc. I may adjust to each one accordingly, when dealing with them one on one. But in the end, regardless of that individual child, I'm still the same parent/guide/coach/director. 

So, to very loosely use that analogy, I basically approach either given show the same way, because I am, well, me. In other words, I just jump in, be myself, and implement whatever contributions I can to help the script, actors, and final product be the best/ funniest it can hopefully be. Whether I'm a parent, or director, or just dealing with day to day life, I rely on my instincts. Frankly, your instincts can be your greatest tool.

It seems to have worked out. My kids are pretty funny.

Again, my thanks to Andy Ackerman. One day we’re going to reboot BIG WAVE DAVE’S and he’ll be my first call.

Uh oh, another rant

As I figured, yesterday’s post generated a lot of discussion. Let me respond to one comment, from reader Jim, that I thought was particularly well written and insightful. Jim wrote:

The scene you described struck me, when I saw it, as belonging to that contemporary school of comedy writing that has no use (for) gags in a comedy scene. In fact, this approach to comedy avoids anything that might make the audience laugh out loud. Anything that could be clearly identified as "a gag." That's old-fashioned and hackneyed. To write this kind of scene, you never have your characters say or do anything that might come off as funny. Instead, the laughs are supposed to be inherent in the situation itself, not in how the characters react to the situation or how they deal with it. This style of comedy writing is all set-up and no payoff.

I do understand that writers want to avoid having their characters speak in zingers and one-liners. Too many sitcoms fall into that trap, and it's annoying. (My wife has been working her way through THE GOLDEN GIRLS lately, and I swear, that show needed a drummer just offstage, playing rim shots.) But, you know, it's entirely possible to have your characters saying and doing funny things, in finding funny angles to your situation, without everyone coming off like Morey Amsterdam or your script like an episode of I MARRIED JOAN.

Thanks again, Jim. Very thoughtful comment. And if you don’t mind, I’d like to use it as a springboard for today’s old retro guy’s rant.

I totally agree that filling a script with zingers makes a show feel tired and old fashioned. And trust me, there’s nothing harder to write. When you have two characters sitting at the breakfast table and there’s nothing going on but you have to give each one funny line after funny line, it’s torture. And unreal. And forced.

But that isn’t to say funny lines are to be avoided. There were funny lines in SEINFELD and funny lines in FRIENDS, and FRASIER and ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA and 30 ROCK. There are funny lines in ARCHER and BROAD CITY. Millennials will, in the privacy of their own homes, laugh at funny lines.

To me, when a writer is justifying not making a scene funny it’s just a smokescreen for lazy writing. The message I get is that he is incapable of writing a funny scene. He doesn’t have the chops to make someone laugh.

Anyone can come up with “inherent” comic situations. Comedy writers make something of those situations. Prove to me you’re really funny first and then discuss style.

Here’s what I find really perplexing? Why would anyone want to become a comedy writer if he’s embarrassed at making people laugh? If he thinks that presenting something genuinely funny is somehow beneath him, somehow compromising his principles? Why go into boxing if you’re opposed to violence? If you think sugar is bad for people why become a sous chef?

I’m sorry but to me, self-aware characters who observe situations instead of being forced to act upon them are dull and uninteresting. Irony is worse than “gags.” Equating situations with pop culture references instead of reacting with strong attitudes and emotions is a crutch.

Call me old and a hack and out of touch – that’s fine. I’m proud to be a COMEDY writer. I’m proud to have made people laugh for many years. I’m not saving lives but it’s a noble profession. I’m providing joy to millions of people. There’s nothing to be ashamed of. There’s nothing to apologize for.

Baseball analogy (oh no!): There are some hitters who have “warning track” power. That means they don’t have the strength and ability to hit the ball far enough to go over the fence for a home run. Instead they hit long fly outs. Imagine these players saying, “Home runs are passé. Sure I could hit them, but I don’t want to. Home runs are showy and seriously, haven’t we all seen enough home runs? Why should I stoop to that level?” Turn on many of these new TV comedies. That’s what you’re seeing – 300 foot fly ball outs, except instead of the hitter being shipped off to the minors where he belongs, he’s pumping his fist in triumph.

There is but one truism in comedy -- regardless of the style, year, or sensibility:

PEOPLE WANT TO LAUGH

It is not:

PEOPLE WANT TO BE MILDLY AMUSED 

or:

PEOPLE WANT TO FEEL SUPERIOR TO THEIR ENTERTAINMENT

How to begin a pilot

Let’s say I’m given a pilot to write. And for whatever reason, this has to be my first scene: Young guy brings the girl he’s recently dated back to her place. She invites him in the for the first time. He’s excited because he figures he’s going to get laid. But when they step inside he learns that her ex-fiancé is on the couch. He still lives there.

Okay. That could be funny.

Actually, it better be. Pilots are much harder to write than normal episodes and the first scenes of pilots are the hardest of all. Why? Here’s what you have to do: Establish the premise, introduce the characters, begin a story, forge the tone, and make it really funny. As the expression goes: You only have one chance to make a first impression. That first scene has to hook the audience. Viewers have to feel they’re in good hands; that they will be rewarded for spending their precious time sampling your pilot for thirty minutes.

So that’s my assignment.

First, a disclaimer. I realize I’m old school, retro, out of touch, whatever. My approach is based on experience, a certain sensibility, and principles I believe to be universal and timeless. Feel free to seek other approaches.

My initial thought is: who are these characters? How can I make them interesting? How can I give them traits or behavior that is fun, identifiable, and sets up an intriguing dynamic between them? For now I’ll call the young couple Matt and Colleen.

And in concert with that, how can I make the situation as funny as possible? Not just amusing, not just wry – this is the opening scene of my pilot, maybe the only scene a viewer will watch – I can’t afford for it to be anything other than laugh out loud funny. It’s always best to give characters strong attitudes or goals and for this particular situation I would think it would heighten things if Matt really needs to get laid. He hasn’t had sex in awhile so he is champing at the bit. Guys will go to great comic lengths to get sex (so I've been told).  Now the scene becomes one of frustration and my job is the construct the funniest cock blocking scenario.

So I consider possibilities. What if…?

What if they get in the house, the ex-fiancé is there, and he’s really belligerent? “This is the ferret you left me for?” The couple get into a fight and the poor Matt is in the middle, all the while being belittled. Maybe. Matt could be somewhat insecure and this feeds into his neurosis. But he still tries to work things out and get the ex-fiancé to leave.

Or they get in the house and the ex is crying? Matt has to console him.

Or the ex goes on an on about what a bitch Colleen is. He shatters any illusion. Matt is torn between wanting desperately to sleep with her and to run.

Or the ex is not there when they get to the house. Things heat up quickly. Matt is practically undressed on the couch when the ex comes home. Puts Matt in the most compromising position possible. (Comedy writers are evil, aren't we?)

Or it doesn’t appear that the ex is home. Matt & Colleen are in bed and Matt hears crying from the other room. Learns that the ex still has the adjacent bedroom. Matt desperately wants sex, but can he perform under these weird circumstances?

Or Matt & Colleen arrive to find the ex is there with another girl. How does Colleen react? How does Matt react? Is there a big fight? Does the ex want to do a four-way?

Or Matt & Colleen are making out on the couch and then the ex arrives with another girl. Is Colleen mad?  Jealous?  Is there fun in her double-standard attitude?

Or Matt knows the ex.

Or Matt knows the other girl the ex is with.

Or Colleen knows the other girl the ex is with.

Or the other girl is Matt’s sister.

Or the other girl is Matt’s ex-fiancé.

Or something else. You may have a better one.

And then some specifics. What’s the funniest Matt reaction to learning the ex is still in the house? It could be a great “What the fuck” moment. Colleen obviously knows there’s the complication of the ex still living in the place. How does she explain it? How did she think she was going to finesse the situation?

You get the idea.

I would bat around all of these ideas and see which one gave me the absolute most bang for my buck. I’m always imagining the audience and saying to myself, “Would they laugh at that? Would they REALLY laugh at that?” A lot of times I might say, “No. They’d smile, maybe they’d chuckle, but they wouldn’t laugh.” So how can I make it funnier so they would laugh? (Note: I may be wrong in my prediction but at least in my best professional judgment I’m striving for the maximum reaction.) So I would arrive at the scenario that was most promising, would even have a number of sample big laugh moments or jokes and then try to write the best scene I could.

That’s me.  Old veteran me.

LIFE IN PIECES premiered last week on CBS. It has a likable cast and slick look. I wish it well. I missed the debut on the air but caught up with it a few days later ON DEMAND. Since it was on  ON DEMAND, a lot of my remote features didn’t work and I had to watch it straight through. So I only saw this scene once and am describing it by memory (which may be as faulty as my computer ability).

But here was the opening scene:

Matt (Thomas Sadoski from NEWSROOM) and Colleen (Angelique Cabral from ENLISTED) come home from a date. She invites him up to her place. Once there they find her ex-fiancé sitting on the couch. Matt is just kind of frozen. The ex is mildly annoyed. The ex still thinks he has a chance with Colleen. It’s just an awkward moment. And the characters are AWARE they’re in an awkward moment. (Again, this is “me” thinking – this isn’t funny enough. This is really tepid. And I’m also wondering -- do the writers think this is hysterical? Do they think an audience is really in stitches over this? Or do they not even put the scene to that mental test?)

So what does Matt do? Characters need to actively address a situation. Matt does nothing. What does Colleen do? She offers some wine. There’s a little cutesy banter. The ex comments that they’re “bantering.” Everyone in this scene is totally AWARE of the conventions they’re using. It’s like they’re all too cool to have any strong emotions or reactions. The humor has to come from them merely realizing they’re in a potential comic situation. As a result there’s a real distance. And for me the scene loses its comic edge.

The scene ends with them deciding to go to his place instead. The big joke then is that his place is occupied… by his nutty parents. Awk-ward.

Old school, retro Ken believes if you’re doing a comedy you’ve got to own it. Characters finding themselves in awkward comic situations have been a staple for years. We find ourselves in awkward comic situations in our real lives.

They really happen.

But we don’t step back and observe; we ACT. I’m hoping that LIFE IN PIECES succeeds. It’s just the pilot and they’re finding their way. And I present this post as a learning exercise, not a knock on them. It’s a way to illustrate other possibilities. And a lot of you are aspiring writers currently crafting your spec pilots. Think of the audience and ask yourself the hard question. “Is this FUNNY enough?” And if not, no matter what your age or sensibility, or how cool you are, go back and make it funnier. And don’t apologize.

Can greatness be duplicated?

There is a podcast called TomHanksgiving.  Elvis Kunesh and Cody Camp discuss Tom Hanks movies and then recreate scenes (as cheaply as they can).  This week their subject was VOLUNTEERS.  Here is the original scene (about 5:30 in) and then their recreation.  I defy you to tell the difference.



Thanks guys. Maybe you can do the sequel.

Should you keep a joke that only three people in America will get?

Here's a question I'm often asked:  Should you put obscure jokes in your script?  I wrote a post on this almost five years ago so it's time to re-post it.  I mention that upfront because obscure jokes often are very topical and in five years contemporary references become historical ones.  So keep that in mind as you read.  But the points are still valid.  Or at least, I still agree with them. 

Comedy writing legend Jerry Belson once pitched a very obscure joke during a CHEERS rewrite. One of the Charles Brothers said, “Jerry, only three people in America are going to get that” to which Jerry said, “That’s good enough for me!”

A common question that all comedy writers ask from time to time is whether a particular reference is too obscure to get a laugh. The downside of course is that the joke bombs; the good side is that if it works it really works because the reference is so out of leftfield.

On MASH we called them “Three percenters”. We would make mention of an arcane actor from the ‘40s knowing most people would have no idea who he is (or was). But our thinking was this: a) we crammed so many jokes into an episode that if you didn’t get it, another one was coming two seconds later, b) we sprinkled in very few of these, and c) they added to the ambience and helped set the time period (much the same way as vintage wardrobe and hairstyles do).

I notice “Three percenters” from time to time on COMMUNITY. There will be quick pop culture references or lines of dialog from movies slipped in. Not everyone will get them. My sense is the producers know that and don’t care. They’re writing for a very specific audience. But here’s the key: specific but large.

Or at least large enough.  HOT IN CLEVELAND is designed for baby boomers.  TV LAND doesn't expect as large an audience as NBC but they do want a specific demographic.   And if you're 55 and have trouble with COMMUNITY and not get that an episode is spoofing RESERVOIR DOGS, you'll so welcome a show that makes a Twiggy joke.   

As always, it comes down to “know your target audience”. If you’re writing a spec it’s easier with an existing show. By watching astutely you can determine the level of their references. A Charlie Sheen joke might work on 30 ROCK but I wouldn’t do one on MIKE & MOLLY.

But what happens when you’re writing a pilot?  All bets are off.  Now there are no guidelines. Should you do that Sarah Clarke/TWILIGHT gag?   In general I would say this: agents, managers, executives – the people who will be reading your pilot – are by and large in their thirties. I think that gives you a lot of leeway – way more than you had when they were all in their forties and fifties. They probably know who Sarah Clarke is and they certainly know what TWILIGHT is.  So I wouldn’t self-censor yourself too much. Yes, you always run the risk that a reader might not get a reference and feel you’re belittling them (doing a joke that’s over their head), and to load your script with obtuse gags is insane, but comedy is about taking chances. So go for it. Maybe Jerry Belson was right. If the three people that get the joke are agents you’re submitting to, that is good enough for you.

Friday Questions

Friday Questions back on Friday.

Peter asks:

Horror is one of my favorite genres but I've noticed you almost never mention horror. Are they just not your thing or are there some horror films you like?

No. Never liked horror films. There’s enough real horrors to be scared about like politics.

At first, as a kid, I thought they were fun. Frankenstein and Dracula and Vincent Price in spooky haunted houses.

Then one day at a Saturday matinee I saw a sci-fi/horror film called THE 27th DAY. It was one of those black-and-white cheesy B-movies that were popular in Drive-Ins back then. Who knows if it’s even available these days? I remember it starred Gene Barry and there was an alien from outer space and that film scared the living shit out me. I couldn’t sleep for a week.

Maybe forty years later I saw it on the Late Show and could almost tell you what scene was next and what was going to happen next – it had left that much of an indelible impression on me.

Seeing it again, I finally understood what terrified me. The film was a metaphor for the Cold War and the US and Russia were squaring off to destroy the whole world. A blood sucking vampire who over acted and spoke with a funny foreign accent did not keep me up at night. The threat of being dead myself at any moment did.

Never liked horror films since. I should probably seek therapy, huh?

James wonders:

Have you ever written a script that you would have hated to direct?

The “Point of View” episode of MASH. That’s the one where the 4077th is seen through the eyes of a patient. I talked about it in a recent post.  As proud as I am of that episode I can never mention it without heaping enormous praise on director, Charles Dubin (pictured: right)

Adding to the difficulty of creating this first-person look and getting remarkable performances out of actors not used to talking directly into the camera, Dubin was severely hampered by the bulkiness of the equipment. It’s not like today where you can literally shoot a movie with your iPhone. The cameras were big and heavy and not easily maneuvered.

Oh, and the whole show was shot in only four days.

We owe the success of that episode to Charles Dubin and the fact that I did not direct it.

Here’s a sugar free question from Splenda:

Lets say that a network greenlit a remake of Almost Perfect, under the condition that you use all new actors (can't bring back Nancy Travis, etc.). Who do you cast (assuming they are available and interested)?

Jason Dechert and Jules Willcox who starred in my play, A OR B? at the Falcon Theatre last year.

jcs queries:

You have mentioned many times that being a TV writer requires putting in long hours, sometimes until dawn. Is it possible to have some kind of semi-normal family life when working in such a profession?

Absolutely. But it takes organization, preparation, the willingness to make decisions, and not having a showrunner who is going through a divorce and would rather spend his nights in the office than alone at the Oakwood Gardens Apartments.

Time management is the key. Even on a multi-camera show it is possible to go home at 6:00 or 7:00 and still turn out an excellent product. EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND writers were almost always home for dinner.

On the other hand, there are some truly dreadful shows where the writers worked around the clock. And for what?

But if you have a showrunner who keeps changing his mind, or takes forever to decide which new line to add, or just has nowhere else to go because he’s got an unhappy home life, you could be checked into the Hotel California.

You want a happily married showrunner or one who has Lakers season tickets.

From Jeff :)

I have a baseball question Ken. Who is your favorite player both currently and of all time. Also, your pick to win the World Series for this year?

All-time: Sandy Koufax. All-time that I had the pleasure of working with: Tony Gwynn. Currently: A. J. Ellis (he used to actually listen to Dodger Talk when I hosted it.)

Who will win the World Series? Whoever is not favored.  Or whoever I pick.