Friday Questions

Some Friday Questions to ease you into Mother’s Day Weekend.

James starts us off:

Do you feel like current shows are paying for the sins of the past generations? I see quite a few shows that, even if they're still raved about, are held up as cautionary tales of things not to do. Shows like Moonlighting (be wary of advancing will-they-won't-they relationships,) Twin Peaks (don't give too much away,) and Murphy Brown (don't be so topical the reruns fall flat,) among others. Do you feel like executives might pass on shows out of fear of repeating the past or are they willing to give them a chance?

Networks absolutely pass on shows based on failures of other shows. POLITICAL ANIMALS didn’t work on USA. So when we pitched them a political-themed show they said political shows don’t work on USA. Uh, maybe the problem was POLITICAL ANIMALS wasn’t very good. But WEST WING sure worked. So did HOUSE OF CARDS. And MADAME SECRETARY and VEEP are doing okay too. SCANDAL scrapes by as well.

What networks don’t seem to understand is that when shows fail, many times it’s not the arena, it’s the execution.

And likewise, when they try to slavishly copy success they miss that the hit shows have a certain vision, great casting, or arrived at just the right time. Just throwing six twenty-somethings together won’t give you FRIENDS (although they tried like fifty times).

Obviously, there are things to be learned from shows that either failed or fell out of favor. But each must be considered on an individual basis. In the case of CHEERS, we didn’t string out the Sam & Diane relationship past one season not because of MOONLIGHTING but because we felt these were two adults and if they keep circling each other endlessly it was going to start feeling like high school.

From ScottyB:

Friday Question for Ken, and perhaps even your writing partner, Mr. Isaacs:

Your kids are growing up to be script writers, in your footsteps (especially comedy). Was there anything you specifically did when they were small children or even growing-up teenagers to expose them to comedy records (as opposed to watching TV episodes of 'The Honeymooners' or 'I Love Lucy')?

Obviously, I can’t speak for David, but I really didn’t play a lot of comedy albums for my kids. Most of the comedy I exposed them to was either visual – great TV shows and movies, or written material – from stage plays, to scripts, to books, to comedic essays.

But what I impressed upon them was that the comedy of today is merely a variation or refinement of what went before. Louis C.K. is hilarious but didn’t invent comedy.

So I think my kids developed a great appreciation for early sitcoms (besides I LOVE LUCY), romantic comedies (even ones in black and white), and classic movies from filmmakers like Billy Wilder, Preston Sturgess, Woody Allen, Buster Keaton, and Mel Brooks.

Comedy was always a high priority in our family. There was frequently teasing and anyone in the family could be the target. It was very important that my kids learned if they’re going to dish it out they’ve got to be able to take it. But there was always a lot of laughter in the Levine home. Mostly at my expense.  But not so much from listening to Bob Newhart albums (although they are great). 

Keith, who was a disc jockey, has a disc jockey related question.

Did you have "toilet" records? For example, if I needed some time away from the board for business, my reliably long enough cuts were Cocaine (Clapton) and, of course, Alice's Restaurant. Yours?

MacArthur Park by Richard Harris. Hey Jude by the Beatles. And if you ever heard me play El Paso by Marty Robbins you could bet I was draining the radiator.

And finally from John Leader (who was a great disc jockey on KHJ in the ‘70s):

Having Netflix has introduced us to several British shows like "The Fall," "Happy Valley," "Luther," "Midsomer Murders," and others. The quality of these shows versus comparable American fare seems to be quite high. Is it because the BBC stuff is only producing 4-6 episodes a season? And, what about the remarkably long intervals between new seasons for these show...often longer than a year? How do they maintain the audience?

Most of these British shows are written by a single writer or very small staff. With few exceptions (Aaron Sorkin, David E. Kelley), it’s very difficult for a single writer to pen an entire season of a US show, especially if it’s for a broadcast network with an order of 22.

Shows in the UK have the luxury of short orders and the creators are given sufficient time to write those shows. And yes, they risk losing the audience’s interest if too much time goes by. But take for example SHERLOCK. Stephen Moffat must concoct these ingenious scripts, essentially movies, and write the teleplays. To bang out two or three of these in one year (while working on other things like DOCTOR WHO) is remarkable. That’s a lot of pressure. And the pressure is even worse because if you are asking your fans to wait a year or more for new episodes they damn well better be great. Fortunately, in SHERLOCK’S case they are.

And yet, for my money it’s an even greater more impressive feat that Robert & Michelle King produce 22 episodes of THE GOOD WIFE every year for five years. And the quality is as good or better than premium American dramas like MAD MEN or the UK gems you listed.

What’s your question?

How to ruin a TV series

As many of you loyal readers of this blog (who pay attention) know, I’ve praised ORPHAN BLACK to the heavens. This little underground thriller/sci-fi on BBC-America (and now on AMC as well) introduced us all to the wondrous Tatiana Maslany – a luminous actress who plays multiple clones, each one distinctive and memorable.

In the pilot, Tatiana, as character Sarah, has a chance encounter with an identical clone… who commits suicide. That gets your attention. If we started BIG WAVE DAVE’S that way we might still be on the air.

Anyway, from there the series is off and running… and chasing and hiding. Sarah discovers other clones and a delicious mystery unfolds. Who is behind all of this, why is someone is trying to kill her, who, and why aren’t they targeting the Kardashian girls instead? The plotting swept you along and you enjoyed the twists, turns, and occasional flashes of humor. And just watching Tatiana was a treat.

Season two wasn’t as good. The conspiracy started becoming unwieldy. There were sinister research labs, a weird cult (Scientology in a barn), and fragments of backstory that go back to England or perhaps Middle Earth. Lots of characters from season one who you wondered – were they good guys or bad guys – this year they started flip flopping so much you stopped caring. Like I said in a past review, just assume everyone is a bad guy and enjoy the ride.

Fanboy geek that I am, I was really looking forward to season three.

But alas, four weeks into it I have concluded the show is now a fucking mess. The plotting is so confusing you need to build another Enigma machine to decipher it.  And even then there's no guarantees.

This year there are also male clones. They have their own conspiracy, one of Tatiana’s clones is held captive in a trunk by some other evil organization that may or may not be affiliated with the evil research lab, or the cult, or Enron. Meanwhile, one of Tatiana’s clones has nothing to do with the central plot. She’s a housewife selling drugs to other housewives so can she win an election to get on the school board. I know – HUH??? And for good measure, she has a dead body in her garage that doesn’t smell and no one is looking for the guy. Unlike Tatiana’s portrayal of the women clones who are all different, the male clones are essentially the same. They don’t even bother to change hair color or give one of them glasses. So you have no clue as to who is who or even how many of them there are and what they’re trying to achieve and for who.

Add to this the fact that most characters mumble on the show. So someone will say an important piece of information and you’re going “What?!”

Like I said, an utter fucking mess. I’m not sure I’ll slog it all the way to the end of the season. And this used to be my favorite show.

The takeaway here is that if the audience can’t follow the STORY you’re dead. Great acting and cinematography can carry you only so far. But if the viewer is not invested in the story he’ll move on to something else. I think this was somewhat true of the Netflix edition of ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT. The story looped around and inside-out and even ardent fans gave up on trying to follow it. Lots of brilliant jokes didn’t land because the viewers were struggling just to orient themselves.

In the writers room the staff will talk endlessly about their characters and plot. They know and debate every tiny detail. To them everything makes sense no matter how dense the plot. And they have index cards on the wall for easy reference. In short, they LIVE in this world.

But Joe Lunchpail or Ken Levine does not. We have way more things to keep straight in our heads. Little items like our LIVES.  And if I’m going to devote an inordinate amount of time and attention to uncovering an insidious organization it will be the IRS, not Dyad Industries.

TV critic Alan Sepinwall asked the show’s creators whether their plotting had become a little too Byzantine and they said no. They used as their yardstick whether the crew could follow everything and they said they could. That’s like New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick saying his playbook was not confusing because his coaching staff all understood it. Seriously, who are we kidding?

The note I never mind is when someone says they don’t understand something in my script. When a network suit says she doesn’t like this line because it makes the character seem mean I just blow it off. But if a story point or character motivation is unclear I need to address it. Even if I’m explained it – if that explanation is unclear or doesn’t register it still needs adjustment. It doesn’t matter that I understand it. YOU have to understand it.

Now more than ever, the storytelling on TV dramas has become more sophisticated and intricate. Subjects are dealt with in greater depth. This makes for way more satisfying viewing than watching the A TEAM beat the shit out of some idiot every week. But there’s also a real danger that writers are going to get too dense, too clever and fall too deep into their own rabbit hole. ORPHAN BLACK has gone from tall tale to cautionary tale. Aren’t clones confusing enough?

Hey, it's Emmy campaign season!

Certainly it's the best time to be a TV Academy member! Shows that feel they're worthy of consideration send out screener DVD’s to members. Like I said last week, there are too many shows to keep track of, and invariably I will sample a few series that I’ve either heard of or just look interesting.

The problem with most serialized series is that you have to watch the entire season. Sending three or four selected episodes is like sending someone four random chapters of a book you hope they’ll recommend. Some shows do send the whole season (usually if there are only thirteen episodes). But they’re asking for a lot of your time.

It’s not like movie screeners. You decide whether a title is worth a couple of hours and pop it in. Are you going to devote twenty-two hours to a particular TV series you’ve heard good things about?

Also fascinating is to see just what shows are submitted for your consideration. There are always three or four horrible failed sitcoms that arrive in spiffy packaging with blurbs from websites and blogs even less influential than mine. I always think, “What a colossal waste of money. You should have spent half of this on better writers.”

This year, in addition to the screeners and codes allowing us to stream some of these entries, a lot of series are staging evenings where an episode is screened and the cast and producers are available for a Q&A. On the one hand, this is a very cool idea. And there are a couple I might attend. But here’s the thing: it seems to me the only people who are going to give up an evening and drive across town to a theater for this event are people who are already rabid fans of the show. They’d vote for the show anyway. So they’re preaching to the choir. You want to attract new fans.

Since no show campaigns harder than MAD MEN, I wonder if they’ll up the ante and do Q&A’s in your house. Note to MAD MEN: We know you’re a great show and worthy of all your nominations. Stop airing those self-serving featurettes where the cast rhapsodizes on how brilliant they are and how genius the storytelling is. At this point, all it does is create a backlash. You’re better than that. You don’t need to do it. The work more than speaks for itself.

On the other hand, I would love to see a featurette like that by the cast of ONE BIG HAPPY. Or a “night” with a Q&A. There’s a certain question I’d love to ask Ellen.

Last year Netflix took out billboards all over Southern California. Since they’re aimed at Academy members only I hope they didn’t put any out in Hemet or Pacoima. Not sure that campaign was successful.

Are all these ploys and expenditures worth it? At one time winning an Emmy was huge. The fact that CHEERS won Emmys its first season greatly helped its ratings. Lots of new people checked it out. But Emmy wins for ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT did nothing to improve the Fox show’s numbers. Today it’s less about improving ratings and more about prestige – especially for premium cable networks and streaming services. They live off of subscriptions. If the hot shows are on HBO people will subscribe or continue to subscribe even if they don’t watch those shows. Buzz is more important than bodies. And Emmys still are great buzz.

So let the campaigns continue! Keep those screeners and invites coming in. And then we can all pull our hair out when the nominations are announced. “What? How did Debra Messing get nominated and not Tatiana Maslany? It’s all bullshit! Oh well. At least I get to catch up on the whole last season of THE AMERICANS.”

the pilot process can make you CRAZY

Now we’re getting down to it, pilot-wise. The last pilots have been delivered and networks are cobbling together their upcoming season. It used to be exclusively their Fall season but now they pretty much order all the shows they plan on rolling out throughout the course of the year – Fall, Mid-season, Early March (slim chance of renewal), Late March (no chance – just schedule fodder), and Summer.

The scene shifts to New York where all the big decisions are made. A highly respected agent once said, “Everything turns to shit over Mississippi.” He’s right. Shows that network execs were excited about in LA seem to lose their luster. The testing has come back. Someone higher up doesn’t like it.  Other pilots have now come in they like more.  The network wants to shoehorn an actress into the show, the showrunner balks, quits or is fired, and now there’s a mad scramble for a new showrunner. Negotiations for license fees get complicated. Power agents, showrunners with clout, and studios lobby for the best time slots. Networks waffle on what direction they want their Fall season to take. Add another hour of comedy? More drama? Move comedy out of Wednesday night?

How do the new pilots mesh with existing shows? What’s a compatible lead in? And then there’s counter-programming. Is this the year you can topple THE VOICE? And if so, with what? Is THE BLACK LIST vulnerable? Have they run out of cities to tack onto NCIS?

If you’ve got a horse in this race it can make you CRAZY. Rumors swirl hourly. You read the on-line industry trades and shows are on the schedule, then dead, then a strong candidate for mid-season, then maybe another network is interested if the first one passes, then that option flames out, then they’re alive again at the first network.

Meanwhile, creators of these shows are currently going through lists of potential writers should they get picked up. Since everyone will be staffing at the same time they try to hedge their bets by taking meetings beforehand. But everything is up in the air until the schedule is locked. For the second year of ALMOST PERFECT we were going to hire Phil Rosenthal as our number two if his pilot didn’t get ordered. It did (EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND) and we had to move on.

A good sign is when a network gives a new show permission to HIRE his staff even before it’s picked up. But even then, you're not out of the woods. At the end of the day the network might decide to order only six and not thirteen and some of the writers you wanted to hire now pass to seek a show with more episodes. AAAAGH!!!!

The truth is unless the deal is signed and the ink is dry you have no guarantee your show has been ordered. Here’s my favorite story. A creator/showrunner was told his show had been picked up for the Fall. He and his cast were summoned to New York to appear at the Upfronts presentation. They fly across the country, guzzle champagne, land, the showrunner gets a call only to learn there was a change in plans and his show was now dead. Ooops.   Everyone had to turn right around and fly back to Los Angeles. (If you think they drank on the first flight...)

What happened over Mississippi?

Good luck to everyone with a pilot in contention. But remember my someday-famous line: The winners go to work, the losers go to Hawaii.

My thoughts on the MASH finale

There was a CBS 60 MINUTES segment years ago on ageism in Hollywood (Yes, it exists). In the piece they spoke to a freelance writer who had done a few episodes of MASH. In order not to appear too old he was taking MASH off his resume.

I would rather leave the business and clean latrines if I had to rather than take MASH off my resume. Getting the golden opportunity to write for MASH was an unbelievable privilege. There is nothing I’ve written before or since that I am prouder of. And if declaring that meant I couldn’t get an assignment on 2 BROKE GIRLS then so be it.

Last night MeTV aired the MASH finale, seen originally by 352,565,532,528,471,943,940,395,000 people (give or take 2). I did not have a hand in the production of that episode. My partner, David Isaacs and I, had left the show a few years earlier. By that final season we were producing the first year of CHEERS. But I’m often asked what I thought of it.

I’ll be honest. I liked it but I didn’t love it. I know and greatly respect all the writers. And there are parts of it that are moving and brilliant. I also loved that everyone was affected in some way by the war. But I felt the show was too long and too serious. Just personal taste. I know many fans adored it.

To me the perfect MASH episode was the one where Henry Blake was killed. Remember that episode? It’s the last one of season three if you want to look it up and watch. It’s twenty-two minutes of inspired comedy and thirty seconds of drama. But that thirty seconds absolutely knocks you flat on your ass. I wish that had been the template. Especially since it was a national event. There were big parties all across America. People wanted to celebrate MASH. I hope the gatherings were all well stocked with alcohol.

And there’s one subplot that I just hated. Again, just my opinion, but the mother killing the baby crossed the line for me. Yes, it was based on a real incident, but for a show that mixed comedy and drama I felt you just can’t come back from that.

That story had been in the research and Alan wanted to do it during our tenure. And I understand his reasoning and agree it’s very powerful. But we just felt it was too powerful. It’s the only time we ever said, “No. Not on our watch.” (And just to be clear, this was never an argument. No actor I’ve ever worked with was more respectful to writers than Alan Alda. It was a discussion and I greatly appreciate that once Alan saw how passionate we were on this issue he acquiesced.)

I did like the interview bytes MeTV used. These were filmed last year in preparation for a documentary that is being prepared. One of my clips made it to the promo so I’m especially happy. It was nice that they used extended clips of writers. Usually in those things you see the writers for two seconds and the actors for five minutes. Unfortunately, the one writer who was the giant of the series, towering high above all of us, Larry Gelbart, had passed away so was not included.

I loved that Burt Metcalfe got a lot of face time. Burt was with the series from the beginning, was the showrunner for the last six years, and directed many terrific episodes including the finale. And they don’t list it in his bio but he was also the world’s best boss.

I guess like most people watching I got choked up. But not at the part anyone else did. Yes, the last scene is a killer with the rocks that spell ‘goodbye,’ but I had seen the show before.

However, afterwards there were final interview comments. One was by Gene Reynolds. Now in his 90’s (and still sharper than me), Gene was the co-creator and showrunner with Larry Gelbart. I’ve mentioned him before. I learned more about story construction and writing from Gene Reynolds than anyone else. In his segment, Gene got a little emotional as he thanked the actors, writers, and staff.

It was Gene who hired us – took a chance on two baby writers who lied and said they had written drama along with comedy. (We had never written drama, but we would have said we had flown to the moon if it meant getting a MASH assignment.) We owe our careers to that man and for him to thank US, well, that got to me.

MASH will not only remain on my resume, it will remain at the top of it. I still can’t believe my good fortune that I was a part of one of the greatest shows in the history of television. I may not get work but there is the small consolation that scripts I wrote thirty-five years ago are still entertaining and moving millions of people today. So there’s that.

What's it like at a Hollywood screening?

Going to Hollywood advance screenings can be really cool… or really awful.

On the one hand, it’s very exciting. Being invited to a studio screening makes you feel like you’re really “in the biz”. You may not be on the A list but at least you’re on some list. And in Hollywood that’s pretty much all that matters. There was a brief time (real brief) when my partner and I were writing and selling features and were on several studio screening lists. I’d get a letter with the invite and instructions to call Mr. Spielberg’s office to RSVP. Cool! Of course, when I call, I’m automatically connected to voicemail. And when I arrive, half the time there’s a screw-up and I’m not on the list. (But I always bring the invite with me as proof and usually am let in.  And if not, I keep my Emmy in my trunk.)

So what's the experience like? 

Once inside, you feel as special and exclusive as one of 2500 people can. Usually there are celebs sprinkled in. I once sat in the same row as Nicole Kidman!  And this is when she looked amazing!  Generally the popcorn is free. Agents are there and say hello, sometimes even the ones who represent you! You frequently know people who were involved in the making of the movie. (Sometimes I’m envious… but it’s a good envious.)

Then you take your seat and there’s an air of excitement. The lights go off and the movie starts. The print is perfect, the sound is glorious, and you just know you’re in for a thrilling night of cine-magic.

And sometimes you are.

But most times you’re not.

That’s the downside.

Sure, when the screening is for HOT TUB TIME MACHINE 2 you have a pretty good idea going in that you won’t be blown away, but there have been numerous times when highly anticipated big budget summer tentpole potential blockbusters lay resounding and foul eggs. Then you’re trapped in hell.

It’s hard to slip out without being noticed, so most of the time you just have to suck it up and stay until the end (which is always 45 minutes longer than it has to be). And then there’s that horrible filing out into the lobby afterwards. Usually the filmmakers are there ready to receive you in a greeting line.

Oy.

The only thing worse then being in that line is being one of the filmmakers receiving that line. When there was a screening of VOLUNTEERS (which, to be fair, was primarily well-received), I was standing next to one of the producers, Walter Parkes. A woman friend of his took both of his hands and said, “Oh, Walter, we love you anyway.”

But by and large it’s those forced compliments that no one believes. I imagine the post-screening of THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2 ANGELS OF DEATH was the very definition of awk-ward!

An actress I know told me that she went to the advance screening of a movie she was in and it was so unspeakably terrible that when the lights came back on the entire cast was crying.

Every so often I’ll be channel-surfing and there will be a movie I saw at a studio screening. It’s 2:00 in the morning and it’s some channel from Oxnard or some cable channel that’s so bad they can’t even scare up an infomercial to fill the time. The print is bad, the sound is muddy, and I think back to the night I originally saw it. The excitement and promise. This movie was going to be the next big thing. And now an animated promo for an exercise show that reruns every morning at 6 takes up 20% of the screen.  Either that or I see the DVD of the movie in a 99 cent bin at Rite-Aid.

They don’t call it the Dream Factory for nothing.

I haven’t been to a big studio advance screening in years. I imagine they’ve changed. I bet people are now texting each other all throughout. I bet the post parties are nowhere near as grandiose. You probably have to pay for popcorn these days. Fancy invites have been replaced by form emails.  Fewer celebrities attend. Getting through the paparazzi is a hassle. Red carpets have been rolled up. And traffic has gotten so bad, especially around Westwood, that more and more agents and publicists are skipping them. They're probably nowhere near as fun or as glamorous as they were even ten short years ago.   So I guess what I’m trying to say is…

Can I get back on the lists?

This is a modified re-post from many years ago.   So things have probably gotten even worse.