Hollywood tours

Tourism is always big in Los Angeles, especially during the summer. Local residents on the Westside are used to seeing kids stand out on Sunset Blvd. selling maps to the stars’ homes. Hollywood locals take it for granted that a thousand nimrods in Bermuda shorts will be milling about Grauman’s Chinese Theater and getting selfies with Spiderman or a guy dressed like Marilyn Monroe. And double-decked tour buses clogging up left hand lanes is a city staple.

But this year, for some reason, I am seeing way more tour buses. It’s almost one-to-one Hollywood Tour vans and parking enforcement vehicles. Why there are so many more tour buses these days I do not know. Especially since…

There is nothing to see.

Not really.

One tour takes you by the homes of the stars. But stars don’t live in Beverly Hills anymore. They used to. You could drive by Jack Benny’s house, and Lucille Ball’s, and Ronald Colman’s but the chances of actually seeing them have breakfast or watering the lawn is rather slim since they’re dead. And how many of you even know who Ronald Colman was? You’re driving by lawyers’ homes and guys who own furniture warehouses.

Stars live secluded in canyons and beach colonies and Upper Manhattan. Their compounds are gated. And would you even know the difference? If a tour guide took you to Bel Air, pointed to a gate, and said this is where Tom Cruise lives, how would you know it’s not really where the owner of Starlight Tours lives? Or a military academy?

As for stars’ hangouts – you don’t need a tour bus. Just go to Maestro’s or Spago’s or any super expensive chic eatery. The classic Hollywood haunts like Chasen’s, Perino’s, the Brown Derby, Scandia, Le Dome, Morton’s – they’re long gone. Sure, you can still go to Pink’s Hot Dogs as Orson Welles frequently did, but you’ll suffer the same fate as him. Musso & Frank’s is still open, and it’s worth seeing, but the only movie stars you’ll see there now are celebrating their 105th birthdays. Over the years I’ve seen dozens of big stars in LA restaurants, but they’ve all closed. Perhaps I should start a tour: “Where Robert Duvall, LaToya Jackson, and Dustin Hoffman used to eat.”

Will you see stars shopping in Beverly Hills? Maybe. You’ll more likely see their personal assistants.

These tours also show you “locations” from movies and TV shows. The truth is after a hundred years of movie making, every street and location has been used at least once. So the Coffee Bean you’re in right now was once a hamburger stand used in FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. The street you just crossed was seen in an Allstate commercial back in 1967. The actual house used on BLESS THIS HOUSE might be right around the corner. Just assume it is.

LA is a great vacation destination.  Lots of fun things to see and do.   Disneyland, Dodger Stadium, the Venice Beach walk, Universal, the Grove, Farmer's Market, LACMA, Costco. If you want to see television shows you can write to the networks.  TV tickets are free.  And there are kiosks in tourist locations like the Grove that offer these tickets.  You can see Ellen.   

But the bottom line is this: You want to see big movie stars? You want to see A-list celebrities? Come back in the winter and go to a Lakers game.

Is there "Too much television?"

At a recent appearance at the Television Critics convention, FX CEO John Landgraf made industry headlines by declaring there was too much scripted fare on TV and in time will start to decline. He believes there is too much competition and that quality shows get lost in the glut of scripted material. He also believes “it’s impossible to maintain quality control.”

As an example he blamed the voluminous amount of programming for the failure of the FX comedy, THE COMEDIANS. He said it was “an outstanding creative achievement, we just couldn’t find substantial audience to sustain it.”

Uh, no. It was not a very good show. Landgraf added: “Some of the later episodes of the first season were really great, but you (the critics) and the audience are so overwhelmed, it’s hard to go back to shows you have rejected.”

Sorry, but when an audience tunes in, is disappointed, and doesn’t return don’t blame the better shows the viewers watched instead.

America voted.  

And when he says “it’s impossible to maintain quality control” does that mean he doesn’t have a large enough staff to give notes?

Let me say a few things:

First off, I like FX. JUSTIFIED was on FX, as was THE SHIELD and SONS OF ANARCHY. THE AMERICANS, LOUIE, and ARCHER are on FX. Mr. Landgraf, I think you oversee one of the better networks.

But what’s wrong with too much competition? Especially in an age where mega conglomerates (like News Corp.) are swallowing up everything. Competition is a GOOD thing. It pushes people to make better products. And in the case of scripted television, it means more jobs for more people.

Why is there more competition? Because the audience is tired of watching reruns or movies no longer in release. Remember when FX started? They aired MASH nine times a day (I personally loved it). USA aired WINGS twenty times a day (I was fond of that too). If these networks could get away with just showing reruns and reaching their advertising goals they would. There’s original entertainment because viewers demand it. We’re sorry it’s more expensive than GOLDEN GIRLS reruns.

The other thing to consider: YOU select the shows that get on the air. I know networks make the argument they can only choose what creators bring to them (and that is a valid argument), but most networks these days have “brands.” Most networks pre-determine what content they’re looking for. Writers are creating shows based on what you tell them you want. Again, the irony here is that FX does a better job of selecting shows than most networks.

But in general, networks need to select better shows. Once upon a time, networks would air their unsold pilots in the summer. They don’t do that anymore. Why? It was embarrassing to them when people thought some of the shows they didn’t select were way better than the ones they did.

Let’s be real. Pilots are selected not just based on quality. That’s only one factor. More important factors are do the studios own them, are they highly promotable, are they fiscally attractive, are there commitments that need to be honored?

When Grant Tinker was running NBC he believed that if a show was really good, the audience will eventually find it. I think that’s even more true now. We can DVR shows, we can watch them On-Demand, and on-line. Through social media we also have the means to spread enormous word-of-mouth if a show warrants it. THE COMEDIANS would have a following if it was a better show.

Thanks to all the competition on all the networks and delivery systems we have TRANSPARENT, and Amy Schumer, and ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK, and DOWNTON ABBEY, and LOUIE. I want to see MORE competition, especially on your network because you do it as well or better than anybody.

Blog spelling, lack of punctuatio, or lack of same

These posts would be so much eazier to write if I didn’t have to worry about spelling and punktuation. That was always one of the beauties of riting dialog. People don’t talk in grammatically correct sentences and who cares about the spellling because the audience is just hereing the words and not seeing dem. (Shit. That last sentence is in fact a question. I forgot the question mark.)

After having proper grammar drummed into my head in school it was difficult at first to not write dialogue stilted but correct. Eventually you learn that flow and writing conversationally is the key. Then its (or it’s) fun. All bets are off.

Until you have to write prose again (or FRASIER).

(This is the punctuation that is the screenwriter’s best friend -- … Use it to represent any pause. Believe me, it… works!)

It’s (or its) amazing how much grammar you forget. And part of the problem – at least for me --, is that if you (or in my case, me) tend to write quickly, you’re trying to get your ideas on the page while their in your head and I can’t do that when your stopping midthoughtwse to ponder whether there’s a comma here or this participle is dangling or there is no such word as midthoughtwise. (That last sentence may or may not be a question. I’m not sure.)

Back to script writing, you see this in rewrite sessions. There are monitors in the room allowing the writers to see the script as the assistant is typing it. Someone pitches a joke, everyone laughs, the assistant starts transcribing it, and there’s always one asshole who sees himself as the Grammar Police barking out that there should be a comma there, or that’s a semi-colon. That shit is “Proofer’s challenge”. Let whoever proofs the script deal with that. Don’t slow down the process by blurting out that dad needs to be capitalized.

Back to prose: Spellcheck and grammar programs help somewhat. A wiggly green line will appear under something the computer doesn’t feel is right. Half the time it’s (or its) useful and half the time I’m thinking, “what the hell is wrong with this?” Or, “the computer just doesn’t get me.”

Same with spell check – it catches a lot of mistakes but misses others. If a word can be spelled correctly two ways or if you write in the wrong word but it’s an actual word -- : that too won’t get caught. Sometimes I remember the little hints we got in school. Principle or principal – the principal is your “pal”. But as I get older my brain is beginning to fill up with the Infield Fly Rule and where I put my keys and those little tips are fading from memory.

I actually do know the difference between it’s and its (it’s is only used as a contraction for it is) but there are others that I’ll admit, I’m guessin’.

And there are certain words I just don’t know how to spell. So I type in some approximation and let Spell Check correct it. If I ever have to write a letter in longhand I am so screwed. Thank you, Steve Jobs.

The point is… from time to time… you will see grammatical mistakes, misspelled words, made up words, tenses changing, inconsistencies, italics for no reason, and other egregious clerical errors. I do try to proof these posts but things still slip by. So I beg your indulgence. I don’t have an editor. And even one of those doesn’t guarantee (that’s one of the words I always struggle with) 100% accuracy. When I got the galley proof for my book IT’S GONE… NO, WAIT A MINUTE (notice the ….?) this is what it said on the cover:

GALLEY PROFF

This is a re-post from five years ago.  I still make these mistakes.

Oh no! Not ANOTHER tribute to Jon Stewart?

 Yes, I'm afraid so. 

How will we get through the next presidential campaign without him?  Or a day in Congress? 

I have to say I felt a much greater sadness watching Jon Stewart's last show than David Letterman’s. Letterman was like saying goodbye to Willie Mays during his final days as a Met when he could hardly fit into his uniform. Stewart was like Sandy Koufax retiring in the prime of his career.

There once was a time when a politician caught lying would destroy his credibility and career. If a large corporation was exposed for fraudulent business practices there would be a national uproar. If the news department of a national network reported with bias all hell would break out.

Today, there is so much lying, deception, greed, distrust, hypocrisy, and bias that it’s almost accepted. People are either too weary or too stupid to be alarmed… or even notice.

That’s why it was so refreshing and vital to have THE DAILY SHOW with Jon Stewart. He called everyone out on their bullshit. Republicans, Democrats, and whatever party Donald Trump eventually runs on – no one was above being called out.

And people took notice. Especially young people – the people who will shape the country’s future. So Jon Stewart performed a real service. And let’s be honest, they (and we) watched not so much because we felt it was our obligation to be informed citizens – we watched because it was entertaining, hilarious even.

At a time when sitcoms like 2 BROKE GIRLS and movies like VACATION could not be more puerile and stupid, Jon Stewart proved that smart, sophisticated, literate humor could still hit the mark. We're not all so dumb after all!  Who knew? 

Even more impressive was how consistently excellent his material was, night after night for sixteen long years. He had more great topical jokes in one night than Jay Leno had in ten years.

But wait! There’s more!

Comedy wasn’t even his best thing. The few times Stewart broke format and just spoke from the heart, discussing a serious topic (like gun control) his program transcended entertainment and became extraordinary. He lifted social consciousness to higher levels.  That's pretty cool for a Comedy Central show. 

And now he’s leaving. I don’t blame him. Sixteen years of exposing buffoons like Bill O’Reilly has to get old. "You're kidding?  Now he says he's the first man to walk on the moon?"

But I am sure sad to see Jon go. The show will go on but it won’t be the same. Trevor Noah has an impossible task. How do you replace Jon Stewart? That’s like how do you replace Vin Scully or John Wooden or Regis Philbin (okay, well… maybe not that one)?

I’m also sad because the topical nature of THE DAILY SHOW means the show has no shelf life. All of that brilliant comedy writing is lost in the ether. It’s such a joy to me that MASH and CHEERS episodes I co-wrote twenty or thirty years ago are still being seen and appreciated today. Who’s going to watch a ten year old DAILY SHOW except for historical purposes or to see Olivia Munn when she was really hot? And what that means is that in another twenty or thirty years (or, considering how fast things change today, two years) audiences won’t have the reverence for THE DAILY SHOW with Jon Stewart that they should. He deserves a place in American culture right up there with Mark Twain and Will Rogers, I only hope that in ten years he’s not just known as the new host of FAMILY FEUD.

Thanks Jon, for sixteen years of brilliance, vigilance, laughter, and compassion. I hope the next sixteen years are as meaningful and fulfilling for you as these last sixteen have been for all of us.

Oh God! Now I have to face Jeb & Donald & Hillary & Rand & Arby’s alone.

Friday Questions

Here are some mid-summer Friday Questions.   

Norm! starts us off:

What do you think is the best movie that's actually about Hollywood itself? People always mention The Player, which IS a good film but a tad overrated. I have a fascination with Hollywood history, especially the darker side. That's why I love films like Hollywoodland about George Reeves and Auto Focus about Bob Crane.

SUNSET BOULEVARD is the ultimate dark Hollywood movie. But I’m going to recommend a rather offbeat title – THE BIG PICTURE. This 1989 comedy was written by Michael Varhol, Christopher Guest, and Michael McKean and directed by Christopher Guest. So it has that “Guffman/Best In Show” vibe.

Kevin Bacon stars as a college student who does an award winning film and gets sucked into the maelstrom of Hollywood. Standout performances by J.T. Walsh as a studio head and (of all people) Dan Schneider as an insufferable film student. Schneider went on to create iCarly, among other tween hits.

But best of all was Martin Short in his funniest role BY FAR. He played Hollywood agent Neil Sussman. It's the perfect blend of satire and character assassination.

This little gem came and went very quickly. I’m sure it’s available on some streaming service. Check it out. You’ll thank me. And if you haven’t seen SUNSET BOULEVARD rectify that this weekend.

Michael has a holdover question based on stage direction I wrote for my spec DICK VAN DYKE SHOW:

What do "reset" and "continuous" mean, as in

RESET TO:

INT. KITCHEN - CONTINUOUS

Do these terms always appear together, or can one appear in a script without the other?

RESET is a camera term, used primarily in multi-camera shows. When the action goes from one set to the next (say the living room to the kitchen), instead of the director saying “cut,” stopping the filming and moving the cameras into the new set, the director calls out “reset” and the cameras move to their new positions while still rolling. At one time that meant some film was wasted, but now with HD, it’s no big deal.

It allows for a dramatic flow, keeps the audience more involved in following the story, and it saves time (which in Hollywood means saves money).

And yes, it’s always “continuous” because it’s just a continuation of the scene.

From Houston Mitchell:

Do you think Cheers and MASH would have lasted as long as they did if the original cast had remained on the show?

They both might have limped to the finish line, but my guess is neither show would have stayed around as long as they did without those cast changes.

MASH in particular because the show was locked into a time and place. The only way to keep it fresh was to introduce new characters and create different chemistry.

CHEERS at least could advance their characters’ lives. Had Shelley stayed with the show, Sam and Diane might have married and then divorced, or she married someone else instead of Sam – I dunno, but I suspect we would have found something.

That said, it was much easier to come up with stories because the series was allowed to evolve and we were able to introduce new characters.

In both MASH and CHEERS I must add that a large reason for their continued success was not just new actors but that the RIGHT new actors were added.

Keeping a sitcom fresh and funny for eleven years with the same cast is almost an impossible feat. Credit to FRASIER for doing just that.

Boomska316 weighs in:

I was wondering if there were any rules on sitcoms about actors reacting to the studio audiences? I've been watching the Dick Van Dyke Show for the first time ever this week and I could pick out more than once where he was clearly looking straight at the audience and reacting to their reactions.

I can’t personally recall Dick Van Dyke ever doing that. Actors are expressly told not to “break the fourth wall” (in other words, acknowledge the audience). It destroys the reality of the show. Actors are also trained to never look straight into the camera.

cd1515 asks:

the Penny Q&A was interesting.  I get that you want to respect actors' wishes, but don't they ALL want their character to be successful, beautiful and hilarious?

What if you need a character to be depressing or a loser or something else unflattering?

The smart actors realize that playing flawed or villainous characters is way more interesting and fun. Especially in comedy. Likeable, beautiful, happy, successful characters are difficult to write. There’s nothing particularly funny or edgy about them.

Who’s easier to write, Father Mulcahy or Frank Burns?

Yes, there are some actors who are vain and their sole objective is looking great and being admired, and certainly networks prefer everybody be nice and likable and test favorably, but the vast majority of actors I’ve worked with understand the big picture.

What’s your Friday Question?

SITCOM ROOM 2015 is sold out

Thanks to all of you who applied.

See you in October!