CORRECTION: NETWORK, STUDIO, PRODUCTION COMPANIES POST

There is a slight correction to my previous post about the difference between Networks, Studios, and Production companies.

In the post, I stated ABC's Studio is Disney Studios. However, an astute reader pointed out that ABC's Studio is actually ABC Studios, formerly Touchstone Television.

THANK YOU. I am always striving for perfection, but once again fall short.

Has the whole world gone mad?

So, I read a lot, A LOT of blogs, trades, read reviews, etc, and I've seen a disturbing trend of people liking terrible shows, specifically one terrible, wretched abomination of a show. So, I'm here to set the record straight on a terrible show that should NEVER get a good review. I should mention that I have watched 6 episodes of this show, and each has been worse than the previous one. I really wanted it to be good.

IN PLAIN SIGHT

Watching the finale showed me just how terrible this show really is. It is not slam, it is not bang, it is not sexy.

Let me take you back. The show is about the witness protection program, and revolves around MARY, a witness protection agent, her partner MARSHALL, and her dysfunctional family.

The finale revolves around Mary's sister who has just been caught with a suitcase full of meth, and Mary, who was taken captive and almost killed. As the finale begins, Mary has been rescued, and her sister is on the hook for selling and distributing meth. Marshall has to figure out how to get her off the hook, before the real drug dealer goes free. Pretty cool scenario right?

Then, why do they spend 3/4 of the show discussing how Mary's father has been writing her for 20 years (oh, i should mention that her father is a bank robber who has been on the run for 20 years, and in that time hasn't contacted anyone but Mary). Seriously, there is a drug dealing kingpin out there, and Mary is at home putzing around, and we hardly ever get to see the actual crime. I think possibly we saw the crime investigation for 4-5 scenes in the entire finale. And, the resolution is incredibly unsatisfying. It's almost worth watching, just to see how bad it is.

I can't decide which is the bigger crime, the writing or the acting. This is a line from the pilot, a voiceover line: "Which is why I was driving my misogynistic nightmare across the desert". YUCK! And it just gets lousier.

On the other hand, the acting is terrible too. In one scene in the finale, Mary's on again off again boyfriend shows up, "drunk" to Mary's house, saying that he never sees her, and opining that she has not called him in two weeks. However, the actor can not play drunk. Instead, he looks and sounds sleepy. Just terrible. And lets not mention this is an incredibly unnecessary scene seeing as there is a CRIME INVESTIGATION going on that holds the fate of Mary AND her family in the balance.

I think my biggest problem with this show is that the idea is so interesting, the franchise is so cool, and the story could be something special, but instead it's bland, boring, and forces action that is inherent in the story.

But, this show is about how to make things well, and not about my personal opinion, so let's discuss just for a second what the storytelling elements that do and don't work.

#1-The Premise-- Excellent. I would easily strongly recommend this premise for a show. I love it.

#2-The Structure--Shmeh. While the franchise is good, people in witness protection and the U.S. Marshalls that protect them, the "family issues" are just completely unnecessary. There is not enough "slam, bang" to quote the commercial. There are not enough twists and turns. Instead, the characters do a lot of barreling towards a single goal, but Mary's family interrupts and she if forced to deal with THEIR issues. It works in Burn Notice, but not in this show. The best characters fail, or at least get turned around. BORING.

#3-Characters--Weak. While the characters have the potential to be excellent and complex, they turn out to be flat, uninteresting, and contrived. They don't make believable choices and their journeys are not rich. They never seem to learn anything, and they are definitely NOT richer for the journey.

#4-Dialog--Adomination. It's impossible to understand how this got past the classy, fun, and intelligent executives at USA...they have tons of good shows, and they let THIS on the air. It's wooden, boring, and many times out of character for the people saying it. The major issue is that it's just bland and unoriginal.

As you can see, there is little good about the show outside of it's premise and franchise. I hope they bring this show back, but fire the show-runner and re-tool the writing staff, because I do think this show could be really cool if the writers were better.

The show seems to have gotten past the network completely on the merit of the premise, and attachments, a classic high-concept, pitchable show with poor execution.

I do applaud USA Networks for putting the entire season on the air. On Network TV this show probably would have been pulled in 3 episodes, but leaving it on allowed the show to find its audience. So, kudos USA.

There is one good thing about this show...it's not Mary McCormick's fat lip, or the fact that the scripts are written by a 6 year old. No, it's that if this piece of junk show can get on TV, we all have a chance of getting a show on TV.

So please, please, please, STOP writing good reviews about this turd of a show.

Great Seminar

If you have enjoyed the past two posts, and want to learn more about these concepts, I highly recommend the seminars put on by Media Bistro and taught by the incomparable Chad Gervich.

In three hours Chad can bring you up to speed on at least the baseline concepts you will need to succeed in this industry...What you do with them after that is up to you.

Of course, you can also email me with your questions and I'll answer them in this blog. noheltyr@gmail.com

Sick-dycation

Hey everyone,

I've been sick for the past week, which has caused me not to do anything, except have one job interview today. That is the first time I left the apartment since Sunday. Gross.

Anyway, I promised I would talk a bit about tv syndication. While I can't delve into incredible detail, I'll do a cursory explanation.

First, as previously discussed, we know a network does not produce programming. Either a studio or production company, usually both, produces programming.

Then, that studio sells the rights to that show for a specific length of time to a network. The network buys the rights to the programming for roughly half what the studio pays to make the programming.

Let me go back for a moment. The average half hour programming costs roughly 1.5 million, an hour long program costs 3 million.

For ease, let's talk about an hour long program. And let's take the 24 as an example.

***These numbers are hypothetical***

STUDIO produces SHOW. Each episode costs 3 million dollars to make. And they have sold the rights to NETWORK to broadcast the show for 1.5 million dollars.

Which means, for every episode that goes out the door and onto NETWORK, STUDIO loses 1.5 million dollars.

So, how do they make that money back? Well, usually they don't. Most shows do not hit syndication. However, since SHOW will, we will discuss that.

Once SHOW hits roughly 100 shows (this number has lowered in recent years), stations now has an interest in buying the rights to show that program in syndication, or OVER AND OVER a la Scrubs, Office, Simpsons, Friends, Seinfeld, etc.)

So, if the show is now in deficit for 1.5 million an episode, they can sell the rights to the show station to station in every station around the country. Let's say a 10 STATIONS across the country buy the rights to the show for 500,000 dollars a piece.

Remember, an episode still cost $3 million to make. but now NETWORK has paid 1.5 million to distribute the show. Now, 10 STATIONS have paid $500,000 an episode to distribute the show in syndication.

So:

Pre-syndication:

Cost of Show: 3 million
Fox pays: 1.5 million
_________________________
-1.5 million

Stations paying for syndication

10 Stations 500 thousand
x 10 stations
__________________________
5 million

Post Syndication:

Deficit -1.5 million
Syndication+ 5 million
_________________________
+3.5 million

Now, you can see, that if you hit syndication for an episode of SHOW, you will be in the black by 3.5 million dollars, an episode. On 100 episode show, that's a lot of money that a studio can rake in.

However, almost NO shows hit syndication. So, studios LOSE money on almost all of their shows.

So, a show not only has to be successful for a network, in order for a studio to reclaim their money, the show has to hit syndication. Because, as we now know, a HIT for a network means NOTHING to a studio.

Of course, some smaller networks have a network and studio under the same roof, like Nickelodeon. However, we are simply speaking of networks that have separate studios/networks.

Now, maybe you will understand why studios gravitate towards the few show-runners who are proven commodities.

Network, Studio, Production Company

I was at a seminar last night for tv writers and a question was introduced which made me realize many people don't understand the difference between a Network, Studio, and Production Company. So,

Network: A network distributes programming. They are the STATION that puts a show on the air, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, USA, TNT, ESPN, etc. there are six major companies that own networks for SCRIPTED TELEVISION: FoxCORPS, CBSCORP, GE, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, Sony.

FOX-Owned by FoxCorps
CBS-Owned by CBSCorps
NBC-Owned by GE
CW-Co-owned by CBS and Time-Warner
ABC-Owned by Disney

These channels DO NOT produce programs. They BUY programs and sell ad space to recoup their cost. You may ask, but Russell, I who produces these shows, I thought... Well they are produced by...

Studios: Each show is produced by a STUDIO. Studios are designed to FINANCE and PRODUCE television. These studios DO NOT distribute television, the finance shows and SELL THEM TO NETWORKS. If you are asking HOW Fox doesn't have a studio, the simple answer is THEY DO. Each network ALSO has a STUDIO that produces shows that air on their network.

FOX- 20th Century Fox
CBS-CBS Paramount
NBC-Universal Media Studios
CW-Warner Brothers
ABC-ABC Studios

So, you're pretty confident now, that whatever is on FOX is produced by 20th Century, CBS Paramount is producing everything on CBS, etc etc. Right? WRONG. While 20th Century does produce many fox shows, like 24, they also sell shows to other networks. My favorite current example is SCRUBS. Scrubs is produced by DISNEY, but was DISTRIBUTED by NBC. However, when NBC cancelled Scrubs, it was PICKED-UP by ABC for another season.

Why does this happen? A bevy of reasons; A show a studio is developing doesn't fit on the network they are producing for, a network thought they would like a show but then decided after seeing it they aren't wild about it, the studio specifically produces a show for another network, etc. etc.

When I lived in DC, I met a guy who worked at History Channel's studio, just like the model I've been talking about, but smaller. He explained their system like this. History Channel is only obligated to buy X amount of the content they produce. If history channel passes on a show, they are free to shop that show to other networks.

The point is, it's reciprocal. Sometimes the studio produces the show for another network, sometimes the network doesn't want the show. However, this shows why you'll be watching a show on CBS, and see a 20th Century Fox logo. Or when you're driving past the Warner lot and see banners from other network's shows.

Production Company: Most people think a production company is the company that actually PRODUCES the show. However, this is a misnomer. In actuality, a production company has EXACTLY the same role as a studio, but they are not owned by a network. Most production companies that work with television are successful producers, showrunners, directors, etc. That have OVERALL DEALS with a studio because of their success.

An OVERALL DEAL means this...A Studio will pay a production company X dollars, and in return they will own EVERYTHING the production company produces, whether it's ideas, scripts, etc, for the length of the deal. People like David E. Kelley, Joss Wheadon, J. J. Abrams have overall deals with studios.

So, there is a general overview of WHAT each type of entity does. Next time you're watching a show and you see a production company, a studio, and a network, you'll understand why it is the way it is.

Next time...I'll try to explain what syndication is...maybe...unless I forget.

Premise...

I'm so excited. This is the first time I can comment on a comment to the blog.

Dave writes:

I definitely agree that bad dialogue is an instant turn-off when reading a script. However, most producers will only even start reading the script if they’ve first been triggered by an intriguing premise. So when they start reading they’re looking to see if this is a movie, not whether the writer is the new Harold Pinter!

In my experience (but this may have to do with my penchant for structure), producers are reassured when the structure is clear and firm. All the details can be perfected during development, as long as the basic framework feels solid.

Having said that, great structure, great dialogue, great locations ... none of this can make up for a lousy, uninteresting premise."

I could not agree more. When thinking of a project, the first thing you should be thinking is...This premise...would I watch it if I wasn't writing it? Would I pay $10 to see it? Would I want my mother, brother, sister, uncle, best friend, to watch this movie? Would they even want to see it?

There is nothing worse that a boring, bland, run of the mill premise. In all of my reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, one thing I see over and over with my clients who have open submissions is a boring premise, which is a certain deal killer AND the first thing a reader comments.

As far as structure...once again I couldn't agree more. That's why I am trying so hard to modify my writing structure in order to make the structure perfect. I've spent so much time relying on my dialog to get the message through, that I forgot the most important thing to make someone read it, the structure.

As a reader, the thing I see with all of my CLOSED submission clients is that the premise in on point, pitch-able, and high concept, and the structure is relatively well-constructed. However, in almost every instance, the dialog and characters are just atrocious. Still...they are getting their film read, and the quirky esoteric unmarketable story sits on the shelf.

This is very important...if the structure is NOT good, and the PREMISE is not on point, NO ONE will read the script even if you are the next "Harold Pinter".

That felt good...like really gooood. Keep the comments coming.

Figuring out what you're terrible at

As promised...an optimistic post.

Writing and working in this industry is as much about finding your weaknesses as it is accenting your strengths.

For instance, I am great with dialog, decent on structure, and terrible at proofreading.

So, how do I account for that? I send my scripts to tons of people, have begun outlining more strictly, writing more extensive character developments, and trying to read scripts backwards. (yes, it's a little trick I learned recently. Try it)

The problem, not to sound boastful, is that in my opinion great dialog can make up for piss-poor structure. I look at the most recent re-write I did for a tv pilot I'm working on, and while I know the structure needs work, it sounds good, and flows because of the dialog, so it becomes difficult for me to see how to correct it. I know, I know, I know, it sounds terrible, and I know it does. On the other hand, great structure rarely makes up for piss poor dialog. But, I'm learning how to get the structure right.

But, that's why it's so important to see your biggest faults and PLAY TO THEM. Two of the most popular ways:

-Writing Groups--i have some excellent ones.
-Writing Partners--i am looking for one.

Either way, the easiest way to find your faults is to get other people's eyes on your script.

A professional will not only know where they are strong, they will be even more aware of where they are weak.