Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas
I don't care if it's pc or not, Merry Christmas to everyone out there in Grinderland.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
In need of cool names, go to Montana
Okay, I know this is a weird segue, but I am just awful at coming up with new names. They always end up at Madison for a girl and Jimmy for a guy. It's idiotic. But, I found a fix in the weirdest place.
This year, I had several cross country flights. First, I went to visit a client in San Diego in February. Then, I flew into La to apartment scout in June. Finally, in June, we relocated to LA. During cross country flights, I like to view the map most airlines provide that tracks where the plane is over the country. And, during one of the trips, not sure which one, I realized that Montana, Nebraska, Idaho, and most of that area of the country have the most interesting names for towns. As many of those towns were named for the person who founded the town taking a map, or let's be serious mapquest, can provide you names you've never thought of. I used the system for all of my recent scripts.
Consider it my Holiday gift to you.
This year, I had several cross country flights. First, I went to visit a client in San Diego in February. Then, I flew into La to apartment scout in June. Finally, in June, we relocated to LA. During cross country flights, I like to view the map most airlines provide that tracks where the plane is over the country. And, during one of the trips, not sure which one, I realized that Montana, Nebraska, Idaho, and most of that area of the country have the most interesting names for towns. As many of those towns were named for the person who founded the town taking a map, or let's be serious mapquest, can provide you names you've never thought of. I used the system for all of my recent scripts.
Consider it my Holiday gift to you.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Why I'm not hating on Heroes
*** warning, season 3 Heroes spoilers ahead***
It seems to be the fad of the week, or the past two seasons to hate on Heroes. I, myself, have been driving that bus more than once. However, the thing that turned me around was watching season 1 on DVD.
See, if you actually sit down and watch it from the beginning, all of the idiosyncrasies that have ballooned up in the past two volumes were quite present from the beginning. The confusing shifts in time, the storylines that lead nowhere, the episodes where nothing happens, the people who are in one episode only to die in the next, the character who are inexplicably forced together. ALL of those things happened starting in episode 2 of the first season. What is the difference? In the first season, there was a purpose. A clear-cut purpose for all of the heroes to galvanize around. And that made all of the other idiocies...yes, idiot + idiosyncrasies, forgivable. I bet you don't remember that they saved the cheerleader in episode 8...that's right the biggest crux of season 1 happens 8 episodes in. Also, there are 2+ episodes where Hiro is lost in time. I mean, I've been through some of this, but if you bought it in the first season, it's hard to argue with it now.
I think that the episodes from the Eclipse on might be the great reboot of Heroes. Since that episode, the storylines have been strong, and the heroes have been fighting a common foe. Nathan has taken a strong stance, and Peter has taken the other stance. Yes, there have been some weak story-lines, but does anyone remember Nikki and Jessica the first season? Talk about groan. Everyone knew that Peter HAD to get powers back, he was the impedus for the entire show. And, on the flip side, Hiro had to LOSE his power because he was too powerful. Anything bad that happened, Hiro could just stop with his mind. It made everything else in the world unbelieveable.
I say, just enjoy the Heroes ride, even though the characters were...well, completely out of character, Matt Parkman helping Ted Sprague hold Claire's family hostage was pretty out of character...Then, having HRG team up with Ted and Matt immediately afterwards is even more out of character...oh, and all that was in the first season.
Next season looks like it's going to be filled with all of the heroes fighting for a common goal, which is what made season 1 so awesome. Just give me cool powers, semi-decent story telling, and a thinly veiled plot and I'm sold. And if you as the audience would watch the first season, I think your eyes would be open as well. The first season wasn't great, it was average, but it was also AWESOME!
It seems to be the fad of the week, or the past two seasons to hate on Heroes. I, myself, have been driving that bus more than once. However, the thing that turned me around was watching season 1 on DVD.
See, if you actually sit down and watch it from the beginning, all of the idiosyncrasies that have ballooned up in the past two volumes were quite present from the beginning. The confusing shifts in time, the storylines that lead nowhere, the episodes where nothing happens, the people who are in one episode only to die in the next, the character who are inexplicably forced together. ALL of those things happened starting in episode 2 of the first season. What is the difference? In the first season, there was a purpose. A clear-cut purpose for all of the heroes to galvanize around. And that made all of the other idiocies...yes, idiot + idiosyncrasies, forgivable. I bet you don't remember that they saved the cheerleader in episode 8...that's right the biggest crux of season 1 happens 8 episodes in. Also, there are 2+ episodes where Hiro is lost in time. I mean, I've been through some of this, but if you bought it in the first season, it's hard to argue with it now.
I think that the episodes from the Eclipse on might be the great reboot of Heroes. Since that episode, the storylines have been strong, and the heroes have been fighting a common foe. Nathan has taken a strong stance, and Peter has taken the other stance. Yes, there have been some weak story-lines, but does anyone remember Nikki and Jessica the first season? Talk about groan. Everyone knew that Peter HAD to get powers back, he was the impedus for the entire show. And, on the flip side, Hiro had to LOSE his power because he was too powerful. Anything bad that happened, Hiro could just stop with his mind. It made everything else in the world unbelieveable.
I say, just enjoy the Heroes ride, even though the characters were...well, completely out of character, Matt Parkman helping Ted Sprague hold Claire's family hostage was pretty out of character...Then, having HRG team up with Ted and Matt immediately afterwards is even more out of character...oh, and all that was in the first season.
Next season looks like it's going to be filled with all of the heroes fighting for a common goal, which is what made season 1 so awesome. Just give me cool powers, semi-decent story telling, and a thinly veiled plot and I'm sold. And if you as the audience would watch the first season, I think your eyes would be open as well. The first season wasn't great, it was average, but it was also AWESOME!
Friday, December 12, 2008
100th post woohoo/NBC installing Leno at 10pm
First, this is my 100th post, so woohoo! Get the party poppers, hats, and cake and do a little dance.
Okay, now that's out of the way, I want to discuss NBC cutting original scripted programming at 10pm and replacing it with 5 days of JAY LENO! This has caused an uproar within the creative community because it means 5 less hours of programming for writers, directors, and producers. Instead, the less expensive tonight show will take it's place, much like the news on the CW and FOX.
I for one, agree with Steven Bochco's assessment of the situation. He believes that network drama is awful for the most part. As my mother would say, if you can't play nice, you don't deserve the toys. What I mean is, if showrunners can't put good shows on television, why should a network put on their half-assed dramas? They have a perfectly marketable commodity in Jay Leno, who is being pushed out of his slot, and would likely find a home at a rival network. So, instead of giving a golden goose to the competition, they keep it in house, cut down their programming, and bring in a rather inexpensive show to take it's place. After all, NBC is used to pull an 8 share, is down to a 3 share this season and needs to make drastic changes. 10 hours of programming is still a lot of hours to fill. Just ask CW and FOX.
I really do prefer the cable model. Most networks only program original programming 1-3 days a week, showing re-runs the rest of the week. The shows are good, fresh, and draw 5 shares, higher than gossip girl, for a new show like Leverage. While it's not as high as an NBC show, everyone needs to realize how television now works, and adapt to it. I would never consciously produce a show for networks. I would be more than happy to land on the Sundance channel with a quirky Slings and Arrows type show.
Now, as a wannabe tv producer, it kind of screws me over, but that is what adaptation is all about. We as producers now need to look towards foreign markets, online, direct to video distribution, and other outlets. Does it suck for jobs? Yes. Is it at an awful time in our economy? Yes. As Bochco said, good shows will always find an audience. Of course, Cupid, Arrested Development, Pushing Daisies, Freaks and Geeks, and so on down the line, would take exception to that. And yes, some of this is on the networks for putting on Cashmere Mafia, Lipstick Jungle, Valentine, and Easy Money, but if you are an aspiring producer, you should blame the executive producers who are putting on such awful shows in the first place. If they don't find an audience, what do you expect a network to do? Jay is a proven commodity...Hell, I'll gladly watch. In fact, I'm looking forward to it. Survival of the fittest, what are you willing to do to survive?
Okay, now that's out of the way, I want to discuss NBC cutting original scripted programming at 10pm and replacing it with 5 days of JAY LENO! This has caused an uproar within the creative community because it means 5 less hours of programming for writers, directors, and producers. Instead, the less expensive tonight show will take it's place, much like the news on the CW and FOX.
I for one, agree with Steven Bochco's assessment of the situation. He believes that network drama is awful for the most part. As my mother would say, if you can't play nice, you don't deserve the toys. What I mean is, if showrunners can't put good shows on television, why should a network put on their half-assed dramas? They have a perfectly marketable commodity in Jay Leno, who is being pushed out of his slot, and would likely find a home at a rival network. So, instead of giving a golden goose to the competition, they keep it in house, cut down their programming, and bring in a rather inexpensive show to take it's place. After all, NBC is used to pull an 8 share, is down to a 3 share this season and needs to make drastic changes. 10 hours of programming is still a lot of hours to fill. Just ask CW and FOX.
I really do prefer the cable model. Most networks only program original programming 1-3 days a week, showing re-runs the rest of the week. The shows are good, fresh, and draw 5 shares, higher than gossip girl, for a new show like Leverage. While it's not as high as an NBC show, everyone needs to realize how television now works, and adapt to it. I would never consciously produce a show for networks. I would be more than happy to land on the Sundance channel with a quirky Slings and Arrows type show.
Now, as a wannabe tv producer, it kind of screws me over, but that is what adaptation is all about. We as producers now need to look towards foreign markets, online, direct to video distribution, and other outlets. Does it suck for jobs? Yes. Is it at an awful time in our economy? Yes. As Bochco said, good shows will always find an audience. Of course, Cupid, Arrested Development, Pushing Daisies, Freaks and Geeks, and so on down the line, would take exception to that. And yes, some of this is on the networks for putting on Cashmere Mafia, Lipstick Jungle, Valentine, and Easy Money, but if you are an aspiring producer, you should blame the executive producers who are putting on such awful shows in the first place. If they don't find an audience, what do you expect a network to do? Jay is a proven commodity...Hell, I'll gladly watch. In fact, I'm looking forward to it. Survival of the fittest, what are you willing to do to survive?
I hate research
Unfortunately, I'm good at it. That doesn't make me like it any more. But, since I have some expected time off, and I'm sans scripts to write, it's been two weeks of research: btwn NATPE, a new script research (right now I'm leaning to a shakespeare adaptation...like every other human on earth), and English language market research (Australia, Britain, Canada...sorry, Belize) it's been busy couple weeks. And I wanted to give you a few tidbits about what I've gleaned. I should mention, my research was only so complete because finding information about shows in other countries is rough, and watching those shows on youtube is sometimes impossible. So, if you live in these countries and want to add to the research, I'd be happy to update the findings.
Other English language countries aren't big fans of legal shows.
Outside of Billable Hours in Canada, I didn't find many successful legal shows anywhere in the English speaking world. And, since the name of our game is ability to source shows to multiple countries, developing a legal show is not advisable in the current climate.
Everyone loves crime/police shows.
For as much as I had trouble finding legal shows, crime shows were EVERYWHERE. However, unlike America which has "dramedy" cop shows like Monk and Psych, almost all, if not all, of foreign police dramas are straight drama, no comedy. It's a bummer, and there may be a niche to fill, but the good news is that crime dramas are alive and well anywhere. Of course, we all know Hustle IS a dramedy show about a group of con-men...however, not a police station, CoW show, and definitely not a show that I have seen in either Canada or Australia.
The "dialect" barrier is not as pronounced as one would assume.
Outside of a few british shows that utilized some cockney expressions, every show I researched used the same general dialect as we do in the states. Now, that doesn't mean you should make a show about a surfer dude, that just won't translate. But, if you are planning on marketing a show to multiple countries, and you use standard english, not slang, you should be able to market your show to a wide range of english speaking countries.
Though it goes against common sense, almost every sitcom is single camera.
One would assume that since multi-camera sitcoms are the most inexpensive shows to produce, a researcher would see them in places like Australia and Canada. However, the opposite is true. In fact, through my research I only saw a handful of multi-camera comedies, most of which were re-runs on BBC. This particular fact was the biggest surprise to me.
British shows is crazy!
If I'm going to create a show straight for a specific country, it's going to be Britain. Not only do they have a crazy show that's shot solely from the character's POV, but they also have a sitcom about a group of housewives who are in two rival gangs. Of all the countries I found, the most zany, fun, and overall creative shows were on British TV.
The next post, I'll put together some of my favorite specific shows from each country. Now, back to the grind!
Other English language countries aren't big fans of legal shows.
Outside of Billable Hours in Canada, I didn't find many successful legal shows anywhere in the English speaking world. And, since the name of our game is ability to source shows to multiple countries, developing a legal show is not advisable in the current climate.
Everyone loves crime/police shows.
For as much as I had trouble finding legal shows, crime shows were EVERYWHERE. However, unlike America which has "dramedy" cop shows like Monk and Psych, almost all, if not all, of foreign police dramas are straight drama, no comedy. It's a bummer, and there may be a niche to fill, but the good news is that crime dramas are alive and well anywhere. Of course, we all know Hustle IS a dramedy show about a group of con-men...however, not a police station, CoW show, and definitely not a show that I have seen in either Canada or Australia.
The "dialect" barrier is not as pronounced as one would assume.
Outside of a few british shows that utilized some cockney expressions, every show I researched used the same general dialect as we do in the states. Now, that doesn't mean you should make a show about a surfer dude, that just won't translate. But, if you are planning on marketing a show to multiple countries, and you use standard english, not slang, you should be able to market your show to a wide range of english speaking countries.
Though it goes against common sense, almost every sitcom is single camera.
One would assume that since multi-camera sitcoms are the most inexpensive shows to produce, a researcher would see them in places like Australia and Canada. However, the opposite is true. In fact, through my research I only saw a handful of multi-camera comedies, most of which were re-runs on BBC. This particular fact was the biggest surprise to me.
British shows is crazy!
If I'm going to create a show straight for a specific country, it's going to be Britain. Not only do they have a crazy show that's shot solely from the character's POV, but they also have a sitcom about a group of housewives who are in two rival gangs. Of all the countries I found, the most zany, fun, and overall creative shows were on British TV.
The next post, I'll put together some of my favorite specific shows from each country. Now, back to the grind!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Leverage Karma
So, after berating Leverage, calling it a poor man's hustle, guess who has an interview with the production company who produces the show today. That's right, THIS GUY. Karma...is a bitch.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Correction : HUSTLE
Try as I might, I missed that hustle IS coming back for a fifth season. Thanks Spec Odyssey for the note. See the press release here. Get your DVRs ready.
In my defense, I read from several sources that the series was cancelled.
From Wiki, the all-knowing source of all things*
Following much media speculation, including reports of the programme being cancelled and a motion picture spin-off,[6] the BBC announced on 12 June 2008 that Hustle had been recommissioned for a fifth series. Adrian Lester will return, alongside Robert Glenister and Robert Vaughn,[7] although Marc Warren and Jaime Murray will not appear.[4]
The fifth series has been referred to as a "relaunch" by lead director James Strong[8] and will feature Matt Di Angelo,[9] Bill Bailey and Patrick Bergin[10] as guest stars.
Even futoncritic is confused, calling the show canceled.
Okay, enough defending. That's the most recent scoop.
*not
In my defense, I read from several sources that the series was cancelled.
From Wiki, the all-knowing source of all things*
Following much media speculation, including reports of the programme being cancelled and a motion picture spin-off,[6] the BBC announced on 12 June 2008 that Hustle had been recommissioned for a fifth series. Adrian Lester will return, alongside Robert Glenister and Robert Vaughn,[7] although Marc Warren and Jaime Murray will not appear.[4]
The fifth series has been referred to as a "relaunch" by lead director James Strong[8] and will feature Matt Di Angelo,[9] Bill Bailey and Patrick Bergin[10] as guest stars.
Even futoncritic is confused, calling the show canceled.
Okay, enough defending. That's the most recent scoop.
*not
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
