Mass Market, Smart Writers

I attended the American Cinema Foundation and L.A. Press Club Mass Market, Smart Content Panel held at AFI (that's a lot of sponsors). The worst part of the story was I felt pretty nauseous about halfway through the panel. I actually had to duck out and get some fresh air, just so I could keep going. No idea why I felt so sick. It was pretty warm and stuffy in the theater...could have been a catalyst. Anyway, enough of my personal issues...on to the panel itself.

Cathy Seipp moderated a panel of grade A TV writers: Tim Minear (exec. producer for "Angel", "Firefly", "Wonderfalls" and the new series "The Inside", to air on Fox), Paul Feig (producer of "Freaks and Geeks", director for "Arrested Development"), Rob Long (exec. producer of "Cheers", "George & Leo", and other short-lived sitcoms), and Scott Kaufer (exec. producer of "Boston Legal", "Gilmore Girls" and writer for "Arli$$" and "The Chris Isaak Show").

These are smart guys.

They all talked about cancellation. Rob has had five sitcoms cancelled and told a sad tale of how he got cancelled on the way to a meeting to discuss what the next 12 episodes were supposed to be. Paul mentioned the sadness of knowing there are 7 million viewers for your show, but you still get cancelled (Freaks and Geeks had a very loyal following and the DVD sales have been phenomenal). Tim has had his share of cancellations too, but all of them agreed that the sadness and anger doesn't come from being cancelled, it comes from HOW they are cancelled or when. Network execs are always looking for the insta-hit and if a show doesn't perform or take off within a matter of two or three weeks, it could be well on its way to oblivion.

How do they deal with censors? Smoking appears to be the big TV no-no these days. Tim had a character on "Wonderfalls" last year who smoked, but this year they nixed a character smoking in his new show. They all agreed that the Janet Jackson debacle has made the networks very nervous. Everyone wishes they could work for HBO (of course), but when it comes to the networks the censors are ever vigilant. Tim's new show deals with serial killers. Ironically, the censors are ultra concerned about sex, but Tim can get away with all sorts of violent scenes including blood and gore. Paul mentioned that he did feel a responsibility to portray his characters positively. When "Freaks and Geeks" was developed and written, most of the characters smoked. When it came time to actually shoot the actors, Paul and others realized that these are real kids who are "cool" without smoking. If they smoked, it would send a signal to teens that it was cool. He noted that TV is a powerful medium and sometimes what looks good on the page just doesn't translate, especially when it comes time to instruct actors -- kid actors who are really just kids.

Demographics: How do they address the issue of desired demographics for shows and the seeming gap of characters who are outside the 18-49 demo? All of the panelists acknowledged that there is pressure to attract the 18-49 demo and also to fulfill diversity recommendations. Scott shrugged about this, since "Boston Legal" has few lead characters in this age range (Shatner is in his 70's, Candice Bergen is almost 60, and James Spader is 45). Somehow his show is still successful. For him, it comes down to the smart writing, the appeal of the show and the strong lead-in ("Desperate Housewives", a double edged sword he noted). As for the others, Rob Long said if you are building a family for a sitcom, all of the ages are going to be covered. He did have one network request that he ethnically mix a family once. He declined, as that was not the point of the show. Tim had an African-American female on his show in a lead role and the network fired her and she was replaced with a white actress. The network requested he put a new African-American character on the show, which he did. Overall, they do not write to diversity and they try not to write to stereotypes (like making the only black character on the show the villain).

Product placement: The last two years have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of product placement in TV shows. Are the writers impacted by this change? Scott pointed out that "Boston Legal" has run into this, with ABC scrubbing the mention of Fox News in an episode and that they cannot reference "Viagra" directly but rather "little blue pills" as apparently this kind of product placement can upset other sponsors like Cialis. Apparently some shows are more impacted than others, but it is an issue they face as they either try to include references to brands (even candy bars can raise ire) or brands are pushed on them from the network (Alias and 24 always feature Ford vehicles as Ford is major sponsor for both shows).

Residuals: With the boom in DVD sales and the use of Tivo the marketplace is changing. Certainly they all wish the WGA would get a new agreement in place to increase the amount of money writers make from DVD sales (currently it is about 2 to 4 cents per DVD sold). No one could predict three years ago that shows which had a short life span like "Firefly", "Freaks and Geeks" and "Wonderfalls" would sell well on DVD, but each of theses shows has done very well in this format. The future is unknown on where the new technology will lead for how content is treated, but the old standard of syndication may not be new standard in this day. "Arrested Development" has critical praise but a very small audience. Under the old model it probably wouldn't make it to syndication. It does however make it to DVD where it sells. All the writers agree that how a network chooses to launch a show can make the difference between life and death, but if they launch is good and there still is no audience, they have no one to blame but themselves (I take it this doesn't really happen THAT much as it appears that in the case of most of the shows these writers have developed or written the networks mangled the launching, scheduling or promotion).

Overall the panel was funny and entertaining. Cathy did a great job moderating and most of the audience questions were intelligent and relevant. I wish I hadn't felt so horrible that I missed a few minutes here and there throughout.

Television is tough to break into, but features are even more of a crapshoot. At least with TV there are lots of shows that are developed every year, a few that make it to the air, and most of those get cancelled and the cycle starts again. Cathy started the panel by noting that a lot of films these days are garbage, but there is a lot of great smart entertainment on TV.

I think she is absolutely right.

Interesting writer's panel Sat 3/19

Found it at the American Cinema Foundation website (Hat tip: The Corner) Here's the description:

7:00 pm, Reception follows
MASS MARKET, SMART CONTENT

How some successful television writers manage to keep their distinct viewpoints.

Moderator: Cathy Seipp, Independent Women's Forum, National Review Online

Tim Minear (executive producer: "The Inside", "Wonderfalls", "Angel", "Firefly")

Paul Feig (creator and executive producer: "Freaks & Geeks"; director: "Arrested Development"; director and writer, the feature film "I Am David"; author of the essay collection "Kick Me: Adventures In Adolescence")

Rob Long (co-creator and co-executive producer: "Men, Women & Dogs", "Love & Money", "George & Leo". Co-executive producer: "Cheers". Author: "Conversations With My Agent". Columnist: National Review. Radio commentator: KCRW)

Scott Kaufer (co-executive producer: "Boston Legal". writer: "Gilmore Girls", "Chris Isaak Show", "Beggars & Choosers". Editor-in-chief: California magazine)

Admission to both events is free but seating is limited. Please RSVP to acinema@cinemafoundation.com or (310) 286.9420. www.cinemafoundation.com

I'm really excited to listen to Paul Feig and Tim Minear speak. Actually, all of these guys are great writers (and Cathy Seipp is awesome. I've read her blog for awhile, so it will be cool to see her in person).

Anyway, call or e-mail if you are interested in the event (and it is only a few blocks from my condo!)

Film Friday for 3/11

It's Film Friday here at 'Shouting'. I'm late on this by over a week, but hey, you ain't payin' for this roundup anyway. Time to look at the latest batch of deals done in H'wood, particularly if it is a sequel, a TV show being made into a film or a remake of a previous film. Remember our motto: No good film goes with out a remake, and no bad film goes without a sequel. On to the deals for February...

I'm going to have to add a category for Adaptations of books/graphic novels. Problem is, so many of the current deals are for these properties, that's going to be a long post. For the time being, we'll stick with our usual highlights of films to be remade, TV shows to be made into films and sequels/prequels.

First, on the obscure front, will be a remake of a 1987 Norwegian film, Pathfinder. Here's an odd point: Ken Watanabe is set to star (He is the Japanese co-star to Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai), but the film is apparently about Native Americans and Vikings!?!

Next comes a remake based on a documentary (so I guess they are using it as a basis for a biopic), Ring of Fire: The Emile Griffith Story about boxing.

Casino Royale is being batted around again as the next Bond film. This was of course made in the 60s with Peter Sellars, Woody Allen and others.

The Family Jewels - Remake of the 1965 Jerry Lewis film.

One Missed Call - Remake of a Japanese film. Japanese horror/suspense is still hot!

Peter and the Starcatchers - Technically a book first, it is a prequel to "Peter Pan" written by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson. Looks like it will be CGI.

Puss in Boots - Spinoff from "Shrek 2" of the 'adored' character.

Star Trek IX - No idea who will be in it, but gosh darnit it is time for another Star Trek movie!

If you are looking for the hottest new script purchased or the latest novel/graphic novel optioned, you should always go to Done Deals for the latest.

Life butts in

This has generally been an awesome week for my writing pursuits. I made some new contacts, added great websites to my blogroll, made some significant progress on the current project, and signed up for a new class next month. Things seem to be going well, but...

Stuff at work has been weighing on me this week. I'm still dealing with HOA issues. And the plumbers had a problem which soaked and probably destroyed most of the better suits in my closet. I currently have several fans and a couple of dehumidifiers running non-stop to try to clean up the mess.

Just reminds me that there is a yin and yang. Somehow, I'm still smiling. Weary, but smiling.

A Jar Jar moment

Hey! Meesa Jar Jar Binks. Nice lady lessme tALKa to all meesa new friends on dis wongabanga thinga. Jar Jar no spakelike nicey lady buta meesa try banga hard. Yousa read nice lady postings, okeyday? Moiee-moiee! Meesa goooooo now. Nicey lady! Acka! Pleeeesa stopa dis chokey JaJa! Whyse? Whyse yous choka da Binkss?

Ack. Ack.

[Ahem.]

I'd like to apologize for that outburst. We new return you to rare posting and normal writer behaviour...whatever that is.

Keeping writer's hours

I'm just getting started. Granted, I won't be working too long because my eyes are already so strained from staring at my computer all day during my paid gig. Still, must get to page 60 tonight. I've still got 10 pages to go to hit this week's goal (I'm on page 58). Then I had the discussion with my sister regarding the rewrite. I want to try to get it in shape to enter in a couple of contests that have May and June deadlines. That requires finishing the script in the next three weeks, getting people to read it and rip it apart, then spend a month rewriting, getting another read with more notes, polish and submit.

It's going to be tight. I'm psyched.

As to the TV spec, if anyone knows anyone at Fox TV that has access to a script for House, MD drop me a line. I have an idea for that show, but I don't have their show format and it is such a new show it cannot be found online yet, not even at Drew's Script-orama.

Attack of the secondary characters

So, I'm on page 58. Things are breezing along, which is really rare for me. I hit a scene I was loving to death, so much so it went on a page too long and I had to immediately go cut it back. But then I discovered, to my horror, that one of my secondary characters is trying to TAKE OVER MY STORY!! I don't know how that happened but that little s.o.b. Manny is trying to steal Dennis's story right out from underneath him. I'm not sure how to beat him back and bring Dennis to more prominance. This always happen to me. I get a kick out of one of my secondary characters and before you know it, that person is far more interesting than the main character.

Maybe I should put my main character in the background on purpose. If I did that, maybe I'd get the balance correct for a change!!

Now must go shave 'angry Manny' scene. Progress halted.

UPDATE: I wish I could claim to be the first to 'live blog' a screenplay (thanks for the link, Rick, I've missed you!), but alas, that honor probably goes to this guy. Still, I don't mind expanding my horizons and who knows, maybe I'm number two. I can live with that.

I still haven't solved my Manny dilemma. Old coot. He's getting in my way. If he's not careful, I might just kill him off. No, can't do that...really screws up the story. *sigh*

How to Succeed in Screenwriting without Quitting Your Day Job

I hope someday to be able to write a book with that title. Of coure, it will actually require me to be successful at screenwriting...and keeping said job.

Right, now I can only discern one major success point. Actually writing. I have spent countless hours reading about writing, thinking about writing, and maybe even writing about writing, but the act of firing up Final Draft and pounding out pages is the only way I know to get any closer to the success end of the scale. Does my writing suck? Heck yes it does!! But I know that if I keep writing and rewriting eventually it won't suck as much, and someone might actually think it doesn't suck except just a tiny bit. It will be a momentous day if someone tells me I don't suck. That would be cool.

Right now, I'll deal with the suckage and just try to get through it. Page 56. This week's goal: Page 68. Twelve pages. Nothin' but net. And I got some sweet sweet 'angry Manny' scenes to write...

Welcome to halfway

Page 55 and feeling groovy. Yeah, I might actually finish this thing. Of course, it is horrible and needs about 3 rewrites, but hey, it's the first draft that is the hardest, right?

Right??

Then, on to the TV spec. Outline is coming together nicely...

Choose your own adventure screenwriting

I loved those books as a kid. If you were a child of the 80's as I was, you may have memories of "if you look in the box, turn to page 28" and then when you went to page 28, a horrible death awaited you. Or not. Anyway...

I'm kinda playing out one of those books on my computer right now, except mine reads "If Sean leaves the dental practice and starts his own, go to page 44. If Sean stays with the practice and something else happens at the dinner table yet to be defined by the writer, delete the last 5 pages."

I hate not knowing what to write. And I blame my outline. It sucks. I need to go back and rethink the structure.

Argh!

Creative corner

New feature here on the blog (we'll see how this goes over with the 5 of you who continue to visit). I'll post a scenario, you come up with the spicy creative dialogue!

Dinner scene: Mother, Father, 2 kids. One of the kids has a secret. Mom does too.

So, are the secrets related? Not? How will the family react? Age of the kids?

I'll post my scenes later. For now, think on it. Get your creative juices flowing...

Writing update

It's been awhile since I've updated anyone on my current projects, so here's the latest:

China Joe: Awaiting a rewrite. I think Joe's going to become a more active character thanks to great notes I've gotten on the first draft. Biggest problem I had with this script was that my main character is too passive. The secondary characters were really moving the story forward, rather than him. That will change in the second draft (and the screenplay will be better for it). Logline (for those who don't know what I'm talking about): A Chinese man travels to Juneau, Alaska during the gold rush and faces prejudice and hardships (action/western) Yeah, I'm working on fixing the logline since it sounds lame. Sue me.

Arch Rivals: I'm on page 43. I had only written the first act of this and it had stalled but I'm picking it back up and working on it. This is my primary writing project right now. Logline: After his partner retires, a middle-aged dentist faces new competition in the form of his partner's grandson who takes over the dental practice in a small town. (Comedy)

Untitled Winery Prison Story: On hold. My sister and I are still banging out the second act. Logline: A controversial rehabilitation program is started in a California prison as prisoners become wine makers and must fight to win respect for themselves and their wine. (Yeah yeah the loglines suck. I'm working on it!)

The Rosemont: This is the horror film, which I'm giddy about, but I still don't have a 3rd act, so on the shelf it goes while I work on finishing Arch Rivals. This is the scary condo building story.

Untitled sitcom: Sister is currently focused on her own project so this collaboration will have to wait until she finishes her short film.

That's it for now. Too many irons in the fire. I'm hoping at least one of these ideas doesn't suck.

Shouting into the Rain

It is windy, but this rain is un-freakin'-believable. I've lived in Florida with hurricanes off the coast. I've lived in the Midwest with tornadoes randomly striking. I've never been through this much rain! Fortunately, I am safe from mudslides (I hope). Time to check the patios to see if we are flooded yet...

The Dead Zone

January and February are notorious for being "dumping months" for films. Films that are terrible or won't attract a large audience are slated to be released this month and then die a slow death.

But something strange is happening this year.

Some of the films being released are still terrible or at least not worthy of summer or Christmas marketing dollars, but people are going to see them. Some of these movies aren't just making money, they are making A LOT of money. Let's look at some examples:

Hitch: It's been out 2 weeks and has made $94 million. This is a new record for romantic comedies released for Valentine's day. Of course, it was pricey for a romcom, but it is still in the profit zone at this point.

Are We There Yet?: By rights, this film should have made $10 million and disappeared into the ether. Instead this juvenille Ice Cube helmed comedy has made $71 million and counting. The cost? $32 million. I see an Are We There Yet Again? in the future with that kind of bank rolling in (and still rolling in!)

Boogeyman, White Noise, Darkness and Hide and Seek: Varying levels of profit for these four horror films, but each has made a profit, and that's the point of this. These films are making money!

Of course, there's always the exception. I'm sure the studio thought Elektra could do no wrong -- hot chick, action movie, dead release schedule. However, people could smell the stinker from miles away and stayed away. This weekend Son of the Mask was released and made about $10 million. It cost $84 million, so this one proves the point too. There is no saving a truly horrible film, no matter what time of year you release it.

But here's my point. There's clearly an audience out there to see even halfway decent films (and even some terrible ones). Shouldn't Hollywood get its act together and start taking advantage of this? A few films have this year and I'm sure some of the success was a shocker.

Now The Dead Zone that is post-Labor Day pre-Halloween...that's going to need some work.

The Chris Rock Conspiracy

So, you've probably read in the last few days the 'furor' over some of Chris Rock's raunchy comedy. You've heard the Academy is "concerned" or "worried" what he might say during the Oscars. And today, Rock has said that he won't drop the F-bomb at the rate of people thanking their agents at the awards show.

Don't pay attention to any of it.

Let me tell you something, Gil Cates and the Academy know exactly what they are doing. No one was talking about the Oscars. Nobody. Until this news started hitting early in the week, barely anyone thought about the Oscars. Why is that? Well, let's take a look at the nominees:

The Aviator $83.6 million made to date
Ray $74.7 million made to date
Sideways $53.9 million made to date
Million Dollar Baby $46.9 million made to date
Finding Neverland $42.5 million made to date

The Best Picture winner last year, Return of the King made $377 million dollars. These five pictures have grossed $303 million. COMBINED. Hardly anyone has seen any one of these films! None of them have broken $100 million, the first sign that a large number of people have seen your movie. Now, does box office equate to quality? Not necessarily (just look at some of the films that have made $200 million or more in the last few years). But, box office does translate to popularity of some degree. People watched the Oscars last year and the year Titanic won Best Picture and lots of other awards because they had actually seen the movie. They had something to root for. Who watches a show when they haven't even seen what's nominated.

Enter our friend, controversy.

How do you get people to watch something when they have no personal stake in the proceedings? You create controversy. They way they chose to gin it up this year was to a) tap Chris Rock as host and then b) remind people how "risky" a choice this was for the Academy. Gil Cates, the producer of the Oscars, is sitting back laughing himself silly while people worry whether Rock will "slip up" during the show or "offend people". That's the only way Cates can assure ABC that there will be any audience for this show.

So, if you were going to watch the Oscars anyway, ignore all of this. If you weren't going to watch it, do you really think any of this controversy should really change your mind? Do you really think he'll do anything that could land him a brand spanking new indecency fine of 500 grand?

I don't think so.

A needed Oscar category

Ran across this item today. Groups representing the stuntmen on films want the Academy to create an award for 'Best Stunt Coordinator.'

In a joint statement that the groups plan to release next week, they wrote: "Stunt performers are the only faction of the movie industry that must literally risk their lives for the sake of their art. ... The talent and expertise that is required of a stunt coordinator to be both creative and safe is enormous and highly deserving of academy recognition."

I have to agree. If costumes, makeup, sound and visual effects can be nominated, why not stuntmen and women who work hard to a) make us believe the stunt is dangerous and yet are able to do it safely and b) make us believe it is the actor or actress actually performing the stunt. That is hard work, and it deserves to be recognized. Of course, the Academy is blowing them off.

Film Friday for 1/28

If it is Friday and the end of the month, it isn't just FILM FRIDAY here at 'Shouting' but FANTASTIC FILM FRIDAY!! That means we look at the latest batch of deals done in H'wood, particuarly if it is a sequel, a TV show being made into a film or a remake of a previous film. Remember our motto: No good film goes with out a remake, and no bad film goes without a sequel. On to the deals...

January is a fairly slow month for dealmaking, since the bigshots are still too hung over from their New Year's parties and too busy lurking around Sundance looking to scoop up work that they wouldn't greenlight themselves but someone else managed to make on little to no money. Still, some projects of note:

Harry and the Butler - A remake of a 1962 Danish film (boy, at least they went obscure on this one). Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman will star.

Tron - remake of the 1982 film.

Spider-Man 3 - yet another franchise film. Sam Raimi, director of the first two, will direct this one also (so there's hope).

Toy Story 3 - Provided that they can find anyone in town who dares to risk never working at Pixar.

Yours, Mine and Ours - Remake of 1968 Lucille Ball/Henry Fonda film starring Dennis Quaid this time.

Not too bad this month. Of course, there were lots of novels snatched up this month for film treatments (the most well known probably being "The Corrections" by Johnathan Franzen).

Your viewing assignment this weekend, should you choose to see a film will be to see Hotel Rwanda if it is playing at a theater near year. I will be seeing Sideways so I can comment with some semblance of authority on whether Paul Giamatti was dissed for an Oscar nomination.

This man is a genius!

A man finds the perfect way to enjoy escaping from an avalanche. He drank 60 bottles of beers and peed his way out. This so sounds like something the McKenzie brothers would do...

Oscar Nominations are In!

I'll be commenting in detail later. I still have two of the "Best Picture" noms to see. Get the whole list at Oscar.com.

Let me just say, Hotel Rwanda and The Passion were two of the best films I saw last year and they were both left out of the Best Picture category.

A grim reminder

Thailand may look like a destroyed island paradise, but remember there are predators aplenty there. Numerous stories are reporting the disappearance of a tsunami survivor, a 12 year old Swedish boy. They fear he may have been kidnapped by the child trafficking industry.

And in countries where as many as 1 on 4 people may have been killed by the natural disaster, the U.N. feels that overseas adoption of orphaned children may not be appropriate and will most likely be blocked. God forbid many of these children be given an opportunity at a better life in Western countries with families who desperately want children. Instead, we'll let them continue to live without families in orphanages. Let's hope they don't fall prey to the traffickers.