Oh, How I Wish I Could Like That...

The Big Bang Theory's 100th episode.

2012-01-20T08:02:00.000-08:00

This screencap is of course from The Big Bang Theory's second season and to be more precise, from 2x17, 'The Terminator Decoupling'. That episode isn't perhaps the best in the series - but just take a look at the picture: Horny Howard trying to get the hot girl.

Pretty awesome in my opinion.

Now, let's flash forward to the one hundreth episode of The Big Bang Theory, 5x13 The Recombination Hypothesis. It's the episode in which Leonard and Penny go out. Well, kinda, because in the end it turns out that it was just a dream.

This 100th episode was supposed to be special - in a good way - but unfortunately it just wasn't. This was simply a terrible episode. It didn't celebrate our geeks, their friendship or their ideals and it didn't take a look back at what made the show good in the first place.

Instead, it did the complete opposite. It promoted almost every aspect of the show that hasn't worked in recent years. Like not having a plot, not having science and not having any enthusiasm in the episode.

It was really frustrating to watch an episode that basically consisted of dick-jokes and Leonard's passive-aggressive moping, 'Lenny' hating his life, hating others and then of course getting in bed with Penny. It was honestly depressing and sad. No jokes, no story, no nothing.

Unfortunately, what's worse is that the Lenny & Penny chemistry-free uncomedy probably wasn't even the worst part of the 100th episode special. Because I think that the worst part was this:

Bernadette and Amy Farrah Fowler talking dirty for no reason at all.

I mean, how is it be possible that characters that didn't even exist 1-2 years ago have now almost taken over the show? This is so wrong and so against the premise. You don't give secondary characters individual scenes. You just don't never ever do that.

But they do this anyway, and now we're supposed to be interested in Amy's smoking monkey, Amy playing her harp, her being Sheldon's girlfriend and her wanting to have sex with Penny (!).

This stuff is so pointless, depressing and weak that I'm wishing that maybe these last two seasons never happened and that perhaps it was just a dream.

Modern Family spec script.

2012-01-18T09:55:00.000-08:00

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78677894/

I decided to make my first Modern Family spec script available, so there you are.

Once again it's pretty difficult to tell how good the script is but at least I tried to keep the storylines somewhat simple, logical and straightforward. I also tried to keep the reader interested in what was going on.

Another challenge was how to deal with the information, "who knows what and when" - how to reveal information to the characters and to the audience.

For example, in Gloria's and Jay's storyline about Gloria wanting to buy a tandem bike, I think I had to keep what she wanted hidden as long as possible. If they would have mentioned the bike in their first scene, would anyone have cared about what happened in the next scene? My guess is a pretty solid no.

The storyline about Cam and Mitchell taking Lily to a babyswim was also pretty challenging. Again, I had to keep the Fizbo part hidden. If Mitchell had known about it in the first scene, they would never have gotten to the swimming hall. Of course it's another question whether one finds this storyline plausible.

The third storyline was about Phil meeting his college buddy for the first time in years. His friend used to have a drinking problem so the question was whether he was still an alcoholic. This storyline was a serious one but I thought it was a good idea to show Phil as a real person and not just as a harmless goofball.

Modern Family usually has storylines that in the end tend to converge. The problem with these endings has been that the lessons or happy endings have usually been implausible. So I tried to circumvent the problem by being tongue-in-cheek instead of using voice-overs that wouldn't have worked.

As I said, I don't know how good the script is, but I did write it.

Worst spec script mistakes ever: criticising looks.

2012-01-09T07:17:00.001-08:00

You might have already read my post about the guy who wasn't able to write a coherent logline (but managed to win a competition). That's probably the biggest mistake you can make based on your lack of intelligence - lack of IQ that is.

However, that still leaves us the mistakes you can make based on your lack of emotional intelligence. Unfortunately this is an area where you can make even bigger mistakes than writing loglines that don't make sense.

I found one when I managed to read a Modern Family spec that boldly went where many hadn't gone before - that is, totally superficial.

It was pretty hard for me to believe what I was reading, but nevertheless, this writer's storylines were all about how someone looks and how the characters would change the appearance of others if they could.

Cameron this, Mitchell that, Jay this, Gloria that, Claire this, Phil that. Looks, looks, looks.

You know, unless the premise of the show is "the fat guy and.." (King of Queens, Mike & Molly), you don't bring up someone's appearance. You may and even should complain about someone's habits, but you don't complain about the looks. Because doing that is simply wrong. It's inhuman.

The whole point of writing is that looks don't matter. It's what's inside that counts.

Modern Family's disappointing third season (so far).

2012-01-06T11:32:00.000-08:00

I think it's pretty safe to say that Modern Family has had a disappointing third season so far. I haven't laughed and I haven't been moved. Out of eleven episodes that have aired, only one in my opinion has been good.

There are of course numerous reasons why the show hasn't been entertaining. The characters haven't been particularly likable, there are too many storylines on every episode and the plots don't make sense either. Also, the wrap endings have been almost completely implausible.

Nevertheless, probably the biggest reason that the show lacks in quality is because the creator of Modern Family, seven time Emmy winner Christopher Lloyd, apparently hasn't contributed anything to the show this season.

The only good episode, 'Treehouse', was written by the other showrunner, Steven Levitan. That episode unfortunately happens to be the only one that Levitan has written this season.

To me this shows once again that there aren't that many talented writers in Hollywood. The difference between 'Treehouse' and the rest of this season's episodes is simply too big. 'Treehouse' is such a lovely episode, those others just aren't.

I can't help but to think how much better Modern Family would be if it had more good writers like Levitan. The audience deserves better than this.

Is there any chance that they could work a little bit harder on the show? I mean, they must be aware that things aren't going that well despite the ratings and the awards.

Revealing things to your characters and to your audience.

2011-12-17T07:33:00.000-08:00

One of the most important parts about screenwriting is your ability to control and manipulate information. This basically means creating situations that get the audience interested in your story. If you can do it well, the whole process of writing becomes much easier and much more enjoyable.

When it comes to writing, I think a rule of thumb is that it's almost always good to have certain elements in your story that aren't immediately known to everyone. Because if all the cards are face up from the start, it's pretty hard to get your audience excited.

This also applies to your characters. If they know everything about what they want to know and there's no mystery left, it's pretty hard to get them excited and to react to anything either.

So you have to be pretty smart about who knows what and when they get to know it. Keep things secret if you can. Reveal information gradually and mislead the audience without alienating them.

I don't know if there's a better example of this than the sixth episode of 30 Rock's second season. In 'Somebody to Love', Liz Lemon suspects that his neighbor Raheem is a terrorist because he acts suspiciously.

After certain misleading revelations Lemon becomes so convinced about Raheem running a terrorist cell that she decides to contact the Department of Homeland Security.

Raheem is taken away and Lemon feels like she has done her job as an American citizen. Only later will she and the audience find out that Raheem isn't a terrorist. Instead, the maps in his house and the video that he did with his brother in the park was to audition for the Amazing Race.

I don't think the pay-off could have been any better and boy did Lemon feel embarrassed about her mistake. She couldn't have been any more wrong about them.

The episode was written by Tina Fey which didn't really surprise me at all. Everything works in it, information is gradually revealed, the audience is mislead but not alienated, the final reveal is one of the best that you'll ever see and there's even a lesson to be learned.

If you want to learn something about storytelling, this is an episode that you want to watch again and again.

About that upcoming JFK miniseries on HBO.

2011-12-04T12:53:00.000-08:00

It's not exactly a secret that writing is supposed to be about character and truth. So what happens when you have a project in the works that doesn't have much to do with either of them? Well, that's basically what the Tom Hanks production about the assassination of John F. Kennedy is going to be all about.

It won't have much to do with character or truth.

That's because Tom Hanks' miniseries tries to convince us that John F. Kennedy wasn't killed by a conspiracy but instead by a lone gunman called Lee Harvey Oswald. The only problem with this narrative of course is that Lee Harvey Oswald (unfortunately?) did not shoot or kill John F. Kennedy.

If you want proof, read for example this book. http://www.amazon.com/Girl-Stairs-Missing-Assassination-ebook/dp/B004GNFU9S/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top.

Thankfully, you don't need to know about the medical evidence, ballistics, eyewitness testimonies, secret service behavior, JFKs policies etc. Whew. One crucial witness is what it really takes to demolish the whole Oswald-did-it-alone nonsense for good.

Yet for some unfathomable reason Tom Hanks and HBO are funding this hopeless project that is based on Vincent Bugliosi's book 'Reclaiming History'.

The book by the way runs for more than 1600 pages in trying to convince the reader that the president was killed by a guy who didn't have any motive for the deed and who even said that he didn't do it - before he was silenced by, surprise surprise, another 'lone' gunman.

I'd honestly like to see how someone constructs a script that could create an even remotely believable scenario based on these ingredients. Because that would take a lot of talent and even more magic tricks to pull off and to make it seem plausible.

Oswald had no motive, he said that he didn't do it and there's every reason to believe that he was a CIA controlled fall guy and that rogue elements of the government with the help of anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK.

But anyway, if they'll make the miniseries and find him.. errr... invent that missing motive, hatred for Kennedy, determination, etc...

I would like to see how they show Oswald shooting from the sixth floor. Him doing the shooting is something that still hasn't been repeated by anyone. No marksman has been able to pull off what Oswald supposedly did in less than six seconds.

Then, I'd like to see Oswald descending to the second floor while managing to evade Victoria Adams - the witness that Warren Commission tried to discredit. (the proof about the deliberate fraud by the government is in the book that I gave a link to).

But most importantly, I'd like to see them show how only a couple of minutes after the shooting Oswald is seen drinking or at least holding a bottle of coke (latter part is an uncontested fact) after pulling off the most stressing feat that one even can think of - killing the most powerful man in the world.

I mean, that would be such a weird sight. To see Oswald trying to put those coins in that vending machine while on that adrenaline rush. It would look so implausible that no sane person in the world would believe it. Nobody kills a president and then casually buys a coke. Nobody.

Oswald didn't do it, so seriously, Tom Hanks and HBO - what are you thinking here?

My favorite episode of The Simpsons.

2011-11-25T13:54:00.001-08:00

It's pretty hard to choose one single episode of The Simpsons that is better than the rest but I think 'Krusty Gets Busted' from the first season is one of the best of the series. It's the episode in which Sideshow Bob frames Krusty the Clown for an armed robbery. Krusty goes to jail and Bob takes over his comedy show while Bart is convinced that his hero is innocent.

There are numerous reasons why 'Krusty Gets Busted' is a really good episode. One of the most important reasons is that everything in the episode happens for a reason. There's hardly anything in the script that doesn't serve a purpose. Compared to today's sitcoms, the difference is pretty huge to be honest.

When pretty much everything in the script happens for a reason it means that the writers are telling you a story. Pick any random moment from this episode and you'll notice how the writers are either advancing the plot or showing us the values and traits of the characters that are needed for the story to exist and to make sense.

One of the best parts about the episode is how efficiently and effortlessly the writers use exposition in the episode. In the very first scene they already manage to tell us that Krusty means everything to Bart (he's ready to kill himself for Krusty), that his show is a bit lowbrow (throwing pies) and that sideshow Bob isn't happy with it (he's shot from a cannon by Krusty).

From that scene on things start to develop. There's the robbery that Homer is a witness to, there's Krusty's arrest, his trial, Bart's hunch that Krusty didn't do it, the search for proof that he's innocent, the reveal that Sideshow Bob had a lot to gain and finally the well-timed confrontation in which Bart tells everyone how it couldn't have been Krusty and that it was Bob who did it.

'Krusty Get's Busted' is basically a 'who done it' episode and yet it doesn't really feel like one, which makes it even better. There are so many Awful shows like CSI that have nothing going on for them except the 'who did it part' and unfortunately with those shows even the 'who did it' very rarely makes sense.

But in 'Krusty Gets Busted' everything makes sense and the audience even sympathizes with the future arch-villain Sideshow Bob - which probably played a crucial part in making the episode as good as it turned out. Thankfully we got to see more of him later on.

The best moment of the episode for me is in the direction when Bart figures out what the 'mighty big shoes to fill' said by Sideshow Bob means. That moment couldn't have been executed any better and it shows the almost unlimited potential of cartoons if done right.

By the way, I decided to check out from the credits and it looks like the episode was directed by some guy called Brad Bird. I wonder what happened to him?

Why Enlightened isn't a good series.

2011-11-21T10:37:00.001-08:00

I've seen every episode of Enlightened - seven episodes so far - and I think I'm finally done with the show. There are so many fundamental problems with it that I can't pretend that those problems don't exist. My issues with the show are mostly:

1) Pretty much nothing happens.

It's not exactly that I'm not a fan of plot-free shows. Storytelling is hard and if there's no recognizable story, it means that the writers are simply cutting corners. There's no excuse not to have a compelling tale to tell.

In this case the lack of story and the lack of interesting characters is probably a result of the writers falling in love with their own nonsense.

They thought that since the show is about enlightenment, just about any random feeling or experience would constitute as a story. After all, we happen to live in a postmodern world where every thought is supposedly equally valuable.

2) I don't give a damn about the main character.

It's not always necessary for the protagonist to be likeable but there's a difference between being unlikeable and being completely pathetic. What were they thinking when they decided to make the protagonist a cheater who's also ignorant, arrogant and has no social skills?

I have to be honest here - if I knew in real life someone like Laura Dern's character, I would stay as far away as possible from that person.

3) The show doesn't know what it's about (lacks self-awareness and doesn't have a point).

Watching Enlightened makes me miss those Charlie Sheen interviews all the more. After all, earlier this year this 'train-wreck' managed to be self-aware, funny and consistently made great points about life. Enlightened hasn't managed to make a single good point about anything. (unless of course copy-pasting Zen literature counts)

4) Nature unintentionally trumps everything else.

One of the things that I actually have liked about Enlightened have been the lovely scenes that involve nature. That where's the 'enlightening' part of the show is.

It's just that once we get back to normal scenes it becomes evident that the scenes about the nature are much more interesting than the actual characters. There's no balance between nature and the man and it's something that weighs the show down even more.

5) A show about enlightenment needs enlightened writers.

The problem is that very few - if any of us are actually enlightened. Anyone who decides to create a show about the meaning of life is setting the bar pretty damn high and that person had better provide some answers.

That's why I would never take on a project like Enlightened myself. I don't think I'd have answers. At least I couldn't give you answers without telling a good story.

Unfortunately, there's no story here and that's why Enlightened is not a good series.

Train-wrecks get ratings.

2011-11-16T04:02:00.000-08:00

One of the weirdest things about this tv season have been the high ratings that certain shows have been getting. I'm talking primarily about The Big Bang Theory, Two And a Half Men, Two Broke Girls, all on CBS and also that 'New Girl' on Fox.

These shows have gotten great ratings and yet they all have been terrible when it comes to actual quality. The Big Bang Theory for example has pretty much been on a meltdown mode this season.

Who can forget that infamous Raj episode that openly mocked disabled people or Amy & Sheldon officially becoming a couple last week? (Amy after all is the Jar Jar Binks of television) Nevertheless, it's the most watched comedy out there.

On Two and A Half Men Ashton Kutcher probably hasn't made me laugh even once. My friends haven't laughed either and yet Kutcher replacing Charlie Sheen is widely hailed as a success. (That is of course as long as ratings mean success and that actual content doesn't really matter)

Two Broke Girls also got a great 4.8 rating in the 18-49 demographics a couple of weeks ago so the show is a 'success'. But on the other hand it looks totally cheap, the actresses are terrible, the writing is abysmal and it probably took like three minutes to come up with the concept for the show.

Then there's that 'New Girl'. I've heard it's going to be a hot show to spec. Some aspiring writers are already writing scripts for that show. The only problem with the New Girl is that it's totally horrendous, shallow and empty. The show has nothing to say about anything. But it's a success - because people are apparently watching.

I mean, I can understand why people (me included) keep watching The Big Bang Theory. You never know if it would miraculously become better again. It's also hard to let go of something that you cared about and in Two and A Half Men's case you also kinda have to watch it because Ashton Kutcher is so bad that it's almost good.

But why on earth are people watching shows like Two Broke Girls and New Girl? I have no clue. Both have sucked from day one and there seems to be no potential whatsoever.

Yet people watch.

The good and the bad of the 2011 fall season.

2011-10-09T14:45:00.000-07:00

I haven't enjoyed watching television this fall unfortunately. It's not that I haven't watched tv, in fact, I've watched just about every new show and all those old shows that have been even remotely worth checking out.

It's too bad that almost everything has sucked.

Modern Family has been pretty disappointing and meaningless. The Big Bang Theory has been even worse than I expected and the new pilots have been - truth to be told - so bad that they leave me (and I bet others too) rather speechless.

Modern Family has been disappointing for numerous reasons. The characters have become less interesting than they used to be. The plotlines have become weaker and Cam & Mitchell have become caricatures.

However, the biggest problem has been that the writers in some episodes have had five separate storylines. It's something that cannot be pulled off. I think three separate storylines in one episode is pretty much the upper limit.

The Big Bang Theory, as expected, has continued its decline qualitywise even though its rating have been great. The episode in which Raj dates a deaf girl has to be the show's worst. It was not only unfunny but also managed to be offensive. Making fun of impaired people - what were the writers thinking?

The show has had one good episode this season. Not surprisingly that episode involved Sheldon's arch enemy Wil Wheaton. Having a strong antagonist always helps.

The new pilots have been bad and the reason for this is pretty much that all the new shows look cheap, the characters are unlikable and the pilots lack even decent premises.

Fortunately there have also been a couple of good shows on air this fall - so it's not all bad. The two shows that I have enjoyed this fall have been a bit surprisingly David Kelley's Harry's Law and not that surprisingly, South Park.

Harry's Law especially had an excellent episode a couple of weeks ago that reminded me that there's still some honor and dignity left in Hollywood. It felt so good to watch something that respects the viewer's intelligence. I just hope that the show doesn't get canceled.

Because David Kelley still has it in him.

The other good one, South Park, is a show that probably isn't at its best anymore. Some fans have started piling on it and last week's 'deus ex' episode simply wasn't any good. Nevertheless I think it's still a funny and a creative show that manages to remain relatively self-aware and honest.

I mean, I don't know if there is a better example than the episodes (You're getting old & Ass burgers) in which Stan Marsh gets depressed because he feels that today's entertainment industry is literally full of crap.

Not only were these episodes well written and funny but they also contained the truth. What we see on tv today really is mostly full of crap - and to see someone as talented as Trey Parker to agree with me (and I bet with so many others) feels pretty good to be honest.

Even though it totally sucks of course.

Why Hollywood is like the U.S. Congress.

2011-09-28T06:25:00.000-07:00

Television fall season has begun and the old shows are back on air again. The new pilots have aired. Unfortunately there's not much good to say about any of these. The old shows aren't getting better and the pilots were subpar as expected.

Also, Emmy awards were given last week and not that surprisingly the show was a mess, lacked a theme and wasn't funny. I just wasn't able to buy into the self-serving hype, pat on the back and 'cruel is funny' mentality that has permeated the industry.

I did watch the show though and Amazing Race deservedly won again after Top Chef's unexplainable win last year. Ty Burrell also gave a speech so eloquent and honest that no Hollywood writer would ever even dream of writing it. So it wasn't all bad.

In any case, the broadcast would have been a somewhat non-eyebrow raising event for me, had there not been Steven Levitan's acceptance speeches for Modern Family's Emmy wins. Because he really made me do the full 'Phil-move'.

To be exact, Levitan gave two acceptance speeches. The first one (for comedy writing) was pretty superficial, but since I found it to be at least somewhat funny, I gave it a pass. It was about how his children had caught him and her wife in action.

On the other hand the second time he was accepting an Emmy for best comedy series, I couldn't give him a break anymore. That is because I found it pretty disturbing when he said (message behind his joke) that Modern Family has changed the way Americans think about gays.

That's right. Cameron and Mitchell have supposedly changed the way republican bible thumpers perceive homosexuals.

I guess what this is supposed to mean is that there's no need to worry about gay hate crimes or gay discrimination anymore. No need to worry about getting bullied and there also won't be any more proposition 22s because our caricature gay couple has come to the rescue (while playing lion king in the background).

I don't think so.

To me these kind of statements are pretty revealing and also rather irresponsible.

I mean, first, even if the whole thing was only meant as a harmless joke, which I bet it was, the truth is that Hollywood does very little to promote social justice. It rarely provides substance even though that's what it's supposed to do. Given their abysmal track record, the joke was about as funny as president Bush joking about not finding those weapons of mass destruction.

Let's face it folks, Cameron and Mitchell won't change a thing.

The other problem, the revealing part, I have with these people is that they honestly seem to think that their problems, being super rich and white, represent the problems of the blue collar America. They think that they understand your pain, your worries and your anguish.

It's too much like with the politicians on Capitol Hill where these same rich white guys live inside their bubble thinking that the biggest problem facing the country is their corporate paymasters not getting enough tax breaks.

Apparently Hollywood seems to believe that if you get caught in the act with your wife, it's pretty much the worst thing that could ever happen to you.

Is it?

More spec script mistakes - loglines that confuse.

2011-08-02T05:23:00.000-07:00

Writing about mistakes isn't that much fun, but nevertheless, here's another edition of spec script mistakes and this time about loglines.

I don't think there's anything easier than writing a logline that is at least okay when it comes to its quality. Even when the script otherwise is going to suck, the logline usually won't be the thing that lets the cat out of the bag.

That is because your logline is just a logline. It's something that doesn't give away every beat of the story, it doesn't give away your writing style and usually doesn't give away your ability to deliver or not to deliver.

It just requires you to give the reader some information about your script and your story threads. So it's basically a sure thing.

Like for example on Modern Family, description for one of the storylines could be as simple as Claire not believing that she's good enough as a parent. That's simple, logical, makes sense and kinda gets you in the mood and ready for the read.

Or maybe on Entourage Turtle finds about an interesting business opportunity (with person x about thing y). That makes sense, right? Logical, simple, doesn't confuse you and etc.

Or maybe on 30 Rock Jack Donaghy feels that he needs a heir to the throne. Again, simple and clear.

So it seems that it's very hard to write a bad logline and that at the very least it takes spectacular lack of talent to do that. But unfortunately it indeed is possible to write an incomprehensible one.

I found one when I was doing some due diligence, digging up information on a certain writer and his certain spec script. The script that he (or she) wrote was for Two and A Half Men.

The logline is: "Alan bets he can date a new woman every week for longer than Charlie can date the same woman".

Loglines should always be 100% unambiguous. I don't know about you but this logline gives me a headache and is confusing even though it shouldn't be.

This logline can mean two things: First, Alan keeps dating different women every week whereas Charlie tries to stick to the same girl as long as possible.

Doesn't really make sense (if you go through the logical process) so we have to go for our option number two.

In that case it means that they fight for the same girl which unfortunately in the context of the show's premise doesn't make that much sense. Yet I guess we can assume that this is what the writer meant here.

But in that case the logline should have been something like this: "Alan thinks that if he and Charlie fight for a girl's attention, Alan is going to win".

I hope that's clear and simple enough and doesn't leave room for interpretations. Because there really shouldn't be anything that confuses the reader.

I'd honestly be rather surprised if any intelligent script reader was actually willing to read past that logline.

The weird twist here: this logline and spec script actually managed to win the 2009 Scriptapalooza sitcom competition.

Why spec writers love Community and Parks and Recreation.

2011-07-29T04:57:00.000-07:00

Lately I've been reading loads of spec scripts by other aspiring writers. To be completely honest, it has been an eye-opening experience for me. Or should I say that it has confirmed what I already suspected or thought about the quality of their writing.

Going through all those spec scripts also helped me to understand why shows like Community and Parks and Recreation are so popular among spec writers. I mean, these two apparently are the hot shows to spec.

Now you might think that I read spec scripts for these two shows. Well, coincidentally I didn't. Instead, I read maybe like a dozen Modern Family spec scripts first. After doing that, to figure out what's going on, I got curious and read like five or six _actual_, produced Community and Parks and Recreation scripts.

(I initially read Modern Family because I have specced the show and wanted to check the competition)

So, my experience was that none of the Modern Family spec scripts that I read were good. Unfortunately, all of them were bad. At the same time, I have to say that none of the actual produced scripts for Community or Parks and Recreation were any good either. Every script sucked.

All of them were horrible.

Now, to give some perspective, actual produced scripts for Modern Family on the other hand are, if not great, at least most of the time relatively well written by relatively competent writers. So there's a huge difference between a random Modern Family spec script and an actual produced Modern Family script.

On the other hand, even though I read Modern Family specs and not Community or Parks specs specifically, I think it can be safely said that there cannot possibly be much of a difference between a mere spec for Community and an actual produced Community script.

That is because all the scripts that I read, no matter spec or produced, had the same problems: endless tangents, terrible exposition, purposeless name dropping, no flow, no recognizable characters, no story development or complications, no nothing. The exact same problems.

Both sucked on so many same levels that it just boggled the mind. Kinda sad and pathetic to be honest.

In the end what I'm saying here is that no matter how outrageously bad the script is qualitywise, as long as it's a Community or Parks and Recreation spec, nobody can tell that you're any worse than the staff writer who got his or her episode eventually produced.

In all likelihood, this is the reason why film school students (and critics too) love these two shows. Watching and writing about these shows makes you feel like you're part of the gang and way better than you really are.

Why X-Files was that good.

2011-06-11T13:37:00.000-07:00

I think it's safe to say that mid-90s was when tv entertainment was at its best.

We had The Simpsons, ER, Friends, Picket Fences among other shows. This was the real golden age of tv. Quality shows after quality shows after quality shows. This was when it seemed that everything was possible. For X-Files it kinda was.

Trying to explain why the show was so good is kinda like trying to explain why an apple falls from a tree. That is because the show had a premise that was axiomatic, that is, simple.

X-Files consisted of two likable and relatable main characters, FBI agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully trying to find out the truth out there. One believer, Mulder, and one sceptic, Scully.

Mulder was convinced that his sister had been abducted by aliens when he was a child. Scully, of course, wasn't convinced. There were other possible explanations, she said. Mulder, however, didn't budge.

This simple but effective setup put them on journey together that won't be easily surpassed.

But that wasn't the only reason the series was so good.

I guess one of the strongest aspects of the show was that not every episode was about the 'plot' that Mulder and Scully were trying to uncover. The seasons also consisting of stand-alone episodes let the writers develope the characters and not rush things too much.

That's one of the reasons that storylines were so well thought out, innovative and fresh. The episodes didn't wear down the audience, which is a problem with so many failed or mediocre shows.

The show also had a wonderful supporting cast. Who could for example forget Skinner, cigarette smoking man, lone gunmen trio, Alex Krycek, Deep Throat, Mulder's father, etc? Just about every character on the show was well thought out and believable, providing humor and drama, depending on the situation.

It was also clear that the writers had done their homework about certain aspects of history that you don't tend to hear about. Mixing the paranormal stuff (fantasy?) with conspiracies (reality) and handling these issues with maturity (or childlike enthusiasm) contributed to the show being such a hit.

I guess one might have thought that the show being about UFOs, paranormal activities, and conspiracies would have made it implausible and far-fetched. That it could have gone all wrong.

In lesser hands this probably would have happened, but fortunately not in the hands of Chris Carter. Here we had (and still have) a guy who was willing to go the distance. Not only was his show ambitious and full of idealism, Carter himself as an invididual raised the bar for others in the industry.

That is because he had the rare ability to take criticism. In fact, he was so good at it, that when an internet poster pointed out what was wrong with a particular episode, Carter not only agreed with the poster but even asked if that person was willing to join the writing staff.

Where else in this industry do you see humility like that?

In the end (I think) we really didn't get to the bottom of the 'alien plot'. Some of those big questions were still left in the air, like the big alien conspiracy that those other 'bad guys' were either trying to abett or trying to prevent from happening.

But I don't think that was really the point of the show. No single reveal or twist or conclusion was something that the audience was desperately waiting to see. X-Files was about characters, humanity and idealism and we as the audience knew that we were in good hands enjoying the ride.

'Getting it' when others don't (low ratings).

2011-05-25T15:26:00.001-07:00

One of the things that puzzles me is when tv viewers rave about a show that is supposedly awesome but in reality usually isn't.

Like, for example, Arrested Development, an überpromoted series that even managed to win an Emmy but was eventually canceled because nobody ever watched it. A show that had huge amount of hype, but in the end very little substance.

Fans who supposedly 'got it' say that it's the best comedy series of all time. So many references and inside jokes and stuff...

But when it came to the show's ratings nobody watched. And when nobody watched despite the network giving the show a hard push, that was a bad sign. The show must have had some serious problems.

Indeed, Arrested Development had plenty of those. Among those that can be 'objectively' quantified were things like the shoddy camerawork, quick editing and misleading 'in the next episode' "jokes".

Or how about the fact that about half of every episode consisted of Ron Howard's voice-over. I mean, honestly, can you narrate a 21 minute show to death and still expect the general audience, masses, to watch?

That was a terrible, terrible mistake. No wonder people didn't 'get' it. In the end Arrested Development just wasn't that good.

The thing is that when some people say that they 'get' certain shows that aren't watched by many, in reality it likely means that they're simply forgetting and ignoring the (fatal) flaws that keep the general audience from watching.

That's the most likely reason that shows like Firefly and Pushing Daisies got axed early. There were just way too many mistakes. But some people reaaaally 'got' these shows.

Let's face it, when a show is genuinely awesome, like X-Files, there really isn't much to get. It's simple, it works and people will come.

[Of course just because a show is a hit, doesn't mean that it's any good. But low ratings almost always tell the truth about the quality of the show.]

Common spec script mistakes.

2011-05-08T07:40:00.000-07:00

'Oh no, what am I supposed to do? I'm so confused'.

Yes, that's Homer Simpson apparently being completely clueless about his job. Poor Homer. But what does this picture have to do with spec scripts, and to be more precise, spec script mistakes?

I would answer to that question by saying that looking at this picture and thinking about it is a good way to start writing a spec script.

In this picture Homer is in trouble - a good start for storytelling. Having problems, being in trouble that is.

Sounds almost too simple, but unfortunately it really isn't. Because when you read spec scripts, you'll notice (or at least you should notice) that most of the time the characters aren't in trouble and there aren't any real problems to solve.

The problem is that without problems stories cannot exist. Yet people write spec scripts that lack this ingredient. No wonder those scripts aren't usually any good.

Another thing that you can learn from the picture is that knowing the character is more important than knowing what the character actually does.

By that I mean that you don't need to have a great grasp of nuclear physics in order to write an episode of The Simpsons in which for example Homer is working at the nuclear plant.

Sounds simple but that's only how it sounds. Not needing to know something doesn't stop writers from giving us these unnecessary chunks of information.

For example, if someone writes a spec for ER, the script too easily tends to consist of medical jargon that isn't essential to the episode. The same goes for lawyer shows. Writers give us endless dialogue about sections and paragraphs and stuff that nobody wants or needs to know.

They forget the characters and the big ideas that drive the episodes. They forget their Homers.

The weird thing about 'not needing to know everything' is that some writers are so afraid of 'not knowing' that it prevents them altogether from writing that spec.

In a way that sounds understandable - until you hear that the show they can't write for is something like 'The Big Bang Theory'. They can't write because they don't know the science...

Seriously, most of the time you simply don't need to know in order to be able to write. You just need to know the characters.

And I'm not saying that knowing characters is easy. It isn't. Because too many times the only recognizable part is that 'd´oh!' or that endless Sheldon Cooper rant that doesn't progress the story at all.

But I guess that's another story..

Finally, if you look at the picture and think about it, you might figure out that despite being clueless and in trouble, Homer is going to be alright at the end of the episode.

By that I mean that despite all of those usual warnings about not writing a script without a proper plan - also called an outline - I'm saying that you can't really plan everything. The only outline I personally have ever used is that I need to have strong enough premise and that I have material for the second half too.

So may I suggest that you forget that detailed outline those other writers are talking about. Just keep in mind that you have a problem that is big enough to give you a story, don't forget your Homer Simpsons and remember that you're one too.

Britain's Got Talent rules. (not the U.S. version though)

2011-04-12T11:53:00.000-07:00

Hooray! First auditions of this year's Britain's Got Talent aired on Saturday. I was so happy because it has been one of my very favorite shows on tv.

So many good acts have been on this show in the last four years: Paul Potts, Susan Boyle, Diversity, Spellbound, Stavros Flatley, Bessie Cursons, Andrew Johnston, Signature etc.

I love the show for at least two reasons. First, because this show is about people with talent. Second, I like it because Brits really know how to pull these things off.

I know that some people loath this show because it's supposedly 'cynical' and 'manipulative' and things like that...

But for me Britain's Got Talent is not about these things. For me it's about the human experience. It's about capturing and sharing these precious moments in life with the audience. It lets me feel and that's what makes it real.

At the same time when I'm saying that I like the British version, I'm not saying that I like the U.S version of the show. Because I really don't.

In theory it's the same show, but in reality it is not. It's more forced and fake. You get a feeling that America's Got Talent is a lot more about money and fame and stuff that in the end isn't really important.

Take a look at this one: no story, rushed, unfocused, just painful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6-G1kdStNA&feature=related

Compare it to last week's Britain's Got Talent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB98dcWkQqA&feature=channel_video_title

The difference, oh the difference!

Perhaps it has something do with the, uhh, dare I say, fact, that Americans are more superficial and shallow than the Britons. Because the difference between these two shows is simply astonishing.

Anyway, can't wait till Saturday and the 2nd week of Britain's Got Talent.

First season of Harry's Law.

2011-03-30T08:14:00.000-07:00

It's not exactly a secret that I'm a fan of Harry's Law's creator David E. Kelley. After all, he's the guy behind shows like Picket Fences, Chicago Hope, The Practice, Ally Mcbeal, Boston Public and Boston Legal.

Over the years I've been rather religious when it comes to watching his shows. His best shows (Picket Fences being probably the best) are about soul, substance and entertainment.

Also, about meaning, significance and relevance.

When Kelley brings his A-game, he's one of the best writers that has ever existed. On the other hand, when he doesn't deliver - and to be honest, that too has happened many times - his writing is pretty weak. Girls Club, Wedding Bells, Snoops..., uh oh.

The first season of Harry's Law?

Well, it was okay, but unfortunately, not consistent enough. There were parts that worked very well: Kathy Bates, Paul Mccrane, Christopher Mcdonald and Nate Cordry. The rest of the characters, unfortunately, didn't.

The shoe store stuff didn't work either and one can hope that they move to another place in season two. This original setting was meant to provide an underdog feel to the show, but in the end it felt pretty forced and contrived.

What was good about the show, not surprisingly, was the courtroom stuff. There's something genuinely great about the way Kelley writes these scenes. Somehow he manages to spellbind the audience and make it feel like we're living and taking part in those decisions.

That's because Kelley, like his mentor Steven Bochco, go with idea that the we (the audience) are not idiots and the our judgement matters. When you watch Harry's Law, it clearly shows.

But that doesn't mean that it's easy to write that well. For example, let's take a look at this another lawyer show, The Good Wife.

The Good Wife has cases that aren't really interesting or clever. The characters are bland and the dialogue is almost ridiculously forced. In the end, there's no real debate about the issues. I'm personally still having nightmares about that Michael J. Fox episode. It was that bad.

But thankfully we have our Kelley and if we do get a second season for Harry's Law, I just hope that he figures out what didn't work and fixes those problems. If that happens, it's going to be all good.

Oh, and here's a recent interview of him by the way:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/03/david_e_kelley_interview_wonde.html

Dehumanizing characters: The Big Bang Theory.

2011-03-19T13:29:00.000-07:00

Here's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen.

The Big Bang Theory's scripts for some reason use last names for two of their characters: Howard Wolowitz and Rajesh Koothrappali.

I have no idea why they do that.

Not only are Koothrappali and Wolowitz rather hard to write and pronounce, but it also dehumanizes Howard and Raj. To me it's almost like describing them as character X and character Y.

I think that's simply wrong.

For example, could you imagine if scripts for Friends had Chandler Bing as 'Bing' or Rachel Green as 'Green'?

I don't think so. Thankfully that didn't happen. We had Chandler and Rachel (and Joey and Ross and Phoebe).

I'm not saying that there can't be any exceptions. House for example uses House for Dr. Gregory House. But that's okay because House is an abbreviation and well, House has an attitude.

But when it comes to The Big Bang Theory, I have no idea what Lorre and Prady were thinking.

No wonder the show lacks character development. You can't develope your characters unless you treat them as real human beings.

Shame on you guys with your last names.

Lessons from the cancellation of Two And a Half Men.

2011-03-14T14:25:00.000-07:00

I think this incident shows how important it is for everyone's well-being that the showrunner delivers quality scripts for the show.

I think it also shows what may happen when the star (actor) of the series is more talented than the showrunner himself.

It's not exactly a secret that 2 1/2 Men has been pretty awful since season three. It's not a secret either that Charlie Sheen is more talented than Chuck Lorre.

I doubt anyone saw this incident coming. But it shouldn't surprise us that the target here is Lorre and the person making accusations is the guy from Platoon.

The lesson here is that if you're a showrunner and your star starts calling you a hack, you'd better be prepared.

The best defense you can think of is very easy and simple.

Don't be a hack.

It solves so many problems at once.

Just don't be a hack.

I mean,

the cast will be happy.

The crew will be happy.

The network will be happy.

The audience will be happy.

Even members of the academy are going to be happy.

Only thing you need is : don't be a hack.

The problem with Chuck Lorre is that he doesn't have a defense.

Which is to not be a hack.

Now, I'm not saying that it solves your every problem as a showrunner but it certainly is a good start.

Celebrity Apprentice 2011.

2011-03-10T09:17:00.000-08:00

Two episodes in of this latest season of Celebrity Apprentice and I think I already have a pretty good idea of what's going on in here.

If you're like me, you like underdogs and don't like egomaniacs and divas. You like positive, humble people and dislike people that are negative, superficial and shallow.

So you probably tend to like a guy like Gary Busey and hate a person like Star Jones.

I mean, hate is a rather strong word but Star Jones really seems like a horrible horrible human being.

But that's cool. I'm okay with that, as long as she gets fired as soon as possible.

Unlike Richard Hatch, she doesn't seem to have any self-awareness at all, which is a really bad thing in a competition like this.

Other than that, I have to say that Dionne Warwick didn't impress me either.

Jose Canseco seems like a harmless goofball despite the steroids.

LaToya Jackson doesn't seem that bad and it was nice how Trump told us that her brother was a really good person.

Meat Loaf seems like a great guy and the country singer John Rich is apparently down to earth too.

Also, I have already been proven wrong this season. Because supermodel Niki Taylor seems like a really lovely person and rapper Lil Jon has impressed me too.

Obviously this season won't be as good as last season was. But I guess that's okay too. Nothing wrong with underdogs like Bret Michaels but I seriously doubt anyone wants to see a contestant almost dying in the competition this year.

I expect Marlee Matlin to win. Not because she's deaf or smart, but because she used to date David E. Kelley.

The Big Bang Theory - writing a script.

2011-02-27T07:21:00.000-08:00

Here's a link to one of my Big Bang Theory scripts:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835248/Big-Bang-Theory-Finding-Leonard-Nimoy

I have to say that I wrote a complete synopsis of this episode and thought about posting it here. But then I read it again and had to conclude that reading a synopsis is like watching paint dry.

The thing is that a script isn't about what it's about but how it's about it. So I thought that posting the synopsis would serve no purpose because it wouldn't answer the question of "how it's about".

You have to read the full script if you want to both know and feel it. (what and how)

Anyway, some brief observations about my two premises that were:
1) Sheldon wants to get Leonard Nimoy to give the guys a lecture.
2) Howard and Raj fight for the same girl.

In hindsight one should see that the first one had its own set of potential pitfalls. It was doubtful that you could actually get Leonard Nimoy to guest star in the episode in question. Another problem was that episodes with stars playing themselves usually aren't good.

Therefore, a relatively safe solution to this problem was that we wouldn't get to see Nimoy (not Sheldon and not anyone else either)

But this created another problem. If the plot hinted too much that we were going to see Nimoy and that in the end it wouldn't happen, the audience would have been very disappointed and would have felt cheated.

So even though the episode was going to be about Leonard Nimoy, at the same time it couldn't be about him. It had to be about something else that the audience would find more interesting than Sheldon meeting Spock.

I hope that my "Sheldon with kids" is a twist that the audience would appreciate...

When it came to the other storyline, it had to be as simple and straightforward as possible. So what it meant was that the storylines had to be well integrated. The whole second act happens at their university and only two sets are used - the university hallway and the lunchroom.

Hopefully I managed to fix most of the problems that I had while writing the script. For example, the first draft had the girl also in the second act but I changed it, so that instead of Howard meeting the girl, he only tells about the meeting.

Other than that, there's a lot of stuff going on in the script. Maybe even too much and it's hard to tell whether the first act works. But at the very least I did my best to have the episode based on character and truth. And I think I made (or kept) the characters likable too.

The Big Bang Theory's staircase problem.

2011-02-14T04:06:00.001-08:00

May I ask you to to take a look at the picture above? It has Penny, Sheldon, Leonard, Raj and Howard in it. Nothing special there, right? Standard stuff?

Well, to be exact, no. Because this picture from an earlier season is something that we haven't seen on the show in a long time. (for example not once after 16 episodes this season)

You might say that, "so what, what's the deal here?".

The issue here is that in my opinion the picture and the moment above defines the show, its universe and its laws perhaps better than any other from the series.

"But how and why?"

Well, the thing is that the staircase and the hallway in the picture might be the most important setpiece on the show. It is the place between the geek world (Sheldon's and Leonard's apartment) and the normal world (Penny's apartment).

The place in the middle, is where both worlds meet.

It's the place where Leonard and Penny first kiss (not drunk). It's the place where Sheldon manages to apologize to Penny. It's where Penny starts crying after being such a failure and it's also the place where Raj turns his pelvis after Penny hugs him.

(in my opinion one of the funniest and sweetest moments on the show)

It's the place where both groups have to make compromises in order to understand each other better. Our geeks trying to figure out normal life and relationships while enjoying their nerdy lifestyle. Succeeding, failing, making us laugh. Things like that.

Or that's how it used to be. Unfortunately, it hasn't been that way this season at all. This original good stuff has been missing. Lots of other things have changed too and not for the better.

For example, as you can see, in this picture the guys are still friends, probably ready to do something interesting together or at least having a common goal or a problem.

On the show however, they basically aren't friends anymore. They also don't seem to have tasks or challenges as a group either.

Well, they do hang around together, but usually with the weakest amount of motivation that you could think of - like in the university lunchroom, usually arguing about stuff that makes you wonder why they spend any time together at all. Or doing something else that makes you question their friendship.

What was so good about the staircase, (the entrance and the floors) was that everytime our geeks went up and down, they were functioning as a group and that their bonding and friendship was understandable and logical. It simply made sense. It was about strong motivation.

They might have had their disagreements, like about Middle Earth festivals or paintball sessions, or about wearing costumes to Penny's party, but it was still all good. The staircase signified their friendship better than almost anything else (including the livingroom table).

It gave the show energy, direction and balance. It made you feel comfortable and safe. And most of all, it gave the series meaning and purpose.

But that was when the show was at its best. During the first and the second season. When The Big Bang Theory was still both fresh and funny. When it was so full of actual promise. When it had almost gotten up there.

That's why it's a real shame that we haven't seen those walks anymore. It might be the single biggest reason that the show isn't good or funny today.

Is it too late to change the course? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Nevertheless, that picture, moment and scene above should remind us all what the show is really about.

Making pop culture references count.

2011-02-05T13:12:00.000-08:00

If there's one thing that really separates bad writers from good ones, it is the way one deals with pop culture references.

In short, pop culture references aren't supposed to be empty, pointless, random or forced.

Instead they are supposed to have a context, sound natural and have a point. A good writer also knows that sometimes you need to hide your references.

Because it's not really about the reference. It's about the situation itself.

Doesn't seem that hard, right?

Depends really on who's writing the reference. It can be really good. It can be really bad.

Family Guy has made a virtue out of making empty, random and totally pointless references. The show is basically nothing more than flashbacks and cutaways to some 80's incident or person. No need to respect a show like that.

Nevertheless, one of the worst, if not actually the worst reference ever, was the reference in one of Community's episodes. An empty, random, pointless, out of the blue reference of one character saying "I love you" and the other one saying "I know". (Star Wars)

The fans of the show say that Community is about some clever meta-level stuff. But you don't have to go further than that to understand that there really is no there there.

No cleverness, no point, random, no context. It's just there in the open. Empty and tired.

But "I love you" - "I know" isn't necessarily a bad reference itself. You just have to know how to use it.

For example, how would 30 Rock reference it? Well, I would think that it would involve an exchange of thoughts between Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy. Perhaps they would be drunk... and the following lines would be said:

Liz Lemon: "Oh Mr. Donaghy, you are such a wonderful person" (beat)

Jack Donaghy: "I love you too, Lemon" (beat) "I'm sorry, I meant to say I know".

Or you could switch and first say "I know" and then "I'm sorry, Lemon, I meant to say I love you too". Depending on which one would give it a better flow.

In any case, notice how the reference is consistent with Alec Baldwin's character. It's natural, it has a point and it's not completely obvious.

You didn't notice it? That's why it's a good reference.

Hot shows that really aren't that hot.

2011-02-05T07:20:00.001-08:00

I don't know if there's a better example of cluelessness in the screenwriting "business" than the following one.

Not naming any names but there was a discussion about what tv shows are the hottest for a "spec" writer. A guy supposedly in-the-know said that those are Modern Family, Community and Parks & Recreation.

Obviously Modern Family is one. Emmy award for best comedy series and also a pretty big ratings hit. So no problems there.

But what on earth are Community and Parks & Recreation doing on this list?

When you think about writing a spec for an existing show, you have to think about three different things:

1) Is the show a ratings hit?
2) Does the show get awards or at least nominations?
3) Do showrunners like this particular tv-series?

So "Community" is the big thing right now? Online raves about it. Film school enthusiasts can't seem to get enough of the show.

Here's the reality check:
1) Community gets horrible ratings.
2) It doesn't win any awards or even get nominations.
3) Showrunners do not apparently think much of it.

One that I know called it simply "a tired show".

Steven Levitan, a showrunner for Modern Family said that Community "has some strong dialogue", which in reality means that it doesn't have character or storytelling strengths. So I guess it's not that good.

But the "online" loves it. And the film school people...

As for Parks & Recreation, it didn't get ratings, any awards or nominations and in fact, wasn't even on. Yet it's a "hot" show.

Somebody is simply not telling the truth here.

The hot shows to spec are still those that get awards or the audience. These are shows like 30 Rock, The Big Bang Theory, Modern Family... perhaps even 2 1/2 Men.

Oh, and South Park. Let's not forget that one.

Writing a Modern Family Episode: Part III hopefully getting it right.

2011-01-22T12:57:00.000-08:00

Okay, we have reached the final part of "writing a Modern Family episode".

Instead of revealing the story, I'm asking you to think about three things:

1. What is the funniest thing that could happen if Cameron and Mitchell took Lily for a baby swim?

2. What is likely the funniest thing that includes Jay, Gloria and bikes?

3. What is the funniest and the most dramatic story that would involve Phil as Homer Simpson and his high school buddy as Barney Gumble?

And how could one tie these story arcs together in the end?

So, I thought about Cam as Fizbo the clown.

I thought about Tandem bikes.

I thought about Phil actually showing character.

I thought about Freaky Friday.

I thought about Mr. Bean.

I asked myself what David E. Kelley would do.

I tried to remind myself that life's a laugh and death's a joke.

I read John F. Kennedy's quote about how laughter is the only part of God that we can ever try to understand.

I thought that writing a script really can't be that hard.

I wrote it in three days.

Writing a Modern Family Episode: Part II - specific problems with a specific episode.

2011-01-19T10:14:00.000-08:00

Originally posted by me on: http://eshawcomedy.wordpress.com/

Well, (continuing on my thoughts) a writer needs to understand that in Modern Family 21 minutes is a really long time and that it allows you to do a lot of stuff.

At the same time it means that what you write has to be well thought out. Otherwise you’re bound to run into serious trouble. The episode 2#11 "Slow Down Your Neighbors" was a rather good example of this.

First (wasn’t first that was introduced) we had Phil and his work-related stuff. I thought it was the worst of the three. It was bad because it was so muddled and the setup was non-existing (without setup there’s no plot).

Claire bullhorning about a speeder leading to Phil’s old work related friend leading to Phil not feeling like telling something to Claire leading to Phil doing something leading to Claire chasing that friend…

That might be okay if we were dealing with a single storyline episode. But to put all that confusion and weak motivation into one of the three plotlines is simply wrong. (even though Avclub gave it an A-)

The second plot was about Jay teaching Manny and Gloria to ride a bike. I don’t have a problem with the structure of this plotline but did any of you think it was a plausible storyline?

Childlike Gloria and a 13 year old Manny not knowing how to ride a bike without additional help? Out of character stuff. This is something that you should definitely avoid.

The third plotline. When it came to the Cam/Mitchell plotline, the doomswitch was the “twist” of the guy actually living in their playhouse.

The premise of the guy “upstairs” itself was hard to swallow but the twist simply wasn’t any good and was a letdown. (nevertheless, funniest of the three because Eric Stonestreet is the funniest guy on tv)

The thing is that if you have to do the twist, it better be something that 1) is unexpected 2) is something that the audience is going to really like and 3) is something that the audience doesn’t recognize as a twist.

Instead it's something different. The moment has to be seen as an awesome and yet as a smooth change in the direction of the plotline. Very hard to do, I guess. But it's not impossible to achieve.

So, what you should be able to do is to have 1) simple, clear setups 2) universal truths about us and about our characters = plausible storylines and 3) twist that won’t be seen as a twist.

My Modern Family script in Part III - coming up soon!

Writing a Modern Family Episode: Part I - things to consider.

2011-01-13T06:13:00.000-08:00

Well, it won the Comedy series Emmy so let's pay more attention to Modern Family:

Originally posted by me on: http://eshawcomedy.wordpress.com/

I managed to write a Modern Family spec recently and made some observations about what works and what doesn't work on the show. I thought it would be nice if I'd share them here.

This is obviously not a complete list but I hope the reader nevertheless finds these tips helpful. Crucial points while writing a script in my opinion are:

1) Interviews shouldn’t be used after the cold open.
2) Don’t put too many characters in one place / episode.
3) Cam & Mitch are the funny characters.
4) Avoid story arcs that are too convoluted.
5) Don’t run out of your story too early.
6) Try to avoid storylines that don’t add up & forced happy endings.

1) Interviews are okay and sometimes really funny. However, they mainly serve as expositionary devices. They also slow down the episode and pull you out of the story. So if you use these later in the episode, the chances are overwhelmingly that you’re making a really big mistake.

2) Having too many main characters in the same scene/room is a big problem too. It makes the show feel directionless and even claustrophobic. That’s why I’d recommend to avoid the Dunphy house as much as possible (yikes!).

You should also limit the amount of main characters in your episode to give your episode some clarity. I dropped the kids from my spec script by the way.

Having said that, it’s okay to use guest stars and one/two line part characters. Also, make them go to new places as much as possible – because unlike in the multicam sitcoms – in this format they can and should go.

3) About Cam & Mitchell. These two are the best part of the show. Eric Stonestreet is the funniest guy on tv. Mitch and Cam are believable, relatable, refreshing and charming. In short, they are the main reason that the show won the comedy series Emmy.

If you don’t have them in funny situations and making funny comments, you’re script is toast. The rest are very hard to make funny so pay attention to the gay couple.

4) Convoluted storylines: there was this one episode that looked like it was going to have a solid beginning, middle and an end. However, the episode fell apart when it came to the resolution of the Claire/Haley watching tv in the bed together.

We had two other separate storylines that were going on and then there was this storyline where Haley thought that Claire was talking about herself (mom) and Claire thought that Haley was talking about herself (daughter). It was way too convoluted.

The point here is that you have to keep the storylines simple and straightforward. If you don’t, your script won’t work.

5) Story runs out too early: remember the episode where Mitch dressed as a spiderman at his work? Mitch in the booth wearing the costume trying to hide from his co-workers. Hilarious, absolutely great stuff.

Except that the episode continued for like 7 minutes after the climax. I think this was another of those “Claire has a thing for” episodes. The halloween scene after that at Dunphys’ was painful, miserable and tedious. Avoid mistakes like these.

6) Finally, the most problematic part of the show in my opinion: an emotional wrap in at least half of the episodes that we have seen. It almost always comes out of nowhere.

The characters haven’t learned anything in the episode or they might be at each others throats – but 15 seconds later a voice over or a couch interview or some kind of a montage with music resolves it all. Don’t do this unless you and the characters on the show have earned it.

Part II coming up soon!

The Big Bang Theory: the 4th season - more problems.

2010-12-21T12:05:00.000-08:00

I guess what can be said about The Big Bang Theory is that it has gone steadily downhill for the last season and a half. The third season was a big (and a rather unexpected) disappointment. The fourth season, unfortunately, has been even worse.

There are of course numerous reasons for the decline of the quality, but I'll concentrate on the five big ones. These are:

1) Amy Farrah Fowler's character.
2) Sheldon degenerates even more.
3) The characters aren't underdogs anymore.
4) Lack of antagonists.
5) Writers don't know how to write Penny and female characters.

1) Amy Farrah Fowler's character: I don't know what the writers were thinking when they decided to create another Sheldon in Amy Farrah Fowler's character. She doesn't work at all.

I have nothing against Mayim Bialik as an actress. I liked her in Macgyver and as Blossom when I was a kid. It's just that on TBBT her character creates a black hole that sucks everyone else inside with her.

But why is AFF's character is so bad? Well, The Big Bang Theory is (or was) supposed to be about men vs women and geeks vs normal people. Every character should be an outcome of these four character attributes.

Mayim Bialik's character unfortunately doesn't follow these guidelines. In fact, her character isn't defined at all. We don't know if she's a geek or a normal person. And to be honest, do we even know if she's a man or a woman? She's just sitting there doing absolutely nothing.

2) Sheldon degenerates even more: I wouldn't have believed after the third season that Sheldon's character could get any worse. But that's what happened. Sheldon doesn't have any personality anymore. He only shouts out caricaturish lines that don't have anything to do with his twisted idealism.

If the writers did happen to get an idea where Sheldon has idealistic thoughts (like becoming a robot) the whole thing turns into a very ugly and lazy slapstick. Sheldon is supposed to become more human as people with asperger's tend to do. He's not supposed to regress.

3) The characters aren't underdogs anymore: Everyone roots for the underdogs so there's no good reason not to have them on the show. However, the writers went to silly lengths to make sure that none of the characters were in a 'down' situation.

Howard having a girlfriend is ok, since Bernadette is a funny character. But Leonard's conquests this season have been awful and have come out of nowhere. The most unfortunate instance of 'no underdogs'-theme has been Raj having a deaf girlfriend - off-screen. That's simply wrong.

4) Lack of antagonists: let's count the best antagonists so far on the show: Leslie Winkle, Dr. Gablehouser, Stuart, Wil Wheaton, and Leonard's mom. How many are left? Well, none basically. Wil Wheaton had a quick but unnecessary cameo in the Indy episode. Others have been missing in action.

When you take strong antagonists out of the equation, you're not left with much. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with story ideas where someone stands up to the guys. I myself managed to write a spec where Dr. Gablehouser shows Sheldon who's the boss, so it obviously can be done.

5) Finally: Writers don't know how to write female characters: This wasn't really a problem during the first two seasons. The characters were new so in certain ways Penny's character wrote itself. Now that we know the characters, we should get more insight into her.

Too bad that this doesn't happen. Instead she gets dumber and meaner as the seasons go further. She doesn't seem to have any ambitions whatsoever. Someone pointed out it might have something to do with those pesky middle aged divorced men on the staff...

Speaking of women. Nicole Lorre (presumably Chuck's daughter) has come up with the funniest storylines up to date: Barbarian Sublimation and Vegas Renormalization. I wonder what's she's doing on the show nowadays.

In conclusion: 11 episodes behind: 1 that was funny. No wonder I have become more and more afraid of watching the next episode. It might be funny, however the chances unfortunately are that it isn't.

V (2009) and V (1983).

2010-12-03T09:04:00.000-08:00

Hmm, what should I say here? Okay, I was a big fan of the original series. It's one of my favorites and also likely the best scifi miniseries of all time.

So when I got the long-awaited news that there would be a remake, I had some relatively high expectations for the show. Surely these new guys in charge would know how to pull off a moderately good show, close to the the original from the 80s.

But that's not exactly what happened. We didn't get a good show. Unfortunately, we didn't even get an okay show. So what went wrong then?

I guess the biggest problem with the new show is that it doesn't have any themes or characters that are interesting.

The original was about transformation and people rising up to the challenge. It was about the visitors coming after us and slowly getting rid of our precious rights. It was about human condition and the way we act in a crisis.

The new one isn't unfortunately about any of these things. At all.

The original had interesting and memorable characters: the gung-ho journalist who wanted to get to the bottom of it, a holocaust survivor and his family, a mother willing to sell his only son to the visitors, a kid willing to betray his precious family and a heroine doctor who would become the unexpected resistance leader.

The new version doesn't have any characters like that. The FBI agent is more or less only doing her job, the priest doesn't have any clue, the kid only wants to have sex, the journalist doesn't know who the bad guys are and the rest of them are basically nobodies.

There simply aren't any transformative characters on the show. The characters in the new version serve mainly to create shortcuts to the visitors - which makes the show as lazy and unimaginable as you could ever imagine.

Furthermore, it doesn't feel like there's any kind of threat going on at all. Nobody seems to be in trouble. And if nobody's in trouble, you don't have a story.

It didn't help the new show that they spilled all the beans in the 42 minute pilot. It's mind boggling how many of those crucial plot points they spent - that the visitors aren't here for benevolent reasons and that they are lizards. (the original by the way spent half its length to get to the shocking revelation about the visitors)

The producers of the new version told it was done because most of us had already seen the original, so we knew who the visitors were and what they were up to. The logical question to that is that since we knew who they were and what they were up to, why did they even make the new series in the first place?

I personally don't think there's anything wrong about making a new series. It's just that these new guys had no idea what they were doing. All the good parts from the original are missing. None of the allegories to Nazi Germany are there. There are no themes, no values, no substance, no nothing.

I don't care what happens to the characters in the new version. I'm almost rooting for the V's to kick the crap out of the resistance. Well, almost.

Nevertheless, the original was and still is an amazing achievement in storytelling. For example, take at look at this clip. (it's really that good)

How to (and how not to) pay tribute to ABBA.

2010-11-13T05:22:00.000-08:00

Here's how you do it right:

And here's how you do it wrong:

The Simpsons has maybe like five seconds of ABBA's Waterloo that serves as a joke. Great episode by the way. (Mother Simpson S7E08)

The Community on the other hand shamelessly plays numerous ABBA songs throughout the episode and the songs have no connection to the episode whatsoever.

You might say that "so what, those songs made the episode better".

Yes, I agree. But it's still über lame.

The important thing here is that ABBA is perhaps the best band of all time and (coming from an artistic viewpoint) you are not supposed pay tributes to the band unless you have earned it. (by writing superb comedy in this case)

The Simpsons writers thought that they were good enough to play five seconds of ABBA. The Community writers however decided that they had earned to play full ten minutes of the band in one single episode.

I don't know if you can find a better example of Hubris than that.

What we got here is pretty much the difference between talented, humble writers and writers who don't seem to be aware of their unfortunately very limited abilities.

Does it really come as a surprise that The Simpsons is the best sitcom of all times and that Community is a pretty pointless and awful series?

I don't think Community was even paying a tribute here. Instead they were riding someone else's coattails. Which is something they do all the time.

And by the way, this same Community episode also had a random "I love you - I know" reference. Can it get any more lame than that?

Comedy isn't about making empty, pointless references. Comedy is about meaning, purpose and significance. Like that Simpsons clip above.

Best sitcom of the last ten years.

2010-10-22T09:59:00.001-07:00

I understand that people say how comedy is subjective, but nevertheless, if I had to pick the single best sitcom in the last ten years, it would be The IT Crowd.

The IT Crowd? Yeah, you probably haven't seen it. It's a British sitcom that has been running on Channel 4 for the past four years.

It's about three IT support team members, Roy, Moss, Jen and their boss Douglas working in the basement of a fictional company Reynholm Industries.

Or should I say, "working" because none of them seem to be interested in their work. Some seem to be even wildly incompetent (especially the head honcho Douglas).

Despite the show's premise, most of the time the show really isn't about their work. I guess it's more a show about the absurdities of life.

For example, a running joke on the show is the question about what the "IT" stands for. We haven't gotten an answer so far.

The show is filmed both in front of a live audience and also on location. The creator and the writer of the show Graham Linehan is also known for the comedy series "Father Ted".

Now, what makes the show perhaps the best live-action comedy on tv? Probably the best way to answer that is by providing you actual material from the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vbzoJHqf5Y&feature=related

This clip from "The Work Outing" (S2E01) doesn't unfortunately include the whole episode, but in any case the story goes here that Jen, Roy and Moss go to a theater to see a "Gay musical, Gay".

Watch what happens here. After failing to use the bathroom for customers, Roy decides to use a restroom for the disabled while Moss uses the restroom reserved for the staff.

The scene where Jen finds Roy in a wheelchair and Moss as a bartender is not only totally absurd but also one of the funniest I'll ever see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGzeC9IaGLc

Or how about this other clip from the very same episode? Jen's date seems to be a bit gayish and in the end she can't resist anymore and asks the inevitable question. I bet you didn't see that twist coming.

That is what comedy should be but unfortunately most of the time really isn't.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Graham Linehan both wrote and directed "The Work Outing". In fact, he has written every episode of the series from scratch and has also a co-director credit on each one of those.

It has been said that the quality of the show is because of Linehan's clear vision and because the show isn't group written, like for example Two and a Half Men. (some call that "comedy by committee" writing)

I myself believe that Graham Linehan is a comedy auteur and that the guy is obviously a genius. (I guess David Kelley who wrote basically every episode of Ally Mcbeal qualifies too)

In any case, writers like these make the rest look like complete amateurs. It's like pack your bags and go home.

Now, it shouldn't also come as a surprise that a couple of years ago NBC tried to remake show in the U.S, like it did with The Office. The pilot wasn't picked up. I've seen it and it was pretty awful to be honest.

The original show is such an unique combination of deadpan writing, acting and directing that I believe it's impossible to transfer it for the needs of the U.S audience. I just don't think it can be done.

But I've heard that there's another remake coming up later next year...

What's wrong with those new sitcom pilots?

2010-10-19T09:54:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I think have seen the new comedy pilots. Those are "Running Wilde", "Raising Hope", Better With You" (picture), "Shit My Dad Says", "Outsourced" and "Mike & Molly".

Unfortunately, when it comes to the quality of these new pilots, all were pretty bad. Not one was even decent.

Makes you wonder how bad the other two dozen pilots were that didn't make the cut.

Okay, I'll give you that Billy Gardell's and Melissa McCarthy's acting was pretty solid in Mike & Molly. Too bad the other parts on the show aren't working.

So why are these new pilot shows so bad?

Well, if you watched any of these shows, did you find a single one of them actually going somewhere?

Probably not and that's mostly because these shows didn't have good premises.

If you don't have a good, interesting setup, your show has nowhere to go.

The problem with these new six shows is that none of them have any potential to say anything even remotely meaningful about the way we live our lives.

None of the characters are interesting. Just because the synopsis of the show describes the characters as "funny, charming, ambitious etc" doesn't mean that you're in for a treat. You need more than that.

Besides, characters itself don't get your show anywhere. What defines your show is how the characters interact with each other.

That is what helps to create conflict, tension, wants, needs, success, failure, humor, drama and meaning in general. The essential stuff.

That's why a show like Frasier was so successful. The characters were relatively well developed, but what made the show was the quality of the relationships - the brothers being competitive snobs and the rest of the cast being the voice of reason.

The same way Everybody Loves Raymond was successful because it perfected the family dynamics. Every character had strengths and weaknesses compared to the others. That's why they were able to milk it for so many years.

And then there was Friends. You know why it was so successful? Because of the relationships. Somehow all the characters managed to find a way to be genuinely friends with each other. That's a lot harder to do than it sounds. No wonder its success is yet to be repeated.

In the end all these shows were successful because they figured out the premise. They figured out the characters. And then they figured out the character relationships.

Those are the building blocks of good sitcoms. Those are all that we need but unfortunately not what we got this season.

A scene that didn't make any sense. (Grey's Anatomy)

2010-10-18T11:01:00.000-07:00

I hadn't watched Grey's Anatomy but some people kept saying how it's good. (Oprah among others)

Well, since I noticed last night that a re-run of an episode was on tv, I decided to watch the last fifteen minutes.

As you might know (from the picture), we were in a situation where a woman dies in a surgery, his husband blames the doctors and eventually goes on a killing spree at the hospital.

Anyway, somehow the shooter gets wounded. And isolated. (this was when I started watching the episode)

Then one of the doctors apparently gets an idea to go talk to him. Even though the doctor (as far as I know) could and should have just walked away.

This doctor's behavior is really dumb, unless he 1) wants to die or 2) wants to save the shooter. I think both are somewhat plausible and acceptable scenarios when it comes to drama.

But that's not what happens. Instead we get to hear dialogue where 1) the doctor doesn't want to die but 2) he doesn't seem to care about saving the shooter's life either.

Oh man. This doesn't look good. What is going on in here?

Then the shooter reveals that he's got only one bullet left.

Now this doctor suddenly "wakes up".

We get a really long (and not well written) speech about how he's had a good but painful life and that he's actually willing to die - OR that the shooter could kill himself and that he might this way see his wife in heaven.

What the...?

First, what is the doctor doing there?

Second, his willingness to die doesn't match his behavior five minutes ago. Third, this other 'choice', "see your wife", comes totally out of nowhere and is pretty ridiculous too.

Finally, it's against hippocratic oath for a doctor to suggest committing suicide. In case someone forgot.

The doctor's rationale for what he's doing is a total mystery to me...

Anyway, the resolution is that the doctor walks away (I don't know why, if he wants to die) as the swat team is about to arrive. Off screen we hear a single shot and assume that the shooter committed suicide.

Honestly, I had no clue what was going on in here. The scene didn't make any sense to me.

Now, would the whole thing have made more sense if I had watched the complete episode? I doubt it but I sure as hell hope so.

Appreciating Louis Theroux.

2010-09-30T13:41:00.000-07:00

I just watched the latest documentary by Louis Theroux. It was about kids on medication in the United States. A well spent hour, if you ask me.

Anyway, you might remember him from Michael Moore's Tv Nation that ran in the mid nineties on NBC.

More than that he's known for his documentary series on the British BBC. Especially for his "Weird Weekends" series.

We have seen Louis for example with Neo-Nazis, with Fred Phelps, in jail, having a liposuction, as a WCW wrestler, in adult entertainment, trying to figure out women's bodybuilding, in Harlem...

Interesting stuff. Theroux has been willing to put himself in challenging and sometimes even funny situations.

But the reason I like him is because of his approach towards his subjects. That is that Louis is an exceptionally non-threatening, friendly and polite interviewer.

That's right. Non-threatening, friendly and polite.

I also like him because he's open-minded. He seems to be genuinely interested in different people and different phenomena. He likes to learn new things, and he doesn't come off as a judgemental person.

I think those qualities are rather rare in today's world coming from an entertainer. (he calls himself a presenter though)

What passes today as entertainment is basically opposite of what Theroux stands for.

Today's entertainment is mostly uninsightful and empty, not really interested in characters and real human beings, not interested in finding out anything new and not interested in being decent and dignified.

Worst of all, today's entertainment tends to be all about hype and zero about substance.

Theroux's shows are so refreshing because they don't have anything to do with hype. There's no unnecessary drama, there's nothing forced. Everything unfolds naturally. That's why his documentaries are usually compelling tv.

He doesn't know everything. But he wants to learn. He doesn't always understand. But he wants to try.

And more often than not, it pays off. One way or the other.

I just wish we could have more stuff like that on tv. More writers like him. Writers who'd be interested in learning new stuff. Writers who'd know that they don't know everything. Writers who knew that they have to respect us, human beings.

Well, at least we've got Louis Theroux.

How about showing some class on tv?

2010-09-28T13:58:00.000-07:00

Another Chuck Lorre entry? Yes, but he unfortunately earned it. Let's take a look at what we have seen on his sitcoms lately.

Last week's Two and a Half Men episode: 16-year old kid has a threesome.

Last week's The Big Bang Theory: One of the guys uses a robot to masturbate.

This week's Mike & Molly. Discussion and 'jokes' about masturbation and oral sex.

This week's Two and A Half Men: Co-protagonist professes his love to his girlfriend but casually cheats her in the very same episode.

That's three different shows and four episodes in a row.

When you have that many sitcoms on air and almost all we get is stuff about sex and cheating then I guess you have to describe that as rather depressing.

I was especially disappointed in Mike & Molly. It's not exactly a good show and it may get cancelled, but it's nevertheless supposed to be good-hearted fun. Too bad it wasn't in that episode.

Alan cheating his girlfriend at the end of Monday's episode of 2 1/2 Men - what in the world was that?

You know, I'm not saying that you can't or aren't allowed to write about outrageous and raunchy stuff. Because South Park has managed to pull it off again and again and again.

The difference here of course is that while Trey Parker and Matt Stone have artistical integrity and ambition, Lorre and his folks are out there more or less to make an easy buck. (at least when it comes to 2 1/2 Men)

In a way it's amazing how on South Park you can even write an episode about queefs (google it if you don't know and want to know) and still come out smelling like roses.

But that's the way it is when you know what you're doing and you actually have something to say.

On the other hand, when you have no passion for what you're doing...

We can only hope that Chuck won't completely destroy his only good show, The Big Bang Theory.

Five characters make a modern family.

2010-09-16T07:21:00.000-07:00

Okay, let's take another try with this subject matter. Hopefully it makes at least some sense this time.

So, I've been kinda disappointed that Modern Family won the Emmy for best comedy series.

I mean, yeah, the show can be pretty funny. The absurdist stuff definitely works. Eric Stonestreet is a treasure and Ty Burrell can be funny too. (especially in the moustache episode)

However, in my opinion the family part on the show doesn't work. Cameron and Mitchell with their adopted daughter is the only part that I find believable.

Other than that, I feel that the dynamics aren't there and the show even seems a bit dishonest to me. Especially when the writers try to pull off those emotional wraps and try to inject some meaning into those episodes.

It just doesn't feel like a real family nor does it feel like a real show to me.

But why is that so?

Well, I guess the biggest problem is that there are simply too many characters on the show:

Jay the dad, Gloria the mom, Manny the son, Mitchell the son and dad, Cameron the dad, Phil the dad and son, Claire the mom, Haley the daughter, Alex the daughter, Luke the son, Dylan the boyfriend...

It should have been pretty obvious that there's too much ground to cover here and it's almost impossible to pay attention to all those storylines at the same time.

In comparison, let's take a look at the casts of some other current popular and award winning family and "family" sitcoms.

The Simpsons: Homer is the dad, Marge the mom and Bart, Lisa and Maggie are the kids.

30 Rock: Alec Baldwin is the dad, Tina Fey plays the mom while Kenneth, Tracy and Jenna play the kids.

Entourage: Ari Gold is the "dad", Eric is the "mom", Vince and Johnny Drama are the kids and Turtle is the family pet.

All these shows have five main characters, and yet, Modern Family has ten.

When it comes to having characters on the show, you have to keep it relatively simple and not make it unnecessarily convoluted. That's why five characters is about right. Ten is simply way, way too many.

I mean, could you for example imagine five more main characters on Entourage? I don't think so.

Why Law & Order wasn't any good.

2010-09-14T06:47:00.000-07:00

I guess this is going to be yet another negative post but I don't think I have much of a choice here.

So why was this much revered show bad even though it went on for 20 years and even won Emmy awards? Well, that's because it had such an ass backwards premise, that is "let's convict the bad guys".

You might think that, "hey, wait a minute, that's a good premise". But it's not.

Notice that I'm not saying here that "let's _get_ the bad guys" is a bad concept itself. I'm just saying the "let's _convict_ the bad guys" is a bad concept.

The reason that I liked "let's get the bad guys" shows like 24, NYPD Blue, The Shield, Matlock and The Practice is that all of them (even The Shield) were about defending the weak and the innocent.

These shows would make you identify with the situations and the characters. Like in Matlock when a person was on trial for a murder that he or she didn't commit or when Vic Mackey showed sympathy for people in bad situations even though he didn't have to.

These shows had:
1) Interesting premises.
2) Stakes that were high.
3) You rooted for the characters.

Law & Order was a bad show for the same exact reasons :
1) It was way too much of a boring premise.
2) There was not much at stake.
3) It was impossible to root for our protagonists (prosecutors).

I mean, think about it. What is interesting about a show where you have the guilty party already locked up or about to get locked up, then you have the evidence that he's guilty and all you have to do is to survive through the defense attorney, the "bad guy"?

There's nothing interesting about that at all.

What's at stake here? The worst thing that could happen is that the guilty party manages to evade a conviction. That isn't even close to being a high stakes situation compared to what happens in those other shows.

If the guilty guy walks free, then so what? Unless he's going on a total murder rampage afterwards, it really isn't interesting.

But in any case, what has to be the worst part of the show is that our protagonists do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. If they convict an innocent person, our guys just shrug it off like it was no biggie. "That's the way it is. Let's get some coffee".

So we are supposed to root for guys like these? Huh. I can't believe people liked this show.

Chuck Lorre's Vanity Cards.

2010-09-13T12:43:00.001-07:00

You'll see cards like these at the end of Chuck's shows. Have you ever read any of them?

I have. Some of them are okay, I guess. I have laughed at them. At least twice anyway.

However, most of the time his cards fall in to one of these categories: 1) childish 2) lame 3) Chuck passes the buck 4) Chuck blames others 5) Chuck tells us how he wants to win an Emmy award some day. (FYI, he hasn't won one)

I have been thinking about this 'winning an Emmy thing' and Chuck's vanity cards pretty much give us the answer to why he hasn't won and likely will never win one.

Lack of talent is obviously the biggest reason.

But his ultimate nail in the coffin is him choosing to write those cards in the first place. He shows us that he's not that interested in storytelling.

That is because every second that he spent on writing a vanity card he could (and should) have spent on making those scripts a little bit better.

Because in the end, the only thing that matters is the quality of those scripts. Nothing else matters. It's that simple.

By the way, here's another way to end an episode. By David E. Kelley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcCn-2ajpgY

In that clip we have Kelley's now late grandmother telling us how his grandson sucks when she says 'you stinker". Pretty funny, if you ask me.

Does it really surprise anyone that Kelley has won 10 Emmy awards and Lorre hasn't won a single one?

What a difference in attitude between these guys. Kelley says "the buck stops here" while Lorre says "wanna hear a dick joke?".

The Good Wife, The Bad Show.

2010-09-12T13:58:00.000-07:00

I've seen only the first 15 minutes of this show about lawyers. So how on earth can I say that this show isn't any good?

Well, that's because once upon a time it took me something like two minutes before I fell in love with a show called 'The Practice".

If you haven't seen that show, I say go go go. It's on DVD.

But anyway, let's list the token reasons why 'The Good Wife' isn't a good show:

1. Uninteresting characters.
2. No atmosphere.
3. No urgency.
4. The not so good acting.
5. Really bad writing.
6. It's a thematical mess.

Do you need more reasons to not watch a television series?

There's a reason why the network executives were against developing lawyer shows in the eighties. They thought these shows would be boring and nobody would watch.

They were both right and wrong.

They were proven wrong when Steven Bochco and David E. Kelley, genius writers who understood life, were able to turn seemingly ordinary events into extraordinary.

But the network executives were proven right when they decided to greenlight 'The Good Wife', a show written by people who have no clue what they are doing and have nothing meaningful to say.

I had to quit watching after I saw the worst cross-examination I have ever seen on a lawyer show.

That is, when one of the protagonists on the show bombs his cross-examination but the show portrays the event as a success.

I simply couldn't stomach more than that. That's not how you make 'compelling tv'.

What to show and what not to show: The IT Crowd season premiere.

2010-07-08T06:32:00.000-07:00

Ah, yes. Ah, yes.

You might be a fan of the show. If not, you should be. Because 'The IT Crowd' is in my opinion the best comedy series of the last ten years.

Unfortunately, the first episode of the fourth season wasn't really funny at all.

Here's one reason why it wasn't good: (Okay, that's going to be two reasons actually)

1) It showed us things that we shouldn't have seen and
2) It didn't show us things that we should have seen.

The episode starts with Roy holding photographs that used to have his now ex-girlfriend in those. But she isn't in the pictures, because Roy had photoshopped her out.

The problem with this is that I started asking: why? Why would he do that?

Did you understand why he did that? I would think that you were puzzled too if you watched it.

In short, it's not good when the audience starts asking questions why something happens.

The other problem I had with this storyline was that it started with Roy telling us about the break-up so we did not get a storyline about the dating process itself.

Why didn't they show that? Because we haven't seen Roy dating (m)any women before. Why make something as important as dating a mere footnote. Didn't make sense to me.

No wonder it wasn't a good episode after it made mistakes like those.

When you write your scripts, you have to know what to show and what not to show.

Here's an example: one of my specs for The Big Bang Theory titled "Finding Leonard Nimoy" starts with the guys entering their building and Sheldon complaining how they just attended the worst lecture ever.

Now, would you have shown the lecture part? Hopefully not, because most of us understand that lectures are usually boring, terrible and simply not worth our time. They simply suck.

Therefore, when Sheldon says that it was the worst lecture ever, we think, "we believe you" and "thanks for not showing that to us".

Comedy is not about having characters in implausible situations.

2010-07-08T05:10:00.000-07:00

I've been lately watching critically praised shows like Parks & Recreation and Community.

I didn't really expect them to be any good since there hasn't been any 'real' buzz over these shows. Nevertheless, I decided to give them a go.

Well, it wasn't exactly a good idea. I didn't end up liking either show at all.

That is because both are poorly acted and poorly written. Both have uninteresting characters. Both have 'jokes' that aren't funny.

Community especially excels in being completely chaotic. Nothing makes sense whatsoever on the show. It's just rapid fire blaa blaa blaa, blaa blaa blaa. And then to the end credits.

Shame, shame, shame.

But I guess watching those shows wasn't that bad of an experience to me. Because it made me think why these two comedy shows and too many others aren't really funny at all.

Good question, right?

Bad writing - yeah, I guess, but so? Uninteresting characters - yes but so? Unfunny jokes - yes but so?

Doesn't really explain that much.

If I had to sum up in one sentence why comedy shows aren't really good anymore, I would say that it's because we don't see characters in ordinary situations anymore.

I know, sounds lame and unhipster and uncool and so on. But the truth is that every funny comedy series has more or less been based on real stuff.

Like All in The Family, King of The Hill, The Simpsons (the early seasons), Family Ties...

All classic shows. These sitcoms respected you and me and life in general. These shows had storylines that we all could relate to.

We had characters that were real. Problems that were real. Pain that was real.

Alex Keating dating an older woman. Hank Hill having serious problems with his bowel movement. Marge Simpson having an 'affair' with his instructor. Edith Bunker being sexually molested.

Those days seem to be gone. Now we have shows like Community being written by people who don't seem to know much about life.

How things have changed... ...and not for the better.

To read a screenwriting book or to go out and play some ice hockey?

2010-05-02T10:58:00.000-07:00

If you didn't already know, the guy in the picture is David E. Kelley, quite possibly the best television writer ever.

Looks like he's about to play some ice hockey right there. In fact, he even used to be a professional hockey player before he became a ten-time Emmy award winning screenwriter.

But why do I show you this picture of him as a hockey player?

Well, I show it because for years I've had this idea that playing ice hockey or other team sports is a great way to experience drama and that playing them (or even watching) will make you a better writer.

Because when you watch or play the game, don't you feel emotions that are totally different from what you're used to? You're excited, your heart keeps beating, you sweat, you hold your breath. I mean, you simply feel alive.

I think that's what watching good entertainment on tv should be too. It should mesmerize you and take your breath away.

That's why I think that in the end a hockey player and a (great) writer aren't that much apart from each other.

Because as a player you need to make quick decision. You have to be able to read your opponents - just like you have to be able to read your characters and the situations when you write.

You need to have a clear vision of the game, you need to get 'the big picture' - just like in good drama or comedy you have to know what it is all about.

When you play team sports, you will quickly learn the consequences of wrong and right decisions. Just like in good comedy or drama which are basically all about making big decisions and then dealing with the consequences.

I guess there's this flow thing too. If you're a hockey player, you know what I'm talking about. Because writing is about flow.

And being constantly creative.

So if I had to make a decision between like reading a screenwriting book or playing hockey, the decision would be pretty easy. I'd go play hockey - just like David Kelley did.

Not that there's anything wrong with reading screenwriting books...

"Trust us, we have the story all figured out"

2010-04-24T02:59:00.001-07:00

Remember 'The Nine' (2006), ABC's short-lived drama series about a hostage situation?

I saw some of it and wasn't impressed. The story was boring and didn't go anywhere.

The show getting cancelled shouldn't have surprised anyone. There was a good reason for that.

Because the premise of the show was that the hostage situation happens in the first episodes, and after that the characters go back to living their normal lives.

That's right. A show where basically nothing happens after the first episodes. Do you think that was going to be interesting television?

I would think that you were going to say 'of course not' and 'epic fail'. But for some reason the network executives bought the idea that it would be a good concept.

The only problem with this was that it couldn't work. You can't have a climax first. That's storytelling 101.

So how could the executives have been so incredibly dumb that they greenlit a doomed show like that?

Well, I happen to know for a fact that when the producers pitched the idea to the executives, they had mapped out ahead like three or four seasons of the show.

What I'm thinking here is that maybe the producers managed to sell the show to the executives based on the idea of "don't worry, as you can see, we have it all figured out".

Even when the whole concept made no sense at all.

Now, fast forward to this season. ABC brings us a show with another stupid premise, called 'Flash Forward'. The premise is that the characters see into their future and then go back to living their normal lives.

Hellooo...

I've heard that in this case too the producers showed the executives very detailed plans about where the series was about to go.

For your information, Flash Forward is not going anywhere. It simply sucks.

I just can't help but remember the good old days when we had shows like X-Files. Speaking of that show, do you think that Chris Carter knew exactly where X-Files was about to go when he pitched it to the Fox executives?

The wikipedia tells us that he didn't. Fortunately he had a great idea and he didn't have to camouflage it with those detailed one hundred episode outlines.

The Big Bang Theory's disappointing third season.

2010-04-18T09:05:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm not saying that the third season of The Big Bang Theory hasn't had anything good in it.

I did like the tattoo sleeves. Wil Wheaton was a good addition. Bernadette was pretty funny too and I liked Leonard's mom. But other than that, I have been very disappointed.

Top-10 reasons for The Big Bang Theory not delivering this season:

1) The pairing of Leonard and Penny.

I don't think there's that much to debate about this. Of all the characters on the show, Leonard and Penny have the least amount of chemistry. The pairing hasn't added anything to the show. They aren't funny or interesting together. So why are they still supposed to be a couple after this season?

2) Too much one-dimensional Sheldon.

Sheldon was a pretty reliable source of comedy in both season one and two. His character seemed believable. In season three, after Jim Parsons got the Emmy nomination, the storylines started to get too much about him. Unfortunately Sheldon turned into a cartoon character.

3) Characters are less likable.

Sheldon, Raj, Howard and even Penny became less likable than they used to be. Just pick any given episode and see for yourself. What's worse is that Leonard is now a whining douchebag and yet he is supposed to be our 'hero'.

4) It's not an ensemble show anymore.

The Big Bang Theory is supposed to be written like Frasier and Everybody loves Raymond. We have an amazing cast and interesting characters. So why won't the writers utilize them together?

5) The premise changed.

The show is supposed to be about men vs. women and geeks vs. normal people. After Penny and Leonard became a couple, I have been asking myself, what is this show about?

6) 'The smart is the new sexy' is missing.

Is there anything on season three to prove that these guys are actually smart? Do they come up with solutions to anything? (Mars rover & space toilet in season two)

7) Badly structured episodes.

There are plenty of examples that could be mentioned, but the absolutely worst has to be in the Stan Lee episode where Sheldon goes to jail and gets released in less than a minute. (Episode 3x16)

8) Lazy writing with the jokes.

Not that I value 'jokes' in any way, but before the third season began, I thought that if they ever resort to using a helium joke on the show.. ..well, we already got the helium joke (3x09).

9) They changed Stuart to protect Leonard.

He was confident and cool in season two. After the producers saw how Leonard and Penny didn't work at all, they decided to 'fix' the problem by making Stuart pathetic, so that Leonard wouldn't look that bad.

10) Dropping Leslie Winkle from the show.

The writers said that they didn't know what to do with Sara Gilbert's character. I thought she was very good at making Sheldon more believable as a character. When she left, Sheldon kinda left too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still four episodes to go. I won't quit watching, though.

I'm going to let Chuck Lorre disappoint me the way he intended.

The Amazing Race: best reality show ever!

2010-04-16T10:54:00.001-07:00

Let's count the reasons why The Amazing Race rules:
1. The Drama on the show is natural and not contrived.
2. The tasks are interesting.
3. Almost all the contestants are relatable.
4. You always root for at least one team.
5. The sightseeing.
6. We get to see different cultures.
7. We get to know new people.
8. Your whole family can watch it together.
9. Travelocity gnomes make me happy.
10. And Phil Keoghan's eyebrow is just amazing.

Strong women and quality sitcoms.

2010-04-14T02:10:00.000-07:00

I recently thought about how important roles female characters have played lately in sitcoms.

I thought about this because for some reason we don't really have strong women in quality sitcoms anymore.

The only exception, I think, is Tina Fey as Liz Lemon on 30 Rock. Other than that, it's not good to be a sitcom actress nowadays.

Ten years ago, things were quite different. We had among others:

Roz Doyle and Daphne Moon in Frasier.

Ally (and the rest) in Ally Mcbeal.
Debra and Marie in Everybody Loves Raymond.
Rachel, Phoebe and Monica in Friends.
Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte in Sex and The City.

That's a pretty almighty list. Can you believe that Peri Gilpin as Roz Doyle was never even nominated for an Emmy? Today she would be a slam dunk for a win.

Last year it got so bad in the supporting actress category that Amy Poehler and Kristen Wiig were nominated for Saturday Night Live - a sketch show. I mean, how much worse can it get than that?

In my opinion, not having well written female characters on sitcoms reflects pretty accurately how the quality of sitcoms in general has deteriorated lately.

The reality is that when you don't have characters like Marge Simpson, you don't have shows like The Simpsons either.

So, if I were thinking about developing a new sitcom, I would probably start with the female characters.

I would think that this is how a show like Modern Family was actually conceived.

Talent or hard work?

2010-04-11T14:29:00.000-07:00

How many times have you heard the saying "success is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration"?

Sounds inspiring, doesn't it? And I guess, to some degree, I agree with that.

Because when you write scripts, you have to be patient. That means that your ideas won't usually come up without effort. You have to actively search for them. And you can't give up too easily.

So, yeah, I think I can live with that statement. (originally by the inventor Thomas Edison)

But how about this: "talent is overrated","talent is mostly a myth", and even "there is no such thing as talent".

Were Larry Gelbart, John Hughes and David E. Kelley only "working hard" when they wrote scripts in one or two days?

I don't think so. These guys were super talented (Kelley still is) and "hard work" didn't have that much to do with it. They worked hard because they had talent, not because they were compensating for the lack of their God given abilities.

For some reason in today's society people seem to be actively downplaying the importance of talent. "If you only work really hard, you might be able to make it..." (everybody's equal)

Let's face it. That's mostly a myth. Talent does matter. More than most of us are willing to admit.

But then again - for those who are disappointed about talent actually counting - just look at this guy.

Maybe you can make it too!

Ten characters in a sitcom is simply too much.

2010-04-10T11:05:00.000-07:00

The critics are saying that "Modern Family" is the best sitcom on tv right now.

I have watched maybe like seven or eight episodes and I have found the show to be occasionally funny.

It's just that when you have ten characters and a twenty-one minute show, it's not possible to cram them all into every single episode and then expect it to miraculously work and make sense.

It's rather weird to watch episodes where you have three storylines and at least one of them has only two beats: the beginning and the end. The middle of the storyline, however, is missing. (at least this is how it seems to me when I watch the show)

That's not good, but it's exactly what happens when you try too hard.

Also, I'm not a fan of the faux-documentary style that they use on the show. The interviews just pull you out of the story.

But I don't know. Maybe the producers on the show will learn from their mistakes and season two will be better.

Obviously it's not the best sitcom on tv.

When storytelling goes bad: Part III

2010-04-08T08:07:00.000-07:00

Why was the British version of The Kitchen Nightmares so good and the U.S remake on Fox so bad?

I guess the Fox executives thought that having a compelling story about a struggling restaurant and the restaurant owner simply wasn't enough.

Have you seen the original series?

All I can say is that sometimes less is indeed more.

Celebrity Apprentice: 3rd time is the charm?

2010-04-07T06:21:00.000-07:00

There's nothing more surprising than seeing people you thought were utter douchebags turn out to be decent and down to earth human beings.

Yes, I'm talking about Bret Michaels on Celebrity Apprentice.

I knew him from that 80s rock band that I hadn't ever listened to. He also had that stupid Rock of Love show on VH1 or wherever it was. Yes, and there was also that sex tape too.

Honestly, him being a good guy, I didn't see that coming at all.

Just goes to show how easily we judge people in our everyday lives.

But anyway, I'm personally rooting for him, Bill Goldberg, Curtis Stone and Maria Kanellis. (I had no idea she was so smart too)

I just hope that this season the producers and The Donald are smarter and give everyone an equal chance of winning.

Last season was a complete travesty, when Trump fired Tom "I cannot believe he's a good guy" Green and kept Dennis Rodman, even though 1) he was drunk 2) didn't even show up at the task and 3) wanted to leave the show.

The producers should pay attention to the old adage "give people what they want, not what they expect". We are tired of the 'ratings!, ratings!' trainwrecks.

It pays off to have likable people on tv.

That's why a "boring" show like The Biggest Loser is a hit too.

When storytelling goes bad: Part II

2010-04-07T03:46:00.000-07:00

Ah, Glee, the new hit show on Fox.

This high school musical dramedy recently won best comedy/musical Golden Globe and was just awarded a Peabody.

It's supposedly the frontrunner at the Emmys. I would guess that you haven't watched it. I did check it out to see whether it could be spec worthy.

Well, it's not.

I really am not that demanding when it comes to entertainment, but sometimes even yours truly has to draw the line somewhere. Glee is one of those shows.

Minute seventeen in the pilot: the main character, a choir leader, has bought drugs from a dealer.

I didn't like where this was going, but I still decided to give it a fair chance.

Anyways, he then wants to recruit one of the sports guys to his choir.

Okay, I guess.

But he does this by accusing the jock student (innocent) of being a drug dealer and that he will send him to jail if he doesn't join the choir.

Uh-huh.

All I can say that if this passes as entertainment, then I don't want to be entertained. I had to give up after three episodes.

Cruel is the new cool.

Where did David E. Kelley go?

2010-04-06T14:22:00.001-07:00

If you ask me, my biggest personal hero happens to be this guy who in 1999 took home Emmys for both Best Comedy Series (Ally McBeal) and Best Drama (The Practice).

Those were the days. There was nothing better than watching an episode of Ally Mcbeal and then the next evening you got a fresh new episode of The Practice. I really, really miss both shows and all those moments of enlightenment.

A quick fact: David has won 10 Emmy awards, but it's already been 10 years since his last win. So what happened, Youstinka?

Anyways, David has a new pilot in the works called 'Kindreds'. I don't know what to think of it. Is this going to be another 'Legally Mad' that doesn't get picked up? We'll see.

When storytelling goes bad: Part I

2010-04-06T09:44:00.000-07:00

I just watched most of Season One of 'Mad Men', the AMC series that has been hailed by critics as a work of genius.

It took me a long while to actually consider watching it, because I didn't find 'the premise' of the show to be interesting at all. I couldn't see what the buzz might be about. It didn't make any sense to me.

So I watched it, and didn't like it.

That 'Mad Men' turned out to be a pretty bad viewing experience for me didn't come as that big of a surprise. Because as you should know, when critics fall in love with a show, there's always a good chance that the show itself isn't really that good.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the case with 'Mad Men'. The critics once again took the bait. They 'love' the show. The audience, however doesn't care. You and me, the general folks, do not watch the show. Because it's not good.

So what's wrong with the show? The answers to that can be found from looking at the basic requirements of a "good" show.

1)What is the premise and the theme of the show? Is this a show about a family? Is this a show about the people at the agency? Is it about the times and lives in the 60s? Is it about the actual substance of their work?

If you like the show, you probably say that, yes! It's about all of those. But that's not a premise. A premise is something like "Jack Bauer has been framed in an assassination attempt against the President". What is the premise in Mad Men?

And how about the theme? A theme should be something like "life is absurd, but it makes more sense than we think" á la Picket Fences. Mad Men doesn't have a recognizable theme either. That's a bad sign too.

2)Who and what are the characters? There's been plenty of hoohaa about how the characters on the show are more defined than on other drama shows. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. We don't know most of the characters at all. They are not fully fleshed out, they are cardboard cut-outs and fresh from stock. That's bad too.

3)Where is the drama? I couldn't find drama anywhere. The ad men are basically never in trouble. They never have big problems with their clients. Yes, I know you might say that there were some problems and that Pete Campbell 'saves' the guys by coming up with his own ideas. But in general, there's no real trouble. A real problem means something like "if we don't get this client, we're done". So there's no drama coming from there.

Of the characters, excluding Campbell, nobody is in trouble either. Just because Betty Draper is troubled does not mean that she is in trouble itself. There's a difference. And if anything at all happens, it's always resolved in less than twenty minutes. That's not compelling.

4)Who is Don "the lead" Draper? This is a big no-no on the show. We have no clue who Don Draper really is. You never know what he is going to do next. We have no idea how he is going to react to any given situations on the show. It's all a guessing game. Because the writers in all likelihood do not know who he is. They only know how he dresses and how he combs his hair. (back and to the left, back and to the left)

5)The focus on the show. Easily the biggest problem. Is there a lead? Who are the supporting characters? Who are the token nobodies? This is why the show is such a mess. People come and go. Supporting characters get suddenly individual scenes, even though we might know nothing about them. Somehow they suddenly lead the show. That cannot be good storytelling.

The most bizarre moment that I managed to see on the show really illuminates how bad Mad Men can get. Because there's a sequence in the fourth episode (the firing and reinstating of junior), where Don Draper's character goes in ten minutes from a lead to supporting character and then to an extra. That is simply wrong and bad television.

That is not quality writing.

It's also pretty disturbing how the writers on the show write these 'fake' endings. For example when Betty crashes the car and is sent to a psychiatrist by Don. The ending of the episode is when Don calls the psychiatrist and asks how Betty did in the session. I think the writers were hinting that there's some kind of a patient/doctor confidentiality that they were breaking. Well, obviously there wasn't, but they tried to nevertheless sell that angle.

Also it's rather cheap when we see a pregnant woman taking a glass of wine. Shocking - and then we go to like End Credits. Not really interesting, in my opinion. But basically that's the way they roll.

I'm not saying that 'Mad Men' is the worst show on tv. It has great production values and Vincent Kartheiser and Elisabeth Moss are doing great acting in it. It's just that almost everywhere else the show is a failure.

The fact that the show looks good doesn't mean that it's actually good. Because it's not.

And Yes, I did get the nuances. Seriously, I did.