About that upcoming JFK miniseries on HBO.

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.

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.

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's where 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.

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.

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.

Emmy Awards - self serving and all & not that different from U.S. politics.

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 (as in the case of Modern Family's episode) 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.

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.