About scene descriptions and dialogue.

I received a comment, among other things, about me sometimes not using any scene descriptions in my scripts. This got me thinking why I tend to do that and what's the rationale behind it.

So I gave it some thought and I think the reason for me sometimes going straight to the dialogue - and not writing anything that establishes or describes the scene - is because in certain situations it doesn't really matter what the characters are doing.

I guess to some that might sound weird, but nevertheless, what is much more important is what the characters are actually saying.

For example in my Modern Family script, in the very first scene, Cam and Mitchell are having a discussion about doing something. Cameron wants to do it and Mitchell is kinda against it, whatever that is.

So there they are, in their familiar bedroom set, and I go straight to the dialogue without giving you any clue what they are doing there. (I think we can assume that it's just them)

I could and should have described what they were doing and yet I didn't. I simply skipped that part and didn't check back again.

I mean, they might just have been standing there (probably). But they might also have been in the bed. Or they might have been eating something. Or they might have been doing yoga or something equally silly.

Or perhaps the whole thing might also have happened completely off-screen. I don't know.

I just didn't pay any attention to what they were doing because in the end it wouldn't really have made much of a difference here. I only paid attention to make sure that what they said actually meant something.

Scripts are based on ideas - and characters saying stuff is what drives those ideas. Dialogue is what gives your story energy, direction and purpose. Scene descriptions on the other hand... well, don't forget them, but sometimes they just aren't that important.

Celebrity Apprentice 2012.

The new season of Celebrity Apprentice is on and after seeing the first two episodes, I'm not exactly sure what to think of this. This might become a pretty good season, like the one with Bret Michaels, or this might become a really bad season, like the one with Joan Rivers.

One of the biggest problems I have with the 2012 edition is that there aren't that many strong female contestants. In fact, the only ones that I knew of before are Lisa Lampanelli from those Comedy Central roasts and Tia Carrere. The rest of the women, unfortunately I just haven't heard about them before. So that's a pretty bad sign.

The good thing about this season is that there are pretty famous guys on men's team. For example, Penn Jillette, George Takei, Clay Aiken, Arsenio Hall and Lou Ferrigno. In fact, I recognize all of them, since the rest are Michael Andretti, Paul Teutul sr, Dee Snider and Adam Carolla.

After two episodes, it's not that hard to guess who might win the competition. I think just about everyone likes Clay Aiken and Penn Jillette. That's because not only are they both very intelligent and creative, they also seem to be exceptionally nice people.

In Aiken's case, how can you not like a guy who has (besides singing) taught for autistic children? It's hard to think of any other profession that would keep you down to earth like helping disabled kids does. Other than that, Aiken of course is gay, and at least in my book that's a plus.

Penn Jillette is the other person that everyone expects to win. Before this season started, I didn't know anything about him as a person. But then I managed to watch his Apprentice promo on youtube. I just couldn't believe how thoughtful he was and how different his approach is compared to an 'average' or to a 'stereotypical' apprentice contestant.

For example, in that clip he says that doesn't understand people who base their lives on 'winning' and that if he has to hurt another person in order to 'win', he's just not going to do it. He just wants to do good things on the show and that should be enough. This all kinda goes against the premise of the show, so Penn Jillette's down to earth approach makes the show almost a bit tough to watch.

But I'm going to keep watching and I'm looking forward to hearing more gems from Jillette, like the one from the first episode. He said that 'real tough guys are the ones that never let you know they're tough'. That's one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard anyone say.

The Big Bang Theory's 100th episode.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 revealed 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.

Lemon feels embarrassed and Raheem.. well, he promises that he'll show everyone (as if as he would become a real terrorist).

Honestly, I don't think the pay-off could have been any better and boy did Lemon feel bad 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.