You should never take story beats for granted.

One of the most important things about writing screenplays is that you need to pay a lot of attention to the structure. Pretty much nothing else is more important than getting the fundamentals in your scripts right.

If you don't manage to make your story beats - your story structure - work, there's basically no chance that your script as a whole is going to work. The end result is going to be a disappointment that won't make sense.

I thought about this especially when I watched the latest episode of The Big Bang Theory, 'The Application Deterioration' (S9e18). I couldn't help but to notice that there were pretty big problems with the episode's main storyline.

This was the episode in which Sheldon, Leonard and Howard decided to file a patent for their 'infinite persistence gyroscope'. Our likable nerds had come up with their innovation, so they felt they needed to do something about it.

Probably the biggest problem I had with the episode's storyline was that it just wasn't properly set up. The writers of the show didn't give us a proper introduction to what the main storyline was supposed to be about.

Instead of developing the story and having 'a debate' section - in this case their excitement about the patent thingy -  the writers skipped that part completely. The episode went right to a scene that should have occurred much later (the patent meeting)

The problem with all this was that once Sheldon, Leonard and Howard got out of that actual meeting - Howard perhaps not being able to be part of the deal - it became pretty obvious that the story would run out way too soon.
   

There was no chance that the writers would come up with decent story beats that would eventually save the episode. They had made a major structural mistake, so they would be in deep trouble with their script later on.
   

Sure enough, instead of us getting an organic and plausible storyline that was about our guys doing and fixing something together, what we got was 10 mins of plausible stuff and after that another 10 mins of material that made very little sense.
   

It just didn't feel plausible that Bernadette would doubt Sheldon's ability to make a deal or that she would doubt his ability to be a solid team player. All that stuff felt remarkably forced and didn't feel organic at all.
   

In my opinion, many of these problems could have been avoided, had the writers simply respected the structure more and had they understood that it's not easy to come up with plausible story beats for your episode.

Instead, the writers should have thought about their storyline a bit more and figured out that the story needed to start earlier than it did. In that case the episode as a whole wouldn't have been as disappointing as it turned out to be.

But that's not what they did and that's why The Big Bang Theory's S9e18, 'The Application Deterioration' was so underwhelming. As unfortunate as it is, the writers really dropped the ball when it came to writing a good, plausible episode.

The nerve-wracking Bernie vs. Hillary primary.

At least for me it hasn't been easy to follow the democratic presidential primaries. As a pretty huge (yuge) supporter of Bernie Sanders, I have been really worried about how well he's doing in the race.

For example, on Tuesday night I tried my best to go to bed early, so that I wouldn't have to worry about the democratic presidential primary in Michigan. I wanted to fall asleep so that I could simply check the results (EST +7) when I'd wake up the next morning.

After all, I knew that if Bernie Sanders would lose to Hillary Clinton in Michigan - he was down by an average of 21% in polls - he almost certainly wouldn't be able to recover from that loss.  He would have to drop out of the race sooner or later.

The biggest reason that I've been so worried is because Hillary isn't a good candidate by almost any definition. Just about the only genuinely progressive thing about her is that she's a proponent for women's reproductive rights - and that's about it.

Pretty much everywhere else she's a right-wing republican that you can't support. That is that she's for endless wars, against universal health-care, pro death penalty,  pro wall-street, pro big pharma and for privatizing social security too.

Bernie on the other hand is simply the better candidate. Among other things, he wants to raise the minimum wage to 15$ per hour, wants medicare for all, is a staunch proponent of free college education - and unlike Clinton, voted against the Iraq war.

He's also for raising taxes for the rich, wants to expand social security, wants to help the environment, is for reinstating Glass-Steagall, wants to overturn 'Citizens United' and wants to get rid of the private prison industrial complex.

So knowing how much was at stake two nights ago, it shouldn't really come as a surprise that it wasn't easy to fall asleep. All these things were running in the back of my mind and I couldn't stop worrying about them.

Unfortunately, even though I did my best, I didn't managed to sleep for more than like two hours before I woke up again.  Even though I went back to bed, I only managed to get two more hours of sleep,  which wasn't enough.

So I decided to stay up and started following the primary results with my smart phone. I felt that Bernie had to have a decent chance, especially because he had done so well during the last two debates on Sunday and Monday.

I felt that there's no way that these primary voters could be so uninformed that they'd vote for Hillary, who's such an obvious wolf in sheep's clothing. It takes a genuinely ignorant person to vote for a compromised candidate like her.

So I started following many pages: from The Young Turks live show to CNN and MSNBC, from Daily Kos to Democratic Underground and Crooks & Liars. I kept refreshing the pages hoping for new information.

Those were very long five hours for me. I got out of bed and went back in. I got hungry and had to eat. My smart-phone ran out of battery and had to be recharged. I visited the bathroom and then got back to check the latest results.

Fortunately, after all that sweating and worrying and after all that anguish,  it turned out that I hadn't given up my precious sleep for nothing. All that pressure and feeling that that my mind was falling apart had been worth it.

That is because against all odds, Sanders had pulled off the biggest upset in the democratic presidential primary history. He had managed to win Michigan by 25 000 votes, something that none of the pollsters were able to predict.

He won, even though very few people in the media and in the press had faith in him. Most people in the newsmedia had written him off and had hoped that this would have been the evening of Hillary's coronation.

But that didn't happen and against the wishes of the establishment, Bernie Sanders is still in the game. There's a pretty decent chance that he can still win the nomination, even though everyone in the media is against him.

It won't be easy though, especially because next Tuesday we are going to have another round of crucial primaries in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina. These are the states where he has to outperform those polls again.

Yet, I can only hope that one way or the other Bernie is going to succeed and win. In that case it would show that you don't need all these super-pacs and billionaire and millionaire donors who would bankroll your campaign.

Instead, this would be a winning campaign that was supported by millions of ordinary working class citizens who had finally had enough. These people with their modest individual donations would be able to best Hillary Clinton's ruthless political machine.

In the end, it would be the greatest political upset in history and one of the greatest underdog stories of all time. A victory that would show that that we can still make a difference in this world and that we as people should never give in.

I've enjoyed watching '11.22.63'.

For me it wasn't the easiest thing to start watching Hulu's new miniseries '11.22.63' about the John F. Kennedy assassination. I didn't think I would be able to watch a show that wouldn't be historically accurate or truthful.

That is because I had read that the book that series was based on didn't get its facts and research right. I knew that the series would make the false claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman and that there was no conspiracy.

Yet, since I had felt bored lately and didn't have anything better to do, I managed to give the show a chance. I thought that the series couldn't be that bad and that there probably had to be at least some redeeming qualities about it.

So after having seen the first three episodes of '11.22.63', I have to say that my initial thoughts were somewhat wrong.  For me it has actually been rather interesting to watch this time-travel series about the Kennedy assassination.

Among other things, the mini-series looks really good and has surprisingly good production values. It's fascinating to be able to go back in time to an era when things were a lot different than they are today.

The show is good at showing how people back then weren't the same as they are today. It's  fascinating, although a bit difficult to watch how women, blacks and other minorities were treated so differently only fifty years ago.

Another good thing about  the series is that it is so well cast. The producers of the show have paid a lot of effort to casting talented, capable actors for the roles, which is something that has to be appreciated.

Even though it's true that Chris Cooper is probably the best actor on the show, James Franco has also been surprisingly believable in his role. There's no sign of 'Seth Rogenism' here, which of course is a great thing.

As a somewhat serious student of the assassination, I have also enjoyed the show for its real-life characters. It has been pretty cool  to watch characters like Jack Ruby, George de Mohrenschildt, General Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald so far.

When it comes to the storylines in '11.22.63', some people have complained that there's too much filler after the first episode. Too much time is wasted on other storylines, like Franco's character meeting the girl of his dreams.

Yet, at least in my case that hasn't been that much of a bad thing. Just about anything that keeps me from paying attention to the factual mistakes (for example, Jack Ruby was not a fan of JFK and that Oswald-Walker confrontation never happened) is a good thing.

In any case, if I had to rate the mini-series based on the first three episodes that have aired,  I would be more than willing to admit that so far '11.22.63' has been surprisingly good, entertaining and informative.

I mean, I do know that the show is probably going to get worse later on, when the facts of the case are going to matter more. The writers are likely going to get in trouble once we get closer to the actual assassination.

At the same time, I'm genuinely hoping that in the end this won't be the case with the mini-series. If only Hulu's '11.22.63' could keep its quality high and could entertain and keep us interested all the way till the end.

'Last Week Tonight' is the best show on tv.

Even though I'm a person who doesn't think that much of the current state of television,  there are still shows that are worthy of your time. There are shows that manage to entertain and make you think at the same time.

At the moment my favorite show on television is probably HBO's 'Last Week Tonight with John Oliver'. This is a weekly 30 minute comedy / news series that tackles current issues, ranging from anything between politics, economy, sports, environment and religion.

There are numerous reasons why me and others like the show so much. Among other things, the show is well written and researched. It has a good sense of what's funny, what's important and what are the things that matter to us.

Yet, in my opinion, the single biggest reason that the series is so good is because it has a wonderful host in John Oliver. He is simply fantastic when it comes to delivering and presenting the show's material. He is who makes the series what it is.

Oliver is so good because he has a great ability to get the audience involved and care about what's going on. He seems very believable and gives you the impression that nothing's more important than what he's saying.

That the series is that good shouldn't really come as a surprise to most of us. After all, before Last Week Tonight, Oliver worked on the super popular The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and covered for him when it was needed.

His guest stint on Comedy Central's show was so impressive, that it soon became pretty obvious that Oliver deserved his own show. At least in my opinion, he was perhaps even better than Stewart was at his very best. 

Now I'm not in any way saying that he's the only thing that matters on 'Last Week Tonight'. Naturally it also takes a talented writing staff to make the show work as well as it does. They'll write the script, do most of the other things too and make things click.

Yet, as we have seen in the case of The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, if you have to settle with a mediocre presenter, you'll get yourself in trouble. Your show won't be as good and as believable as it should or could be.

Fortunately, John Oliver knows what he's doing, which makes 'Last Week Tonight' a genuinely wonderful series. It's funny, informative, entertaining and involving - and at least in my case, leaves me wanting for more.

The problems with detailed outlines in sitcoms.

It was something like two weeks ago when I visited Ken Levine's blog, where he was telling his loyal readers about the importance of detailed outlines. They are the key to being successful and if you don't like them, you shouldn't be a writer.

Here are some of the biggest reasons why I disagree and will argue that these outlines aren't necessarily that beneficial. When it comes to writing and producing network television shows, here's why detailed outlines might cause you problems:

1) It's not easy to make sense out of them.

When you'll read a detailed outline, amazingly enough, you don't get a nice synopsis of what the storylines are going to be about. There's no structural scene by scene description that would give the reader an easy access to know what's going on.

Instead you'll get two things: 1) walls of text that are difficult to read and 2) occasional test dialogue that won't go anywhere. There's absolutely no sense of pacing, rhythm or time whatsoever in these detailed outlines.

In my opinion nothing's more important than getting a solid feel for the script and how it's going to flow. When the outline mostly consists of sentences that have bland descriptions and 'temporary' stuff, how can you know that it's going to work?

2) Nobody wants to read them, including the network executives.

It's true that network executives want to be aware of what's going on with their shows. They want to be able to control their products and give notes so that they can feel more important about themselves and their careers.

At the same time, it's not a secret that they don't like to read these 'detailed' outlines that much. Who can even blame them when they get confused and start asking questions, when it's obvious that the writers aren't leveling with them.

If you want to keep the executives happy, it shouldn't be that difficult to create a proper format that clearly explains a) what the essential things in the script are going to be and b) when and where they are going to happen. 

3) Outlines make you think your story works even if it doesn't.

No matter how bad and weak your storylines are, most outlines will make them look at least semi-plausible. Thanks to the muddled format, it's almost impossible to tell whether the premise of your episode has enough potential or not.

In fact, the story logic problems in your outline might be so big that you could drive a truck through them - and you still wouldn't notice them. There's a really good chance that you didn't pay attention to them and that later you are going to be in trouble.

I mean, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but do the showrunners prefer detailed outlines because these outlines make it look like they have achieved something? Perhaps they like to think that they've worked hard and that their storylines are better than they really are.

4) You'll get the most basic storylines and resolutions.

Creating detailed outlines unfortunately has a lot to do with coming up with stuff that we have already seen a million times before. Too many times you get the most basic problems and then the most basic resolutions to these problems.

The reason this happens so easily is that 'detailed' outlines don't let you think (feel) for yourself enough. The chances are that you'll think too much on a macro-level and won't get any emerging ideas from actually feeling your characters.

For example, on Modern Family they have done like a dozen times 'storylines' that climax when one of the characters accidentally overhears someone else talking. Clearly this is a result of going through the same macro-motions over and over again.

5) You simply can't plan everything.

Finally, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with planning your episodes or in trying to make sure that all the right building blocks are there. It would obviously be stupid and irresponsible not to map ahead and not be prepared.
 
At the same time, in order to be able to come up with the best kind of stuff, you need to have the confidence to go out on a limb too. It's crucial that you have the ability to live in the moment, and that you'll let yourself feel and not just 'think'.

The truth is that if you want to write something that genuinely touches people, you need to be willing to take chances. If you're too willing to outline your scripts to death, the end result is almost certainly going to be that same old, same old stuff.

Why are most stand-up comedians so bad?

It's not exactly a secret that for a very long time I haven't been happy about the state of stand-up comedy. In my opinion most of the stand-up comedians are genuinely bad when it comes to making you laugh or think.

It's not really even that close when it comes to judging the abilities of today's stand-up comics. Unless you're willing to set the bar pretty low, it's rather difficult to think much of these performers and their abilities.

For example, I have never understood what people see in a supposed 'funny man' like Louis C.K. What's so awesome about a guy who's act is mostly based on being a bitter, resentful, fat, divorced middle-aged man?

What's really funny about him more or less hating, not understanding women and not liking being a parent for your children? What's so unique about it, especially when he's supposed to be this some sort of an intellectual?

It's not easy to like a comedian like him, when you consider that he's not very good at setting up his jokes and that his storytelling abilities are weak. He mostly rambles aimlessly and doesn't know how to make good points in his act.

Who can honestly live with the fact that he doesn't have a decent stage presence either? How can anyone be excited about him, when it's obvious that he's not that good at expressing himself, doesn't look good or doesn't have a good enough voice either?

I mean, if you're a stand-up comic, I thought you were supposed to know what makes you good: basic qualities like having a good voice, being able to do physical comedy, ability to make faces, make solid impressions and perhaps even be able to sing.

If you can't do any of those things and don't know how to tell a story and use punchlines well, then what's the point in being a stand-up comedian? You're pretty much humiliating yourself and not setting the bar higher for others.

I mean, maybe it's just me, but if you're not even trying to be as good and as entertaining as Jerry Seinfeld, the late Bill Hicks or the late George Carlin, then perhaps stand-up comedy isn't something that you should be doing.

Is Amy Schumer's 'career' going to be over?

Lately I've been wondering whether I should write about Amy Schumer and how much I dislike her. I haven't wanted to write about her that much, because in that case I'd be obliged to say a lot of very negative things about her.

Nevertheless, it was last week when videos about her 'allegedly' stealing stuff from other comedians went viral. I was pretty surprised, because even though I knew some bad things about her, I didn't know that she was a joke thief too.

I mean, I did know that she used to be an actual thief, who used to shoplift all the time. I knew that her shoplifting habits were so bad and so frequent that she faced serious jail time for her grand larcenies as a young adult.

So knowing that she had a pretty, ahem, shady past, you might be asking, how did she manage to make it big in Hollywood? How is it possible that she became this darling of the mainstream media that she is today?

Could it be that she became famous because she's so talented and because she worked so hard? Did she make it because she finally, after all those years of struggling had her 'lucky break' that she had so earned and so deserved? 

The answer to these questions of course - and not surprisingly - is an obvious no. She didn't make it in the business and she didn't avoid going to prison because she had earned it - but because she had very powerful family connections.

As one might have guessed based on her last name, she is indeed related to the democratic senator from the great state of New York, Chuck Schumer. He is her cousin, which gave her enormous opportunities to beat the system.

It was senator Schumer who reportedly bailed her out and managed to get her charges dropped. It was Chuck who got her out after she had stolen stuff worth almost one hundred thousand dollars and when she could have faced more than ten years in prison.

So knowing this, it shouldn't really come as a surprise that if your uncle can get your felony charges dropped, just about anything is possible. After that it couldn't have been that difficult to get into the show business either.

Let's be clear that she simply doesn't have the talent to succeed in the business on her own. She doesn't look "good enough", she doesn't have an attractive personality, she doesn't have a good delivery and she doesn't know how to write well enough.

Any other normal person who didn't have her connections would probably be in jail at the moment. Absolutely zero per cent of people without her privileged background would be in the business let alone be called 'the queen of comedy' as she is.

In any case, now that she's finally getting some bad publicity, we can only hope that she'll pay for her misdeeds and will be forgotten. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner Amy Schumer's fifteen minutes of fame are going to be over, the better.