Why most sitcom pilots are really that awful.

When it comes to sitcom pilots, it's not exactly a secret that most of the pilots that get produced aren't really any good. In most cases, the producers haven't been able to come up with a pilot that would be good enough and that could entertain us. 

The biggest reason for this lack of quality in pilots has to do with the show's lacking premise. The 'concept' and the 'premise' for the series in most shows is not good enough, which means that the series just doesn't have potential to be any good.

In order to give you an example of a bad pilot, let's look at a recent sitcom called 'Abby's'. This comedy about 'an unlicensed backyard bar' and its characters started running some weeks ago on NBC as a mid-season replacement for the network.

When it comes to Abby's as a series, the premise for the show isn't necessarily that original. The main concept for it was more or less taken from 'Cheers', a popular and critically well received sitcom from the 80s, about a bar owner and its regular customers.

Based on the massive success of 'Cheers' (it went on for eleven whole seasons), it wasn't that surprising that someone tried to 'copy' the show. What could go wrong with imitating a concept that during its run managed to win multiple Emmys?

Unfortunately, when it comes to 'Abby's', the show simply doesn't work at all. Unlike Cheers, a classic quality show that really knew what it was about, pretty much nothing about this new sitcom feels even remotely natural or organic.

For example, when it comes to the basic premise of the show, the setup in 'Abby's' feels painfully illogical. It just doesn't feel believable - storywise at least - that someone would come up with an illegal backyard bar like they did here.

In practice, the problem with not having a solid premise is that if you don't have one that makes sense, it's impossible to care about anything that happens on the show. You can't take the characters seriously, because the whole thing feels just implausible.

In comparison, one of the reasons that 'Cheers' worked is that it took place in a regular bar that had its owner and its regular customers. There wasn't anything in the premise that would make you think that it wasn't plausible and that it couldn't happen in real life.

Furthermore as a whole, 'Cheers' was also genuinely well written. It respected its down to earth characters that you were able to relate to (Ted Danson's & Shelley Long's especially) and the storylines that the writers managed to come up with were creative.

On the other hand, when it comes to 'Abby's' pretty much nothing in it works or is even remotely logical. The premise is just too contrived and the characters (at best cardboard cut outs) and the storylines (non-existent) aren't even remotely well thought out.

In that sense, it's pretty clear that had the producers paid even a little bit more attention to the show's premise, things would have been at least a bit better. In that case there would have been at least a chance that the show would make a tiny bit more sense.

After all, had those behind the show done their work, 'Abby's' wouldn't have been so unfocused and so all over the place. There wouldn't have been so many idiotic things about it (like the bar keeper having hundreds of arbitrary 'rules' for the customers).

In the end, when you put it all together, even though I'm not saying that coming up with good pilots certainly isn't easy, it shouldn't be that hard. It shouldn't be completely impossible to be able to come up with a premise that has at least some potential.

After all, if one has even a tiny bit of talent when it comes to knowing what makes sense and what has potential, coming up with a solid premise should be doable. It should be possible to come up with story & characters that wouldn't be completely awful.

Unfortunately for us, in the case of 'Abby's', the writers simply didn't do their jobs. They did not pay enough attention to making sure that the premise would be even remotely plausible and that it would make at least some sense.

On the contrary, instead of coming up with a solid premise, they came up with an awful one. They came up with a awful one in which the show didn't have enough potential and in which it didn't have any of the elements that made 'Cheers' so good during its run.

You need to be critical of yourself as a writer.

When it comes to being a talented writer, one of the most important aspects of the craft is that you need to be critical of yourself. No matter who you are, you shouldn't think that you're above making mistakes and that you can't screw things up.

After all, the reality is that the more confident you get about your abilities as a writer, the easier it becomes to make mistakes. The more certain you become of your craftiness, the easier it becomes to make mistakes that sometimes cannot even be fixed.

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that lately I've ran into cases where writers simply did not do their jobs. They didn't question whether their ideas were good enough and whether they had the abilities to pull their story off.

For example, a couple of weeks ago I managed to - after spending like a month or so - finish a book that had recently won a prestigious literary award in my country. This book was supposed to be the real deal and a pleasure to read.

However, the problem with this novel (about a kid and a reverend at St. Helena island in the 1600s) was that it just wasn't any good. The book was actually so awful that it was perhaps the worst novel that I have ever read in my life.

In practice, the worst thing about this 500 page monstrosity was that there was no real story in it. Even though the book was billed as 'an adventure', there wasn't really anything in it (it lacked story structure) that would have made you think that way.

In reality, the structure in it was so lacking that it took like 200 pages before anything even happened in it. The first 200 pages mostly consisted of a seven year old kid giving tedious monologues that went on and on (the kid sounded at least 40 years old) and on.

Later on, when there actually happened something, the writer simply kept forgetting what he had written earlier in the book. This lead to him either repeating earlier chapters (again and again) or writing random stuff that was full of plot holes and continuity errors.

So not surprisingly, after I finished the book, I couldn't help but to wonder how there were so many problems in it (story, dialogue, continuity etc.). How was it possible for an acclaimed author to screw things up so badly like he did (he wrote it for 30 years)?

After all, had he or the publisher paid even a tiny amount of attention to its problems and had they taken a critical look at it, this disaster could have been avoided. Had they done their jobs, this embarrassment wouldn't perhaps have happened.

In that sense, when I think about this particular case and writing in general, it's clear that (I would say most) writers don't pay enough attention to what they're doing. They don't focus on the basics and the fundamentals of the craft as much as they should.

After all, even though they and the critics - who many times are sycophants - might think otherwise, there are so many problems with how most of these authors write. They just don't understand that not everything that they write makes sense or works.

In that sense, if you want to be a solid writer that writes good stuff, you absolutely do need to be aware of things like the story structure. You need to know the fundamentals so that you could have a solid idea of how stories are supposed to be written.

After all, if you know the basics well enough, then you can start focusing on writing your story. That is when you get to come up with the premise, the characters and the storylines that might interest you and that might fascinate your readers too.

In the end, if you'll work hard enough and keep your mind focused on the task, there's a pretty good chance that good things might happen to you. As long as you're willing to keep pushing and won't give up easily, things might turn out good for you.

On the other hand, if you're not willing to pay attention and be critical of yourself, things won't work. In these cases, you won't be able to come up with good stuff, no matter how much critics might think otherwise and no matter how much they might praise your work.

Thoughts on 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse'.

When it comes to 'super hero' movies and the 'super hero' genre in general, I'm not necessarily that big of a fan. Even though I try to check the latest films in the genre at some point, I don't usually get too excited about most of these movies that get released.

The only real exception to this rule has been Marvel's 'Spider-Man' movies. Especially when it comes to the first Sam Raimi films, I ended up liking them quite a bit (the first two movies, not the third one or the abysmal reboots).

So when I noticed that there was a new Spider-Man film ('Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse') out there, there was a kind of a reason for me to be excited. I had liked the character before and the critics had given the film solid reviews too.

Yet, the biggest reason that I was sceptical about the movie was because lately the franchise had gone completely south. The rebooted films with Andrew Garfield had been atrocious and were nothing more than cynical cash grabs.

Furthermore, it didn't help that the trailer for the film didn't seem to be that good. The animation style for 'Into the Spider-Verse' looked rather weird and I didn't get why there where so many different 'Spider-Man' protagonists in the film either.

Nevertheless, having now seen the film with my friend last week, it has to be said that I'm glad that we gave it a chance. 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse' turned out to be much better than what I had thought based on its rather messy and unfocused trailer.

One of the reasons that the movie works so well (unlike the reboots and like the first ones) is that it has a likable and a down to earth approach. The characters in it are relatable and you can't help but to feel at ease while watching them.

The good thing about the movie is that right from the get go it makes you care about the protagonist(s). The African-American student kid who becomes our main hero (gets bitten by a robotic spider) is shown in situations that will you make you care (struggles and all).

When it comes to the film's story and its multiple protagonists, the appearance of so many Spider-Man protagonists didn't seem plausible at first. Based on the film's confusing trailer, I just didn't understand what the point really was there.

Thankfully, this character/story vehicle is actually explained rather well in the movie and makes sense within the film's universe. They're in the same world, because the villain of the movie (Kingpin) has brought them together with his parallel universe machine.

So not surprisingly, over the course of the film, the main objective of the characters (that even includes a pig called Spider-Ham) is to get things back to normal. They do their best so that the world wouldn't end and that they would get back to their normal worlds.

This, of course, is easier said than done and requires the characters to work together. They have to give their best so that they could beat the bad guys in the film, which eventually leads to them learning more about themselves and their responsibilities as heroes.

So in hindsight, when I think of the movie as a whole, I have to say that the film was a positive surprise for me. I didn't really expect that there would be as many positive aspects to it and that it would put me on a good mood (with some minor exceptions).

After all, among other things, 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse' has a solid story and is also surprisingly funny. It has tons of jokes and background stuff (like the Seth Rogen 'Hold Your Horses') that you can pick up later if you give the film a second viewing.

The only real problem with film was that it was a bit too long and that it didn't always manage keep my attention. There were so many quick cuts and flashy action scenes in it that - at least in my case - it was a bit too exhausting to watch the movie.

Still, even though there were some minor problems with 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse', these minor flaws didn't matter that much in the end. It's clear that the positive aspects of in the story outweighed some of the minor negative aspects in it.

In that sense, if you're one of those that liked the first two Sam Raimi 'Spider-Man' films, it's likely that 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse' might be for you. It's more than likely that you'll end up enjoying it quite a bit like I did.

After all, even though the trailer for the film wasn't that good, the movie actually is. The movie is solid and shows that just because the franchise hasn't been doing well lately, all is not lost and that there's still hope for our beloved Spidey in today's cynical world.

'Leaving Neverland' documentary is a hoax.

So when it comes to those 'child sex abuse' and 'pedophilia' charges against the late Michael Jackson, I thought that we were more or less done with them. I thought that the matter had been settled and that we wouldn't have to hear from these cases anymore.

Unfortunately, even though Jackson was found not guilty against these charges in the 2005 'Arvizo' trial, that hasn't stopped the media from going after him. They still think that he was a terrible person and that his reputation needs to be buried at any cost.

Not surprisingly, when it comes to this latest hit piece, in 'Leaving Neverland', the filmmakers aren't even pretending to be fair anymore. They don't care whether the accusations (by Wade Robson & James Safechuck) are even remotely true or have merit.

So below I managed to compile the biggest lies, omissions and contradictions that have to do with 'Leaving Neverland'. I picked them up from the 4 hour documentary, the 1 hour Oprah interview and other interviews with the 'cast' and the director.

Claims vs. Reality (The Director)

*In an interview promoting the documentary, the director of the film (Dan Reed) claims the neither Wade Robson or James Safechuck have anything to gain from this documentary. Since neither got paid from starring in the film, they have no reason to lie.

In reality though, the duo Robson & Safechuck has a 1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson's estate. They have tried unsuccessfully to sue the estate since 2013 (two cases have been thrown out, third one is on appeal currently). 

*The director also claims that Robson and Safechuck didn't talk with each other before or during the making of the film (so that they could coordinate their stories). The first time they met was during the film's premiere at Sundance festival.

In reality though, even Wade Robson admits that he spent time with Safechuck (an undisclosed amount of time) between 2013-2014. Both of them are represented by the same law firm, which makes it obvious that they're working as a team.

Claims vs. Reality (Wade Robson)

*In the film Robson claims that he was raped by Jackson hundreds of times over the course of several years (circa 1989 to 1995). The sexual assaults allegedly started the very first day that he to managed get in touch with him.

In reality though, Wade Robson's mother says they met Jackson at Neverland ranch only 4 times over the years. Robson also has no recollection of these early meetings with Jackson (revealed in the court ordered emails that he sent to his mother).

*Robson, (like Safechuck) claims that when they hit their puberty as kids, they both were replaced by Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes as sex slaves. Jackson simply dumped them (R & S) and found new victims that he would start abusing.

In reality though, both Culkin and Barnes are adamant that nothing improper ever happened to them. Even though they both slept in the same bed with Jackson dozens of times, Jackson never abused them (Culkin's 2005 trial testimony, Barnes' twitter feed 2019).

In the Oprah interview, Robson has two obvious 'tells' when it comes to his body language. The moment he says he's telling the truth, he covers his mouth (a sign of lying) and when asked whether it's all about money, he touches his nose (another sign of lying).

Let's not forget that Robson publicly denied these allegations at least a half a of dozen times since 1993 (including the Jimmy Kimmel interview). He testified in the 2005 trial on behalf of Jackson, which included a cross-examination by the prosecution.

Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned that Robson filed a lawsuit in 2012 almost right away after he ran into financial troubles and had a mental breakdown. (in his court ordered diary he writes that 'he's a master of deception')

Claims vs. Reality (James Safechuck & family)

*In the film, James Safechuck claims that from late 1988 to early 1992, Jackson raped him dozens of times, starting during the Bad tour in France. He includes a specific claim about being raped after the 1989 Grammy awards where Jackson performed.

However, 1) during the Chandler investigation in 1993 James Safechuck (at age 15) gave a declaration under oath that he had never been sexually abused by Jackson. 2) Contrary to what Safechuck claims, Jackson didn't even go to the Grammy's in 1989.

*In the documentary film, Safechuck's mother tells how she celebrated Jackson's death in  2009. When she saw the news after waking up, she jumped in joy and danced knowing that Jackson wouldn't be able to sexually abuse her son anymore.

However, in the same documentary James Safechuck tells that he didn't tell anyone that he was sexually abused until 2013. Unless Safechuck's mother used a time machine, she's clearly lying and is part of a conspiracy).

*In the documentary, James Safechuck makes the claim that during the late stages of the 'Arvizo' trial (in 2005), Jackson called him and demanded him to testify in the trial. Safechuck would have to testify or else he would be in trouble and go to jail.

In reality though, the reason that this claim is impossible because the judge in the trial had already decided that Safechuck would not testify. He was declared 'a non entity', so Jackson had no reason to call him since it would have made no difference.

*It also needs to be said that like in the case with Robson, the accusations started immediately after the Safechuck family ran into financial troubles in 2013. (They were sued for conspiracy, which led to them losing their business in 2016).

Conclusions about the case

In the end, when it all is said and done, if you're one those who watched 'Leaving Neverland' and thought that the documentary was compelling, I can't really blame you. If you didn't know about the case before, you're almost bound to think that it's based on facts.

After all, especially when it comes to the film's gruelingly long length (4 hours or so), the graphic descriptions of these alleged acts and the fact that the accusers' wives make Robson & Safechuck seem relatable and believable, you might get fooled.

At the same time, when it comes to the actual truth in the case, for someone who has researched these allegations over the years, it's clear that the film is not truthful. It's clear that those involved with the documentary are lying and trying to pull off a hoax here.

In that sense, we can only hope that in the near future the surviving Jackson family members will come up with their own documentary. We can only hope that they have the energy, the will power and the means to challenge this film.

After all, even though Michael Jackson wasn't a perfect person, he clearly deserves better than this. He deserves better than a film that doesn't care about the truth and that lets every lie, omission and contradiction go completely unchecked and unchallenged in it.

Review: 'Red Dead Redemption 2' (PS4).

Yesterday, I finally managed to finish Rockstar Games' highly anticipated game 'Red Dead Redemption 2' on my PlayStation 4.  I managed to finish the game after spending almost two months playing it (60 gaming hours or so in total) on my console.  

So below are some thoughts about the game that received universal praise from the critics. Even though I'm not saying that 'Red Dead Redemption 2' was bad, it's pretty obvious that it could have been a better game than it turned out to be. 

The Good:

🔼 Might be the best looking game ever.

Probably the best thing about 'Red Dead Redemption 2' is that it might be the best looking game that I've played (massive open world map). It manages to be even better than 'Uncharted 4', a game that took interactive graphics (terrain, objects etc.) to a whole new level.

In practice, during the gameplay, it was simply a joy to look at the environment and the attention to detail. Especially when it came to the 'Caribbean island map', I absolutely loved how warm and vibrant everything in the game looked. 

🔼 Tons of things to discover in the game.

There are a lot of things to do in 'Red Dead Redemption 2' besides the story-mode. Things like side quests and activities (hunting, fishing, bounties, crafting, gathering, gambling etc.) increase the replay value rather substantially.

In my case, now that I've finished the story-mode I'm going to try some of those activities that I didn't try the first time around. Among other things,  I'm going to hunt down the big bear, catch some of those 'wanted' guys and help the photographer guy in the forest too. 

🔼 Excellent voice acting, sound effects & music.

When it comes to the voice acting in the game, I genuinely enjoyed pretty much every moment that included the characters talking. The characters felt real and it was obvious that those behind the voices really gave their best to make everything sound authentic.

This attention to detail was also apparent when it came to music and sound effects. The soundtrack in the game is wonderful and the sound effects (guns, horses, trains, animals, environment, rain, wind etc.) are also first rate. 

The Bad:

🔽 The game is simply too slow.

Someone estimated that of the 60 hours that it takes to finish the story mode, at least 25+ hours of the gameplay consists of riding your horse from place A to B. This is just too much and makes playing the game seem too much like work.

In retrospect, had the game provided things like a good 'fast travel' option, the flow would have been at least a little bit better. In that case playing the story would have been a more entertaining and a more enjoyable experience.   

🔽Shooting & moving mechanics leave a lot to be desired.

Controlling your character - as unfortunate as it is - turned out to be pretty difficult. The way your character moves, runs or jumps at least in my opinion isn't very intuitive and doesn't feel particularly natural for some reason.

What's worse, targeting and shooting tends to be even more difficult (in many cases bugged). Especially when you get to the final phase in the story, there are enemy mobs that you won't be able to hit no matter how accurately you target them.

The Ugly:

🔽 A passive main character hurts the story.

One of the weakest aspects of the story is that your main character Arthur Morgan is incredibly passive from start to finish. He doesn't know what he wants and more or less always does what the other 'villain' characters tell him to do.

As a result, the only thing that supposedly pushes the story forward is the quest to get more money for the gang (so that they could supposedly escape). This doesn't really work that well and gets old pretty fast as the quests keep repeating themselves.

🔽 Story structure in the game is pretty bad.

Finally, even though the main story wasn't completely bad, it's pretty unfortunate how the story was structured. It made no sense that you had to switch from one protagonist to another during the game's story-mode (your protagonist dies at 70%).

In the end, all this cheap shot (every person I know hated it) did was that it turned off players from liking the game. It made you think that the writers didn't know what they were doing and that they just took the easiest way out to 'wrap' the story.

I've enjoyed watching season 2 of 'The Orville'.

When it comes to my television viewing habits, currently I don't watch almost any of the scripted shows that are out there. I just don't think that almost any of these shows are really worth my time or worth my attention.

After all, since most of the shows are badly written and simply awful, there's no reason to watch them. I don't want to watch depressing stuff that doesn't have anything real to say about anything and that doesn't make me feel better about life. 

Still, just because most of the stuff on tv is horrible, thankfully there is at least one exception. Seth McFarlane's sci-fi series 'The Orville' has been the kind of show that has made me feel better about life and has lifted my spirits.

So when it comes to the show, the biggest reason that 'The Orville' has been such a pleasant surprise is that it has given the audience what it wants. Unlike just about every other show, this series is uplifting and doesn't take its audience for granted.

This uplifting aspect of 'The Orville' has been especially true with its second season. Even though the first season wasn't bad by all means, the show has matured during its second season and has delivered episodes that have felt more believable and authentic.

For example, as a fan of 'socially conscious' episodes, from this season I especially liked episode 2x06 (a happy refrain). In this episode, in which the ship's doctor falls in a low with Isaac the robot, the show handled the storylines with integrity and compassion.

Another really solid episode was the one that aired a couple of weeks ago. The episode that handled sexual discrimination (Bortus' storyline) was creative in a serious way (on planet Moclan you're not allowed to be a heterosexual) and was well made.

In comparison, during its first season, the show was trying too hard to cram in jokes and crude humour instead of being real. The writers tried to use too many jokes, even thought they didn't fit in with the scenes and the show's universe.

Fortunately, this season those forced jokes are gone and haven't been a problem anymore. 'The Orville' has managed to pay a lot more attention to making sure that the storylines in the episodes are solid and that the characters are relatable.

In that sense, when you think about the series as a whole, even though 'The Orville' could still get better, I'm still glad that the show exists. It's obvious that Seth MacFarlane has managed to create a series that respects the legacy of the original Star Trek series.

After all, unlike the official 'Star Trek - Discovery', a pretty horrible show (liked by the critics), 'The Orville' actually works. MacFarlane's uplifting series genuinely understands how to create a show that has actual merit.

In the end, even though critics might say otherwise, creating good sci-fi is not about being nihilistic and having a premise that is completely hopeless. It's not about spending millions per episode on special effects and thinking that money is all that it takes.

After all, even though critics seem to think that a 'Star Trek' series needs to be as 'edgy' and as 'dark' as possible, that's not how it goes. We shouldn't be thinking that being extra depressing or nihilistic is the way to produce these shows.

On the contrary, creating good shows will always be about coming up with stuff that makes sense. It will always be about creating stuff that is genuinely relatable and making sure that your show respects your audience without ever taking them for granted. 

Side projects: writing for a competition.

Over the last three weeks or so, I've spent a lot of time writing stuff for a writing competition. I've tried my best to come up with a short story so that I could take part in a writing competition set up by our local literary society.

The reason that I decided to take part in the competition is not because I was super excited about it. Especially considering that I was still kinda 'busy' trying to get my first book finished, I felt pretty hesitant about taking part in the competition. 

Yet, once my manager told me that I could write the short story as a side project, I thought that perhaps it could be done. Perhaps I could write something fairly quickly and not worry about the quality of the story too much. 

So, having now more or less finished the short story for the competition, I have to say that writing the story wasn't necessarily that easy. It turned out to be more time consuming and more stressing than what I had thought at first.

For example, when it comes to getting started with the project, I didn't actually start before like two or three days before my first 'deadline' was up. I just couldn't find enough energy to write and I felt pretty tired anyway. 

The only reason that I eventually started is because I started to feel pretty guilty about the whole thing. I didn't want to disappoint my manager and I also thought that not trying would just make me a terrible person. 

Nevertheless, once I started writing, I already had a good idea what the story would be about. I would write a short story about our summer island and the guests that we had there over the years (the rules said the title had to be 'let's pay a visit!'). 

When it comes to writing the story (four stories total), I tried not write too much during any single day. I tried to make sure that I wouldn't run out of things to write, which meant that I could write like 30 mins to 1 hour per day max. 

So in practice, every time that I was about to be done with one part of the story (story of a real person), I stopped writing that day. I stopped writing, even though I could have gone much longer and even though I knew what to write next.  

The good thing about this routine was that this way I would keep writing every day. I knew that having a steady writing routine would eventually lead to finishing the story and that I wouldn't have to worry too much not getting the script done.

In hindsight, the hardest part of the task had to do with wrapping up the story and writing the final paragraphs. I really struggled when it came to making sure that the last paragraphs had a solid flow that wrapped up the story as a whole.

After all, in order to get the story done, I spent several evenings writing until like 4 a.m. before I felt that the flow was good enough. The last 10% took almost as much effort as getting the first 90% done  - at least when we're talking about emotional stress.

Still, now that I've successfully managed to finish the first draft, I can only sigh in relief that I completed the task. I managed to give it a go despite not feeling good about it and even though things didn't look that good in the beginning.  

After all, there were certainly pretty solid reasons to slack and not to take part in the competition. I felt pretty exhausted and was still busy trying to make sure that my first book project would get the attention that it deserves.

In that sense, based on my manager's feedback, I'm really glad that I did pretty well with the task. She (like me) liked it apparently more than enough and thinks that it's more or less ready to be sent to the competition.

After all, not only are the characters in the story interesting and memorable, but the story itself is really well written. The characters keep you entertained and the story has a surprisingly good pacing from start to finish.

In the end, even though I don't necessarily expect to win the competition, that's not the only thing that counts. I shouldn't be thinking that if I don't win the main prize money (5000€) or place in the top three, I failed with the task.

On the contrary, especially considering the circumstances, I did well here. I did well and showed that as long as you take your project seriously, it doesn't always matter how excited you are or how motivated you are to start writing in the first place.