Why X-Files was that good.

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).

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.

'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.

Third, 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 a Homer too.

You can do it, just be smart about the basics.  Writing scripts isn't rocket science.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.