From Keith:
Now that you're doing your plays do you try to write to deadline, or is it more of a "whenever it's done, it's done" kind of thing? Would you encourage young writers to set self-imposed deadlines?
After writing on deadlines for several centuries, it’s a great luxury to finish at my leisure. Still, I tend to move at a pretty good clip, and I like to keep some momentum going so I generally finish in a timely manner.
And of course, if I have a play in rehearsal, then I’m re-writing every night and it’s just like being on staff of a TV show again (except there’s no staff – there’s just me).
For young writers however, I would encourage a self-imposed deadline, as long as it’s reasonable. Don’t create added pressure on yourself, but figure how long you think it will take to finish a certain project, allow yourself some added breathing room then set a deadline.
Remember, should you sell a movie or TV pilot and get into the business, deadlines are SOP. Might as well get used to them.
Unknown asks:
Why do the networks hate me? Anything I like gets canceled, and most don't make sense.
It’s because you don’t list a name and just go by “Unknown.” Networks hate that.
(Sorry. Just couldn’t resist.)
Jonny M. wonders:
Have you ever been on a show and just hated the direction the show runner was taking it? How do you deal with that?
I’ve been very lucky that I’ve never been in that exact situation. But I have consulted on shows like that and I have directed on shows like that.
And my philosophy is to just go with it. Tell me what you want, what joke, etc. and I’ll do my best to provide it. It’s not my ass when the show tanks.
And fighting with the showrunner does you no good. You’re not going to change his mind; you’re only going to make an enemy. And getting an ulcer over writing for 2 BROKE GIRLS is hardly worth it.
If the show is too intolerable then quit. Otherwise, just do the best you can and try not to work yourself into a daily lather. They’re paying you. You’re working on a TV show and not cleaning the grease traps at McDonalds. There are worse ways of making a living.
But keep your eyes open at all times for better opportunities.
And finally, from Toledo (a person, not the city):
What is your opinion of the trend of TV baseball announcers that spend an inordinate amount of time talking about subjects that have nothing to do with the game they are purporting broadcasting? I'm not talking about Vin Scully's interesting tidbits of information that he used to fill in between pitches, or Harry Carey's sometimes humorous tangential expositions about restaurants in a visiting city.
I'm thinking about whole innings that seem to be devoted to a detailed presentation on some baseball subject, such as the future of some pitcher who is not starting this game or some long term trade strategy. The entire discussion seems to be pre-planned since it is often supplemented with numerous prepared graphics and backup research.
Meanwhile, the action on the field is generally ignored by the announcers, no matter how interesting it may be.
The worst situations occur when there is a guest in the booth, or when one of the players or the manager is being interviewed remotely from the dugout. Obviously, I am not a fan of this as I want to focus on the game I am tuned in to watch.
Well, obviously it depends on exactly what topic they’re discussing, how relevant it is, how topical it is, and what the game situation is. If it’s a 9-0 blowout the announcers have to talk about something.
But my problem is very few of the current crop of announcers have any flair, any showmanship, anything personal to offer. They’re bland, interchangeable, terrified that someone is going to rip them on Twitter, and so their commentary is reduced to what I like to call “baseball for scouts.”
I’d say they should find ways to entertain the audience, but so few of these guys even have that ability. They need to be storytellers with a sense of the dramatic and the majority of these deep-voiced young robots have no talent for that whatsoever. So what you get are long discussions on pitcher-hitter match ups. Zzzzzzz.
That’s why someone like Jason Benetti of the White Sox stands out. To me he’s the next Vin Scully. Calls a great game, understands analytics, has perspective, works great with his partner Steve Stone, and has a sense of humor. It is such a pleasure to listen to Jason call a game. He restores my faith that TV baseball announcers CAN be fun and interesting.
34 comments :
With respect to sideline announcers, Kevin Burkhardt did an absolutely fabulous job when he was with the Mets. He would do his in-inning interviews, but break to call the action on the field and then resume the interviews seamlessly. He never lost sight of the fact that the game was the viewers' greatest priority. I've never seen anyone else transition as smoothly as he can.
Thanks for the info! I listen to day games at work on the computer via MLB Audio, and when my preferred team(s) aren't playing I listen to miscellaneous games just for the fun of it. I'll now make it a point to choose the White Sox when they're on!
How about a Friday question about Friday Questions? Have you ever considered recording Friday Questions as a weekly “bonus mini episode” for your wildly entertaining podcast “Hollywood and Levine”? I think for some questions hearing the answer from you directly could provide additional insight. Plus, a weekly episode with a shorter run time could be a good sampler for people to try out your podcast without committing to an hour or so for a regular episode.
This may sound harsh, but it's necessary for every hopeful to understand. When working with beginning writers, an inability to meet even the simplest deadline is a clear sign that they have no idea what they're doing. Sometimes the beginner can learn to cover the distance, but whatever sympathy I can muster dissolves entirely if they decide to go a step further and make the writing process an epic drama that's supposed to involve me more than the project to be written.
I remember one marathon where the client kept compulsively reworking the first ten pages of her script. I was supposed to be impressed by her perfectionism, but guess what? No matter how excruciating the process was, the dialogue wasn't getting any better. Later on I found myself having to suggest fifty different versions of a two-line toast while she dithered about how it still wasn't exactly what she wanted. After all that, I wasn't surprised when she finally lost interest and slapped a draft together practically overnight. The feedback I got described the writing as "a pudding." Nowadays I would have gotten out of the mess long before that point.
If you want to be a professional writer, think of it as a JOB, and imagine how you'd look if you tried such nonsense in any other position. What employer would put up with an office worker who got codependent and came into their office time after time saying "Gee boss, I simply can't file these invoices today because the Muse isn't with me"? There will always be times when the writing is more difficult to do than others, but the only concern a client has is that the pages arrive on time. Otherwise everyone else's job is bottlenecked while you try to work out the text and the company quietly begins calling replacements who can meet the schedule. There is no room to indulge any weak link in a studio production, be it a writer who can't write or a crew member who doesn't know how to screw in a light bulb. Knowing this shouldn't terrify you if you've learned how to do your part within the team.
I'm also afraid that writing something you hate can also be part of the job. Clients have generally looked at my own stories as writing samples alone, placing me on properties they already own. The up side is that you don't have to sell them on the idea. The down side is that the idea is quite often abysmal. I've polished some garbage very effectively in my time, but make sure you get an advance on the work or you may be left holding the bag when potential buyers figure out that the core of the project is rancid. People who haven't had to slog through such thankless work will get philosophical on me and say at least I'm honing my craft, but you're not really finding your optimum capacity getting dragged down in the undertow of someone's bad taste and just trying to pull away with a smidge of integrity through something that never had a chance of being sold. This is how the business can go.
Pirate's color man Bob Walk is a treat. Low-key, very dry sense of humor, knows a lot about the game but sees his role as to educate about what's happening on the field and why (why it's rare to draw in the infield with a man on third and no one out, for example) and entertaining. I watch a lot of Pirates games on mlb.tv and chance the audio feed depending on whether he's doing TV or radio that day.
I don't have a problem with announcers veering off-topic. Hey, if you follow a team every day, that's about 500 hours of tv - are you really insisting they spend every moment discussing possible matchups for the 6th inning? Some of my favorite moments of "Mike and the Mad dog" were when they started talking about movies/tv etc. Meanwhile, I'm watching the game, I understand the game, I don't need it spelled out in front of me at all times. But years ago on my blog I griped about the noise at games:
"What the fuck is up with the between-innings ROARING sound system - I wanna kick back, relax, talk to my buddy while the teams switch on the field and I'm barraged with this sound system that is apparently powered by jet engines. Are they scared that if there's not constant action on the field, I'll leave? IT'S BASEBALL - nothing EVER happens on the field!!!!! And then during big moments I've got the scoreboard screaming at me to get up and MAKE SOME NOISE!! GET EXCITED!!!!!! Jesus. Dude, I'm fucking excited already; Im at the damn game! I know the bases are loaded and Jeter's up, I'm not reading "The Bridges of Madison County" in the goddam stands. I know you're trying to distract me from the fact that I just paid $9 for a fucking hot dog, but enough." ;)
Agree entirely Ken about Jason Benetti. Check out his recent appearance of the Red Sox radio broadcast doing his Sean McDonough impression:
https://twitter.com/SoxBooth/status/1143974622918053889
Speaking of which -- why doesn't Jon Miller have a national platform?
Since you've been writing about Steve Gordon lately, did you see that his series The Practice is coming to DVD on July 17? I have no idea how or why this came to be, but I am excited to see a new show (to me) starring Danny Thomas. I will pretend that it's the best new series of 2019, if it is indeed any good.
The other day I was recovering from an illness and only had the energy to watch TV. When I turned it on, what appeared on my screen was a "Timeless Dodgers" game from 2000, at Wrigley Field and of course announced by Vin Scully. It's only been 2 1/2 years since his retirement, but even in that short time, my appreciation for him had begun to fade a bit. But listening to him call the top of the 10th inning of a meaningless game between a terrible Cubs team and a Fox-era mediocre Dodger team brought it all back. Among the things I heard in that 20 minutes was a recollection of the Bobby Thompson home run and a narration of what was surely going on in the head of the hapless Cubs reliever as he let the game slip away. My teenage boys joined me at some point and the three of us sat in grateful silence while Vin spoke. No one can approach his voice, his memory and experience, his love for language and story-telling, and his human decency. I feel so lucky to have grown up with him, and that my boys were able to as well. We had one rule that was enforced in our house: when Vin is talking, no one else is allowed to speak!
We wish we got the Dodgers telecasts. I think they did very well for themselves with The Vin's successor, who even has said he weaves in more storytelling because that's what Dodger fans expect. The same attitude does not seem to have permeated radio.
We do get the Giants telecasts, and they are terrific. Yes, I could do without the sideline reporter taking up a lot of time, but at least she does some interesting things, and Kruk and Kuip are funny and have fun; when somebody has the night off and Jon Miller or Dave Flemming comes over to do part of the game, they, too, are in the right spirit.
As for the rest, I'm reminded of Al Michaels, who once loved baseball, saying he would watch games and the entire discussion seemed to be whether to hit-and-run or bunt, and it was annoying him. Well, sometimes, he annoys me.
"Why do the networks hate me? Anything I like gets canceled, and most don't make sense." ~ Unknown
"It’s because you don’t list a name and just go by “Unknown.” Networks hate that." ~ Ken Levine
There's my biggest laugh for the day.
I will say that one day all of us who don't watch the Brewers will have massive regrets for not listening to Bob Uecker every day. A real American treasure.
Friday Question:
I was thinking about Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt appearing on friends and wondered what that process was like. It seems like those actors are scheduled years in advance, so how many months ahead are they put on the shooting schedule for the tv appearance? Does the tv show then call Ken Levine and say, "Brad Pitt, Friends, two parter, shooting in three months" and then hang up? (I have learned from you about writer's rooms, so I suppose that part wouldn't apply.)
Another question is: can a writer ask for a stunt, or stunt casting (if that's what it's called) if you have a really good idea. What is that process like? Like wanting Larry Bird on Cheers, I'd like to burn down the bar in Cheers, or I want Gorbechev to come by the bar, etc.
Thanks, Ken!
Ken, I thought this piece from the Guardian would interest you. The writer, Stuart Heritage, predicts something I've also been thinking for a long time: streaming is about to get way more expensive because everything you want to see is on a different service. Disney, NBC, CBS, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Apple...all doing TV, all competing on their content libraries and all wanting their stuff to be exclusive. No one can afford to subscribe to all those services. He closes by predicting that the result for TV will to make it more elitist (to appeal to the people who can afford it) and fragmented.
It's here: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jun/27/streaming-tv-is-about-to-get-very-expensive-heres-why
Personally, I think that phase won't last long for the reasons he says. So we'll see alliances and bundles, and cross-licensing, and other attempts to make the Internet's business model resemble traditional TV.
wg
E. Yarber: Cue, as so often, William Goldman: "The work may stink, but it arrives." He never missed deadlines, even the one time he begged for and got an extension.
Also cue Agatha Christie, who said despite having written many books she never felt like a professional until she did THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN. She was going through a divorce, she was miserable, she hated what she was writing...but she had a contract, and so she plowed on.
wg
Thank you for that DVD information. I too will be looking forward to the release of The Practice.
Oh, I plow. Anyone who hires me gets the same level of effort I gave when I was working for the studios. Unfortunately, these days I seem to get credit for moral victory against overwhelming odds rather than commercial success. Thanks for the inspirational quotes, though.
I also read the Guardian article. Wish I could be more optimistic, but the push for years now has been to turn the internet into an endless ATM for conglomerates, and I don't know how much the individual consumer can do to stop it aside from refusing to pay.
As I've said before, Netflix became huge by being the first in the pool, but they're much more vulnerable than their fan base seems to think. Consider this. If one of the broadcast networks managed to develop a major hit along the lines of CHEERS or SEINFELD, they could rake in billions of dollars in advertising as well as use such shows as anchors for entire blocks of programming. Netflix cannot take advantage of blocks of programming, and is actually structured to CANCEL shows early even if they garner devoted audiences. Because the platform's income stems from a flat fee, successful series only mean higher costs for more episodes without any chance in increased revenue from them. The recent kerfuffle over ONE DAY AT A TIME made this clear, and the show has now migrated to a different setup with the promise of a broadcast release second run.
The networks hate me, and it turns out, you do too!! That's why I have to stay unknown, everyone hate'n on me! I'm not a robot
Love your blog. Keep it up!
I don't know if this is a Friday Question or not, exactly …
Lately, I'm hearing this old phrase more and more - and never correctly:
"If you think that things are as bad as they can get - then you've got another THINK coming!"
NOT "another thing coming".
"Another think coming."
Think first as a verb, then as a noun.
Because that's the only way it makes sense.
It's been driving me nuts for years.
Just had to say so.
The great Tigers announcer Ernie Harwell was also a prolific song writer. When asked about his song writing career he loved to say "Yes, I've had more no-hitters than Nolan Ryan."
Ken, you've probably read this already, but if not, screenwriter Ed Solomon recently encountered a scammer on Facebook who had hacked his friend's account. Ed quickly realized his friend had been hacked, but he played along to see what would happen. The New Yorker published his transcript of the conversation and it's hilarious.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/this-really-happened-dept-scamming-the-scammer
Ken, You've sure had a varied career. Disc Jockey, Baseball Announcer, TV writer/director, and now Playwright. That being said, whose career of the following four people would you have picked to have had as your own? Howard Stern, Vin Scully, James L. Brooks, or Neil Simon.
Ken, a Friday Question for you...
I recently read Glen David Gold's memoir I WILL BE COMPLETE. In the book, he writes about a romantic rival of his -- the pseudonymous "Jeremy" -- who arrives in Los Angeles from Arizona to work on AFTERMASH! This part of the story begins on page 244 of the hardcover edition. Have you read it? If so, I'm curious to know if you recognize "Jeremy" based on what Gold writes about him and, if so, how your memories of the guy compare to Gold's description. (Of course, I don't expect you to name the guy...)
Amos,
You would have to provide me with the section of the book. I don't have time, I'm afraid, to hunt it down. Thanks.
The WGA-ATA tussle took a new turn today when veteran scribe John August (also a WGAw board member) put his money where his mouth is and jumped to Verve -- the one agency that signed the WGA Code of Conduct (unlike UTA and other "major" agencies).
It was reported both in Variety, https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/john-august-signs-verve-wga-west-1203256341/ and the more agent-friendly Deadline Hollywood, https://deadline.com/2019/06/john-august-verve-ageney-wga-code-of-conduct-1202639850/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=exacttarget&utm_campaign=Deadline_BreakingNews&utm_content=157760_06-28-2019_headline&utm_term=2177624. The comments in response to the latter piece make for interesting reading.
Re Chris,
So Ken's podcasts last an hour?
I must get a new internet connection -
whenever I listen they always seem to cut off after about half an hour.
This Friday Question is inspired by my recent YouTube viewing of successful and failed auditions for roles in The Office (US). I was amazed to see how, right from the audition, right from word one, Rainn Wilson had the whole character of Dwight Schrute down. Meanwhile, I've seen audition tapes of other actors who ultimately got the role and they didn't even seem like necessarily great actors in the audition, though they ultimately won the role and went on to be great in it. How do you know when an auditioning actor is right for the role? Is it all gut feeling, or are there boxes you check? How do you account for the fact that auditions are awkward and stressful and even someone right for the role may not be at their best, or don't you?
@Mike Doran -
It's not exactly a recent song, but I bet Judas Priest are a big part of why so many folks phrase that in a way that irks you...
If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by
You're thinkin' like a fool cause it's a case of do or die
Out there is a fortune waiting to be had
If you think I'll let you go you're mad
You've got another thing comin'
You've got another thing comin'
It has been pointed out to me that if you were to say the words "... another think coming …" too rapidly together, the 'k' sound slurs into a sort of 'g'.
OK, I'll buy that.
BUT -
That's a verbal error.
Like "Excuse me while I touch this guy …"
Someone who writes the word out as "...another thing coming …" -
- That is a mistake.
Just got around to reading Friday questions and thank you for answering one from me.
E. Yarber: Actually, I think longer series do work in Netflix's favor, in that if series are going to be abruptly canceled fans will be reluctant to invest time in watching them. I see this sort of comment all the time on TV boards, where people just don't want to risk getting too involved if the show isn't going to last.
If all these subscriptions get expensive enough, people will go back to buying Blu-Ray/DVDs of their perennial favorites.
A lot of people keep working on keeping the internet from becoming the kind of ATM you describe.
wg
https://deadline.com/2019/03/netflix-tv-series-cancellations-strategy-one-day-at-a-time-1202576297/
Quote:
I hear at least some of the cancellations on the list were prompted in part because the shows were deemed to have gotten too expensive. That is because of how many of Netflix’s series deals are structured. It is widely known that Netflix employs a “cost-plus” model, offering to pay upfront a show’s production costs plus a premium of 30%+ of the costs. Even after Netflix subtracts a distribution fee, outside studios are at break-even or in a positive territory from Day 1, versus having to deficit-finance series for the first few seasons on most traditional networks. But in exchange for the upfront payments, outside studios give up the potential upside that normally comes up with owning a long-running successful series, including off-network and international sales.
Hate long chunk of quotes, but will add more from the article just to make sure the picture is clear. If Netflix doesn't own it, you're on shaky ground:
Instead, Netflix’s deals include bump/bonuses after each season that are getting progressively bigger. While the payments are relatively modest after Season 1 and a little bigger after Season 2, I hear they escalate after Season 3, especially for series owned by Netflix — sometimes from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars — as the studio starts to pay off the shows’ back-end. For series from outside studios, which I hear cost about 20% more than their Netflix-produced counterparts, I hear the built-in payment increases do not skyrocket as much but still are bigger after Season 3, Season 4 and beyond.
Netflix is known for giving writers and producers creative freedom and has been relatively patient, picking up a significant portion of its freshman series for a second season, giving them time to find their legs. But as the shows’ prices start going up, the network tightens its renewal criteria.
“It’s a combination of things. When we’re investing, we decide how much to invest based on the audience that will show up,” Netflix’s head of original content Cindy Holland said of the streamer’s cancellation decisions at the INTV conference in Israel last week. “If the audience doesn’t show up, we think about the reason to continue to invest in something that doesn’t do as well as we had hoped. Obviously, critical acclaim is important too, but we’re really about trying to stretch our investment dollars as far as we can and make good on our investors’ money – it’s theirs, not ours.”
For the most popular shows, like blockbuster hit Stranger Things, renewals are a no-brainer as each new season is an event, driving viewership and subscriptions. (Being owned by Netflix, Stranger Things also is a money maker for the company, with auxiliary revenue streams such as theme park attractions and merchandising, including Halloween costumes.)
But for everyone else, there is intense scrutiny. Netflix is unabashedly data-driven, with many of its decisions based on algorithms. That’s how the network reportedly switched from the initial (and traditional) 13-episode seasons to seasons of 10 episodes or less. Word is that those shorter seasons are considered optimal for consumption, and any additional episodes beyond 10 a season do not add value, so they are an unnecessary expense for the network.
.
"I watch a lot of Pirates games on mlb.tv and...."
My god, WHY ?? ;-)
.
Post a Comment