tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post1937322511861784959..comments2023-11-03T06:02:02.128-07:00Comments on By Ken Levine: Too many cooksBy Ken Levinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17305293821975250420noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-56852890227212259192017-10-26T12:32:52.387-07:002017-10-26T12:32:52.387-07:00@ Grant: If Ken's narrow minded....I wish I ha...@ Grant: If Ken's narrow minded....I wish I had his mind!<br /><br />@ Andy Rose. Never seen "Happy Families" but if it's as funny as Red Dwarf I'm going to make it my mission to find a way to see it.<br /><br />For a while, radio seemed to be the same way. Either the MD or PD decided what songs to add to the rotation [also depending on how big the bribe was from the rep of the record label], then for a while it went to everyone in upper management and the DJs at a round-table choosing what songs to add by committee. Now it's basically down to a computer running it through an algorithm AND how much the music company is willing to pay the Evil Empires [radio broadcasting companies] to play their crap.YEKIMIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01921751875397071034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-41085197005284474032017-10-26T11:55:40.436-07:002017-10-26T11:55:40.436-07:00I understand why government agencies (such as thos...I understand why government agencies (such as those that regulate Medicare operations) grow and grow and grow. I'm sure everyone does, but why do private businesses (such as entertainment) allow the same thing to happen? Where is the advantage; who benefits from it? Surely there must be some entity that benefits (other than more people to blame for failure). <br /><br />I don't know which is worse---the scenario Ken describes, or a group of well-paid professionals sitting around a table and seriously discussing the dangers involved in having DENTED MUFFIN TINS in a health care facility! <br /><br /><br />Diane D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-71504745620747266602017-10-26T11:26:57.043-07:002017-10-26T11:26:57.043-07:00@Honest Ed: Some people have been able to use the ...@Honest Ed: Some people have been able to use the eccentricities of the BBC to their advantage. I don't know how things work now, but in the 80s it was apparently just understood that once a program was greenlit, at least two series would be produced. So after the first series was over, money would automatically be allocated for the next cycle.<br /><br />Paul Jackson had finished producing Series 1 of Happy Families in 1985 when he and Ben Elton decided they didn't want to do a second. But the money for Series 2 was already in the BBC budget. So Jackson just used the money to make Red Dwarf instead... a show that, after many starts and stops, is still in production three decades later. A big reason the first series of Red Dwarf looks so cheap is that they had to make an effects-heavy sci-fi program on Happy Families' budget.Andy Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-952984113494584332017-10-26T11:08:19.331-07:002017-10-26T11:08:19.331-07:00@Honest Ed: Brilliant. Very strong. Yes, exactly. ...@Honest Ed: Brilliant. Very strong. Yes, exactly. Hurrah. Blimey. Cool. Lovely Ed. Bollocks. So that's all good then.<br /><br />Who said you can't invent catchphrases?Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248182899977033579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-43371240445694899032017-10-26T09:36:36.380-07:002017-10-26T09:36:36.380-07:00No question about it. No question about it. ADminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14130140152157232044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-79871986342365737802017-10-26T08:40:55.615-07:002017-10-26T08:40:55.615-07:00The only thing wrong with the system is narrow min...The only thing wrong with the system is narrow minded old farts like yourself who stand in the way of progress.Grantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-17308894475037471462017-10-26T08:35:58.095-07:002017-10-26T08:35:58.095-07:00Since most shows are failures, the more people inv...Since most shows are failures, the more people involved in the decision means plenty of other people to blame when it fails.blinkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04284135060900752329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-57588022661134709082017-10-26T07:20:16.271-07:002017-10-26T07:20:16.271-07:00I do a lot to writing for UK TV - the BBC in parti...I do a lot to writing for UK TV - the BBC in particular. What I've noticed over the last 20 or so years is a similar bloat. Partly down to the BBC - its effectively a branch of the civil service and once people are on staff, it's hard to get rid. I've seen new jobs created just to by pass people who are poor at their job and can't be moved. 20 years ago, I'd work on a script with just a script editor with procurers and execs coming in very late, really only when it went to production. Even 12 years ago, I was working on a show where, when I wrote a draft, it went to a script editor, series editor, a producer, a series producer and an exec. Now, on the same show, it goes to a script editor, a series editor, a story producer, a script producer, a producer, a series producer, an exec producer and an exec. Same number of eps, and they all still complain about their workload. And bear in mind, none of these people are writers.<br /><br />It's got to the stage where its impossible to wield all this notes into anything approaching coherence, so now they pitch in at different stages of the process. The number of drafts is not determined by the needs of the script or the writer but is pre-determined before you start. First draft goes to the series editor, second to the produce, third to the series producer, fourth to the exec producer, etc, etc, etc. And there's no show runner.<br /><br />Honest Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06314402185238687150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-87907713477054459962017-10-26T06:50:53.189-07:002017-10-26T06:50:53.189-07:00For a moment there I hoped this post would be abou...For a moment there I hoped this post would be about <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrGrOK8oZG8" rel="nofollow">the viral Youtube video</a> of the same name as the post's title. Oh, well.Mitchell Hundredhttp://twitter.com/sackobooksnoreply@blogger.com