It's just COMEDY, people

Okay, so I've been ranting about the same thing, but Bill Maher does it better and with funny graphics, and of course he's angrier than me. Worth watching.

Hawaii Five-18

Aloha!  Just got back from a few weeks on Maui.  Was gone before the volcano and earthquakes.  My heart goes out to everyone there.  Anyway, thought I would share some photos.  I'll do my traditional crazy travelogue on my podcast, which drops the middle of the week.  But in the meantime...

My adorable granddaughter, Becca.

Black sand beach

I forget.  This might be a sunset.

Good advice, wouldn't you say?

In case I want to swim to another island

Nightfall in the Blue Lagoon

More Becca, more eating

This is the kind of stuff I post on Instagram

We took a submarine ride.  Dive! Dive!

Not for the claustrophobic

135 feet below.  Notice Sponge Bob.

Much better name than Starbucks

Gotta go to a tacky luau

Not a lot of takers for the crap they sell

But someone paid $38,000 for THIS.

Friday Questions

Who’s ready for some Friday Questions?

KevinC starts us off:

We've been binge-watching Cheers and noticed in Season 9 there was a cold open where Rebecca and Woody had on the same outfit as in the episode before. How often were the cold opens moved around (timing issues, etc.) or did they just shoot the one for the next episode and didn't think of wardrobe?

We moved the teasers around a lot. It depended on the time. We would often swap teasers. The only good thing about the teasers (I hated them) was that they were independent of the story. So if we needed one that was 2:05 and the one we shot that week was 4:00 we easily could trade.

Mel Agar queries:

Are two-part episodes planned to be two-parters or do they grow organically out of a story that's just too big to be contained in 22-ish minutes?

Usually they grow from single episodes. And most of the times they are really 1 ½ parters. Too much story for one episode; not enough for two. Often there is a little padding that goes into two-parters.

But I used to love it when David Isaacs and I wrote a script and it was just too full so they made it a two-parter. BAM! We got paid twice.

My favorite two-parters that we did (not that anybody asked) were “Finally Parts 1 & 2” for CHEERS and “Adventures in Paradise Parts 1 & 2 for FRASIER.

From Dr Loser:

What show (or film, or other engagement) was the best you can remember for catered food?

That’s an easy one. EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND. Amazing food. A Vegas buffet.

 JUST SHOOT ME was pretty awesome too. When they have an omelet station, you know you’re in for some good eats.

The Mess Tent food on MASH that everyone in the 4077 bitched about -- was actually excellent.  

And Peter Aparicio rounds it out.

Can you identify any actors/actresses who began to act more like their character in their personal life (especially those who played the same character for many years)?

I would have to say Hawkeye became more like Alan Alda and Hot Lips became more like Loretta Swit on MASH. Watch a season one episode and a season ten episode and you’ll see quite a transformation.

What’s your Friday Question?  Just leave it in the comments section.  Thanks much!

An interesting ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT development

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT'S 4th season was on Netflix.  It began airing a few years ago.  But it was a slightly different format than the one it employed during its years on Fox.  Since it was hard to get all the actors back together at the same time, the Netflix version followed individual characters and not the group as a whole.   The reaction was, shall we say, less than glowing?

Now comes word that the show's creator Mitch Hurwitz is "re-mixing" the season.  He's trying to make it more of an ensemble show.  The plotlines were so complicated anyway that the re-mix can't be any more confusing than the original version.

Will it work?  I dunno.  But it's an interesting experiment.

However, I have a question.

How do you now determine writers' credits?   Every episode has to have a writing credit.  And if Mitch cobbles together pieces from four episodes into one, the writers of all those episodes deserve credit.

And probably money.

I assume they have to be paid for the new re-mix version.

And since the WGA has rules as to the number of writers allowed per episode, they'd need a waiver and they'd need to pay each writer at least the equivalent of half an episode.  At least that is my understanding.

This is a sticky issue because to my knowledge no one has ever attempted something like this.  I don't believe there is a precedent.

So something will have to be worked out, and I'd be very interested to see just what that resolution is.  According to several readers, the episodes drop tomorrow. 

Stay tuned. 

EP70: How To Write Material That SELLS

Ken’s guest is Blair Richwood, a longtime feature development person and book editor.   They discuss what it takes for you to write a screenplay, pilot, or book that sells.   Also tips on pitching, what studios and Netflix are looking for, mistakes to avoid, and navigating the literary and Hollywood world. 

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Hello, I'm listening...

I’m always in awe of those technicians who set up the acoustics for major theatres like the Disney Hall in Los Angeles. It’s such a baffling science. Sound travels in mysterious ways and patterns. A singer can stand on a stage in a cavernous Broadway theatre, sing without a microphone, and you hear her clearly in the last row of the balcony, which is in a different zip code. And then there’s a lovely 99-seat theatre in the San Fernando Valley with almost stadium seating and fantastic sightlines but you can’t hear a damn thing in the upper five rows.

Technicians use special panels to enhance the sound, to deaden the sound, to channel the sound, combat echo, filter out unwanted sound. They construct nooks and crannies, place walls strategically – I don’t know how they do it.

Why is one restaurant so loud you can’t hear yourself think and a similar restaurant in a similar space is quiet and comfortable? This keeps me awake at night.

The reason I bring up this topic (besides looking for something else to talk about after 5200+ posts) is that I have a weird acoustic quirk at my house. My house sits back from the street up an incline. If I’m in one of the upstairs rooms that fronts the street and two people are talking on the sidewalk across the street I can hear them as if they were right under my window. It’s bizarre. They’re maybe ten yards away, but they might as well be in the same room. Meanwhile, order a sandwich at any Subway and the person behind the counter can’t hear you.

I find this phenomenon fascinating. Do you have any audio quirks where you live or work? And seriously, how hard is it to hear “A BMT with NO CHEESE?”

The next great comedy writer

iPhones try so hard to be intuitive.

There of course is Auto-Correct, which is very hit and miss. We’ve all sent texts we regret due to not proofing this handy feature. (Make sure you spell "can't" correctly.) 

But there is also this toolbar right above the keyboard that tries to anticipate your next word. When it’s right it’s very helpful. You just tap it once instead of having to type out the whole word. But it’s also wildly off base much of the time. And that’s certainly to be expected. Your iPhone can’t read your mind (yet).

When I type out texts or emails I find myself now always scanning this toolbar, trying to surmise where the phone thinks I might be going with this sentence. And what it thinks of me that I might go down some of these wacky paths.

But then I had an idea. An experiment. What if this feature happens to have a sense of humor? What if it doesn’t just “think;” it thinks funny? I know that Siri is programmed to say some smartass remarks.

So what if I wrote a script on the iPhone? I could just write in the set up and maybe it would provide the punchline. Wouldn’t that be nice when you’re stuck for a joke?

If this works, keep it to yourself. You don’t want EVERY comedy writer to know the wonder of Siri. But in this new modern techno-world, the next great Neil Simon could be in your pocket. Try it, and let me know how it goes. Good luck!

Reporting from the trenches

Here’s a Friday Question that became an entire post.

Covarr asks:

Have you ever made substantial changes to a script based on input from an actor? Respectfulness aside (I would hope and assume that one is obvious), what factors influence the extent to which you heed their concerns?

Yes. In some cases it’s because the star is just difficult and wields the power to force wholesale changes. In practically ALL of those instances, the resulting script is worse. Or, at best, lateral.

I’ve been relatively lucky. I haven’t written for the more notorious of the monsters.

There have been times when an actor’s reluctance to do the script as written comes with a good reason. And those generally result in better scripts. We had a script on MASH where Mike Farrell took issue ethically with something we were asking BJ to do. We used that argument and did an extensive rewrite. The end result was a much more layered episode.

Look, as a showrunner I always assume that during the course of a season there are going to be a few scripts that are just snake bitten. We’ll be rewriting late into the wee hours night after night. The problem is you don’t know going in which scripts those will be. (If you did you would have addressed the problems before it went into production.) So if there’s a particularly hard week based on an actor balking at something and he’s right, that’s just the way it goes. I never resent the actor for that. We’re rewriting because we didn’t get it right the first time.

But here’s what really pisses me off: Actors objecting to something in the script and trying to justify it as a character issue when in truth it’s a vanity issue. The actress doesn’t think the actor we’ve cast to play her boyfriend is attractive enough for her. But she won’t say that. She’ll say her character wouldn’t date this person for some bullshit reason. We end up getting into this argument about motivation and the character when we KNOW that’s not really what this is about at all. And we can’t just call her on it. We can’t say, “The real issue is your ego. You think people will find you less attractive if you’re with this guy instead of George Clooney. You don’t give a shit about the character or the show. You just care about how YOU look.” So instead we engage in this fifteen-minute discussion of nonsense.

At the end of the day it’s all about who’s the most powerful person in the room. And there’s a great quote from the brilliant late producer, Steven Bochco regarding actors.

“The first year they work for you, the second year you all work together, and the third year you work for them.”

Thanks, Mom

My mother, Marilyn, would have been 90 today. She passed away several years ago. A day doesn't go by when I don't miss her and think about her. In addition to everything else she did for me, she is responsible for my career in television.

My partner, David and I were writing spec scripts, going nowhere, not even getting read at most shows. Then one day my mother found herself playing golf with Gordon Mitchell, one of the story editors of THE JEFFERSON. Like any good mom she said her son was a brilliant young writer and would he consider reading a script? Frankly, I’m a little surprised she didn’t have a copy in her bag but still. As a favor to her, Gordon did read our spec, liked it, and to our amazement, gave us our first assignment. In so many ways my mother has been a true angel in my life.  And never once asked for her 10%.   Happy Birthday, Mom.  I love you. 

I hate PowerPoint

Imagine you had to give a presentation to a fairly large group. The topic is something you know something about. The quarterly report. The latest advances in merkins. Whatever.  And while you're delivering this presentation you also have to put on rock climbing gear. Bulky jacket,boots, lacing up the heavy boots, attaching one or two harnesses, stocking up on flares and picks. All this while you're analyzing T.S. Eliot poetry.

Well for the most part, that's what it's like when you do a presentation with PowerPoint. Ive been to a number of conferences lately where good speakers with interesting topics were derailed by PowerPoint presentations. They spent half their talks fumbling around with slides. At first the audience is patient and has a little empathy. But after five minutes you want to scream, "Hey, numnuts! They're friggin' bullet points. Who gives a shit?! Just talk!".

PowerPoint and similar programs kill more lectures than they help. Yes, if you need visuals, fine. Let's say you're explaining how Facebook works or just "what is pornography?"  Slides would help -- in some cases the bigger, the better.

But now you can easily make graphs and graphics to just underscore the text of your talk. 68% of homeowners have spice racks.  "I don't believe you. Oh wait, I'm now looking at a slide of a spice rack and underneath it says 68% of homeowners have these. Okay, you sold me!".

The truth is speakers now use PowerPoint as a crutch. They think the can jazz up their presentations with visual aids. All too often though this results in technical snafus, fumbling around, the wrong slides, and takes the speaker right out of any rhythm. And most of the time the slides are boring, hard to read, and unnecessary.

Some people think if they don't arm themselves with PowerPoint that the audience will think they're unprepared. That's bullshit!

As a speaker, your job is to communicate. Talk to us. Share ideas, if it's a topic you're excited about let us see that.  You don't have to be the worlds greatest speaker. But your genuine enthusiasm will sell your message. Not a dizzying display of pie charts.

A helpful tip that will mean more than a slide proclaiming "4 warning signs of gum decay" is to start your talk with a story. People love stories and it puts them at ease. People think you have to begin with a joke -- the great woody Allen intro: " I'm reminded of the incestuous farmer's daughter...". No. You don't have to do that. If you got a great joke and you're good at delivering jokes then yeah, kill 'em. But a brief story, preferably personal, will achieve the same goal of disarming your crowd.

Speak with passion. Again, you don't have to be Billy Graham or Zig Zigler. But make us understand why the topic is interesting to you. In this case, a well placed word is worth a thousand pictures.

Friday Questions

Closing out another month with NEW Friday Questions. What’s yours?

Dave Wrighteous is up first.

Do you think, in this era of network TV struggling to stay relevant with the rise of cable and premium channels like HBO, that it could/would be a good idea to rerun shows on prime time network stations? It's cheap (no actors, writers etc. to hire and the cheap to make reality shows have proven networks like cheap content!) Popular shows that have been done to death in syndication wouldn't fly, but maybe some shows that never found an audience and were cancelled may find a new life and audience… like Big Wave Dave's!"

No, as much as I’d like BIG WAVE DAVE’S to make a triumphant comeback.

In today’s world networks have to be more competitive, not less. Rerunning even their hit shows tend to be a liability. For decades networks would just fill the summer months with reruns. Their ratings would suffer but all networks suffered equally. But now, with 1000 other channels, many offering original programming, networks can no longer afford the luxury of coasting.

And as for putting reruns or former cast-off shows on during those periods where networks traditionally offer original fare, that would be tantamount to waving a white flag and surrendering. Yes, they’d save money but “penny wise and pound foolish.”

Roger Owen Green asks:

Has the proliferation of these old shows coming back to life pleased you, bothered you, or it depends? Does having the bulk of the original cast make a difference?

And, given the frequency of these, would you now suggest that an aspiring writer consider a script for a Cheers reunion or All in the Family, The Next Generation (Meathead and Gloria's kid is more conservative than Archie!)?

What this new trend of rebooting screams to me is that networks are just out of ideas and will try anything. Old shows are a known entity so at least offer some value in initial sampling.

Ultimately some will succeed and others won’t and after a few years this trend will run its course.

Remember there was a period when Hollywood studios were doing movie versions of TV shows? BEWITCHED, THE BRADY BUNCH, BEVERLY HILLBILLIES, GET SMART, MAN FROM UNCLE, ADAMS FAMILY, etc. A few like ADAMS FAMILY were fun but most fizzled out. That’s what I think will happen here.

Having the original casts back is both a plus and minus. They’re the people you are comfortable with in the roles. But I fear in some instances their advanced ages will be disconcerting. In most cases, it’s better to remember these shows and characters in their original form.

By all means DO NOT do specs of old shows having reunions.  It's a stunt that will backfire.  If you want to do a spec ROSEANNE or WILL & GRACE do the current version.

From Mr. Hollywood:

Could you do MASH today in today's political climate?? In today's "TV climate"?

MASH benefited greatly by the country being in a very unpopular war and a similar war to the one fought in Korea. We don’t have that now.

As for the political climate – we’re so polarized now that the numbers MASH got are impossible to achieve today.

ROSEANNE is this huge “hit” getting 14,000,000 viewers. MASH routinely got numbers that are higher than today’s Academy Awards. You’re not going to find 30,000,000 Americans to agree on anything these days.

So, to answer your question – no.

And finally, from Mark Solomon:

Ken, I just watched, on Antenna TV, a wonderful episode of "Wings", written by you and David, in which Frasier and Lillith Crane are in Nantucket in order for Frasier to conduct a self-help seminar on the island with paying attendees.

I'm curious about the genesis of that cross-over episode. Was it that NBC execs were seeking to bring the cachet of the higher rated "Cheers" to an episode of "Wings", or did you and David initiate the idea, perhaps knowing that your association with "Cheers" would make it likely that all the parties involved would be willing and eager to make the episode happen?

Thanks for another terrific episode.

Thank YOU.

I don’t recall the exact details but networks are always looking for stunts, and one is crossover shows. The creators of WINGS, Peter Casey, David Lee, and David Angell were veterans of CHEERS and both shows were produced by Paramount, so a lot of obstacles were eliminated going in.

I suspect one of the WINGS guys floated the idea by Kelsey and Bebe of guesting and they were agreeable to it. Once the deals were set, Peter, David & David approached David Isaacs and me to write it. We were writing and consulting on both CHEERS and WINGS at the time so we were the logical choice.

We broke the story with Peter, David, and David and wrote the script. I seem to recall that most of our first draft remained. I was very pleased with the final result.

How’s this for trivia? David Isaacs and I are the only writers to write Frasier Crane in three series. Like Joe DiMaggio’s hitting streak, I don’t think that record will ever be broken. If only it meant something.

The pilot process -- where everything currently stands

This is nervous time for pilot producers/creators/agents/actors – pretty much anyone associated with the many pilots currently under consideration for a fall or midseason network pick up.

Decisions will be made as soon as next week and production teams are scrambling to assemble and ready their pilots for presentation.

It’s also the time when rumors are flying left and right – which show is hot, which show is dead, which dead show is suddenly hot again? Industry websites are buzzing with speculation.

The big X-Factor, of course, is testing. Studios now pre-test their pilots in anticipation of the networks audience testing. Those test results completely shuffle the deck.

There are also existing shows currently on the bubble. Some have gotten tryouts in different time slots to see if their fortunes improve. Others simply wait to see how well the pilots test. If your network has a strong slate of pilots you’re probably dead. If the development season is a flop you might get a reprieve.

Add to the mix commitments, network needs, how many holes in the schedule need to be filled, compatible shows to fill an hour, pressure to increase diversity, ownership of shows, and license fee costs and you get a pretty good idea of the craziness that lies ahead for those with a dog in this race.

And as super-agent Bob Broder once said, “Everything turns to shit over Mississippi” – meaning show that the network loved while screening in LA often lose their luster once the test results are in as they fly to New York for the final decisions.

Best of luck to all the contenders. And I always leave you with my quote for the Upfronts process. “The winners go to work and the losers go to Hawaii.”

Aloha.

EP69: Celebrity Fist Fights

Ken tells stories about various altercations he has had in his career – none were his fault. Okay, maybe one. He also plays some fascinating radio clips and shares with you some celebrity fistfights that you won’t believe. 

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Who is the guy with that weird laugh?

Once again I'm slipping in a ten-year-old Friday Questions post.  This has been a crazy month, I need a bit of a break, and I bet 90% of you are reading this for the first time.  So stagger back down memory lane with me. 

Here are answers to some of your Friday questions.

velvet goldmine wondered this last week:

I know that even shows filled before a live audience sometimes used to "sweeten" them with recorder laughs. But there's this one man's laugh that you hear on TONS of shows from the 70s, from MTM to Taxi. You know the one I mean? First there's a startled "Haw!" as the setup gets underway, then this extended "Haw Haw Haw..." when the joke reaches its zenith.

Why in the world would they keep using this familiar, even annoying laugh? And if by chance it was the same guy at all the tapings -- say, a superfan, or a self-impressed writer -- why wasn't he muzzled?

This is less of an answer than a confirmation. As several people correctly mentioned in the comments section, the distinctive laugh you hear belongs to James L. Brooks (pictured above). It’s less annoying when you realize it’s genuine. And when he laughs at something I’ve said or written, it’s sheer music.

There are also two very distinctive laughers on the last seven years of CHEERS. Phoef Sutton and Bill Steinkellner. I can’t describe them but watch any episode from those middle and later years and you’ll know what I mean.

Jim Stickford asks:

What's the procedure for deciding what particular line to use. I saw Carl Reiner in an interview years ago and he said one of the reasons he stayed in the writer's room for Your Show of Shows was that he could type, which was a bid deal in the days before computers and photocopiers. When the writers threw out lines, Carl picked the one he liked best and typed it in.

Is there a procedure? Is it decided by the show runner? Do you vote on it?

It’s either the showrunner or the person designated to run the room in the showrunner’s absence. Someone has to have the final say otherwise you have the scene in GODZILLA with all the people running through the streets crazed. Although, wait a minute. It's like that normally.

From Jaime J. Weinman:

Do you prefer writing sitcom episodes with a tag before the closing credits (M*A*S*H) or episodes that have no tags and end the episode with the second act (Cheers)?

Also what are the reasons for having tags or not having tags: is it usually network policy (like in the '80s when almost none of NBC's sitcoms used tags), or is it sometimes the showrunner's decision?

Tags are those little two minute scenes at the end of sitcoms. They serve the purpose of rewarding the viewer for staying through the last spot break. Some shows have them, others don’t. It depends on their format and needs of their network. There seem to be fewer today as networks are going more to a three-act format -- again, all in the cause of audience maintenance; none in the cause of better storytelling.

I MUCH prefer writing tags to the teasers we employed on CHEERS. At least with tags you could draw upon content established in the episode and just do a call-back. Teasers were completely independent of the story that followed. The Charles Brothers thought it would be novel and help establish the world of the bar. They were right of course, but teasers were a bitch to pull out of our ass every week.

What’s your question???

What does Improv really teach you?

People think the reason to take improv classes is to learn how to be funnier (or even just funny).

Wrong.

Studying improvisation is so important because it teaches you how to LISTEN.

The best actors are not the ones who can emote or do seven accents. They’re the actors who can commit to a character, connect with his fellow actors, remain firmly in the scene even when he’s not talking. And that requires LISTENING.

On a multi-camera show, all four cameras are recording simultaneously. So when I was in the editing bay I saw all the footage of actors when they were talking and when they weren’t. And I could tell who the good actors were just by screening the footage you never see. The good ones were clearly into the scene. They were reacting, often subtly, but they were engaged in the moment. The bad actors were standing there blank, just waiting to deliver their next line.

As opposed to comedy, listening is a skill that can be learned, or certainly sharpened. And improv class is a great training ground for that. Since you have no idea exactly what your scene partner is going to say, you can’t have your next line already in mind. What you say depends entirely on what he says first. The idea is not to score a laugh with every line out of your mouth, it’s to establish a relationship and build a scene.

And if you don’t listen, you often kill scenes. Because believe me, the audience IS listening. Here’s maybe the most hilarious example of that I can give. It’s from the brilliant radio comedy team of Bob & Ray.

Trust me, I’ve seen scenes like this in improv class. From now on, whenever you get on stage, think Komodo Dragon. You’ll become a better actor.

Binge-Waiting

I was late to the party with BREAKING BAD. By the time I started watching, the show had just completed its run. As a result I missed out on all the BREAKING BAD hubbub on social media. I was out of the loop when BREAKING BAD was “a thing.” But the good news is I was able to watch the series the whole way through without having to wait the year or so between seasons. Once I went down the rabbit hole and got hooked, I couldn’t imagine waiting a day to get back to it much less a year.

Extended hiatuses are just one of the new ways we now watch television shows (although you can’t even technically call them television shows since many you watch on your watch). What a nice luxury for the production team. They’re not on constant deadline.

But asking audiences to wait a year and sometimes longer comes with a big risk. By the time you get back they may have lost interest. In that year interim another darling or three might have come along. Ask any restaurant owner how fickle the public is.

It’s hard for a show to build momentum and losing that momentum can be the kiss of death.

Also, expectations become much higher when viewers have had to wait. If the hiatus is only over the summer the viewer might watch the season premier and go “That was okay,” but if he had to wait eighteen months he might say this about the exact same episode: “Really? I waited all that time for THAT?”

So I ask producers (and the networks and streaming services that distribute the shows), do you really need THAT much time to prepare a new season? Could you shave off three months? Or six? For sixty years broadcast network shows churned out 24 episodes a year (and sometimes 39) and produced some series with extraordinary quality. You really need a year-and-a-half to make ten? (Some shows with hugely ambitious production requirements like GAME OF THRONES, sure, but most of these shows don’t have dragons.)

I have another fear for down the line. Industry strikes. Audiences have been accustomed to seeing their shows on a regular basis, and any extended interruption was potentially very damaging to the networks. Well, not anymore. If a strike means the Fall Season starts a month later, big whoop.

But, that’s the world we now live in. However, I’m sure if we wait another year and three-months it will all change.

Writers' Indignity #4826

A few years ago I got a call out of the blue from Twentieth Century Fox Publicity. The 7th season of MASH was being released in Great Britain and they wanted to know if I would do a phone conference call with British journalists to promote the new DVD’s.  It would take about an hour.  I asked when the conference was planned. “3:00 today she said, cheerfully.” “Great,” I said, “If the first seven seasons of MASH are delivered to my house by 3:00 I will do the interview.” An hour later a messenger was at my door.

The point is this: not only do writers not make a lot of money off these DVD releases, the studios won’t even give us free copies. Unless of course, THEY need something. And it’s not just writers. I was having lunch with one of the cast members of CHEERS and she said Paramount never sent her a copy of the DVD’s.

I love how in the new WGA contract, if a studio plans on having bonus tracks on a film DVD they must invite the writer to do one. That’s only fair, of course, since directors always get to do them. But here’s the catch: The studios are not obligated to USE the writer’s bonus track, nor are they obligated to pay him for his time and effort. Reminds you of Lucy teeing up the football for Charlie Brown, doesn't it?   I don’t think we’ll strike over this issue, but it’s yet another example of how the studios view us.

And this brings up another point – one that Mark Evanier brought up once in his fine blog – should writers, directors, whoever get compensated for recording bonus tracks? If you’re a director and own a piece of the film then it’s certainly in your best interests to do a bonus track and sell more copies, but what about the rest of us? Yes, it’s fun to do and nice to have your contribution recognized, but are the studios using your ego to take advantage of you? I’ve only done a couple – my two SIMPSONS episodes. It was fun. It was easy. Gracie Films gave me copies of the DVD's without my even asking for them. And the way they recorded the track was just to screen the episode and we chimed in as it rolled. So the whole thing took maybe a half hour. I never thought about compensation. 

But what if the studio that made VOLUNTEERS came to me and said they were doing a big anniversary edition and wanted me to do a bonus track for free? First of all I would plotz that anyone would want to do an anniversary edition, but then I would be faced with a dilemma. Should I or shouldn’t I?

It reminds me of a great Woody Allen joke from his stand-up days. (That's two Woody Allen jokes in two days.)  He was offered a Vodka commercial and didn’t feel it was morally right. But the pay was great. So he went to his rabbi for counsel. The rabbi told him to take the moral high ground. So he passed on the commercial. And then a few months later he saw it and who was selling the Vodka? His rabbi.

I would probably agree to do the bonus track.

And they wouldn’t use it.

How do you know if your script is any good?

That’s always the big question for young scribes writing a spec script. You may like it but will anybody else?

Giving it to friends and family rarely yields objective reactions. Of course they’re going to love it. They want to love it. (Or hate it depending your family).

And the truth is most people not in the business don’t know how to read a script (as opposed to those IN the business where only half don’t know how to read a script). It’s difficult for many people to read stage directions and dialogue and be able to picture the scene. That’s not a knock on anybody. I can’t read a blueprint or a shopping list.

This is why I always recommend young writers take classes and meet other aspiring writers. Surround yourself with peers. There will usually be one or two whose opinions you value. Give the script to them. Be mindful that there may be some jealousy or competitive dynamics at work but you can generally sift through that.

Teachers are another good source of feedback if you value their assessment.

Generally, it’s best to give you script to several readers. There is a downside to this of course. You may get five different reactions from five different people – and some of the notes might be contradictory. Just like you'll get when you do make it in the business. You have to decide who (if anybody) is right.

But the good news is if you hear the same note from four sources it’s a pretty good bet they’re right. You can address all these issues before sending out your script.

There’s no clear-cut formula on how to know whether a note is a good one or bad. And especially, with people not in the business (dreaded “non pros”), their notes might be bad because they’re not adept at solving script problems, but you as the creator have to see beyond that. Don’t just dismiss the notes. Something bothers them and they don’t have the experience to identify just what it is. That’s your job. Based on their note, try to work backwards and guess what exactly might be the problem.

Always consider seriously the note, “I don’t get this.” You may think you’ve explained something sufficiently but you haven’t. We often get too close to our work. Those are generally helpful notes.

The very best way to judge your script is to arrange for a table reading. HEAR IT. Taking into consideration that the actors you use will often times be busboys at Costco and a foreign exchange student from Norway – not exactly Meryl Streep and Christian Bale, and the small audience will be somewhat biased in your favor (don't invite your family if they're not) – but you can hear the rhythm, hear the flow, get a sense of what works and what doesn’t. And if you have a comedy, laughter (or lack of it) will tell you what’s funny.

At the end of the day though, it’s up to you. YOU have to decide whether your script is good.  Just remember, Universal passed on STAR WARS.

Best of luck!

Friday Questions

It’s Friday Question Day with new Friday Questions. What’s yours?

Gary starts us off.

One of the most annoying trends in family sitcoms is that the children always talk like adults. In fact this is so ingrained I don't think it can even be called a trend anymore. The last TV comedy in which the children actually spoke realistically may have been Leave it to Beaver.

My question is, have you ever had to write any extended dialogue for children? Did you find it unusually challenging? And if so, how did you go about it?

Okay, first off, I agree with you. Smart-ass sitcom children drive me up a wall.

I’ve rarely had to write for small children, but part of that is by design. I tend to avoid projects that require very young kids. And the few times I have had to I didn’t place any comic burden on them.

The other thing is that most child actors can’t deliver these lines. There are a few exceptions like Rusty Hamer (pictured: above) on the old DANNY THOMAS SHOW, but for the most part, they don’t have the skill, discipline, or diction to hit jokes out of the park. And frankly, it’s not fair to expect them to.

I did like the Richie character in THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, played by Larry Matthews. Here for the first time was a truly goofy kid.

But for my money, the best use of children was on EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND. Those kids were used very sparingly. There were some episodes devoted to them, but in many others they didn’t appear at all. And I don’t think the show suffered as a result.

Duncan Randall asks:

Why would a network launch a new show on Sunday nights, starting the first two shows when the time will undoubtedly be delayed by the NCAA games? I'm talking about Instinct on CBS.

CBS did that show a favor. The NCAA games brings a large holdover audience. Folks who normally wouldn’t be watching CBS are tuned in for the games, and a lot of them stick around. Ever notice what a big deal it is for a show to follow the Super Bowl?

Secondly, in that case, INSTINCT also followed 60 MINUTES, which that week aired the Stormy Daniels interview, and that program got huge ratings.

One final note, Sunday night traditionally has the most viewers of the week. That’s why big network specials air on Sunday night. That’s why HBO puts their marquee shows on Sunday night. So even if your show doesn’t win its time slot, it can still attract more viewers than if it did win its time slot on Friday.

Mike Doran wonders:

I've often read about how members of the Writers Guild register pseudonyms that they can use on scripts that get "noted" beyond recognition by network or studio suits. The red-flag pen names enable the writers in question to maintain their payments and future royalties for work that they slaved over, only to see the work mishandled this way and that.

What I was wondering was if you and Mr. Isaacs (separately or together) had such a pseudonym, and if you ever had occasion to use it; I won't ask exactly where you used it (unless of course you'd like to tell us ...).

No, David and I have never used a pseudonym. If I did, I think I might go with the name Aaron Sorkin.

The guiding creative force of the TV show MASH, Larry Gelbart wrote the screenplay for the movie ROUGH CUT. He so hated how it came out that he took a pseudonym. Frances Burns. (Think about it.)

José María González Ondina rounds it out.

Have you heard about the Spanish version of Cheers. I think it was aired on 2012, to very bad ratings and was cancelled after very few episodes (the original version was very successful in its time). The actors are well known Spanish comedy actors, although I don't find them very funny.

I wonder if you know anything about it. At the time it was said that the original creators "overview" the production.

Here is the awful version of the intro:

Thanks!

I did know about it. And actually saw a few dollars. They just redid actual CHEERS script, and in one case, David Isaacs and I got screen credit. I have not seen any of the episodes, but I remember at the time the reaction was quite negative. But I liked the money.

Earning moments

Nothing elevates a sitcom episode like a big emotional moment.  It gives the show depth.  The audience doesn't just come for the jokes; they become invested in the characters.  They start to really care about them.   Their problems are meaningful and you root for them to succeed. 

Shows that can pull that off tend to have staying power with audiences.   Especially if the problems are universal.   That's why you can watch a DICK VAN DYKE SHOW from 50 years ago and still identify with it.   The issues are the same.  We're just no longer in black-and-white. 

But those emotional moments need to be earned.

Some sitcoms will do 20 minutes of broad burlesque and then take a huge left turn and have a super sappy moment.   And it feels bogus.  Your teeth rattle.  You throws shoes at the screen.  All it succeeds in doing is reinforcing that sitcoms can be lightweight and disposable.   In those cases, the moments only make the show worse. 

So how to avoid that?

You ground the show going in.   The tone has to be realistic throughout.  When a character says something and another character says something no normal human being would ever say but it gets a laugh, there goes your credibility.  When characters act like idiots or two-year-olds and sacrifice any shred of dignity for the sake of a joke you do so at the expense of true emotion. 

What world do your characters live in?   If it's heightened and cartoonish, fine.  Just don't switch gears and suddenly become WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?    At this point, some readers will race to the keyboard to point out exceptions.  Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part this is the rule and it behooves a writer to try to do it right.

The litmus test we have in the writers room is that the moment must be earned. 

And as for the moment itself, generally speaking, the more economical the better.  Avoid cliches.  Avoid going over-the-top.   Often times the best moments are one or two sentences, not long overwrought speeches.   When David Isaacs and I wrote GOODBYE RADAR for MASH we purposely designed the story so that there were casualties arriving when Radar had to leave.  So his final goodbyes were all on the fly.   Each character got a sentence or two.  To me that was way more effective than long heart-to-heart speeches where each character revealed how much Radar meant to them.  

In short, beware of sentimentality.   Like a good spice, you need just a pinch. 

Usually I find the shows that do moments that aren't earned are also the shows that do the least artful moments, which is not surprising. 

Emotional moments, like I said, are worth striving for.  But they require effort.   Along the way, don't settle for jokes that compromise characters.  Don't do stories so silly that they can only be called sketches at best.  It's the difference in being a sitcom writer and a writer writer.