Tuesday, February 07, 2017

When a pilot is greenlit

Networks are in process of greenlighitng pilots. They announce these with press releases that various industry websites reprint. Once upon a time pilots were driven by writers. They created the shows and produced the shows… all by themselves. Networks dealt with them because they had experience and proven talent. Networks knew they were in good hands.  And they produced some monster hits.

Unfortunately, in success these writer/producers made tons of money. That was unacceptable. Everyone wanted in on the payday, whether they really contributed or not. So now things have changed… as reflected in these press releases.

This is a typical article you see on these show business websites:

(3 letter network) has given a pilot green light to (name of project), a single-camera comedy from (star of former sitcom’s) company (cutesie title) in association with (former agent now non-writing producer) and (star of former sitcom’s manager) for (studio owned by 3 letter network). (Star of former sitcom) will not appear in the series but her brother (actor who can’t get arrested) will have a featured role and co-produce.

The show was created by (writer of star's former sitcom), based on a popular (European country) sitcom, created by (European writer) who will also serve as executive producer.

(Former agent now non-writing producer) says: “(European writer) has a strong singular voice even though it’s in another language.”

(Director of hit sitcom from six years ago) will direct and executive produce along with (director’s manager) who is president of director’s (another cutesie title) production company.

(Star of current sitcom sure to be cancelled, probably because of him) is in negotiations to star along with Kim Raver.

(Name of project) is about a (person of diversity) living in a neighborhood of (different diversities) and the return of her long lost father who shows up with his new wife (former movie star who two years ago would be insulted if you offered her a TV role). (Former movie star) is also executive producer.

(Name of project) is a (major talent agency) package brokered by (major entertainment law firm).

This is the third single-camera comedy pick up for (3 letter network), the eighth for (non-writing producer), and third for Kim Raver.

Yes, that’s a lot of people, and if the pilot doesn’t go – which one do you think everyone will blame? Yep.


Joey Smallwood said...

Hi Ken,

That's two Kim Raver mentions in the last few weeks. I can't remember - do you have a beef with her?

Mike said...

Some of these actor's production companies make the mistake of using the actor's own money. Tom Hardy's down £2m on Taboo. For my part, I'm thoroughly enjoying the programme. There are even some bits where you can work out what he's saying, in between the glowering.

VP81955 said...

Change "single-camera" to "multi-camera" and said sitcom might become a hit -- but it probably wouldn't get sold, either.

Eduardo Jencarelli said...

What is it with Kim Raver and sitcoms? As far as I can tell, her two biggest hits have been on the drama category, them being THIRD WATCH and 24.

Rob said...


There's a twitter thread discussing Sam Malone's batting average. Someone said it was established as .147, another said he claimed it was .370 (which would make him the greatest hitter of all time). But it was pointed out that as a Red Sox pitcher, he never would have batted due to the DH. So, was this in the Cheers bible or did you make it up as you went along? Did Sam play for the Sox in 1972 or prior (when they didn't have the DH). What years did Sam played--I think he'd been retired for 5 years when the show started.

Did Sam have a major league BA and what was it?

Twitter arguments are the new bar arguments, you know. So, Cheers update idea...everyone drinks at home and they're all twitter trolls. Could Cliff keep his tweets to 140 characters?

Cat said...

I like it when you get bitter, Ken. It makes me feel better about myself.

Charles H. Bryan said...

Off Topic Friday Question:

I just read a Hollywood Reporter article about last night's (Monday, Feb 6) ratings for various network shows. Holy crap. It's like someone got curious about the exact comparative weights of various household insects.

Isn't the focus on ratings points (even 18-49) pretty useless now? The broadcast and cable networks really just care about niche market segments, don't they? They'd probably accept a broad success, but I can't imagine that they're seriously aiming in that direction any longer.

Mostly, I'm just stunned that (a) THE BACHELOR is still on and that (b) anybody - other than an SFX production company - thought that APB was a good idea for a show.

Brian O. said...

Somewhere, Leonard Stern is rolling in his grave with uncontrollable laughter.

Patrick said...

I get that Kim Raver is in a LOT of shows and pilots but its been a few years - I feel like there are way more people now a days that I see in a new show every year.

Wendy M. Grossman said...

Uh...who's Kim Raver and why does Ken keep talking about her?


MikeK.Pa. said...

Curious how the profit pie is divided up percentage-wise between studio, network, exec producers, producers, stars (assuming they aren't producers).

Anonymous said...

While this is, as usual, hilarious and spot-on, the Kim Raver joke is starting to show its age.


forg/jecoup said...

have you seen the new CBS comedy SUPERIOR DONUTS? I think it has potential to be a solid multicam

DBenson said...

How it was done in the 60s, courtesy of Beany and Cecil: