Okay, so who REALLY REALLY created BEWITCHED

Lots of comments Friday about my post on who created BEWITCHED. A number of you suggested real credit should go to the screenwriters of the 1942 movie I MARRIED A WITCH. With all due respect to those writers – Robert Pirosh, Marc Connelly, Norman Matson, Rene Clair, Andre Rigaud, Dalton Trumbo and Thorne Smith (whose story the movie was based on) – they may have tread on similar territory but it is not BEWITCHED.

For one thing, the story is different. In the movie a witch comes back from Colonial Salem to seek revenge which results in comic mishaps.

Others wonder how Sol Saks could receive creator credit on BEWITCHED when he only wrote the pilot. Why didn’t he stay with the series? First of all, that's not relevant. And secondly, who cares? Maybe he had three other projects and didn’t want to commit to a series. Maybe he lived in New Hampshire and didn’t want to move. Maybe he and the studio hated each other. Who knows? And we’ll never know how different the direction of the series might have been had he stayed at the helm. But Danny Arnold did a fantastic job assuming the showrunner role.

Meanwhile, some commenters suggested the idea was the studio’s and he was just hired to write it.

Okay, first off – the Writers Guild has very specific guidelines for determining created by credits. So if he passed that test, he’s the creator. Period.

But it’s more than that. Let’s look at what creating a series entails. Networks buy upwards of fifty pilot script a year (more back then). Out of that they decide to make maybe ten or fifteen. Out of those four perhaps five get ordered as a series. So there’s tremendous competition. Your script has to be good enough to buck those odds.

Now, the script itself. A sitcom pilot must set up the premise, introduce all the characters, set the tone, tell a story, be funny, and clearly indicate where the series is headed – all in twenty minutes. Young writers trying to break in are now asked to submit original material. Most are writing pilots and learning firsthand what a holy bitch they are to write.

Oh, and a good series has to be about something. There has to be a theme.

So let’s look at BEWITCHED specifically. A mortal marries a witch, much to the consternation of her mother. The mortal doesn’t want the witch to use her powers. He wants her to act “mortal.” What’s the series about? Magic? Fantasy? Craziness? No. It’s about culture clashes. Remember, BEWITCHED came along around the time of the Civil Rights Bill. What a fun twist on a mixed-marriage where the white guy is the outsider. And as for the notion of Samantha not being able to use her witchcraft – how different is that from gay people being unable to be who they are? Sol Saks had a lot going on underneath the jokes, didn’t he?

And then there are the characters. Besides a central romance that’s so well-drawn, the Endora (mother) character is the perfect comic antagonist. You don’t design great characters like that by just twitching your nose. Sol Saks introduced them and brought them to life.

He also fashioned the very clever story that introduced everybody and set the series into motion. And wrote all the jokes. Execution is everything. How many shows have been set in bars? From DUFFY’S TAVERN to ARCHIE BUNKER’S PLACE and probably six others in between, a show set in a watering hole has been a common premise. But in the hands of the Charles Brothers & James Burrows, it became magic. It became CHEERS.

So credit where creator credit is due. Sol Saks created BEWITCHED.  And for that, I -- as a huge Elizabeth Montgomery fan -- am eternally grateful. 

My Xmas movies recommendations

A CHRISTMAS STORY is my all-time favorite holiday movie. I’ve seen it probably fifty times, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually watched it from the beginning to end in one sitting. Like most people, I catch the annual 24-hour marathon on TNT or TBS or one of those networks with a “T” and see various segments at a time. Usually, by the end of 24-hours I’ve pretty much seen the whole film, albeit disjointed.

But there are other Christmas movies I recommend as well.

DIE HARD certainly. A company Christmas party goes bad but like Santa saving the day, Bruce Willis sweeps in and kills a lot of people.

LOVE ACTUALLY – Eight different stories interweave in this delightful romantic comedy. You’re bound to be charmed by at least three.  And you get Keira Knightley before her eating disorder.

BACHELOR MOTHER – Okay, this is an obscure one. 1939 starring Ginger Rogers and David Nivens. A screwball comedy set in a department store filled with misdirection and confusion. Warning: Ginger doesn’t dance.

BAD SANTA – Very dark comedy starring Billy Bob Thornton as a Santa who robs stores. People either really like it or they loathe it.  Sort of like with IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.

SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS – All you need to know about this 1964 sugar plum is that 8-year-old Pia Zadora plays a Martian child.

ELF – worth it for Bob Newhart alone.

HOME ALONE – A John Hughes classic. The Macaulay Culkin “AAAAAAA!” movie that is still funny year after year.

STALAG 17 – Most people don’t think of this Billy Wilder classic set in a World War II German Prisoner of War camp as a holiday yarn, but it was set during a Christmas season. And it is a phenomenal movie.

SUSAN SLEPT HERE – This 1954 comedy starring Dick Powell and a very young Debbie Reynolds is one of my favorites because it takes place in my neighborhood and I think you can see my house from Dick Powell’s balcony. I don’t know if the movie’s any good. I’m always just looking out the windows.

There you go. I know it’s a short list, but if I see one more Scrooge reboot or fantasy with Jim Carrey in make-up I think I’ll vomit. Oh, and one final warning: There are a lot of bad Christmas movies and a lot of bad comedy movies but MIXED NUTS might be the very worst of both. It’s the “Aunt Edna’s Fruitcake” of holiday films.

What are your favorites... and least favorites? 

A personal plea from Batman

Hi kids, this is Batman, the old Caped Crusader.  Y'know, the '60s was a glorious era.  I could still fit into my suit, Robin and I could hang out together without those rumors spreading, and even though the Batmobile got two miles a gallon, gas was still cheap enough that I could still afford Alfred.

I'm here today to tell you fans of a great new book about the '60s I just discovered -- THE ME GENERATION... BY ME (GROWING UP IN THE '60s) by Ken Levine.   The paperback is only $12.10.(what a great bat-deal!) and would make the perfect gift for anyone, who like me, wishes he had grown up in sunny California rather than Gotham.

Order yours today and it'll be there in time for Christmas.  Trust me, he or she will go bat-shit for it. 

Batman out. 

When not to take down your Xmas decorations

This is my friend Kevin’s house in the residential San Fernando Valley. He’s Jewish but loves to celebrate the colors and lights of the season. This tradition began (as most things do) because his girlfriend at the time really loved Christmas decorations.

There’s not another house on his block even remotely as elaborate. I bet you can see Kevin's house from space.

Now the question always arises, when do you take down your Christmas decorations? For most people the answer is usually after the first of the year. Certainly by Memorial Day.

But I guess if you take them down earlier you face dire consequences.

Last year Kevin made the mistake of striking his on December 26. This caused an absolute shitstorm with his neighbors. Their wrath knew no seasonal bounds. Kevin’s house was egged, he was left threatening notes, and people he didn’t even know called to scream at him.

But the coup de grace was this: His neighbor from across the street, who he never talks to and has no relationship with whatsoever, called him.

KEVIN: Hello.

TINA: Kevin, this is Tina from across the street. WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING?!

KEVIN: Excuse me?

TINA: Why did you take down your Christmas decorations? Are you INSANE?

KEVIN: Um, Christmas is over.

TINA: Yes, but I have a big New Year’s Eve party every year and one of the big attractions is that everybody likes to look at your decorations. And now you’ve RUINED MY PARTY!

I mean, how do you possibly respond to that other than sending invitations for their next New Year’s Eve bash to the Hells Angels?

Now to review: Out of the goodness of his heart (the girlfriend has long since moved on to David Petraeus or whomever) Kevin puts up the decorations on his own time and at his own expense.

And this is how he’s rewarded.

Who really created BEWITCHED?

Aloha from Hawaii where the tradewinds are whispering Friday Questions:

Derrick starts us off:

How is it decided who gets credit for creating a series? I was reading a piece about the old sitcom Bewitched awhile back, and while a gentleman named Sol Saks is credited in every episode as creator of the series, I got the impression from the article that nearly half of the guys associated with the series in its first season claimed at some point to have been the one who REALLY dreamed up the whole thing. While I'm sure at least some of that is latter-day glory-seeking, how (and who) decides who gets credit for creating a television series?

Fifteen guys can take credit but Sol Saks wrote the pilot and is the sole creator of the show. Period.  By the way, Sol Saks was a fabulous writer and did great work throughout his career. Check out the pilot of BEWITCHED. It’s pretty great. By the way, Mr. Saks passed away last year... at age 100.

Where things get sticky is when different writers are brought on at different times during the writing of the pilot. Then it goes to arbitration. And whoever gets story credit ultimately gets created by credit.

Bill Jones wonders:

Hi Ken. I have a question about "imitator" shows--you know, the shows that appear in the wake of a hit show, where it's clear that everyone else is trying to copy the success of the previous show. Examples include all the FRIENDS knockoffs in the mid-90s (remember TWO GUYS, A GIRL, AND A PIZZA PLACE?) or, more recently, NEW NORMAL, which is so clearly a knockoff of MODERN FAMILY.

How do these knockoffs come about?

Networks spread the word that they’re looking for the next FRIENDS. But in truth, they don’t even have to. We all know networks chase whatever’s popular at the moment. You come in excited to pitch a totally original concept and they’re disappointed you’re not bringing them “GLEE but in Law School.”

I can't tell you how many times my writing partner David and I were told by networks to give them another MASH.  We said we couldn't.  MASH was unique.  One time we sold a pilot about an improv group and a network exec said, "Great, but you make it more like MASH?"

Not that this copycat practice is new. Way back in the ‘60s when BATMAN became a big hit, camp superheroes appeared quickly on all the other networks. There was CAPTAIN NICE on NBC and another one so forgettable I can’t even tell you the name. I’m shocked I still remember CAPTAIN NICE.

A few years ago we wrote a pilot for NBC. It was a very urban sophisticated comedy. When they bought it we were told their mandate was to return to the Must See TV smart comedies of yesteryear. We turned in the first draft, they loved it. Hardly any notes. They were thrilled.

Then MY NAME IS EARL premiered, did well, and all of a sudden the mandate changed to “rural” comedies. Our can't-miss project was dead.

So not only are you chasing the elusive zeitgeist, you’re shooting at a moving target.

Of course, it's one thing when networks are all chasing monster hits.  But I'm hearing tales of NEW GIRL knockoffs.   NEW GIRL is only in its second year and struggling to stay alive.  Not exactly SEINFELD.

From Carson:

When an actor exits a scene or they are not in a particular scene, where are they? Do they go out and watch the scene? I'm of course referring to a show shot with an audience.

They generally go backstage or to their dressing rooms. Sometimes they'll go to make up. Often times they’re changing wardrobe. We discourage actors standing on the stage. It takes the audience out of the show to see the actors out of character.

If an actor wants to watch the show, there is a quad-split (the four monitors) backstage out of the audience’s view. They generally don’t because that’s where all the agents and managers congregate.

Max Clarke asks:

About actor names, did the Charles brothers get it that their good name "Sam Malone" was also "Sam Alone" when they wrote the pilot? Considering the end of the series and that last shot of Sam alone, it was perfect.

No. It was a coincidence. And at the time they created the character they had no idea he would not wind up with anybody. Also, there’s no significance attached to Norm being the “Normal” bar patron.

Do you have a question? Leave it in the comments section. Mahalo.

Another one of my rants

Hollywood motion pictures are designed for young audiences. 18-34 is the only demographic the industry believes still goes to the movies. So they churn out big budget comic book films, franchises, raunchy comedies, animation, and adaptations of board games. Any movie targeted for someone older than the Mario Brothers is banished to an art theater. There it plays alongside HITLER VS. STALIN: WHO WAS THE BETTER PAINTER? and the latest Atom Egoyan movie.

The only time Hollywood makes films for adults is in the Fall/Holiday season. And those films are not produced because studios feel they have an obligation to the 70 million baby boomers who have supported them handsomely the last fifty years – no, they make those movies to win awards.

But they also throw us a bone with a comedy or two. There are only so many BLACK SWANS we’ll stomach. So what does Hollywood think we graying Americans want to see in our comedies?

Recently I was in a theater that showed SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK so the trailers were for older viewers. Three were comedies. Here’s what they were:

THE GUILT TRIP – Set Rogen (to attract some young people) goes on a road trip with his wacky obnoxious mother, Barbra Streisand. Hilarity ensues with such big jokes in the trailer as:

Barbra: "Don’t pick up hitchhikers. They rape."

PARENTAL GUIDANCE – Billy “Botox” Crystal and Bette Midler play wacky grandparents who have to wrangle kids. Hilarious moments like Billy getting hit in the balls.

THIS IS 40 – Another Judd Apatow yuckfest with sentimental scenes sprinkled in to take the curse off the plethora of gross jokes. Paul Rudd and Apatow’s wife (who I’m sure was the funniest actress he could find) in a romp over the heartbreak of turning 40. Hilarious trailer moments like Judd's wife walking in on Paul when he was on the toilet.

So is this what Hollywood thinks we want? Bat crazy grandparents and parents? Recycled old stars? Tired premises – buddy/road pictures, babysitting pictures, midlife crisis pictures? All with predictable endings I’m sure. Seth and Barbra gain a deeper understanding for each other and work out long festering issues. Billy Crystal winds up loving his grandchildren and finally learns the meaning of parenthood. Paul Rudd and Judd Apatow’s wife fall in love all over again and reclaim their youth in each other’s eyes. In all three cases it's all about second chances. Now I haven’t seen any of these movies and probably won’t… even though in the Billy Crystal movie he’s supposed to be a minor league baseball announcer (a fact not even mentioned in the trailer). You tell me how right I was predicting these endings.

The irony is Hollywood is trotting out all these musty conventions to the one age group who has seen them the most.

So why is this? Well, most of the studio executives are younger than this audience and has no affinity for what they want to see. There are very few older screenwriters working and those that are, especially in the comedy arena, tend to still be viable because they continue to turn out reliable formula scripts. Also, it’s not a priority. A film based on Hungry Hungry Hippos is (and I’m not kidding. This is really in development).

Seth Rogen and Barbra Streisand driving across the country together? Unless there’s a 40-piece orchestra in the backseat and she’s singing every song Alan & Marilyn Bergman ever wrote, I’m keeping my twelve dollars.

The best book on improv comedy

... is now available.  IMPROV COMEDY by Andy Goldberg is once again in print.  You can get the paperback version here. 

Of all the books on improv comedy, this is the best.  I recommend it for all actors interested in comedy and writers who want to develop or sharpen their comedic skills. 

Improvisational comedy is a terrific tool, a great deal of fun, and since SNL will probably be around for another thirty years -- a great place to start on your quest to join the cast. 

My Kim Basinger metaphor

Ever see the Bruce Willis movie BLIND DATE? It’s from so long ago he still had hair. In this very funny film (written by Dale Laudner) Bruce accepts a blind date with Kim Bassinger. But she comes with a warning: if she gets drunk she becomes bat shit crazy. Still, it’s the 1987 Kim Basinger so warning be damned! What happens of course is that she does get plastered and hilarity ensues.

Why do I bring this up? Because for broadcast networks Twitter is Kim Basinger. And Facebook is her tipsy twin.

ABCNBCCBSFOX has clearly embraced social networks. They desperately need young viewers and that’s what those damn kids are preoccupied with. There are hash tags in front of show titles in the bottom of the screen, interactive online games, fan pages, and discussion groups.

And they’ve discovered social networks can be used to promote their shows for free! Series stars have Twitter accounts and are followed by millions. Even the showrunners have large numbers of followers. And the great thing is, you’re reaching the people who like your show… and I don’t just mean clicking “like”. So they’re inclined to turn on your show when reminded.

Contrast that with NBC that runs banners for WHITNEY on practically every single show all week and the numbers are still shit. America has voted, peacock!

So these are some good things. There are also mixed things. Fans Tweet observations while your show is airing. This is unprecedented. And frightening. Your show is being judged second by second. And basically, what the whole world can now read is merely all the snarky shit you used to just say in your living or dorm room. Much of this input is hurtful.

Now writers read these Tweets and generally just chalk them up to being written by fucking idiots who still collect string. But actors read them as well. And some of them take the comments very personally. Especially the “he’s fat, she’s ugly, her tits are tiny, and you suck” observations. Can you blame them? And here’s the thing: there will be haters for everybody. I’m sure the babies on GUYS WITH KIDS get ripped weekly.

Which brings me to the downside to these social networks. Now ABCNBCCBSFOX has to deal with a new phenomenon – their stars and showrunners potentially Tweeting damaging remarks or airing dirty laundry in public. This is like leaving Kim Basinger in BevMo and saying you’ll be back in an hour. Remember Dan Harmon of COMMUNITY railed against Chevy Chase earlier this year? And supposedly, David Krumholz, one of the former stars of the recently cancelled PARTNERS Tweeted: "Anybody who doesn't watch my show can 'eat a dick.'" That’s lovely, by the way. Very eloquent. (That charming post has since been deleted) and he also Tweeted:"listen, you bastards, my show is funny." Although I admire his strong support of the series, antagonizing viewers and embarrassing CBS is not the optimum way to boost ratings.

These rants put the network in an awkward position. In the case of Harmon, he was fired (although his cyber soapbox was only one of their many complaints I’m sure). And CBS can’t fire Krumholtz because they already did. But the next time he’s up for a part, the producers, studios, and/or network could think: “loose cannon. Not worth the risk.” And for what? The satisfaction of telling 99.99% of America to eat a dick? Hardly what the Man of La Mancha would call a noble quest.

Stars speaking out is not new. But there were always publicists and handlers and toadies to muzzle them. Now the only way to silence a celebrity is to tape up his or her thumbs. (Can you imagine if Bette Davis was on Twitter?  Strap yourself in for a bumpy ride!)

I don’t know how the Bind Date will eventually play itself out. Hopefully Kim Basinger can be cut off before she meets the folks. But the potential upside is so high, she is so gorgeous, that it’s worth everything just to put another # on your bed post.

The worst agent sales pitch EVER

Here’s another Hollywood agent story. I told one recently, and they are always crowd pleasers.   This is one of my personal favorites. 

It’s 1982. My writing partner, David and I are at William Morris. Several years prior we signed on with a young agent at a small tenpercentery (I love that expression), and as she moved on to bigger and better agencies we followed her. She and we were now at William Morris.

When clients get shows on the air their agencies can package them. In other words, William Morris gets a piece of the action.  That's really how they make their money in television.  It's not off the ten percent commission they collect.

For this package they’re supposed to help you get the show on the air, clear paths for signing talent, etc. We had a pilot the year before that was a William Morris package and it was not a pleasant experience. The only actors we had trouble signing were Morris clients. At this point I should mention that the William Morris Agency of today is completely under new ownership, management, and not even located in the same building. So no one in the current WMA should be held accountable for the deeds from those days.

One thing about mounting a pilot, you get to meet and deal with lots of agents. And you see how they operate. Who calls you back? Who is an asshole? Who never follows up? One agent in particular really impressed us. Bob Broder. Among his clients at the time were James Burrows and the Charles Brothers. Bob was extremely helpful and frankly did more for us than our own “partners.” But we were very loyal to our specific agent so we stayed with her and William Morris. She believed in us when we were nobodies and now that we were successful we didn’t feel it was right to pull a Broadway Danny Rose on her.

But now it’s 1982. We’re on CHEERS and our agent tells us she’s getting out of that end of the business and getting into producing. She was offered a great job running a very successful film director’s production company. We were thrilled for her, but now felt no pull to stay at the agency.

Instead of just taking free expensive lunches and letting agents from all over town court us, we called Bob Broder. He was interested in representing us so we decided to make the switch.

We told the fine folks at William Morris and one of their agents – who we had dealt with from time to time – asked if he could speak with us. Could we give him one last chance to convince us to stay? Although our minds were pretty much made up, we still felt it was the honorable thing to do. And who knows? Maybe there was some reason why we really should stay.

So this agent ushers us into his office. He was in his ‘30s, part of the young new breed that the agency was hiring. I must say, I’m always fascinated by salesmen. When I go to state fairs I make a beeline to the exhibition hall where all these huckers are selling miracle mops and titanium woks. I’m a sucker for a great sales pitch. At their best, those guys are artists. The mop is pretty good by the way.

We sit down on his couch, the agent closes the door, crosses to us and yells, “You guys are fucking ASSHOLES!”

Say what?

“If you leave this fucking agency you’re fucking assholes and fucking idiots!” He goes on for five minutes to call us stupid, immature, ungrateful, dickless, only marginally talented, and how we’re making the biggest mistake of our lives not letting him guide our careers. All of this laced with more expletives than a DEADWOOD episode.

Wow! What a masterful presentation. Who wouldn’t want to re-sign after that declaration of love?

Well, as shocking as it may seem, we did leave and began a long and happy association with Bob Broder.

Meanwhile, this agent left the Morris Agency himself in 1999. So I guess in the end, he too was a “fucking ASSHOLE!” I haven’t seen him in years. I don’t know what he’s doing today. I just hope it’s not eulogies.

Do rewrites always make shows better?

As kind of a fun experiment, Earl Pomerantz, over on his fine blog, and I are both going to write today on the same topic – whether rewrites really improve a project. In our particular field – a half-hour sitcom.

The first script my partner, David Isaacs and I ever sold was for THE JEFFERSONS. We were told going in that the staff routinely did a lot of rewriting. We didn’t care. We were just thrilled to have the assignment. They were true to their word. The script they shot bore little resemblance to our draft. Personally, I still like ours better. And when the producer of MASH wanted to see a sample of our work, we gave him our draft of that JEFFERSONS episode. It proved good enough to get us a MASH assignment.

But for what THE JEFFERSONS were trying to achieve, and how their producers saw those characters, I suspect the rewritten draft was more on the money. They would claim their draft was better and even though I didn’t like it as well, maybe they were right. But in my heart of hearts, had we submitted their draft to MASH I doubt whether we would have gotten that assignment. So in this case an argument can be made for either side.

Our first staff job was on THE TONY RANDALL SHOW for MTM in 1976. It was my first experience with multi-camera shows, where you see runthroughs every day and rewrite every night. Here’s what I observed: We did pretty much the same amount of rewriting every week. If the script at the table reading was weak we fixed it. If the script was in good shape we ruined it.

I think the answer has more to do with who is doing the rewriting and what their objectives are. As a general rule, if good writers are at the helm, rewriting should in fact make a show better.

I’ve been on shows, either as a writer or freelance director, where the producers were hacks. They just tried to pump more jokes into the show – often jokes that were at the expense of the characters, so jarring they took you out of the story, or so mean you stopped rooting for the character. As Earl points out, you can make a show “funnier” but not necessarily “better.”

You can also make lateral moves. Swapping one joke for another just because you’ve heard the first joke too many times. You forget that the audience will only hear the line once. Often the new joke is not as good as the original. Rewriting did not make the show better.

There are some producers with such inflated egos that they feel they must put their own stamp on every line. I worked with one of these too. You’d pitch a joke, everyone in the room would laugh, but he would have to change one word just to make it his. And honestly, his changes were lateral at best. Many times he killed the joke. Rewriting did not improve things there.

And finally, you have network, studio, and actor notes to contend with. Changes are made for political reasons, often begrudgingly. Add another check in the rewriting does not make the script better column.

When I’m the showrunner I have a specific approach to rewriting. First, I realize that I have five full days. Everything doesn’t have to be fixed at once. The first few days my number one priority is the story. Does the story track? Do I believe all the turns and all the attitudes I’m asking the characters to play? Are all my actors being well served or is one or two being short-changed? Is the story too slow? Too rushed? Is there a better, more clever way to tell that story?

For the first day I also have the luxury of time. I can throw in a wild idea or scene and if it tanks I still have time to jettison it. But if it works it could be inspired.

If by day three the story works and all we need are jokes then I consider us in great shape.

I know I’m biased but I think these scripts get better as a result of rewriting.

And I’ll also admit that scripts we’ve done for shows where we weren’t running the room were always enhanced by the likes of the Charles Brothers, Casey, Lee, & Angell, the Steinkellners & Sutton, Chris Lloyd, Sam Simon & Ken Estin, Jim Brooks, and Larry Gelbart. There may have been a joke I missed seeing or a new line I didn’t like but overall the scripts were “better.”

Again, the key is who’s doing the rewriting?

I often thought it would be a great exercise to get the writing staffs of eight or nine shows and have them all rewrite the same episode. How different would the BIG BANG THEORY staff’s version be from the one turned in by THE MINDY PROJECT crew? Each staff would probably maintain that there’s made the show better. But depending on your sensibility, I’m guessing you’d think four made it better, two made it the same, and three fucked it up completely. And another viewer would disagree completely.

So I’m not sure even that experiment would yield us anything conclusive but wouldn’t you just LOVE to see it?

I think the bottom line is this: Freelance writers generally feel showrunners ruin their scripts (sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re not). And I say to them work hard, stay at it, play the game, and eventually you too can become a showrunner and ruin other writers’ scripts. If nothing else, it’s a lofty goal.

Decoding Hollywoodspeak

Most of the real creativity in Hollywood goes into positive spin. Here are some industry expressions and what they really mean:

“Hospitalized because the actor was simply feeling dizzy due to a medication he was taking for an ear infection” – drunk

“Hiatus” – cancelled

“Good Exit Numbers” – DOA at the boxoffice

“Highly qualified” – knows somebody

“They’re still good friends” – the ugly divorce settlement is still pending.

“They’re just good friends” – they’re humping nine times a day

“I want to spend more time with my family” –fired.

“I want to explore other exciting opportunities” – fired

“Creative differences” – fired

“Parting by mutual agreement” – fired

“We think the script needs a fresh eye” – the director will now destroy your screenplay

“They have a lot of respect for each other” – they despise each other

“No comment” -- he did it

“Fielding offers” – unemployed

“Projects in development” -- unemployed

“Looking into financing” – unemployed

“Tom Cruise is interested” – I’m a really bad liar

“Proactive” – active

“She’s a perfectionist” – she’s a bitch

“Entry level position” -- slave labor

“Thanks for coming by” – no sale, I hated it.

“I really liked it” – thanks for coming by.

“I really loved it!” -- it got good coverage

“He’s in a meeting” – you’re not important enough to talk to.

“Back end” – money you’ll never see

“It just needs a little polishing” -- page one rewrite

“We’re pleased with the demographics” – the ratings are shit

“Commands a great deal of respect” – he’s a fucking nightmare

“Do you have a card?” – I want to get away from you but don’t want to appear rude.

“Zitcom” – Any half hour on the Disney Channel

“Exhaustion” – overdose

“A private matter” – a public scandal

“I’ll give it a read” – I’m throwing it away

“The studio is really behind it” – it’s going straight to DVD.

“He’s taught me so much” – I’ll never work with that asshole again

“Freelance” – unemployed

“High concept” – gimmicky

“Actor’s Director” – he can’t shoot action movies

“Director’s Director” – his movies haven’t made a nickel.

“Emmy winning writer” -- blogger

TOMORROW:  An interesting experiment.  Two blogs/same topic.  

Happy Hanukah bitches

Tonight is the first night. Thought I'd show you something traditional to get you in the mood.

A handy writing tip

Just saw one of my favorite DICK VAN DYKE SHOW episodes, “100 Terrible Hours”. It’s the one where Rob was a disc jockey and had to stay on the air for 100 straight hours just before interviewing with Alan Brady for a writing job. I love that episode for many reasons but first and foremost is the structure. I imagine Carl Reiner and the staff thought it would be fun to see Rob’s initial job interview and of course it had to be a disaster. But how?

The obvious ways: he was drunk, he got in an accident and was all disheveled, he spilled something on his crotch, he had laryngitis, he had a bad cold and Alan Brady was a germ freak, he barged in at the wrong time, etc. You get the idea.

But they found a totally fresh device instead. Have him loopy because he’s sleep deprived. And concoct the best comic way to get him sleep deprived. Radio marathons were a staple of early Top 40 radio so making him a disc jockey was not only ingenious, it was also real. The best comedy always comes from reality. Plus, it gave Van Dyke a lot to play as you saw him get progressively goofier.

This is called getting “the most bang for your buck”. Find a good comic premise for a scene and then maximize the possibilities. In this case, not only was the payoff great but the set-up scenes leading up to it were terrific as well.

Give this some thought when plotting out your spec script. Once the wakeathon story was laid out I’m sure it was much easier for the writers (Sam Denoff & Bill Persky) to fill in the funny dialogue. They had so much to work with.


The hardest comedy writing in the world is when you have characters just standing around with nothing really dynamic happening. You have to manufacture jokes out of nothing. The characters start talking in forced one-liners. When viewers say that sitcoms sound predictable and bogus that’s usually what they’re referring to.

So do the heavy lifting first. Construct a story that lends itself to great comic possibilities. Easier said than done, you say? Yep, but that’s why YOUR spec might sell and the others don’t.

By the way, in the early 60s a San Bernardino radio station held one of these wakeathons. By the end the disc jockey was hallucinating, thinking that a giant Mickey Mouse was coming to eat him. I don’t know whether it was the city that had to issue a permit or the union, but somebody insisted that medical supervision be provided to lend assistance and monitor the d.j. throughout. He would be on the air for 50 minutes each hour and get ten minutes to use the bathroom, stretch his legs, eat, whatever. The medical staff would check his vital signs and ensure he was in no health danger.

A tent was set up near the broadcasting site (a store window I believe, just like in the DICK VAN DYKE SHOW). Every hour the disc jockey would disappear into it to get his examination. What the city or the union or whomever didn’t know was that the around-the-clock nurses that were hired were actually hookers. That probably kept him going another twenty-four hours.

Now if they had done that on the DICK VAN DYKE SHOW the title of the episode might have been changed to “95 Terrible Hours and 5 Great Ones”.

R.I.P. Reinhold Weege

So sorry to hear of the passing of Reinhold Weege.  He wrote for BARNEY MILLER, MASH, and created NIGHT COURT.  Very funny writer and lovely guy.  He was only 63.  Because he's been retired for some time (back then you made big money for creating a hit show) he's not as well-known as he should be.   But trust me, among writers of my generation, he was greatly admired.   The world of comedy is a little less funny now.  Reiney will be greatly missed.

Friday Questions

It’s always extra poignant being in Hawaii during Pearl Harbor Day. As the “Day of Infamy” gets further into the mist, take a moment to remember and give thanks. 

Now then – Friday Questions.

Stephen asks:

Joss Whedon tells writers, "Cut what you love", the idea being that when a story runs into trouble, be willing to remove your favorite scene for the good of the piece as a whole. Do you have any examples of when you have found this to be a useful approach?

All the time. I could give a thousand examples from my scripts alone. “Kill your babies” is another, more genteel expression that is used.

For me, the most extreme example is when the musical I co-wrote with Janet Brenner was in production at the Goodspeed Theater in Connecticut. It was playing okay but felt long.

I suggested we cut an entire production number. This was like a ten minute number with the entire cast, elaborate choreography, orchestration, lighting effects, visuals, and harmonies. It was an impressive piece. But the song was essentially a rehash of everything we had already said. The director was almost apoplectic when I suggest the radical lift but convinced him to try it for one performance. If we all missed it it could return. Losing that number elevated the entire show. And it was worth everyone in the company not speaking to me for two days.

There’s an expression in the theater: make it twenty minutes shorter and it’ll run five years longer.

It's true! 

By the way, that musical starred Andrew Rannells. Whatever happened to him?

From emd9930 (but I'm not sure if that's his real name):

Do the writers have a master map of character quirks / family names / family stories / etc. so new additions to the character's background make sense? I've been on many TV forums where people complain that the "new" writers don't recall this or that trait of a character. The obvious one is the missing oldest son from Happy Days, but other characters have gone to college for a few shows then never talked about it again (Jamie on Mad About You and Carrie on King of Queens).

It depends on the show. Some keep very detailed bibles that get updated constantly. Other shows don’t bother. Generally it’s up to the showrunner and writers who stay with a series for several of years to police that. But they’re only as effective as their memory allows.

Sometimes there’s a big switch in staffs and maybe the show gets better as a result but the continuity suffers.

And here’s the sad double-standard. When you’re on staff writing the show, those details don’t really matter.  Sure, you like to have them right, but other than a few diehard fans, who’s going to know? You can find a thousand inconsistencies in MASH (and indeed some authors have).

Shows will go so far as to bring back actors as different characters. We did that with Harry Morgan on MASH. It was done with Tony Shaloub on WINGS.

And sometimes we ignore previous episodes on purpose. When characters get “sent off to college” they generally disappear entirely from the show’s timeline. In the second episode of CHEERS we make reference to and show Sam’s ex-wife. Then she’s never brought up again for eleven years. As a show moves in a creative direction sometimes you have to alter history.

But…

If you’re writing a spec script, continuity is crucial. Saying a character has a brother back home when he doesn’t or that she loves ice cream when it’s been established that she doesn’t can kill you. The astute reader will accuse you of not really knowing the show. And it becomes doubly tough when you do your due diligence and you discover an inconsistency. What to use? She likes ice cream or she doesn’t? It can be a trap.

Emily Blake queries:

I don't know if this affects comedy as much, but can you talk about how constantly not knowing how many episodes you'll get affects your story telling?

Especially starting out you can’t build a big overall arc. But generally, when you’re a new show you want to leave yourself open to see what works and what doesn’t. You just hope you find the sweet spot in time.

Once you’re established then you have the luxury of being able to map out a season. And having an overall arc helps you in planning stories. You’re not just starting from square one every week.

On the other hand, story arcs can sometimes be dangerous. If the audience doesn’t like a certain creative direction you’ve taken and you’ve got seven more stories in that arc you can really sink yourself. You have to be prepared to abort story arcs, which means double work. You must throw out the episodes you’ve written and quickly write whole new episodes.

THE GOOD WIFE faced that problem this season. No one (myself included) liked the Kalinda/asshole husband storyline. The producers apparently cut it short as a result. I can only imagine the number of late nights and weekends that caused. But for the sake of their show they were willing to “kill their babies.” See how these questions all tie into each other? It’s a beautiful thing.

And sometimes when an arc doesn’t work a character is dropped and never mentioned again and that affects the continuity. Amazing how this all wraps up!

What’s your question that coincidentally will tie in with other questions? Leave it in the comments section. Mahalo.

KILLER KARAOKE -- amusing or the Apocalypse?

As you know I like to surf my channel guide in search of the worst, cheesiest, most appalling reality shows on television. The more insipid, the more ill-conceived, the more Hugh Hefner the better. From PREGNANT IN HEELS hosted by Rosie, a woman who can’t talk to Paris Hilton & Nicole Richie giving enemas to participants of a fat camp – I scour the globe hunting down these atrocities.

Recently on something called TruTV a new singing competition premiered -- KILLER KARAOKE. I figured – how perfect! Idiots have to sing karaoke while lowered into pools of ice water filled with snakes or while an involuntary body wax is being performed on them. A sure sign of the end of the world? You betcha, I'll pull up a chair. 

So I grabbed my notepad, put on KILLER KARAOKE, and a strange thing happened. I started laughing not because the show was so wretched but because I was actually being entertained. Yes, KILLER KARAOKE is a showcase for utterly brainless buffoons, much like WIPE OUT but it is more. I don’t know any of the people involved so this is just speculation based on what I saw but KILLER KAROKE is also a brilliant parody. It’s a spoof on the relentless inanity of the genre, and like all good spoofs it doesn’t give itself away. They play it straight. And 90% of the morons who watch the show believe it’s straight. But there were certain tip offs to me to suggest there was something else going on here. Kinda like the old Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons. Kids enjoyed them at face value but there were lots of adult gags that went right over the little tykes’ heads. Same with the Phil Hendrie radio show. 

Here was my first clue: The host is Steve-O from JACKASS fame. Not exactly Alex Trebeck. He introduced himself by saying, “I can’t sing, I can’t dance, but boy can I do destruction.” I sensed a little tongue-in-cheek.

Then he brought on his first contestant, Melissa, who said she sang in prisons. Steve-O asked her: “Did you ever sing for prisons in Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, or California?” When she said no he replied: “So I didn’t get a chance to catch any of your shows.” Okay, I laughed.

Since the beginning of television there have been game shows where contestants have had to do ridiculous stunts. BEAT THE CLOCK and TRUTH OF CONSEQUENCES to name just two. Goofballs would have to hop through obstacle courses with a fish in their pants, hilarity like that. KK just ups the ante. And then having the contestants sing while bombarded by cream pies and live scorpions, well who wouldn’t laugh at a heartfelt rendition of “You Are So Beautiful” punctuated by screams?

Some of the stunts were clearly dreamed up by sick comic minds. In one a contestant had to be a waiter in a Mexican restaurant. On one side of the stage were items to be served, on the other was Steve-O at a table. And all the while the singing waiter was getting shocked periodically. Enough to lose his bearings, drop his items, etc. The items were trays of cocktails, dishes of beans, stacks of tortillas… and watching someone try to sing “I Was Born a Traveling Man” while drinks went flying was funny. I can just imagine the writers saying, “Okay, how can we get the most bang for our buck? What are the funniest things we can have him serve?”

My other favorite stunt involved some skeesix with balloons attached to his entire body, head to toe. He was given goggles to obscure his vision and sent on a path to get from one end of the stage to the other. Except the course was filled with cacti. He’s stumbling through this maze, balloons are popping, he’s yelping, things are crashing around him, and I found it just so surreally bizarre that I laughed out loud.

Other stunts were less successful. The body waxing stopped being funny real quick and the guy stepping into maggots, or whatever those were lost its charm.

I think a big mistake is that the show is an hour, not a half-hour. The joke becomes repetitious. And of course you hate yourself for laughing – for whatever reason you laughed.

The irony of course is that they try to terrorize contestants while they sing karaoke. There are a lot of people I know who would be scared shitless just to sing karaoke – even if it wa just on a stage for four drunks. You don’t need snakes to traumatize them for the rest of their lives. Just the track for “My Heart Will Go On.”

KILLER KARAOKE is on Friday nights on this TruTV (whatever that is). I hope the show goes long enough that they can have a CELEBRITY KILLER KARAOKE edition. God, I would love to hear Rosie from PREGNANT IN HEELS have to sing “Rolling In the Deep” while hanging upside down in a cage filled with birds.

Casting against type

But first a word from our sponsor -- me.  For the holidays I have just reduced the price of my book, THE ME GENERATION... BY ME.   Paperback was $14.99, now just $12.10.  Kindle version was $6.99, now only $4.99.   

It's the perfect gift, especially for someone who's a baby boomer (like your parents)or can read, and it's a great way to support this blog.  Also, put it on your wish list and let someone buy it for you.   Thanks much.   Okay... now back to today's post.

TV critic extraordinaire, Alan Sepinwall engaged in a Twitter discussion recently about actor David Morse. Morse is known for playing heavies and dark brooding characters and a reader wanted to know if he had ever played a light character. Alan (bless him) referred the reader to BIG WAVE DAVE’S, a short-lived series my partner David Isaacs and I created for CBS back in 1993.  The Big Wave Dave of BIG WAVE DAVE'S was Dave.  

We opted to cast against type and were thrilled with the results. To see David in our show just go here.

I feel bad for actors in that they easily get pigeonholed. Play a good villain and those are the only roles you’re offered. Make a name for yourself in comedy and you’re deemed too “light” for hard drama. Producers and networks are often short-sighted and just see actors one way.

And yet, casting against type pays off time and time again. I’ve found that interesting villains generally can play comedy. Ed Asner was a heavy his entire career until landing the Lou Grant role on THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW. Nick Colsanto played mob guys and thugs in many movies including RAGING BULL and I think you’d agree he did an okay job as the Coach on CHEERS. (And while we’re on the subject of CHEERS, could you ever picture Woody Harrelson playing scary guys so convincingly?)

When I saw ROBOCOP I was particularly impressed with one of the bad guys. I had never seen him before but he was so compelling. I thought to myself, “I want to work with that guy someday.” That guy was Kurtwood Smith and in fact I did work him. Going against type we also cast him in BIG WAVE DAVE’S. Kurtwood went on to play the father in THAT ‘70s SHOW.

David Clennon is best remembered for the very button-down character he played in THIRTYSOMETHING. We cast him as a complete bizarro in ALMOST PERFECT. You can see an example here. Tell me he didn’t hit it out of the park.

As a producer you have to be willing to stick your neck out. You may be asking an actor to do something out of his comfort zone and you may be asking the audience to put aside preconceived opinions (even if those opinions were favorable). But when it works the payoffs are HUGE.

Look at Mandy Patinkin in HOMELAND. Usually there’s not a set he doesn’t leave teeth marks on. But in this show he plays a wonderfully controlled character and is far more spellbinding than he ever was playing to the last row.

Perhaps the producer who casts against type the best is Graham Yost of JUSTIFIED. Longtime sitcom veteran Jere Burns as a bad guy/weasel was inspired. And in the casting coup of the decade – Margo Martindale as the evil matriarch who ran the county was a revelation. No one played more sweet, nurturing, lovable moms and aunts and kindergarten teachers than Margo Martindale. And she was always great in every role. But on JUSTIFIED she rose to a completely different level. I was a longtime fan and still I kept saying, “Who knew?”

My point is this: how many actors working today would surprise and delight you in roles you’d never expect if they only got the chance? Wondrous Jennifer Lawrence played a kid on the middling sitcom, THE BILL ENGVALL SHOW. I invite producers, studios, networks, playwrights, film directors – anyone – to keep an open mind. The person you least expect could be the person who steals your show.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK: My review

David O. Russell is one of those filmmakers who is capable of making an extraordinary movie or a giant piece of shit. You wonder how the same guy could make FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, THE FIGHTER, and also I HEART HUCKABEES. He’s one of those artistes who thinks a lot of himself. I saw him at a Q & A at the DGA after HUCKABEES screened and let’s just say Orson Welles was more humble. (Maybe the O. stands for Orson?)

So I went into his latest effort, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK holding my breath. The reviews have been excellent but so were the reviews for FLIGHT so those mean nothing. But happy to say I thought SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK lived up to its billing. David O. pulled it off. This is one of his good ones -- his very good ones.

There are some films you love from the Universal logo and others you need time to warm up to. The latter was the case for me. It’s a little long and we get that the lead character (played beautifully by Bradley Cooper) is bi-polar. Six meltdowns instead of twelve would have sufficed. But once the movie gets going it reels you in.

And why? Because Jennifer Lawrence is spectacular!

I know this sounds weird to say because she’s not that old herself, but Jennifer Lawrence is the young Claire Danes. She is only 22 and already has achieved the impossible – salvaged an acting career after being a series regular of the BILL ENGVALL SHOW. Her Oscar nomination for WINTER’S BONE was not a fluke. I expect her to get another this year and quite possibly a win.

Also, credit to David O. for writing her such a killer part. (I should mention at this point that the film was adapted from the novel by Matthew Quick.) I always tell young scribes that when they write their great American spec screenplays always think of the actors. You’re never going to sell your spec regardless of how uber clever of is unless you have created exciting, memorable, original characters. And this film is bursting with them. Jennifer's, in particular, stands out. But so does Robert De Niro’s.

This was the best performance I’ve seen De Niro give in probably ten years. When you watch him do crap like LITTLE FOCKERS and ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE you forget that he’s one of America’s premiere actors. This film returns him to fine form.

Oh... and honorable mention to Chris Tucker.  He's what Tracy Morgan thinks he is but isn't in the same galaxy.  

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK manages to juggle football, ballroom dancing, mental illness, romance, obsession, and Raisin Bran into one well-constructed satisfying motion picture. I heartily recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good holiday love affair between two highly damaged individuals. And let’s face it, who doesn’t? The movie is billed as a comedy, and although it had more laughs than the Judd Apatow trailer, I would consider it much more a drama with some comedic overtones.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is a terrific movie. Just don’t tell David O. Russell. If you think he was hard to live with before... 

I know it's playing in Los Angeles and New York.  Hopefully, it's in your town or will be soon.  Here on Maui I expect it to open in 2014. 

Oscar campaigns

We have officially entered Oscar season. This is the time of year Harvey Weinstein, Steven Spielberg, and Will Smith live for. Studios will spend big bucks on campaigns – all designed to cop those coveted Oscar nominations. You'll see posters, full-page ads, DVD’s, private screenings, and appearances. Hell, if you’re an Academy member Steven Spielberg will come to your house personally and help you clean your storm drains. He wants them statuettes!

But what of those other poor deserving films that can’t afford a splashy billion-dollar campaign? Shouldn’t they get a chance to sing their own praises too? I say yes, and so as a public service, here are some movies and achievements that deserve your consideration this Oscar season.

KATY PERRY’S PART OF ME: 3D
“Katy Perry cements her place as America’s finest actress in this riveting and haunting tale.” -- Bert Schmeldenbaucher, Mojavie World Telegram.
“Best movie of the year!” -- Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

EXPENDABLES 2
“After seeing Arnold in this film, movie lovers are all saying, ‘where have you been?’” -- Betsy Dorkuspig, Utica Tattler
“Now these are action stars!” – Titus Wigglebottom, Octogenarian Yearly
“Best movie of the year!” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

ATM
“Finally! A slasher movie that also tackles personal finances!” – Yetta Pimskotch, MyCrazyAunt.com
“Alice Eve makes you forget about Fernanda Andrade.” – Ollie Putz, Buttonwillow Daily Recycler
“Best movie of the year!” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

ODD LIFE OF TIMOTHY GREEN
“Best child-as-plant film since LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS” – Medla Markanheimer-Wong, her podcast
“You’ll cry so much you can water your lawn” – Phoebe Stegmata, Aetna Insurance, inter-office memo
“Best movie of the year!” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

THE DEVIL INSIDE
“Groundbreaking filmmaking. It has no ending. Either that or I missed a reel.” – Zena Fitzwilly, Gratiot World-Gazette
“Greatest ending of the year!” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

BATTLESHIP
“I didn’t want it to end. Someone should invent a board game of this.” – Lally Agamemnon, French Lick Keen Observer
“A masterclass in imitating Michael Bay” – F.X. Stottlemeyer, Film as Art magazine
"Rihanna and Brooklyn Decker prove that acting is more important than special effects" -- Darvy Dalrimple, Tea Party Telegram
“Best movie of the year” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

ROCK OF AGES
“What LES MISERABLES should have been” – Lisa Freep, President of the Tom Cruise fan club
“It was liking having your favorite actors join you for Karaoke night” – Burford Bozelboof, Mercenary Life magazine
“Best movie of the year” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

ONE FOR THE MONEY
“Step aside Meryl Streep. Katherine Heigl rises to the level of national treasure in this uproarious comedy.” – Fawn Ipskow, Roswell Forever newsletter
“Four stars and all of them are Katherine Heigl” – Mary Beth Margaret Rose St. Swithens, Jewish Journal
“And you didn’t think she could top herself after ZYZZYX ROAD but by God Katherine Heigl is that good! – J.R. Junior Jr., critic, Channel 64, Public Access, Apopka, Florida
“Didn’t like it. I don’t get Katherine Heigl.” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

If any of these wins an Academy Award I want to be thanked. Best of luck to them all.

How to recognize a bad sitcom

Charlie Hauck is a terrific comedy writer (FRASIER, MAUDE, etc.) and a hilarious author. His comic novel about a writing team launching a sitcom starring the diva from hell is both hilarious and all-too-real. The book is called ARTISTIC DIFFERENCES and well worth reading.

On one page he explains how you can tell a bad sitcom. Simple rules, worth repeating here.

1. Any show in which any character at any time during the life of the series says the words “Ta da!” is a bad sitcom.

2. Any show in which one character says to another, “What are friends for?” is a bad sitcom.

3. Any show in which a character says “Bingo!” in the sense of “Eureka!” is a bad sitcom.

4. Any show in which an actor or actress under the age of seven says cute things in close-up is a bad sitcom.

5. Any show in which an actor or actress over the age of seventy-five says vulgar things in close-up is a bad sitcom.

6. Any show that resorts to the use of Dr. Zarkov dialogue (named for the villain in the FLASH GORGON series, where one character tells another character something they both already know, for the benefit of the audience) is a bad sitcom.

7. Any show in which a character, in the closing minutes, says, “I guess we’ve all learned a lesson,” and then goes on to explain what that lesson is, is a bad sitcom.

And if I may add a few of my own:

8. Any show where the studio audience says “Awwwwww” and the producers leave it in is a bad sitcom.

9. Any show that makes a Kim Kardashian joke is a bad sitcom.

10. Any show with Fran Drescher is a bad sitcom.

The CHEERS script that could have ruined us

Happily, there's no writers strike this year (it being leap year).  One byproduct of a writers strike is that studios may shoot existing scripts but may not change them. So jokes can’t be fixed, lines can’t be tailored to actors, locations can’t be changed (too bad if an exterior gets rained out – you can’t move inside to a new location), and special effects have to be executed just as described (whether they’re possible or not).

In 1985 there was the possibility of a work stoppage. Back then our contract ran out March 1st, which was idiotic. We’d strike right as the TV season ended. So we’d be out for four months before the producers even knew it. All signs pointed to a peaceful resolution so life went on as planned. NBC asked for a last minute additional episode of CHEERS and David Isaacs and I were asked to write it. There was a big time crunch, the show needed to start filming the following week, so we had three days to write the script. The idea was we’d bang out a draft, turn it in on Friday, we’d all polish it on Monday and Tuesday, and on Wednesday it went into production.

We turned in the script on Friday afternoon and on Saturday negotiations blew apart. An immediate strike was announced.

So now they had to film our very first draft, as is, no changes. This was the first BAR WARS episode. Needless to say, show night was one of the most terrifying nights of my life. I thought, “this is where we’re discovered as frauds”. Amazingly, the show played well. Not as well as it could have, don’t get me wrong. There were plenty of places where jokes could be improved and turns could be better finessed. But on the whole the show worked and there was no noticeable drop in quality.

And there was a silver lining -- for maybe the only time in your career, the actors had HAD TO say our words, as written. It’s almost worth taking the assignment just for that.