STEVE JOBS -- my review

As readers of this blog know, I love Aaron Sorkin’s writing. Yes, it’s stylized; no, real people don’t talk like that – but it’s smart and thought provoking and in a world where Donald Trump is actually a serious candidate for President and people give a shit about the Kardashians it’s a nice fantasy that not everyone is a dolt.

Sorkin always chooses arenas filled with bright Mensa members so you believe that his characters are at least capable of spontaneously delivering a masterful speech with a killer closing line. He’s not writing SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT 9.

His latest endeavor is STEVE JOBS. Clearly a fascinating subject, Jobs was a visionary, a tyrant, a genius, a nutcase, a failure, and spectacular success. All before breakfast. He was admired and feared. He was a perfectionist to where Oscar Levant would say “lighten up.” Jobs was truly larger-than-life. Unless you had Ashton Kutcher starring as him, it’s hard to imagine a bad movie about such a dynamic personality.

Add to the mix, Danny Boyle as director. He is without a doubt one of the finest, most creative, visually stunning directors we have. So on paper this was an absolute Dream Team making this film.

The result is very good. But if the real Steve Jobs were running the studio he would probably send it back for more development, rewrites, and reshoots. It’s an iPad that still has some bugs in it.

And to a certain extent, I blame the director.

Sorkin wanted to do a biopic that wasn’t the standard linear timeline you most often see. He also knew he couldn’t tell the whole story. The book he adapted is probably 10,000 pages (I don’t know. I have the Kindle version. It just tells me what percentage of the book I’ve completed. I read it a few years ago and seem to recall he was well into his teens before I reached 2%.) I applaud Sorkin for that. What he came up with was an interesting conceit. He would show the introduction of three of his signature products. The action would take place during the final few minutes before he had to go on stage and make his presentation.

Taking a bit of creative license, in all three scenarios people in his life would appear and get into verbal wrestling matches with him. His ex, his daughter, his former business associate, his former tech partner, his girl Friday.  Who provided security for these venues?  

Now in real life, at least some of these people might say “there may be a better time than five minutes before you have to address thousands of uber nerds.” Perhaps a discussion of why he was fired from his own company ten years prior could come at another time. When I was about to go on the air and broadcast a baseball game to a thirty-station network I generally did not get into a big argument with a former girlfriend over whether she should convert.

But like I said, it was a conceit and artists do that all the time. I think it would have served the material better if it were a play, but that’s neither here nor there.

So why I’m I blaming the director?

Because the dialogue, as rich and wonderful as it was, was relentless. Each segment played the same – fast paced, up against the clock, juggling crises – but without a break it was ultimately exhausting. David Fincher figured that out directing Sorkin’s SOCIAL NETWORK. He left some room for the audience to breathe. As a result, it was much easier to process, and when there were those high-charged super Sorkin exchanges they really popped. There were sections of STEVE JOBS when I admit I zoned out.

The film plays at one level – hyperspeed. Danny Boyle should know better. God forbid Jobs sat back, had a cup of tea, and reflected for five minutes. Instead, it seemed like he was mainlining Red Bull while downing bottle after bottle of 5-Hour Energy and then washing it all down with Jolt Cola.

Michael Fassbender was terrific as Jobs. Seth Rogen stood his ground as Steve Wozniak. Jeff Daniels is now a veteran of Sorkin-speak and Kate Winslet had the thankless role of his marketing director/handler. Still, she had some good speeches when she wasn’t saying, “Steve, you’re late. Steve, you can’t do that. Steve, let me tie your tie.”

At the end of the day, IF you are a Sorkin fan, you will be entertained. But you won’t learn anything new about Steve Jobs.

To me the essence of Steve Job is that his greatest gift is what ultimately killed him. He had this belief that he could will things into being. Engineers would tell him certain things were impossible, he would say they’re not, and sure enough he was right. The success of Apple is his vision and ability to create reality. That blind faith built a multi-billion dollar business and changed society.

But when he was diagnosed with cancer, instead of treating it medically and vigorously, he let it slide, counting on his ability to control outcomes. Well, this outcome he couldn’t control. To me, that’s a better story – the price of greatness, the irony that his greatest strength proved to be his greatest weakness. None of that was touched on in the movie – which I understand, but I would have been more interested in that story rather than would he and his teenage daughter reconcile?

Oh well. Maybe it’s time for a remake. What’s Ashton Kutcher doing these days?

Does anyone remember THE DREW CAREY SHOW?

Most TV shows are forgotten. They air for a short while, get cancelled, and poof, they're gone forever. In many cases mercifully. Of course, now there are so many shows on so many platforms that some are forgotten even though they’re still on.

A few cancelled shows remain as faint blips on the radar because their creator now has a blog and keeps reminding people of them. (No names because I don’t want to call any of those almost perfect people out.)

But rarely do you have a long-running series that has completely disappeared into the ether. You figure a show that stayed on the air for nine seasons would be in syndication or on a streaming service or the complete series would be available on DVD. BECKER, which deserves way more credit, still pops up on Netflix and is occasionally seen in syndication.

MURPHY BROWN had its day but the topical nature of the humor proved to be its later-life downfall. Still, you can rent one season on Netflix.

But then there’s the case of THE DREW CAREY SHOW. From 1995-2004 this show aired on ABC. It was never a smash. The best it did was finish 13th for a couple of years (which is damn good).  And then the ratings dropped like a stone. It’s last year it finished 150th. (Not sure why ABC kept picking it up, but whatever.)

There’s a couple articles about this in Uproxx.

A lot of the actors have gone on to do other things. Carey is hosting THE PRICE IS RIGHT. Kate Walsh is on GREY’S ANATOMY, Craig Ferguson became a talk show host and is now doing game shows and I don’t know what. And among the writers was the great Sam Simon.

If anything, you’d think the show would still be on the air in Cleveland.

But nope. After an initial limited syndication run, it’s been gone for years. And even then, only five of the nine seasons were shown. Due to music rights, it’s not even on Netflix or another streaming platform. You can only find the DVD of the first season.

I just find it odd that a series that ran for nine full seasons has vanished from the cultural landscape. And it brings up several questions I have for you dear readers: Do you remember THE DREW CAREY SHOW? If not, what is your age? And for those that do remember it, is it something you miss and would like to see again? I’m very curious. For all I know there is mad love for THE DREW CAREY SHOW. Or the distributors are right and no one gives a shit.  You decide.  Thanks.

How did "Lilith" get her name?

Here’s a question that actually came from a Facebook friend. And I’m doing it as a complete post because it’s a CHEERS question I receive a lot so I want to give it the maximum exposure.

David Kruh asked:

Where did you get the name Lilith?

First of all, I didn’t name her. The writing team of Cheri & Bill Steinkellner did – originally just for a teaser. But the character was so funny and she and Frasier were such an interesting couple that Lilith (Bebe Neuwirth) just kept returning and eventually became a series regular.

Cheri Steinkellner was gracious enough to answer the question on Facebook, but I wanted to share it with all of you. So here it is:

Last name first, Billy and I named her Sternin as a pairing for Frasier in honor of our old "Who's The Boss?" writing buddies, Rob Sternin and Prudence Frasier (they went on to co-create "The Nanny").

We wanted a first name to go with it that embodied stern-ness, like a Dickensian or Hodgson-Burnett headmistress in a high-necked blouse and tight bun; (the seed of the character is Frasier's "I can count the comb-marks in your hair" - but that's another story). Back in the 80s, we had to use actual books with paper pages to look stuff like names, and our favorite was written by Leslie Dunkling (whose name we gave to a character in Disney's Teacher's Pet).

"Lilith" was the sternest, least-nonsense, comb-mark-counting-est name we could find. The Biblical badass didn't factor in. It just sounded right to our ears and made us laugh.

I think we’d all agree that Lilith was the PERFECT name. Thanks, Cheri. They went on to write some great episodes of CHEERS and eventually became co-showrunners. Not much after that – Emmys, a few series they created, and a Tony nomination for musical of the year.

Are you ready for some idiotic commercials?

The only time I watch commercials is when I’m watching a live sporting event and am forced to.

So that means Sunday afternoons as I watch NFL football. The commercials, I've discovered, all fall into three or four categories.

The new car commercial. Always a city at night, gleaming skyline, and for some reason the streets and highways are completely deserted except for this one shimmering car. It roars over bridges, barrels through tunnels, and speeds through downtown. Forget a policeman or stoplight, there’s never another car.  Or pedestrian.

The driver is often in a tuxedo. So he’s going to a black tie event the night after the city has been evacuated. He never wonders why a heavy populated urban center is deserted. If I could hop in a new car and be assured police would put up barricades and detain 2,000,000 people allowing me to go from Santa Monica to the Staples Center without stopping once at 7:00 on a Friday night, I would buy that car. Assuming of course that it was always washed and waxed. If I can’t see the lights of the city reflecting off my hood in cool geometric patterns the deal is off.

The subliminal selling point of cars used to be that you’d get women and get laid. Now it’s that you can make a left hand turn at any intersection.

There are still the truck commercials. They haven’t changed. They’re tough. They’re rugged. You can haul redwoods. You can drive through mud.  When am I ever going to haul trees?  I live in a deserted city. 

Crappy franchise junk food is another popular category. Every combination of meat, cheese, bacon, and sauces on every combination of bread, roll, tortilla, or wrap. Burger King is boasting a black bun for Halloween. Um, doesn’t that suggest burnt?

These commercials generally feature some super hot babe eating one of these monster sloppy drippy bacon laced heart attacks, which to me is even less plausible than driving through a deserted Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

Taco Bell is selling healthy alternatives like salads with the slogan “Un-Freshing-Believable.” Uh, “un-fresh?” Doesn’t that sound like the food is anything BUT fresh?  Don Draper let that go through?  It actually makes no difference because the minute they show lettuce on a Taco Bell commercial they’ve lost their audience. Ironically, you never see a Kardashian eating a salad, just a triple-deck Tabasco pulled pork sandwich with pineapple slices and cinnamon-swirl cheddar french toast .

Beer commercials are plentiful and they too have not changed their approach. All are geared to stupid frat boy/man children who love their teams more than their girlfriends, which is easy because none of them have girlfriends.

And for every other commercial, no matter what the product, whether it’s food or life insurance – there’s an NFL player in it. Usually in uniform (because as we all know, football players never go anywhere without their shoulder pads). These commercials are all designed to be humorous. I could throw a touchdown pass in the Super Bowl before one of these guys could deliver a joke. It’s just one clam after another. LeBron James in TRAINWRECK is the Charlie Chaplin of pro athletes.

It’s a great temptation to just DVR the games, but I like the feel of watching a sporting event in real time. I like having the ticker to follow the scores of the other games. And if Ian Eagle is calling the game I don’t want to miss any of his deliciously wicked throwaway lines. But we’re not halfway through the season and already I’m tearing my hair out. I just want to get in my car, floor it, and drive. Unfortunately, there’s stop-and-go traffic on Wilshire at 4:30 on a Sunday.  I hate you, Madison Avenue! 

How to create a hit procedural

Network development season is in full swing. Comedies are hot commodities this year but one staple that never seems to go out of style is procedural dramas. Fame and fortune and a spin-off with :MIAMI at the end of the title can be yours if you just follow my simple rules.

Your star must have some supernatural power. He or she can read minds, has an amazing photographic memory, can remember every lunch he/she ever had, is a math whiz, or the most common – can see Fairy Tale characters.

But with this gift must come a curse. They must be tortured emotionally. They must have a dark past. Their wife/sibling/child/imaginary friend has been killed and they’re still haunted by it.

They’re only helping the police solve crimes as a way to better get in touch with resolving the unsolved circumstances of their dark past. The killer is still out there!  But only week one and the season finale.  Otherwise, it's business as usual.  Solving crimes and tossing off zingers.

When we go home with the hero we see he’s lonely. He can’t really get close to anyone because he’s so damaged. He compensates for no social skills by possessing this wondrous ability to bend spoons with his mind.

The hero must have a code. Oh sure he may come off as a cynic or she a bitch but ultimately they’re the champion of the little people.

The hero must have a partner of the opposite sex who finds him/her infuriating but is totally dependent on him/her. The partner is always somewhat of an idiot. He enters the crime scene and every week comes to the wrong conclusion. Only our hero, with his snazzy power, is perceptive enough to surmise what is really going on. And if the partner wasn’t already dumb enough, he has to now argue with the hero. The hero ultimately turns out to be right.

The hero must be surrounded by an investigative team. They stand around, provide exposition, and chase bad guys. Having a superpower means you never have to run. This team should be young and attractive. And one member must somehow be “quirky”. Note: If it’s a CBS show at least one attractive team member must be a brunette.

Throw in some grizzly murders, a cool stylized squad room (who knew police stations looked like the penthouse restaurant in the Space Needle?), and toss in a former major TV star or two and you’ve got a five year run.

So get going. A cop who channels Columbo. A detective who can go forward in time five minutes. A forensic expert who can communicate with inanimate objects. A coroner who can break down the ingredients in food without having to refer to the packaging.  The possibilities are endless!

All I ask for in return is the following credit:

Based on a Tired Formula by Ken Levine  

Let’s all get rich!

This is a re-post from many years ago but nothing's changed it seems.

The CHEERS I'm still writing in my head.

Hello from THE SITCOM ROOM. Since this is a weekend of rewriting and trying to make things work, I thought I'd reprise a column I wrote seven or eight years ago about a moment I'm still trying to fix.

Sometimes you just never know.

David Isaacs and I wrote an episode of Cheers the first season called "The Boys in the Bar." We were also producing the show at the time with the Charles Brothers and Jim Burrows.

The subject matter was a little tricky. It had been reported in the papers that a former player for the Dodgers, Glenn Burke, admitted he was gay. We thought, what if Sam's roommate during his playing days made the same admission? It seemed like a great way to explore the homophobia you find in some sports bars. Okay...most.

So we came up with this story: When Sam's ex-roommate reveals he's gay, Sam must decide whether or not to support him. There is concern from the bar regulars that if Sam does, the bar will go gay. I never said these were smart bar regulars. Still, Sam does back his former roomy and the regulars are very on edge. The next day, when they suspect two patrons of being gay, they try in their clumsy oafish way to "encourage" them to leave. The suspects eventually do and Norm, Cliff, and the gang are feeling very good about themselves until they realize they chased out the wrong pair. The real gay guys are standing on either side of Norm and both kiss him at once.

There was concern from the get-go that this story might be a little too risky for a series that at the time was struggling to find an audience. (It's bad enough Cheers was losing to Simon & Simon at the time; it was getting its ass kicked by Tucker's Witch too.) We forged ahead anyway and wrote the draft.

Everyone seemed to like it but was still a little worried. To their credit, the Charles Brothers and Burrows did not back away. They put the show on the production schedule.

The first day of production a table reading is scheduled. The cast sits around a large conference table and reads the script aloud. Writers gauge how it's playing and begin rewriting the things that didn't appear to work. "The Boys in the Bar" seemed to go okay. Not through the roof but decent.

As I walked out of the room Ted Danson approached and said, "Don't change a word." I was a little overly defensive and didn't appreciate the sarcasm, "Hey, give me a break," I snapped, "We tried for something, okay?" He waved his hands. "No, no, I mean it. It's great. Don't change a word." Needless to say I felt like a giant ass... but was relieved.

The week of rehearsals went smoothly. Just a little tweaking here and there but no major rewrites.

Cheers, like most multi-camera shows, operated on a five-day production schedule. The first three for rehearsing with the cast alone, then on day four the camera crews come in the technical work is done. Finally, on day five, the show is shot in front of a live studio audience.

The crew is usually a good indicator of what works. We've now heard every joke nine times. Nothing is funny to us. They're hearing the material for the first time.

The crew LOVED "The Boys in the Bar." Big laughs all the way through. And by far the biggest was the last joke where the two guys flanking Norm kiss him. It was easily the biggest crew laugh of the year.

So we felt great heading into show night. Sure enough the audience was with us from the first minute. One joke (Sam telling Diane he should've known his roommate was gay; in a piano bar he once requested a show tune) got such a thunderous prolonged laugh that they had to stop cameras. Too much film was being wasted.

The show and the laughs barreled on. I was having the time of my life. There's nothing a writer craves more than hearing big laughs. Now we're at the end. The two gay guys lean in and kiss Norm, and...

Silence. Dead silence. You could hear crickets.

It wasn't like some people got it and others didn't. Nobody laughed. Not a single person.

I felt like Wile E. Coyote when he runs off a cliff and is in mid-air for a few seconds before he realizes it, then plummets to the ground. That was me and the rest of the staff.

We quickly huddled. No one had an explanation. The best we could come up with was that the audience didn't realize that was the end. They were waiting for something else. So we reshot the scene and after the kiss we added a line. Norm points to one and says, "Better than Vera." That got a sort-of laugh but was the best we could do. Cut to the closing credit and get the hell out.

We received an Emmy nomination for that show and won the Writers Guild Award for it. It's still one of my proudest episodes. But to this day I scratch my head.

The crew liked it! They all got it! What happened???

Friday Questions

As I get ready for tomorrow's SITCOM ROOM seminar,  here are this week’s Friday Questions.

GS in SF starts us off:

A few weeks ago you wrote about the favorite episodes you wrote -- what about the favorite episodes you *directed* without writing? I know pie fight may be number 1, so please start after that -- show, episode, and perhaps why.

Actually I did co-write the pie fight episode of ALMOST PERFECT.  Beyond that,  I’m very partial to a FRASIER I did called “Roz and the Schnoz” written by Jeffrey Richman. It was a great script and I’m very proud of how that show came out.  I think it's one of the funniest FRASIER'S ever -- and that's saying something.

But my favorite on-screen directing credit was this one from INSTANT MOM.

Why? Because it came right after this credit:

From Silas:

I have a question about the 7th season of MASH. There is an episode titled "None Like it Hot" about a heatwave. It was followed the next week by an episode you and David wrote called "They Call the Wind Korea." It was about a freezing windstorm. Then just two weeks later an episode titled "Baby It's Cold Outside." Why were there so many weather related stories so close to each other?

The episodes were shown out of order. We began filming that season right after the 4th of July and new episodes didn’t premiere until late September. So we had eight or so episodes in the can before the season began. Usually the network determined airdates, not us.

We did do a number of weather-related episodes that year and here’s why:

We were locked into that camp site and felt that after six seasons we needed to find ways to create some variety. Weather was one. That year we also did the Point of View episode, another set primarily in a cave and an episode entirely in Rosie’s Bar.

But it would not have been my choice to air the weather episodes so close to each other.

Moving on to CHEERS, Justin asks:

Three not-so simple opinion questions as I re-watch "Cheers" for the umpteenth time:

1. Diane or Rebecca

Each brings a different quality and was wonderful on the show. If I had to pick however, it would be  Diane. Shelley Long was extraordinary playing a very difficult character. It would have been so easy to hate Diane. But Shelley made her warm and funny while still keeping her snootiness and edge. She walked a fine line every week and did so with precision and grace. I’m in awe of some of her performances.

2. Was there a favorite guest star on the program?

Hard to beat Johnny Carson, especially since we wrote that episode, and got to be on THE TONIGHT SHOW stage while he did our monologue and it got actual studio audience laughs.

3. Favorite recurring non-lead character or barfly (mine will forever be Al)?

Al (Rosen) would be mine as well. And by the way, he was never billed as “Al.” He was listed in every script as “Man Who Said Sinatra.” (“Sinatra” was the first line he ever had on the show and the name stuck.)

And finally, from SITCOM ROOM alum, Wendy Grossman:

In the Previously TV thread for the latest episode of NASHVILLE (S04e02), a poster indicates that they've been asked to be on an "ABC advisory panel" for the show, apparently to indicate what storylines they like/don't like etc. It sounds like a focus group, but they haven't given further details. Is this a new low for "network notes"? (I imagine something like, "The advisory panel doesn't like Juliette being so fucked up that she abandons her husband and new baby; can you get them back together pronto? Oh, and do something about Gunnar's hair. They don't like it.")

This is just another example of how networks are operating out of fear and desperation. I would pay way more attention to such research if it ever proved to be accurate. But it's not and never has been.  Remember, every terrible new show you see this fall tested well.

As a showrunner, I would use this as one source of feedback, utilize anything I thought was helpful, and ignore the rest.

God forbid creative people and artists determine the vision and execution of a television show instead of focus groups.

What’s your Friday Question?

Mets fans can thank me

I was having dinner last Thursday night with Howie Rose, their great radio announcer.  I dropped him off at the team hotel and as I was about to pull away, Matt Harvey and five other players crossed in front of my car.   I guess I'm not as big a Dodger fan as I thought.

Congratulations to the Mets.  And the Cubs, Blue Jays, and Royals. 

And Mets fans, you're welcome. 

The strangest rewrite I've ever been in

With THE SITCOM ROOM coming up this weekend, I'm reminded of my craziest rewrite room experience.

A colleague of mine was teaching a writing course at a local Hollywood vocational college that specialized in TV & film production. Several divisions were collaborating on producing a half-hour sitcom episode. The writers branch was supervising the script, the directors branch handled directing, sets were constructed by production teams, editing students would cut it, etc. This was just a school exercise. The finished product would not be aired or even uploaded to the internet.

My friend asked if I would attend the table reading. He was assembling a few professional writers to join in on the rewrite. I was happy to help. They had an existing script, but it was from a British sitcom and he thought it might need some “Americanizing.” Fair enough.

Then I learned the script was from FAWLTY TOWERS. (They had secured permission to do it.) Okay, that was weird right off the bat. I was going to be rewriting John Cleese? “Hey, Mozart, I think you need some quarter notes here.”

But again, no one was going to see this so what the hell?

I arrived at their “campus,” which was several floors of a high rise in Hollywood. There was a big lecture hall. All of the students from the university were invited to attend regardless of their division. A table was set up in the middle of the cavernous room with individual desk/chairs surrounding it, several rows deep. Imagine a boxing ring or theater-in-the-round.

I’m guessing close to a hundred students filed in for the reading. Professional actors had been hired and although they were far from the originals they weren’t “Waiting for Guffman”either.

My writer friend worked on hour-dramas in his day and the other writers he had assembled for the rewrite were also drama veterans. This was going to be an interesting punch-up. FAWLTY TOWERS was so similar in style and jokes to STAR TREK VOYAGER.

The reading went fair. There was some work to do. The actors left, everyone took a break, milling around. I asked my chum where were we going to go to do the rewrite? He said we were going to do it here at the table. “Okay,” I said, “Then let’s clear everybody out so we can go to work.” “Oh no,” he said. “The students are staying.”

WHAT?!

Oh yes, this would be a great learning experience for them.

Now understand, writing rooms are the ultimate Las Vegas. What happens there, stays there. It’s a unique environment where people are forced to be creative on demand under extreme pressure. The staff must feel free to say anything no matter how appalling, politically incorrect, or stupid. Add just one outsider to the room and it’s like turning off the tap. Writers become very inhibited. There are certain activities you don’t do for an audience. Even though you can’t go blind doing rewrites they are one of them.

So if one looky-loo can squelch a room, imagine a hundred.

All the kids returned to their seats and for us it was like conducting a rewrite on the set of THE VOICE with a full audience (but at least there was no Carson Daly).

So there I am, rewriting a classic show I have no business touching, working with writers who devise grisly murders while two-hundred eyes were trained on us.

Needless to say, I was the only one pitching jokes. I think one of the other scribes wondered if Basil could kill Manuel but we nixed it.

The only good thing I found about doing a rewrite under these conditions was that when I pitched a joke that got a big laugh there was no argument as to whether or not it should go in. There were even a couple of times I drew applause. It was like I was doing a magic show. And I thought to myself : what was once a highly-sought-after unique professional skill has now been reduced to a parlor trick.

I’ve had strange rewrites before, but never one where it felt like an audition to open for Tom Jones in Vegas.

How to name names

Here’s a Friday Question that became an entire post because I just can’t shut up.

Rebecca P asks:

How do you come up with character names when you're first creating characters? It is very important to have a memorable name that suits the character, which I think has been done brilliantly on the shows you have worked on. Do you pull them from people you actually know? Flip through books until you find an interesting name?

The short answer: All of the above.

Memorable names are important and a lot of factors go into my thinking when naming characters.

Names should fit the characters. First off I want the names to be age appropriate. Not many teenage Chloe’s in the ‘50s. Not many teenage Agnes’s now.

If I was doing a period piece I might not have the British Empire ruled by Queen Heather.

I try not to give girls boys’ names because it can be confusing to the reader. No Sam’s or Max’s. Likewise, I don’t assign girls’ names to boys. No Jan’s or Leslie’s for dudes.

I avoid multiple names that start with the same letter. In any one script I won’t have a Steve, Seth, and Stan.

To make my characters more distinctive I shy away from very common names like Joe, Sue, or Bob.

But I also don’t want the names to be too unusual. Eustacia, Doraleen-Jo. Unless… the character is proud of having a unique name and that’s part of his or her character. I once had an Ottalie in a script. Also a Persephone.

I take a character’s background into consideration. Is he from a blue-blood family in Newport, Rhode Island? His name probably would not be Clem. Is he a redneck from the Everglades? I don’t think his folks would name him Ulysses.

Certain names fit certain personalities based on people I identify them with. And certain names have almost become synonymous with certain personalities. Bambi is a bimbo. Nordling is a nerd. I avoid those.

Last names are even more challenging. Ethnicity and religion can be defined by the last name. Not a lot of Kentucky hillbillies named Goldberg.

Authoritative characters tend to have strong names. Steele, Mason, Wainwright.

I don’t want all my characters to have uncommon last names. A few yes but sprinkle in a Henderson or Baker in there too.

Another consideration is number of syllables. I like names to have a good flow. Two syllables in the first name and one in the last name or vice versa. Kim Cooper. Darnell Page. That’s not a hard and fast rule but I always say names out loud before assigning them. Are they pleasing to the ear? Are they easy to pronounce? Long tongue-twisting names can be a problem unless you specifically want that. Perhaps it’s a running joke that no one can pronounce or remember someone’s last name.

I don’t like first names to end with the same letter as the beginning of the last name. Kevin Nance. Cheryl Lane. I don’t like the first and last names to blend.

I won’t use Adolph.

I admit that there are certain names that I like and use on several occasions – mostly girl names. Laura, Lauren, Linda, Wendy, Susan, Beth, Dana, Rachel, Diane, and Andrea have found their way into several of my scripts.

I don’t want the names to be too long because I don’t want to stumble over them while typing. Hey, I’m being honest.

Where do I get the names? I’ve talked about this before. I’ve used names of people I know, old girlfriends, ballplayers. I have high school annuals. If I hear a great name I’ll write it down and save it. And now I’ll just go to a Facebook friend’s page and if they have thousands of friends I’ll scroll through them in search of names.

Picking the right name is important and worth spending a few minutes to get right. But I caution you: you could also spend five days choosing one name. Don’t. It’s a trap. Take a few minutes then pick one. And hey, now with find-and-replace, you’re not locked in. You can change your mind and two or three clicks later you’ve got your new moniker.

You’re welcome to use Ken, unless he’s a doll with no genitals.

THE COMEDY DEBATE CONTINUES.   Here's Earl's rebuttal to my rebuttal.   Not sure where Hillary or Bernie stands on this issue.  I was watching the Dodgers-Mets game.

I want my own TV show!

Showrunners used to be invisible. No one knew who Allan Burns & James L. Brooks were when they created and ran THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW. Larry Gelbart was just some name on the MASH credits. Same with the Charles Brothers on CHEERS. Even if they had smart phones back then, no one would be asking to take selfies with Glen Charles.

But with the internet and fandom, writers are beginning to step into the limelight. (If only we were better looking.)

Larry Wilmore went from creating THE BERNIE MAC show to his own show on Comedy Central.

EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND showrunner, Phil Rosenthal is going to have a “world hopping food series” on PBS.

And now Dan Harmon from COMMUNITY is hosting a TV pilot for IFC.

So where is my TV series? I enjoyed my 1.5 minutes of fame hosting movies on TCM, and 2.6 seconds of fame as a commentator for THE SEVENTIES documentary series on CNN -- now I’m ready to hit the big time. I’m ready to branch out into my own series.

I’m waiting by the phone. I’m set to go.

Okay, there is the small issue of just what would the show be about? But that’s details. The main thing is you’d have ME. You’d have my brand. What is my brand? Again – details.

I could host a talk show, a game show, do sketch-variety, travel the world, review things, debate politicians and idiots, give cooking and surfing tips, star in a sitcom, makeover homes, host a kids show, sell Marie Osmond dolls on QVC, host a fitness show, or do whatever it is that Kelly Rippa does.

I’m still waiting by the phone.

All I need is a break. Sure, I could go the traditional route – do a sex tape that goes viral, but in as much as I have integrity (and Lizzy Caplan said no) I choose to take the high road and just shamelessly beg.

Producers and networks can also email me. They don’t have to call.

I’m getting a little worried because who knows how long this window will remain open? In another year maybe non-writing producers will get their own shows. They’ve infringed on our off-camera careers, why not this too? So I need my own show SOON.

And to sweeten the pot, I own several sports jackets and have an anti-glare treatment on my glasses.

I'm a natural!  

Let’s get me on television while there still is television. Thank you.

There must be something wrong with the phone. It’s just not ringing.

The Comedy Debate Continues

WARNING: Donald Trump is not part of this debate. There are no angry responses, no personal attacks, no grandstanding, no hidden agendas. If it were televised it would be on C-SPAN-6 not CNN or Fox News. Don’t expect to see portions of it discussed in op-ed pieces. If you’re okay with that then please read on.

Fellow writer Earl Pomerantz and I have had differing points of view recently on the “new” style of television comedy (geared almost exclusively to Millennials) where showrunners purposely avoid doing anything that might feel like a conventional joke. I took them to task for this. Here’s one of my articles. I contend the end result is tepid shows that aren’t funny. I don’t want to recap the whole piece. You may have been bored reading it in the first place.

Earl Pomerantz has credentials as good or better than mine. In his terrific blog on Friday he felt this new trend was not as a result of showrunners being lazy or less talented or arrogant. The full text of his article is a click away. But here’s the crux, excerpted from his piece:

the point I am focusing on today is that a mini-movie’s (Read: “single-camera” comedy’s) sensibility feels realer than a mini-play’s (the artistic antecedent of the studio-audience situation comedy.)

And with that preference in format comes a commensurate alteration in writing style.

Meaning (at the undeniable cost of greater laughter):

No “Big Jokes” (or traditional joke-writing structure whatsoever.) No “accidental misunderstandings.” No “mistaken identities.” No comedic “reveals.”

Nothing, in conclusion, that would only happen in a sitcom.

(Like you expect one thing and you get not something surprisingly different from what you expect but its diametrical opposite.)

As dependable as those comedic devices may be, they are incongruous with the template, by which I mean, not only the “single-camera” format itself, but the sensibilities of today’s viewership, most particularly, the younger viewership the networks are struggling hardest to attract, which prefers comedy more reflective of their everyday experience over the comedy – albeit brilliantly conceived and executed – of contrivance.

Earl makes some excellent points. And I would agree with him except for this:

It’s not working.

These shows get terrible ratings. Even among Millennials.

I don’t like Hip Hop music. I don’t get it. It doesn’t speak to me. But if I owned a record company I would sign as many Hip Hop artists as I could. Hip Hop music is HUGE. I tip my hat to Hip Hop artists. Their music might not be my cup of tea but those artists have obviously tapped into something that really resonates with the 12+ crowd.

And I would tip my cap to showrunners of this new comedy style if indeed it was attracting a large following the way Hip Hop is. But it’s not.

Fox tried to justify it a year ago when they inexplicably renewed THE MINDY PROJECT. There was room for niche comedy. A year later they couldn’t cancel it fast enough. (It has been picked up by a streaming service where a sizable audience is not the goal – getting and keeping paid subscribers is.)

One only need to look at the performances of THE BIG BANG THEORY and the new show that follows, LIFE IN PIECES. BIG BANG aggressively tries to make you laugh (at times exhaustively so) while LIFE IN PIECES opts for “realism” and avoiding comic tropes.

BIG BANG gets huge ratings (among young people) and PIECES drops 50% of its audience. 50%! That’s a staggering drop off.

Meanwhile, much maligned out-of-touch multi-camera shows bring in the ratings.  What's disturbing to me is they don't even have to be good.  2 BROKE GIRLS has made 100 episodes, and you know the only new sitcom that is doing well this season?  It's also the show with the single worst reviews.  DR. KEN.   Not only do Millennials want jokes; it seems they want ANY jokes.   Good God!

The only multi-camera shows that don't work for Millennials are the ones that are self-conscious or apologize for being in that format.  MULANEY and WHITNEY are two such offenders.  

From what I understand, there is currently a big renaissance for FRIENDS among young people.  Re-runs are flourishing as a new generation has discovered it.   That makes me happy.  FRIENDS is a good show.

I'm sure there are new formats and fresh ways of making Millennials laugh.  Someone will come along with "their" FRIENDS.  But the key take away is make it a COMEDY.

And by the way, this is nothing new.  In the early '80s they were saying that sitcoms are dead and "dramadies" were the new thing.  Same reasoning.  The form was old and musty and baby boomers wanted something "different."   A few years later CHEERS came along, and then FAMILY TIES, and COSBY, and NEWHART and by the end of the decade there were something like 60 sitcoms and dramadies were nowhere to be found.

Peering down your nose at anything that resembles comic conventions is not working.  Try something else.  What's the next Hip Hop?

I still contend when a comedy writer says to me he doesn’t DO jokes, what he’s really saying is he CAN’T do jokes.

Prove to me you’re funny. Or at least that lots of other people find you funny.

Earl-o? Back to you.  

A few fun fotos

For all the baseball fans in LA who can't get the Dodgers because of TWC, this one's for you.  The Mets' Lucas Duda hit a home run in batting practice yesterday that did this:

For anyone about to go on trial:

And I should be writing instead of surfing the net for pictures.  But then again, that's part of my process.

PROGRAMMING NOTE:  Tomorrow I respond to Earl Pomerantz's response to my rant on the new wave of comedy.  The debate continues.  Chairs will be thrown. 

Lost in Translation

When my writing partner, David Isaacs and I did a rewrite on JEWEL OF THE NILE for Michael Douglas we had to have the script approved by the Moroccan government before they'd be allowed to film there. Make sure no international crisis would be caused by one of our jokes. So the screenplay was translated into French. I was given a copy of the French version. I don't speak French (or any language including English sometimes) but my wife does. She knows at least enough to yell at desk clerks in Paris.

She read the new version and said it made absolutely no sense. Jokes were translated word by word. So characters were just speaking gibberish.

The script was approved. (Oh, if only networks had the same high standards.)

And recently I came across an episode of ALMOST PERFECT that was dubbed into German (German being the universal language of comedy). I have no idea how faithful the translation was. All I know is that everybody seemed to be angry with everyone else, even in the love scenes.

I have a lot of readers abroad so let me ask you -- do US comedies make sense in different languages? Other than pratfalls, are they remotely funny? (Watch – YES DEAR is considered the funniest US sitcom on three continents.)

There's a reason action movies do better in foreign markets than comedies. You don't have to appreciate irony to enjoy a good explosion.

I've seen a few French comedy movies and have enjoyed them, even with subtitles. And you know a joke is bulletproof if the subtitle can get a laugh. But if the comic premise is clever and the actors are good the movie should work. Interestingly, I've seen several US remakes of French comedies and despite the English-friendly dialogue, I always prefer the originals. Maybe it's just the relief of never having to see Jim Carrey.

I always wonder how faithful the subtitles are to the actual dialog. Haven't you seen this before? A character chatters for thirty seconds. And the subtitle is "Sure". Huh? Or when the subtitle occasionally gives directions. I've seen "nodding" and "takes a puff". Uh, we stupid Americans can see that.

I'm going to try to find someone German who can translate ALMOST PERFECT now. I'm dying to see if our frothy little romantic comedy became Nancy Travis in DAS BOOT.

UPDATE: Here's an example. It's funny even when you don't know what they're saying, right?


This is a repost from four + years ago.

One of those truly uncomfortable moments in life

From time to time, folks in show business try to use contacts to get house seats for various plays and musicals. Some participants of a production – like playwright, director, actors – are entitled to a certain number of house seats for each performance and often they don’t use them. So through agents, casting directors, friends, or on those rare occasions, actually knowing the participants yourself, you can sometimes score their house seats.

A number of years ago at the Huntington Hartford Theatre in Los Angeles there was a new play by Herb Gardner starring Judd Hirsch that my wife and I wanted to see. In this case, I did not know anyone. I had met Judd on a couple of occasions when I was on CHEERS and he was still doing TAXI on the same lot. But those were only momentary “Nice to meet you” encounters. Still, through the casting director of the show I was working on at the time I got Judd's house seats.

We go to the theatre, they’re great seats, and about ten minutes before the performance Judd’s assistant approaches and says Judd would like us to come back to his dressing room after the show. Okay. That’s a little strange. Often as a courtesy, you will go backstage to thank the person for the seats or just leave him a note acknowledging your gratitude. It’s a little odd to be summoned.

All through the play I’m wondering – what does he want? Does he have an idea for a show he wants to pitch? Is he just a big fan of my shows? Does he want to go out with my wife?

After the show the assistant reappears and escorts us backstage to Judd’s dressing room. And here’s where it gets weird.

We walk in and immediately, by the look on his face, it’s clear he doesn’t know me from Adam. He must’ve thought I was somebody else -- someone that he did know. But of course he doesn’t want to be rude so he pretends that he does know us. At which point we don't want to embarrass him by saying he doesn't know us so we pretend that we know him as well.

So now the three of us engage in the most excruciatingly awkward conversation ever. I don’t recall what we talked about. I just remember a whole lot of pauses. All the while I kept hoping the assistant would pop her head in and say there were other well-wishers or the theatre was fire. Nothing. There was no escape.

After what seems like an hour (it was probably ten minutes) we go to the babysitter card and gracefully make our exit.  Moments later our car screams out of the parking lot. 

The next day the casting director who arranged for the tickets said Judd called her and asked, “Who the hell was that?” Then, when she told him, he said, “Oh. Glad he stopped by.”

The next time I’m just buying tickets.

This is a repost from before there was electricity. 

Friday Questions

Friday Questions – come and get ‘em.

Peter gets us started.

What’s your opinion on the news that Cate Blanchett will play Lucille Ball in a biopic written by Aaron Sorkin?

Aaron, you have some ‘splainin’ to do. Actually, I think Cate Blanchett is inspired casting and Aaron Sorkin is a tremendous writer. It’ll be interesting to see how he does writing Cubans, but if anyone can pull it off he's the man.

Shawn K. asks:

Have you ever seen a joke, or gag, on another show that made you say, "How in the world, have I never thought of that?"

Yes, but I sheepishly confess I forget the show. It might’ve been THE DREW CAREY SHOW. If not, I apologize to whatever show it was.

A character said, “The penis -- mightier than the sword.” I thought, “I’ve seen the expression written out a million times – The pen is mightier than the sword – but never made that connection." Well done… whomever.

From Brian Phillips:

I've seen your entries about the men that warmed up the audiences, yourself included. Who are some of the warm up women?

There are not a lot. The only one I know is the one we used on ALMOST PERFECT – Wendy Hammers. She was terrific!

There are probably others but I just don’t know who they are. There needs to be more.

Mark has…

An odd question, but are sound stages air conditioned? In several MASH episodes that were clearly shot on the stage, the actors seem to be dripping in sweat. And I'm talking about episodes that were not set during a heat wave. Overall, what are sound stage conditions like? In the 20th Anniversary special Alan Alda talked about a rat problem on Stage 9.

They are air conditioned but some better than others. And hot bright lights are required for shooting so depending on the stage and scene it can get toasty.

Newer stages have better air conditioning and the lighting has been improved as well.

Those old sound stages on 20th go back to the ‘30s and ‘40s.

As for rats – all sound stages have that problem. Lots of corners and crawl spaces. And if there is a lot of prop food sitting around, especially overnight, it is not uncommon to have visitors.

A show I wrote for in the ‘80s, OPEN ALL NIGHT, was set in a 24 hour convenience store so there were lots of food items on the shelves. Ratatouille and his buck tooth pals had a field day.

Getting back to Stage 9, one day someone on the lot was giving away kittens and one of the writers took one. The kitten got loose and scampered way up into a crawl space. And the poor thing was meowing so we couldn’t shoot. It took several hours of coaxing to get the cat down. She was fine by the way. No animals were harmed in the filming of MASH.  God knows how much the three-hour shutdown cost the studio. 

And finally, from Magnanimous:

Ken - If you know someone is a jerk, treats their staff miserably, treats their own family pretty miserably, does that make you unable to enjoy a show that they work on?

For example, years ago I had a terrible professional experience with someone who is now a high level producer on Empire and because of it I can't be unbiased about the show. You seem like such a professional, but I wonder if you have this issue too.

Of course.   I’m human. There are certain actors I just can’t enjoy because of their off camera tyranny or general scumbagidness. I hesitate to mention a certain comedian turned sitcom star because I don’t want another fifty comments on the subject. But you know who I mean.

And there are producers whose shows I just won’t watch because of their bad behavior.  Don't care how celebrated their shows are. 

Being talented does not give you the right to treat people like shit. And I have little respect for those industry people who wield their power or success to steamroll over others. Especially when they’re two-faced and have this sweet public persona on camera and off camera are holy terrors.

The irony of course, is that more often than not the horrible behaving person is NOT that talented.  So it's easy to skip their show.  

ON ANOTHER NOTE;

Last week I wrote a rant on how many sitcoms today don't even try to be funny.   My friend & colleague & fellow blogger Earl Pomerantz today offers a thoughtful rebuttal.   Here's my original article.  And here's Earl's response.   I think next week I'll respond to his response.  But check out Earl's.  He's been out for awhile with Legionnaire's Disease (yikes!) so I'm thrilled he's recovered and back.  Bookmark his site.  It's terrific.

The truth about network casting

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

It’s from Grant Woolsey:

I know you've mentioned a few times in the past about certain high-end Hollywood types interjecting their own favorites or "pet projects" into certain casting calls. In one of Bill Carter's books, he refers to Jennifer Aniston being one of these, and got an audition for "Friends" because of it. Same with William "Gil Grissom" Peterson on "CSI".

How many times has that happened to you? Does some studio head interject in the casting process and make "suggestions", or do they try to form whole shows around actors they like? Does the choice of actor they're backing sometimes seem completely arbitrary? I find this more noticeable in movies (remember the year of a million Jude Law movies?), but I assume TV gets it a lot, too.

Studios and networks definitely have their agendas. And they exert more and more of their will into the process.  No, let me be clear.  They CONTROL casting.  They make ALL the final decisions.  We producers just do the leg work for them. 

Each network has a casting director. Each network casting director has actors they like and actors they don’t.

When a writer/producer gets his show greenlit to pilot he submits a list of possible actors for each part. The network responds. They cross certain names off that list.  Bullshit that there's not blacklist.  If you're an actor (or writer) on the non-desired list you don't get hired.   )This is especially disconcerting in areas like acting where judgment is purely subjective.)

Networks will then provide you with their list of “recommended” actors.

Like I said, networks fall in love with certain people. And in some cases I don’t know why. But they will jam them into any project they can.  Kim Raver gets series after series. Not that she’s that bad, but she’s sure not special, and there are hundreds of other better actors who can’t even get in the front door.

So if you have a show that features an attractive forty-something woman as a lawyer, or executive, or CIA operative you may well have Kim Raver shoved down your throat.

So you begin the casting process, seeing first the network recommended people. And guaranteed, some are going to be jaw-droppingly wrong for the part. You also see people your casting agent finds.

At one time this meant the actor would come in a room and audition for three or four producers and studio reps. Not anymore. Now those auditions are all taped. And they’re all sent to the networks. So if you’re an actor and you have a bad day, or you read for a part you’re not really right for, your bad reading gets seen by the network. And you can quickly go on the “no” list. That’s like, if you’re an outfielder in baseball, your manager tells you to pitch, you can’t get the ball over the plate because you’re not a pitcher, and the team releases you as a result.

Not fair, you say? Damn right, it’s not fair.

The next step: You narrow your choices down to three for each part. You make deals with them contingent on studio and network approval. The actors must audition for the network now. Talk about pressure. Imagine you’re one of three actors going up for the part of Chandler on a new pilot called FRIENDS. How different is your life if you get the part versus not get the part?

Usually of the three actors, one will be a network favorite going in. And the other two may give better auditions and be better for the role, but the network will approve their darling anyway.

Again, not fair? You betcha.

We had a pilot ten years ago where we had to fight hard to get a certain actor.  The studio didn't love him.  The network sure didn't love him.  But we argued that he was special and different and had an amazing presence.  After bringing him back several times to read, the network finally begrudgingly approved him (but only after we agreed to take an actor they wanted for another part who was terrible).   The actor we fought for:  Aaron Paul.  

For comedies, the fights are usually over the producers’ desire to hire funny people and the networks’ insistence on hiring attractive people. Guess who always wins.

Networks have gotten so ham-fisted these days that even for one or two-line parts like for waiters or clerks, the producers have to submit tapes of at least three candidates to the network, and the network makes the selection.  They don't even trust producers to hire one-line guys. 

It’s maddening and another reason why network television is so bland. They want to go with safe, cute, known, and fuckable.

Do you think James Gandolfini would be hired to play Tony Soprano if it were for NBC? Not a chance. John Stamos would get the part.

Rachel Dratch was supposed to be a series regular on 30 ROCK, but NBC made Tina Fey replace her good friend with Jane Krakowski for the obvious reason.

There are probably fifteen examples of this every pilot season. Or fifty. 

Networks dictate everything. Casting agents may love you and producers may think you’re a genius, but that means nothing if the network doesn’t think redheads are in this year.

My heart goes out to actors. Especially the Rachel Dratch’es. They’re sure braver and tougher than me.

Hey, you know what's a good show? BREAKING BAD

Okay, I admit it. I’m a little late to the party.

I just finished watching BREAKING BAD.

Didn’t catch it when it first came on. The buzz really didn’t really start until the second or third season – at least in my circles.

And you know how it is – you’d have to start from the beginning and set aside 20 hours, which is fine unless you have other more pressing obligations like Tetris.

So you figure – a) it’s probably not as good as people say, and b) you’ll get to it eventually (maybe once you’ve gotten to level 10).

Then more seasons go by, everybody’s talking about it, but now you’re 40 hours behind. You’d have to give up Tetris and baseball and the Roy Orbison concert they always show on PBS during pledge drives.  So we're talking a major commitment here. 

But now you really feel like an outsider. There’s this whole shared national experience that you’re not a part of and in fact, are actively avoiding since you're sure you’ll get to it someday and don’t want any spoilers.

The zeitgeist can be a cruel mistress when you shun her for Sportscenter.

As if I needed any more incentives to watch, I had met Bryan Cranston a few times and found him delightful, Aaron Paul was in one of our pilots, and I directed Jonathan Banks in a sitcom years ago. I saw them all at a TCA Awards dinner and they all remembered me fondly.  So add guilt.

In fairness, I had a plumbing mishap last year that destroyed my ability to run Netflix on my living room flatscreen. And recently I put in a new system and it’s up and running again. (NOTE: water and electronic equipment mix as well as me and Kim Davis.)

So I finally bit the bullet and decided to binge-watch BREAKING BAD.

OhmyfuckingGod!

It really IS as astounding as everybody says. Season one was good, by season two I was hooked, and the last two seasons knocked me on my ass. As interesting and complex as MAD MEN was, BREAKING BAD was in a whole different stratosphere. There were episodes in which I was literally breathless. Tetris be damned!

I don’t want to get too specific because part of the reason for this post is to encourage other procrastinators to finally hop on board, and I don’t want to spoil anything.

I’ll just say every character is rich and nuanced, anyone who doesn’t empathize with Skyler doesn’t have kids, if you’re considering getting into the meth business you might want to rethink it, no one in Albuquerque is safe (and that includes the Isotopes mascot), and Gus was the Barack Obama I thought I was voting for.

All of Bryan Cranston’s Emmys were richly deserved. Sorry Jon Hamm. In “Walter White” you see a man evolve into a chillingly scary monster. In “Don Draper” you see a successful guy who’s moody. Anna Gunn was sensational, Dean Norris can do no wrong, Bob Odenkirk was a riot, and Aaron Paul was a revelation.

You’re probably laughing because you knew all this three years ago. What am I going to praise next – the 2008 Summer Olympics?

I’m sorry I wasn’t part of the craze at the time. On the other hand, I don’t know if I could have watched this series off the air. I don’t know if I could have waited a week, or in some cases months, for a new episode. Binge-watching was the way to go.

It’s going to be tough transitioning back into real life. At least I have BETTER CALL SAUL to ease my re-entry.

Congratulations to Vince Gilligan and all the brilliant writers, directors, actors, prop people – everyone associated with this extraordinary series. If television can produce shows like BREAKING BAD there’s still hope -- for the medium... and us.

Yo, bitch, go watch it.

Misc-Takes

Some random rambling…

The fall used to mean holidays. Now it means pumpkin coffee.

The movie THE WALK is causing people to throw up. Can you imagine what those theaters must smell like by the 10:00 PM show?

Since I personally prefer not to vomit, I am avoiding THE WALK. And THE INTERN.

Netanyahu may be a jerk but he never met with Kim Davis.

Stephen Colbert’s show is now pretty good… if you tune in ten minutes late.

John Oliver’s show is great… if you only tune in for ten minutes.

The baseball playoffs begin tonight. Exclusive TV coverage can be found on ESPN, MLB-TV, Fox, Fox cable, and TBS. Let me make this easier – the only network not covering the playoffs is BABY FIRST TV.

When you’re listening to networks hype their great new shows, just remember – the big out-of-the-gate hit last season was CRISTELA.

Red Sox Nation – I feel your pain. Don Orsillo is a wonderful announcer. I wish him the best in San Diego. But it’s not like the Padres have a national following. Their fan base extends to El Centro. Don Orsillo deserves a bigger stage.

An annual pass at Disneyland now costs $1000. Walt’s heirs can’t afford that.

What did they call bed bugs before there were beds? Or did they come after and it’s just part of evolution?

Trevor Noah is getting there. Give him time. But he’s already made me forget about Craig Kilbourne.

What does it say about the season premier of SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE when the only funny person on the show was Hillary Clinton?

Hey kids, dress as Donald Trump this Halloween.  That way, when you go trick-or-treating you can just grab as much candy as you can regardless of anyone else. 

Huffpost Headline: Kirsten Dunst thinks TV Is Way Better Than Film. There you have it. The final confirmation.

Another HuffPost Headline: Just Two People Having Sex On Cannes Red Carpet. Just two people? How many usually do it?

There’s going to be a TV adaptation of LETHAL WEAPON. Skinheads are invited to audition for the Mel Gibson role.

Hey, my Cincinnati Bengals are 4-0. I know. Shame on me for not rooting for my local NFL team.

If Hillary loses as President she can play the head nurse on DR. KEN.

Rehearsals continue for HOLLYWOOD SHORTS at the Whitefire Theatre in Studio City (the liver of Broadway) opening Oct. 19th.  I have a one-act play that I wrote and directed called WAITING FOR GO.  Here's my sensational cast of Paul Pape and Elizabeth Bliss-Bley finding laughs where I didn't know there were laughs.  Come see.