Friday Questions

Halfway through the month.  Here are some Friday Questions for your Halloween shopping weekend.

Owlchum gets us rolling.

You'll read every once in a while about actors who are so in tune with their characters that they will decline to do a line or a scene stating their characters wouldn't say/do that. I'm curious if you've had that problem in the writing room i.e. a scribe who felt so possessive about a character that he/she actually became too disruptive in finishing script(s)?

Yes, it happens, but let me say this.  Fighting for your script to the point of being disruptive is the fastest way to get yourself fired off a staff.

Here’s the thing:  You’re not going to win.  

The showrunner is not going to put back your material because you put on a full court press.   So you lose the battle and lose the war when you’re out of a job.

And it doesn’t matter if you’re right.  It’s not your call. 

Suck it up.   That’s part of being a professional.  It's happened to all of us.  Multiple times. 

The showrunner points the boat and you all row in that direction.  Someday if you pay your dues you might be the showrunner and you change other writers’ scripts at will.   But for now, don’t jeopardize your job, reputation, and career. 

Philly Cinephile wonders:

How far in advance do you write your blog posts? Is every post "written to order" or do you have a cache of essays that you can pull from if you're short on time?

Both.  I try to have some posts prepared in advance to lesson the burden of constant deadlines.  But I also love the immediacy of something happening one day, being able to write about it, and having it post the next day. 

Friday Questions I usually prepare in advance.  

I probably shouldn't divulge these closely guarded secrets, but what the hell? 

Jeff asks:

Ken, do you get personally annoyed when you watch modern shows and the credits list half the cast as a "producer" or "executive producer"? Are you worried these stars and their agents will next push for writing credits?

You need to write a script to get writing credit.  And if you’re a staff member rewriting a script it’s harder to get shared credit.  This is to prevent people in power from arbitrarily piggy-backing their name on writing credits.

As for number of producers, I don’t mind at all if they’re writers.  More producers mean more working writers.  And you move up in pay grade as your title improves.  So more power to ‘em. 

However, I don’t like all the non-writing producer credits.  “Pod” producers who basically do nothing, managers, and stars.  These are all vanity positions that eat into the showrunner/creator’s potential profit in success, and are often sources of obstruction.  They’re the partners you don’t need. 

And finally, from marka:

I was watching an unnamed movie which was fantastic until the end, which seemed slapped together. It seems to be a thing where someone has a great idea, develops the story really well but then has some disappointing conclusion. Like they just can't figure out how to end the darn thing. Could you comment on this? It doesn't happen all the time, but more than it should it seems.

Most studio films have preview screenings, and if the audience doesn’t like the ending, or the studio feels it’s too much of a downer, whatever — the filmmaker will often scramble to quickly come up with a new ending and shoot it.  So it becomes a mad scramble with other factors that must be worked out.  Which actors are available for re-shoots?  Which sets are still up?  How much will it cost?  How much will we have to cut from the existing film which led to the ending you’re throwing out?  How much time do you have?  When is the release date? 

More often than not what you end up with are band-aids and endings that are “better” in that they address the audience’s concern, but not really “good.” 

What’s your Friday Question? 
 

EP246: Meet comedy writer Dave Hackel

Dave Hackel is the creator of BECKER, and worked for years on FRASIER, WINGS, and many other shows. This week he talks about breaking into the business on game shows and has a hilarious Truman Capote story (who doesn’t?). Also, some great things he learned along the way coming up through the ranks of sitcom writing and producing. You’ll laugh and shudder.

Get 20% off your first order at https://dadgrass.com/HOLLYWOOD

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

CATS and a dog

 This is from a Variety article that really made me laugh.  Here's the full article.  

It's about Andrew Lloyd Webber.  And here's the part I loved:

Alan Parker’s 1996 version of “Evita,” he concludes, was the best of the lot and that’s due to Madonna’s performance. “To this day, I don’t think anybody else could have done it better,” he says.
And then there’s “Cats,” which hit theaters in 2019 and was a cinematic bomb that launched a thousand memes, one that was excoriated by critics and ignored by the public. Lloyd Webber says the source material was sold to Amblin, which after trying to turn it into a Steven Spielberg-directed animated feature, eventually handed the reins to Tom Hooper, who had helmed “Les Misérables” and “The King’s Speech.” That proved to be a disastrous decision, according to the composer.

“‘Cats’ was off-the-scale all wrong,” says Lloyd Webber. “There wasn’t really any understanding of why the music ticked at all. I saw it and I just thought, ‘Oh, God, no.’ It was the first time in my 70-odd years on this planet that I went out and bought a dog. So the one good thing to come out of it is my little Havanese puppy.”

That puppy has been a constant companion of Lloyd Webber’s during lockdown. They have grown so attached that he’s even figured out a way to bring the dog to New York the next time he travels to the city.

“I wrote off and said I needed him with me at all times because I’m emotionally damaged and I must have this therapy dog,” says Lloyd Webber. “The airline wrote back and said, ‘Can you prove that you really need him?’ And I said ‘Yes, just see what Hollywood did to my musical “Cats.”’ Then the approval came back with a note saying, ‘No doctor’s report required.’”

A writer's torture

For a writer it never gets easier.

Waiting.

You’ve turned in your script to the producer/network/studio/agent/manager/professor/best friend.

And now you wait for the response.

And wait.

And wait.

And wait.

And wait.

You’d think in time it gets easier. It never does.

You generally calculate in some reasonable reading time period. They’ll read it over the weekend. But you still think, if they were really interested they’d read it tonight. Why aren’t they reading it tonight?

The longer you receive no answer the more you think they hated your script. He just can’t bring himself to tell me how much it SUCKED! You start doubting the script, yourself, your religion, everything. You begin going through the script, re-examining every line. Jokes that just last week you thought were bulletproof now seem really lame.

Then you reach the point where you wonder, should you remind them? And if so, how? This depends on the relationship.

I would say this, try to find out what the reader’s behavior pattern is beforehand. It might save you a lot of time and anxiety. There are some producers who just don’t give you feedback. On a show we once worked on, we turned in our first draft and heard nothing. Weeks went by. The producers put our script into mimeo for the beginning of production and still said nothing. I was walking to the parking lot that night with one of the producers, and neurotic insecure writer that I am, I asked him what he thought of our script? He looked at me like I was crazy. His answer was “Well, we kept most of it, didn’t we?” From that day on I never expected feedback from any script we turned into him (which is good because we never received any). But we knew he was pleased so that was good enough.

I’ve known writers who thought they were getting fired at the end of the year only to get promoted. They had no idea where they stood. For some producers, that's their style.

On the other hand, there was Larry Gelbart. Here’s one of the many reasons I loved that man: You’d turn in a draft to Larry at the end of the day. Two hours later he would call you at home to tell you how much he liked the script. He understood the butterflies all writers experience waiting and went out of his way to be sensitive to that. When David Isaacs and I were running our own shows years later we adopted that same practice. If a writer turned in a draft we made the time to read it and respond right away. It’s how we liked being treated; it’s how we felt we should treat others.

All I could say is hang in there. And don’t build a “Jack story”.

What’s a “Jack story”? Well, it’s often attributed to comedian Danny Thomas and I’m paraphrasing but it goes something like this:

A guy’s driving down a country road late at night and gets a flat tire. He opens his trunk to discover he has a spare but not a jack. Up ahead he sees a light. There’s a house about a half-mile up the road. He decides to hike there and see if he can borrow a jack. He figures the owner of the house will gladly let him use it for a few minutes. Why wouldn’t he?

But as the guy trudges on he wonders -- maybe the homeowner won’t be so neighborly. After all, he is a stranger. Maybe he’ll be suspicious. Maybe he’s the kind who doesn’t like anyone touching his tools. He lives way out here in the middle of nowhere – he’s probably anti-social, probably a real asshole. The more the guy considers these options the angrier he gets until finally he reaches the house, rings the bell, the owner answers, and the guy says, “Screw you! I don’t need your fucking jack!” turns on his heel and marches off.

Your script is just as good if it’s read the first night or second week. So relax and have faith in yourself. Now, if I could just learn to believe that myself.

Kim Kardashian again?

So Kim Kardashian was on SNL last Saturday night.  Really?

Is Kim Kardashian even a thing anymore?

I didn’t watch it because it, well, I never watch anything Kim Kardashian is on.  She’s a person with no noticeable skill or talent and a product of how reality shows can turn vacuous people into vacuous celebrities.   What does Kim Kardashian contribute to society in any way?  

Yes, she benefits from nepotism, but nepotism alone isn’t to blame.  There are some very successful and deserving offspring of famous people.  Ken Griffey Jr., Rob Reiner, Miley Cyrus, Robin Thicke, Steph Curry, Hannah Einbinder, J.J. Abrams, just to name a few.  

But not all are worthy.  And I was reminded of that recently when TCM replayed a Nancy Sinatra TV special from 1967 recently.  Being a big fan of the ‘60s I tuned in for the nostalgia and what I found was this:

Nancy Sinatra was terrible.  She has a two-note singing range.  She can’t act. She can’t dance. Her attempts of being sultry and sexy are laughable.  If she weren’t Frank Sinatra’s daughter, and didn’t get a record deal on Daddy’s label she couldn’t pass the open auditions of AMERICAN IDOL.  “Daddy” even appears in the special (probably why the greenlit it) and the guests included Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Frank Sinatra Jr., and singing group Dino, Desi & Billy.  Wonder how she got 'em.  And if she was trying to show how "groovy" she was in 1967, those were not the guests to get.  

The entire show was cringeworthy, lowlighted by a scene where Nancy basically sings a creepy love song to giant posters of her father.  And in one of the posters he’s holding a gun  (I laughed out loud).  

The kitsch factor was off-the-charts, which is the only reason I stuck around.  

But looking back, I really resented Nancy Sinatra.  Not her personally; she might be a wonderful person — but I resented that she was foisted upon me.  I never liked her songs, even “These Boots Are Made For Walking,” and the love duet with Daddy — “Something Stupid” — is beyond creepy.   For years I’ve been hearing about the Kardashians — their idiotic exploits, ridiculous marriages, etc.  When I hear people talk about them I think, “Why???  Who gives a shit???”   

So I didn’t watch SNL this week.   My boots were indeed made for walking. 

Weekend Post

Charlie Hauck was a terrific comedy writer (FRASIER, MAUDE, etc.) and a hilarious author. Sadly, he passed away this year.  

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 Willard Scott joke is a bad sitcom.

10. Any show with opening titles that show close-ups of the cast and then freeze frames to catch zany expression on each is a bad sitcom.

11. Any show with Jim Belushi is a bad sitcom.  

UPDATE:  Getting a number of commenters fact checking minor points and pointing out exceptions.  I invite you to focus on the spirit and gist of the post instead.  There are always exceptions to everything.  I don't quite understand this need to dispute any opinion someone might have.   Yes, there are exceptions.  But you write a spec script trying to break into the industry and ignore these points and see how well you do.  And then defend your rejected script by pointing out the exceptions.

Friday Questions

Glad that so many of you like Friday Questions.  Here are a few more.

Brian Phillips is first.

I just watched a Cheers episode in which the running gag was that Sam's Plymouth Volarè was keeping Sam from scoring with women.

Since the episode made the airwaves, it seems that the Chrysler Corporation was OK with this. What have been some surprising corporate responses to script references?

One in particular.  David Isaacs and I wrote the CHEERS episode killing off Eddie LeBec.  Our idea was that he’d get run over by a Zamboni Machine while skating in an ice show.   

Our legal department said we couldn't use the name Zamboni since the episode shows them in a less than glowing light.  We took a shot and contacted Zamboni ourselves.  Not only did they okay our use, their president flew out to watch the filming and brought t-shirts.   

The episode is called DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY ON ICE if you’re interested in seeing it.

Another instance, our use of Coca Cola in VOLUNTEERS but I’ve told that story many times.  Easy to look up if you’re curious.

McTom asks:

Barney Miller told great stories while being 99% anchored to the primary squad room set, Barney's office included. The Honeymooners is the prime example, but what other great sitcoms made do with such limited settings?

Well… CHEERS for one.  NEWSRADIO, GOLDEN GIRLS, EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND, ALL IN THE FAMILY, GOOD TIMES, ONE DAY AT A TIME, and I’m sure there are way more.   

Feel free to chime in with others I missed.

slgc has a FQ regarding my podcast interview with Joe Buck.  

Buck was discussing the concept of in-game interviews, and he seemed to like them. Personally, I cannot stand them - they distract from the game to the extent that the action isn't even shown, or if it is then it's relegated to a tiny box in the corner. If I'm tuning in to watch a game, I want to watch the game! It's one thing to have a special guest in the booth, but not when the focus on the guest prevents fans from actually seeing what's happening on the field.

What are your thoughts about them?

If it’s an exhibition game like an All-Star Game, I don’t mind it all.  The game means nothing anyway and it’s fun to hear players interact with Joe.  

But now we’re in the playoffs.  During any game that counts I say no interviews or anything to distract the players.  That includes the in-game managers chats that they do now.  I’d eliminate those.  The managers are just spouting bullshit anyway.  They’re not going to divulge their strategy or rip the other team.  They just put a positive spin on their players no matter how good or badly they’re playing.  Lose it.

Exhibition games are “television shows.”  Playoffs are competition.  TV should stand back and let the boys play.  

And finally, from Bob Waldman:

What causes you, if ever, to give up or put aside a script or story idea that you originally thought was good?

First off, it has happened.

For me, it’s usually in the outline stage.  I realize the story has some major flaw I don’t feel is worth wrestling.   Or I finish the outline, look it over, and decide it just isn’t interesting enough.  

Sometimes I’ll just set the project aside and sometime later an idea will occur to me or I’ll come across some other idea and think, “Hey, I can use this to solve that.”  

Research can also point out flaws.  Early in our career we had a pilot idea about the White House Press Corps.  We  thought there was a fascinating dynamic — these people were all in completion with each other but also all colleagues.  

We were lucky enough to get temporary WH press passes and spent several days with them.  Our assumption was they could roam the White House, hang out with the staff, etc.   No.  They’re only allowed out of the press room as a group.  On THE WEST WING when you saw reporters go to the Press Secretary’s office — that doesn’t happen.  Not without prior permission and a pass.   

So for our purposes, that took the legs right out of the series.  No one could sneak around.  No one could have secret sources.   No one could bump into the president in the Rose Garden.  

We did the pilot anyway, but we were thrilled when it didn’t get picked up.  

What’s your Friday Question? 

EP245: Getting through the “Bad” times

We all go through low periods of our life. Ken shares some of his and how they ultimately benefited him.

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

My radical suggestion for fixing the MLB playoffs

First off, thanks so much to everyone for checking in yesterday.  I really appreciate it and it’s nice to know you’re out there… especially since I’m apparently the last blogger left.

The baseball playoffs began yesterday (congratulations, Red Sox) and will continue for what seems like eternity.  And this after seven months of baseball.  I have a radical suggestion for how to make the playoffs more exciting.  You’re going to say I’m crazy but hear me out.

The playoffs are now too long.  Wild card games, division series, league championship series, World Series.   There are four division series and two league championship series.   Division series are best 3 out of 5.  Championship and World Series are best 4 out of 7.   A one-game playoff determines the Wild Card.  

So the Wild Card games are crucial because they’re sudden death.  Then you slog through all the other series, which get longer as the playoffs unfold.  And the later you get into the run, the more breathing room a team has (they can lose more games and still win).  By the time you get to the World Series, unless your team is in it, you’re pretty much done.  

So eliminate games. 

Wild Card series - one game
Division series - best 2 of 3
Championship series - best 3 of 5 (that’s how they used to be)

And only play a best of 7 series for the World Series.  A one-game series would be better, but I'm enough of a traditionalist to want to see a full series. 

I told you it was radical.  Owners would complain because they couldn't cash in as much, and all owners care about is making money.  It would be nice to have a commissioner who's not just the owners footstool, but that's not going to happen.   You'd knock off at least 12 potential games, maybe more. 

If there’s a Game 7 of the World Series this year it will be on November 3rd.  That’s insane.  Chicago, Milwaukee, New York, and Boston are lovely that time of year should they make it that far.  And again, the only reason I'm not suggesting a one game winner-take-all World Series is tradition.

Now of course MLB will never adopt my suggestion, but think back to this baseball fans when you're two weeks in and turn over to football or the World Series of Poker.

Who's out there?

It’s that time again.

Once a year I ask you to check in, especially you new readers or lurkers.

It gives me a better sense of who’s out there and how I can best program my blog to suit your needs.

So…

Who are you?  Where you from?  How old are you (or at least what “Gen”)?  How long have you been reading?  How did you find the blog?  Do you also listen to my podcast?   What topics do you like or dislike?   (Yes, I know some of you don’t like when my politics seep through, but that’s not going to change.)  What features do you like or dislike?  Any suggestions or general comments?  

Thanks for your participation.  And for reading this blog.  

Ken

The current sad state of network sitcoms

There’s an article in the new edition of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY entitled “A Moment of Silence for the Network Sitcom.”  In the article, which basically says that network sitcoms are dead, they make the following points: Their ratings are horrible.  It’s a vicious circle.  It’s harder for one to breakthrough and since most have gone away, it’s hard to find companion pieces to schedule them with.  Networks today are more cautious than ever and don’t want to chance getting a low rating.  A better bet is an hour franchise.  Another reason given is the pilot process is flawed.  Network executives or former network executives were interviewed for this piece.

I don’t disagree with any of their points. 

But could I offer a few alternative reasons why network sitcoms are now almost non-existent? 

One:  The sitcoms they develop are not that good.  And then they note the writers to death.  These sitcoms are selected to fit agendas, not which are the most original, which are the funniest, which have the best writers.  Decisions are based on casting, relationships, ownership, cost, writers who are compliant, commitments, and societal pressure.   I sometimes wonder if these VP’s of Comedy Development were allowed complete autonomy whether they would choose totally different projects than the ones they did choose.  How many great pitches did they pass on because they knew they didn’t fit into their agenda and their bosses would never support them? 

And again, the notes.  Unless you’re Chuck Lorre, the notes are crushing.  And constant.  And given out of fear.  How many good ideas by good writers wound up becoming bland generic blobs by the time they were turned in?  Many of these writers have told me that by the time their pilot is filmed they don't even recognize it.  That should NEVER be. 

And do networks even know what they have?  CBS Entertainment President, Kelly Kahl touts their sitcoms by saying in the article: “If you look at all our comedies, they are about something.”  Really?  Their big new comedy is GHOSTS.  A bed & breakfast is haunted by goofy ghosts.  That says what exactly, other than (a) it’s a reboot of a British series (notice in the above photo they claim it's a "CBS original?"), and (b) it’s a premise that has been done to death.  CBS had a better version in 1952.  It was called TOPPER.   Wikipedia lists 99 series about ghosts.  99!  Oh, and omitted TOPPER.  So yeah, that’s fresh.   The Chuck Lorre comedies?  I would argue people tune into them because the shows try to be funny. 

The pilot claim:  I’ve heard this one for thirty years.  And every so often networks abandon pilots for “presentations” (a cheap way to make a pilot), order direct series and it blows up in their face.   Most of these “direct to series” get burned off in March.  Some never even air.   Pilots aren’t the problem.  The wrong pilots and meddling with pilots are the culprits. 

In the early ‘80s there was also this cry that sitcoms were becoming extinct.  Sitcome writers were writing specs of light dramas like MAGNUM P.I. thinking there was no future anymore in half-hour sitcoms.  Then CHEERS came along.  And COSBY.  And all of a sudden sitcoms were back!  There’s been no breakout sitcom in ten years.  Does that mean it’ll never happen again?  Of course not.  It’s not going to happen with the 100th ghost show.  Or reboot of ROSEANNE without Roseanne (or NIGHT COURT, which NBC is developing). And it’s not going to happen if networks are so afraid of something new that they’d rather do CSI Pittsburgh.  Did you see where NBC is bringing back the original LAW & ORDER? 

Make better sitcoms!  There’s room in your schedules.  Maybe instead of shitty reboots of game shows.  Let’s try some fresh sitcom instead of Anthony Anderson’s mom.  Take a chance.  Yeah, it’s been ten years.  Name me a network pilot in that time that was really FUNNY.   Instead of a moment of silence for sitcoms, how about some CPR? 

Weekend Post

 BARNEY MILLER is one of those forgotten gem sitcoms from the 70s. I guess because they were taped and now look like crap you rarely see them pop up in reruns. Set in a detectives’ squad room in an NYPD precinct, BARNEY MILLER was a quirky character comedy revolving around the detectives and the nutcases that walked through their door (most in handcuffs).

It was created by Danny Arnold who was a true character. Brilliant, unpredictable (a nice term for bi-polar), demanding, and kind, Danny was an A-list show runner and a type-A+ personally. The man had a heart attack on the treadmill in his doctor’s office getting his heart checked. He had an oxygen tent installed on the BARNEY set so he could keep going during demanding shooting nights (which lasted routinely until 5 in the morning because of all the pick-ups he wanted). The results were fabulous but what a cost.

When David and I were starting out BARNEY MILLER was just starting to take off. It was one of the show we really wanted to write for. We had sold a couple of things and were making the freelance rounds. Our agent called with the good news that Danny had read our material and loved it. He wanted a meeting.

That meeting was one of the best EVER. We walked into his office and there was the nicest, most ebullient cigar-chomping uncle you’ve ever met. He was effusive in his praise. We couldn’t have been more excited. It was like the prettiest girl in school let you eat at her lunch table.

He invited us to come back with some story ideas and very much looked forward to working with us. A week later we were back in his office with our notions.

I noticed a bit of change right at the start. He was a little more gruff. Probably just the result of a long day. We started pitching and every idea was met with, “NO!!” “FUCK! ARE YOU KIDDING?” “JESUS, HAVE YOU EVER WATCHED OUR SHOW?” Needless to say we were shaken. After he had rejected all of them we started out and just before getting to the door he said, almost as an afterthought, “That Yamada gambling thing. I don’t think there’s anything there but if you want to develop it more you can.” Not exactly a sale.

But we went home and decided to develop it anyway. We wanted to show him that if nothing else we weren’t intimidated by him… although we sure as hell were.

We turned in an outline. He bought it. Had us in for notes and was very complimentary. We implemented his changes and turned in the revised outline.

He cut us off.

Well, we figured, so much for BARNEY MILLER. At least we got outline money.

Two weeks later I get a call from Danny’s assistant. Could we be in his office tomorrow at 8:30? Swell, I thought, he wants to chew us out again.

But we go and it’s the happy ingratiating Danny. “Boys! Come on in. You want a doughnut? How was your weekend?” He had read over our outline again and decided it was terrific. He had just a few tweaks. We were told to dash off a revised outline and then we’d go to work on the draft.

Two days later we delivered the new outline. And the following day…

He cut us off.

It just didn’t “jump off the page” for him. But he paid us for a second outline.

Elements of those outlines appeared in future shows but what the hell? He did pay us.

We never did a BARNEY MILLER assignment but a few years later when we were head writers of MASH he called and asked if we wanted to be his showrunners for the upcoming season. We chose to stay with MASH.

The guys who did take the job worked a million hours a week, learned a hell of a lot, got paid a fortune, and Danny gave them Rolls Royces… which they used to drive themselves to Cedar-Sinai hospital.

BARNEY MILLER is back, on some retro cable channels, DVD's, and downloading  If you’ve never seen it, it’s a treat.

Friday Questions

Let’s kick off the month with Friday Questions.

Jack West has left a new comment about my recent post on radio.

So, when you're a DJ, and you don't have an audience you can hear laughing, how do you know the jokes are funny? The crew? The station manager? It doesn't matter? What?

I guess you have to just believe in yourself.  You may get some feedback from listeners but very little.  

With me it was the ratings.  In Bakersfield at KERN I got a 49 share during my time slot.  In San Bernardino, when I did the all-night show on KMEN, the only hour that was rated was 5-6 am and I got an 85 share.   I should mention that the day that rating was announced I was immediately given a better time slot. 

But all you can do is trust in yourself.  I’ve told this many times.  Most of my early program directors didn’t think I was funny and told me repeatedly to shut up (until the ratings came out).   Thankfully some of my PD’s were supportive.  So thanks again to John Barcroft, Bobby Rich, Tom Straw, Bob Whitney, and Jimi Fox. 

From Patrick Weldon:

The Everybody Loves Raymond set covers two rooms, and often the action shifts from the living room to the kitchen and back again.  If the action moves to the kitchen, what do the actors still in the living room do during that time?  Do they interact with each other?  Do they just sit there waiting for the action to return?  Or are these filmed separately and the actors aren't even on set?

If there’s anything an actor hates it’s to be on stage with nothing to do.  Those scenes are filmed separately.  If there are no cameras and no lines there are no actors. 

BethS wonders.

I wish I could see some of the old TV shows that were one season wonders, but too old for DVDs or not popular enough to rate a DVD - or didn't even get to show everything they had filmed because they were cut off early. I've recently dropped cable and have been enjoying the many old shows that ARE available. I love tracking acting careers by seeing some of their work from before they were famous. Wouldn't you think that the owners of these productions could make a bit of money making their shows from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's available to stream?

This has been a crusade of mine for years — trying to get ALMOST PERFECT on a streaming service.  There are 34 episodes and it went into syndication twice. 

I guess the studios don’t want to spend whatever it costs to digitize these series. 

The other problem is that most of these short-run series are forgotten.   Studios don’t even know they’re in their library.  Or they don’t know where the negatives or final versions are stored.  

Same with movies.  How many movies from the 50’s-90’s no longer exist in any tangible form?  Fortunately, MANNEQUIN 2 is iconic and will run forever. 

And finally, from Matthew Davis:

I am curious about how professionals view others' projects. I listen to a fair amount of tv-based podcasts and they will often say something was directed or edited well. How do they determine that from viewing something they were not involved with? What kinds of things are they looking for?

It works both ways.  Being a writer and director I might admire things most people don’t see.  “That’s a great camera angle.” “What an elegant way to get out that exposition,” etc.

On the other hand, I’m often rewriting in my head.  “This is repetitious.” “There’s a better joke than that.”  “That was a weird edit.” 

I’m not looking to judge.  Things come across my line of vision and I react. 

That said, nothing pleases me more than a show, movie, or play that is so engrossing I can just lose myself in it. 

What’s your FQ?  

EP244: The art of “Warm Up.” Part Two

More this week with Bob Perlow who for 37 years was the gold standard of audience “Warm Up.” This week we talk a lot about FRIENDS and what an ordeal it was to attend a filming of that show. Also a Tim Allen meltdown and much more.

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Sam Riddle

Sorry to hear of the passing of Sam Riddle.  He was 85.  Unless you grew up in Los Angeles in the ‘60s and ‘70s you probably have no idea who he was. Essentially, he was our Dick Clark.  (Hmmmm?  How many of you know who Dick Clark was?)  

Sam was a local disc jockey and hosted local dance party TV shows.  NINTH STREET WEST and HOLLYWOOD A GO GO were the ones I remember although he hosted three or four others.  (I was once on NINTH STREET WEST.  Thank God no tapes of that exist.)

But he was a disc jockey when that meant something.  Ironic that this should happen now, so soon after my post on radio and the plethora of comments yay or nay.   Say what you will, radio was once a real shared event.  Everyone listened to the same one or two stations, we all heard the same new music, and the DJ’s were part of our lives.  They were our friends.  They talked directly to us.  A study in the mid ‘60s found that next to clergy, teenagers trusted disc jockeys more than anyone else — more than teachers, more than parents. 

And Sam Riddle was one of the best known and most trusted of all.  Like Dick Clark, his delivery was very smooth.  He talked to you like an adult who “got you.”  His emphasis was on the music.  Hosting all these shows featuring musical acts meant that he knew them all and was able to share some inside stories.  Listeners obviously have opinions on disc jockeys.  I don’t anyone who didn’t like Sam Riddle. 

I first met him in the mid ‘60s.  KFWB, then the number one station, was broadcasting every Saturday from a remote studio in the Topanga Plaza — a mile from where I lived.  Gene Weed was the jock and had a “guest DJ” contest, which I won.  However, the day I was supposed to do it Gene got sick and Sam had to substitute for him.  When I arrived he knew nothing of this.  Meanwhile, I had told all my friends I was going to be on (which was probably stupid in the very likely event that I sucked).  It would have been so easy for Sam to say, “Sorry.  No one told me.  Come back next week.”  Instead he said, “Okay” and could not have been more supportive.   But that’s Sam. 

I didn’t know him well over the years.  Would bump into him occasionally.  He was always gracious.  

Sam was also smart.  Unlike a lot of jocks of that era, he sensed that radio DJ was a stop not an endgame.  He gravitated towards TV; first hosting shows and then producing them.  Remember STAR SEARCH?  That was Sam’s baby.  If only he had Ryan Seacrest host instead of Ed McMahon.  He produced other shows as well. 

I last saw Sam in January on Zoom.  I interviewed him for a podcast (not mine).  He was struggling that day.  So when I got the word I was not surprised.

Again, many of you never heard of him.  But there were disc jockeys in your market that did make an impression.  So consider this a tribute and celebration of all DJ’s and a chance to say thanks for all the hours of entertainment and companionship.  It hurts when they sign-off for good.  

“So long, music lovers.”  That was Sam Riddle’s.  He was one of the reasons I was a music lover.  

A writing tip

Here’s a way to make your writing richer and deeper:

We all know you should create a character who has a tremendous need for something.  The more crucial the need and the more impossible to achieve his goal the better.   He has to diffuse a bomb or get Kira Knightley to fall in love with him.  She has to win the Indy 500 or kill Bill Cosby. 

Those are all external problems.  

And many stories are told just fine with your protagonist tackling that problem.

But…

It also helps if you give him an internal problem. 

What is that?  A flaw in his character that becomes another obstacle towards achieving his goal.  People in many cases can be their own worst enemy.  Judgements are impaired by vanity or impatience or greed or a thousand other flaws.  Does your main character have a drinking problem?  Is he habitually late?  Does he have poor social skills?  Find ways for him to shoot himself in the foot. 

Characters with flaws are more dimensional.

And if you’re writing a comedy, it also makes your lead character funnier.  Perfect characters are death for comedy writers. 

So when you plot your next great screenplay/novel/pilot/opera (like Natalie Wood was in the above photo), remember to give your protagonist both an external and internal issue to overcome.  

Dear (departed) Evan Hansen

In the weekend the Tony Awards were given out (did you even KNOW that the Tony Awards were yesterday?), word comes that the motion picture release of Broadway musical smash, DEAR EVAN HANSEN was a colossal bomb.  Even though it starred Ben Platt who won a Tony for his performance on Broadway.

This is not the first screen adaptation of a hit Broadway musical to bomb in recent months.  IN THE HEIGHTS was a huge disappointment even though it had the sheen of Lin-Manuel Miranda.  Steven Spielberg’s WEST SIDE STORY is a’comin’ and let’s see how that does.  No Natalie Wood in this one.

But movie execs are scratching their heads.  How could such a smash on stage be such a dud on the screen — especially since they were very true to the original?  I’m probably the wrong person to ask because I hated the Broadway version.  I did think Ben Platt was amazing — his singing and performance was thrilling, and how he could do that eight times a week is beyond me.  But I hated the story.  Implausible, sad, illogical, sad, endless, sad, every song was the same, sad, and sad.   In these Covid times do we really want to go to the movies to be depressed for 2 1/2 hours?  The answer was clearly no.  

You could argue that the subject matter wasn’t meant for me.  It was meant for young Gens with end-of-the-alphabet letters.  Okay, but who goes to movie musicals?  Generally older Gens.  

And judging by Tony’s ratings, (they didn’t even air most of the actual ceremony on CBS), there is little interest in Broadway musicals.  Not because they’re not good or even great, but because 98% of the country will never have the chance to see them.  So a smash musical on Broadway might not be on most people’s radar.  

Time have changed.  Back in the ‘50s and ‘60s soundtracks of hit musicals would top the Billboard charts.  Songs from these shows became hit songs and standards.  You’d hear tunes from MY FAIR LADY and THE KING AND I and PAJAMA GAME on most local radio stations.   Top 40 stations played the crap out of Louis Armstrong’s HELLO DOLLY.   Production numbers from these shows would be featured on THE ED SULLIVAN SHOW at a time when 30,000,000 were watching.   So when the original WEST SIDE STORY was made into a movie, the country was aware of it and curious to see for themselves what all the shouting was about.  There’s none of that today.  

Oh, and tickets were accessible.  You could see THE MUSIC MAN for ten dollars.  Today you need a bank loan to see the upcoming revival of THE MUSIC MAN.  That certainly scares a few tourists away.

So I’m not surprised DEAR EVAN HANSEN tanked.   And I don’t think you’ll be seeing movie versions of last night’s Tony winners for some time.  (Congratulations to all the Tony winners, by the way.)

Weekend Post

THE TEN SECOND COMEDY WRITING COURSE

Since I can't find an appropriate photo...

Some of the best training I got in television I got from radio. I came of age in a long ago distant time when there was a thing called “radio.” Radio stations would play music and provide hosts to introduce it. These hosts were called disc jockeys. And here’s the real amazing thing: people listened. Not just those few who are in too big a hurry to access their Pandora station or itune playlists. Everybody listened. Generally they listened every waking hour of the day. In every city there were usually two or three stations who all vied for the attention of these eager young ears. Listeners selected their favorite station and bonded with it. Their allegiance was fierce. You could be on the fence as to whether you were a leg or breast man but you damn well preferred KHJ over KRLA.

Back in the ‘50s, rock & roll emerged and radio stations viewed it the way a dog views a pork chop. Top 40 radio was born.

Quick history lesson: Why Top 40? The legend goes that a Kansas City station owned Todd Storz was in a bar one night and people were playing the same songs on the juke box. Over and over. And then when they left and the staff was cleaning up they played the same songs, even though they had heard them repeatedly. A light bulb went off. Program only a limited number of records and play them in constant rotation. Since disc jockey shifts were four hours and they generally played ten records an hour, they decided to call the format Top 40 allowing every disc jockey to play every hit. By the mid ‘60s that became the Top 30, and WABC in New York reduced that further to where the top 5 played every 70 minutes. I know. Just reading that probably sends you screaming for your itunes.

When two or more Top 40 stations competed in a market they did so by trying to make the most noise, have the loudest presentation, craziest contests, and wildest disc jockeys. They screamed, talked from echo chambers, rang cow bells, did voices, played wild tracks – anything to get attention.

Don’t worry. I’m getting to the comedy.

Then in the mid ‘60s, two radio visionaries – Bill Drake and Ron Jacobs – realized that 80% of the time D.J.’s were just spewing nonsense. So they created a format the restricted disc jockey chatter. Music was the key element of the format and disc jockeys had to limit their rap from endless to however much time they had over the intro of a record. How long were song intros back then? Usually between 8 and 15 second.

So that’s how long the D.J. had to talk. Here’s what might surprise you: 15 seconds is an eternity. A skilled disc jockey can say the call letters, his name, the time, song title, artist, and still get in a one liner – without speaking all that fast.

Funny disc jockeys had to adapt and tailor their humor to this new format. And some became masters of it. Robert W. Morgan, The Real Don Steele, Dale Dorman (pictured: right) , Dan Ingram and Gary Burbank, to name just a few.

By the ‘70s when I joined the ranks of the hit spinners, this restricted format was now the norm. Since I don’t have the typical James Earl Jones voice I felt compelled to compensate by really being funny and entertaining. You talk about “brevity boot camp.” After a few years of this, and ignoring program director memos saying that I wasn’t funny and should not even try, I did develop a pretty amusing act. (Ironically, once I got out of radio and became a TV writer, limiting my disc jockeying to weekends at TenQ in Los Angeles these same program directors who said I sucked now said they knew all along I was a comic genius.)

When you only have ten seconds you must select the right words and the right number of words, and you must put them in the right order. The punch line has to come right before the vocal. And you learn delivery. You can’t rush your one-liner. Yes, you might squeeze it in, but if the audience doesn’t hear it clearly they won’t laugh. And here’s something else to consider: pauses are effective. Just because you have ten seconds doesn’t necessarily mean you have to talk for all ten seconds. A seven-second joke with a well placed pause might get a bigger laugh.

For me, this was an invaluable training ground. Four-to-six hours a night on the radio talking over record intros for several years greatly prepared for TV comedy writing. There too, time is of the essence. The tighter the joke construction the better. Jokes often have two functions in sitcoms. – to get a laugh and move the action forward. Characters rarely just stop to do a joke (at least on good shows). The jokes are woven into conversations and situations as the story barrels on (at a faster pace today than ever before).

Unfortunately, radio in any tangible form no longer exists. There aren’t weekend jobs in Bakersfield for young wannabe broadcasters to cut these teeth. There aren’t Top 30 stations that encourage disc jockeys to talk-up records. But it’s worth keeping the concept in your head. 10 seconds is a long time. 18 seconds is an eternity. When you write a joke, go back. Can you trim it? Is there one word that can replace three? Is there a funnier word or concept? The good news in writing vs. jocking – when you write a joke you don’t have 2:35 to come up with the next one. 10 seconds may be an eternity, but 2:35 goes by in a blink.

 

Friday Questions

Let’s kick off the weekend with some Friday Questions.

Kendall Rivers gets us started.

What are your top five favorite comedies that you find grossly underrated but better than most of the shows that hogged all their glory?

In no particular order: 

BECKER
THE MIDDLE
WINGS
FLYING BLIND
PARTY DOWN

Honorable mention:

THE MARSHALL CHRONICLES
THE ODD COUPLE
THE PRACTICE (Danny Thomas version)
NIGHT COURT
ALF

Kyle Burress wonders:

Unfortunately, the death of an actor/actress or someone at any level of a series or movie happens. Of the many productions that you've been involved in, what person's death has had the greatest impact altogether on what you were working on and how was it dealt with?

That’s an easy one, I’m sorry to say.  Nick Colasanto, who played Coach on CHEERS.  He died the end of the third season.  Woody Harrelson was great as his replacement, but a certain amount of the “heart and soul” of the show left without Coach and what Nick brought to that character.  

He was also such a dear sweet man that on a personal level it was a devastating loss.  

Mark queries:

We’ve been watching our way through The Big Bang Theory for the first time, and we’re near the end of its run. The season nine finale ends on a bit of a cliffhanger involving some guest stars (Christine Baranski, Laurie Metcalf, and Judd Hirsch) that gets resolved in the first episode of season ten.

My question is this, since all three of those guest actors are known enough to have other projects in motion when they agree to the guest spot, or to be offered other work between seasons, how would they go about ‘guaranteeing’ that those actors would be available? A contract that would preclude them from agreeing to take other work that week?

Any chance they would just film the entire season ten premiere at the same time as the season nine finale? Or at least the portions involving the guest stars? By that point in its run TBBT was popular enough that they probably didn’t have any doubts about whether it would be back the next season, so it’s not like they’d be filming an episode for a season that wasn’t going to happen.

This is another case where it depends on the situation.  Yes, the safe thing to do is film the continuation of the cliffhanger so you have it in the can because you’re right, producers can’t know what a busy actor’s schedule is going to be like in five months.  

Sometimes though, the producers are burned out by the end of the season and have no solution for the cliffhanger.  They’d rather figure something out when they return for the next season.  And perhaps an actor isn’t available so they have to work that into the story.  

When Aaron Sorkin left THE WEST WING, his last episode was a season-ending cliffhanger.  New show runner, John Wells called him and said, “how were you going to resolve this?” to which Aaron said, “I had no idea.”  His plan was to solve the problem upon his return.   

And trust me, I can understand that.  You get VERY burned out by the end of a full season.  Most long running shows end every season on fumes.  

And finally, from Phil Rosenthal (no, not that one):

Ever get a network note that helped?

You bet.  Tim Flack, the VP of Comedy Development at CBS gave us great notes on BIG WAVE DAVE’S.  It was Tim who said one of the guys needed a wife.   We totally embraced that idea, rewrote the pilot, and it sold BECAUSE of the wife.  Jane Kaczmarek tested through the roof.  

Sadly, Tim has passed on, but I will take any opportunity I can to sing his praises.  

What’s your Friday Question? 

EP243: The art of “Warm Up.”

A key element in a sitcom’s success that’s shot in front of an audience is the Warm Up person. This week and next Ken talks to Bob Perlow who for 37 years was the gold standard. From THE TONIGHT SHOW to FRIENDS, CHEERS, GOLDEN GIRLS, NEWHART, TAXI, and tons of other, Bob elevated this unique position into an art. And needless to say, he’s a funny guy.

Become a member today at https://feals.com/levine & you'll get 50% off your first order with free shipping!

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Only Murders in the Building

I get asked a lot about what I think of ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING.  It stars Steve Martin, Martin Short, and Selena Gomez and is currently running on Hulu.  

The short answer is I like it.  It’s pleasant.  It’s a nice diversion.  It’s well-mounted.  Looks great.  Love the opening titles. And there is an occasional chuckle along the way.  I’ve watched every episode and will continue to do so.  So it’s good.  

But I don’t love it.

I feel it could be funnier.  And it feels like there’s a lot of padding.  I wish the story would move faster.  I wouldn’t mind if it slows down to do some hilarious scene, but so far that hasn’t been the case.

I just get the sense that Steve Martin is holding back.  I see opportunities like he and Martin Short going to Sting’s apartment suspecting he’s the killer.  I thought, okay, this could be hysterical.  It wasn’t.  It was mildly amusing.  And I’m frustrated because I know Steve Martin could write funnier (or guide the writers).  So it’s clearly a choice.  Same with a scene with Tina Fey.  

I’m not going to get into the plot at all.   I will say Selena Gomez has far exceeded my expectations.  

Another issue, and I don’t blame the creative team at all for this one.  Commercials.  They drive me nuts.  Yes, I know I could pay more to have Hulu commercial-free, but you know what?  I’m already paying them.  Netflix doesn’t have commercials.  HBO Max doesn’t have commercials.  Apple + doesn’t have commercials.  So the end result is I rarely watch Hulu.  It has to be a show I really want to see.  And at some point I might just unsubscribe.  I’m currently paying for seven streaming channels.   So if I’m sitting through commercials, the shows better damn well be worth it.  ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING is good.  Is it good enough for four interruptions?   That’s another unsolved question.  

What do you guys think? 

A question for young readers

Now today’s post might sound like a rant, but it’s actually not (or not entirely).  It’s a sincere question.  

If you’re a young person in your early 20’s and you’re funny and want to go into comedy somehow, what current direction would you like to go in?   

Would you like to write for sitcoms?  Late night shows?  Do stand up?  Do improv hoping to get on SNL? Podcasts? Feature writing?  Playwriting?   Essays on websites like The Onion?  Acting?  Radio?  Comic novels?  Comic strips? Animation? Cartoons for the New Yorker?  Directing? Producing? Talk show host?  Game show host?  Or something else?

Usually one enters a particular field because they’re inspired by the work being done in that field.  They want to be like Bob Newhart or Mel Brooks or Norman Lear.  

When I was starting out I was inspired by everything.  It was a matter of choosing.  TV sitcoms were enjoying a golden age.  You had MASH, THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, ALL IN THE FAMILY, in features you had Mel Brooks and Woody Allen, radio was filled with master funnymen like Dan Ingram, Robert W. Morgan, Lohman & Barkley, Bob & Ray, Klavin & Finch, Dick Whittington, Larry Lujack, Dale Dorman, Gary Burbank, Gary Owens.  The Comedy Store was starting to take off.  Every night you’d see Richard Pryor or David Letterman or Robin Williams.  SNL premiered and was a revelation.  Neil Simon was writing hilarious plays.  The National Lampoon was writing brilliant satire.  

I don’t mean this to sound like “back in the good old days” but I’m curious, based on what is considered comedy today, what inspires you?   What makes you say, “Yes, I know it’s hard to break in but I HAVE TO write for sitcoms/late night/the theatre, etc.”  

Obviously some of today’s comedy doesn’t resonate with me — and that’s okay, it’s not meant to — but I seriously wonder, if I were 21 today, what area of comedy would I gravitate towards?  

So if you are in that situation, I sincerely would love to know what your objectives are and why?  And what inspires you?    Thanks.

Emmys afterthought

I didn’t watch the Emmy Awards last night. I had a play performed at a theatre.  Not that there was any suspense.  TED LASSO, THE CROWN, and THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT took home most of the gold.  Glad to see HACKS and Jean Smart getting her Emmy, although if ever there was a shoe-in (if that’s the way you spell it… I’ve never seen shoe-in spelled).  In any event, the awards were deserved.  Congratulations. 

But did I miss anything (assuming any of you watched)?  

I did come home and caught the In Memoriam segment and it was shocking how many people I knew.   Of course the actors got most of the attention, but we lost some magnificent writers.  Allan Burns, William Link, Charlie Hauck, William Blinn, Ann Beatts.  How lucky we were to have them, and me especially for being friends with Allan Burns and Charlie Hauck.   Roy Christopher, who was the set designer on FRASIER, BECKER, and quite a few Emmy ceremonies, was also included and that warmed my heart.  

My other takeaway was what an embarrassment for the major broadcast networks that they were almost entirely shut out of any category that had a cable or streaming competitor.  Netflix and HBO and Apple + dominated.  Major networks aren’t even competitive.  They don’t even get nominees.  

Why these networks continue to air the show makes no sense.  First off, the ratings are horrible, and why would CBS last night want to devote three hours to how great Netflix is?   At some point the networks are going to say fuck it - let Amazon Prime carry them.  

I’ll be writing this same article next year during the Oscars when Netflix wins everything there too. 

Weekend Post

 

I talked about this yesterday -- NBC Week.  Today I thought I'd go into more depth.  

The networks are rolling out their new fall shows.

I think.

The premieres are scattered; some not even airing in their regular time slots. Or they premiere and are re-run later that same week. Or re-run on a sister cable network.

Some shows premiered in August. Others will debut after the World Series (which is now what, Christmas?).

And many shows now have two premieres. This is primarily a cable convention. A series is on for six weeks in the summer and then returns in January.

A few network series don’t even premiere on television. They get sneak previewed online. I once got a DVD of some new show in my ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY.

And the notion of the Fall Season itself is becoming antiquated. Shows are premiering all year long. What’s a TV nerd to do?

This is understandable, of course. With the current dizzying number of channels and series, anything conventional or unconventional a network can do to scare up an audience is good programming.

But what’s lost in all of this is the “event” status that the Fall Season used to have. Back in the Pleistocene Era when there were just three networks (there’s a real good book about life in the ‘60s written by… oh wait – that’s my book). Shows premiered only twice a year – the Fall and Mid-Season (January). New programming in the summer was either “Failure Theater” (airing the pilots they didn’t pick up) and variety shows hosted by guys hoping to snare a regular slot (some like Johnny Cash made it, others like John Gary didn’t).

There was great anticipation for the Fall Season. Promos ran all summer. And by promos I mean fifteen seconds, not the movie trailers we see today.

By September we were whipped into an utter frenzy. Only two weeks left before the world premiere of CAMP RUNAMUCK! How will I last that long?  After a summer of interminable reruns, suddenly there was NEW STUFF again! Oh, the joy!

Of the three networks, no one did premieres better than NBC. First off, you have to really use your imagination to picture NBC as a major influential network but it once was. And they billed their rollout as NBC WEEK. All of their shows – new or returning – premiered over one seven-day period in mid-September. You knew the date as well as your birthday.

They also offered a written program – like a yearbook – that you could send away for. Uber geek that I was (am) I used to send away for that sucker every year. There were big color pictures of all their new shows. Wow! PLEASE DON’T EAT THE DAISIES! I would pore through those pages with awe and wonder. 90 BRISTOL COURT – three sitcoms set in the same complex. What a concept!! (Forget that two were canceled by January.)

In a way, I think the anticipation made the shows seem better than they actually were. I call this the “Dark Knight Rises Syndrome.” But there were usually enough cool new shows that NBC WEEK was never a disappointment. It’s not like the Oscars.

Today I don’t even bother to watch premieres. Most are so dreadful anyway. Kristen Bell moves into a neighborhood of space aliens. No thanks. If a show is good and gets decent buzz I will catch up with ON DEMAND or find it online. But I miss the days when the Fall Season was important to me. On the other hand, spending an afternoon studying a glossy multi-page brochure for NBC WEEK is the true definition of “Get a Life.”

Friday Questions

Your mid-September Friday Questions.

Ted starts us off.

Hey Ken, I think you might have discussed this before, but what's it like directing child actors? Do you have to make sure they don't have that annoyingly "cutesy" acting style that used to be common on TV shows? And do you find that most comedy writers are good at writing for kids, or are they too often tempted to make them sound like wisecracking junior adults?

Obviously, it depends on the child.  But with kids it’s not only their performance but their ability to concentrate.

For the most part I’ve had good luck.  The key is being patient, especially if they’re really young (5-7). Plus, they rehearse less than the other actors.  A certain portion of the day is reserved for school so 70% of the rehearsal time is dealing with their stand-ins.  

My heart goes out to child actors.  They’re in a world of adults being asked to do things that are difficult for grown-ups, much less youngsters.  My job is to make them feel as comfortable possible. 

And every so often I’ll come upon a kid with impeccable  comic timing — they instinctively in their bones know just how to get every laugh.  I’ve been lucky enough to work with one or two of those.  

As for giving acting notes, I just want them to be real -- not be cutesy to get a laugh.  The more I can get them to just act naturally, the better will be my chances that they really deliver.

Final thought:  Kids aren’t easy to direct but by and large they’re way easier than professional athletes.  

Chris wonders:

Watching old sitcoms I notice that sometimes they'll use a humorous "smash cut," like switching suddenly to a new scene to contradict what a character just said, etc. The thing that surprises me is that the studio audience seems to laugh at these... But how on earth could they see the smash cut to laugh at it? Surely it takes too much time to change scenes in the actual studio to keep that laugh. Same question for camera pullout reveal jokes.

You must be talking about multi-camera sitcoms that are filmed in front of a live studio audience.  Often, to achieve that surprise, the first scene will be pre-filmed the day or two before.  The studio audience watches the scenes on monitors then the flip happens when they turn their attention to the stage and they see what happens after the cut.  

And some shows won’t go to those lengths.   They’ll just lean on the laugh box. 

Jeff asks:

Back in the day, network star(s) would often host these shows or appear in mini-skits to introduce new or returning programs. Were you or any of your colleagues ever involved in any of these (e.g. to write dialogue for an actor appearing in character as their sitcom alter ego)?

No.  To be honest, those big preview shows died out in the 70s or 80s.  Their heyday was before my time.  

Oh, for the days when fall premiers were a big deal.  For NBC Week (as they called it) you could send away over the summer to get a free handsomely mounted program saluting all the new shows.  I wish I still had my copies.  I’d send away every year.  

I think one of the networks did a preview show this year.  I rarely watch network television anymore so I couldn’t tell you which network did it.

And finally, from PolyWogg:

I was wondering about voice direction in TV scripts. For example, in Friends, Matt Perry's delivery of "Could it BE any more (blah)" only works with the right rhythm and direction in delivery. So my Q is if you have similar examples of phrases/lines that were delivered but only work through voice inflection, and how much it was in the script vs. the actor finding a way to say it?

I think it started out with Matt delivering a couple of lines in that rhythm and the producers recognizing its potential.  It’s a mixture of irony and a touch of sarcasm.  And you have to remember, when Matt started delivering lines that way it was a very fresh approach.  Now half the actors on sitcoms adopt that.

I never worked on FRIENDS so I’m hardly an authority, but I suspect when the writers saw how well he scored they started writing to that.  

We had a writer in the CHEERS room named Jerry Belson.  He was one of the funniest writers I’ve ever met.  (At one time he was Garry Marshall’s writing partner.)  He would work one day a week on CHEERS.  And he had a fantastic delivery.  He would pitch lines that had us on the floor.  We’d put them into the script and the next day at run-through most of them came back out because none of the actors could deliver the line as funny as Jerry.  

What’s your Friday Question? 

EP242: Flights from Hell

You’d think that flying charter with MLB teams would be dream travel — and often it is. But any seasoned traveler knows there are unforeseen circumstances at times. Ken relates three crazy charter flight stories from his days calling big league play-by-play. Lockdown will not seem so bad after listening to this episode.

More episodes at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Goodbye Larry

WARNING: Political Rant.  Red States best move on to another blog. 

I must say I take a personal glee at the outcome of the Republican attempt to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom, not just because it’s another setback for the party that advocates stupidity, the end of democracy, and the death of its members (don't wear masks, don't take vaccines, COVID is a hoax)— no, I’m thrilled because I personally know the candidate who lost — Larry Elder.

We worked together at KABC radio and may I just say I am not a fan.  And that’s not even based on issues.  Women aren’t as smart as men, there should be no minimum wage, no mask or vaccination mandates.  Those alone would be enough to despise a person.  He was always one of those talkshow hosts that took the contrarian point of view to stir up controversy.  The ultimate opportunist (as this governor run illustrates). 

Aside from all that, I just found him a dyspeptic pompous pain-in-the-ass with an ego the size of Canada. Based on... nothing.  He was not well-liked by his staff.  And for good reason.  He had the production director create wonderful comedy bits for him, which he pressed as a CD, took all the credit for it (even though he contributed nothing) and called it “the Best of Larry Elder.”   And for the record, the man has zero sense of humor. 

I was persona non grata to him.  He wouldn’t speak to me.  He wouldn’t acknowledge my existence.  Why?  Because I was hosting Dodger Talk and during Spring Training we were contracted to do an hour Dodger Talk show from 6-7 pm, which cut into one of his hours.  For whatever passive-aggressive reason, he blamed me.  Needless to say the change-overs at 6 were a barrel of laughs.  He literally ignored me.  So what I started doing was talking to him.  “Hey, Larry, how are you?  What’s going on?  Seen the new Clint Eastwood movie?  What do you think of my shirt?  What’s your favorite pie?”   You’d think one time he’d acknowledge what was happening.  I’ve worked in radio for more years than I care to mention, have changed-over with hundreds of different performers and never had that experience.   How hard would it be to just say hi?  He didn’t have to go out to dinner with me.  But that’s Larry.  He’s the king of dick moves.

Like… saying he lost the election and crying voting fraud the night BEFORE the election on his website.   A man of real integrity and scruples.  And this was the best the Republican Party could offer?

It's going to be hard to cry foul when the vote total was such a landslide -- not that that will stop 'ol Lar.  Again - scruples. He was the projected loser less than an hour after the polls closed.  He was the reason Newsom won so big.  This was projected to be a tight race until media hog Elder joined the fray.

And what did he achieve for all his efforts?  Not the shady power grab he attempted.  Once a local non-entity he became a national embarrassment.  And THAT is the "Best of Larry Elder."  

The buzz on Buzzy

This is the one week that Mike Richards will be hosting JEOPARDY.   It was supposed to be his first week as permanent and in a reversal of fortunes that saw him lose the gig and his Executive Producer job on both JEOPARDY and WHEEL OF FORTUNE and he is now out of the business.   If only Trump could have such a fall from grace.  (Actually, no -- I don't wish Mike Richards and his whole family go to prison for the rest of their lives.)  

But it puts the parent company, Sony, in a rather embarrassing situation.  Since JEOPARDY is a competition, you can't just eat five episodes. But every minute he's on camera it just reminds the audience of what a fiasco this has become and how ultimately they're responsible. 

And now we're back at square one.  Sony needs to name a permanent host -- sometime before the polar ice cap melts.  After this week Mayim Bialik, who did GREAT, will host for three weeks.  After that, I dunno.

But I found it interesting that when they re-ran the two-week TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS, hosted by Buzzy Cohen, that started a groundswell of support for Buzzy.  Newsweek even calls him a new frontrunner.  

Personally, I thought he did a great job.  As for former JEOPARDY champion, Ken Jennings, I imagine he's still on the short-list although his voice is a little weak and you hear the voice constantly since the host reads the clues aloud.   

I'd be happy if Buzzy got the gig.  I also feel that some of his stiffness and nerves would iron out once he had the job and could relax.  

I'd also be thrilled if Mayim got the full-time gig. Of all the guest hosts I thought she was the best.  Just don't let Dr. Oz come within five miles of the studio.