Hi Tech

Getting close. Previews of my play A OR B? begin Wednesday at the Falcon Theatre. This is my weekly report on the process of getting one of these bad boys mounted.

After three weeks in the rehearsal hall things shifted into high gear last week once the stage was ours. Construction began. As I said on my Facebook page -- I'm living every playwright's dream. They're building sets for my play and I don't have to pay for them.

Jason & Jules

The actors (Jules Willcox & Jason Dechert) have somehow memorized the script (which to me is a skill greater than tightroping over Niagara Falls.) and are now making it their own.

Tech rehearsal began last Thursday. This is the arduous part of the process. Literally twelve-hour days. All the logistic questions that have been tabled over the first three weeks now come to roost. How do props get on and off the stage between scenes? How long will costume changes actually take? That offstage sound we just assumed will sound great now gets put to the test.

Every light cue, every sound cue must be painstakingly locked in. There are a thousand decisions and problems that must be dealt with. What music? How loud? Will there be crowd noise? If so, how much and for how long? Where exactly will the props be backstage?

And as I’m sitting there watching this I’m thinking to myself, “Not my problem.”

Certain transitions from one scene to another are very complicated. One of the actors has to make a quick costume change, there are numerous sound and lighting cues, and it all has to happen in less than 30 seconds.

Not my problem.

The poor actors had to do the transition six or eight times until everybody got it right. It probably took a half hour. This is a 90-page script and at that rate tech would take a month. They only have so many hours over a few days.

Not my problem.

In television when we do multi-camera sitcoms in front of a studio audience we still have the luxury of stopping after every scene. You just say to the prop master one time that you need a coffee mug here or a statue of the Washington Monument in sugar cubes there and poof, they’re there. Not so in live thea-tuh.

So why am I even there?  Well, for one thing I got to see everyone in full wardrobe for the first time and a bright idea I had for one scene totally did not work.

Yes my problem.

Everyone continued to rehearse and I went off to rewrite the scene.

But the real reason I was there was to learn. It’s a treat to watch these highly professional technicians go about building a real theatre experience one sound cue and light adjustment at a time. I can’t imagine what tech is like on a Broadway musical. I have a cast of two and a play. What was LES MISERABLES like? They had to stage the entire French Revolution, not to mention all the sets, rotating stages, costumes, God knows how many actors, singers, and dancers, the orchestra, etc. In MISS SAIGON they also had to land a real helicopter on stage. Good luck when the Podunk Community Theatre does that one.

Not my problem.

Understudies Josh & Lori

Our understudies Josh Covitt and Lori Eve Marinacci were also on hand to help out. Why should they miss the fun of changing clothes in eight seconds and crashing into walls in the dark?

Late yesterday we had a full runthrough with all departments. As the saying goes: At some point the musicians all have to play together.  The problem scene is now way better (although I still have a couple things I'm going to change after I finish writing this).   Off day today, tomorrow a full runthrough and then a dress rehearsal for an invited audience.  Hopefully the play will be funny and touching.

Definitely my problem.

Fine tuning on Wednesday and then previews begin. Please come see the end result of all this mayhem.

Another difference between the theater and TV -- when our director, Andy decides to re-block something, it’s no big deal. As long as the actors aren’t upstaging each other and the moment works it’s done. When I direct television shows, if I re-block I always have to think of cameras. If my star walks around the other side of the couch then suddenly all four of my camera assignments need to be changed.  That gets very complicated.   I told this to Andy who gave me a smile that clearly said…

Not my problem.

"Beating" jokes

When is something funny enough? That’s a little hard to say since every example is different and every case is subjective. But as a general rule, whenever I write a joke I ask myself two questions.

Is it funny?

What would be funnier?

Just getting a yes on the first question is no easy task. And by funny I mean FUNNY. Not wry, not amusing, not lol, not smiley face, but something that will make people actually laugh. And not just people – strangers. It’s hard. It’s why they used to pay the big money.

So when you feel your joke has passed the rigorous mirth test it’s tempting to take a moment, pat yourself on the back for being a comic genius, and move on to the next triumph That’s what most comedy writers do.

Don’t be one of them. Ask the second question. How can you make the joke funnier? What’s a more offbeat reference that achieves the same result? What’s fresher? Is there a better set up? Is the wording just perfect? Or is there just a better line altogether?

Small example of a joke just to give you a sense of my thought process. When Manny Ramirez was suspended for violating baseball’s drug policy I was asked if I was surprised. My first thought was, “At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Mother Teresa was a dope dealer.” The incongruity of Mother Teresa selling drugs seemed funny. But “is there something better than dope dealer? What I came up with is this: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Mother Teresa was a gun runner.” That seemed to suggest a funnier image, Mother Teresa haggling with terrorists over AK-47’s.

At some point of course you've got to land on a joke and go with it otherwise you can spend the next fifty years trying to get Jess out of a room. But don't just automatically settle for the first thing you come up with. That sounds obvious but you'd be surprised how many writers do.

A better example comes from THE HANGOVER. How many bachelor party gone-bad-in-Vegas screenplays do you think there’ve been? A thousand? Ten? Four idiots getting shitfaced and in trouble in sin city is comic gold. But I bet none of those scripts had tigers, chickens, missing babies, and Mike Tyson. Okay, well most of them didn’t have Mike Tyson. But you catch my drift. Reach.

There’s an expression in the writing room – “Can we beat this joke?” Don’t settle. ESPECIALLY if you’re writing a spec script.

Eventually you’ll train yourself to automatically think that second question. It could be the subtle difference between good and “you’re hired”.

This was a re-post from the last decade.  But revised.

Did USA welcome our characters?

Here’s a question a reader posed yesterday that I thought I would address today.

Hamid asked:

When are we gonna hear about the new pilot you mentioned has been picked up?

We just learned the fate last week. David Isaacs and I had sold a pilot to the USA Network late last year.

Unlike broadcast networks that are on a pretty fixed yearly schedule (buy ideas and develop pilots in the late summer/fall, make the pilots in the winter, and decide their fall schedules in early spring, watch the all die in September), cable networks are under no such restrictive timetable. So things move at a leisurely pace (which is a nice way of saying “they take forever”).

So practically ten months to the day we sold the idea and wrote the script we learned USA decided not to go with any of their comedy pilots currently in development. They are changing direction and not focusing on comedy at the moment.

At least this is the explanation we’ve been given and we choose to believe it. Everyone at USA we’ve dealt with has been great and very straightforward. And they’ve all been wildly enthusiastic about the project (which we greatly appreciated).

But…

They’re not the ones making the final decision. This happens frequently. You work with executives for weeks or months, finally arrive at a polished script everyone is excited about, and then it goes up the ladder to the big boss (who, in many cases, is not even familiar with the project). And to paraphrase Harry Truman – the bucks stop here. The big boss has a different agenda, or changes his agenda, or has different taste than his underlings. For whatever reason, promising projects die.

It’s disappointing but after awhile you just used to it. I think we gave them a good script, it fit their needs (at the time), and if there’s one silver lining about this crazy process it’s that the same people who rejected you will court you to work for them again.

We had a great experience with USA. We’ll explore other options for the project, and now finally I can make vacation plans.

Besides, you guys wouldn’t want me running a television show. When would I have time to write the blog. You all dodged a bullet.

Friday Questions

It’s Friday. You have questions. Let’s go.

Les leads off.

You have mentioned in the past you cast Aaron Paul in a pilot (and Kat Dennings I believe for the same pilot). I do not recall if the network requested his part be re-cast or whether the show just did not get picked up but in any event, now I am sure every network exec would die for just a meeting with Mr. Paul. If/when you are casting for a new show and an executive gives you push back on one of your choices, do you ever just say -- 'hey I discovered "insert-name-here" years before and know what I am doing" or does it even matter?

To set the record straight: the network had reservations about Aaron Paul. But we were very insistent. The pilot didn’t go because the star of the show didn’t deliver, and he was the network’s call.

But to answer your questions, you could try to persuade the network to go your way based on your past discoveries but that rarely (if ever) works. Even though it’s an actor you found, brought to them, and they didn’t like, if the show is successful they think they discovered him, not you. Yes, it is maddening.

Marianne asks:

What exactly makes a really solid and funny pilot? It's quite astounding that writers can (sometimes) achieve this, it sounds like it's an incredibly difficult task!

You're right, Marianne. Pilot writing is a real art. In only 22 minutes you need to establish the premise, introduce all the characters, establish all of the relationships between them, get us to care about them and their plight, reveal any backstory, set the tone, tell a story, be consistently funny, clearly tell us where the series is going after the pilot and why we should come back.

And that’s just the script. You have to cast it perfectly, get the right director, and fend off network interference.

Little wonder there are so few good ones.

Stephen Robinson asks about writing jokes that depend on the actors’ delivery.

That's always inspired me as a writer when working on a play to write lines that I know could kill but will depend almost entirely on delivery. I think it results in a naturalism that doesn't feel like a sitcom where the cast is comprised of Henny Youngmans delivering one-liners. Do you do that intentionally? Or are you surprised as the audience by how the actor nails the line? I've always found it incredibly brave of a writer to trust so much in the actors and director (especially if they're not directing the script themselves).

That’s always the way I write because I write for characters. Most of the laughs come out of attitudes and the interplay between actors. Very few joke “jokes.” So I’m always at the mercy of actors. Their interpretation can either lift lines or kill them.

Yes, it’s treacherous. There are lots of reasons for souffles not rising. But when it works, it’s soooo much more rewarding.

I’m happily experiencing that now with my play.  Jason Dechert and Jules Willcox are hitting it out of the park. And I’ve been doing this long enough to appreciate that no matter how good the writing may be on the page, without good actors you got nothing. 

For most of my career I’ve been super spoiled. Getting to write for actors the caliber of Tom Hanks, Ted Danson, Shelley Long, Alan Alda, David Hyde Pierce, Nancy Travis, John Candy, Kelsey Grammer, Harry Morgan has made me seem like a way better writer than I am.

From Ed:

In the past you've reference several pilots you and your partner penned that didn't get picked up...

Was there one that didn't go that bothered you?

Yes. It was called MIDNIGHT and took place at a funky colorful all night diner. All of the stories were to take place between midnight and six. We had some very funny characters and unique situations. It had great potential.

But I’m more upset that ALMOST PERFECT and BIG WAVE DAVE’S didn’t get longer runs. I’m very proud of both of those series and still feel they would have been hits if given a fair chance.

That said, you’ve got to move on. Dwelling on past disappointments does no good. Every writer has projects that didn’t go or were cancelled prematurely. You just look ahead and hope that the next one clicks.

And finally, Jeff asks:

What are your thoughts on the usage of cliffhangers?

I’ll tell you next week.

Stop crying already!

Is it possible to do a reality show without having someone cry? It’s gotten beyond ridiculous.

In the early days of television there was a game show called QUEEN FOR A DAY. Women would compete for the saddest sob stories. It was one icky tear-jerker after another. Finally, a winner was crowned “Queen for a Day.” Destitute housewives were given washer-dryers and blenders.

Those contestants were amateurs compared to today. People have complete breakdowns over cake decorating. Men wail like little girls if they’re not selected for dates.

Clearly, most or all of it is for show. This country is a sucker for weep porn. The problem, of course, is that Reality has become the “Genre that Cried Wolf.” There’s so much emotion that none of it lands. And the result is that these shows all seem manipulative, bogus, and quite frankly insulting.

I watched the season premier of SHARK TANK. I tune in to see idiots try to sell their squirrel stun guns and hear the Sharks offer sound business advice. In a recent rerun, Shark Robert Herjavec became a blubbering imbecile recalling his father’s night watchman job. And then in the season premier, a contestant broke down and bawled uncontrollably because his fiance wouldn’t come to America unless his ersatz idea took off. To make matters worse, the Sharks were visibly moved. Kevin O’Leary was overcome with grief, dabbing his tearing eyes.

I don’t mean to be a cynic, but Jesus, what a load of BULLSHIT.

Like I said, all this manufactured heightened emotion just cheapens genuine emotion. What’s sad is you’d think the public would catch on. You’d think they’d be pissed that reality producers think so little of us that they can serve up this palaver and think we’d believe it. But I guess enough of them do believe it.

Now THAT makes me cry.

Come on, America. Man up. It’s just a blender. A fucking blender.

Dealing with horrible bosses

Great article in GQ about horrible bosses in Hollywood. It centers on writers/showrunners (although to be fair, the worst writer boss is Mother Teresa compared to the way some agents treat their assistants. Picture: 12 YEARS A SLAVE but more degrading.). Still, the point made by author Jim Nelson is that there are a lot of insecure, insensitive, unfunny assholes who find themselves in enviable positions and treat their staff like shit. And to that I would say he is correct.

I would also say I find this behavior unconscionable. Writers assistants and P.A.’s have incredibly hard jobs. You hear about all the hours writers work. The support staff puts in way more. Once the rewrite is over at 2 in the morning and the writers stagger home, the assistants stay behind to type, print, and distribute the scripts. In some cases, actors still require a hard copy on their front porch. An emailed file won’t do it. So someone has to drive to the star’s home in a winding canyon at 4 in the a.m.

There was one star a few years ago who demanded the script be on her left night table when she woke up. The P.A. would have to enter the house, tiptoe into her bedroom, and gently leave the script in the assigned spot. If he woke her up he was dead. One day, for some reason, she awoke to find no script. World War III broke out. Killing her in her sleep would be too good for her. She needs to know she’s being killed and why.

The support staff is also woefully underpaid, generally has to park three miles from the lot, and is on call 24-7 to be their masters’ personal gofer. A writer I know who was based in Hollywood demanded her assistant drive to Malibu to pick up her birth control prescription. Another made his assistant take traffic school for him.  More than once I’ve seen a P.A. in a garbage dumpster rooting around in search of something the showrunner thought he might have mistakenly thrown out. A major television star who was quitting smoking by chewing nicotine gum would call over her assistant and every time she had to go on camera to film a scene he had to hold out his hand so she could deposit the chewed gum in his palm. When the scene was over she put the gum back in her mouth. This poor assistant also had to follow behind the star as she walked her dog on the lot. He would be required to clean up the shit.  (Sounds like that old joke right?  "So why do you clean up after the circus elephants?  Quit."  "What?  And leave show business?")

In the article, Nelson worked for an insecure comedy writing team. He didn’t identify them by name but sprinkled enough clues that a quick trip to IMDB easily outs them if you’re interested. The point is they were monsters.

Here’s one of those irrefutable laws of the universe: If a comedy writer has to constantly tell you how funny he is, he’s not funny.

The concept of gravity can be debated before this truth. Truly funny people don’t have to announce it to the world (or to his writers assistants). There’s not enough indignity in working for one of these jackals that you’re expected to actually laugh at his cringeworthy material?  Dumpter diving suddenly seems less appalling.

The truth is showrunners are under a lot of stress. Some handle it better than others. Writing and management are two very different skill sets. And today the job is even harder because there is way more network and studio interference. Anger and even tantrums are not uncommon. I’ve had them myself. But there’s no reason to take out your frustration on the support staff. None. It’s just a matter of simple human decency.

And here’s the thing – if you treat people well they’ll work harder for you. You don’t have to buy them cars. Just appreciate them. Thank them. Not take them for granted. Let them take off early one night to witness the birth of their child. Stock up on extra packages of nicotine gum.

My heart goes out to anyone working for a horrible boss. Sometimes karma comes into play. This author is now an editor-in-chief of GQ. The last writing credit from the team he worked for is 1995. Often times P.A.’s and writers assistants rise among the ranks. One of our P.A.’s on CHEERS later became the VP of Comedy Development at NBC. Good luck to any of the writers who sent her back all the way across town because there were onions on their patty melt. So hang in there. Not every boss is horrible. And better jobs are coming.

But most off all, if and when you do reach a position of power don’t you become an asshole. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this. Abused workers feel they can now be the abusers. Break the string. Be a mensch. Just because Hollywood indulges bad behavior doesn’t mean you have to practice it.  Remember -- you’re a human being first, in the industry second. It’s not the other way around.

THE EQUALIZER: My review

It’s hard to believe that Edward Woodward and Denzel Washington would be playing the same role. But such is the case with THE EQUALIZER. The movie version is in theaters now.

It’s based on the TV series of the same name and basic premise from the mid-80’s. So first of all, the movie’s target audience was probably not born during the series run on CBS. So their expectations going into the Cineplex is just Denzel’s smile and explosions.

But as someone a tad older and a big fan of the TV version I couldn’t help but compare one with the other.

The movie is a fun ride. Denzel blows a lot of things up. He’s a super bad ass who can outthink and outkill any evil doer. So lots of audience-pleasing scenes of him single-handedly taking down the entire Russian mafia. He’s a human Vegematic -- slicing and dicing all in one easy motion.

And of course, since it’s Denzel, he’s also incredibly charming, good-hearted, and down-to-earth. He can suffocate my nemesis any day. Denzel plays Robert McCall (same name as the TV version – they were faithful to that at least), a former CIA agent (who probably roomed in spy school with Jason Bourne) now working at a big box home improvement store in Boston. At one point there’s a major action sequence there. Lots of fun with power drills, etc. All during it I kept thinking – good thing he didn’t work at Staples. He’s be thwarting the bad guys with stickers and dymo label makers.

So I enjoyed the film, but it never captured the essence of what made the TV show so unique and truly great in my opinion. Edward Woodward, at the time he was making the show, was already a distinguished British actor but in failing health. As a result, he was the most sedentary action hero in history. Bob Newhart is more active. Scott Caan is Jackie Chan by comparison. I think in one episode Woodward did a little judo chop move, although I suspect they used a stand-in. And yet, he could walk into a room of the scariest tatted motherfuckers you’ve ever seen and they would all cower at just his presence. It was hilarious. The entire underworld was intimidated by a fop in an overcoat.

So as much as I love Denzel, when I heard they were making a movie version I was hoping for Stephen Fry. Still, if you’re in the mood for a good by-the-numbers cry vengeance movie THE EQUALIZER fills the bill. And as a bonus, you learn new ways to use a club hammer.

UPDATE: Thanks to my readers, here's an awesome parody of the TV EQUALIZER from the Dave Thomas Show. Dave was a member of SCTV.

What I'm up to this week

Here’s the latest installment of the development of my play, A OR B? as it goes from script to full production. We begin previews on Wednesday, October 15th at the Falcon Theatre in Burbank. Tickets are still available. Would love for you to see it. But if you’re not nearby I understand. So if you’re 4,000 miles or more away from Burbank you’re excused.

Today’s the day we get to build our sets in the theatre. The previous production ended last night. And since my play is set in contemporary Manhattan and not the old west we can’t use the same sets.

But that meant that until today we were working out of the rehearsal hall. I’ll be very interested to see what the play looks like for real. In a rehearsal hall you have no idea of theatrically, lights, sound, music, effects – y’kow, those little things like mood and magic. Imagine a royal wedding in a harshly lit gym.

By now the actors, Jules Willcox and Jason Dechert, have pretty much memorized the script so I’m driving them nuts by continuing to change things. (Once a TV writer always a TV writer)

But even if you add just a couple of new jokes a day – after a few weeks that’s a lot more laughs. 
 
The hard part is not coming up with new jokes or fixes to moments that are still fuzzy; it’s dealing with Final Draft. I still don’t know what I’m doing in revision mode. I’m sure any current thirteen-year-old could master this in ten seconds though.

Last Thursday we had our designer runthrough. The sound, lighting, wardrobe, prop, set people all get a chance to see the full play and preview what they’re in for. I told the cast not to be expecting laughs. This audience is watching to see where to place lights and how many olives are needed in the martinis. We did get a surprising number of laughs. I now have deemed those jokes bulletproof.

After the runthrough we held a production meeting. I’ve presided over many of these as a TV director and producer but for this one I was pretty much lost. Technical issues of lights and scrims, etc. I’m glad the director has a vision for all this and the tech people seem to be on his wavelength. I was able to answer the olive question however.

But all that goes into play today. As a writer I never get over the amazement that I dream up something in my head and seventeen guys are scurrying around with hammers and buzz saws making it actually appear.

Today is also the first understudy rehearsal. Our stage manager, Dale will walk Lori Marinacci and Josh Covitt through the blocking. Again, I can’t thank our understudies enough. I just hope what happened to Sutton Foster happens to them. She was the understudy for THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE on Broadway and wound up winning a Tony. (Although, realistically, I think the chances or Lori and Justin winning Tonys for this play are hampered by the fact that we’re in Burbank.)

Long hours and sawdust awaits. I look forward to sharing it all with you next week. Thanks for following the saga, and again, would love for you to see the final results.

Okay, I'm weird, but everybody is weird.

I've been tagged. Challenged to list five of my weird habits. The real challenge is to hold it down to five.  I stopped at nine. 

1) I watch HOUSE and believe I have whatever mystery ailment the patient of the week has. My doctor then assures me that bleeding out of my eyes is normal, just drink a glass of water.

2) I don’t like anyone looking over my shoulder when I’m writing, be it a script, email, or love letters to Jessica Alba or Sandy Koufax.

3) I listen to 60s music when I write. And this includes radio station jingles from the era and Joanie Sommers Pepsi commercials. I love Joanie Sommers.

4) I can’t watch an old black and white movie from the 30’s or 40’s without thinking “everyone I’m looking at is dead”. Not that this spoils my enjoyment.

5) I go through breakfast phases. I eat the same thing every day for a couple of years and then switch. Currently it’s macadamia nuts and raisins. If I ever switch to Lucky Charms get “old Betsy” off the wall and shoot me.

6) I have no blood so I always dress warm. Stop making fun of Cosby for wearing those sweaters. They look cool.

7) I'm afraid if I install any computer program I'm going to hit the wrong button and crash every computer on the planet. I call this Y2Ken.

8) As a former disc jockey, I still talk-up records in my car. Right up to the vocal. I’m a master at this. It’s maybe my greatest skill…which is unfortunate since it’s also utterly useless. KHJ Boss Radio is not coming back anytime soon.

9) I can't leave a baseball game until it's over. This quirk has served me well when I was announcing them.

Okay, so what are some of yours?   This is a revised re-post, by the way.

David Hyde Pierce: guest blogger

Even though it's Saturday, here's a Friday Question comes from reader Alyson:

I recently rewatched Frasier - great show, even better than I remembered. I'm curious about the fencing scene in "An Affair to Forget" from season 2. Awhile back, you wrote a nice post about Jane Leeves and how she learned how to shoot pool for an episode. So my question is: We all know David Hyde Pierce is a great physical comedian. Did he learn how to fence for that episode, did he already know, or was he just winging it?

Not knowing the answer to this I asked someone who does – David Hyde Pierce. Alyson, here is his response:

As I recall, the writers asked me about my fencing experience before they wrote the episode. I’d been trained in stage combat by a guy named B.H. Barry, and I’d done two big sword fights for B.H., one in Cyrano and one in Kevin Kline’s Hamlet. ( In each case I both fought with and understudied the lead, which meant I had to learn both sides of the fight So, theoretically I could challenge myself to a duel and lose.) Coincidentally the actor who played Maris’ fencing instructor had also trained with B.H., so since we spoke the same language fencing-wise, we were able to learn a fairly elaborate fight in a relatively short time.

Hope that’s helpful.
Dhp

Many thanks to David Hyde Pierce along with David Lee. 

This has been a repost.  But do you care?  I mean, David Hyde Pierce!

Friday Questions

Friday Questions coming at ya:

Mark has one about TV directors:

Certain highly visual gags need good direction. Does knowing that an (Andy) Ackerman or a (James) Burrows is directing affect the way you write? Does not knowing who will be directing make you less likely to include a gag that requires just the right staging?

To a degree, yes. If we know there’s a complicated show – if someone is driving a car through a set, or there’s a big wedding scene with lots of extras – we will often wait until the weeks Jimmy or Andy is available.

At CHEERS, where Burrows directed the lion’s share of episodes, we would be in the writers room, someone would pitch an elaborate physical gag, someone else would say “how would we shoot that” and everyone else in the room would chime in, “That’s Jimmy magic.”

“Jimmy magic” became the catchword when we were just too lazy to really work things out ourselves.  By the way, he always made them work.  "Jimmy magic" indeed.

But the one factor that makes Jimmy, Andy, and few other directors really tops in their field is not their ability to stage complicated stunts or shoot from amazing angles. It’s the performances they get out of the actors. That’s a true gift.

Jim S. has a question about actors’ ability to match behavior for continuity. Old time actors really learned that and also mastered a variety of skills like horseback riding or fencing.

Do today's actors, who didn't go through the old Hollywood Machine, lack some of the basic skills. In the old days, when westerns were popular, actors were expected to know how to ride. They might take tap dancing because, hey musicals. Has that basic nuts and bolts technique stuff been lost?

Not at all. Today’s television and film actors are amazingly adept at matching behavior, hitting marks, cheating their angles occasionally for the camera, etc. They're very precise but make it look it easy. 

And if you read any actor’s resume, nine times out of ten you’ll see he or she has skills that include tap dancing, fencing, various accents, juggling, you name it. I always read their resumes when casting. A few are usually classics. Special skills: Can burp on cue. Can pack a suitcase. Has excellent handwriting.

Tomorrow I have a guest blogger talk about mastering a special skill.

From Nevin ":-)" Liber:

In season 7 of M*A*S*H BJ Hunnicutt grew a mustache. Was that something requested by the production team or by Mike Farrell? If the former, was it for looks, better humor/stories, etc.? If the latter, who has the final say-so: the actor or the production team?

I’ll be perfectly honest. Before the season we were looking for something to help differentiate B.J. from Hawkeye. Alan said, “I’ve got it. Let’s give B.J. a mustache!” We thought he was kidding. He wasn’t.

Mike could have nixed it, but instead went along like a good sport – although he never really knew why he was growing it. We just sort of accepted it and ignored it. What stories can you get from B.J. now has a mustache?

Good character development comes from within. Their attitude, their personality, their worldview, their wants and needs. Not something you can just paste on.

And finally, from John:

Hi Ken, just wondering how you feel about the 10/90 deals that are being made for shows? I noticed Kelsey was doing it with Partners and it seems to be working for Anger Management.

Do you think it's good for showrunners to know that their show will run for a set amount of episodes, or is it just a comedy sweatshop?

Yes, it’s good for showrunners and writers in general to know they've got an order of a hundred shows. Especially in a landscape where network shows are getting picked up for only six or eight. Certainly a lot more job security on ANGER MANAGEMENT than SELIFE.

The trouble is, as you say, they have to really crank out these episodes like Lucy & Ethel in the chocolate factory.  The quality understandably suffers. These shows seem to be more for people who just like the rhythm of multi-camera shows. But I don’t know how you could turn out real quality episodes if you have to make a hundred in a relatively short period of time. Likewise, for performances – when you’re doing two shows a week, how do you have time to really find the moments? It becomes a conveyer belt. But writers and crew people and actors are working so I say “yay!”

What’s your question? Leave it in the comments section. Thanks.

Great advice for all writers (not just young ones)

This quote from Oscar, Tony, and probably Heisman Trophy winner, Mike Nichols:

Every scene is either a fight, seduction, or negotiation.

Now you could say he’s stretching it, and you could argue that at times seductions are negotiations, but the real point here is that every effective scene needs some dynamic.

Two baseball fans in the stands just talking about the weather isn’t interesting. Umpires trying to decide whether the rain is coming down hard enough to stop a World Series game is.

A couple agreeing on what color to paint the house is boring. A couple throwing paint at each other is not.

Your scene needs some conflict, or one of the characters has a specific goal. There’s a dramatic reason for the scene.

It may be subtle. People are always looking for that little edge, couples are consciously or subconsciously trying to be in the power position in their relationship. Although a union contract might not be the topic on the table, this is still negotiation. Trying to get someone to agree with you is a form of seduction. The truth is in our daily lives we use most of these conventions all the time in our interactions; we just don’t recognize it. But for writers, they're the fuel that makes the engine go.

Rule of thumb: if you can just lift a scene out of a screenplay or TV show, or whatever without anyone missing it then it didn’t belong in the first place. We’re in a golden age of TV drama. Watch the good shows. See how every scene, every moment has a purpose, and is integral to the narrative.

A fight, seduction, or negotiation may be a little simplistic. But it gives you a good starting point. If you’ve written a scene that is just flat you can check it against those three dynamics. If it has none, or one but very mild, suddenly it’s no longer a mystery why your scene doesn’t work. Pick one or two or strengthen one or two.

Use Nichols’ quote as a guide. It may not be perfect, but it’s much more eloquent than mine.

A scene has to have… stuff.

And that’s why he is who he is and I am who I am.

Did I really say that?

Natalie Wood -- since I can't find an appropriate photo

Radio program directors always preach preparation for air talent. Spend the time, put in the effort, and know what you’re going to say before going on the air. Make sure beforehand that when you turn that mic on you’re going to say something entertaining, informative, or at the very least, of specific interest to the listener.

I did none of that when I was a disc jockey. No preparation whatsoever. I always felt that the prepared jocks lacked spontaneity. Their material seemed forced and lame. I always wanted to be in the moment. I always felt that if I couldn’t come up with one funny thing to say when given three minutes (the time of most records) there was something wrong. So I lived on the edge. But I felt extremely comfortable working this way.

I never had a program director scold me for being lazy or unprepared. Sometimes they told me to just shut up because I wasn’t funny, but no one ever accused me of phoning it in.

Once I said a funny line I never wrote it down. A few I have used more than once (always on different stations – I got fired a lot), but most of the time I’d say something and never give it another thought.

Recently I uncovered a tape of one of my shows from TenQ in Los Angeles from 1977 (when I was going by the distinguished moniker Beaver Cleaver). I hadn’t listened to this tape in damn near forty years.

I was floored by what I heard.

It’s like I was listening to someone I had never met. I didn’t remember any of the jokes I told. In some cases they were pretty good and I thought to myself, “Wow. Where did that come from?” Full disclosure: there were also some terrible jokes and one-liners of very questionable taste.

But it was very disconcerting to encounter yourself in a younger state and not even recognize that person. I’ve always been fascinated by the concept of memory. What we selectively choose to remember and what we forget (whether we choose to or not). I pride myself on having a very good memory. Lots of it useless. I can tell you artist, titles, and record labels from most records that made the charts from 1959-1979. I remember baseball games and players and plays that stretch back years. I watch a rerun of CHEERS and can remember how late the rewrite night went and who pitched specific jokes. But as I listened to that TenQ broadcast, the “me” I recall from that period was clearly not the “me” coming out of that speaker.

I’m sure a number of you have had essentially the same experience. How many of you kept diaries and journals when you were young and you revisit them now and are appalled.  

But if you’re like me, you also miss that person a little. “Beaver Cleaver” was more fearless than I am. He was brimming with passion for what he was doing. He was silly. He was tapped into what was cool.

And yet, a lot of his characteristics wouldn’t fit today. Just as wearing clothes from that period wouldn’t.

Like I said, he was a different person. Looking back, I liked “Beaver Cleaver” and would hope that if he could look into the future he’d like me too. Although I imagine he’d say, “What’s with the fucking Natalie Wood fixation? What are you? Thirteen?”

SELFIE: My review

SELFIE, which premiers tonight is ABC's blatant attempt to attract Millennial viewers and appear “hip” and “with it” or whatever it is that those young people say these days. The end result is they’ve managed to take some decent actors and a good writer and produce one God awful television show. WTF ABC? Sitcom by calculation. Is this comedy? NIMBY.

The premise is a modern day PYGMALION. Or a modern day MY FAIR LADY, which at the time was a modern PYGMALION. In MY FAIR LADY, Eliza Doolittle is this rough-edged Cockney girl. Refined Professor Henry Higgins takes it upon himself to transform her into a lady of culture and grace. But at heart, Eliza is a lovely person. For Crissakes, Julie Andrews played her on Broadway and Audrey Hepburn played her in the movie.  You could almost see the halos.

So imagine if Kathy Griffin played her. Or Chelsea Handler. Or Ann Coulter.

Normally likeable Karen Gillan is (wait for it) "Eliza Dooley," a buffoonish unbelievably self-absorbed bitch/slut. She has a gazillion social media friends but discovers that (OMG #tragic) that she has no real friends. Frowny Face. STBY.   (How did she get all these millions of followers?  #MakesNoSense)

But y’see, she gets sick on an airplane, fills two barf bags, and as she walks up the aisle both bags break at once (#how is that possible? SITD) drenching her in vomit. ROFL. Actually, this is the big joke in the pilot. #moronic #disgusting.

Five minutes of lame ironic lines that are supposed to serve as jokes later, she seeks out John Cho as “Henry Higgs” (#seriously?) to help transform her into someone likeable. He agrees to help because… well, that’s the plot. And what we have is Higgs trying to humanize Eliza and Eliza trying to loosen up Higgs. Will they eventually fall in love? WEG.

Some problems: Eliza’s self-absorption and blatant disregard for others is the only vein of humor in the entire series. And the objective is to rid her of that. And John Cho, who is a very nice actor, is an absolute enemy of comedy. As the expression goes – he couldn’t get a laugh if we were wearing ten chicken suits.

A romantic comedy requires chemistry (RTFM) and there is zero between these two leads. #Awkward.

Everything about this misfire feels manipulative, false, and created in a focus group. Style is valued way more than substance. Who cares if the characters are one-dimensional, the premise is deeply flawed, and the jokes are meh? Text messages pop up on the screen! #CuttingEdge.

I guess if you want to do a comedy today based on people that exist on the planet earth who wrestle with relatable issues in a way that respects the audience and doesn’t pander to them you are SOL. TBTS.

ABC should be ashamed of itSELFIE.

The process of a play: part 2

Here’s another installment of the process of producing my play, A OR B? which begins previews October 15th at the Falcon Theatre in Burbank. Tickets you say? Here’s where you go.

After a week of table readings and analyzing the script it was time to get it on its feet.

I’m used to television where that means the cast rehearses in the show’s various sets. Not so in the thee-a-tah.  Since another show is currently on the Falcon stage we remained in the rehearsal hall. A tape outline of the stage was laid down on the floor and the actors and director worked from that.

I’m always amazed at the actor’s process. First off, it’s like snowflakes – no two actors have the same process. But I’ve witnessed this many times. A reading is one thing, but once an actor can actually get on his or her feet and use their body their performance just blossoms. Having the physicality (and soon the wardrobe) really helps the actor get into character. In our case, Jason Dechert and Jules Willcox have taken the words and started making them their own.

And when there are places where the dialogue doesn’t feel right, our actors have the playwright right there to say, “Who wrote this shit?” And “You’ll get new lines tomorrow.”

Having the playwright (i.e. ME) there for rehearsals has been advantageous. Most of the time I just sit and watch and let the director work with the cast. But every so often they hit a rough patch in the script and it’s good that I’m there to explain my intent. And I probably save them hours of discussion by saying, “The problem is it sucks. I’ll give you something else.”

What makes the rewriting easier is that now I can tailor it to our specific actors. Whenever I write an original piece I try to picture someone in the role, even if it’s an actor I know I’ll never get. I don’t think Meryl Streep will want to play the neighbor mom in a pilot. But at least if you’re basing the character on a specific movie star it’s that much easier for the casting director to find a similar type.

In the case of my play, however, I didn’t model the characters after anyone famous. Try telling a casting director the star is sort of like my cousin Milty.

You would think that once the actors had to memorize blocking in addition to the script it would make it that much harder. But the opposite is true. The blocking helps them by giving them constant signposts.

My play has only two actors and very sparse sets. Our director, Andrew Barnicle, was able to do the initial blocking in only two days, which he acknowledged was incredibly quick. I asked how long it usually takes him to block a play. Three days.

We’re still at the stage where we have to leave a lot to the imagination. Lighting design and cues play a large part in my play and we won’t see that aspect of the production until we’re on the main stage – a couple of weeks from now. It’s like filming a movie in front of green screen. You have to imagine what it’s ultimately going to look like.

This is another reason why I’m glad I’m not directing this play. My inexperience would be so glaring at every turn. Andrew said to me one day that he was quite pleased. The actors seemed ahead of schedule – which is great, except I have no idea what the schedule is. At what point should they have the play memorized? At what point should they be in wardrobe? How do you know when you’re over-rehearsing? When can you let them go to the bathroom?

So the rehearsing continues. Stay tuned for more installments. And again, hope you get to see the final result. 

Hey, weren't you "Jerk at the bar?"

A trainer in my gym is also an actor. (I know – knock you over with a feather). He recently appeared on the Showtime series CALIFORNICATION playing the fan favorite, “Hollywood Asshole”. And knowing him, I bet he was good in it. Some of his previous roles included “Jerk at the Bar”, “Thug #2”, and to prove he has range – “Jogger”.

An actress I know has these impressive credits: “Vegas Showgirl” on CSI. Also “Bikini Girl”, “Sheik Girl”, “Cute Girl”, and “Homewrecker”.

Another actress friend boasts these credits on imdb: “Waitress”, “Saleswoman”, “Assistant Candidate #1”, and the part she’s best known for -- “Desperate Woman”.

And one of the most talented comic actors I know lists these on his resume: “Caterer”, “Waiter”, “Delivery Boy”, “Great Great Grandfather” (he was in his 30’s at the time), “Husband”, “Exterminator”, and my personal favorite – “Squid”.

Forget being a star, most actors in Hollywood would be thrilled for a role that actually had a name.

Usually these parts are one or two lines, usually day player roles. But not always. Remember the old guy who used to sit at the bar at CHEERS. His name was Al Rosen. He became a semi-regular. He had lines in probably thirty episodes. His name on the show was “Man Who Said Sinatra”.

“Sinatra” was the first line he was assigned, he got a good laugh, and a few weeks later the writers were looking to give a line to a bar patron and someone suggested, “What about the man who said Sinatra?” And thus a legend was born.

It’s not easy being an actor. And for every one who gets a part as “Punk #2” and “Guy in the Sewer” just remember – there are five others who auditioned for those parts and didn’t get them.

Yours truly,

Schmuck with blog

This was a re-post from 5 1/2 years ago.  

Farewell Derek Jeter

Okay, this is a baseball post. So for many of you, see you tomorrow. But I love baseball, have opinions, and have a blog. So here are some observations from the bleachers:

I love Derek Jeter.   There, I admit it.  Even with all the hype, even though I'm not a Yankee fan, I think Derek Jeter is one of the finest and classiest ballplayers in history.  How classy?  Even though he's out of work starting Monday I bet he doesn't file for unemployment insurance.  I tip my cap. 

Yankee broadcaster, Suzyn Waldman, had the perfect line after Derek Jeter’s spectacular final-at-bat at Yankee Stadium (when he singled in the winning run) – “The last YANKEE has left the building.” Amen.

Clayton Kershaw deserves to win the National League Cy Young Award, the MVP, a Golden Glove, and the Heisman Trophy.

Wednesday night the Dodgers clinched the NL West at Dodger Stadium by defeating the Giants. However, had Milwaukee lost that day the Giants would have clinched the second Wild Card spot. So both teams would have had champagne locker room celebrations. This just points out the absurdity of two Wild Card teams. When 10 of 30 teams make it into the postseason that really diminishes the accomplishment.

Yes, more teams remain in contention, which boosts attendance, but at one times teams had to be the best. But MLB now eliminates those great pennant races. No longer are two teams vying for the division (or, at one time, league) championship, where when team can win 100 games and if the other wins 101 you go home – now both teams are in because the loser gets one of the Wild Cards. So the real final weekend suspense is who gets the second Wild Card slot. Wow! That’s like the big suspense at the Oscars is which movie finishes fourth for Best Picture?

MLB wonders why the World Series isn’t as big an attraction anymore. First of all, there are three playoff series in each league that occur before we even get to the World Series. Plus, since there is so much interleague play now, there is no longer any novelty from the National League playing the American League.

I’m rooting for the Kansas City Royals.

I’m sure when the schedule makers arranged for the Yankees to end the season in Boston they just assumed it would be a big series. Who knew that both teams would be eliminated? Kansas City at Chicago and Oakland at Texas are big series.

Considering the Tigers’ pitching staff and lineup, they should have run away with the AL Central. Same with the Dodgers in the NL West.

Yasiel Puig is such an exciting player. But he may be the dumbest Dodger since Pedro Guerrero, although it will take way more idiocy to reach Pedro’s level. Guerrero was on trial for drug trafficking and his defense team argued that he was too stupid to know what was going on. He won. His IQ is listed as 70.

Corey Kluber of Cleveland could sneak in and win the AL Cy Young Award. King Felix pitches tomorrow. It behooves him to throw another no-hitter.

Bud Selig really is retiring, right? I mean, this isn’t like Cher? He’s really going?

How about for the World Series we make the losing team the Wild Card World Series champion so both teams can celebrate the final game of the season?

Friday Questions

How can you enjoy a weekend without Friday Questions?  You can't.  So here they are:

MDHaines is up first.

Does bias have to be a bad thing in Hollywood? If a liberal slant attracts a large liberal audience, or vice-versa, isn't the bottom line still whether not money is being made? Are actors really black listed because of politics?

Depends on whether networks believe politics are in vogue. A left wing slant didn’t hurt ALL IN THE FAMILY, MASH, MAUDE, and WEST WING.

But for a long time networks avoided political-themed shows at all costs. I told this story before (I’ve been doing this blog long enough now that I’ve probably told everything before), but in 1980 my partner, David, and I had a pilot at ABC about the White House Press Corps. We were not allowed to divulge the president’s party affiliation or even allowed to give the president a fictitious name. Can you believe how absurd that is? Now that same network has a big hit with SCANDAL where a U.S. president (who is named) is committing adultery. (But it’s with Kerry Washington, so America says thumbs up.)

The bottom line is that if political shows get ratings there will be more of them. No matter how they lean.

Back in the '50s actors were blacklisted all the time.  Today, it's a matter of whether the public likes the actor despite his or her beliefs.   Patricia Heaton has very polarizing political views  but that hasn't stopped her from starring in several successful series.   The general belief is that Hollywood is very left wing.  And yet Kelsey Grammer gets one gig after another. 

Massimo asks:

Some repetitions of ideas over the life of a series, surely, represent not a lack of originality, but the deliberate exploration of a theme. I'm thinking of the many episodes of "Frasier" that take place in hotel rooms, where the characters involved experience a psychological breakthrough (or breakdown)—Frasier and Lilith, Frasier and Niles, and in one particularly brilliant episode all three. Many of these episodes were Levine/Isaacs creations. I'm curious to know how this idea developed.

David Isaacs and I drew a lot of episodes involving the return of CHEERS characters. Four with Lilith, one with Sam, and one cameo by Diane.

Since they were all visiting Seattle the stories just tended to end up in hotel rooms. And in the two-parter “Adventures in Paradise” (featuring Lilith) we did hotel room scenes in Bora Bora. I must say, though, I have a real fondness for the hotel room scenes. They were probably the best scenes we wrote for the show. But when you get to write for actors the caliber of Kelsey Grammer, David Hyde Pierce, Bebe Neuwirth, Ted Danson, JoBeth Williams, and Tea Leoni how can you go wrong?

Maybe I should put all of our hotel room scenes together. It’s the closest David and I will ever come to writing PLAZA SUITE.

Bradley wonders:

Is there a particular script from one of your shows that you knew going in was not up to par, but had to move into production anyway? I'm thinking a situation like this is more likely toward the end of a season, when time is running short and you have to deliver an episode even if the script is not the best.

On multi-camera shows you know you have the week of production to rewrite the script. And honestly, there are episodes that you know going in still needs work. The story still doesn’t feel right. For political reasons you haven’t rewritten the original writer’s draft enough and it needs more rewriting. And like you said, it’s the end of the year. You’re tired and say “we'll fix it when its on its feet.”

But you always pay for that. Long rewrites nights just when you need them the least. It’s like when you have a depleted bullpen and your team is now playing an extra inning game and you’ve just entered the 15th inning.

That said, once we tackle a troubled script we do our very best to fix it and turn it into a good show.  And most times we're successful.  It's just that we're a wreck.  

At the beginning of a full-season of 22 episodes I just assume there will be one or two scripts that are just snake bitten. You don’t know which ones. And those are the episodes you have faith in going to the stage. And then to add two or three that you know are still undercooked, you’re just digging yourself into a deeper hole. But we all do it.

For single-camera shows (like MASH), we spent way more time in pre-production because we knew we had little change to revise once they started filming. And still a few episodes will be disappointing. Sometimes it’s the script, the story, the director, acting, rushed production schedule, misinterpretation, budget shortcuts – you name it.

Every series turns out bad shows occasionally. The trick is to keep them to an absolute minimum. But not every episode will be a gem.

From Blinky:

Did Alan Alda's influence on the show gradually steer it away from the edgy,lots-of-drinking, womanizing Movie version to a more PC, feminist no-so-much drinking version?

Yes. But I will say this -- he was totally gracious and respectful of the writers. He was never the 800-pound gorilla. Everything he pitched was in a positive manner and his convictions were sincere. I never felt he had an “agenda” and was trying to commandeer the creative direction of the show. He was very collaborative.

There were times when I disagreed with him, but I would work with Alan Alda again in a second.

What’s your question? Leave it in the comments section. Thanks much.

Why have there not been any hit sitcoms over the last few years?

There was a big front page article in the Los Angeles Times a few days ago on the state of sitcoms. The article accurately points out that sitcoms remain TV’s cash cow. They cost less to produce than one-hours, they do well in reruns and syndication, and cable networks rely on them to hold up their schedules.

But networks are bemoaning that they have been unable to launch any blockbuster sitcom hits for years now. BIG BANG THEORY and MODERN FAMILY are the last legitimate hit sitcoms. Networks are introducing 18 new sitcoms this fall hoping that even one grabs the brass ring.

Needless to say, I’m rooting for them. That’s my genre. Most of the people I know working in television are in sitcoms. I want to see them all working – from writers to cameramen to warm up men.

And although no one can predict what will be a smash hit, early indications are that none of the debuting comedies are the panacea Hollywood is looking for. The word is just “more of the same.”

Why has it been so difficult to hatch a monster hit sitcom lately? Everyone has opinions. Mine is just one… although I have written and produced many shows that were giant hits so I do have a certain familiarity with the subject.

Here are my thoughts:

1.  Networks have no plan. They are just shooting at moving targets. For years multi-camera shows were out. Now, suddenly, they’re back in vogue. Why? Because they discovered that the few high rated sitcoms were from Chuck Lorre and they were all multi-camera. Uh, his shows have been hits for years. Networks are just discovering NOW that multi-cam is a viable format?

For the last few years they stubbornly developed primarily single-camera shows. And with the exception of MODERN FAMILY (which was produced by the best writers of multi-cam comedies over the last twenty years) none have really clicked. So why keep making them exclusively?

2.  What’s worse than the networks not having a clue is that they are now micromanaging every aspect of development. They dictate the casting, the script, even the wardrobe and set dressing. It’s absurd. The fact that anything good can come from this system is a miracle.

3.  Recent sitcoms are not funny. This is a long time pet peeve of mine. MODERN FAMILY is funny. THE BIG BANG THEORY is funny. Who gives a shit how many cameras there are?

But it almost seems as if producers are purposely avoiding big laughs, as if they’re embarrassed by jokes. You want to be the next SEINFELD or CHEERS or FRIENDS? Stop looking down your nose at laughs.  Stop being ironic and quirky.  Be FUNNY.

4.  Sitcoms today are created for niche audiences – in other words, 18-34. So a large segment of the audience feels excluded. Yes, that’s the demographic Madison Avenue covets but it’s possible to cater to them without alienating the rest of your audience. Big ratings result in syndication deals, more exposure, and quite possibly a hit.

Kevin Reilly, recently fired as head of Fox, maintained that niche shows like THE MINDY PROJECT that were getting appalling ratings were successful because they could sell them. That’s nonsense. If your goal is to develop shows that get a 1 share that’s all you’ll get. And in no universe anywhere is a 1 share a hit sitcom in America.

5.   Cast funny people not good-looking people. I’ve seen the trailer to most new sitcoms and especially in the romantic comedies, there are a number of real pretty people who are not funny for a second. God forbid an actress has a large nose or an actor is prematurely balding. Even if they are gifted comedians, at best they are relegated to “friends” of the blow-dried mannequins the network fight over to star in these shows. Again, you want the next SEINFELD? That cast picture will never be mistaken for a J-Crew ad.

6.   Another trend I see is networks hiring actors and inexperienced writers to write pilots. Pilot writing is a fucking art. Very few can do it well. Even writers who can churn out good episodes fall short when they have to step up to the demands of a pilot. So big surprise when an actor the network likes turns in an amateurish draft. Hire writers who can deliver for you. Of course the problem here is that networks avoid many of them became they’re no longer 25, and writers who are in demand would rather explore cable networks or other delivery systems where there is at least the potential of more freedom.

So what we’re left with is safe fare and fifteen versions of whatever subject matter all the networks think will be in. This year we have a bunch of upscale urban romantic comedies and families. Might one of them shine above all the rest? Sure. Again, I hope so. One of the romantic comedies could give us the next Sam & Diane. One of the family shows could be the next COSBY. But with networks pulling ALL the strings, what do you think the chances are of that happening?

In success, situation comedies remain the bedrock of television. Since we’ve gone several years without a hit, how about changing the game plan? How about doing something radical? How about hiring writers who know what they’re doing and have proven they can make audiences laugh and then just get out of the way? You might snare that elusive monster hit that makes everybody rich. Or is protecting your job more important?

Who's your favorite?

I watched the movie of THE ODD COUPLE recently starring Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon. A lot of it still holds up, but when I first saw it as a kid I was hysterical. I couldn’t imagine any better casting than Matthau & Lemmon.

Seeing it again, after many many years, one thing struck me – I now greatly prefer Jack Klugman and Tony Randall as Oscar and Felix. Sure, part of it is familiarity, but Randall really WAS Felix Unger. Jack Lemmon was a gifted comic actor who played the part very well. And Klugman’s Oscar was the equal to Matthau’s, plus he played better off of Randall as Felix. To me. You may prefer Matthau & Lemmon. Or you may have seen the original Broadway production with Matthau and Art Carney and to you that’s the real Odd Couple.

Or even Morris Fishbine and Larry Crellman, who played them in a local community theatre in your town and to you those are the guys.

Probably the only thing that everyone can agree on is that when there was a revival on Broadway a few years ago and Nathan Lane played Oscar that was absurd.

But for most of us, it’s who you grew up with. Same with James Bonds. It used to be that there was no contest. Sean Connery was James Bond. But to younger generations Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, and most recently, Daniel Craig is THE real 007.  If you went through the '60s completely drugged out you might think David Niven was the penultimate James Bond.  But you would be wrong (you'd probably be dead). 

Same with Superman. To baby boomers there’s only one: George Reeves, even though he had a gut and thinning hairline. For most of you however, I imagine Christopher Reeve is the one and only Man of Steel. If your favorite is Brandon Routh seek help.

When my partner and I took our first meeting at MASH, producer Gene Reynolds loaded us down with research and invited us to come back with stories. (We sold one and that was the beginning of our four-year association with MASH). But amongst the reading material was the novel of MASH. The 1969 movie starring Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould was very faithful to the book. So reading it was very strange. I kept trying to picture Alan Alda and Wayne Rogers in the roles performing the scenes, but in my head was the movie. And the character of Hawkeye is quite different in the Sutherland vs. Alda version. It was very schitzo.  Ultimately, I preferred Alan's Hawkeye, but I have to be honest -- it took about a season of the TV show to change my allegiance. 

So now, as a friendly blog survey, let me ask you, dear reader and pop culture maven..

Who is your favorite Felix & Oscar?

James Bond?

Superman?

Batman? (Michael Keaton? Really?)

Lois Lane?

Sherlock Holmes?

Dr. Who?

Darrin Stephens?

Hawkeye? 

Host of THE PRICE IS RIGHT? 

Thanks in advance for playing the game. I look forward to your feedback.