Taking out laughs can make a comedy funnier

There’s an old theater expression: “Take out twenty minutes; run two years longer.” Most dramatic efforts would benefit by being twenty minutes shorter.

Movies, for sure.

Comedies in particular.

Sceen comedies should run about 90 minutes. Once you drift into two-hours a feature comedy becomes indulgent, bloated, and needlessly self-important. This is always my complaint with Judd Apatow movies. They’re always too long. Always. He knows this; even acknowledges so in his book. But he still insists on keeping his movies over two-hours. They are that difficult to cut? Uh… I could take at least twenty minutes out of every one of his films and still make it to Nate & Al’s for the Early Bird Special (assuming I don’t also have to chase kids off my lawn).

Here’s the truth: he could edit them too. Judd has a keen eye for comedy. The jokes in his movies work because he knows what’s funny and he knows how to construct humorous moments to get the most bang for his buck. He also knows story and story structure. But somewhere along the line he just falls so in love with everything that he can’t bear to part with it.

Yes, I’m sure the first cuts of his films are three-hours and he did a lot of trimming already, but as the other expression goes: “Sometimes you have to kill your babies.”

The comment I hear the most about TRAINWRECK is “really funny but too long.” It would be even FUNNIER if it weren’t too long.  That's absolutely how I felt.  I could have cut 45 minutes from that movie without missing a beat.  15 of those minutes would have come from the last half hour. 

And Judd isn’t the only offender. Most screen comedies have ten pratfalls too many. Meanwhile, INSIDE OUT runs 94 minutes and is the hit of the season. Pixar has figured it out. Why can’t others?

Audience viewing habits have changed. This could be due to emerging technology, new shorter forms of entertainment, or simple human evolution – our bladders apparently are getting smaller. But whatever the reason, we have little patience these days for filler, red herrings, sweeping panoramas, and more than six semen jokes in any one film.

Here’s the bottom line – for comedies or any genre, ask yourself this: Is the story big enough and strong enough that you need two hours (or more) to tell it? “Need” being the operative word here. The minute the moviegoer checks his watch the answer is “No.” Even taking out laughs can make a comedy funnier.

Now, in the spirit of fairness, I welcome all opposing views. If you feel movies are too short, that seven battle sequences are not enough, that diarrhea scenes must be played out in their entirety, that Adam Sandler doesn’t get enough screen time, that there are still one or two structures in Metropolis still left standing after a Superman altercation, that BOYHOOD should have been over a twenty year span, that there was too much still left unsaid in TRANSFORMERS then I want to hear from you.

I’d say more but… well, why not follow my own advice?

Hollywood tours

Tourism is always big in Los Angeles, especially during the summer. Local residents on the Westside are used to seeing kids stand out on Sunset Blvd. selling maps to the stars’ homes. Hollywood locals take it for granted that a thousand nimrods in Bermuda shorts will be milling about Grauman’s Chinese Theater and getting selfies with Spiderman or a guy dressed like Marilyn Monroe. And double-decked tour buses clogging up left hand lanes is a city staple.

But this year, for some reason, I am seeing way more tour buses. It’s almost one-to-one Hollywood Tour vans and parking enforcement vehicles. Why there are so many more tour buses these days I do not know. Especially since…

There is nothing to see.

Not really.

One tour takes you by the homes of the stars. But stars don’t live in Beverly Hills anymore. They used to. You could drive by Jack Benny’s house, and Lucille Ball’s, and Ronald Colman’s but the chances of actually seeing them have breakfast or watering the lawn is rather slim since they’re dead. And how many of you even know who Ronald Colman was? You’re driving by lawyers’ homes and guys who own furniture warehouses.

Stars live secluded in canyons and beach colonies and Upper Manhattan. Their compounds are gated. And would you even know the difference? If a tour guide took you to Bel Air, pointed to a gate, and said this is where Tom Cruise lives, how would you know it’s not really where the owner of Starlight Tours lives? Or a military academy?

As for stars’ hangouts – you don’t need a tour bus. Just go to Maestro’s or Spago’s or any super expensive chic eatery. The classic Hollywood haunts like Chasen’s, Perino’s, the Brown Derby, Scandia, Le Dome, Morton’s – they’re long gone. Sure, you can still go to Pink’s Hot Dogs as Orson Welles frequently did, but you’ll suffer the same fate as him. Musso & Frank’s is still open, and it’s worth seeing, but the only movie stars you’ll see there now are celebrating their 105th birthdays. Over the years I’ve seen dozens of big stars in LA restaurants, but they’ve all closed. Perhaps I should start a tour: “Where Robert Duvall, LaToya Jackson, and Dustin Hoffman used to eat.”

Will you see stars shopping in Beverly Hills? Maybe. You’ll more likely see their personal assistants.

These tours also show you “locations” from movies and TV shows. The truth is after a hundred years of movie making, every street and location has been used at least once. So the Coffee Bean you’re in right now was once a hamburger stand used in FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. The street you just crossed was seen in an Allstate commercial back in 1967. The actual house used on BLESS THIS HOUSE might be right around the corner. Just assume it is.

LA is a great vacation destination.  Lots of fun things to see and do.   Disneyland, Dodger Stadium, the Venice Beach walk, Universal, the Grove, Farmer's Market, LACMA, Costco. If you want to see television shows you can write to the networks.  TV tickets are free.  And there are kiosks in tourist locations like the Grove that offer these tickets.  You can see Ellen.   

But the bottom line is this: You want to see big movie stars? You want to see A-list celebrities? Come back in the winter and go to a Lakers game.

Is there "Too much television?"

At a recent appearance at the Television Critics convention, FX CEO John Landgraf made industry headlines by declaring there was too much scripted fare on TV and in time will start to decline. He believes there is too much competition and that quality shows get lost in the glut of scripted material. He also believes “it’s impossible to maintain quality control.”

As an example he blamed the voluminous amount of programming for the failure of the FX comedy, THE COMEDIANS. He said it was “an outstanding creative achievement, we just couldn’t find substantial audience to sustain it.”

Uh, no. It was not a very good show. Landgraf added: “Some of the later episodes of the first season were really great, but you (the critics) and the audience are so overwhelmed, it’s hard to go back to shows you have rejected.”

Sorry, but when an audience tunes in, is disappointed, and doesn’t return don’t blame the better shows the viewers watched instead.

America voted.  

And when he says “it’s impossible to maintain quality control” does that mean he doesn’t have a large enough staff to give notes?

Let me say a few things:

First off, I like FX. JUSTIFIED was on FX, as was THE SHIELD and SONS OF ANARCHY. THE AMERICANS, LOUIE, and ARCHER are on FX. Mr. Landgraf, I think you oversee one of the better networks.

But what’s wrong with too much competition? Especially in an age where mega conglomerates (like News Corp.) are swallowing up everything. Competition is a GOOD thing. It pushes people to make better products. And in the case of scripted television, it means more jobs for more people.

Why is there more competition? Because the audience is tired of watching reruns or movies no longer in release. Remember when FX started? They aired MASH nine times a day (I personally loved it). USA aired WINGS twenty times a day (I was fond of that too). If these networks could get away with just showing reruns and reaching their advertising goals they would. There’s original entertainment because viewers demand it. We’re sorry it’s more expensive than GOLDEN GIRLS reruns.

The other thing to consider: YOU select the shows that get on the air. I know networks make the argument they can only choose what creators bring to them (and that is a valid argument), but most networks these days have “brands.” Most networks pre-determine what content they’re looking for. Writers are creating shows based on what you tell them you want. Again, the irony here is that FX does a better job of selecting shows than most networks.

But in general, networks need to select better shows. Once upon a time, networks would air their unsold pilots in the summer. They don’t do that anymore. Why? It was embarrassing to them when people thought some of the shows they didn’t select were way better than the ones they did.

Let’s be real. Pilots are selected not just based on quality. That’s only one factor. More important factors are do the studios own them, are they highly promotable, are they fiscally attractive, are there commitments that need to be honored?

When Grant Tinker was running NBC he believed that if a show was really good, the audience will eventually find it. I think that’s even more true now. We can DVR shows, we can watch them On-Demand, and on-line. Through social media we also have the means to spread enormous word-of-mouth if a show warrants it. THE COMEDIANS would have a following if it was a better show.

Thanks to all the competition on all the networks and delivery systems we have TRANSPARENT, and Amy Schumer, and ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK, and DOWNTON ABBEY, and LOUIE. I want to see MORE competition, especially on your network because you do it as well or better than anybody.

Blog spelling, lack of punctuatio, or lack of same

These posts would be so much eazier to write if I didn’t have to worry about spelling and punktuation. That was always one of the beauties of riting dialog. People don’t talk in grammatically correct sentences and who cares about the spellling because the audience is just hereing the words and not seeing dem. (Shit. That last sentence is in fact a question. I forgot the question mark.)

After having proper grammar drummed into my head in school it was difficult at first to not write dialogue stilted but correct. Eventually you learn that flow and writing conversationally is the key. Then its (or it’s) fun. All bets are off.

Until you have to write prose again (or FRASIER).

(This is the punctuation that is the screenwriter’s best friend -- … Use it to represent any pause. Believe me, it… works!)

It’s (or its) amazing how much grammar you forget. And part of the problem – at least for me --, is that if you (or in my case, me) tend to write quickly, you’re trying to get your ideas on the page while their in your head and I can’t do that when your stopping midthoughtwse to ponder whether there’s a comma here or this participle is dangling or there is no such word as midthoughtwise. (That last sentence may or may not be a question. I’m not sure.)

Back to script writing, you see this in rewrite sessions. There are monitors in the room allowing the writers to see the script as the assistant is typing it. Someone pitches a joke, everyone laughs, the assistant starts transcribing it, and there’s always one asshole who sees himself as the Grammar Police barking out that there should be a comma there, or that’s a semi-colon. That shit is “Proofer’s challenge”. Let whoever proofs the script deal with that. Don’t slow down the process by blurting out that dad needs to be capitalized.

Back to prose: Spellcheck and grammar programs help somewhat. A wiggly green line will appear under something the computer doesn’t feel is right. Half the time it’s (or its) useful and half the time I’m thinking, “what the hell is wrong with this?” Or, “the computer just doesn’t get me.”

Same with spell check – it catches a lot of mistakes but misses others. If a word can be spelled correctly two ways or if you write in the wrong word but it’s an actual word -- : that too won’t get caught. Sometimes I remember the little hints we got in school. Principle or principal – the principal is your “pal”. But as I get older my brain is beginning to fill up with the Infield Fly Rule and where I put my keys and those little tips are fading from memory.

I actually do know the difference between it’s and its (it’s is only used as a contraction for it is) but there are others that I’ll admit, I’m guessin’.

And there are certain words I just don’t know how to spell. So I type in some approximation and let Spell Check correct it. If I ever have to write a letter in longhand I am so screwed. Thank you, Steve Jobs.

The point is… from time to time… you will see grammatical mistakes, misspelled words, made up words, tenses changing, inconsistencies, italics for no reason, and other egregious clerical errors. I do try to proof these posts but things still slip by. So I beg your indulgence. I don’t have an editor. And even one of those doesn’t guarantee (that’s one of the words I always struggle with) 100% accuracy. When I got the galley proof for my book IT’S GONE… NO, WAIT A MINUTE (notice the ….?) this is what it said on the cover:

GALLEY PROFF

This is a re-post from five years ago.  I still make these mistakes.

Oh no! Not ANOTHER tribute to Jon Stewart?

 Yes, I'm afraid so. 

How will we get through the next presidential campaign without him?  Or a day in Congress? 

I have to say I felt a much greater sadness watching Jon Stewart's last show than David Letterman’s. Letterman was like saying goodbye to Willie Mays during his final days as a Met when he could hardly fit into his uniform. Stewart was like Sandy Koufax retiring in the prime of his career.

There once was a time when a politician caught lying would destroy his credibility and career. If a large corporation was exposed for fraudulent business practices there would be a national uproar. If the news department of a national network reported with bias all hell would break out.

Today, there is so much lying, deception, greed, distrust, hypocrisy, and bias that it’s almost accepted. People are either too weary or too stupid to be alarmed… or even notice.

That’s why it was so refreshing and vital to have THE DAILY SHOW with Jon Stewart. He called everyone out on their bullshit. Republicans, Democrats, and whatever party Donald Trump eventually runs on – no one was above being called out.

And people took notice. Especially young people – the people who will shape the country’s future. So Jon Stewart performed a real service. And let’s be honest, they (and we) watched not so much because we felt it was our obligation to be informed citizens – we watched because it was entertaining, hilarious even.

At a time when sitcoms like 2 BROKE GIRLS and movies like VACATION could not be more puerile and stupid, Jon Stewart proved that smart, sophisticated, literate humor could still hit the mark. We're not all so dumb after all!  Who knew? 

Even more impressive was how consistently excellent his material was, night after night for sixteen long years. He had more great topical jokes in one night than Jay Leno had in ten years.

But wait! There’s more!

Comedy wasn’t even his best thing. The few times Stewart broke format and just spoke from the heart, discussing a serious topic (like gun control) his program transcended entertainment and became extraordinary. He lifted social consciousness to higher levels.  That's pretty cool for a Comedy Central show. 

And now he’s leaving. I don’t blame him. Sixteen years of exposing buffoons like Bill O’Reilly has to get old. "You're kidding?  Now he says he's the first man to walk on the moon?"

But I am sure sad to see Jon go. The show will go on but it won’t be the same. Trevor Noah has an impossible task. How do you replace Jon Stewart? That’s like how do you replace Vin Scully or John Wooden or Regis Philbin (okay, well… maybe not that one)?

I’m also sad because the topical nature of THE DAILY SHOW means the show has no shelf life. All of that brilliant comedy writing is lost in the ether. It’s such a joy to me that MASH and CHEERS episodes I co-wrote twenty or thirty years ago are still being seen and appreciated today. Who’s going to watch a ten year old DAILY SHOW except for historical purposes or to see Olivia Munn when she was really hot? And what that means is that in another twenty or thirty years (or, considering how fast things change today, two years) audiences won’t have the reverence for THE DAILY SHOW with Jon Stewart that they should. He deserves a place in American culture right up there with Mark Twain and Will Rogers, I only hope that in ten years he’s not just known as the new host of FAMILY FEUD.

Thanks Jon, for sixteen years of brilliance, vigilance, laughter, and compassion. I hope the next sixteen years are as meaningful and fulfilling for you as these last sixteen have been for all of us.

Oh God! Now I have to face Jeb & Donald & Hillary & Rand & Arby’s alone.

Friday Questions

Here are some mid-summer Friday Questions.   

Norm! starts us off:

What do you think is the best movie that's actually about Hollywood itself? People always mention The Player, which IS a good film but a tad overrated. I have a fascination with Hollywood history, especially the darker side. That's why I love films like Hollywoodland about George Reeves and Auto Focus about Bob Crane.

SUNSET BOULEVARD is the ultimate dark Hollywood movie. But I’m going to recommend a rather offbeat title – THE BIG PICTURE. This 1989 comedy was written by Michael Varhol, Christopher Guest, and Michael McKean and directed by Christopher Guest. So it has that “Guffman/Best In Show” vibe.

Kevin Bacon stars as a college student who does an award winning film and gets sucked into the maelstrom of Hollywood. Standout performances by J.T. Walsh as a studio head and (of all people) Dan Schneider as an insufferable film student. Schneider went on to create iCarly, among other tween hits.

But best of all was Martin Short in his funniest role BY FAR. He played Hollywood agent Neil Sussman. It's the perfect blend of satire and character assassination.

This little gem came and went very quickly. I’m sure it’s available on some streaming service. Check it out. You’ll thank me. And if you haven’t seen SUNSET BOULEVARD rectify that this weekend.

Michael has a holdover question based on stage direction I wrote for my spec DICK VAN DYKE SHOW:

What do "reset" and "continuous" mean, as in

RESET TO:

INT. KITCHEN - CONTINUOUS

Do these terms always appear together, or can one appear in a script without the other?

RESET is a camera term, used primarily in multi-camera shows. When the action goes from one set to the next (say the living room to the kitchen), instead of the director saying “cut,” stopping the filming and moving the cameras into the new set, the director calls out “reset” and the cameras move to their new positions while still rolling. At one time that meant some film was wasted, but now with HD, it’s no big deal.

It allows for a dramatic flow, keeps the audience more involved in following the story, and it saves time (which in Hollywood means saves money).

And yes, it’s always “continuous” because it’s just a continuation of the scene.

From Houston Mitchell:

Do you think Cheers and MASH would have lasted as long as they did if the original cast had remained on the show?

They both might have limped to the finish line, but my guess is neither show would have stayed around as long as they did without those cast changes.

MASH in particular because the show was locked into a time and place. The only way to keep it fresh was to introduce new characters and create different chemistry.

CHEERS at least could advance their characters’ lives. Had Shelley stayed with the show, Sam and Diane might have married and then divorced, or she married someone else instead of Sam – I dunno, but I suspect we would have found something.

That said, it was much easier to come up with stories because the series was allowed to evolve and we were able to introduce new characters.

In both MASH and CHEERS I must add that a large reason for their continued success was not just new actors but that the RIGHT new actors were added.

Keeping a sitcom fresh and funny for eleven years with the same cast is almost an impossible feat. Credit to FRASIER for doing just that.

Boomska316 weighs in:

I was wondering if there were any rules on sitcoms about actors reacting to the studio audiences? I've been watching the Dick Van Dyke Show for the first time ever this week and I could pick out more than once where he was clearly looking straight at the audience and reacting to their reactions.

I can’t personally recall Dick Van Dyke ever doing that. Actors are expressly told not to “break the fourth wall” (in other words, acknowledge the audience). It destroys the reality of the show. Actors are also trained to never look straight into the camera.

cd1515 asks:

the Penny Q&A was interesting.  I get that you want to respect actors' wishes, but don't they ALL want their character to be successful, beautiful and hilarious?

What if you need a character to be depressing or a loser or something else unflattering?

The smart actors realize that playing flawed or villainous characters is way more interesting and fun. Especially in comedy. Likeable, beautiful, happy, successful characters are difficult to write. There’s nothing particularly funny or edgy about them.

Who’s easier to write, Father Mulcahy or Frank Burns?

Yes, there are some actors who are vain and their sole objective is looking great and being admired, and certainly networks prefer everybody be nice and likable and test favorably, but the vast majority of actors I’ve worked with understand the big picture.

What’s your Friday Question?

SITCOM ROOM 2015 is sold out

Thanks to all of you who applied.

See you in October!

The Bob Crane I knew and loved

Here’s a Friday Question that became an entire post. It’s about Bob Crane, who starred in HOGAN’S HEROES and was later murdered in a porn-related incident.  But that's not the focus of today's question.

It comes from Mark:

How was Bob Crane on radio. You hear a lot of superlatives now, but the early work of famous people is often overpraised. What did you think of him at the time?

Before Crane established himself as a fine comic actor, he was a truly great radio personality and here’s why: He really knew how to communicate one-to-one with his listeners. He was warm and funny and talked directly to YOU. Very few announcers understand that concept. But the great ones, like Arthur Godfrey, Paul Harvey, Dan Ingram, and Vin Scully do.

For years Crane did mornings on the CBS flagship station in Los Angeles, KNX.

His big schtick was that he used a lot of wild tracks in his show – quick sound bytes inserted into programming, even commercials. He’d play a Winston cigarette commercial and stop it right in the middle for five seconds of a guy coughing.   Remember these were the late '50s and that technique was very groundbreaking.   Now almost every zany radio personality does this as part of their act.  But Crane was one of the originators. 

Interestingly, he was hired from a small station in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The station used to reach parts of New York and he was eating into the ratings of powerhouse WCBS. Primarily to get him out of town, CBS offered him the morning show on their LA outlet.

Great, except there was a problem. KNX was a union shop. Crane was used to playing all of his wild tracks himself – which was quite a feat considering everything was on discs and had to be cued up to just the right spot. He was also a drummer and had expert timing.

The union engineers were nowhere near as proficient at it and the show really stumbled out of the gate. Crane threatened to quit unless he could run his own control board. Lots of meetings between the station and the union resulted until an agreement was reached allowing him to do that.

Crane was also an excellent interviewer. A regular feature on his show was celebrity interviews, and he’d get the biggest stars in Hollywood to come on his local show. Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Stewart, etc. One day he interviewed Carl Reiner, who at the time was running THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW. He convinced Reiner to give him a small part in an episode. The producers of THE DONNA REED SHOW saw him and were impressed enough to give him a recurring role on their series. For two years he did that show but kept his radio gig.

And all the while he remained the same humble charming friendly guy on the air. You just felt comfortable listening to him. And the quality never slipped. You never got the sense he was now just phoning it in because he had a TV series.

Once he got HOGAN’S HEROES and was starring in a show, that’s when he finally gave up the radio job.

But even then, a few years later, he filled in a few times for Dick Whittinghill at crosstown rival KMPC. I was an intern at KMPC back then and spent some time with him.   He was as nice and genuine off the air as on. 

I also knew him a little bit from the neighborhood. His son was roughly my age and I’d see Bob Crane at Little League games or school concerts. He was the typical suburban dad.

Who knew he would abandon all that for a life of sex and pornography and enter a very unsavory and ultimately deadly world?

Crane is remembered way more for his TV work, but I’m here to tell you, as good as he was, his radio work was even better.

I'm a guilty pleasure

Everybody is a critic goes hand in hand these days with Everybody has a podcast (or a blog). You can find critical analysis on just about everything, including, I’ve discovered, my own work.

There’s a website called THE NEXT REEL where two guys Siskel&Ebert their way through popular cinema. They are Pete Wright and Andy Nelson.

They’re currently doing a series called “Guilty Pleasures” where they select films not categorized as classics but they still really enjoy. Andy is up this week and selected VOLUNTEERS. Thanks, Andy… I think.

Because after he talks about how funny and enjoyable it was, he and his partner systematically tear the film apart. Makes me wonder what they do to movies they DIDN’T like.

My first reaction in listening was of course, “Who the fuck are these guys and what have they ever done?” But then I looked at the big picture. How very cool that something I co-wrote thirty years ago is still being discussed! There are plenty of movies from earlier this year that are forgotten and will never be heard from again. Thirty years is a long time. It’s half the shelf life of a Twinkie.

At that point I found the analysis entertaining. Some things I agree with and others I don’t. Being on the inside I had the advantage of knowing why certain creative decisions were made. I also have pet peeves with the film they didn’t seem bothered by. (Come on, guys. If you’re going to rip me, rip me for the right things.)

But overall, the discussion just made me more proud of the film, warts and all. Like I said, the fact that they even remembered it was a plus. And if comic material can still stand up and be funny after thirty years, that’s pretty satisfying. How many people are still laughing at FRATERNITY VACATION or REMO WILLIAMS: THE ADVENTURE BEGINS?

And our aim was more ambitious than most current studio raunch-fests. We had an actual story, social commentary, political overtones, and character development. We may not have succeeded in bringing it all together but I give us points for trying.

The hosts point to a Rotten Tomatoes survey to suggest that audiences didn’t care for the film. But in truth, VOLUNTEERS kicks ass whenever it’s shown on TV, and always has. You’ll generally find local stations airing it during sweeps because it consistently garners high ratings. HBO ran it again just recently. How many movies from 1985 does HBO show? So with all its faults, I’m happy to be associated with VOLUNTEERS. Oh, and I still get residuals.

I’m really looking forward to another podcast. TALK SALAD AND SCRAMBLED EGGS. Kevin Smith and his partner, Matt Mira, plan to discuss every FRASIER episode, two a week. Pretty soon they’ll get to our first Lilith episode.  And surprise surprise in this week's episode they talk about me and this blog.   They mispronounce my name but who gives a shit?  I made the Kevin Smith podcast. It starts 8 minutes in.  They don't mention VOLUNTEERS.  Too bad.  It would have been fun to compare critiques. 

Size does matter

The perfect follow-up to my ANT-MAN review.

As I’ve mentioned before (ad nauseam) David Isaacs and I wrote the 1985 Tom Hanks-John Candy movie, VOLUNTEERS. Happily, it still airs some thirty years later. Recently it was on HBO. (Ka-ching!)

The director, Nicholas Meyer graciously allowed David and me to participate in editing. Basically, we just watched. We’re not stupid.

Back in those days the editors worked on movieolas, splicing strips of film, physically attaching them, and then previewing on a machine with a monitor the size of an ipad mini.

In VOLUNTEERS, Tom Hanks, John Candy, and Rita Wilson play characters who join the Peace Corps and wind up in Thailand in 1962. Tim Thomerson plays the Peace Corps leader who is sweet on Rita Wilson. He’s also a fucking nutcase. We wanted to hint at that by having him give Rita a little present – a small statue of a Siamese Prince. These were common items. But the key feature on this particular one was a large protruding penis.

Nick cut the scene together and we noticed he cut to a close up of the statue. David and I said, “You can’t do that. On the big screen that's going to be horrifying. You can’t tell here on a 5” monitor but on a giant silver screen all hell will break loose.” Nick worried that if we stayed in the master that the statue wouldn’t have enough impact, and the penis might not even register.

He was the director so we bowed to him.

Once the film was all assembled we put together a screening for a test audience. It was held in the main theater on the 20th Century Fox lot that seats – I dunno – five or six hundred. Maybe a thousand?  Who knows?  David and I sat in the last row taking notes.

The infamous moment arrived when the statue was revealed and this giant penis filled the entire screen.  Every woman in the theater screamed in bloody horror. David and I had to slip out into the lobby where we were proceeded to laugh hysterically through the rest of the picture.

Needless to say, the close up came out. I’m only sorry the preview wasn’t on an IMAX screen in 3D. I think I’d still be rolling on the ground.

The moral here is that size does matter – but sometimes the smaller the better.

ANT-MAN -- my review

DISCLAIMER:  No picnics were harmed in the making of this movie.

What’s wrong with the Marvel Universe? Don’t they understand that superheroes have to be tortured individuals? That all bright colors need to be washed out and grayed? That every story needs to be dark and dreary? That it has to rain through half the movie? That the superhero has to be British? If only Ingmar Bergman were still alive to direct BATMAN v. SUPERMAN.  But even he would lighten it up a little. 

Everything I hate about the DC Universe is what I love about Marvel. It’s a fucking comic book, people! And although a lot of Marvel’s movies get convoluted and the CGI action sequences become tiresome and tedious after awhile, when they hit it right they really produce a fun thrill ride with genuine laughs and (God forbid) a touching moment now and then. ANT-MAN is one that got it right. Even without Joss Whedon.  Who knew?

First off, the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s a fucking comic book! Paul Rudd stars in it. You go to Paul Rudd for funny. You go to Paul Rudd for quirky romantic lead. You don’t go to Paul Rudd for “Yippee Ki-yay, motherfucker!” And by putting Rudd in an ant costume where his face is completely covered, he himself didn’t have to do any of the stunts. Just get a stuntman who looks good in a Power Ranger suit, throw him against greenscreen, have him run and kick and punch the air and you’ve got Paul Rudd: action hero. Look, when you think about it, a big part of the fun for guys watching superheroes is wishing they could be them. More of those guys look like Paul Rudd than Henry Cavill. (Although, in this case, not many guys fantasize about being any smaller.)

For his part, Rudd totally delivered. He has that rare quality of being able to play funny and likable but real. And clearly, he was enjoying himself.  In fact, the single thing that struck me about this movie was that all of the actors seemed to be having the time of their lives. It showed and was infectious. Michael Douglas proved he could eat up the scenery while still playing straight. Evangeline Lily can kick ass even in a bob haircut (Jack, Hugo, Sayid, and the Smoke Monster would all be proud), and Corey Stoll is what Lex Luther can only dream of being. And who can possibly forget Leilani Amour Arenza as SF Tenderloin Resident?

Like I said, there are a few tender moments, but the movie goes out of its way to puncture them as soon as possible. If you see a tear, a joke will not be far behind.

Along the way there were some inventive gags and stunts. Because everything is all computer generated, nothing is really spectacular. The most impressive thing you can say about this film technically is that the CGI has really improved since HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS.

And they really had to rely on CGI for the opening sequence.  They had to make Michael Douglas look thirty years younger while in the same scene make Hayley Atwell (Agent Carter) look forty years older.  

But none of that matters. ANT-MAN is mindless good fun... or super scary if you’re afraid of ants.

Oh, and just to avoid any confusion, ANT-MAN is not a reboot of AUNTIE MAME.  It's a fucking comic book! 

No one dresses better than comedy writers

I once related the story of my partner and I attending an awards ceremony looking like idiots in matching brown tuxedos and peach ruffled shirts. But that is not to suggest that I don't normally dress extremely well. In fact, I was in GQ.

No. Really.

Honest.

I’m serious.

Somehow GQ magazine got wind of my going off to Syracuse in 1988 to announce minor league baseball. They decided to do an article about me. My wife is still laughing. “You in GQ?”

I did the phone interview with Ron Powers who wrote the piece. Then I got a call from their photographer. They wanted to take pictures of me that Friday at a local baseball stadium. I said fine. The photographer then wanted to know what I’d be wearing. I said I didn’t know. This was only Monday and my mom usually doesn’t pick out my clothes until the night before. He asked my measurements and said he would bring something. Now I was a little pissed off. Just because I was a writer did he automatically assume I was a schlump? I can't believe he saw me on DON KIRSCHNER'S ROCK AWARDS. I told him I would bring my own wardrobe. Obviously his concern was not assuaged. He asked if I’d bring a selection.

I’m the same height and size as Ted Danson. The next day I went to the CHEERS wardrobe guy and asked if I could borrow some Sam Malone shirts and slacks.

Friday afternoon I hooked up with the photographer. I think I was wearing a torn t-shirt. There was already a lump in his throat. I opened my trunk and let him examine my selection. The accompanying picture is a well...an approximation. His eyes almost popped out. “Jesus, this is great stuff!” he said, astonished. “Any one of these would be perfect.” “Well YEAH,” I said as if it couldn't be more obvious. “It might surprise you to learn that most television writers are total fashion hounds. Much of the time in writers rooms is spent discussing men’s haberdashery.”

I accepted his apology and hoped that he had a new respect for how writers really felt about wardrobe.

He went off to set up his camera while I put one of the shirts on, glad that he didn’t see the “Property of Paramount Pictures” tag that was still on the sleeve.

The article came out August 1988. I see my shirt all the time in reruns.

This is a repost from over four years ago.  

Why sign up for THE SITCOM ROOM?

I will be holding another SITCOM ROOM weekend seminar this October 17 & 18 in Los Angeles. Registration will be later this week. But it will open one hour earlier for anyone on the Alert List. Here’s where you go to sign up for that. (The list is private and will never be shared.  And you can unsubscribe at any time.)

So why should you sign up for the SITCOM ROOM?

It’s the only truly hands-on writing seminar there is.

I only hold it once every couple of years.

You get to see professional actors perform your work.

It’s something to do.

This might help you break into the business.

You learn things about yourself that you never knew. (Good things even)

You’ll learn your strengths and weaknesses.

You build lifelong friendships.

You might even find a writing partner.

You get to hear some of my old war stories.

You’ll laugh for two straight days.

No experience is necessary.

You’ll develop a taste for Red Vines.

You’ll learn different “types” of comedy and which are bested suited for sitcoms.

You’ll learn how to write spec scripts that sell.

There’s no keynote speech by Tommy Lasorda.

Even if you don’t want to do this professionally, it’s “fantasy camp” for comedy writers.

You get to live out a dream.

You get to meet some of my friends. 

You’ll forever see sitcoms in a whole new light.

I only lecture once.

You learn how to make things funnier.

Chicks love comedy writers.

You learn how to be creative on demand.

You learn whether this is the career path for you.

It’s a lot cheaper than a year at NYU.

You’ll be introduced to the business side of sitcom writing – agents, managers, job opportunities, salaries, and marketplaces,

It’s something to look forward to in October besides the World Series (unless it’s held in November this year) and Halloween.

You develop new ways of thinking.

There’s never more than twenty attendees so that everyone gets personal attention.

You’re held to professional standards.

There’s a Burger King across the street.

Former attendees have gone on to have nice careers in writing. One was on staff of NURSE JACKEE.

You get to ask me lots of questions.

You come away not just with a notebook of notes but with a scene you’ve co-written (and rewritten) and a great sense of accomplishment.

Here’s what past attendees have said (and a few more always chime in with an unsolicited comment or two), and again – here’s the Alert List. Hope to see you at this year’s SITCOM ROOM.

Friday Questions

Let’s close out July with some Friday Questions, shall we?

GS in SF starts with a question on the spec DICK VAN DYKE SHOW I recently wrote and posted.

How different do you think the process would have been had you worked with your writing partner instead of handling the task solo? Would he have offered similar comments? Or, does having a partner give you more "distance" that maybe you would have come to some of these helpful insights on your own? This may offer an excellent opportunity to dissect the pros (and cons?) of writing with a partner??

First of all, it would be better with better jokes. David Isaacs and I always write together (i.e. in the same room) so every moment and line is talked out. I don’t know specifically what his comments would have been, but we put nothing on paper unless there's a consensus.

In breaking the story, he would have had his own ideas and for all I know, they would have been the same as Bill Persky’s. And like I always say, “the best idea wins.”

Michael has another DVD Show question.

There was contention here and there in the comments sections about out of character behavior. Rob saying something someone thought Rob would never say or Alan doing something someone thought Alan would never do. Do these types of disagreements ever come up in the writers' room and, if so, how do you resolve them?

These questions come up ALL the time. At some point though, whoever is running the room – generally the showrunner – has to make the final call.

The best shows are the ones where there is a clear vision by the person in charge. Problems arise when characters are so undefined no one really knows how they’ll react in a given situation. Or everyone on the writing staff has a slightly different take on the character. You need everybody to be on the same page and that starts with the showrunner.

Where it gets sticky is when the actor says his character wouldn’t say that. Generally, I find that when that happens the actor is right. They begin to really internalize their characters and the good ones have a great barometer as to what their characters would or wouldn’t do. We writers find that annoying but it’s true.

And still another -- this one from Matthew Kugler:

Since you weren't under a deadline for this script and it was greatly for pleasure, at what point did you feel you had done your best attempt? How many drafts/revisions did you go through? And did you still feel pressure or nervousness knowing that you'd be submitting it to Mr. Persky and Mr. Reiner?

Since I knew it would never be produced I didn't kill myself.  Most of my time spent was on breaking the story.  I wrote the script rather quickly, but it helped that I so knew the characters.  As always, once I have a draft I go through and polish.  Then, just before it's done, I go back and put in five more good jokes and thin out any big speech.

And to answer your second question, sure I felt a little pressure.  After all, THE writers of the DVD Show were going to read it -- the icons I have always looked up to.   I'll be very honest, I was very relieved that Bill Persky liked it. 

Chester asks:

Ken, you recently wrote a stage play, you just completed the Dick Van Dyke spec, you mentioned another comedy you and David created and pitched, and you keep up a fairly detailed and time-consuming daily blog. My question: Where do you find the time? I'm amazed at your output. Don't you sleep? (Okay, that's a second question. You can answer either or both.) Thanks.

I am blessed in that I like to write. And I have no life. But seriously, all of my projects combined don’t even approach the amount of writing I did on a routine basis when I was working on a show. There were times when I even wrote in my sleep. I remember once, while on MASH, I dreamed I was talking to Alan Alda and David Stiers and rewriting their dialogue.

Writing is fun now because I can work on projects I enjoy. Like this blog.

Mark Raymond asks:

There always seems to be a few comments that "have been removed by the author." I'm not asking what they said, since I understand if you wanted us to see them you would have left them stay as a comment. I guess I'm just wondering what the tone or tenor of these comments are that gets them removed?

I actually remove very few comments. But if the comment is particularly hateful, offensive, or attacks one of the other commenters I will remove it. And I’m way more apt to do that if the person hides behind anonymity.

Feel free to disagree with me. Just do it in a civil manner. I’ve even been known to change my mind or apologize for things I’ve posted. (But that’s rare since I’m right so much of the time.)

I greatly appreciate all of your comments.

And Friday Questions. What’s yours?

It's Official! I'm going to hold another SITCOM ROOM

For the first time since 2013, I'm conducting my 2-day Sitcom Room. It'll be Saturday/Sunday, October 17-18...in Los Angeles, as always.

The Sitcom Room is where I lock 20 brave souls into “writers’ rooms” for an entire weekend so they can experience for themselves what it’s really like to write for a TV sitcom.

The last time I held this event, we sold out all 20 spaces in one hour.

If you're on my Alert List, we'll let you know 24 hours before the rest of the world the exact date & time that Registration will be open...and Registration will open one hour early just for the people on the Alert List.

Bonus Questions

The Friday Questions are stacking up so I thought I would devote an extra day to them.  Hope that's okay.

Rashad Khan leads off:

In a previous blog post, you mentioned the pilot episode of "The Phil Silvers Show" to your comedy writing class at USC. If you haven't covered this topic before: which OTHER sitcom pilots would you show to anyone as good examples (provided, of course, they were available for viewing)?

I used to say the COSBY pilot but no more. I didn’t necessarily show pilots to the class, just great episodes. The series I chose besides Bilko were THE HONEYMOONERS, THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, ALL IN THE FAMILY, FAWLTY TOWERS, EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND, MASH, CHEERS, FRASIER, and SEINFELD. I didn’t show them any recent pilots since I figured they’d seen them already. MODERN FAMILY is a pretty great pilot though. So is 30 ROCK. And MY NAME IS EARL.

From Jack Terwilliger:

Loved this (DICK VAN DYKE SHOW) exercise. Learned so much from it. Mr. Persky's comments on story structure and character raised a Friday question: is writing for the stage closer to writing for television than for film? It seems as if lots of playwrights write for TV. Maybe that's just where the work is, but I'm wondering if their skills transfer more readily to one medium than the other.

Playwrights write for television because there’s way more money in it.  TV tends to be very dialogue-driven. And, I might add, more nuanced and well-written than most features. Hollywood wants comic book blockbusters while television offers sophisticated dramas and comedies that don’t require the Griswolds or Amy Schumer or Melissa McCarthy.

The irony is in the ‘50s the reverse was true. TV writers all aspired to write for the theatre. That’s where the quality was. Now Broadway means ALADDIN.

Longtime friend of the blog, Howard Hoffman asks:

The DVD experience made me wonder when and why producing/writing/directing credits got moved to the top of the show rather than at the end.

The first credit after the show has to be the director. Or the last credit at the top of the show. If you do the writing and directing credits up front then you can end the show with the showrunner’s card. That’s one reason. Another is that over time front loaded credits just became the standard. VHS won out over Betamax. (I wonder how many readers have no idea what that reference means.)

Glen K. wonders:

If there is a scene where an actor is required to drink or eat something in a large quantity, how is it done if multiple takes are required? Doesn't the actor get full, maybe even sick?

It’s a really good way to get back at actors who are difficult. (Just kidding… sort of) Most times actors will not actually eat much. They’ll push food around the plate or pick at it.

Poor George Wendt (Norm), however, had to down lots of beer on CHEERS. And it was warm 3.2 (lower alcohol) beer. Rarely did we do less than three takes.

Multiple takes also requires multiple portions of food. If someone is eating a three-pound lobster you need three or four three-pound lobsters. What that sometimes means is a feast for the crew when the show is wrapped.

My heart goes out to actors doing food related commercials. They DO have take big bites of those juicy Big Macs take after take after take.  Although, in some cases I think they just spit the food out. In the case of Big Macs that’s probably wise anyway.

And finally, Jon H wants to know:

I've noticed, from attending tapings myself, that a lot of sitcoms now seem to have a lot of prerecorded scenes, a lot of the warmup guy telling the audience to "look at the monitors" for the next scene. Do you find that prerecorded scenes help or hurt a show? Is it hard to get the timing right, in case the audience laughs too long or too short, or can that all be controlled in post-production now?

Here’s how they help a show: The audience doesn’t have to stay there till 2 in the morning. The crew can film outside scenes or scenes with complicated stunts or on sets not visible to the audience. The bad news is those scenes never play all that great on the monitors.

When I direct, if there’s a scene in a car. I’ll preshoot the scene, but for the studio audience, instead of showing that to them, I put two chairs on the set, tell the audience to imagine they’re in a car, and have the actors perform the scene. I don’t film it but I do record the audio. The laughs are always way better when the audience can see the live actors.

What’s your Friday Question or whatever day you want?

Naming characters after people you know

In Anne Flett-Giordano’s hilarious new book, MARRY, KISS, KILL there’s a character named Ken Levine. He’s a total asshole. Anne is also a brilliant TV comedy writer, having won a gazillion Emmys for shows like FRASIER. So we know each other. Unlike random people who just assume I’m an asshole, Anne asked if she could use my name. I, of course, was delighted and touched. Yes, the character is a prick but he also gets laid a lot and is young. Her book (which you really should read) is sprinkled with names of people she knows.

This is not uncommon.

It’s always tough coming up with names and always fun to send little shout-outs to friends. Or work in inside jokes that only eight people will get.

In one of the Castle novels there’s the PR firm of Levine & Isaacs. I don’t believe I screw anyone over in that one.

Isaacs and I have worked in a lot of friends, acquaintances, and pets into our scripts. In the DANCIN’ HOMER episode of THE SIMPSONS, the minor league announcer (voiced by me) was Dan Hoard who was my broadcast partner in Syracuse in 1988 and is now the voice of the Cincinnati Bengals and U. of Cincinnati Bearcats. The major league announcer was Dave Glass, my partner in Tidewater the following season. Dave Glass also shows up in an episode of AfterMASH.

Radio buddies Bobby Rich, Tom Straw, Dean Goss, and Tom Greenleigh all appear in various MASH episodes. In the “Goodbye Radar” two-parter, he meets a lovely girl from his hometown, Patty Haven. Patty Haven was a former girlfriend of mine. And as discussed elsewhere in this blog, Charles’ sister Honoria was named from a girl I dated very briefly in college.

One of the happiest married couples I know is Bill & Sherry Grand so we used them in a CHEERS episode as a married couple trying to kill each other. Norm’s original boss was Darrell Stabell. Darrell Stabell gave me my first job.

Our tributes are not confined to people. In the movie VOLUNTEERS we needed a name for a Chinese warlord. So we chose Chung Mee, which was a Chinese restaurant in downtown LA that we frequented until health inspectors shut it down.

I’ve mentioned this before but on MASH we were always looking for names since so many patients and military personnel passed in and out of the 4077th. One year we needed four Marines for an episode so named them after the-then California Angels’ infield (Remy, Solita, Chalk, Grich). The following year (season seven) we just went down the Los Angeles Dodgers’ roster. You’ll notice Garvey, Rhoden, Lopes, Cey, etc. By the end of the year we were down to announcers (Scully) and owners (O’Malley).

And then there was the time when we were producing a series. We went down to the stage for a runthrough. One of the regular cast members took exception to a name we had given a guest cast member. “Lana Lewis is a joke name,” he said. “It’s not real. You’re just going for a cheap laugh by using a goofy name.” We nodded then introduced him to our writers’ assistant, Lana Lewis.

Now who’s the asshole?

Final thoughts on THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW

Here’s the second part of my conversation with Bill Persky about my spec DICK VAN DYKE SHOW.   Yesterday was the first.  Tomorrow I jump onto other things.

First: some of my observations. Whenever I write a TV script I always visualize the final product on the air. I don’t pictures the actors on the stage with cameras and crew hovering. Imagining the final product helps me think of the characters, not the actors who play them. Doing the DICK VAN DYKE SHOW I realized this was the first time I had ever pictured a script in black-and-white.

I also felt that the tone was very different if I was writing a scene in the Petries’ house vs. the office. At home all of the humor is character-based. The laughs come from attitudes and behavior. At the office, however, because of Buddy and Sally and the nature of what everyone’s job is, there are lots of jokes.

So later in my script, when I had Buddy and Sally in the house, it was like a hybrid.

When Bill Persky said I captured the style and rhythm of the show, that’s what he meant. Especially at the house where writers couldn’t just rely on “jokes” to get their laughs. A home scene can be extremely funny but it requires constructing a situation conducive to comedy. For me, I was careful to make sure everyone had an attitude and a point-of-view. Otherwise, it’s just talking heads firing off one-liners. At the office however, Buddy could take shots at Mel, Sally could rattle off self-deprecating quips, and everyone could chime in with jokes and schtick as if they were pitching for the Alan Brady Show.

Finally, I asked Bill, “If this were just a spec you read on a pile of specs, what would your reaction be?” He said he would call me in, they would either send me out with a revised version of my story, or they would give me another story. So either way I would get an assignment. Now, for me that’s like winning the Triple Crown, an Oscar, and the Espy Courage Award. The number one goal for any spec script is to get you work.  Too bad my timing was off by only 50 years.

Bill said that he and his partner, Sam Denoff broke in the same way. They wrote a spec DVD Show. Carl did not like the story but did like their writing. He invited them to come in with ideas. One they pitched was based on a real life experience that happened to Bill. When his child was born there was a mix up at the hospital over flowers. That led to the THAT’S MY BOY?? episode – a genuine classic. I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen it, but the payoff produced the longest laugh ever. And that was their FIRST episode. Yikes. You can see it here if you haven't already.

Bill talked again about how my script reminded him of how innocent the times were back then. We all know about Rob & Laura sleeping in separate beds (even as a clueless callow lad I knew that was wrong on every possible level). But the whole spirit of the show was of a different era. And yet, it’s a real testament to how universal and relatable the themes were and how exceptional the writing and acting was that the show still resonates a half century later. Even in black and white (which is Millennial-repellent).

We speculated on how they’d do the show today. I said first of all there would be no Buddy Sorrell. Former Borscht Belt comics no longer exist – except for maybe Billy Crystal. Bill thought today they would have to go diversity for Buddy. I said Sally would become “Amy Schumer.” She wouldn’t be talking about all the losers she dated; she’d be talking about all the losers she slept with. Mel would be openly gay. And there are no primetime variety shows – Alan Brady might be a late night talk show host. Laura would be a working mom. And the Army flashbacks would be in Afghanistan.

For me this experiment has been a huge success. I always wanted to write a DICK VAN DYKE SHOW episode, and talking to Bill Persky, batting around ideas – for a few precious moments it was like I was in an actual DVD Show story conference. So how cool was that?  And my fingers are crossed that Carl Reiner will weigh in at some point and it’ll get even better. I hope it was fun for you guys too (and God forbid educational). My sincere thanks to Bill Persky for his time and wisdom. And to everyone associated with THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW. You provided a lifelong inspiration, a career path, and more laughs and exploding hormones than an impressionable wise-ass teenager should be allowed to have. 

Bill Persky's notes on my DICK VAN DYKE SHOW script

I am truly honored that Bill Persky (far left) agreed to read and comment on my spec DICK VAN DYKE SHOW. Along with his partner, Sam Denoff, Bill wrote many of the classic episodes of the series including COAST TO COAST BIG MOUTH and THAT’S MY BOY?? and he rose to the position of showrunner later in the series’ run. (In case you’re coming late to the party, I wrote a spec DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, which I posted in four parts last week. Check it out.)

Quick aside: When I starting out, writing spec scripts, there was a book on writing sitcoms. In it was printed the entire script of COAST TO COAST BIG MOUTH (in proper format even). I was in awe. That script was my gold standard. I’m still trying to live up to it. So for one of its writers to respond to my script – you can understand what a thrill it is for me.

I’m still waiting for Carl Reiner’s reaction. When I receive it I will share it with you immediately, even it means delaying a post where I again plug one of my damn books.

Okay, so first off Bill sent me this email:

Reading the script was like a time machine transporting me back to the 60's; Obviously you capture the rhythm, style and sound of the show and characters, and the jokes were great and in character- you really had Alan cold. As to the story, we probably would have handled it differently. I'd be happy, with or without Carl to have a conversation about it, Another thing that I have thought about, and is clear in what you did, is how innocent we were, and how narrow the boundaries we functioned in- even though we were tough on some issues. I don't know that you could do the Van Dyke Show today without the episode of Rob getting caught watching porn in the office. Just let me know what you would like to do, and I'll be happy to do it. Bill

Is he a mensch or what? I then arranged for a phone conversation, which lasted probably a half an hour.

He seemingly wasn’t bothered by the prostate or stripper reference. But here’s the deal with that and it’s why I keep saying “think of the big picture” – if I had turned that script in and was getting second draft notes, Bill or Sam or Carl might’ve said, “not sure we could get away with prostate,” I’d say, “no problem I’ll do something else,” and we’d move on to the next note.  Done. These are not big deals.  My spec would not have been tossed into the reject file because the prostate reference was too jarring.

When I turn in a first draft I EXPECT there will be lines, or jokes, or moments that the powers-that-be will request be changed. But I’ve found that when you’re always second guessing yourself, wondering what will please the showrunner instead of writing what you think is good, you’re going to turn in a tepid draft.

I also should mention I’m much more receptive to doing the notes given by the showrunner because it’s his show. He knows it better than anybody. If he thinks a character wouldn’t say a particular line there’s no debate. He’s right.

Very semi-briefly: This was my thought process on how I broke the story. I thought it would be fun to have Alan Brady be an unwanted houseguest. Selfishly speaking, I wanted to write that character. I think my all-time favorite scene in THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW was the Alan-Laura scene in COAST TO COAST BIG MOUTH. (If you haven’t seen that episode you really need to.  It's on YouTube.  Go and come back.)

I created the car accident to establish Millie as a blabbermouth so she would ultimately pose a threat.

I needed a reason for Alan to hide out at Rob’s house. I wanted it to be scandalous but 1960s appropriate. And I wanted it to be a funny situation. So I thought of him being caught with strippers. Still, it needed a comic spin so that’s when I came up with the funeral angle.

Once Alan got to the house I wanted to introduce a flip. The audience would be expecting the obvious – he’s pushy, overbearing, obnoxious.  I wanted to do something unexpected and yet plausible. That’s why I structured it that he cooks them dinner, is nice to Ritchie, will sleep on the couch. The twist is Laura sees he left the kitchen a mess and is not a good houseguest at all.

And what seemed like a nice gesture to Ritchie is actually corrupting him and by sleeping in the middle of the house Alan's snoring is keeping everyone awake. I also had Rob explain that Alan must be in real pain having to keep up this facade. So Alan’s niceness is not out of character, it’s a conscious choice.

To make matters worse, Buddy and Sally were summoned the next day. More upheaval and another chance to write Buddy and Sally.

I was building to Laura having to make a tough decision – sacrifice her reputation or throw Alan under the bus? The new car was to help make her feel more guilty.  Always make it harder.  I personally love constructing stories where characters have to make tough choices.  They're relatable predicaments (which is why a DICK VAN DYKE SHOW episode still connects with viewers decade after decade) and their decisions really help define who they are.

It also tied into the other storyline because Alan knew their car was heavily damaged in the accident. Back in those days it was almost customary for the star to give people cars as a way of thanks. Desi Arnaz used to do that all the time. Producer Danny Arnold would give a writer a car if he had to write a script quickly and didn’t sleep for two days. So Alan Brady giving Laura a car seemed justified to me.

I wanted Alan to have to make a big decision too. Let Laura take the fall or fess up? That's why I had Rob lay out the consequences of Millie thinking their marriage was in trouble.

Would Alan step up and let Laura off the hook? He let her off the hook in COAST TO COAST BIG MOUTH. Judgment call – I thought he would.

Okay, so that was my game plan.  Now let's see how much better it can be. 

As Bill said in his email, he had problems with the story. He felt the car accident didn’t really pay off. I used it as a device, but he felt I could have done more. I can't argue with that.  In fact, he thought it could be expanded into a whole episode.

He said, what if Laura was driving somewhere and Millie was following her? Then the two of them get into an accident and the issue becomes which of them is at fault? Put Rob in the middle. The show becomes about two best friends who have a falling out. Could Ritchie still play with their son?  It's simple but universal.   Who hasn't had a falling out with a close friend?  And again, the star of the show is in the middle of it.  Much better than what I had.

Another option is to keep the accident as part of the Alan Brady story but let Alan get involved. Let him have some take on the accident and argument.

Bill said they probably would have let me say that Alan was having an affair. That’s the advantage of working out the story with the writers. As a freelancer I would not have known that. But then again, unless they’ve established that already as part of his character, they would not expect me to know that.  Oh, he thought the funeral/stripper angle was funny.

Bill felt I didn’t need the scene in the writers room. Alan could have just barged in on Rob & Laura and announced he was staying for a few days. This would have amped up both Rob & Laura’s reaction and given Rob less time to prepare. It would have been a more fun surprise for the audience too. He’s totally right. If I went in that direction, however, I would like to find an alternative scene in the office. Those office scenes are always fun.

I mentioned to Bill that the character I had the toughest time writing was Rob. Did he and the writers feel that way too? He said, no, not at all. And if I had trouble it’s because I didn’t give him enough to do. Providing him that little physical (choking) routine wasn’t enough. Putting him in the middle of an argument between Laura and Millie would be better. Or, in the Alan story, let Rob be the one to do all the dishes and try to clean up Alan’s mess. As he was saying all this I thought to myself, “Jesus, of course that’s better. Why didn’t I think of that?”

You're never too old to learn.  

MORE TOMORROW including his final thoughts on my script and the age of innocence that this series was produced in.