Screenwriting : Question from an old retired scrip scribe by Doug Nelson

no offense, but Are you actually out of your mind? it's the new golden age of TV. so many good shows! on almost every network. It's impossible to watch them all. If you can't find something to watch on TV or Netflix or Hulu today, then you're out of touch. And it's you, not them.

Top five shows on TV during the 1960's... 1 Sesame Street PBS Sesame Street is a widely recognized and perpetually daring experiment in educational children's programming. This show has taken popular-culture andMORE SummaryEp GuideVideosCommunity 2 What's My Line? Welcome to the What's My Line? guide at TV.com! Show Type: Game Show with Panel. FirstMORE SummaryEp GuideVideosCommunity 3 The Andy Griffith Show The Andy Griffith Show is definitely a TV classic. It ran from 1960 to 1968, producing 249 episodes. The main character,MORE SummaryEp GuideVideosCommunity 4 The Brady Bunch The Brady Bunch was first seen in September 1969, Friday nights on ABC. The series was created by Sherwood SchwartzMORE SummaryEp GuideVideosCommunity 5 Bonanza White-haired Ben was the proud patriarch of the Cartwrights, the family at the center of one of TV's most belovedMORE Top five today... 1. Game of Thrones 2. Underground 3. Empire 4. NCIS 5. Jane the Virgin Danny might be right... You could be out of your mind.

I watch TV if I'm bored and I have no guests at home. There are many watchable channels, agreed, but how many times can you watch the repeats? The good ones are recycled regularly. I wouldn't call Doug out of it, cos he's not easily pleased with what is on "the box."

If this is the new golden age of TV; I'd just as soon to return to the bronze age when we blended art into the craft. We paid particular attention to our dialog/character relationship on Northern Exposure In the writer's room at MTM, we were very serious about being funny and again we tailored the dialog to the individual characters. (Last Man Standing still has a couple of strong writers.) Today's list of the “top five” shows support my contention that the moron factor is much in evidence today. My question really is; do we have strong writers writing for a moron audience or is our writer's pool spawning a greater abundance of moron writers? It just may be a chicken or egg question.

There are so many shows to watch. Between cable, Netflix, Hulu, it's endless. I can't even keep up with all the shows I want to see.

Well, those are not the top 5 shows on TV so I'm not sure where Stephen got that list from. But the Emmy noms came out today and there are dozens of amazing shows nominated. As for Last Man Standing... if that's where you think the good writers are, then I'm not sure your barometer of Comedy is where it needs to be to connect with today's TV market. Go watch Masters of None and Catastrophe and Casual and You're the Worst and Veep and Transparent and Life in Pieces. Go watch Fargo and People vs. OJ and GOT and Shameless and Billions and Bates Motel and The Americans and Mr. Robot and Chicago Fire and Gotham and Walking Dead. Go watch 60 Days In and Shark Tank and The Voice and Top Chef. and if you STILL can't find anything good on, then you can either try the 425 OTHER scripted shows available or just go to sleep. But if you don't think there's ANYTHING good on TV right now, then you should not be the one giving writers advice and asking for scripts because I'm not sure you'd know a good one if you found it. just sayin.

I agree with Doug. Television is mostly crap and not worth my time.

You're question is an interrogative question. WHY? Falls under the interrogation system of questioning. Thus you should ask your cable network for the answer. Amid all the answers you got, you maybe got your answer already. whether or, you're better of with Netflix and YouTube. Best of wishes

With so many networks now that each have to fill up time slots of course that equals too many repeats and a lot of "fluff" getting produced. But I do agree with those that claim you haven't been paying attention. There is certainly a high percentage of lowest-common-denominator-targeted nonsense, but the best out there I think is very, very good.

I like to start threads as a means of educational debate to help the newer writers among us grasp the art/craft of the writing business. I specifically avoid personal snarky comments as I don't see how that helps anyone but it certainly does alienate folk. I won't be a part of that and at the first opprobrious personal comment... Doug leaves the building because there's no point to it.

Bye. Again. You crack me up Doug. This is becoming your standard MO

I can't help but think about that kid when I was growing up that would take his (bat) home when he couldn't get on base.

I only come here for the DOUG posts.

Doug I agreed with you for once and now you are bailing on me? I also agree with you about the personal snarky comments. There was no cause for that. Personally I don't like what is on television and there aren't that many new movies I would want to go see. That doesn't mean I am not qualified to help someone starting out if I wanted to.

I'm not sure what one is going to learn about Craft from a thread that's about how you hate everything on TV. that's not a statement that's going to teach anyone anything. it's a statement that's gonna inspire some snark. Especially from those of us who truly Love TV and have paid attention to the business since 1996. Sorry if I snarked your spotlight. But with every single article out there talking about how amazing TV is and the myriad choices there are for everyone, I get annoyed when someone comes in and craps all over it. It's the reason networks make shows for the 18-49 demo.

Danny I normally agree with you but Doug has a right to voice his option with out being personally attached.

Yes, he does.

no

Today there seems to be SOMETHING for everyone. Hell, they've even got a channel for dogs. I agree with both Doug ( alot of crap out there) and Danny (excellent stuff too, except for TWD). Expand your horizons Doug and you WILL find some good shows.

Danny. I still don't think he should be attacked just because he doesn't like the TV shows today. I don't like them either and I certainly wouldn't expect someone to come out and attack me just because I don't happen to like the television shows that are out there. For me it is a good thing because I don't have time to waste on that sort of thing anyway.

But if TV is what you do for a living.. then you need to watch TV. How does one try to teach writers how to write for the TV market if you don't know, or don't like, anything in the TV market?

Top five rated shows for last week were America's Got Talent (Tue = 12 million viewers), America's Got Talent (Wed = 8 million viewers), Olympic Trials (9 million viewers) 60 Minutes (7 million viewers), The Big Bang Theory (7 million viewers). Kudos to the success and longevity of The Big Bang Theory. My faves are The Strain, Maron, The Tyrant, Modern Family and America's Got Talent. There is a ton of good television out there - I just don't have the time to watch much of it, though.

Danny, from your photo only, I'm guessing that you're in an age bracket younger than I and suspect that I was involved with film while you were still in short pants. I began as a starry-eyed Gopher on the True Grit shoot back in the late 60's. I was John Wayne's “favorite pilgrim”; allowed to carry his Scotch. In 67/8/9 I produced the Steamboat Springs Winter Festival, the CU Winter Carnival and was a shooter on Ski Free and some other ski film (I don't recall its name) for Choinard. In the early 70's I sold my first script to MTM productions (I didn't do the polish) and they brought me on as a staff writer. Since those days I've been a contract/staff writer on several TV productions and films. I admit that my quarterly royalty check doesn't amount to much anymore; but it keeps me in beer. So I guess you could say I come from TV's bronze age – I've been in the tranches. But that's all history. Speaking of today, I've trained and started several folk in the industry (locally). A Steady-cam operator, Audio Engineer and an Editor on Grimm (a CGI monster soap). I've guided writers, crew and actors onto Leverage and Portlandia and I do very occasionally find myself on set. Some of my past and present friends are TV writers and show-runners and personally I like to produce short films for the festival circuit as an aid in helping new writers/filmmakers get their feet in the door. I'm retired, so TV is not what I do for a living. When I watch TV, I see a lot of moron-based Pablum now days – my question is: Is it the writers or is it the audience? I'm asking a question and I really don't appreciate snide remarks and personal attacks – that just makes me feel like dropping out and not helping anyone. What's your point?

Danny. Just because someone doesn't like what Hollywood is producing doesn't mean they can't teach someone how to write screenplays.

I can remember when Seinfeld was the hottest thing on TV. I loved it. I was shore based in the Navy at the time and we would come in the next day and talk about. The older squids thought it was a stupid show. Now I look at some of the comedy shows today considered "hot" and think how stupid they are. TV has different maturity levels.

Dan G, to Danny M's point, wouldn't knowledge of the current TV landscape greatly impact one's ability to give good advice on how to write a TV script that might fit into today's buyer market? While there's a thriving indie film landscape (meaning an independently financed film can be shot BEFORE it acquires distribution), there's no thriving indie series market (meaning in the US, pilots/series secure TV network or streaming service distribution BEFORE a pilot/series goes into production). Therefore TV scripts should ideally take the current landscape into account (if you want to make a sale). If you don't want to make a sale, it obviously doesn't matter. EDITED: to clarify the term "indie."

Wayne - I hear that. An old squid had to be pretty hip to be a fan of Seinfeld. It's also interesting how you can look at two shows like Broad City and Two Broke Girls, similar in content and in form (broadly speaking), and end up with one glossy network sitcom with the standardized network style formulas and beats, and one much edgier cable sitcom that strays a bit but not too far from those formulas and beats. Doug - I think when you look at the entire landscape of television....crikey....there are hundreds of new shows on now. What a new age of television we are in. There's never been a greater time to be a coach potato/smart phone zombie than now.

And for those who aspire to create their own television shows....look no further than the Broad City model. Ilana Glazer and Abbi Jacobson independently produced the show for a few years, when it aired on Youtube, developed an audience, and caught the attention of The Comedy Channel. It now airs on The Comedy Channel and has already been renewed for two more seasons. Ilana Glazer and Abbi Jacobson are perfect examples of how somebody can make a show that is based on brilliant writing and interesting situations; get a small crew to make an ultra-low budget show; and reach the big time in a few years. They should be like the idols and role models for anyone who aspires to follow that type of path.

To Dougs question of is it the audience or Is it the writers, the answer is the audience! You're talking about an audience where 40% of them are voting Donald Trump for president. So, yes, American audiences are easily entertained, brainwashed, and often attracted to pure stupidity because it's the only thing that makes them feel smarter. That being said, while there is no doubt plenty of crap out there for Those types of people, there is also some fantastically brilliant TV out there. And no, not liking the TV market doesn't preclude one from teaching screenwriting. Not KNOWING the market, however, kinda does.

With an MBA in Marketing and my own modest cable show (Northwest Filmmaker's Showcase), I have a reasonably decent grasp of market demographics – I've met the audience, and it's frightening. It's apparent that the moron factor is in great abundance but should writers encourage that trend or ought they reach for a higher level? Writers, ask this question: Am I part of the problem or part of the solution? Hint: if you're willing to feed this trend – you're part of the problem.

I think the A&E Channel is a sobering reminder that TV is a business like anything else. In it's early days it was as much "Art" as "Entertainment", with great biographies, documentaries and historically-focused drama. Apparently, not enough Americans wanted that so fast-forward to today and it's primarily reality TV (isn't there something like five Storage War spinoffs? Is a storage locker in Texas any more exciting than one in Idaho or Nebraska?). Clearly, the audience spoke and A&E adjusted accordingly. So yes, we can stick to our guns and write for the enlightened - and likely be unemployed - or make a career out of dumbing things down for the masses. But in the second case I wouldn't see myself as part of the problem - the problem is that people want spoon-fed entertainment.

Regina. Just because someone doesn’t like something doesn’t mean they aren’t knowledge. The odds of someone here breaking in with a series is about a million to one so it doesn't matter who the screenwriter gets advice from.

Hey Dan G, we are certainly entitled to our own opinions. If you don't mind my asking, if it "doesn't matter who the screenwriter gets advice from," do you believe that a writer who is hoping to sell into the Hollywood market (I'm not asking about true indies) should place any weight in an agent's/manager's advice when the reps advise on what they feel like can/can't sell? Should the advice of agents, managers, producers play any significant role in a writer's strategic decision-making (if that writer is trying to sell into the mainstream US market)? Should the advice of people "in" the market be weighed? Or does it truly not matter "who the screenwriter gets advice from"? There are certainly people who agree with you, Dan. We just have different philosophies. There are times when I've gone against an agent's advice too, and it's paid off for me. I'm not an absolutist. That said, I think if a writer wants to enter the mainstream US market, and some random person is advising you that ABC wants episodics in a year when they're looking for serialized, that's what I would consider bad advice from someone too far outside the market. If a writer is putting together a true indie, then please don't worry about the mainstream market. If a writer is trying to enter the mainstream market, then I believe it does matter from whom they're taking advice. But Dan's opinion is as valid as mine.

Doug - writers should write what people want to buy, period. One of the first questions a commercial writer should ask them self is "who is my audience?" If they don't...well...they're kinda not being realistic about establishing the audience for their commercial writing, and in fulfilling the needs of a commercial entity like a tv or film producer; a studio or network; a book publisher or a music publisher; or any other maker of commerce. My understanding of my writing audience is two-fold: it's what I think a specific or general group of people may want to see, and it's what I think producers want to buy. If producers want to buy something, that means they think that a big enough audience will want to see it, and that they (the producers) can make money off it. It's a win-win-win situation for us all: for the audience, for the producer and for the writer. By satisfying a producer's needs, I know I am potentially satisfying an audience's needs - provided the work makes it to market and succeeds, of course. Having said that....with regard to the types of audiences.....I think with regards to the intellectual nature of an audience, and regardless of race, age, sex or other factors, that there is and will always be low-brow, middle-brow and high-brow art types, and corresponding types of producers who meet those needs. Back in the early days of commercial entertainment, all three of those intellectual ranges existed, too. In the early days of U.S. television and film, there was low-brow, middle-brow and high-brow art mostly aimed at white people. Now, there is a whole wide-range of sub-market audience types - from manga to young adult to older adult - and there is also more of everything in all three intellectual ranges than there ever has been before. We could make a list in any broad range, and I bet we could come up with at least 50 shows in each range. But if you think everything is "schlock" or "pablum" today....you're really not speaking for everything, and shame on you for thinking that way. If shows like Honey Boo-Boo, Dance Moms, Real Housewives, Alaska Frontiers People, So You Want to be a Millionaire....the O'Reilly Factor....the Rachel Maddow Show.....Naked and Afraid...Dating Naked....Win a Date with Bill Costantini.....etc..etc....are filling needs....that's success, not pablum. At least to me.

Reality and re-runs are cheap.

Regina. I am not talking about agents and managers and their clients. New people breaking in usually don't have managers and agents.

Thanks, Dan. I must have a habit of taking your comments out of context. It's not intentional. I must be misinterpreting "...it doesn't matter who the screenwriter gets advice from." Thanks, Dan G. I don't mean to nit-pick, and I know from your previous posts in the Lounge that you're all about helping others. Moving on - in any case, I believe it does indeed matter who the writer is getting advice from, and that belief comes from my own personal experiences talking to writers who want to enter the mainstream market but who seek advice from other newbies or from random consultants/mentors/whatever who aren't doing business in the mainstream market, and it's, like Danny M says, the blind leading the blind. I'm not asking for your money. For those trying to enter the market, I'm hoping that you don't waste your money on market-irrelevant advice!

Regina when I said that I was only referring to a new screenwriter trying to break in with a television series because that is what Doug and Danny were discussing. That market is almost impossible to break into no matter what you do because they like to keep everything in house.

Dan, with 450 scripted series out there and Netflix investing Billions in new content, I don't think that's true anymore. TV writers can break in -- if they have something great, and if they have an IN. but having an IN is different than being in house. And if you think no one on here has a chance of breaking in, then what are you all doing here? what's the point?

Danny, you raise some interesting points and I'll start a new controversial thread along those lines soon – stay tuned. You say that writers can break in ...”if they have an IN.” Would you please clarify what you mean by “an IN”? Where does a new writer go to get one of these “IN's”? Also while I'm here, maybe Regina could also define "mainstream market". Please?

I obviously agree with Danny Manus. We are in a time when there are so many shows being produced that there are not enough experienced showrunners to go around. While a new writer entering the mainstream market isn't qualified to be or experienced enough to be a showrunner, there is a ripple effect. Meaning, there's so much new programming being produced, there are a lot of jobs to be filled every year.

Doug, when I say "mainstream market," that's my "short" way of aggregating the large Hollywood and NYC content producers and media companies including the big networks and studios (e.g. NBC Universal, Universal TV Studios, Universal Pictures), the big streaming services (e.g. Netflix, Hulu), independent studios (e.g. Lionsgate, STX) as well as mini-major studios or large non-studio financiers/producers such as TWC and Legendary Entertainment. As well as additional well-established financiers/distributors /producers such as A24, Bold Films, Cross Creek, Sidney Kimmel, FilmNation, etc. AND all the non-financiers who are trying to sell to and/or partner with (and engaging in steady business with) the aforementioned financiers, such as producers, content creators, agents, managers, etc. So basically, the large pyramid that collectively produces and/or finances and/or distributes entertainment content is what I consider mainstream Hollywood and NYC. Obviously, in this post, I'm talking about the US entertainment market, not non-US. We could talk about non-LA and non-NYC (e.g. El Rey in Austin), but I think you get my point.

Dan G has statistics, "the odds of someone here breaking in with a series is about a million to one so it doesn't matter who the screenwriter gets advice from." I have never been a statistics geek - not in sports, not in scripts. I'm sure he's getting those numbers from market research, but those are not numbers I've seen before. I'm not discounting his stats, but I'm not holding onto them as gospel.

Regina, your definition of “mainstream market” is way more inclusive than my own and I think therein lies our divergence. When I speak of the movie making mainstream, almost all new writers immediately envision the historical Hollywood myth handed down from the studio contract days. Many wannabe screenwriters believe that Hollywood is going to buy their brilliant script and then they must decide which color Lamborghini to buy. In that case I have to agree with Dan but you know, somebody wins the Lottery every so often. I don't think of Netflix, Hulu , YouTube or any of the others as mainstream but they are much simpler to crack open but now the writer's down to a used rusty Ford. When I think of film, I think the East Cast is where we get the better “thinking man's” movies – the art house films. I think it's a little easier for a new writer to “break in” there, but it's still not easy. Overall, I think of the Film industry as an entity apart from the Television industry but I do acknowledge the tremendous overlap. And of course, the whole mess is being scattered all over the country.

I think one could also define the "mainstream US market" as those who are engaging in film/series/content/programming business with CAA, WME, UTA, etc. on a regular basis. (For this content conversation, I'm not talking about their sports divisions, brand consulting, commercial, etc.) OK, break a leg, folks. I don't need to repeat myself any longer.

Doug - no disrespect intended, but for an MBA'er, I think you're letting your emotions and sentiments get the better of your intellect. The vast majority of today's produced films don't get widespread releases; don't get huge marketing budgets; and never even make it into theaters. The vast majority of television doesn't appear as original programming on the big three networks. And just for a bit of a reference....there are at least 10 television/cable networks that produce their own films; at least 15 major or mini studios that produce their own films; and hundreds of producers that produce their own films or non-film content annually. And there are over 50 cable stations that produce their own original programming or purchase it from producers. Compare that to 20, 30 or 40 years ago - that's a mind-boggling increase, isn't it? And that's just in the U.S. It's a brave new world; there is more content being produced than ever before; and there has never been a better time in the history of the world for a writer to be trying to sell stories for target markets or for mass markets. The sooner you wrap your head around that, the better teacher you'll be to your students.

Bill, I have to agree with you completely; it saddens me to see the overall quality of filmmaking sink into the mud and know that there's nothing I can do – so I just joust against windmills. The films I produce use local talent only and most are so poor that I never release them at all. My little local cable show is dying on the vine for lack of films. My head is firmly wrapped around the reality but my heart's not there yet – I will continue to encourage students to strive for the best – to never settle for mediocrity. I recognize that it a hopeless battle, but my heart won't allow me to give up.

Regina I am not going by statistics. I just came up with a million to one but I could have just as easily said zero chance because I never heard a new screenwriter without connections or an agent breaking into the business with a mainstream television series. Maybe you or Danny have those kinds of connections but I think I could get my foot in that door if I wanted to but I don't like television and have no interest in writing for that market. I don't agree with what Danny said to Doug which is the only reason I even got involved in this discussion.