There are few things in this world that are criticized more than the quality of television programming, and you have not only decided to major in it but also have thrust yourself into the position of producing more of it! In this culture, television, as opposed to books and “good cinema,” is largely considered a low-brow medium. So, you might think it would be reasonably easy to create it.
But when you read through Evan Smith’s Writing Television Sitcoms or Lindheim and Blum’s chapter from Inside Television Producing, you will likely walk away with a different impression of how “easy” this junk is to write. (Both of these readings on reserve in NH3 reading room)
Could you please resolve this tension by sharing with a layperson why television storytelling still works 50+ years after DesiLu. In other words, “What could possibly be so hard about writing for television?” Center your discussion around at least one good example from a show we share in class including some indication of what makes it good.
February 14, 2008 at 10:34 pm
The “low brow” notion is totally undeserved for a good portion of the programming on television. It is easy to dismiss reality as being low brow because it seems like you throw a bunch of people into a room with cameras and let them have at it. The casual viewer doesn’t consider that the storytelling has been shifted from writers to editors. Reality TV is like the old notion of putting a thousand monkeys in a room with typewriters and waiting for them to create the next novel. If you collect enough hours of people on camera, they too will make the next great TV story.
My limited experience in trying to write comedy for TV tells me that it is insanely hard. When I wrote my first project for Moller’s class, I was sitting behind my computer screen cracking up. When I saw it on the screen, it was not even close to funny. There were a number of lessons to be learned from this, not the least of which is that I am not funny. If you are doing comedy on the stage, you are right in front of your audience and you can adjust if something isn’t going well.
Movies have the benefit of time. Movie scrips are poured over. They are usually written by people who have put a lot of thought into their development. Casting and crews can be more hand-chosen.
Television is made apart from its audience. When it hits the screen, its either funny or its not. It also usually doesn’t have the time advantage. In a pinch, scripts can be turned around in a week.
February 18, 2008 at 3:23 am
When TV is done in a pinch, and the time restrictions are short, it would naturally sacrifice quality. But even though that is an innate quality in TV, I don’t consider TV as a medium “low-brow.” Just some of the shows.
February 18, 2008 at 3:31 am
I took some short notes when reading Evan Smith’s Sitcom writing book about the elements and creation of comedy. Tension, for one, is key. Incongruity, surprise, truth, aggression (goes hand in hand with truth it seems), seamlessness, and brevity. Ya know what, it’s true. But the problem with trying to define comedy is that you kinda can’t. I’m sure the big network heads all want a formula, but you can’t define an essence, and you shouldn’t. It’s kind of like when old people start catching on to some youth slang or custom…once they do it becomes not only “old” itself, but over-explained, and makes us roll our eyes. Also, it never can be fully explained. Anyway, by this point, the “cool” thing has already morphed. You can’t define an essence; you just have to feel it and ride the wave of it’s on-going evolution.
Unfortunately, ratings do kind of “define” it by being a sort of “measurement” of funny. I don’t think it’s really fair. There’s an awful lot of poor quality shows out there, and maybe people start thinking that’s all they have to pick from. Networks like safety and minimized risk, right? To be safe, you go with a wide appeal and less edge. And when you cater to the masses and the averages, what you get is mediocrity. Well, if new programs sprout from earlier crap models that worked, it perpetuates the crap. It didn’t necessarily work in the first place, but somehow became programmed in peoples’ heads as what’s good. It also makes it harder for newer programs to get a chance to survive.
There’s no question that good characters are what brings is back to watch a show. Take any given situation, and it’s either mundane, completely tragic, or hilarious, mostly depending on the character. I think one of the most important things I read in that book was that good comedy comes from “people acting against people–not things.” (Actually, John Truby, whoever that is, said it, not Evan Smith. Just giving proper credit.) I know that friends who can make fun of me well are my closest friends; they’ve gotten to know my character (IRL, duh!) well enough to find humor in a given relation between me and another person or situation. ‘Cause it’s all relative.
What I’ve learned from watching TV is that good comedy not only creates a world of its own, but understands that world it created. While incongruity is an important element in setting up comedy, a solid base is needed to be able to make an incongruity evident. I like to think that I can just go around being a prodigy and creating genius things, but I have to grudgingly admit that it’s a good idea to learn the rules. It really helps in breaking them effectively. I don’t mind if a show does unrealistic stunts as long as the world is set up that way…For example, it wouldn’t really make sense for a show like Seinfeld to have some nutty, surreal skit like you’d find in Flight of the Concords.
There are a vast amount of brands or any product ranging in quality, and I think that same concept goes for humor. I have to say, that Evan Smith’s key elements are inarguably important, and whether or not formulas exist for comedy, understanding those concepts will probably make damn decent stuff. But, naming something comedy doesn’t endow it with that quality–unfortunately, bad jokes still get to abuse the title of joke. I think it’s important to at least acknowledge that the pathetic, programmed laughter we barf up at hackneyed “comedy,” like the “working hard or hardly working?” that lifeless mid-level managers, is not really laughter at all. It’s the popsicle stick, kids’ first joke book stuff.
I’m really happy that the market is becoming more niched. I think the niche market along with the DVD sets of shows are helping higher quality stuff get out there. I’m finding so many recent shows that are so creative and extremely well written…and I think it’s because the niche market lets us move away from the mass average center of mild mediocrity and let’s us stray where we need to to maintain the integrity of the comedy.
*Disclaimer: I may or may not make sense.
“Television–Teacher, Mother, Secret Lover.”
February 20, 2008 at 10:05 pm
There are many, many, many things that make TV “good.” Shows can be funny, they can be tense, they can be enlightening, they can be witty… BUT… I look for perspective. I want a television show that will put me in totally different shoes from my own. I want something that is going to teach me about life as a rancher in Oklahoma, or a sports agent in New York City, or a national news anchor in Atlanta. I want something that opens my eyes to an experience that’s different from mine. We spoke about this a little in class a few weeks ago, and Schoony made the point that good stories will drive any situation. I agree, anything that connects me to the characters will grab me instantly. However, a good setting can propel good characters farther than anything else, giving them more depth and gravitas. This is why the West Wing is so much better than something like Friends, or Law and Order or 24. All of those other shows feature plain characters (a bunch of 20-somethings living together in New York; a bunch of lawyers trying cases that I read about in last week’s newspaper, or a gung-ho, unrealistic version of Bruce Willis for tv…). However, the West Wing features vibrant characters in a place that not many people get to experience. They offer the perspective of those who are charged with running the country. It’s fiction, of course, but it’s a pretty realistic look at the lives of those entrenched in national politics. I certainly don’t face any of the issues that they do on a daily basis, and I’m happy to see what it’s like playing Major League Baseball in Washington. In short, I’m looking for a view of the world that I wouldn’t come up with on my own. “Good” television gives this to me.
As for writing it, I reiterate Steve’s sentiments: it’s freakin’ hard. Especially trying to write anything with humor. In television writing, compared to film or anything else, the risks are higher, the time frame is considerably shorter, and the quantity of content to produce much higher. And it’s got to be perfect. The wrong dialogue, the wrong timing, or the wrong situations will kill any show. The fact that people lament the number of terrible shows on television is more a testament to the difficulty of the job than to the filter that we use to determine shows on the air. Sure, there are shows that are completely unappealing to us (According to Jim comes to mind…) but they appeal to somebody, and they get the job done. Not everything is going to be perfect; it’s just that hard.*
*I’m not saying we shouldn’t strive for perfection; quite the opposite, we should always look to write better stories, more compelling characters, and more fitting dialogue. However, Wayne Gretzky didn’t score a goal every time he shot the puck, and Babe Ruth didn’t hit a home run on every pitch.
February 21, 2008 at 12:05 am
I need to respond to what Liza and Pete have said. I completely agree with two of the statements which Liza has said, about ratings and from where good comedy comes. Regarding the ratings statement, Liza said,”unfortunately, ratings do kind of “define” it by being a sort of “measurement” of funny. I don’t think it’s really fair.” No, it’s not fair, Liza. I can think of a few of my favorite shows which do not get the highest ratings, but yet are really smart and funny enough to make me laugh absurdly loud at times (Don’t believe me? Ask Steve).
One show in particular, which I know I use constantly, is “30 Rock.” This is such a funny show because, as Liza said, the its writers create good comedy, which comes from “people acting against people–not things.” One perfect example of this is when the main character, Liz Lemon, breaks the fourth wall during a parody of product placement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36wUmJGzvA). The writers/characters/actors are acting against the corporate exexutives who are trying to devalue the quality of programming by inserting commericals-esque items into television shows.
What “30 Rock” did was make it so obvious the scene was a product placement, that it makes the viewer more self-aware of what is going on in TV-land (that is, if the viewer hasn’t been reading the trades, etc). This show is very smart and witty, and although it does not attract many viewers ( it ranked #102 in the Nielsen Ratings during its first year), it won the Emmy Award for Outstanding Comedy Series; For it, Tina Fey thanked the “our dozens and dozens of viewers” for supporting the show, joking at the show’s situation. Hopefully its situation will improve when new episodes air.
Now onto Pete. I too look for perspective when I watch TV, but I don’t want to ever be taught about life as a rancher in Oklahoma. This may be the Long Islander in me talking (watch out, I know how everyone hates us) but I can’t even see how a good story would drive that situation. Yes, we all watched “Hey, Dude” on Nickelodeon when we were kids, but that doesn’t mean it was a good show; watching it now we’d all laugh seeing how ridiculous it was (however, maybe I’m wrong and someone should write a script and show me how that life can be more exciting than something in NYC, London, etc). A good story for me means something exciting, taking me somewhere where’d I could only dream of doing, and ranching in good ol’ OK is not OK with me.
I also completely disagree with a statement you made about one of my favorite shows ever: “Law and Order.” No, it may not have been written by Aaron Sorkin or have had guest spots by Timothy Davis-Reed, but it is so much more than “a bunch of lawyers trying cases that I read about in last week’s newspaper.”
True, it may not be as original as it used to be, but it puts sheds some light, no matter how dramatized, on what occurs during crime investigations. However, since we do we have to face finding witnesses to crimes, chasing suspects, or avoid getting shot at? I’d say it’s just as realistic view of its genre as “West Wing” is to its genre.
Writing for television is hard because it is not a science; Aaron Sorkin knows this the best. Formulas can work for one show, “West Wing,” but fail miserably for another, “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.” The only way people should attempt to succeed is to try new ways of writing and not fall into cliches. If cliches start to occur, try to stop and see if there is a new angle that can be taken. Maybe the next best show is about the sex lives of ranchers in Oklahoma, but someone has to write it so we’d want to watch it.
February 21, 2008 at 12:13 am
Whether a television show is high brow or low brow, comedy or drama, reality or narrative, for a mass audience or a niche audience, what makes television good the ability to tell and communicate an intriguing story.
Desilu, MTM, to sports broadcasts, to kids programming, to American Idol and reality mania; all are responsible for successful programming because they create stories that people want to watch. They have characters that allow viewers to see and/or escape themselves. They have situations that effectively trigger emotions and keep viewers engaged.
There are too many different types of content, audiences, perspectives, interests, etc. for there to be a overall indicator for all television on what determines a program to be good. With all these new technical innovations (channels, picture quality, DVR/Tivo, the internet) there is no longer a universally dominant show. The universe is too large to have a program that appeals to it all at once. The new formula is how to conquer parts of the universe before the competition can. If I were a programming director for a network, that would be my main focus.
The challenges and competition for network television companies to create good programs continues to grow. Not only the internal challenges, and competing with fellow television companies for the audience, but there’s movies, radio, cable, internet, and other competitors that assure the days consistently high network ratings are long gone. These pressures more than likely play a role in the abundance of low brow and low quality shows produced in recent years.
However, I think this is one of the more exciting times in television for the viewer. In this obvious transition period, it is interesting to see what the television networks can come up with next. It creates new discussions and debates amongst us viewers now. Instead of asking someone what they thought when they watched a show, I find myself having more conversations of people trying to convince me to watch a new show. There are so many more choices now that I feel if you are a hit it is a greater accomplishment. These are not the days of 1-2 televisions in the neighborhood and only 3-4 networks to choose from. The ratings may not reflect shows like 30 Rock and Arrested Development as hits, but they lasted longer than other shows normally would have with their ratings because those shows are good TV. The cream will always rise to the top. With the writer’s strike now officially over, so is this year’s pilot season. So with less stories to throw on to the wall, the best stories really have to stick and stay.
Good TV is simply television that people want to watch. As much as people want to tell me Lost, ER, 24, and Two and a Half Men are good TV and why, there are just as many people who consider Flavor of Love, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and the WWE good TV, for similar reasons. Whatever does it for you: you need to laugh, cry, put your date in the mood, put your baby to sleep, get excited, calm down, get informed, or get distracted, there is a show out there for you. Good TV is TV that is good to you.
February 21, 2008 at 12:49 am
As everyone else has said, writing for TV is HARD. Like really, ridiculously hard. The most frustrating part is that there is no magic formula that can guarantee success. It doesn’t matter who you are or how triumphant you have been in the past. If you are writing for a new show, there is a good chance it might fail. Well-written, well-received shows are taken off the air all the time; it’s just a fact of life. There is nothing that can predict the success a new show will have, not the standings of current shows like it, not the previous success of it’s cast and crew, not even the hype that is built up around it. I know everyone has already covered this ground but I thought the topic still deserved some attention.
Moving on. I would have to agree with the idea that a strong writing (which equals strong characters) can bring people back to watch almost any story. That’s not to say strong shows are always guaranteed success. They do, however, usually have a pretty strong following. Lost is a good example of a show that has hit the trifecta with strong writers, a strong following and success. I remember when someone first told me that there was a show coming out about the survivors of a plane that had crashed on a deserted island. I laughed in their face. I didn’t understand how a show like that could survive 6 episodes let alone 6 seasons. How about Heroes? You can’t tell me that if someone came to you 2 years ago and said one of the highest rated shows in the next season would be about a bunch of super heroes you wouldn’t be a little skeptical. I mean, superheroes? Really?
The fact is it doesn’t matter what your story is or how ridiculous it sounds. If you have a strong writing staff people will watch your show. Billy said, “I don’t want to ever be taught about life as a rancher in Oklahoma.” Something tells me that with the right combination of or talent, mystery and sexual tension Billy would be the first one on the ranch every week.
February 21, 2008 at 12:57 am
While I am a bit unsure as to whether I’m supposed to write about what signifies good TV or how to make good TV, I will attempt to write something coherent.
The first question I would ask – the first question that many television execs ask – is what does the average TV viewer want? And that’s difficult to answer for many reasons, one is that there is no average viewer, and you can’t please everyone.
It’s difficult to write for television, because you have to capture the interest of many people; when you capture the attention of many people, what you produce tends to be considered “low brow.” Ahem, American Idol. Yeah, I never said I wasn’t pretentious.
So, what makes I Love Lucy just as good as say, Scrubs – a completely different show, shot in a completely different format? It’s not keeping up with cultural trends or technology, thought that helps. It’s story.
I’m not disagreeing with Liza, but I am going to disagree with Billy. I do think there is a formula that generally works, regardless of whether you’re on a ranch in Oklahoma or somewhere exciting in big city London. Whether you want to call it the Hero’s Journey or some variation of that, stories are usually successful when they involve a character or characters that are challenged, transformed, and enlightened or, possibly, exonerated.
I will admit the Hero story has become cliché, and therefore recognizable, allowing a good deal of stories go succeed when they resist or even mock traditional fare. I don’t think any of us would call Jerry Seinfeld (or any of the characters on the show) a typical hero character who transforms and becomes one with his new self; yet, despite and because of this, Seinfeld was and continues to be a huge success.
February 21, 2008 at 12:57 am
Here here Christina Fitzgerald!
Billy, I know you’re from Long Island and would rather watch a show about your grandmother making meatballs, but frankly, I think Christina got my point… A story about something that is outside of the typical drivel on TV now (college roommates, sappy family comedies, and already-done law and doctor shows) will succeed as long as it is well written, even if it is an adult version of “Hey Dude.”
February 21, 2008 at 10:21 am
First off, I’m sorry this is late. My internet broke yesterday making it impossible to post.
What makes Television good? This is a tough question to ask, not only because two shows can be almost exactly the same and yet one be great and another horrible, but also because different people want different things from shows. If you ask some people, the best television show of all time was Full House. Other people would say that those people are insane. Even going into shows, when we discuss sticking to the purpose of the show this can be different. For instance, many people think that the first season of My Name is Earl is better than the second or third season because every week kept with the premise: Earl used to be a bad guy and is trying to scratch things off his list to be a better person. However, Travis Fickett, one of the television critics at IGN, thought “This season proved that the show wasn’t a one-trick pony and that its characters were far more realized and versatile than those you tend to find in situation comedies.” Whether or not you agree with his opinion or even think he is a legitimate critic the point is that even simple things about what makes a show good like sticking to the message are not always agreed upon.
To me, what makes television good is a mixture of things. First off, Television should be well written. If a comedy is not funny, I won’t want to keep watching it (see Cavemen and Carpoolers). Because of the long form nature of television, I tend to want even hour long programs to be at least a little funny. However, I know that not all shows will be. Another thing I want is that if a show is not funny, I think it will at least end with an uplifting message at some point. If I am going to watch a show for years, I don’t want it to end with all the characters in a worse position than they began. I want at least some of the characters to have grown or characters to have gotten back together or something.
Even those points are not always the case, so I guess all I can actually say is that I’m can’t describe what makes good television, but I know it when I see it.