Archive for the 'TV shows' Category
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010
Question: Should you Use the News to Narrate?
While watching Stephen Moffat’s first Doctor Who finale the second time round, I noticed one of many differences between him and Russell T Davies’ writing. This was the first series finale for ages which didn’t feature real-life BBC journalists describing the way that the world was now being devastated by Daleks or Cybermen etc. Even without this device, there was no sense that the world wasn’t in peril so I was left wondering…not only, ‘is it okay’ to use the news in storytelling, but do we ever actually need to?
It clearly breaks the ‘show – don’t tell’ rule so could just be labelled as lazy writing. But in his book ‘Save the Cat!’, Blake Snyder described how Stephen Spielberg considers it just plain bad writing: As he explains, in ET – The Extra-terrestrial, if he’d shown the news breaking worldwide of proof of alien existence, this becomes the planet’s population dealing with this news – a very different story to an isolated boy helping his alien friend get home. There are plenty of journalists in ET – but we don’t follow them, the focus stays on Elliott.
But then I can’t help of thinking of examples I really like of the press covering all angles of particular events. Shaun of the Dead (a script I am increasing impressed with the more and more I look at it!) not only has the Doctor Who-style cameos of real news presenters (and Vernon Kay) but also plays it for laughs by channel-hopping through them to conjoin sentences in funny ways. Crucially, it also clearly shows that the main characters are the ones watching the news – not just us. Too often I think this device is used to dump exposition on the audience – but is it okay to use the news if we are learning stuff alongside the characters?
I can’t not mention a glaring example from my favourite film either. The above cameo-heavy montage shows the rise and rise of the Ghostbusters as heralded by the media. But is the difference that the news actually features our main characters, showing them ‘growing up’? I think it’s interesting to note that this sequence is the only moment of media coverage in the film. When the Ghostbusters take on Dana Barrett’s building at the film’s big battle, the events are not relayed to us by journalists (unlike the dismal ‘narrated’ climax to Spider-man 3) the audience is instead put there right in the crowd, cheering on our heroes!
We see it often enough, but how often is news-narration the most-effective method of storytelling? Is it okay when the characters are learning stuff alongside the audience? Is it okay when our protagonists are themselves the news? Is it lazy writing? Or just a quick and efficient way to get through vital exposition? When is it okay to ‘use the news’?
Thursday, June 24th, 2010
DETECTIVES: There’s no such thing as too quirky!
The copper who uses their special break-dancing prowess to catch criminals. The Private Eye who can piece clues together using hallucinations caused by auto-esphixiation. The detective who is also a duck. I love them all. But how quirky is too quirky?
In my own writing, whether it stars a procedural copper or an accidental investigator, mysteries have always been my ‘thing’. Trouble is, if your protagonist is just doing their job week after week, it can be hard to generate an emotional connection - no matter how many endearing tics they have.
This is easily remedied in a film/one-off. A case starts as professional but quickly becomes personal (Silence of the Lambs, Chinatown, Se7en). But if you’re creating an ongoing TV, web or comic series - surely everything can’t be ‘hey, this case resonates with that traumatic broccoli experience I had as a child!’ But you’ll probably need something if you don’t want your show to simply be a cerebral exercise.
I’ve heard the appeal of the Mystery described as ‘the audience’s desire to see Order triumph over the Chaos of the outside world‘ (like the drunken football fans who chucked our bins all over the street last night. Where were you, Batman?) But where Bob Peck in a one-off story like Edge of Darkness needed to know why his daughter died, the returning series detective needs a more abstract motivation for taking on the Chaos of the world that we can understand and emotionally connect with.
The reason we connect with any of the above more than, for example, Miss Marple is because of this vocational calling that made them a detective. Details aside, this can usually be summed up as one word. Redemption. Ambition. Validation. Even Retaliation. (they don’t all have to end in ‘-tion’ btw 
)
So it’s okay to pile on as many quirks as you like to make your detective unique. But before you do, make sure you can easily answer the core reason why this guy or gal is a detective in the first place.
Sunday, May 30th, 2010
Review of PULSE.
With last night’s Casualty cancelled in favour of Eurovision, I got my hour of hospital drama via PULSE, streaming now on iPlayer before it airs on BBC Three on Thursday 3rd June at 9pm.
Launching straight in with a gruesome and somewhat suspect surgery, PULSE establishes that it’s not vampires or other beasties we’re scared of here - it’s people. But be warned, PULSE doesn’t shy away from its full body horror either. We’re quickly introduced to the core cast of trainee doctors as Hannah (Claire Foy - Little Dorrit, Going Postal) returns to the training hospital described as the suicide capital of the NHS. Having suffered a breakdown following the death of her doctor mother, Hannah’s claims to have discovered unorthodox treatments for one of her patients has everyone watching to see if she’s snapped again.
This first hour of PULSE raced by, laying down swift characterisation whilst setting up ominous plot threads for the future. This is a pilot that deserves to take off. Despite moments of wry and gallows humour, Paul Cornell’s script nicely avoids the tongue-in-cheek hokiness of recent British genre fayre, making the drama and the tension all the more gripping.
As Hannah, Claire Foy draws us into not only her personal trauma but also the pressurised world of being a trainee Doctor, seemingly horrific even without your bosses playing Frankenstein. But the supporting cast all get time to shine too, either shattering our pre-conceptions of who they really are or giving us a glimpse of what their journey might be in a full series. Of particular interest was Ben Miles (Coupling) who seems to have started channelling Jonathan Pryce as the hospital’s enigmatic counsellor.
Without wanting to give anything away, PULSE builds up to a game-changing epilogue and proves that horror can work on television. It also looks great so I was pleasantly surprised to learn from the end credits that it was shot by the brilliant Fabian Wagner (who was DOP on my first short film). My only possible qualms were a few disorientating edits and that perhaps we could have learned a little more about what Hannah’s normally like when she isn’t questioning her own sanity. But, as a pilot, this worked entirely. I was hooked and want to see more.
So support PULSE by watching it on iPlayer and leaving your comments, joining the facebook group or watching its TV airing next Thursday. Either way, don’t miss out on exactly the kind of intriguing, challenging and captivating drama BBC Three should be offering more often.
Friday, May 28th, 2010
Increase the PULSE rate…ings.
Watch the entire Pilot Online here now.
With BBC 3 offering a fresh round of drama pilots, it was probably a given I’d instantly be drawn to the horror one. But medical horror PULSE has a lot more going for it than my simple need to be a bit creeped out. Primarily, it’s written by the indomitable Paul Cornell, whose Doctor Who two-parter ‘Human Nature/The Family of Blood‘ raised the bar terrifically for what New-Who could do and who put a mammoth on the M25 in the first ten minutes of his Primeval episode - by far my favourite of the whole show. Says Cornell of PULSE:
We are the nation, after all, that’s really proud of its NHS, but at the same time looks at those stern official buildings and shivers a little.
PULSE is also produced by World Productions who, as well as This Life and No Angels, were behind grown-up vampire miniseries Ultraviolet - a show that now seems waaaaay ahead of its time considering the current vampiric glut and which resisted the temptation to slide down the tongue-in-cheek genre route.
But to convince the BBC Three to take PULSE to a full series, it needs to get watched - and this is where we can actually decide what’s on telly for once. Being Human survived the last round of commissioning due to internet buzz - but as well as joining PULSE’s facebook group, you can now watch the entire pilot online before its TV broadcast next week (Thursday 3rd June, 9pm BBC Three). As Paul Cornell tweeted himself, watching it and leaving a nice comment could make all the difference to whether it’s commissioned.
So vote with your feet. Get PULSE in your eyes! 
(I’ll be doing that today - review coming tomorrow)
Wednesday, May 5th, 2010
BBC’s LUTHER: Good Cop Cliché/Bad Cop Cliché.
It’s the way you tell ‘em. Quirky. Offbeat. Psychological. Procedural. I’m a fan of cop drama so, to an extent, that makes me a fan of cop drama clichés too. And, between maverick behaviour and troubled marriages, BBC One’s Luther certainly had most of the list ticked… But that didn’t stop me enjoying it immensely.
Is that okay? As I say, it’s how a character deals with familiar tropes that either does or doesn’t separate a TV detective from the pack. Idris Elba might have something to prove some following The Wire – but I just didn’t want him to turn up as Stringer Bell with a badge. But John Luther came across as his own man, like some of my favourite crime shows, this isn’t so much a Police Procedural but more a drama about a guy who happens to be a cop. Even if we’d seen familiar scenes before, we were made to care for how Luther would deal with them and a lot of this was to do with strong subtext. He may have made some dubious choices – but they were convincing (not to mention dramatic). To that extent, is using a well-worn path more like shorthand for the audience that allows you to then come up with something creative in the mix?
I don’t know if the rest of the series will follow the same pattern but I really enjoyed knowing who the villain was before the series had even begun. And I don’t mean ‘killer’, I mean villain. Rose Wilson’s Alice was a particular treat, setting up the same sort of narcissistic, vainglorious puzzle that you’d expect from a Batman villain rather than your usual primetime BBC baddie. For me, it set a hugely enjoyable, heightened reality that echoes creator/writer Neil Cross’ work on SPOOKS but, more importantly, suited this show. Low-key in some senses, over the top in others.
The only real bum note of the episode for me was a redundant scene of exposition between Luther’s boss and Luther’s boss’ boss (who never showed up again anyway) discussing that Luther was a loose cannon. Yeah, thanks.
So what did you think? Sometimes, I think clichés, especially in a first episode, can be like those inflatable thingies you get in the gutters in bowling alleys, steering us through, so I always think the proof of a good series is in the second episode. From here on in, it can do its own thing. Question is, will you be watching?
PS - Oooh, theme music by Massive Attack 
EDIT: Everytime Luther is on, my blog gets a spike in views for people trying to find out what the Massive Attack theme music is. It’s called ‘Paradise Circus’ from Massive Attack’s recent album Heligoland. Track embedded below, click through to more links about the album. Hope that’s helpful and what a track it is!
Tuesday, April 27th, 2010
Writing Pet Hate #1: Limbo Between Scenes
I often get asked whether working as a script reader or aspiring writer ever ruins just trying to be a viewer. Mostly, I get more disheartened by really good films and telly because I think I’ll never be able to do something as good – but then that just makes me try harder. (Writing Tip: Watch some good films and telly!) But I do have bugbears that have always irritated me when reading a script or watching Film/TV. My absolute pet hate…
Cutting from a scene in location A to a different plot in location B and then cutting back to the plot in location A as if no time has elapsed.
Pretty specific (and pedantic), I know. But, as the assumed attention span of audiences is getting shorter and shorter, I’m seeing it more and more and this is what can spoil watching film and telly for me. And I can see the rationale: intercutting story strands quickens the pace. But while it might quicken the edit, more often than not, I find it stops dramatic tension from building. With each cut, we have to start all over again.
It’s the pace-writing equivalent of the SUDDEN NOISE in a horror film. It can work. But it’s cheap …Plus it feels like the other characters in Scene A have been frozen in time and space while you were watching Scene B!
Don’t get me wrong, cross-cutting itself is a brilliant tool in the writer’s kit specific to the medium and allows juxtaposing scenes for brilliant comedic/dramatic effect. But I think it works best when you imply what happens in between the cut. As with dialogue, it’s as much about what’s not said (or, in this case, seen) as what is.
If you feel you need to liven up your scene by intercutting, maybe you should look at the scene itself. Can you do anything to sustain the tension other than cutting away? Maybe, instead of turning one longer scene into two shorter scenes, should it have been one shorter scene to begin with?
Disagree? Bring it on! But also, please share your own writing bugbears (no points for saying ‘bloggers who pretend they know what they’re talking about’)
Thursday, April 8th, 2010
What makes a good Calling Card script?
As the opening and closing dates for the BBC’s Writers Academy have now been announced (Deadline May 5th btw), I’ve fallen into a downward spiral of second-guessing as to what script I should submit as the best example of my work.
I took a bit of a blow when my intended project turned out to be very similar to an idea I read about by a former Writers Academy student (down to our titles almost being identical) as well as a recently released feature film touching on the same themes. Obviously all three scripts are entirely different but they are similar enough for me to worry that a reader will pigeon-hole it as ‘another bloody (something) script’. And no, I’m not telling what it was about
So that leaves me questioning what makes a good Calling Card script? And for the Writers Academy in particular. Is a feature unsuitable for this scheme? Is a TV pilot too risky on if they like the series idea? I’m erring towards a single drama as the happy medium - but is the single drama too much of a rare format to be useful (and will it just give away I was too chicken to write a feature or a pilot?)
Gah.
The one thing I do know is to not just mimic Eastenders or Casualty. In past application years, an offbeat murder mystery has gotten me far further than my attempt last year to write (what I thought) was the kind of thing they’d be looking for - which promptly saw me knocked out in the first round. I’m sure I’m right in saying that the BBC want writers who can bring something fresh to Doctors or Holby – not just imitate it!
And yet I’m still a bit wary of sending them my oddball spy drama 
So what are your thoughts? Do you have a particular format you use to open doors first and then sell your other projects? Has a particular genre always proved successful for you when making first contact? I know we all write differently so might have different answers, but what sort of script has proved your strongest calling card?
Monday, March 8th, 2010
Creating TV Drama Series: Something Borrowed, Something NYPD Blue
Something different…but the same. Trying to shoehorn my way into TV writing, I’ve spent years trying to concoct never-been-done before ideas for drama series. And yet what are my favourite shows on TV at the moment? A show about Cops and a show about Doctors. (This doesn’t include Lost, obviously – but Lost is the exception to every rule including this one so it will get its own blog posts at numerous later dates )
For anyone who hasn’t seen either Bones or House then I’ll summarise: In Bones they solve a murder every week and in every episode of House they try and work out what’s wrong with sick people. Genius, innit.
Well, actually yes. Why do I actually watch and love either of these shows? Not because of the above, that’s for certain. But each provides a clear and renewable ‘story-engine’ to provide a launch-pad for the plot of many, many episodes. I was lucky enough to recently attend a really useful seminar in Manchester with BBC’s Controller of Drama Production John Yorke where he clearly described some of the must-haves for a returning series:
Naturally, I agree. For Bones, the big softy in me loves the family aspect of the show. The more the series progresses, the more we see how damaged each of the brilliant people in it are and you like them even more for being able to function whilst being that broken. In House, I’m watching to the see the chinks in House’s bastard façade that defines his morality. And, while I’m waiting, I can enjoy just House being a bastard. But a clever bastard. And that’s what the creators of these shows are too, dagnammit!
As the series have progressed, I’d also say that both the murder and medical mysteries have actually slipped down the importance scale in an average episode. But they’re always there as the spine in Bones and the foundation in House. Without them, there’s no need for the characters to even be together. It’s telling that the fourth season of each show featured Brennan and Booth and House and Cuddy facing murder or disease on a plane bound for Asia – deprived of their usual facilities and facing the ticking clock of landing. But both were very different – apart from the fact that they were both brilliant.
Even if both will-they/won’t-they pairings got married, there had better be dead/dying body in their Honeymoon suite! But it’s the fact that the writers have made me want there NOT to be a mystery to solve that makes these shows so successful.
It seems the series creators ensure we want to see their characters happy…then do everything they can to ensure that they’re not!
Monday, September 28th, 2009
FLASH FORWARD - via TV and ARG.
Tonight sees the UK premiere of Flash Forward, a new serial sci-fi that sees the whole world get a vision of what lies six months ahead. It’s being billed as ‘from the network that brought you LOST’ but what it doesn’t say is that it’s created by David S Goyer (writer of the Blade Trilogy and co-writer on Batman Begins) and Brannon Braga (who a lot of people blame for making the later Star Trek series so…good?)
The hokey concept for Flash Forward is grand enough, but, as always, this will rely on the show’s writing and characterisation to make this a lasting hit with crossover appeal. But, also as always, there’s some funky online accompanying material in the shape of the The Mosaic Collective
This is the actual project featured within the show that tries to piece together a global big picture from every one in the world’s perspective. However the show turns out, I think this is a great site that really expands the world of the show for any audience who really want to immerse themselves in it. I hope this is a trend that continues in drama shows.
But what are your thoughts for the show itself? Next big thing? Or more of the same? As you all know, I am a big fan of LOST - but this doesn’t mean I want every show to be an ongoing tease of a mystery that I always worry will get cancelled before we get close to getting answers. There’s probably a reason my other favourite show these days is House.
But, then maybe the fact that Flash Forward’s leading man Joseph Fiennes doesn’t seem to have aged at all since Shakespeare in Love indicates this new show will be a timeless classic! What are your thoughts?
Loading ...Friday, September 25th, 2009
TV Protagonists: Ongoing Goal vs Weekly Motivation
Discussing ‘Ordinary People in Extraordinary Circumstances’ in this post led to an interesting discussion in the comments that highlighted it’s difficult for some TV formats to allow their characters to remain ‘ordinary’ as the series progresses. This made me think about ways to ensure your protagonists goal compliments rather than contradicting the story-of-the-week structure most series rely on.
I’ve used the above three examples as characters because a.) I’ve watched episodes of each series in the last few days and b.) because I already had the pics on my computer
What are their motivating goals? Mulder wants to find out what happened to his sister. Charlie Crews wants to uncover why he was falsely imprisoned for years and Frank Black wants to protect his family from advancing evil in the world. That all sounds good right?
But then we can really break it down into more universal abstract concepts such as Mulder is searching for the Truth, Crews is fighting for Justice and Frank wants the American Way…er, Protection of loved ones. (Same as his immediate goal, granted - but it’s a pretty universal theme in itself). While they refer to specific story elements, they also dictate every single story the protagonists take part in - eg. Mulder’s quest to explain the unexplainable is just as much what sends him chasing after werewolves just as much as the conspiracy that stole his sister.
As much as I did enjoy BBC’s new take on Survivors (especially as a good example of ordinary people in extraordinary situations), I wasn’t a huge fan of the central focus on the Mother in search of her Son. This isn’t just because I’m a childless, immature boy who preferred the escaped convict character with a secret - but I just didn’t think that the Mother’s character served an ongoing/weekly plot - as much as it made her an identifiable character amid all the sci-fi gubbins.
Simply put, every time she stopped to enjoy a story-of-the-week, the search for her son came to a complete standstill. I found a similar thing with The Mentalist. The Red John serial (killer) plot that was potentially interesting and was supposedly haunting our protagonist could go for weeks without even being alluded to.
I deliberately try to keep this blog discursive rather than offering definitive answers (largely ‘cos who the hell am I to tell you anything, but also I find anyone with THE answers to anything is trying to sell you something) but I think the balance of your protagonist’s specific goal must match the universal need and theme between the whole series, whatever the genre. Otherwise, your series runs the risk of appearing as an idea for a feature film that pauses to have episodes of something else shoved in.
So there
. . . . .
Also, we realised last night that I have now been living with the lovely Heather for four years as of today. Living with your partner is somewhat unremarkable I suppose but it means something to me as, for the previous three years, we were living at other ends of the country. So happy four year co-habiting anniversary, Heather! Here’s hoping the next years are as much of a happy blur
