The X Factor

I noticed Broadcast were bigging up The X Factor in the recent email edition. It gets good ratings, but are they seriously postulating that it is the most important light entertainment show for 20 years? Perhaps it is.

I've never actually watched the show. But I recently recall seeing some bloke who sang opera being interviewed on some chat show as a winner of some talent show . That sounds like it had something to do with it. And did Girls Aloud [or Allowed?] win it at some point or was that something else? And Gareth Gates and Will..... someone.

The X Factor is important. Because of the times we live in. There are few programmes nowadays that can deliver a solid 9 million viewers across the demongraphics.

Thirty years ago Opportunity Knocks and New Faces did that week in week out without batting an eyelid. But times have changed.

ITV is losing money hand over fist on most of it's programming. The X Factor is carrying the channel. That's why Simon Cowell gets rich, and deservedly so. Not having seen it, I have nothing to say about the quality or merit of the show. The fact is that it is a hit. I suspect because it has that blend of ''car crash TV meets we, the public, can make a star'' just right.

So to me, it's not an important show for what it is or what it does. Which seems to be about giving the thumbs up or down in some Gladiatorial contest. It's an important show because it proves to advertisers that a big audience can still be had. That the rumours about TV being a dieing medium are ill founded.

If we could produce drama that did the same a bit more often we'd be on to a really good thing. And yes it is a little depressing that Mr Cowell can come out with x number of shows that are just variants on the same theme and make them hits. But hasn't drama been doing that for years?

Rupert Murdoch owns both The Times and The Sun. Complete opposite ends of the newspaper spectrum. Well not opposite thematically, but you don't get tits in The Times. There's a joke in there somewhere.

Murdoch is potentially dangerous because of his understanding of the economics of the media. Holy crap that is way too political for this blog. Jeremy made me do it.

The Paxman Cometh

Wow, Jeremy Paxman really gave the networks the old right hook at his McTaggart Lecture in Edinburgh. This prompted a Newsnight interview with the BBC Director of Vision. Which quite frankly I gave up on after the first few sentences of gibberish apparatchick speak.

Admittedly old Paxo was having a pop at news and current affairs more than drama. But the same holds true in my opinion. The reliance on focus groups, the concentration on the means of production rather than the content. Chasing ratings rather than delivering quality. Here are the weekly average hours watched for the last four July's between BBC1 and Non Terrestial TV

.......BBC1/ Non Terrestial

2007. 5.27 ..........8.31

2006. 5.16........... 7.25

2005. 5.19 ...........6.59

2004. 5.52............ 6.19


Those figures pretty much speak for themselves. A massive percentage rise in in Non terrestial viewing and a decline in Terrestial.

But instead of taking an aggressive stance and delivering the kind of programming that would attract new audiences and stop others leaving in droves, I believe the BBC took on a defensive posture and went all out to simply keep the hard core 5 million or so fans happy with a steady stream of the usual cops docs and legal. Not to mention all the property, cookery, and diy shows.

There is a place for these shows, but if that's all you get? Channel 4 are making noises about ditching Celebrity Big Brother and only having one returning series next year to make way for new programming. Guess what one of the new programmes is. An everyday family have their home festooned with cameras to try to recapture that seminal 70's series, The Family.

Yup that's really new. I despair sometimes.

The Customer is always right.

I just got slaughtered on a scene by scene. Justifiably so. It was crap. But the interesting thing is that I was slaughtered in a nice way because the script editor knew what she was doing and couched the bloodshed in writer terms. Clear and concise. What was wrong and why and how to fix it.

I could come up with any number of excuses why my sxs was crap. Some of them might even be valid. It's all wrapped up in the history of the show. The personalities and dramatical likes and dislikes of a 'regime' for lack of a better word.

The 'regime' is changing on that show, and if yesterday's black becomes white, then you have to become either an ammonite or a shark. One died out, the other survived intact.

The key is to recognise what has changed and why. Then adapt your writing style appropriately. Now humour is important? Write humour. Drama as opposed to melodrama? Write it. Studio/lot breakdown used to be the watchword but not now? Deal with it.

I happen to agree with every single one of the notes I was given. Well almost every one. C'mon it's me.

But, as writers, for me the ammonite and shark analogy doesn't really hold up. Writers make a free choice to say ''bollocks to this'' They tend not to be constrained by either evolution or rational thought. They work on feelings and emotion. The best producers and script editors know this and factor it in. The worst take no account whatsoever.

This is a business. In business the customer is always right. But in this business the customer is ultimately the viewer. Long term, for a writer, satisfying the viewer is going to be much more rewarding both financially and spiritualy, than satisfying just the paymaster. Search for paymasters with the same vision.

My Big Mouth

Has, I've just calculated, cost me somewhere upwards of £80, 000 in the last couple of years. That is one shit load of mullah. Essentially it breaks down into one show where I refuse to walk around with a shit eating grin on my face, something that appears to be mandatory there despite the ratings, and one where I got canned after complaining that the script editor had the dramaturgical knowledge of Mike Tyson coupled with the common sense of a lemming on speed.
One or two of you may have got the false impression from this blog that I am a whining Diva. Oh wait.... did I say false. I'll edit that later.

Anyway, I think I've posted this advice before, but I'll say it again. It doesn't matter how stupid, nonsensical, impossible, just plain crap or bordering on lunacy the notes are that you get from a producer. If you want a career in this Biz you keep your head down, do what they want to the best of your ability, negating the awfulness where you can and then set fire to the cat. THEY pay your wages. It is okay for me to piss my career up against the wall. But DO NOT follow my example.

Okay that's the Surgeon General's advice out of the way.

I am passionate about what I do. I have to be to write it. I'm old enough and honest enough and been doing this long enough to have no time for tact. And I'm crazy enough not to give a shit if I get fired. Well that's not quite true. I don't go out of my way to get fired. But in the scale of threats, it doesn't figure large.

I've said before 'pick your battles' That implies pick the battles you can win and that is very sound advice. I really mean that. If I did as I said you should, rather than what I actually end up doing, I'd be in Cancun right now........in a shelter, but hey?

I am possibly one of the least 'political' guys on the planet. I act entirely on instinct. It's what makes me tick. Can't change that. Don't want to. So please bear that in mind when reading this blog. My rants here are pretty much the same as I'd do in person to a producer. That is NOT advisable by and large. I make a pretty good living, but I'd make a much better one if I kept my mouth shut. Or rather, developed some tact.

But I ain't gonna.

Both Existentialsmn and Jungesim are a requirement of a writer. Did I spell those right? Do you care?

You shouldn't. It's all bollocks.

Care about what you write and why you write it. Leave the lables for those who need them. And those who need them aren't writers.

Grandstanding dialogue but true nonetheless.

Couldn't help myself

I have to break my self imposed sabbatical because this maloderous crap was brought to my attention by my mate Dublin.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2151869,00.html

How frickin' typical is that. Casualty, a series about doctors, can't do a story on Islamic suicide bombers because of BBC editorial guidelines?

Ummmmm, the two Glasgow bombers were Islamic doctors. Ummmmmm nearly everyone arrested in connection with this and the London bombs were connected to the NHS?

Ummmmmm do they not think this would be a perfect opportunity to show the public that not every Islamic doctor is waiting for the call to blow up their four by four in a crowded street? That say, if the bomber were treated by an Islamic doctor who thought terrorists were pieces of shit and had real moral difficulties about saving their life but because of the Hippocratic oath and his own humanity did so, that would be a really good thing to see as far as showing what by far the vast majority of Muslims in this country feel?

Ummmmm shouldn't editorial policy be more about ensuring that what is on screen is fair and balanced rather than making decisions based on which minority is going to complain more? Obviously Muslim extremist suicide bombers have the ear of 'Points Of View'' more than Animal Rights activists, because I'm straining hard to remember the last Animal Rights activist suicide bomber. I'd be up in arms if I were them! That's bordering on libel.

But most importantly of all, shouldn't drama be used to show truths and expose falsehoods? The truth is that most suicide bombers are Islamic. The unsaid lingering falsehood is that most Muslims are terrorists. That sounds crass, but if you throw enough shit it sticks. News coverage gives the hard facts of another Muslim terrorist outrage. That is the shit that sticks deep in the subconcious of the average viewer. It is rarely balanced by a report on how the vast majority of Muslims wish these assholes would just piss off. That is what needs to be promoted. We are adults, we don't need some BBC wanker deciding for us that the reality of life is not politically correct enough to screen. We want to see the different points of view explored. To be enlightened, educated and entertained - like it said in the original BBC charter.

You can do that in drama, or you can substitute it for a road rage suicide bomber for the sake of PC gone mad. No offence to anyone with road rage by the way, just in case you are reading this and don't realise what an asshole you are.

Would E.R hesitate for one second to run that story? Absolutely not! And not in a rah rah American propaganda way. In a rah rah this is drama way. Meat and drink to a show that prefers to explore real moral issues rather than who is shagging who.

Or alternately we could get BBC drama heads in charge of the news. I can see the headlines now.

Someone that no one cares about did something bad. And we hate them.

Someone that some people care about thought about doing something bad but changed their minds thanks to right minded people. And that takes us to act 2.

A really good character on a high salary but who doesn't have any more story did something completely out of character that was really bad, but oh boy had a great exit. And I might get to work with them again if they make it big.

Last Post

For a few days. You don't get off that easy!

I'm flying to a commissioning meeting tomorrow and have the rare luxury of the BBC swinging for club class. Nothing whatsoever to do with how much I am held in esteem. That would be a one way ticket on National Express. They just left it so late that was all that was available. Yay for me though, I can now drink my weight for free in the BA lounge.

Taking that into account and the fact I will have to put some grind in over the weekend and at the same time recover from a serious hangover, some of you will be pleased to know my rantings will not resume until next week. Or until I get bored and the kids skipping and jumping outside finally realise I'm firing blanks.

Anyhoo, here's the best writing tool I think you can have. A Writer Buddy. I'm not talking about a writing partner. I mean a buddy who's a writer. Someone whose judgement and instincts you trust. WAGS Shags and Lags are okay up to a point. But when you have a writing problem a writer buddy shorthands it. Knows the ropes. Zeroes in on the problem. What might take 20 minutes to explain to a non writer takes half a sentence to writer buddy. Writer buddy 'gets it'.

How do you meet writer buddy? Good question. My soon to be ex wife asked me today how she could meet another fella. She's tried looking helpless in the gym, smiling in wine bars and throwing herself in front of cars. No dice.

OOOps. It's just occurred to me my son reads this blog. Ah hell, he's got a sense of humour. Hi Gus!

Anyway, it's the same answer. If it's meant to be it will happen. Same wavelength, same tastes, whatever. The vibes are like a magnet and you will meet. Writer's club, internet, on a job? Doesn't matter.

Writer buddies never take umbrage at the other's opinion. Because there is no competition between them. They wish each other every success. Writers buddies never for one moment hesitate to talk about their idea or concept because they know they can trust the other not to nick it. Yes the party line is that no one nicks ideas because why would a studio or prodco risk an expensive law suit when they could just shell out a lot less to buy it in the first place. But in the real world it does happen. You think the head of Universal knows if a lowly Dev Ex reads a script, leaves the company and several months or years later writes a screenplay the same but different to the great one they read and buried like a squirrel with a nut in Autumn? Companies don't steal ideas. People do. As a lowly Dev Ex, if you also happen to be a scumbag, the shortest route to fame and fortune isn't neccessarily discovering great scripts. It's bastardizing them and passing them off as your own. They are like paedophiles. You can't imagine someone being that way but empirically they are out there.

But the good news is you will meet your writer buddy. Be open for it because it might be the best thing to happen to you.

Deal or No Deal?

One more thing today! I've just noticed the deal Craig Mazin, John August and other lumanaries have signed with Fox. Basically for a vastly reduced up-front fee they will each write an original for Fox. In return they get more creative control and a slice of first dollar gross. Excellent! It's about time writers got first dollar gross instead of the crapola rolling nett profit which essentialy means you get sweet F.A. thanks to highly creative studio accounting.

''A'' list actors have had a slice of this for years. I think Jimmy Stewart was the first one to take a reduced fee in return for Box Office back in the fifties. Same with some directors. But here's the thing. An actor or director can more readily agree to that deal. Because they know the movie is actually being made.

The writer doesn't. There is no guarantee Fox are going to actually make any of these originals. And that is the big gamble these writers are taking. Ok the deal is only for one script each, but are Fox going to love these scripts so much they will make them all? Highly unlikely. So some are going to be disappointed. The ones who do get made could be laughing all the way to the bank. And that is clearly a good thing. But are Fox now going to be tempted to turn round to every writer with a property they want and say 'Hey guys this is the deal the 'A' listers are on. You really want to grab a slice of this too''

I'd say the chances are they will and I'd say don't do it. Unless you have a guarantee the movie is going to be made. Which you won't get. Most bought scripts never end up anywhere near being made. But a company as aggressive as Fox can easily use this deal to beat other writers over the head with. Like ''Why should we pay you $300k for your script when we can get a John August or Craig Mazin or Elliot and Rossio for 100? Be smart, take the 100k and a slice of the back end''

That's a lot of pressure. Good luck to those writers, but I'm not sure they've done the rest of us any favours. And try getting something set up with Fox in the next year or so with 12 'A' listers already ahead of you, desperate for their movies to be made.

What would I do if I were a few letters higher up the alphabet? I would take the deal. What am I, a schmuck??? If it works then in the words of Robert Evans ''that's ''fuck you'' green''

Damn, it's already been done!

I got that feeling yesterday when it came to my attention that a concept I'd been pretty jazzed about was the basis for an American show that was cancelled a few years ago. It was a knock, but I took a deep breath and then began focusing on the differences that my take had on the subject.

Because when it comes down to it there are very few concepts we haven't seen before. Your different spin on it is the important thing. Life On Mars was a popular series. Time travelling Cop? Seen it. Is it real or is he in a coma? Biggest hoary old chestnut on the planet. But the take on it was to exploit the social differences between the 70's and now, especially as far as policing is concerned. And you got to see them tool around in a big brown Ford Granada and relive your youth with The Sweeney.

The buzz word at Network Centre is 'Clear Concept'. Coming up with a highly original clear concept is a very difficult thing. The concept of Hustle is hardly original, it's been done in both TV and Film. But the take is on a cosy gang of Brits, and one token American of course. How many variations of cop shows are there out there? Midsommer Murders, Inspector Lindley Mysteries, Morse, The Commander, Blue Murder, Taggart, Foyles war ....and on and on. Similar concepts, different takes.

Heroes isn't all that original. it's just X-men with ordinary people. Studo Sixty, a show about a show? Heck, Sorkin himself did it already with Sportsnight, so not exactly original - but the take is completely different.

So I'm going to plough on with my idea. The concept might not be original but I think the take is different enough. Time will tell. As Joe Gillis said in Sunset Blvd, ''Every time I pitched I was told it was either too original or not original enough'' But you never really know until you get it out there.

Couple of last things before I have to do some proper work. I've noticed a significant spike in numbers reading the blog today. First of all welcome and I hope you enjoy it. Have I been linked somewhere?

Secondly, last call for script reading. I've really enjoyed it and hope I've been of help and will consider keeping on doing it in small numbers. But after next week my response time will be weeks rather than days. You can get me on english.dave@hotmail.co.uk

Slings And Arrows

As if needing talent, luck, discpline and a vivid imagination weren't enough, one of the main things you need as a pro writer is a hide like a rhino.

I'm not just talking about sucking up notes and getting on with it. That's a minor irritation. I'm talking about the myriad of blows that can come at you from all angles. The project that is all set for a green light, the one you've sweated blood over, then it falls at the last hurdle. The commission that you were expecting and counting on but didn't materialise leaving you wondering how to pay the mortgage. The prodco who kick you off after one draft, go to a script doctor, then try to get you to rewrite the script doctor.

Or one I heard recently, when a single drama you created and was shown to acclaim is going to be made into a series and the prodco involved then stiffs you for half the money they were contracted to pay and kick you off the project. Your project! I'm not going to name names, but I doubt if they could sell a door.

Perseverence isn't just about keeping on writing in the face of rejection. Writers are a strange bunch. We are self effacing Divas, businessmen artists, gregarious loners. And everything in between. We need to be. What you also have to remember is that you are the person in the process with the least to worry about. With the possible exception of actors. When you have written your script it's there in black and white. It is what it is.

Everyone else has to worry about the nuts and bolts. How do we get it on screen? How do I keep my job? Where do I get the money from? What if this turns out a big pile of shit? That tends to make them removed from you and your feelings. That's no help when you feel undervalued, unappreciated and isolated or that your words have been twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools but them's the breaks. I paraphrase Kipling. But writing is one of the few occupations where heart and soul go into the product and huge money is needed to see that product reach the public with no guarantee of any return. That's the dichotomy you have to deal with as a writer. Unless you put up the money.

NEVER take rejection personally, believe it is about that project, not you or your talent. NEVER let some asshole's opinion stop you from doing what you love, believe in yourself as a writer. NEVER think quality beats nepotism or profit, but believe that there are producers out there hungry for quality, because there are. NEVER get dispirited by suits dicking around because of politics you neither know nor care about. Because they do. And if you thought it really mattered it would drive you nuts.

You're a writer. It's a club of survivors. But it's a damn fine club to belong to.

The Cold Opening

Set up is possibly the most important part of your script, be it movie or spec pilot. If you don't nail it the chances are that either your script won't get read to the end or the reader has built up a negative expectation that is hard to shift.

So ideally you want an interesting character or characters in a situation that is intriguing. But at the same time, you don't have to sell the ranch in the first 15 pages. The back story doesn't have to be all there before you can progress.

Empathy on BBC 1 had a good cold opening in my opinion. Okay maybe one or two too many sequences of him bumping into people and seeing their past, we get it already! But the set up was swiftly done, and the character given just enough to make us care but also intrigued and slightly unsettled. Here was a guy who at face value seemed like a pretty decent chap, so why was he in prison? The answer came later in the episode. Why in the opening sequence was this pretty decent guy seen brutally knifing another prisoner? The answer came later in the episode. One of the reasons I continued watching. I wanted to find out.

Don't be afraid to leave unanswered character questions in your set up and don't believe anyone who says you should never use flashbacks. Flashbacks are a perfectly legitimate screenwriting tool if used correctly. In Empathy they were used to denote memories. We all have memories and how else can you portray them? I hate flashback used to fill in plot holes that could have been avoided with more thought going into ongoing narrative, but in the case of Empathy I thought it was entirely justified.

I don't expect to see much more of it in the rest of the series as the specific answers to character motivation they were required for are now revealed. But they are a great way of avoiding pages of backstory set-up in your opening and also leave the viewer/reader hanging around wanting to find out more.

The writer could have spent 5 or 6 pages in the set-up showing our hero in prison, the reason for the fight and the reason he was in prison in the first place and then cut to six years later. But that isn't the story. That is the character. And we don't need to know the ins and outs of the character to want to go on the journey. Get to your story as quickly as possible.

Movies movies

I recall some time ago I said I'd post about writing for movies in the U.K. The reason I haven't is mainly because I haven't even tried to write a movie for about six years so I am a little out of the loop.

When you have a family to support, TV writing is the only reasonably steady source of income you have. In this country not just steady, but in financial terms way superior to writing movies. I'd say that in the U.K at most there are maybe half a dozen movie writers who make more in a year than a reasonably established TV writer.

But money aside, and in a perfect world that is how it should be, here is my current thinking on the U.K film industry.

There isn't one.

It is getting there, but has some way to go.

When I first started there was no real spec market. That is changing. And that is a good thing. When I first started there were no lottery franchises but we have them now. And that is a bad thing. Lottery franchises only served to give dolts who didn't know what the hell they were doing piss my lottery quid up the wall. Anyone remember Janice Beard 45wpm? Didn't think so.

The U.K film industry is divided into three. Art House, Commercial, and Tax Monkey.

Art House producers do the rounds of regional film funding, private investors, the EEC and all those other well meaning bodies. I don't mean that in a bad way. Writing is art. If it's done well. And artful writing needs support and encouragement. A Theme Park movie provides an experience that lasts as long as the ride. Art House can change the way you think and feel. providing enough people bother to go and see it. And that's more down to the producer, distributor and publicists than the writer - If the writer has something worth saying.

Tax monkeys. U.K tax laws being what they are it is quite easy for a producer of a complete flop to still make a wedge of dosh. I'm sure there's a musical or movie in there somewhere! Tax monkey films are quite easy to identify. The idea is commercial enough to suggest there might be an audience to those funding it but what ends up on screen is enough to suggest the first draft was shot.

Commercial - there aren't that many prodcos in the U.K who are making movies that make money. There are definitely not many prodcos in the UK who you can make a living from as a writer. But..... and here is the big but. As a writer you have a story to tell. That might be a movie. If it is then get it out there because writers who write from the heart will always garner a fan club. Same for TV. Heart is what makes us different from the suits, and should be celebrated.

What I'd be pitching

I've got a lot of time for Michael Grade. He's a very savvy guy. So if he says he wants returning 14 part series you'd be a mug not to be pitching those.
But if you are a new writer I'd avoid pitching cop, doc and legal unless you have a spectacular twist. Plenty of gnarled wizened veterans are already pitching those genres and the biz being what it is they are far more likely to go with them than you.

I think you have to aim for something that is 'different' but not waaaaay out there. We're talking prime time remember, so it has to be something a mass audience can connect with. Apparently the latest buzz word from Network Centre is 'clear concept' I'm not sure what that means. It is either High Concept's younger brother or comes from someone who doesn't understand that High Concept is Clear Concept by it's nature.

Okay if you take cops docs and legal out of the equation that can be both a bit scary and quite exhilarating. Yes they are the usual suspects for returning series but aren't we all getting a little bored with them? At least in the cosy chintzy way we tend to do them here.

The Americans do this kind of thing really well. Largely down to the writer's room system in my opinion. But we are where we are, so what makes a good returning series? Essentially it is empathetic characters in a situation that gives the opportunity for many ongoing stories. Lots of 'good'' ideas will never make a returning series mainly because the concept gives rise to a finite story. Hence the reason cops docs and legal are so popular. But if you look outside those genres there are lots of other ways you can go.

Shows like Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Heroes, The Sopranos, Doctor Who, Six Feet Under, Spooks, My Name Is Earl and Entourage are all great examples of this. They have ''legs'' as they say and went to multiple series with no difficulty.

But writing is the easy part of the business. Ideas are the hard part. Good ideas I mean. Bad ideas are ten a penny. I'm always slightly alarmed when a new writer tells me they have a ton of great ideas waiting to be written. I think a bit of analysis rather than enthusiasm would save them a lot of time. Because most of them won't be great ideas. A lot of them will be concepts that Dev Execs have already seen time and time again. A lot of them will only be good in the writer's head because they have some personal connection with it. A lot of them won't have 'the legs'' to last a movie never mind a TV series.

So if you are about to consider coming up with ideas for a returning series, remember the legs.

Who makes this stuff up?

I was intrigued by the Broadcast headline that ITV banker THE BILL topped the ratings with 4.4 million this week. Having written for the show, that sounded low to me, and therefore perhaps a bit less of a banker than might have been thought.

I trotted off to BARB and looked at the equivalent week for 2006. Mmmmmm....... 5.76 million. Wow that's a pretty significant drop for a ''banker''. Well......... maybe 2006 was a good year. I'll go back to the same week in 2005. Mmmmmmm 5.76 million. Nope begining to look like 2007 is a bad year. Just to check I'll go back to the same week in 2004. Mmmmmm 5.76 million, so that means..........wait a minute WTF???????? The show had exactly the same amout of viewers in the same week three years running? Wow that is consistant! So either something is badly wrong at THE BILL and they have managed to lose 23% of their viewers in a year or someone has got their figures wrong.

Not having watched The Bill in some time I can't comment on the show. But it did make me delve into how these figures are produced. It just seemed to me that 5.76 million in the same week three years running was a bit too coincidental. Granted, The Bill has a core audience, but you'd expect some difference surely?

Anyhoo, I knew it was done by a sample audience with electronic gizmos wired to their TV and DVD players, but I thought I'd go to the BARB site and see just how they chose the panel and how many households were involved.

Panic over. According to the website we have no need to fear that the panel are anything other than a neat cross section of the population because .........

'' Panel homes are selected via a 'multi-stage, stratified and unclustered' sample design. What this means is that the panel is fully representative of all television households across the whole of the UK.''

Good to know there's someone else out there watching Porn Week on Bravo.

I tried to find out from the site just how many households were on the panel but the closest I could get was that 52000 interviews are held to determine who should be on it. How many of those interviewees made it to the panel I couldn't say. For all I know there might only be a couple of dozen households purporting to be the zeitgeist, perhaps someone could enlighten me.

But something very interesting showed up.

''Key features of the current service are a larger reporting sample and improved panel design. Among the main developments are:
Removal of demographic disproportionality. The under sampling of downmarket audiences has ended and the design of the panel is now proportionate to the population. ''

Ah well that goes a long way to explaining the current crop of crap. What this industry definitely needs is a more downmarket audience.

I honestly can't believe that anyone would announce that there is such a thing as a downmarket audience, what a fricking cheek! I hope all you downmarket pannelists start watching Panorama just to spite them!

The Silly Season

I've just been looking at the BARB top thirty stats for week ended 27th July. If you knock out soaps and the perennial Casualty and Holby, the top rated BBC 1 drama came in at number 24. What do you think it was? Have a guess, no cheating.

It was The Chase with 3.6 million viewers.

What?????????? Shurely shome mishtake? Surely BBC 1 have a drama series that can get higher than number 24 and 3.6 million? Apparently not that week. Waking the Dead and Jeckyll trailed in it's wake. Surprising to me because I like them better but there you go. Heroes on BBC2 blew them all away.

Okay I know it's summer and they are saving their crown jewels for the dark winter months.....I hope, but it's no use complaining about audience fragmentation when they seem to go out of their way to cause it. As banks, power and phone companies are finding out, if you want loyalty buy a cocker spaniel.

The networks are in year round competition now with non-terrestial, and so it is frustrating that they still seem to use the same model as 30 years ago, which was basically summer was for repeats and 2nd rate shows with only the occassional bone thrown to us. They can no longer rely on loyal viewers coming back to them when the nights draw in. We've scanned the schedules found them wanting and headed for cable, dvd, internet and the pub. And there ain't no guarantee we're coming back. They really do need to raise the bar or end up catering to the over sixties exclusively.

Anyway, what I really wanted to talk about was glue. That is my highly technical term for what makes an audience stick to a show. The thing that makes us want to hang out with these guys week after week. Doesn't matter if it's thriller, comedy, relationship drama, they all need the glue. I don't care how twisty your thriller is. I don't care how funny some of your lines are and I don't care what problems your soap family have. What I do care about is who are the twists happening to? Who is delivering the funny line and who are the members of the family with problems? And curmudgeon that I am, if you don't make me care about them I won't be tuning in.

Only Fools and Horses was a show I never found all that funny really. A good giggle here and there. But I watched it regularly. Because I loved Del . The trier, the ducker and diver, the eternal optimist with a heart of gold.

The Green Green Grass spin-off. Same writer, same style, but not on my watch list. Because Boysie is a bit of an arse with few redeeming features. Not enough glue.

Heroes is on my must watch list, but you know, without the Hiro Nakamura character I think it would be on my dipping in list. For me, he's the glue.

Does anyone remember a single Inspector Morse plot? I doubt it. No doubt they were well thought out and caused the writers several headaches. And we'd kick up a stink if they were rubbish. But we didn't want to see a story per se, that's not what we tuned in for. We wanted to see Morse solve something. Something intriguing yes, but that was just a close second. He was the glue.

For me, Glue equals memorable empathetic characters in situations that let them shine. Crack that and the chances are you're on your way to a hit TV show.

Another T.L.A

Yes in the land of the three letter acronym here's another one. DOE.

I think I just made it up. It means Don't Overthink Everything.

I was shooting the shit with a writer mate this afternoon, just this and that, and one topic of conversation was the scripts I've been sent and currently reading. One of the posters was kind enough to point out that my notes are largely devoid of any guru speak. It's not something I really go in for. I kinda know about MDQ's and USP's and arc and dilemma and POV and ....blah, blah, blah....... but I can't get away from the fact that 'hey, we're telling stories here, people!'

When you tell fairy tales to your kids are you thinking about act breaks and mid points and P.O.N.R's and MDQ's? Of course not. Story telling is instinctive. To me, dressing it up with fancy names is just a way for gurus to appear more intelligent and sell more books and for execs to trot out to try and make people think they know what they are talking about! Unfortunately it means writers have to learn the language too so they can communicate with them!

I kid ....... a little. But it seems like a layer designed to add mystique to the process. There is so much information out there, and while it is easy to say ''keep what works, discard what doesn't'' how do you know what works unless you try it? Sometimes I wonder how anyone who has read half a dozen of these books can write anything. I'd be frozen to the spot.

I only have one golden rule. Don't be boring. Because that works on every level. Pace, tone, character, action, dialogue, narrative....... everything. It's a mantra I try to keep to on every page, heck every line.

A story generally has a begining a middle and an end. The key is to have story moving all the way through the acts to reach an inevitable conclusion. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Each scene relating to the spine of your story. The stakes getting higher, the jeopardy greater. Yes you throw in twists and reversals and complications but you can't lose sight of the fact that what you are doing is telling a story.

Because that is what story telling is. Someone goes on a physical and/or emotional journey to attain a goal and we want to go with them. They meet obstacles and face jeopardy. And end up with a resolution that is happy ever after.....or not.

How you actually structure that can make your screenplay live or die. But think about it? If the story is told appropriately then good structure will happen anyway.

''Someone goes on a physical and/or emotional journey and we want to go with them?'' There's your first act right there. You've set it up so that we're invested in the character so when they are propelled into the second act by the inciting incident [ doesn't count as guru speak because I use it!] we duly follow.

''They meet obstacles and face jeopardy'' Sounds like a second act to me. Nice big reversal half way through and a bigger one at the end to take us to.........

A resolution that is happy ever after .....or not.

Okay that all sounds pretty simple, but it is my honest belief that it actually is. Sure the hard part is coming up with an original story. But that is what being a writer is about. Almost anybody can read a book and trot out 110 pages of what looks very much like a screenplay. Story telling is instinctive though. Everyone can do it, so long as they don't get bamboozled into thinking it is some mysterious black art with a few mystic gurus holding the keys. Read a lot of scripts. Write a lot of scripts. Hone your talent and your craft.

BUT D.O.E

Who Are You?

A script I was sent recently also included detailed character bios. I mean detailed down to preference of breakfast cereal.

Never send character bios with your script unless it is part of a pitch document for TV. And in that case it is broad strokes only, a couple of paras per character.
Personally, I rarely use them, except in the above case when it's pretty much a necessity.

I know that is sacrillege to some teachers, but I'm not a teacher. I'm not saying they're wrong, heck there are no absolutes in writing but when I create a character, normally after I have an idea and premise, [see previous post] I have just a few things in my head.

What do they want and how does that change?
What was their upbringing like and how can I use it?
What do they fear and how can I use it?
What are their relationships, familial and personal and how can I use them?
What are their quirks and habits, if any and how can I use them?

And that's about it. When I have that in my head I don't need to write it down. I work on inhabiting that character. It's a kind of osmosis, so that when I come to write that character, I am that character.

No wonder my marriage didn't last! I kid, it's not as spooky as it sounds. But I find it helps me to tailor dialogue and action to that specific character instinctively.

Because those five questions are all I think you really need to ''know'' your character. I suppose I could expand the answers to those questions to fill a couple of pages but simply by thinking about them, lodging them in my head, more feeling it than thinking specifics, I find I get to know them for their specific purpose. The reason for their creation. To drive or react to story.

It's about character traits and archetypes more than what side someone gets out the bed every morning.

In my pro reading days I once got a sci fi script to read and it was about twenty pages in before I actually reached the script. There were about 5 pages explaining what the script was about and 15 pages of bios for just about every speaking character.

Obviously I ignored them and went on to read the script. When I had read the script I went back to the bios. I had to out of curiosity. Because the script was terrible. I mean really terrible. Fifth rate knock-off of a very, very bad episode of the first series of Star Trek. Plodding. predictable story, cardboard characters, on the nose dialogue throughout.......just awful.

The bios were actually the best part of the script. Someone had been to college and been taught how to write them. Unfortunately they were completely wasted because virtually nothing in any of the bios actually came out in the script pages. Not in sub-text, actions, story ........nothing.

I felt if more time had been spent creating characters that would actually drive or react to story in a meaningful way rather than just creating characters, then the script might not have ended up quite the mess it was.

To me character and story are symbiotic, anything else is a waste of paper.

I feel Empathy

I took a look at my last week's entire TV viewing. It consisted of Scrubs, Two and a Half Men, Heroes, Dexter, Studio 60, My Name is Earl, a couple of documentaries, Newsnight Review, and a couple of movies, Winchester 73 [Yay!] And the Da Vinci Code [jesus, that sucked]

Finally I came across something homegrown I could actuallty sit through. Empathy on BBC1. Okay it's not the most original premise - a guy sees your past - and possibly future judging by the trailer for next week's ep - by touching you or something that belongs to you. Kinda seen it and done it, though not on BBC1 recently.

But in the main it was slickly done, well acted, directed and written and though I thought the last act was a bit pony, the story held you pretty much to the end. Something that has been very sadly lacking in most recent dramas.

Kudos to Steve Lightfoot the writer who came up from the ranks of script ed to writer to producer, doing all three pretty much at the same time on Casualty.

Is it a series though? Time will tell. I hope so.

Idea to Story

There have been some good blog discussions around on which comes first - character or story. I think the concensus was 'whatever works for you'. Which I think is absolutely right. But to me, and this may be entirely personal, it's a bit like arguing over the most important ingredient in a chicken salad sandwich. Most people forget to mention the bread. And without that you've got well ...... a chicken salad.

To me the bread is the ''idea''. The very basic kernal that hits you as a good concept. Something that can be explored dramatically or comedically. How you then proceed to explore that idea is a matter for individual preference.

But if you don't expand that idea into a premise first then you are making life very hard for yourself. This is the way I approach it and the terminology I use. Your mileage may vary.

Here's an idea - We all think we are living our normal lives, but it's all an illusion created by robot overlords.

Here's a premise. - one of us wakes up from the illusion and discovers the truth. They also find that there are others who have 'woken up'. Together they fight to destroy the robot overlords and restore humanity.

Wow, I hope nobody steals that one! lol

Okay, so I've got an idea and a premise. I haven't even thought about character or story to this point. And I'm still not gonna. I'm going to think about ''theme''

I'm getting a very ''underground, let's stick it to The Man'' vibe from this premise. We are all controlled in our lives by outside forces - laws, customs, convention. We should be free to make our own heaven or hell stripped back to the bare bones of good versus evil.

Heaven and Hell? Good versus evil? Mmmmmmm? Very west coast pseudo religious? So what if our protag was a messiah like character? An unwilling messiah who over the course is forced to accept his destiny. Yeah, that's good. That's a great sub-plot and character arc rolled into one.

What about the antag? I don't think I want a huge super robot, the concept is so big I want to reduce the antag to something recognisible and identifiable. So let's see - it has human like form but is pretty well invincible. Ahhhhh- except to our protag when he finally accepts his destiny as the chosen one. Yeah baby! - on a roll now.

Etc, etc etc............. refining and refining until character and story come together.

See, only now am I thinking about character and story. Not plot. Story. And pretty much at the same time. But before I got anywhere near character and story I needed idea and premise. The bread in the sandwich.

The Logic Gap

Those I've been giving notes to will recognise that phrase well! An extreme [and fictitous!] example - A guy gets a breakfast flight from London to New York. A few scenes later he's back in London in time to pick his son up from school.

Logically, that's not going to happen. But it's the kind of thing that can easily creep into a script if you aren't on the look out. It may sound petty. And if you got a note like that you might think ''What the hell? Does it matter ?''

The answer is it really does. Logic gaps can kill you stone dead. Suspension of disbelief is the hold you have over the audience. But that hold is tenuous and is very easily broken. Logic gaps stand out like an erection in a convent.

That logic gap might mean nothing to most of the audience but a great deal to others. For example, a show I watched recently had a British girl announce she was going to work as a sales assistant in a shop ......... in America. Ummmmmmm no. I'm afraid the INS aren't going to allow that to happen. ''Sales assistant'' figures lower than whale crap in the list of occupations likely to get a work visa. Granted I may have noticed that more because I wrote the fucking episode. But not that particular line!

Bang! I was out of the story. Just like that. Okay that was a research matter more than a logic matter. But the same thing applies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those writers who has to know everything about everything I write about. I make shit up all the time. But I hope it's logical shit.

And the thing is, many of these logic gaps do make it to the screen, essentially because they are not picked up early enough.

The writer is so close to the script they don't see it. The editor has different proplems with the script and doesn't notice. The producer is more concerned with snaffling an actor for the lead and budget problems. The director is busy looking at motivation and scene construction and location. The actors are......well.... actors. lol

So as well as your Character pass, and dialogue pass and action pass, I'd also throw in a logic pass.

Thanks to all who sent scripts. I'm nearing the end of the current batch now so if any one else fancies a read from a pro, now's the time.

Bergman and Antonioni

Both dead in the same week? That saddens me. When I was a kid I thought they were the two most boring fuckers on the planet. When I was a teenager I could just about stand them if some hot brainy chick dragged me to the movies. Long as I got some heavy petting.

In my twenties I actually started really watching their movies.

In my thirties I understood them. Might not have liked them all but understood them.

Poets and masters, both. God speed.

The Sequel

Just musing here. Was Godfather Part 2 the first time Hollywood made a sequel as good or better than the original rather than being just being a cynical cash register opening exercise?

By sequal I mean a continuation rather than a series of movies with the same characters but in different and non connected situations.

I feel I've forgotten about something here but can't put my finger on it. Any help would be appreciated. I'm not talking about The Thin Man or Sherlock Holmes or Airport or Carry On films, or Bond, but more about the ''saga'' type sequal.

''Blockbuster'' films with numbers in the title seem to have started in the seventies. Damn near forty years ago. I'm racking my brains to come up with those that to me were equal to or surpassed the original, but there have been some.

I think Spiderman 2 was as good as the first. I think The Two Towers was actually better than the first. Scream 2 was pretty much just as good as the first. T2 was as good if not better than Terminator. Empire Strikes Back was as good as the first. Indiana Jones? Meh, patchy but worth seeing. Austin Powers? One movie too many but liked the first two for different reasons. Then I'm struggling.

Alien - Aliens and all that followed? Different genres. Can't compare them. Liked most of them but can't compare them to the original.

Rocky? Same story each time. A soap with fisticuffs.

Jaws? Don't get me started. Sequals to make you puke with the cheek of those making them. They give entertainment a bad name.

POTC went slightly downhill after the original but I think the original was one of the most perfectly constructed movies ever, so bettering it was not really on the cards. But who gives a shit. They still took squillions.

I started this post as I do most. Not really knowing what I was trying to say. But I think I'm trying to say that unless a sequal is as good or better than the original the audience will damn you to hell. One of the reasons you rarely see a writer of the original movie on a sequal or series of films.

Unless that writer has the clout to try to make it better. And that doesn't happen very often. LOTR and POTC apart. What does that say? Mmmmmmm don't know. Still musing.

Episodic

If, on a movie script you get feedback saying it is Episodic then that isn't generally a good thing. In a couple of the scripts I've been sent that I've so far read I've noticed that trait in what were otherwise well written pieces.

In life things happen one after another. In movies they happen BECAUSE of each other. Call it narrative drive or story engine or whatever.

In these particular scripts there were scenes where X happened and characters reacted. Then Y happened and characters reacted. But X and Y weren't connected nor advanced the story individually.

No matter how well written these scenes were you were left wondering why they were actually in the script. Yes they perhaps gave more insight or flesh on the bones of a character. But good structure would have been to construct the scene so that if that was the intention then it came about in a scene that was a direct consequence of story and leads on to another consequence of the same story.

Of course some scripts are more Episodic than others by the nature of the piece. Kevin Smith movies tend to be Episodic more than story driven. But the scripts I'm talking about were action thrillers.

In this genre, pace is vital. Pace will be helped by a strong narrative drive. X leads to Y leads to Z.

Hype and Glory?

In Media Guardian, Owen Gibson talks to TV writer, Tony Jordan.
Sometimes, says Jordan, you have to wait for the climate to change before a show can get made. "I was born for this era. I'm 50 next week, but I wish I was 25 again. Because I was born for this era of high-concept, bold ideas. The six ideas I pitched this week I would never have got made or even got through the door before," he enthuses.

Well I hope that's true. Okay I know a new prodco needs a steady earner, so I can see the sense in Red Planet pushing Holby Blue as a flagship show. And okay new soap Echo Beach as a back up. And new drama Moving Wallpaper, a show about behind the scenes on Echo Beach as ........ well I'm not really sure what that is. It's a bit like Aaron Sorkin doing a behind the scenes drama about the people making the behind the scenes drama of Studio 60. Out of the three I would perhaps count that as ''bold'' because I have absolutely no idea whether it will be a complete bomb or a hit. I have reservations but it will be down to execution in the end.

But serious congrats to Tony Jordan on his fecundity. Pitching six bold, high concept ideas in a week is pretty good going. If they are being seriously considered that must be good news for us all. I just hope they weren't Holby FireBrigade, Holby Postmen, Holby LateNight, Holby...........

I kid. Tony Jordan is a very savvy guy. We all know that bold high concept isn't exactly a recurring feature of current UK TV. So what he's really saying here is - the times they are a changing. Or - in coded message to execs - the times they better start a changing and you better start a listening.

Studio 60

I saw the first ep on more4 last night. And ....... I thought it was excellent. I know it has had mixed reviews in the States and has been cancelled or put on hiatus or whatever. But it will be required Thursday night viewing for me.

It seems to me that a lot of the negative reviews were to do with the qualityof the comedy routines performed on the 'live show'. There wasn't much of that in the opener anyway but I can't see that bothering me even if it does feature in later episodes. The show isn't about how to make a comedy sketch show in the same way that ER isn't about how to perform a liver transplant.

I think Aaron Sorkin was always on a hiding to nothing with the critics. How do you top The West Wing? And self referential tv with in- jokes and barbed criticisms biting the hand that feeds you makes some, I think, believe that Sorkin is getting too big for his boots. More power to him I say.

He set his stall out in the first five minutes with that brilliant homage to Network. Judd Hirsch's rant was painful, passionate and true. That was Sorkin shooting from the hip.

Dialogue was smart without being smart-alec. Story was a bit predictable but had to be really. The main thing is I want to spend time with these guys. And for me that is always the true test. I was slightly surprised to read it was only the 10th in the channels all time ratings list. That is unfortunate because it gives execs ammunition for that old chestnut that the audience aren't interested in seeing movies and TV about movies and TV.

And a special mention to Heroes, which helped BBC2 wipe the floor with BBC1.

Such a blast

.......... reading these scripts. I forgot how much I enjoyed script analysis and am getting quite a buzz. I've got about a weeks work ahead of me out of my three week window so if anyone else is interested please feel free to contact me on english.dave@hotmail.co.uk

Concept

I've had some interesting sounding projects sent my way for reading, so thanks guys I'm really looking forward to it. Because in every case so far, even if it is just a title, I can tell it has an appealing concept.

And that is sooooooooooooo important. Because concept sells. Of course story and character are vital. But concept gets you read. And when you are starting out, getting read is the most important thing. Perhaps not so much when you are established, especially not in TV.

Here are two recent TV shows. Both 9pm one hour series. True Dare Kiss and Time of Your Life. Both written by established writers.

To me True Dare Kiss doesn't have much of a concept. It is a relationship drama pure and simple. It also managed just 2.8 mill viewers last episode. That may have nothing to do with the quality of the show and everything to do with the fact it has no 'attractor'' to make it required viewing. The ''attractor'' doesn't have to be concept. It can be a ''difference'' factor. Like ''This Life'' Not a huge concept but a show of its time. It was different from the standard fare yet hit a collective nerve for the time and place we were all at. That is down to good writing. Real writing. Because a writer should be ahead of the pack. Reflecting universal truths that resonate on a much deeper level than the obvious story.

Time of Your Life does have a strong concept. A woman wakes up after 18 years in a coma. But it got 4 mill viewers. Better than True Dare Kiss obviously but still the lowest figure for the series, and it was the final ep! My theory on that is that it is a strongish concept, but more for a movie or a one or two parter. Six hours is a heck of a stretch for the way that story was told and I think that's what the audience thought.

So concept isn't just about the idea. The concept has to fit the medium. In mainstream movies concept is king. Wedding Crashers, Forty Year Old Virgin, Liar Liar, etc etc. They do what they say on the tin. They are specifically designed to get the prospective audience saying 'hey that looks interesting' from a twenty second trailer. Interested enough to get off their arse on a wet Thursday night and shell out hard earned pesos.

It's been a while since I've seen anything on TV that gave me that reaction. And more and more in a competitive viewing world that is what I think TV has to do. In fact you are probably pretty sick of me saying that.

I rile against relationship dramas not because I have anything against them but because that seems to be the limit of the execs ambitions. John Yorke was at a seminar recently, with Debbie Horsefield [True Dare Kiss writer] sitting beside him. Someone from the floor asked what he was looking for drama wise. Yorkie beamed and said 'The next Debbie Horsefield' Okay given the normal luvviedom endemic in TV you can take that with a pinch of salt, but given the ratings figures that is maybe a statement that will come back to haunt him. No offence to Debbie Horsefield. A pro writer will tend to write what they think has a chance of being commissioned. If it seems relationship dramas are what the execs want then that is what they will write. To be perfectly honest I don't know of one pro writer who hasn't complained about the state of UK drama. The soap mentality seems to be riding roughshod over just about everything.

On the other hand, I had a twenty something year old dev exec recently tell me she was looking for emotionally truthful, contemporary, four quadrant drama with a USP. I just nodded. What else can you do? Other than say ''ummmmmm isn't everyone but do you actually know what that is and how difficult it is to find, and even if I had it what are the chances of anyone other than you and I thinking it has a chance of getting made in the current climate ?''


Oh and while I remember those of you who now know who I am? I'd appreciate some discretion. It's a small world and I want to be able to pour bile as I see fit! Thankyou.

Reading Services

I have a few weeks between projects and want to keep busy but quite frankly don't feel like writing a spec. It occurs to me that there aren't that many avenues a pre pro writer can go down to get solid professional evaluation, hints and tips on their work.

With nine years as a pro writer preceded by three years as a pro reader for the likes of Pathe, Momentum etc I think I'm in a position to give a pretty good opinion on both the technical and commercial aspects of a script and would like to assist those struggling for a toe hold. I remember what it was like.

I can't do it for free but don't want to make anything more than pocket money so I figure that £60 a script is not unreasonable for the time involved.

If anyone feels this might be useful then post an email addy and I'll get back to you. I have about 3 weeks and will work on a first come first served basis.

The Sky's The Limit

I'm off for a week and don't want to even look at a computer so this is my last post for ...well....a week.

Sky 1's viewing figures have fallen by a third since last year. Can't say I'm surprised, for a number of reasons.

Yes they have shows like Lost and 24 ..........The Simpsons ....and.........Futerama reruns and ....I got nothing, mind's a blank.

Those are the only shows on Sky 1 that register with me in any way. 2 Drama shows nicked from the American networks and 2 cartoons.

They do have that Mile High thingy about cabin crew and that football thing whose name always escapes me. Both produced on half a shoestring by Hewland International. But I don't even know if they are still being commissioned such is my level of interest. When Fox cancelled Family Guy. Twice. I realised that quality was not their watchword. It wasn't even their wa.

To me, Rupert Murdoch is BSkyB. And I'm sure he doesn't give a shit that Sky1 ratings are plummeting so long as the platform he owns continues to grow. And it does. Overall ratings for non terrestial TV are about a third higher than terrestial. We are all watching paramount comedy and movies and Hallmark and yes I'll admit FX and of course, the jewel in the crown, Premier League football.

But without showcasing network shows Sky 1 sucks. Maybe they should rethink their strategy. No wait, didn't they do Hogfather? That was supposed to be good. Does anyone know?

Bums on Seats

It is partly because due to a bug, that is where my bum currently is much of the time, and partly due to the fact I think I made some sense for a change that I'm taking a comment I made in the previous post and using that as the basis for this one.

''Typical UKTV concept - a family/couple/postalworkers/ hairdressers/ have some interpersonal difficulties.

Typical USA concept - A BattleStar/Serial Killer policeman/ mafia family have some interpersonal difficulties. Set against a background of Universal truth. It's in the hook.

Get people watching because of the hook, then keep them hooked with good story telling.

Simple, one would think.''

That was it. Given my normal hyperbole I think that is pretty fair comment by and large. I think UK TV is guilty of thinking it has a captive audience. Demonographers or whatever they call themselves will give execs reams of data about ABC1 viewers at 8pm and the execs will merrily set about continuing to attract that ever shrinking pot.

And lose sight of the fact that it is an ever shrinking pot because nostalgia ain't what it used to be. Most people no longer sit round the telly at night as a matter of course. We have to be drawn there. It is one of a number of different forms of entertainment, of which cable is included as a different form. The best TV from around the world [ok mostly USA] at the click of a button, unless you can't afford it, in which case the marketers aren't very interested in your views on Terrestial TV anyway.

This is a difficult time for UKTV but one of it's own making. Times change. The balance of programming has to change. My belief right now is that there is far too much writer/producer/exec mutual wank festing going on where we end up with a heap of cheapo relationship dramas bereft of any real reason why someone who didn't know said writer/producer/exec would actually sit down and watch it.

Give me a concept I dig. Execute it well. Then I might make an appointment. That's how you get bums on seats.

Meet Bill Martell

An open invitation to join Bill for a few beers tonight MONDAY 9th July.

7,30 pm outside Holborn Tube.

A Father Figure Who Does Oral

Wow, this might be an NC 17 post. Or X rated as my generation calls it. Apologies to my writer mate who is nicking the line for a script lol, but my standard joke answer to ''what do women want'' also strikes me as a good, non gender orientated mode of behaviour for writers with regards to their relationship with producers.

A father figure is stable, balanced, circumspect, is willing to compromise and will do what is best for the good of the family/project.

He's also willing to give his missus a bit of pleasure just to make her feel good.

But sometimes the father figure has to say enough is enough. Kids are getting out of hand or his tongue gets cramp.

Knowing when to say enough is enough and actually being listened to depends on the gravitas you have built up and if you can actually enounciate ''enough'' with a tongue cramp.

A rant a day helps you work rest and.......retire

I rant because I am. It's what makes me who I am. I rant against the system in this blog. That is nothing compared to how much I rant against myself. That is what inspires me.

I don't analyse why I write. I write because I do. I despise the politics of TV and Film. Great entertainment generally gets made despite the infrastructure not because of it. My aged teeth help me live with it but not agree with it.

But I keep doing it. I am fit for nothing else. It is a compunction. I've earned a living for a good number of years as a writer. Most of what I've written is shit. Well paid shit but still shit. To someone trying to break in that sounds like manna from heaven.

But here is the downright truth. If you think breaking in is hard then try finding a current blog from a newbie poster in 3 years time. Breaking in is hard. Multiply it by a few factors to get what a career is.

That's not egoism on my part. I don't give a crap about ego. I know any writer is only as good as their last script. That's what I love about it. I know when my last script was crap. And I know it was obviously someone elses fault.

Definitely.

And I need that assuredness to make me a good writer.

Maybe?

Definitely?

Could be?

Ah hell, Popeye said it all. I ams what I ams.

Will the last viewer to leave please turn off the TV

So ITV has lost 5.4% of it's year on year audience in the first half of 2007. That doesn't sound a lot but it is brown pants time for the execs.

I can fully understand the decrease in viewers. Sure they've had some hits like X Factor and UK Has Talent or whatever it's called. But in the drama field? Can you think of any remotely stand out ITV series? Primeval maybe? Any of those 9pm one and two parters have any more resonance than a fart in a hurricane?

Where are the 'Life On Mars' and the Spooks and Hustles? The State of Plays and The State Within's? As for comedy, do they actually have a comedy department?

One of ITV's problems stems from the fact that producers have no idea what they are looking for. Network Centre held a meeting a few months back to try to give some indication. But producers and agents I have spoken to left the meeting more confused than before. The net result is ITV becomes the last port of call when pitching projects.

Blue Murder replaced the ailing Tycoon but faired little better with a miserable 2.4 million at 9pm. I think it deserves better figures than that but the 9pm ITV slot has become a ghost town with viewers and that is very hard to turn round.

Soap and Reality is what ITV is surviving on at the moment. The danger is it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

To Mars and beyond!

I see a lot of blog buzz about Red Planet's £5000 competition. On one hand I applaud any initiative that offers a way in to the biz. On the other I say to Tony Jordan make it £20,000 so I know it's not just a self publicity gimmick.

No pro writer gets out of bed for 5 grand. And so far if you are not one of Tony's EastEnders mates you have little chance of getting on his shows. That's understandable. And I accept that.

But I hate the crap that goes on on network TV. When a writer with power has a chance to make a difference - then make a difference for fuck's sake. I hope he does.

A summer dip

TV loses about a third of it's audience in the Summer months. Quite understandable really, who's going to stay in on a gorgeous summer night when a BBQ is beckoning. It's why the movie industry also uses the summer months to release all the arty crap they have on their books and save the blockbusters for February. Yoiks! It's also obviously the reason why the networks keep their real goodies for the cold dark winter months as we huddle round our parrafin heaters searching for escape.

Viewing hours per week peak at around 32 in the Winter and dip to around 22 in the Summer. That is a mighty whack and plays havoc with the commercial networks who rely on advertising revenue - linked to ratings. Maybe they should take a leaf out of the movie industry books? Maybe, rather than buying into a self fulfilling prophecy?

It is also the reason why year round shows like The Bill are so important, as is the networks ceaseless search for long running drama. The Holy Grail. Which is why Holby Blue has been given another chance despite not breaking into the top thirty.

But sometimes I think the BBC forgets it doesn't have the same ratings pressure as the commercial channels. Or rather they have a self imposed ratings pressure to prove who's got the biggest swinging dick. I read a quote by Tony Jordan saying Holby Blue was attempting to push back the boundaries of pre-watershed TV.

All credit to him. A creator should always be willing to go in to bat for his programme. And maybe that is what he is trying to do. But I think he has been saboutaged by the BBC doing what they do best. Hugely underestimating the audience.

The crass sacrificing of Holby City to a Thursday night slot pissed off a lot of Holby City fans. Holby is a non-brand, despite what the marketers might be saying. Very few people watching Holby City care that it is supposed to be a spin-off from Casualty.

I honestly think they would have been much better calling Holby Blue a generic cop name and having nothing to do with Holby. But in a land where the marketers seem to have ascendency over the creatives [pretty much all of showbusiness] I am pissing against the wind here. But hell, that's the writers lot.

Net result though - Holby City loses a million viewers overnight and Holby Blue doesn't appear on the top thirty radar.

The audience is not dumb. I am the fucking audience. You good people who are kind enough to read and post here are the fucking audience. I may not be smart but I can spot a phoney move when I see it. And resent it sufficiently to tune out. As many of you obviously have.

Jesus Joney Macaroni

True Dare Kiss ''won'' the ratings with 4.4 million at 9 pm.

There's a headline from Broadcast to chill the soul if ever I heard one.

Location Location Location got 4.8 million.

Enough already with the relationship dramas. WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless maybe it's about a chef buying a house.....abroad...... at an auction......against the clock.....and we vote on it.

TV drama nowadays has to be more than something I can see out my window any day of the week. Talk To Me, The Chase, Waterloo Road, mindless fucking pap. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for mindless fucking pap but only as part of a calorie controlled diet as they say. If that's all you eat you're heading for a stroke. And that's pretty much all that's on the menu it seems.

I watched an episode of ER this morning. It was fantastic. A real moral and ethical question at stake. Innovative writing and production. I caught two minutes of Casualty on Saturday. Nothing happened.

Perhaps I am part of the MTV generation with a short attention span. Or perhaps I am part of the generation not willing to accept space filling dross as entertainment?

I'm plumping for the latter.

What the hell has got to happen

...before TV execs get it into their heads that something is rotten in the State of Primark? Land of cut price TV.

Jeckyll lost a million plus viewers on Saturday. Time of Your Life a whopping 2 million plus. I can't comment on the quality because I've watched neither. But I respect the writers hugely. So I'd be interested to hear any comments on either.

But as ratings in general continue to spiral downwards I can't help thinking that a comment made by Zigster in the previous post hits the nail on the head. Much of what is on is bland middle of the road PC inspired pap. And I'd also guess a lot of that is foisted on the writers and not their choice.

You hear some of the old school writers talk wistfully about the heady days of the 70's and 80's when the writer was king. Can you imagine a script editor or producer or network exec telling Dennis Potter or Alan Plater or Troy Kennedy Martin what should and shouldn't be in their scripts? Very changed days my friends I can assure you.

The current and recent regimes seem to be of the opinion that a writer is a disposable asset to be moulded and shaped into their way of thinking. A mercenary to be indoctrinated and pointed in the right direction to fight the battle they are incapable of fighting. It is their issues and agendas that are pushed. There is no question in my mind that creativity is being stifled by those at the top. Save your arse TV might save your arse for a short time. But drama is about taking risks and I see little evidence of that.

It is this one size fits all mentality that is destroying UK TV. Nero was an amatuer compared to these guys.

Writers work on confidence. Confidence gives them voice. Voice is what distinguishes good drama. A bunch of cloned script eds and execs with the mentality that it is their script and you are just the hired gun does not inspire confidence.

Unfortunately given the total guff that has been on screen recently I now can't actually be bothered to watch any UK drama. Jeckyll and Time of Your Life may be excellent for all I know, but until I hear that they are I'm not going to put my self through the horror of another disappointment.

Too much Eostragen?

.... was something my agent said the other day [the male one] in response to what is wrong with British TV. Now I've never really thought about it in those terms before and I don't think I agree. I'm certainly not going off on a Sir Patrick Moore rant but it does give food for thought.

Jana Bennett - BBC Director of Vision [whatever the hell that is] Jane Tranter Controller BBC Fiction, Lucy Lumsden -Controller BBC Comedy. ITV Network Centre dominated by women. The Bill, Doctors, Casualty and a host of others exec produced and largely script edited by women.

In case anyone thinks I'm off on a mysoginistic screed I thought long and hard before posting this. Again let me say I don't think I agree, but it is something that perhaps should be discussed and the day I self censor on PC grounds is the day I quit blogging.

The main reason I don't think I agree, certainly as far as exec producers go, is I've dealt with some who have a lot more balls than some of their male counterparts. But at the same time I can't help wondering why it is that the young male audience is what the networks crave and yet make such a hash of attracting?

I think it is a fact that women tend to watch more drama than men. But is that because the drama being produced is more female-centric? Or is female-centric drama being produced because that is naturally the bigger audience? Would more male-centric drama entice male viewers back? Or have we stopped tuning in because our tiny minds are engrossed elsewhere in a cornucopia of distractions?

So many questions. But here's a point to ponder. In most sit- coms the male is portrayed as the bumbling buffoon and the female the stable voice of reason. And most sit-coms are written by males. Perhaps we are our own worst enemies?

The business of show

A very rich man and big risk taker once told me his philosophy in business. ''If you owe the bank ten thousand pounds you've got a problem. If you owe them ten million, they've got a problem.''

It was just after hearing that Holby Blue has been commissioned for a second [and bigger] series that this came into my head for some reason.

Because a bank will not hesitate to pull the plug on Joe Schmoe and his small fry, and therefore non career threatning debts, but how do you think Enron and Robert Maxwell got away with it for so long?

Now, maybe Holby Blue is a grower. 8 eps is not a long run to build an audience on what is hoped is a long running show. But given that it seems to be failing to even break into the top thirty ratings wise [as of June 10th, maybe ratings have improved] you've got to be thinking that particular recommission was more to do with personality, reputation, and BBC politics rather than what the audience actually wants to watch, Much like the second series of New Street Law.

HBO are producing some of the best TV around right now. I think that has got to be because the audience vote with their hard earned cash. It concentrates the mind and leaves no room for empire building.

This is a business. Like a clothes shop. We are the customer. We might not like some of the products but if we think we can still find something of good quality and style that we love we'll keep coming back.

I haven't found much to love lately. Apart from the excellent Trawlermen. More addictive and emotional than a bagfull of the latest 'dramas' .

I pitched a drama series about fishermen a while back. Was told it was too expensive and nobody was interested in fishing boats. Hey ho.

The Academy

No, not the Oscars. The BBC Writers Academy. From what I understand a number of writers are taken on, given a salary and guaranteed at least one ep of Casualty EastEnders, Holby and Doctors. They shadow exisiting writers, learning the ropes and then press on with their own episodes.

I think that's the bones of it. I may be wrong. And to me it sounds like a good thing. With so few avenues available for the new writer to break in this sounds like a great opportunity.

However, I hear rumblings. This being the BBC it seems to have taken on a political aspect. Academy writers are allegedly being given more than the one ep guarantee on orders from above. Read The Yorkie Bar Kid.

This is pissing off both script editors, who have a lot more hand holding to do, and existing writers because it is taking bread out of their mouths. I guess it also engenders a degree of resentment because those exisiting writers had to come through the trenches, not be handed the keys to the kingdom.

But times change, and overall I like the idea that the door has been opened a little. But I have a proviso. There is another Academy, one run by Paul Abbot. I have no idea how you get on it. But bearing in mind his comment on the BBC Academy which was basically ''They are training writers to write shit'' Given the choice I know which Academy I'd be trying to get in to.

I also know that if I were a new writer offered a place on the BBC Academy I'd snap their hand off.

Ratings and Rantings

I'm looking at the BARB figures for week ended 3rd June. And if I'm scratching my head then you can bet that network execs are shitting their pants. I'm intrigued. They are seeing their pensions flying out the window. Well apart from the BBC where failure upwards is the preferred method of promotion.

I wrote my last episode of Casualty maybe 18 months ago. Close on 10 million viewers. [See the Writers Guild blog and Gregory Evans' ballsy Casualty post for an insight into how disposable we writers are] For week ended 3rd June? 6.3 million.

Holby City, which used to push Casualty in the ratings is down to 5 million. [Okay blame the Yorkie Bar Kid for screwing with the scheduling so he could pimp the abysmal Holby Blue]

The Bill [ used to write for this too, around 7 million if I recall] 3rd June? 4.3 million.

BBC's biggest non soap drama? Are visions of blue police boxes flashing through your head? Well close. Hypothermically blue policemen would be closer, because it is New Tricks with a whopping 8.5 million.

I think it is quite watchable by the way and I don't care if you make jokes about my incontinence pants.

The Chase was equalled by BBC2 live nature programme Springwatch. Nuff said.

Here's the English Dave solution. Give the vast majority of the population a reason to come back to network TV. Get rid of the apparatchicks and get creative people making creative shows.

You know the main reason I'm scratching my head? I can't understand how they've screwed it up so badly. How they've let the most powerful medium the world has ever seen be relegated to a Woolworths pick n mix. Some are okay but mostly you have a bag full of crap.

Notes That Don't Make Music

Ah yes, the thorny subject of notes. Script Eds and Development Execs vary from show to show and company to company in their approach. Their brief, whether instructed or of their own volition can vary wildly in the detail of the notes given. From the broadest strokes on structure and tone to micro-managing every scene including their own take on dialogue.

How you deal with these notes, and note givers, goes a long way to determining your length of career.
Here's what not to do. Don't phone them up immediately after reading the notes and say -

''Who the fuck do you think you are? This is how I make my living. You've been in the job 2 minutes and you're telling me what to do? If you want to be a writer then fuck off and be one and stop ruining my script with your crap dialogue suggestions and take on character motivation. You wouldn't know motivation if it jumped up and bit your arse.''

Tempting I know, but it doesn't work for you as often as you might think. You see, it's all about the balance of power. If you want to move through the ranks it is not only a case of picking your battles, it is also a case of making them think it is an honourable draw when you win.
This months shavetail script ed is next months producer. Well, not quite but you get the drift. It's a small world and over the years I've seen a receptionist becoming a producer in eight years. And she likes me because I was always nice to her when she was a receptionist.

So, real life example. On Friday I got 2nd draft notes. I read them Friday night and to be honest wasn't overly impressed. 70% is suggested dialogue ''tweaks'' I.e ''this is what I would write if anyone would actually pay me to write.''

Damn I promised myself I wouldn't be sarky.

As a whole I reckon that about 15% of the notes help the script. 55% don't matter a damn to me either way as they are largely continuity issues arising from changes to previous episodes and 30% actively set the script back in my view.

Okay, what to do? Well the first thing to do is take a deep breath and not lift the phone. Think about what is being said and why. For example I know that several of the suggested dialogue changes I have been given are because the script ed has seen a line that looks jarring or out of context but hasn't recognised how it will play rather than read. Writers write with all the characters quirks, motivations and psychology in their head, and how that plays on screen, some script eds can't or don't read with the same viewpoint. A quick explanation on the phone and a ''wryly'' here and there will fix those.

The same related aspect goes for visual moments. A picture does paint a thousand words, but some script eds can't see past the words on the page. They read scripts like a novel, forgetting the potency of a visual. For a certain type of script ed, everything has to be explained in dialogue. Hopefully you won't come up against many of those but they are there, believe me. It is a writer 101 no -no, but they are not writers. Heck they are barely script eds.

I've identified the notes I have problems with. I've analysed why and come up with reasoned arguments or alternative suggestions. And on Monday I'll phone for a light hearted chat about it.

I'll be aiming for the honourable draw.

Don't get me wrong, I'm talking here about those times when problems arise. That isn't always the case.

Nice to end on a positive note!

45 Minute Focus

Okay, I didn't quite make the hour. I have various excuses at the ready. Gorgeous Blonde is car shopping today. She has a Mazda ''something'' sporty little thing with the weird back doors? She's changing it for something else that I think begins with T and might have 6 in the number. She did say, but cars are an area where my eyes glaze over. I just want something that starts when I turn the key and gets me where I want to go.

Needless to say, given my obvious level of expertise she feels she needs to call and text me at regular intervals to make sure my opinion of trim, options, finance and horsepower are taken into account. I drive a 14 year old Citroen. Nuff said.

Then I had a flash of inspiration of how to play the Manchester Cathedral level of Fall Of Man on ''Hard'' level. However, as it turned out The Very Reverend Rogers Govender was not an option on my weapons list.

Writer mate and I then bitched about a show, the industry, had a laugh and generally shot the breeze for a considerable length of time. The collective noun is indeed ''a bitch of writers''

But...... in my intense 45 minutes I firmed up the premise, got the theme and the 4 main characters. I call that a good day. I would have an ending too if I had made up my mind how long it was going to be. A movie? A two parter? A series? Don't know yet. But I feel so good I may even look at the notes I got at 5.30 on a Friday with a deadline for Monday. I know production need like 3 months to get their shit together when the most important part of the whole process is rushed through in an obscenely short space of time but.........oooops bitch bitch bitch!

One Hour Focus

My mind wanders easily. I don't beat myself up about it because I know that everything I see, hear, think or read will eventually find it's way into something I write in one form or another. But it is not particulary helpful when you wake up with the bones of a premise in your head and a day when you have other things pressing on you.

So I promise myself one hour. One hour of intense concentration. No internet, no email, no coffee no phone. Just me a pen and paper. I know from experience that in that one hour I will achieve much more than a whole day flapping around.

But it is very important that intense concentration is achieved. Not the half hearted ''I'll sit down and think about this'' With that, what tends to happen is when you hit a snag you give up and move on to the other pressing matters.

Intense concentration takes will power. And about an hour is all I can manage. But it will be by far the most valuable hour I spend today.

As far as writing is concerned, to my mind the time factor is always about quality more than quantity.

Ego - good or bad?

As you can probably tell, I slam down these posts in a stream of consciousness. There are spelling and grammar mistakes galore. And they are way more haphazard than most [but not all] paid writing I would submit.

Some might think that's because I don't care. Actually it is the opposite. This is my time. If people want to read this, and God bless the 100 or so a day of you die hards who do, then I think it is only right that you get the raw material not the sanatized 3 rewrite version. I'm ugly enough to take 'hey you spelled sanatized wrongly' and trade it off against emotional truth.

To be fair not once has anyone intimated that. Something that continues to make me want to post.
But someone, somewhere is thinking ''Man he has some ego on him, what makes him think he has anything valuable to say''

And the truth is I have nothing valuable to say other than explain how I feel about a given situation. That might resonate with others in the same position or help those who have yet to encounter that situation. Writers are always learning. Always.

I posted ealier about confidence. Confidence and Ego could be cousins.

But confidence is always good. Ego is good too but can be destructive when it blinds you to commercial realities.

Your Ego has to be a friend. One who tells you which battles to fight and even if you lose and it all goes tits up, then comforts you that you did the right thing.

But if your Ego throws you in a cage with a 300 pound chainsaw wielding psycho at every opportunity, then I'd rethink the company you keep.

I am saddened

Because a very good friend of mine has just quit a show. This is a show that went through some troubled times and needed someone from the creative side to speak up. He did. Got changes made. One of which was a new producer promising a new spirit of cooperation between production and script and a much more writer friendly environment.

This is a writer with 70 plus episodes of network TV under his belt on several different shows. He's paid his dues and more. But the apparatchiks have driven him out. The politics and general idiocy of those in charge of the show but with no discernable talent other than climbing the network greasy pole, were stifling him and his sense of what made him a writer.

Criticism is part of the writer's lot. But disillusionment with the whole set up is when it is time to go. He decided it was that time.

I'll miss you mate.

My Day

In the spirit of Danny Stack and Dom's blogs I thought I would post on my day today as a working writer.

7.15 am shower, breakfast watch BBC News.

8.35 Take son to school. Go for walk and smoke a couple of fags.

8.50 Watch Frasier

10.oo Start to read 'The Secret'' by Rhonda Byrne

10.10 That's enough of that crap.

10.15 -11.45 Read Blogs

12.00 Go for walk and smoke a couple of fags.

12.30 Have idea for a drama based on an update of an Emile Zola novel.

1300 Realise I can't be arsed.

1306 Play Fall Of Man on son's PS3

1500 Decide I better stop fannying around and do something.

1501 Read some more blogs

1530 Watch Two and A Half Men on Paramount

1700 Go to pick son up from School.

1735 Begin cooking Stirfry

1736 Get telephone call from BBC script ed asking if I can take notes on a script over the phone. The ones I've been hanging round the house all day for .

1737. Back to stirfry having told BBC script ed to call back tomorrow, I'm cooking and the deadline is next Wednesday.

1900 Blog.

Don't get me wrong, not all days are as busy as that.

Confidence

Years ago, while trying to catch a break as a writer I put gruel on the table by script reading. I read all sorts from HW A listers to first time bedroom scribblings in green ink. It was a great learning tool. Mostly in how not to write screenplays. But that is valuable in itself.

But the greatest lesson I learned from all the good scripts I read was that truly great writers [to me anyway] exhibited a confidence on the page. They knew exactly what they were doing, where they were going, how they were saying it, and most of all didn't give a shit what anyone else thought about it. There were no obseqious platitudes handed out. No flowery 'please like me' touches. Just a drive and determination to tell a story that they were 100% committed to.

Now I'm not one for screenwriting jargon. Probably because I don't know my MDQ from MDF and I'm sure USP has something to do with computers. But to me - that is VOICE. That is the writer speaking to you from the pages. You can feel the energy of the moment it was written.

From the carefully phrased line of dialogue or action that exquisitely captures the moment, to the pace and tone and love of characters. And that takes confidence.

The writer BELIEVES. Is IMMERSED. And has the TALENT and SKILL to get that on the page and suspend your disbelief.

So to me - confidence is a basic requirement of a writer.

Of course, the writer's career has more ups and downs than a streetwalker's knickers. One week you are lauded to the hills, the next told to take that piece of crap and start over. But through all that you have to retain that inner core of confidence. Because that is your voice. And it will come out in whatever you write.

On a show I write on I reckon about 6 out of 10 times I can guess who the writer is after watching 10 minutes. They have a distinguishable voice and the episodes are usually good. On the ones where I can't guess the writer the episodes generally aren't so good.

They lack that - confidence?

Pop Quiz

Who is the most depressing blogger?

No I kid. That's too easy. lol

Out for a walk today between computer crashes and I met Gym Buddy who I hadn't seen in six months. Mainly because I haven't been to the gym in six months.

Gym Buddy was a biggish name quiz show host. We kinda know some names at the higher echelons and have both been in the biz long enough to roll our eyes at some of the names.

He is early to mid fortyish and had some interesting things to say - completely unbidden by me.

He doesn't watch any UK drama. But makes a point of watching Shark, Desperate Housewives, Entourage, and House. Because he likes fast paced shows that don't treat him like an idiot - which means dialogue cut to the bone and the story told as visually as possible.

He hates reality shows because they are train wreck tv rather than affirming tv. Even if that affirmation is in the skill of delivery rather than the ultimate ''message''.

A good quiz show format is like a good drama because both need to have the audience caring what happens next.

It seems to me you can plug those opinions into what makes any good entertainent. Movies thrive on those ethos.

I try to watch as much as I can even if I have to have a sick bag handy. Like the latest Big Brother. I'm old enough to know that no matter how long I watch there is no chance of a tasteful flash of vag from the Barbie twins or the sudden death of the opinionated old bird so 10 minutes is quite enough for me thank you. Nothing to see here folks. Unless you are a pre-pubescent wondering how a guy deals with 11 girls rather than just thinking ''lucky bastard'' and flicking over to Late Night Poker. I'd love to see the demongraphics for BB. I'd guess the weighted average age of viewers was about 20. That takes into account the aged insomniacs and terminal masturbators.

At least it's got the twentysomethings actually watching TV. But wouldn't it be good if they were watching something that actually meant something more than ''how can I get on TV and make a fast buck just by being famous for being famous''

One can but dream.

When the going gets tough

Those times when in the face of adversity [some producers, networks, script editors, directors and even the occassional 1st AD] you wonder what the hell you are doing and why the hell you are doing it, a writer needs a mantra. Here's the one I go to. A little cliched perhaps but it works for me, maybe it will help someone else. With thanks to Rudyard Kipling for this and the cakes.


If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
--Rudyard Kipling

I substitute Writer for Man. That does the trick.

Hustle

I like this show. Ok some of the cons are a bit pony but the characters are engaging and it is a pacey hour. Also, they like to throw in a few tricks like last night's Manga style inserts about the blowfish, or Danny becoming Bruce Lee in his imagination. All good stuff.

But here's what I really get from the show. From what comes out on screen I feel the people involved actually seem to enjoy making it . That isn't as common as you might think. Between budget issues, production issues, creative issues, network issues and the sheer grind of getting something on screen it seems to me that too often what appears has a bland and jaded feel to it.

As a big name writer on a popular show told my mate ''I'm just an old slapper. Every episode I tell myself that's the last one. Then the phone rings.''

It's one of the reasons that Exec producers only tend to last 3 or 4 years on a show at most. The burst of enthusiasm they go in with lasts about that long before the shine wears off and it becomes a chore.

Hopefully that will never happen to you as a writer. You can always find something to really enthuse about in a script if you look for it.