Help me write some TV specs

[Gaddabout]

Long story short, I've been handed an "in" with someone way up in NBC Universal. I've been asked to submit three spec scripts as part of the spring fling that takes place every year. A spec is what every prospective TV writer writes in hopes of landing a job with a show. It's basically an original teleplay based on a current TV show.

I'm interested in learning what you think I should write. I'm counting on the fact some of you have a grasp of how I write -- or at least how I think. What kind of voice do I maintain here? Could I write drama? Comedy? Something in between?

Here are the shows I'm thinking about right now:

- House
- Monk
- Eureka
- Fringe
- The Wire
- Law & Order: SVU

I need to pick three. I'm inclined to not write L&O because (a) it's very hard to write a GOOD L&O and (b) every writer submits one L&O or CSI. I'm also not sure about The Wire because there are so many running elements in that show that it would be too easy to violate the mythology. That's the primary reason I didn't choose Lost. It needs to be a show for which I can write a single episode that stands out.

Thoughts? Opinions? Ideas?

 

[TBaslim]

Very cool, Gad. Congrats on getting the opportunity! And thanks for thinking the opinions around here are of any value...that remains to be seen, but go Internets!

Off the top of my head, I like the shows you listed - they seem to fit what I've read from you here. Lost would be great (given your appreciation of its finer points), but I see why you are skipping it.

Maybe Monk (quirky sense of humour, understanding of character required); Eureka or Fringe (one funny, one dark - both will need a good stand-alone X-Files-style hook/mcguffin); and The Wire (chance to show your chops at 'straight drama'). House works too, but would need a good medical hook for a single episode - not sure if that is your forte. If so, by all means House would work.

Do you get extra credit if you pick an NBC property?

 

[Gaddabout]

Do you get extra credit if you pick an NBC property?

That COULD work against me because a showrunner can't read a spec for their own show. Not that I expect this to get that far, but Monk, for example ... if it's my best spec and it travels from hand-to-hand, it would never get me a job on Monk.

 

[bankybruce]

Based on what I have seen, I would go with Monk for sure. Also, what about Life?

 

[Gaddabout]

Also, what about Life?

First, my new contacts have a hand in that show. Second, that show has the most tortured mythology on TV. The creators laid out this grand story line without any solid vision for its ending. It was a problem for the writers to solve. I'd say it's gotten away from them and I wouldn't want to participate that. I have no patience for untangling knots! If I were involved in the show I'd ditch the mythology or resolve it and stick with week-to-week quirky cases. Not every show needs to be an X-Files. Life could be a "news of the weird" version of L&O and it would have more stickability with an older demographic that has no patience for mythologies.

 

[Toro]

You are in trouble if you have to ask for ideas on a sports message board!

 

[Gaddabout]

You are in trouble if you have to ask for ideas on a sports message board!

Ha! This is a great community and we have experienced TV and film people among us. We also have some very insightful people who pay attention to TV, film, and pop culture. I've been involved in online communities since 1994 and I've yet to run across a more diverse -- and interesting -- collection of people who continually come back, contribute, and support each other. The fact we are so regionally focused is even better, because it means some maintain friendships in real life.

To call ASFN just a "sports message board" is a misrepresentation. This is the best most dysfunctional family in Arizona. It would never let the people here make big decisions in my life, but I will always take time to read what people have to say. There's merit for asking questions like this here.

 

[jefftheshark]

Personally, what I like (and I suspect that you do too) is seeing obscure and/or off the beaten path literary concepts retold through the familiar characters of a serialized show; i.e. Foucault's Pendulum on Lost.

That being said, I would like to see Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions dramatized through the lens of Gregory House.

But I'm sick that way.

Good luck!

JTS

 

[Gaddabout]

That being said, I would like to see Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions dramatized through the lens of Gregory House.

This is an interesting idea. House unleashes a fanboy on Cuddy.

 

[Beaver]

Not what you are asking for, but I want to see a comedy with neighbors who are fans of opposing teams. Like CHI/GB or BOS/NY. The show would be about their shenanigans and how their best friend wives handle it.

 

[Chaplin]

This is an interesting idea. House unleashes a fanboy on Cuddy.

House might be intriguing only because if you go against the formula it might be something really cool. If you think you should go with the formula then House might not be so good because that formula, to me, is stale.

 

[Toro]

Ha! This is a great community and we have experienced TV and film people among us. We also have some very insightful people who pay attention to TV, film, and pop culture. I've been involved in online communities since 1994 and I've yet to run across a more diverse -- and interesting -- collection of people who continually come back, contribute, and support each other. The fact we are so regionally focused is even better, because it means some maintain friendships in real life.

To call ASFN just a "sports message board" is a misrepresentation. This is the best most dysfunctional family in Arizona. It would never let the people here make big decisions in my life, but I will always take time to read what people have to say. There's merit for asking questions like this here.

He's writing for Hollywood, not a ASU class assignment.

 

[jefftheshark]

He's writing for Hollywood, not a ASU class assignment.

Oh, then he should write about two main characters who on the surface don't get along, but who are actually unknowingly in love with each other.

Now that's Hollywood!

JTS

 

[Gaddabout]

House might be intriguing only because if you go against the formula it might be something really cool. If you think you should go with the formula then House might not be so good because that formula, to me, is stale.

You'd know better than me. What would consider the unwritten rules on specs? I wrote a lot of these in the 90s and, of course, I'm not an employed TV writer today, so I can't claim any expertise. My best guesses:

- Always focus on the main characters. No one wants to read Star Trek episode where Ensign Tommy saves the day.

- Don't violate the characters. At the end of every X-Files episode, Mulder still cares about his sister and Scully still cares about Mulder.

- Don't violate the themes. For example, in the Lost world, no one ever has strong footing on the moral high ground. If you focus on free will, the main story should be counterbalanced by a secondary story focusing on destiny or fate.

- Maintain the rhythm. I once wrote three Friends specs and the comments I got back from friends in the biz were "pace way too slow" and "too many missing comedy beats." I'd never thought about it before, but the show almost never went three minutes without a Chandler or Joey injection. It was like the Monty Python bit, "And now for something completely different."

- Don't write season-ending cliffhangers. Three acts and a denouement, if it fits the show's narrative. Better to pick a stand-alone story than attempt to meddle with a show's mythology. Show runners want someone who can fill the in-between space with quality. They'll take care of the big picture.

Do I have a clue? I'm still not sure.

 

[TBaslim]

Certainly sounds logical. I'm not versed in TV spec writing, though, so who knows.

Does Eureka have a strong mythology? I have not seen it enough to know. That might work better than Fringe, which keeps pulling an XFiles black oil cart behind it.

You should do Monk for sure, as it is episode and character driven. "Monk must go undercover in a hotel cleaning crew to solve murder" or something similar.

 

[Gaddabout]

Does Eureka have a strong mythology? I have not seen it enough to know. That might work better than Fringe, which keeps pulling an XFiles black oil cart behind it.

You should do Monk for sure, as it is episode and character driven. "Monk must go undercover in a hotel cleaning crew to solve murder" or something similar.

Eureka doesn't have a running mythology as much as, by Season 3, the characters are set in stone. Good vs. evil is secondary to the running commentary on the folly (or is it vanity?) of our best science. It appeals to anyone who's ever felt like there's a severe shortage of common sense among our decision makers.

Fringe ... I just feel like I can make it better. A lot better. Abrams threw too much effort in creating a Fringe codec and not enough time fleshing out these characters. I continue to ask myself why Olivia Dunham and Peter Bishop -- if they were real people -- would continually throw themselves in harm's way. They appear to be primarily motivated by an innate goodness, and that's just awful character development, particularly considering Bishop is supposed to be a globe-trotting con man. I would love to do an episode that grounds their characters in more believable psychosis. Dunham, especially, is screaming for development as someone with a hero complex, not just some unwilling hero thrust into impossible situation because the man we're supposed to believe she loved was involved in a super conspiracy. They're just not that interesting to me beyond better character development.

Monk is probably the biggest challenge on the list. Writing for that character is so explicit, so detailed, it's difficult to write for him without going too far. It requires subtlety probably best left for the veteran writer. I've always felt too little is given to the characters around him. If I have anything to offer, I would add a Felix Unger to Shaloub's Oscar Madison.

 

[Chaplin]

Character is #1. The thing is, today's most successful dramas are all mythology shows--like Lost, for example. House is a VERY formulaic show, same with the cop shows. The best shows are the ones that can be formulaic without being overtly formulaic. Supernatural's first season and the second half of Season 1 of Reaper are good examples of that.

Fringe I would think might be your best bet. It needs a lot of help. It's a show of coincedences--a very cool premise usually, but guess what? Something the elder Bishop did can solve all their problems. And they never reveal anything about the mythology, much like Sarah Connor Chronicles. Just when you think you'll see something that will advance the main story, it's a tease.

Again, character is the most important things, but you have to make it interesting--make sure the characters are flawed (one of the reasons why I don't like Olivia Dunham and why I like Jack Bauer) and throw them in situations they might not be equipped to handle but do anyway. Heroes tries to do that and fails because there are so many plot holes, you're too busy trying to figure out why those people do what they do rather than paying attention to WHAT they are doing.

 

[Gaddabout]

Character is #1. The thing is, today's most successful dramas are all mythology shows--like Lost, for example. House is a VERY formulaic show, same with the cop shows. The best shows are the ones that can be formulaic without being overtly formulaic. Supernatural's first season and the second half of Season 1 of Reaper are good examples of that.

Fringe I would think might be your best bet. It needs a lot of help. It's a show of coincedences--a very cool premise usually, but guess what? Something the elder Bishop did can solve all their problems. And they never reveal anything about the mythology, much like Sarah Connor Chronicles. Just when you think you'll see something that will advance the main story, it's a tease.

Again, character is the most important things, but you have to make it interesting--make sure the characters are flawed (one of the reasons why I don't like Olivia Dunham and why I like Jack Bauer) and throw them in situations they might not be equipped to handle but do anyway. Heroes tries to do that and fails because there are so many plot holes, you're too busy trying to figure out why those people do what they do rather than paying attention to WHAT they are doing.

Good stuff. Glad I'm not the only one who sees the problem with the Olivia Dunham character. Totally agree on the flawed part. If they were attempting to recreate X-Files (and I think they were because they went so far as to hire Darin Morgan as a consultant), you'd think they'd understand the Mulder dynamic to the show. You could understand why he was constantly throwing himself in harm's way (and always getting his butt kicked anyway) because the story was HIS journey, HIS passion. He felt responsible for his sister. These characters have no believable passion for their journey so we're not buying in.

I understand what you're saying about the mythology shows, I just wouldn't know how to touch Lost. It's like trying to write another Gospel. It's heresy. If I did write a Lost spec, I'd probably write a Locke background story early in his life where he got a taste of being a hero. Or at least an accidental hero, and it became a delusion feeder for him. It's the one story I felt Lost never told but should have.

 

[Stout]

I have to say that I have far more respect for the writing industry as it pertains to television after reading this thread. Not that I don't think much of it is drivel, but I can see that a lot more thought goes into it than I had heretofore believed.

Still, I have to disagree with Chaplin about House. Yes, it's formulaic and, to a point, predictable. But it is character driven, and the characters (and the actors portraying them) are too damn good.

And again with the Lost...I am still lost as to why people think it's so good. I've been told that I have to hold out and watch way more episodes than I think I can handle, because it gets better. The problem with that is that I'm not an acquired taste kind of person. I understand, in talking to a few friends, that the show is supposed to be on the mythical side, but an idiotic giant machine that everyone should be able to see but can't, and sub-par acting in the early episodes really killed it for me. So, what in the heck is supposed to make this show so great? I'm no stranger to despising mainline TV, to hating what the masses like (I love an involved mythology and, unlike Gad, see it as Life's strength and the one main weakness with Law and Order--no throughline).

Wow, I just read back, and am I ever rambling! I'm going to stop now

 

[Gaddabout]

I have to say that I have far more respect for the writing industry as it pertains to television after reading this thread. Not that I don't think much of it is drivel, but I can see that a lot more thought goes into it than I had heretofore believed.

Depends on the show. I imagine T.J. Hooker being written by some burnout who cranked it out in his bathroom in between bong hits. Other shows, like ALF, were smarter than they appeared (and they were also influenced by drug use).

Still, I have to disagree with Chaplin about House. Yes, it's formulaic and, to a point, predictable. But it is character driven, and the characters (and the actors portraying them) are too damn good.

Yep, House makes for an entertaining hour, but it makes it harder to write a spec that stands out for the same reasons. What's acceptable for a production script that's gone through the storytelling process is very different than what's acceptable for a spec. Show writers are allowed to take character leaps a spec writer should never attempt.

And again with the Lost...I am still lost as to why people think it's so good. I've been told that I have to hold out and watch way more episodes than I think I can handle, because it gets better. The problem with that is that I'm not an acquired taste kind of person. I understand, in talking to a few friends, that the show is supposed to be on the mythical side, but an idiotic giant machine that everyone should be able to see but can't, and sub-par acting in the early episodes really killed it for me. So, what in the heck is supposed to make this show so great? I'm no stranger to despising mainline TV, to hating what the masses like (I love an involved mythology and, unlike Gad, see it as Life's strength and the one main weakness with Law and Order--no throughline).

Lost is a story full of characters from a Johnny Cash song. It's about the redemption process and people who don't believe they're capable of redemption. Their desire to live out this new freedom is always in direct conflict with their instinct for self-preservation or whatever other psychosis/"daddy issue" is at work that got them into trouble in the first place. It's a weekly, one-hour examination of man's heart of darkness. If you didn't get sucked in by the first four episodes (or you've never related to a Johnny Cash song), the show just isn't for you. *shrug* As a writer, Lost is an amazing playground where I don't have to worry about dumbing down the story. I can toss in Biblical allegories or literary allusions as the characters open up to them, and that can only better anchor the show as something timeless. I can't think of another TV show that can get away with that.

Just to be sure, I like Life, but that mythological trench is not dug nearly as deep as Lost's. When Losties get to the bottom of their mythology, they are promised great insight into who they are. Maybe even *why* they are. Great, great expose' on existentialism. The problem with the Life mythology is says nothing about who Crews is other than he's obsessed with justice. That obsession is sort of interesting. It draws me in most of the time. But the payoff isn't the fortune of emotional riches Lost constantly brings to the table. Crews is already at peace with himself for better or worse, so the journey isn't driven by a passion I can relate to.

 

[Chaplin]

I have to say that I have far more respect for the writing industry as it pertains to television after reading this thread. Not that I don't think much of it is drivel, but I can see that a lot more thought goes into it than I had heretofore believed.

Yeah, there is a lot of drivel out there in television, but there are a lot of jewels that really are very comparable to the best you see in the movies. But it's really a hit-and-miss industry.

Still, I have to disagree with Chaplin about House. Yes, it's formulaic and, to a point, predictable. But it is character driven, and the characters (and the actors portraying them) are too damn good.

I hear ya. There's no denying how popular a show it is.

And again with the Lost...I am still lost as to why people think it's so good. I've been told that I have to hold out and watch way more episodes than I think I can handle, because it gets better. The problem with that is that I'm not an acquired taste kind of person. I understand, in talking to a few friends, that the show is supposed to be on the mythical side, but an idiotic giant machine that everyone should be able to see but can't, and sub-par acting in the early episodes really killed it for me. So, what in the heck is supposed to make this show so great? I'm no stranger to despising mainline TV, to hating what the masses like (I love an involved mythology and, unlike Gad, see it as Life's strength and the one main weakness with Law and Order--no throughline).

Lost to me is more than just a mythology show, it's an "event" show on par with an "event" movie during the summer. The characters are so well fleshed out, it's easy to be completely sucked in to what they are doing. It's very similar to what a good book can do. One of the most important aspects of a mythology show is the cliffhanger, and Lost is one of the best, if not the best, television show to utilize it. But as far as writing goes, Lost is the single greatest example of television writing IMO. I can't even imagine trying to write an episode of that show.

Like I said, the first season of Supernatural and the 3rd and 4th seasons of The X-Files are great examples of what Fringe should probably be. If you only concentrate on stand-alone type episodes with no built-in mythology, like I said, it'll be like a cop show and might be in danger of hitting sitcom territory.

 

[Gaddabout]

Chap, I'm still looking for a writing partner for the original teleplay. (I think the best shows always involve two writers rather than one). If you're interested, I'd be honored to have you aboard. Shoot me an e-mail if you're interested.

 

[Stout]

Okay, damn, I just had a whole post typed about what I don't like about lost (mostly that the show never earned the willful suspension of disbelief, Fox sucks as a leading actor, and the giant noisy machine that is obviously in sight but that nobody can see being ******** writing) but it got nuked (I suspect you guys are behind that ). Oh well.

And Gad, I'd gladly take up the mantle of writing partner with you...except I know NOTHING of writing for TV. I'm a hugely talented writer, but mainly in poetry, plays, essays and so forth. I've tinkered with screenplays, but never finished anything. Good luck!

 

[Gaddabout]

I appreciate the offer, Stout, but I know of Chap's work and already had him in mind as someone I'd like to work with.

And we both see eye-to-eye on Lost, so you'll just have to find some Lost-hating partner of your own.

 

[TBaslim]

Great insight into TV writing in this thread, as Stout said - thanks!

And best of luck, Gad - ya got my vote.