So, who wants to listen to more hand wringing about Canadian TV? What? Nobody?
Me neither.
On to more important things then! Like Transformers!
I know, I know. I’m a bit late in seeing it, but better late than never.
And I’m glad I did see it. It was a lot of fun. Now I’m ambivalent about Michael Bay. He’s made some fun movies (Bad Boys, The Rock) and some less fun movies (Pearl Harbor, Bad Boys II), but Transformers is definitely one of his better flicks.
It was pretty funny. There were some pretty good actions sequences. Shia LaBeouf is going to be a monster talent. And John Torturro’s always great. All in all it was a good “summer fun-time” movie.
One pressing question I was left with...
How the hell do monstrous alien robots hide behind (or in!) freaking trees? And we’re not talking about 300 foot Sequoia’s or anything here, we’re talking about Willow trees…
Those Autobots are stealthy motherfuckers…
On to robots of a cuter, fuzzier variety, The Last Mimzy!
This was a cute little flick. Some strong child actors and a cute little stuffed bunny from the future. Thought the movie kinda fell apart at the end (how’d the rabbit save the future?) I’m still happy to welcome our new Fuzzy Bunny Overlords.
If you don’t they may just snuggle you to death.
Consider yourselves warned.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
What I said to the CRTC
So rather than submit an electronic intervention I actually mailed a hard copy. I figure it takes more effort to physically throw something out than it does to hit the delete key. Though I guess they may have just installed a nice big paper shredder at the bottom of their mail chute or something...
Anyways, here's a copy of the letter I sent in, for anyone who cares...
RE: Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2007-70 – Call for comments on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) Task Force Report.
Dear Mr. Morin:
This is my written intervention in the CRTC’s call for comments on the CTF Task Force recommendations. As an emerging film professional I was dismayed and saddened to learn of many of the CRTC’s recommendations, and I can’t help but feel that they themselves form a serious threat to the health of our native industry.
The Canadian film and television industry faces a unique set of challenges compared to others from around the globe. As a predominantly English speaking country that shares borders with the largest exporter of English culture on the planet, it is undeniably difficult for Canadians to make our voices heard above the competition. In the words of the CRTC’s chair, Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein, the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcast Act is meant to be “….an instrument for protecting and nurturing Canadian identity.” The CTF Task Force’s recommendations contradict that stated goal.
How would allowing the CTF to fund 8/10 productions protect and nurture Canadian identity? How would eliminating a Canadian writer, director or actor from a Canadian production help us to tell Canadian stories? How does that serve to strengthen Canadian culture?
This recommendation is meant to allow the production of more “commercial” fare. That, in and of itself, is a flawed assumption. The flaw is, of course, that 100% Canadian productions can’t be “commercial.” Not only is this a ridiculous claim, it’s also insulting to all of the Canadians that work in our industry.
Canada’s most successful shows in recent memory have been 100% Canadian. The Trailer Park Boys and Corner Gas. Little Mosque on the Prairies and Degrassi. These shows have succeeded, both domestically AND internationally, not in spite of their Canadian credentials, but BECAUSE of them. We should be striving to produce more of these shows, rather than throwing in the towel.
This isn’t the only faulty assumption made in the CRTC’s recommendations. Another is the belief that a Canadian show would be able to secure a bankable talent (bankable meaning someone who could help to secure U.S. pre-sales of the show) given the budgetary constraints we’re forced to operate under. Take, for example, Corner Gas, which has a production budget of approximately $300,000 Canadian per episode. That’s barely enough (or not enough) to cover the salary of an A-list American actor or show-runner for a single episode. The reality of the matter is that this change would allow Canadian shows to hire a B-list actor that would bring little to no value to the production.
Perhaps more importantly, at least for the long-term health of the Canadian industry, is the message that the CRTC is sending to Canadian creatives. The message that “you’re not good enough.” The question that many Canadians will ask themselves is “if Canada’s unwilling to invest in me, then why should I be willing to invest in Canada?” These proposed changes will result in many Canadians leaving to pursue their careers elsewhere, if for no other reason than a need to make a livelihood.
It is my sincere hope that you are persuaded, if not by these comments, then by the many others that have been made, to further consider the CTF Task Force’s proposal. The proposal is ill-conceived and poses a direct threat to the continued health of Canada’s domestic television industry. There should be, at the very least, a public and transparent debate on the matter before any binding decisions are made.
Sincerely,
Peter Rowley
Screenwriter / Producer’s Assistant
Screen Siren Pictures Inc.
Anyways, here's a copy of the letter I sent in, for anyone who cares...
RE: Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2007-70 – Call for comments on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) Task Force Report.
Dear Mr. Morin:
This is my written intervention in the CRTC’s call for comments on the CTF Task Force recommendations. As an emerging film professional I was dismayed and saddened to learn of many of the CRTC’s recommendations, and I can’t help but feel that they themselves form a serious threat to the health of our native industry.
The Canadian film and television industry faces a unique set of challenges compared to others from around the globe. As a predominantly English speaking country that shares borders with the largest exporter of English culture on the planet, it is undeniably difficult for Canadians to make our voices heard above the competition. In the words of the CRTC’s chair, Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein, the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcast Act is meant to be “….an instrument for protecting and nurturing Canadian identity.” The CTF Task Force’s recommendations contradict that stated goal.
How would allowing the CTF to fund 8/10 productions protect and nurture Canadian identity? How would eliminating a Canadian writer, director or actor from a Canadian production help us to tell Canadian stories? How does that serve to strengthen Canadian culture?
This recommendation is meant to allow the production of more “commercial” fare. That, in and of itself, is a flawed assumption. The flaw is, of course, that 100% Canadian productions can’t be “commercial.” Not only is this a ridiculous claim, it’s also insulting to all of the Canadians that work in our industry.
Canada’s most successful shows in recent memory have been 100% Canadian. The Trailer Park Boys and Corner Gas. Little Mosque on the Prairies and Degrassi. These shows have succeeded, both domestically AND internationally, not in spite of their Canadian credentials, but BECAUSE of them. We should be striving to produce more of these shows, rather than throwing in the towel.
This isn’t the only faulty assumption made in the CRTC’s recommendations. Another is the belief that a Canadian show would be able to secure a bankable talent (bankable meaning someone who could help to secure U.S. pre-sales of the show) given the budgetary constraints we’re forced to operate under. Take, for example, Corner Gas, which has a production budget of approximately $300,000 Canadian per episode. That’s barely enough (or not enough) to cover the salary of an A-list American actor or show-runner for a single episode. The reality of the matter is that this change would allow Canadian shows to hire a B-list actor that would bring little to no value to the production.
Perhaps more importantly, at least for the long-term health of the Canadian industry, is the message that the CRTC is sending to Canadian creatives. The message that “you’re not good enough.” The question that many Canadians will ask themselves is “if Canada’s unwilling to invest in me, then why should I be willing to invest in Canada?” These proposed changes will result in many Canadians leaving to pursue their careers elsewhere, if for no other reason than a need to make a livelihood.
It is my sincere hope that you are persuaded, if not by these comments, then by the many others that have been made, to further consider the CTF Task Force’s proposal. The proposal is ill-conceived and poses a direct threat to the continued health of Canada’s domestic television industry. There should be, at the very least, a public and transparent debate on the matter before any binding decisions are made.
Sincerely,
Peter Rowley
Screenwriter / Producer’s Assistant
Screen Siren Pictures Inc.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Specs - Serialized Blues?
So we all know that as a writer trying to break in your time is going to be spent doing a set number of things.
You're going to rail against the unfairness of the world and wonder why your genius is being overlooked while Joe Schmo sells a million dollar script about a redneck hamster with herpes.
You're going to spend a lot of time procrastinating (but blogging is sort of like writing!).
You're going to get depressed and wonder what the hell you were smoking when you dropped out of law school to write movies (okay, I never went to law school, but my parents sure wanted me to).
Oh, and if you're really, really good you might even do some writing.
Imagine that.
So what are you going to be writing? Well, if you're like me and looking to break into the wonderful world of television you're going to spend your time writing specs. But what if the only shows you like are heavily serialized shows like Lost and 24? Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty?
How do you shoehorn a episode into what's already an extremely tightly plotted show?
It's something that I've wrestled with a lot in the past. And it's something that's just been asked again over at Lisa's great blog, What It's Like.
Now I'm sure that Lisa's going to answer the question, cause she's just that kind of awesome, but I thought I'd throw my thoughts up here as well. A blog's a ravenous beast, have to keep shoveling something down its maw.
So. How does one write a spec for a super serialized show?
Start at the beginning.
At least that's what I did with one of my first specs. It was a spec episode of 24. Rather than try to shoehorn a story into the middle of season 3 (which is when I was writing), I decided that I'd just write the first episode of the next season.
Now, I'm sure that's not a wildly original idea, but it's what worked for me, and what worked for that show. At the end of the day though it became one of my "bottom drawer" scripts. I filed it away never to look at it again (the fate of many a first script).
That approach wouldn't work for every show though. Shows like Lost or Heroes have such defined beginnings and storylines that carry over from one season to the next that it would be difficult to spin off in a completely new direction.
They do offer different opportunities though. Heroes has multiple timelines that you could explore. In its season finale Lost introduced flash forwards to go with the show defining flash backs. That offers up a whole new ball of yarn for us writers to play with.
Things get a lot harder when it comes to serialized shows that don't have time travel and flashback/forwards, but whose plots aren't limited to a season (unlike say 24 or The Wire). Shows like Battlestar Galactica can be tough to do without a convenient time bending out.
I wish I could speak more to Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty, but unfortunately they're two of the shows that I just don't follow at all (and let's face it...to spec a serialized show you HAVE to follow it). I'm sure someone else will be able to speak to those shows though.
At the end of the day always remember that the most important thing about writing a spec episode of ANYTHING is that you have to nail the template. You have to get the voices right. You have to get the tone right. You have to make it as close as possible to something that would actually happen on the show.
Anyone else have any suggestions on how to spec a heavily serialized show? If so please share. I'm sure there are lots of us dying to hear what yall have to say...
You're going to rail against the unfairness of the world and wonder why your genius is being overlooked while Joe Schmo sells a million dollar script about a redneck hamster with herpes.
You're going to spend a lot of time procrastinating (but blogging is sort of like writing!).
You're going to get depressed and wonder what the hell you were smoking when you dropped out of law school to write movies (okay, I never went to law school, but my parents sure wanted me to).
Oh, and if you're really, really good you might even do some writing.
Imagine that.
So what are you going to be writing? Well, if you're like me and looking to break into the wonderful world of television you're going to spend your time writing specs. But what if the only shows you like are heavily serialized shows like Lost and 24? Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty?
How do you shoehorn a episode into what's already an extremely tightly plotted show?
It's something that I've wrestled with a lot in the past. And it's something that's just been asked again over at Lisa's great blog, What It's Like.
Now I'm sure that Lisa's going to answer the question, cause she's just that kind of awesome, but I thought I'd throw my thoughts up here as well. A blog's a ravenous beast, have to keep shoveling something down its maw.
So. How does one write a spec for a super serialized show?
Start at the beginning.
At least that's what I did with one of my first specs. It was a spec episode of 24. Rather than try to shoehorn a story into the middle of season 3 (which is when I was writing), I decided that I'd just write the first episode of the next season.
Now, I'm sure that's not a wildly original idea, but it's what worked for me, and what worked for that show. At the end of the day though it became one of my "bottom drawer" scripts. I filed it away never to look at it again (the fate of many a first script).
That approach wouldn't work for every show though. Shows like Lost or Heroes have such defined beginnings and storylines that carry over from one season to the next that it would be difficult to spin off in a completely new direction.
They do offer different opportunities though. Heroes has multiple timelines that you could explore. In its season finale Lost introduced flash forwards to go with the show defining flash backs. That offers up a whole new ball of yarn for us writers to play with.
Things get a lot harder when it comes to serialized shows that don't have time travel and flashback/forwards, but whose plots aren't limited to a season (unlike say 24 or The Wire). Shows like Battlestar Galactica can be tough to do without a convenient time bending out.
I wish I could speak more to Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty, but unfortunately they're two of the shows that I just don't follow at all (and let's face it...to spec a serialized show you HAVE to follow it). I'm sure someone else will be able to speak to those shows though.
At the end of the day always remember that the most important thing about writing a spec episode of ANYTHING is that you have to nail the template. You have to get the voices right. You have to get the tone right. You have to make it as close as possible to something that would actually happen on the show.
Anyone else have any suggestions on how to spec a heavily serialized show? If so please share. I'm sure there are lots of us dying to hear what yall have to say...
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Too much of a Canadian thing?
-OR-
A defense of Bon Cop, Bad Cop.
I had a very strange conversation with some film friends last night. It’s not like we picked up our discussion topic on the way in from left field or anything. We’d been talking about movies, something we’re wont to do. This conversation wasn’t really all that different from dozens of others we’d had.
And then it went completely and totally off the rails.
I mentioned Severance (which I’ve talked about before) as a movie that they should see. I figure it’s a good example of the direction we should be taking Canadian film, a direction that was exemplified by Bon Cop, Bad Cop (I know I forgot to mention it in my previous post, but I’m doing my best to make up for it now!).
Only one problem. They’d never seen Bon Cop, Bad Cop. Even worse they had no DESIRE to see it (at least until I’d recommended it). The problem? It was “too Canadian.”
Why would they want to go see a movie that rams its Canadian-ness down their throat?
I’d never even considered this. When I got home last night I skipped around the intertubes, looking for similar feelings about BCBC, and, lo and behold, there are lots of people who feel the same way.
It’s a reaction that confuses the hell out of me. When I saw the trailer for Bon Cop I thought “Hey! That looks like a pretty sweet buddy cop movie!” It had gunfights, chases, explosions…everything a cop movie needs. But the one thing I didn’t feel was that it was ramming its Canadian credentials down my throat.
Sure. It starred an English speaking cop and a French speaking cop who happened to be investigating a body found on the border between Ontario and Quebec. That’s the story. It is what it is.
What’s wrong with that? Why does the fact that it’s identifiable as being set in Canada make it bad? Why does the fact that it’s a bilingual film lower your desire to see it? Is there an inherent problem with a movie that’s identifiably Canadian?
BCBC has more in common with Lethal Weapon than some creatively starved, commercially unviable, NFB flick from the seventies. Watching the trailer I saw more cop clichés than Canadian clichés. So what’s the problem?
If this exact same story took place in Europe would people have the same reaction? If the body had been found mid-way through the Chunnel, if it was an Englishman and a Frenchman that were called to investigate, would that be okay? Or would it be too “European Union?”
Why is Canadian Culture taboo? Why do we hate ourselves so much?
Talk about a fucked up national identity….
Alright. Calm down. Let’s try to get this back on track…
Ultimately what it came down to was how free are we to tell our stories. My friends don’t want to be forced into just telling “Canadian Stories.” As a writer I sympathize. I don’t want to have to write about hockey playing beavers who love maple syrup all the time. I like to think that the stories I write are universal. I hope that whoever winds up listening will find them relevant whether they’re from Vancouver or Vietnam (this post probably being a notable exception).
The way in which people determine what is and what’s not CanCon is screwed up. Forget points, forget having to set your story in Montreal, forget having to show off the Maple Leaf X number of times. Forget all of that.
If it’s made by Canadian creatives it’s Canadian. Period. End of story.
That’s what my friends were trying to say. That’s what they were trying to get at (at least I certainly hope that’s what they were trying to get at).
That’s the paradigm shift those in power need to undergo. But that’s not all that needs to change.
We, the general public, aren’t off the hook. We need to re-evaluate how we look at content. It’s time to throw out the pre-conception that “if it’s Canadian it must be bad.” It’s time we embrace good, quality, Canadian driven programming. Who cares if it’s obviously Canadian? Who cares if it takes place in small town Saskatchewan (Corner Gas)? Who cares if it’s set in a trailer park (Trailer Park Boys)?
It’s about damn time we chose what we watched based on the quality of the story, not how many times people say “eh!”
The story. The characters. That’s what’s important.
And if it’s a buddy cop movie, look past the fact that they’re from Ontario and Quebec. Look past the fact that they speak English and French. Look past the fact that it’s a “Canadian” movie.
Look past it and let yourself enjoy the rollicking good story that it is.
You won’t be disappointed.
A defense of Bon Cop, Bad Cop.
I had a very strange conversation with some film friends last night. It’s not like we picked up our discussion topic on the way in from left field or anything. We’d been talking about movies, something we’re wont to do. This conversation wasn’t really all that different from dozens of others we’d had.
And then it went completely and totally off the rails.
I mentioned Severance (which I’ve talked about before) as a movie that they should see. I figure it’s a good example of the direction we should be taking Canadian film, a direction that was exemplified by Bon Cop, Bad Cop (I know I forgot to mention it in my previous post, but I’m doing my best to make up for it now!).
Only one problem. They’d never seen Bon Cop, Bad Cop. Even worse they had no DESIRE to see it (at least until I’d recommended it). The problem? It was “too Canadian.”
Why would they want to go see a movie that rams its Canadian-ness down their throat?
I’d never even considered this. When I got home last night I skipped around the intertubes, looking for similar feelings about BCBC, and, lo and behold, there are lots of people who feel the same way.
It’s a reaction that confuses the hell out of me. When I saw the trailer for Bon Cop I thought “Hey! That looks like a pretty sweet buddy cop movie!” It had gunfights, chases, explosions…everything a cop movie needs. But the one thing I didn’t feel was that it was ramming its Canadian credentials down my throat.
Sure. It starred an English speaking cop and a French speaking cop who happened to be investigating a body found on the border between Ontario and Quebec. That’s the story. It is what it is.
What’s wrong with that? Why does the fact that it’s identifiable as being set in Canada make it bad? Why does the fact that it’s a bilingual film lower your desire to see it? Is there an inherent problem with a movie that’s identifiably Canadian?
BCBC has more in common with Lethal Weapon than some creatively starved, commercially unviable, NFB flick from the seventies. Watching the trailer I saw more cop clichés than Canadian clichés. So what’s the problem?
If this exact same story took place in Europe would people have the same reaction? If the body had been found mid-way through the Chunnel, if it was an Englishman and a Frenchman that were called to investigate, would that be okay? Or would it be too “European Union?”
Why is Canadian Culture taboo? Why do we hate ourselves so much?
Talk about a fucked up national identity….
Alright. Calm down. Let’s try to get this back on track…
Ultimately what it came down to was how free are we to tell our stories. My friends don’t want to be forced into just telling “Canadian Stories.” As a writer I sympathize. I don’t want to have to write about hockey playing beavers who love maple syrup all the time. I like to think that the stories I write are universal. I hope that whoever winds up listening will find them relevant whether they’re from Vancouver or Vietnam (this post probably being a notable exception).
The way in which people determine what is and what’s not CanCon is screwed up. Forget points, forget having to set your story in Montreal, forget having to show off the Maple Leaf X number of times. Forget all of that.
If it’s made by Canadian creatives it’s Canadian. Period. End of story.
That’s what my friends were trying to say. That’s what they were trying to get at (at least I certainly hope that’s what they were trying to get at).
That’s the paradigm shift those in power need to undergo. But that’s not all that needs to change.
We, the general public, aren’t off the hook. We need to re-evaluate how we look at content. It’s time to throw out the pre-conception that “if it’s Canadian it must be bad.” It’s time we embrace good, quality, Canadian driven programming. Who cares if it’s obviously Canadian? Who cares if it takes place in small town Saskatchewan (Corner Gas)? Who cares if it’s set in a trailer park (Trailer Park Boys)?
It’s about damn time we chose what we watched based on the quality of the story, not how many times people say “eh!”
The story. The characters. That’s what’s important.
And if it’s a buddy cop movie, look past the fact that they’re from Ontario and Quebec. Look past the fact that they speak English and French. Look past the fact that it’s a “Canadian” movie.
Look past it and let yourself enjoy the rollicking good story that it is.
You won’t be disappointed.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Emmy Insanity
So the 59th Primetime Emmy Nominees are up. I’m not a big fan of awards shows. In fact I usually think that they have their collective heads up their collective asses. Have half the voters seen the shows they’re voting for? I seriously doubt it. This Emmy nominee list is just the latest bit of evidence to bolster my argument.
Friday Night Lights was largely ignored. No Best Drama nod. No writing or acting nods. This is a show widely considered to be the BEST SHOW ON NETWORK TELEVISION. Shut out. That’s disgraceful. Here’s hoping that Ben Silverman doesn’t use the lack of Emmy noms to get rid of FNL early (especially if he replaces it with his Venezuelan Breast Show).
The Wire and Deadwood were both ignored as well. Okay, slight exaggeration. Deadwood got some tech noms (hairstyling, makeup and the like), but no writing or acting nods? Really? I’m sure Al Swearengen would have some choice words about that, most likely starting with mother and ending in suckers.
Even harder to deal with is The Wire’s oversight. This is by far the best show on television (FNL is the best show on network TV, The Wire best show once you factor in cable). But it airs on HBO, is shot in Baltimore (which might as well be the North Pole as far as Ho’wood’s concerned), and features a cast of unknowns. Oh, and did I mention that they’re all black? Just one more reason why no one’s (read: Emmy voters) heard of The Wire.
Alright. Fine then. Surely they couldn’t have gotten it all wrong. The Sopranos got some much deserved noms. Not sure 15 were in order, but I’m willing to go along with the majority of them (that and I’m still afraid Tony might come around and whack me if I disagree too loudly). James Gandolfini and Edie Falco both got acting nods. They also picked up three out of five writing nods. That I can’t agree with, especially when shows like Friday Night Lights and The Wire were shut out. Give David Chase a directing nod for “Made in America” (that crash to black was genius). Give Terence Winter a writing nod for “The Second Coming” (Anthony’s suicide attempt and the aftermath was great freakin’ tv). But do they really need 2 more writing nods? I don’t think so.
The nomination I’m really stoked about would have to be Battlestar Galactica’s writing nom for “Occupation” and “Precipice.” Those are virtuoso episodes of a great, great show. It’s about damn time Sci-Fi crawled out of its ghetto and got some recognition. BSG also snagged a directing nom for “Exodus: Part 2.” Frakkin’ awesome.
Lost rounds out the drama writing noms. Personally I think that Lost really struggled this season, though it started to find its legs towards the end. Not sure that it deserves this nom though.
On the comedy side of things 30 Rock picked up two well-deserved writing nods, as did The Office. If I had to lay money on it I’d go with The Office, which is too bad because Extras (which also got a nom) really deserves it. But being a drama guy at heart I wouldn’t use my advice to decide who you’re going to bet on.
I could spend some time talking about the acting noms, but I don’t really want to (Alec Baldwin? As a LEAD?), cause it’s just going to make me crazy (or crazier).
Good thing that these awards mean absolutely nothing in the long run…but if NBC uses this to cancel FNL early, well, I’m going to take a page from Al Swearengen's book and have some choice words about Mr. Silverman…
Friday Night Lights was largely ignored. No Best Drama nod. No writing or acting nods. This is a show widely considered to be the BEST SHOW ON NETWORK TELEVISION. Shut out. That’s disgraceful. Here’s hoping that Ben Silverman doesn’t use the lack of Emmy noms to get rid of FNL early (especially if he replaces it with his Venezuelan Breast Show).
The Wire and Deadwood were both ignored as well. Okay, slight exaggeration. Deadwood got some tech noms (hairstyling, makeup and the like), but no writing or acting nods? Really? I’m sure Al Swearengen would have some choice words about that, most likely starting with mother and ending in suckers.
Even harder to deal with is The Wire’s oversight. This is by far the best show on television (FNL is the best show on network TV, The Wire best show once you factor in cable). But it airs on HBO, is shot in Baltimore (which might as well be the North Pole as far as Ho’wood’s concerned), and features a cast of unknowns. Oh, and did I mention that they’re all black? Just one more reason why no one’s (read: Emmy voters) heard of The Wire.
Alright. Fine then. Surely they couldn’t have gotten it all wrong. The Sopranos got some much deserved noms. Not sure 15 were in order, but I’m willing to go along with the majority of them (that and I’m still afraid Tony might come around and whack me if I disagree too loudly). James Gandolfini and Edie Falco both got acting nods. They also picked up three out of five writing nods. That I can’t agree with, especially when shows like Friday Night Lights and The Wire were shut out. Give David Chase a directing nod for “Made in America” (that crash to black was genius). Give Terence Winter a writing nod for “The Second Coming” (Anthony’s suicide attempt and the aftermath was great freakin’ tv). But do they really need 2 more writing nods? I don’t think so.
The nomination I’m really stoked about would have to be Battlestar Galactica’s writing nom for “Occupation” and “Precipice.” Those are virtuoso episodes of a great, great show. It’s about damn time Sci-Fi crawled out of its ghetto and got some recognition. BSG also snagged a directing nom for “Exodus: Part 2.” Frakkin’ awesome.
Lost rounds out the drama writing noms. Personally I think that Lost really struggled this season, though it started to find its legs towards the end. Not sure that it deserves this nom though.
On the comedy side of things 30 Rock picked up two well-deserved writing nods, as did The Office. If I had to lay money on it I’d go with The Office, which is too bad because Extras (which also got a nom) really deserves it. But being a drama guy at heart I wouldn’t use my advice to decide who you’re going to bet on.
I could spend some time talking about the acting noms, but I don’t really want to (Alec Baldwin? As a LEAD?), cause it’s just going to make me crazy (or crazier).
Good thing that these awards mean absolutely nothing in the long run…but if NBC uses this to cancel FNL early, well, I’m going to take a page from Al Swearengen's book and have some choice words about Mr. Silverman…
Monday, July 16, 2007
Canadian Creatives...
Read this.
Maybe together we can make a big enough stink to change things for the better...
Way to go Denis. Way to go.
For more on the CRTC go check out Alex Epstein, Jim Henshaw and Will Dixon. These guys know what they're talking about, let's stand up with them and lend our voices to the cause.
Maybe together we can make a big enough stink to change things for the better...
Way to go Denis. Way to go.
For more on the CRTC go check out Alex Epstein, Jim Henshaw and Will Dixon. These guys know what they're talking about, let's stand up with them and lend our voices to the cause.
John From Cincinnati
I'm not a TMN subscriber, and being a Canadian I can't subscribe to HBO directly. Unfortunately this means that I have a tough time seeing some of the new, cutting edge shows right away (though the plus side is I spend less time glued to the tele).
But last night I found myself at my parents house. We had a lovely barbecue, including beer-can-chicken (or up the butt chicken as my mother calls it) and some nice fingerling potatoes. And after the dishes were done, dessert was consumed and my parents had decided to lie down for a spell, I got to watch some television.
And not just any television, but "specialty channel" television (no, not porn...get your mind out of the gutter), including TMN. And on the TMN schedule last night, John From Cincinnati.
I'm a huge David Milch fan. NYPD Blue, Hill Street Blues, great, great shows. Deadwood, even better.
Milch is an incredible talent. There are two things that have always struck me about Milch's creations. First are the characters. Deeply flawed, generally unlikable, but fascinatingly watchable (who could possibly tear their eyes away from Al Swearengen?).
Second is the dialogue. Milch is a modern Shakespeare, his dialogue on par with the Bard. Even in a show like Deadwood the writing turns all the vulgarities into poetry. No mean feat.
So watching John From Cincinnati last night was an almost surreal experience. Here's Milch's signature dialogue coming out of the mouths of a bunch of royally screwed up Californian surfers. It was....weird.
I'm really not sure what to think of it either. I had trouble identifying with any of the characters, and I found John (of the title) to be incredibly annoying. I'm sure a lot of that is because I've missed the first five or six episodes. I can safely say that John isn't all that easily accessible. That being said it's a show I'll definitely rent once it's released on DVD.
If nothing else it's a way for me to get my David Milch dialogue fix.
But last night I found myself at my parents house. We had a lovely barbecue, including beer-can-chicken (or up the butt chicken as my mother calls it) and some nice fingerling potatoes. And after the dishes were done, dessert was consumed and my parents had decided to lie down for a spell, I got to watch some television.
And not just any television, but "specialty channel" television (no, not porn...get your mind out of the gutter), including TMN. And on the TMN schedule last night, John From Cincinnati.
I'm a huge David Milch fan. NYPD Blue, Hill Street Blues, great, great shows. Deadwood, even better.
Milch is an incredible talent. There are two things that have always struck me about Milch's creations. First are the characters. Deeply flawed, generally unlikable, but fascinatingly watchable (who could possibly tear their eyes away from Al Swearengen?).
Second is the dialogue. Milch is a modern Shakespeare, his dialogue on par with the Bard. Even in a show like Deadwood the writing turns all the vulgarities into poetry. No mean feat.
So watching John From Cincinnati last night was an almost surreal experience. Here's Milch's signature dialogue coming out of the mouths of a bunch of royally screwed up Californian surfers. It was....weird.
I'm really not sure what to think of it either. I had trouble identifying with any of the characters, and I found John (of the title) to be incredibly annoying. I'm sure a lot of that is because I've missed the first five or six episodes. I can safely say that John isn't all that easily accessible. That being said it's a show I'll definitely rent once it's released on DVD.
If nothing else it's a way for me to get my David Milch dialogue fix.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Summer Doldrums
Summer's here in force. Record breaking temperatures mean that I've been spending as much time as possible out enjoying the sunshine (gotta stock up on those rays while we can before that cold Canadian winter sets in). Course this means that my writing's taken a hit, or at least my blogging has.
And it's not like there's nothing to be blogging about. The receent CRTC recommendations on the CTF for one. All sorts of geektastic (and that is so a word) movies to see (Die Hard, Transformers, Potter). But really I think that others around the ole' scribosphere are doing a bang up job hitting the highlights, so why should I rehash things?
Let me just say the following...
It's dark times for Canadian television folks. The CRTC suggestions are not only bad for Canadian creatives (8 of 10? Let me just bend over a little bit more), the proposed changes to the funding streams (splitting up the fund into Heritage and "Marketable" streams, as well as the changes to BDUs) is bad for Canadian producers as well.
Make no mistake, this industry is moving inexorably towards the brink. We just have to hope that those in power actually sit down and listen to some of us (WGC, DGC, ACTRA and, yes, even the CFTPA) who are opposed to these regulatory changes.
If I had a real seat at the table then you bet your ass I'd be raising a stink. But I don't, at least not yet. So rather than spend time getting an ulcer over it, I'm going to go and enjoy the sunshine.
Someone pass me a nice alcoholic beverage with an umbrella in it.
And it's not like there's nothing to be blogging about. The receent CRTC recommendations on the CTF for one. All sorts of geektastic (and that is so a word) movies to see (Die Hard, Transformers, Potter). But really I think that others around the ole' scribosphere are doing a bang up job hitting the highlights, so why should I rehash things?
Let me just say the following...
It's dark times for Canadian television folks. The CRTC suggestions are not only bad for Canadian creatives (8 of 10? Let me just bend over a little bit more), the proposed changes to the funding streams (splitting up the fund into Heritage and "Marketable" streams, as well as the changes to BDUs) is bad for Canadian producers as well.
Make no mistake, this industry is moving inexorably towards the brink. We just have to hope that those in power actually sit down and listen to some of us (WGC, DGC, ACTRA and, yes, even the CFTPA) who are opposed to these regulatory changes.
If I had a real seat at the table then you bet your ass I'd be raising a stink. But I don't, at least not yet. So rather than spend time getting an ulcer over it, I'm going to go and enjoy the sunshine.
Someone pass me a nice alcoholic beverage with an umbrella in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)