This entry was posted on 12/15/2009 5:16 PM and is filed under uncategorized.
CBS continues to dominate the sitcom world with their Monday
night lineup anchored by Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory.These are the only two sitcoms on TV that can
reasonably be referred to as hits.How I
Met Your Mother does okay opening the night.I guess it’s there to help Jason Segel’s movie career.Accidentally On Purpose, the sitcom knock-off
of the movie Knocked Up, is no knock-out and likely won’t be knocking around
next season.
I still think The Big Bang Theory is the best sitcom on TV,
despite the critics’ and award givers’ undying love for the wildly unpopular,
sketchy, uneven, and often cringingly bad 30 Rock.
CBS’ sitcom hour on Wednesday of Gary Unmarried and The New
Adventures of Old Christine continues to eek out lackluster ratings and no
buzz.
NBC has basically given up.Their anemic Thursday night lineup, anchored by an increasingly tiresome
The Office, limps along unnoticed by the public.Neither Parks and Recreation nor Community
has found an audience.I suspect the
audience for 30 Rock is made up entirely of critics and award givers.
ABC’s ringing return to sitcom has been mostly a dull thud.CougarTown whimpers without a growl.Hank clanked after only a few airings.The Middle is a muddle.What is the premise of that show
exactly?
The one semi-bright spot for ABC is Modern Family.I’m not thrilled with their “let’s shoot is
just like The Office” faux-documentary approach.I suspect it was the network’s idea, and
perhaps this conceit can be dropped if the series is renewed for next
season.To the extent that Modern Family
works, it is because of the break-out character played by Sofia Vergara.When watching, I live for the moments when
she is on screen and endure the long stretches when she is not.
I expect Modern Family to survive and would pick it as most
spec-worthy for 2010.
The problem with every sitcom that isn’t on CBS, and why the
sitcoms on other networks don’t grow into hits no matter how many awards they
receive, is that the characters are unlikable.Sitcom has been stuck for over a decade in the same rut: “Let’s do a
show where everybody is a selfish, clueless, immature jerk with no moral
compass.”It was fun on Seinfeld for a
while.It hasn’t been fun on any other sitcom
for the last ten years.Does anyone at the
networks other than CBS remember when sitcom characters were people that we
liked and sometimes even admired?Does
anyone remember when sitcom characters aspired to be decent people?Does anyone remember Everybody Loves Raymond,
Cheers, Frasier, The Cosby Show or The Mary Tyler Moore Show?
On another but not entirely unrelated subject:
When the late Blake Snyder and I were collaborating on movie
scripts, a question that Blake always insisted that we answer for ourselves
was, “Who are we writing this script for?”Who is the intended audience for our screenplay or TV pilot?Blake wasn’t talking just about which studio
might buy the script, although that was part of the consideration.More importantly, Blake wanted to know
precisely who our ultimate audience was going to be.Who did we expect to be sitting in the movie
theater or in front of the television watching this story?Was it teenage girls or twenty-something men
or married women or who?
Why did Blake feel that it was important to identify the
audience?Doesn’t a writer just write
whatever story comes into his or her head and then leave it up to fate to
decide who is going to want to hear it?Blake always said, “No.You can’t
leave it up to fate.You have to know
who you are writing for!”If you know
who you are writing for, your story will have focus.Your structure will include the plot elements
that your target audience wants to see.A studio considering your project will understand what kind of movie or
pilot you are trying to sell.It is
critical for every screen writer to know who she or he is writing for.Without that knowledge your script will
likely become a muddled mess.
And to make that point – know who you are writing for - let
me use the movie Funny People as an example of what can go wrong when you don’t
know who you’re writing for.
I was watching a DVD screener recently for this Judd Apatow
movie.I didn’t see Funny People when it
was in theaters.(Apparently, millions
of other people didn’t see it either.According to IMDB, the movie grossed about $70 million worldwide, which
was also the estimated budget.When you
factor in the costs of marketing and distribution, probably another $70
million, the movie was a bomb.)
As I watched Funny People, I kept asking myself Blake’s old
question: “Who was this movie written for?”
Judd Apatow’s regular audience is young adults.His hit movies, and he has had quite a few of
them, have been aimed at the eighteen to thirty-year-old demographic, which is
a smart demographic to shoot for.Other
than thirteen-year-old boys, young adults are the people most likely to go to a
movie.Executives at the major studios and
at the TV networks are most interested in making movies and TV shows that will
interest this demographic group.Judd
Apatow has shown a real gift for developing hit movies for young audiences: The
Forty Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Superbad.
So what happened with Funny People?Why did it perform so poorly at the box
office if Judd Apatow’s fans are among the people most likely to go to a movie?Was Funny People written for Judd Apatow’s regular
audience of eighteen to thirty-year-olds?And if it wasn’t written for them, who was it written for?
The elements for a successful movie seemed to be in place
for Funny People.The movie starred Adam
Sandler, who has been a popular star among younger audiences.It co-starred Seth Rogen, who seems to be in
every Judd Apatow movie.You had Apatow
himself writing and directing.You had strong
supporting players in Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman.You had cameo appearances by half the
comedians in show business.And yet,
when Funny People was released, the audience stayed away.What happened?Was it bad marketing?Was it bad timing?Was the movie swamped by some giant
blockbuster disaster movie that came out the same weekend?Or was the real problem with Funny People
that the creators never honestly asked themselves, “Who are we writing this movie
for?”
The string of successful R-rated sex comedies that started in
1999 with American Pie and continued through The Hangover all have important
story elements that are appealing to the target audience of young adults.I participated in a seminar at UCLA a year or
two ago on the subject of writing comedy for the screen.I shared the dais with several other veteran
comedy writers including a guy who was teaching a course titled, “Writing the
R-rated Comedy.”This writer said that R-rated
comedies are based on one stupid act, such as getting drunk at a bachelor party
or going to bed with Seth Rogen.(The
One Stupid Act in The Forty Year Old Virgin was Steve Carell revealing to his male
friends that he had never had sex.)The
story that follows becomes the hilarious consequences of that One Stupid Act.(In my book, Elephant Bucks, I refer to a
similar moment in a sitcom script which I call the Unwise Decision.One Stupid Act or Unwise Decision, it’s the
same critical plot element.)I’ve also noticed
that even though R-rated comedies are marketed as broad and offensive - That’s
the hook, right?You’re going to see
something offensive - the fact is that almost all of them turn out to be very
sweet stories about growing up.At the
end of the movie, the socially inept main character has matured significantly.Like most good stories, successful R-rated
sex comedies are about redemption.The
main character ends up a better, happier, more complete person as a result of
going through the ordeal that follows the One Stupid Act.(In The Hangover, the main character is all
three of the guys.Since the three
characters act in tandem throughout the movie, they really count as only one
inept main character.The One Stupid Act
is drinking the booze laced with the blackout drug.)
In watching Funny People, I noticed that these vital story
elements – inept main character, one stupid act, and redemption - were not
clearly defined.I think the reason these
elements weren’t defined is that Mr. Apatow never decided who he was writing
the movie for.
Who is the main character in Funny People?Is it Adam Sandler or is it Seth Rogen? Adam
Sandler’s character is hardly inept.He’s rich and famous.He has sex
with any woman he wants.Yes, he’s
lonely and miserable, but that isn’t because he’s socially backward.It’s because he’s a selfish jerk.
Is the main character of Funny People Seth Rogen?Rogen’s character better fits the successful
R-rated model.He’s inept.He’s a struggling comic working in a deli,
bombing on stage, and striking out with women.But he’s also the second banana in the story.You don’t usually make the second banana the
main character.Sandler and Rogen can’t
be counted as a single character since each of them has a separate story.
So right away Funny People is in trouble because the
audience doesn’t know who or what they are rooting for. The audience doesn’t know what the goal or
problem is.Sandler has a potentially
fatal disease, but so what?He’s a jerk.We don’t care if he dies.Rogen is working for Sandler, but so
what?We don’t care if he succeeds at
his degrading job.
What is the One Stupid Act in Funny People?
If there is One Stupid Act for Adam Sandler’s character, it
is the pursuit of his ex-girlfriend who is now married to someone else, but
that plot line doesn’t get going until halfway through the movie.
If there is One Stupid Act for Seth Rogen’s character, I
guess it’s when he agrees to work for Adam Sandler.
But there is no clearly defined One Stupid Act in Funny
People.Without One Stupid Act early in
the film – Katherine Heigl getting pregnant in Knocked Up, Jason Segel checking
into the same Hawaiian hotel as his ex-girlfriend in Forgetting Sarah Marshall,
the three guys waking up in the trashed Las Vegas
suite in The Hangover – you don’t have any hilarious consequences to play out
in the rest of the story.
Before the audience is fifteen minutes into Funny People,
two of the three critical elements in a successful R-rated comedy – inept main
character and One Stupid Act – have been either irreparably muddled or simply
tossed aside.
Is there redemption in Funny People?At the end of the movie, Adam Sandler is
slightly less of a jerk than he was at the beginning, but he hasn’t really
changed very much.Seth Rogen is
somewhat less of a wimp, but he still goes crawling back to Adam Sandler.So where exactly is the redemption?
Did all of these mistakes result from the creators of Funny
People not knowing who they were writing the movie for?I think so.If they had been writing the movie for their usual audience, they would
have included the critical elements that would have made the story work.I think Judd Apatow was writing Funny People
partly for his regular audience, who he perhaps took for granted.But mostly I think he was writing the movie
for the critics and the award givers, the same tiny audience that Tina Fey is
happy to court with 30 Rock.
Here’s the problem with writing for critics and award
givers: There aren’t enough of them to justify a $70 million movie or an
expensive single-camera TV series.And
surprise for Judd Apatow, the critics mostly hated Funny People, and it isn’t
going to win any awards.
There are elements that I can admire in Funny People.It’s pretty realistic and unapologetic in its
depiction of people in show business.Most creative people in Hollywood
are soulless, vain, selfish, uncaring jerks, just like the characters in the
movie.The only character in Funny
People who isn’t a complete jerk is Seth Rogen.But he’s such a wimp throughout the movie that you can hardly admire or
root for him.
Frank Capra, the three-time Oscar winning director and
producer of the classic comedies It’s A Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and You Can’t Take It With You, said that
you can’t be successful in movies unless you are entertaining.Funny People is not entertaining.At two hours and thirty minutes of cynicism,
bitterness, and ennui, it’s an ordeal.Who did Mr. Apatow think was going to be up for this ordeal?Who was he writing this movie for?
Keep these things in mind the next time you start a spec
pilot or screenplay.You need to know
who you are writing for.The writers of
the CBS comedies on Monday night know who they are writing for.The writers of practically every other sitcom
on TV don’t.
12/15/2009 6:05 PM
bob henderson wrote:
Amazing, I've always heard "who are you writing this for" but I've never really known how to explain it but this makes perfect sense. I heard Funny People was kind of boring and now I see why. Reply to this
12/15/2009 6:27 PM
bob henderson wrote:
How come you don't like 30 Rock? I mean I'm a fan of Big Bang and 30 Rock, I think both shows are funny in their own ways but I don't understand some of the hate 30 Rock gets. Reply to this
12/15/2009 7:19 PM
Sheldon Bull wrote:
I don't hate 30 Rock. I watch every episode. And I laugh sometimes. It just frustrates me that the show is such a cartoon and wins all the awards. It really isn't that hard to write a cartoon. You don't have to develop real characters or deal with real emotions or tell real stories. You just have to do jokes. And that's mostly all they do. Once in a while they tip-toe near a real story, then run in the opposite direction. It must be a blast to write Family Guy. But it actually is a cartoon. I don't think sitcoms need to be sappy. As my colleague Mark Ganzel used to say, we don't always need that "I lub you, Dabby" moment at the end of an episode. But we've swung too far the other way, in my opinion. Look, if 30 Rock were number one in the ratings, I wouldn't be saying a thing. I'd be watching what they do and passing along my observations to all of you so you could learn from them. But 30 Rock is stuck in the fifties in the ratings. It has never caught on. I criticize it because there is a reason that show doesn't connect with viewers. And it isn't because it's too smart or hip for the hicks. There was no smarter series than The Cosby Show. It's because it's a sketch. Audiences build when the series seems real. It's been all about cynicism for years now on series after series. I believe that if sitcoms were more real and had likable and believable characters then there would be more of them and then those of you trying to break in would have a better shot at a job someday. But with these cynical shows on every night, we don't make any progress toward growing the genre. And that's bad news for all of you who want a career doing this.
12/15/2009 9:55 PM
Bob Henderson wrote:
So why is it then that 30 Rock gets all the critic appraisel and all the awards and media attention and not Big Bang Theory which is higher in the ratings and on the most watched broadcast network in the US (CBS)? I hardly ever hear about Big Bang in the news but you hear about 30 Rock all the time. As far as cynical, unlikeable characters, that seems to be a trend with shows like It's Always Sunny and pretty much everything else on FX/FOX (which I admit I like) Reply to this
12/16/2009 12:07 PM
Sheldon Bull wrote:
By "critic appraisel" I assume you mean critical attention and praise. 30 Rock has the aura of being hip. And it is shot in New York. And that's all the critics need. Big Bang Theory is a traditional sitcom. It did get good reviews when it premiered and got positive press which I posted on this website when it became a ratings hit. But BBT is largely ignored by the awards shows because awards and critics' praise always go the that which seems hip and trendy and pretentious. I've met the critics at press junkets here in LA when I was producing series. Critics and TV journalists are desperately insecure nerds and wannabes who are so excited just to be in the same room with a celebrity that they wet themselves. They love anything that seems tre urban and snarky. Critics and award givers also love Mad Men. I liked that show a lot the first season. Since then it has been a total snore. It is turgid and the plot lines don't even make sense. It also has about seven viewers. But the critics love love love it.
Today's National Neilsen Ratings have 30 Rock in 48th place for the week of Dec. 7-13. 30 Rock fell off almost two ratings points and seventeen places in the rankings from The Office which came in at number 31. That's not holding your time slot. And that's why NBC now slides the last minute of The Office past 9:30 and into 30 Rock's slot. The Office actually runs longer than a half hour in an effort to hold the audience, but it doesn't work. The only sitcoms performing worse in the ratings than 30 Rock are Community at 59, Scrubs at 61, and Parks and Recreation at 71. There are three Spanish language series higher in the national ratings than Parks and Recreation. Two and a Half Men and Big Bang were 7th and 9th in the nationals for last week - both series in the Top Ten. The highest rated sitcom not on CBS was Modern Family on Wednesday in 23rd place. But the closest ABC sitcom on Wednesday night to Modern Family is The Middle at 39. Cougar Town drops to 44th in the half hour following Modern Family. So Modern Family is this huge tent pole on Wednesday with its lead-in and the series following it not coming close to garnering an equal-sized audience. They are panicking at ABC over this, I promise you. ABC will likely renew Modern Family, but will have to find a new partner for it if it is going to survive.
When it comes to the movie Funny People, it simply had a terrible, horrendous script. There was apparently no oversight whatsoever, so Judd Apatow did what the also unfettered Descent director did last year with his Doomsday. Have you seen the movie? It's a totally mind-boggling experience.
Earlier this year there was the outcry over the Ugly Truth script and how it was supposedly destroyed by the clueless and intervening producers. I just can't help but to think (thank you very much Judd Apatow) that in many cases these "ruined" scripts weren't that good to begin with.
I might be completely wrong about it but in this particular case (Katherine Heigl movie) I simply refuse to believe that anyone could have written a great script titled "The Ugly Truth". (Did they rename it?) I just cannot see it. But maybe that's because I'm too much of a softie.
Modern Family. What this show lacks is relevance. And laughs. It doesn't seem to have much to say. (not unlike Funny People) I quit watching after six episodes. I just feel that the Mockumentary style is an intentional ploy to make writing for the shows easier. Although I might be wrong about this too.
30 Rock has had a terrible fourth season so far. Hubris?
The Big Bang Theory's third season has been a somewhat disappointment too. It's better than the 'single storylines' first season but I don't like how Raj and Leonard have become somewhat douches. Also I don't like how they don't work as a team anymore. It's as if the premise has somewhat changed.
I guess it's still the only show that I look forward to watching every monday. Some fresh ideas have been the tattoo sleeves, conditioning Penny with chocolate, Wil Wheaton stuff and I guess there was something else too. But I don't know if it's the best written on comedy on tv.
Finally, when it comes to great scripts, they are almost always about 1) Soul 2) Substance and 3) Entertainment. Reply to this
12/17/2009 5:53 PM
Sheldon Bull wrote:
Let's take your several good points one at a time:
I agree that the script for Funny People was not examined enough. That was the whole premise of my blog. People in Hollywood always want to make a movie about Hollywood and always think that the in-fighting and self-absorption of Hollywood is endlessly fascinating to the public because it is endlessly fascinating to them. It isn't, as bad movies about Hollywood have proven again and again.
I never read any scripts for The Ugly Truth. I've not seen the movie. I don't know where that story started. It would be interesting to see Draft One. I do know one of the writers who worked on the script later in the process. And if you'd like to read an interesting take on that script, check out Tracey Jackson's article, The Real Ugly Truth. It was on the Huffington Post last summer and may also be accessible at Tracey's website: TraceyJacksononline.com. One thing I know for sure about movies: If the movie stinks, it is never the fault of the writer unless that person is also the director. Ugly Truth had many writers, and from what I hear the studio ruined it. Could it ever have been a good movie? I hear Nicole Eastman's earlier drafts were quite good, but I don't know. Never underestimate the ability of studios, directors, and stars to ruin a movie script with relentless meddling.
Re Modern Family - I'm not here to defend it. I've seen it a few times. I've liked it better than any other new sitcom this season. In fact, it's the only new sitcom that I liked at all. But they haven't won me over to where I've hit "record series" on the DVR. I think they're just trying too hard, or as one acquaintance remarked, "They're trying to put every single social issue into one show." And it's a huge cast. It's very difficult to get attached to ten characters on a single sitcom. Five characters is ideal. However, I'll be checking back with them again to see how the series evolves. Give them a chance. Steve Levitan and Chris Lloyd are among the best writers working in sitcom. No show has itself figured out in the first season. Look at the first 13 episodes of Seinfeld. It was pretty shaky. I can guarantee you that they are not looking for short cuts on Modern Family or trying to make it "easier to write." They're just trying to figure out what works, deal with the network and the cast, and get renewed for next season. That's enough work for anyone. No show is easy to write. They are all murder, believe me. Whether the series is good or bad, the workload is the same and it's unbearable.
Re BBT - I've enjoyed the addition of the recurring character of Bernadette, Howard's girlfriend. There are hits and misses on that series as there are on every series. I worked on eleven prime time sitcom staffs. You want every episode to be great, but you only get two or three really satisfying episodes per season. If it's a well constructed series about half of the episodes are above average. The rest stink no matter how hard you try. There's just no time to get it right and everyone gets very tired by Thanksgiving.
I did enjoy Bored to Death on HBO. Don't know if it's coming back next year. I watched three banked episodes this week. The season ended pretty strong. I'll look forward to it next year.
12/19/2009 7:20 PM
bob henderson wrote:
What do you think about shows like "Flight of the Choncords"? That's very good show that doesn't get much recognition in the sitcom world. Reply to this
12/21/2009 11:43 AM
Sheldon Bull wrote:
I watched "Flight of the Conchords" a few times when it first came on HBO. It was cute but I didn't stay with it. I'm not sure if they're still making new episodes. I'm happy to chat on this site about which series people like and don't like. On my blog, I try to focus on series that might be good candidates for spec scripts. I don't think any series on HBO or anywhere on cable for that matter are good spec candidates right now. There is no "Sex and the City" or "The Sopranos" on cable right now - a series that everyone in Hollywood watches. I suppose some of the younger executives watch "Dexter," but the heat on that series seems to have faded, too. The sitcom getting all of the heat right now is "Modern Family" on ABC. Since it is new, it hasn't been speced to death yet. It is likely to be renewed for next season so I think "Modern Family" is the best spec candidate right now. The ideal series for a spec is one that most producers in television are likely to have sampled. A producer can't tell anything from a spec script of a series that he or she has never seen. Most producers are very busy working long hours, so they don't get a chance to sample many other sitcoms. Ten or fifteen years ago, when sitcoms were on multiple networks every night, producers like me regularly checked out the competition. Often your show was up against a sitcom on another network. These days, the networks seldom program one sitcom against another. CBS runs four of its six sitcoms on Monday with no competition from sitcoms on other networks. No sitcoms run on Tuesday. CBS runs two more sitcoms on Wednesday. ABC runs its three surviving sitcoms on Wednesday. I guess there is some competition between CBS and ABC on Wednesday, but except for "Modern Family," none of the Wednesday sitcoms is a hit. NBC has Thursday to itself and draws miserable ratings. Fox runs its cartoons on Sunday. Few sitcoms are very clever these days, so I don't imagine that most producers are setting their DVR's to catch the competition. I think that's why producers and agents prefer spec pilots these days.
2/21/2010 11:30 AM
Danny wrote:
RE: The Middle I'd like to contribute why I personally like The Middle. It is Brick and his Mom. I have one son with an IQ somewhere in the area of 160 or so who has Asperger's Syndrome. I can't recall if the characters have ever commented that Brick has this same condition, but it is obvious to me that one of the writers has a family member so afflicted. One scene with Brick in the Christmas episode has him sad about Chrsitmas because it is so fleeting. My son made almost this exact same comment in the past. I can remember going on vacations, and on the road to an amusement park, he'd be sad ("Don't know if it'll live up to my expectations"), and he had the same reaction as we were leaving ("It's already over"). While we were there, he'd also be worryied that he wasn't doing the most fun thing at that time. The effectiveness of the bond between a mother and son with Asperger's is directly linked to the son's success in life (IMHO). In first grade, my son's behavior landed us all in a meeting between the administration, a psychologist and the teacher, and their recommendation was removing him and placing him in alternative school. For a first grader. My wife pulled him from public school and fortunately, we found a charter school that accepted him. He eventually returned to public school, but not without A LOT of situations that had to be addressed. Let me just say he is now at UT Dallas on full scholarship, and it is all due to his mother.
So I look forward to this show because I want to see what they have Brick do next, and how his mom bails him out. That's why I like The Middle. Reply to this
2/21/2010 12:35 PM
Sheldon Bull wrote:
I'm glad you enjoy that series and that it speaks to you.
