JaneEspenson.com

I sat down with the current Disney TV fellows yesterday over lunch. The Fellowship has been disrupted by the strike, so I’m going to step into the void in my small way to try to replace a bit of the mentorship that the studio had been providing. Over lunch, I learned some interesting things that I want to pass along to those of you hoping to get into the program in the future.

The program seems to have had a better rate of both placing fellows on shows, and in having those placed fellows thrive once they got there than in the earlier years of the program. All ten television fellows were placed on shows, and all of them were positive about the experience they had there. That’s simply amazing to me. And — get this — almost all the fellows managed to secure representation before the end of the program. Those who did not, are in the process of securing it now. Fantastic.

I also learned that it seems clear that there is every intention of continuing the program next year despite this year’s disruption. Interviews for next year’s Potentials were held recently, I am told. I hope some of you were in there, Gentle Readers. If not, then the following year must be your lucky year.

The fellows also pointed out something interesting to me that I had not noticed. The participants aren’t just diverse in the usual sense of having backgrounds different than a preponderance of other working writers. They are also diverse relative to each other. It really is an impressively wide variety of backgrounds that are represented. (Including a white guy, so be cool, white guys; there’s room for you, too.)

So, if you do find yourself in that interview chair, think about the things that set you apart and give you your unique take on the world. And I don’t just mean ethnically. If you were raised on a farm, or spent a summer on a fishing boat, or volunteered on skid row, or had an uncle in prison or congress, or grew up on a series of army bases… find that hook, just like you would with a script.

I also learned a bit of new “room” terminology from one of the fellows. There’s often a bit of talk in the room about which scene is the one that’s going to be cut if it looks like the show is coming in too long, which it always does. It’s important to be able to identify this scene early enough so that you can cut it before you spend a lot of time and energy rewriting it. You also need to move any crucial information out of this scene into other, safer, places. (This is also important in spec writing too, of course.) Anyway, the bit of terminology is “on the plastic.” The scene that’s next in line to be cut, is said to be on the plastic. The associated image is that of a mob guy, called into a meeting, only to find that he’s standing on plastic laid down to protect the room. It’s kind of a genius phrase, because it not only suggests that the scene is doomed, but also that the scenes around it will be protected from damage. Genius!

The fellows were gracious, welcoming, informative and unfailingly positive. I’m sure more of you will join their ranks every year.

There is also a lot of new strike news, but I’ll put that up in a separate post.

Lunch: The “Big and Tasty” burger at McDonald’s. I like that it has tomato.

Only time tonight to give specifics on the special bloggers’ picket tomorrow at Warner Brothers. We’ll be at gate 2/3, which is a combo of gates 2 and 3, not gate two-thirds, from 8 a.m. to 11. I will be there, along with John August, Craig Mazin, and Josh Friedman. I hope to see you there!

Lunch: shabu shabu with beef and clear noodles. Always tasty.

Did you see that outfit on Project Runway two weeks ago? It was made from a heavy and very stretchy knit. The judges noticed that it actually got bigger during the fashion show as it succumbed to gravity. Any sort of fit that it started with was lost as it sagged off the model.

I talked with a writer today about how stories have a right size too. It’s totally true. He talked about a sitcom story with a very comedic hook that kept sagging under logical problems and general believability issues. It just didn’t seem to be sturdy enough to support even a B-story’s amount of weight. But once the show’s staff tried turning it into a tiny two-beat comedic runner, the little story clung like a slinky silk. If you’ve got a story that seemed hilarious when you thought of the concept but that now seems forced and, you know, gray… take it to the tailor.

Strike: Remember that strange article from TV Guide online? The one that suggested that most of their readers are opposed to the writers? Today, faced with poll results that said their readers actually favor the writers by a 4-to-1 margin, they put out a follow-up piece. Perhaps this was to correct the earlier error? Actually, the new article suggests that maybe negative reader comments reflect a shift away from the writers’ position since the poll was completed. Note: the poll is still open. So are comments on the new article.

Lunch: I tried something new at a place called “Kansas City Barbeque.” It was called a “burnt end sandwich”. I know! It was fabulous!

UPDATE: I almost forgot to ask. Does anyone out there want a hot towel? Follow the link to find out about a possible benefit of buying pencils. Tell your friends!

It’s an all-strike update entry today, Gentle Readers. There’s just so much to cover!

First, I bought more pencils today. If you haven’t bought your limit yet, might I suggest something? Let’s see how many we can buy before the big Mutant Enemy picket day at Fox on December 7. This action won’t last forever, and it’s nice to have a goal-date, don’t you think?

Second, I’m going to have a very busy picketing week this week. Look for me at the Universal Studios Barham gate early tomorrow morning, then at Paramount at 9 AM on Tuesday to walk with other women Sci Fi writers (look for the group with the pink hats), and then on Wednesday morning, I’m participating in a special walk-with-the-bloggers picket at Warner Brothers with John August, Craig Mazin, and Josh Friedman. Come by and collect us all!

Third, I had a thought today. (No, really.) While the rest of the viewing public is having to withdraw from their shows as, one by one, they slump into reruns, you writers don’t have to. Write your spec scripts (you lucky non-WGA guys, you), and you’ll still get to commune with the characters you love. If you’re going to need a spec of an existing show for next year’s fellowships, this would be a grand time to write one. (Remember not to pick a brand-new show, and also remember, a script is always a more valuable research tool than a completed episode is.)

Lunch: bagels, cream cheese, fruit and teeny-tiny cream puffs

UPDATE: I’m told that the links in this post weren’t working for some (but not all) readers. I think they should work now.

Gentle Reader Braden has expressed frustration with characters overusing each others’ names in scripts. This is an interesting topic. I’m sure you know what he’s referring to — characters on film tend to address each other by name far more often than speakers do in real life.

Braden refers to actually highlighting these uses of names in the dialogue of scripts that he’s reading. Ah… interesting that he references the written page. Yes, Braden, absolutely. When you’re reading a script, these overuses can be very annoying, largely because you’re also reading the name every single time the character says something — in the character slug line. When you’re actually watching the finished product, the overuse is less obvious and helps you learn the names of all the major players so that you know who’s who when off-screen characters are referenced.

There’s also, I believe, a practical reason that writers have characters overuse names the way they do. It’s intimate. That’s why salesmen like to call you by name. It helps us believe in a connection between the characters. I also like the way the use of name can break up sentences, creating a more unusual rhythm. You can probably think, Gentle Readers, of a way in which I even do that around here sometimes.

So, yes, Braden, it can be overdone. If you’re noticing it at all, then it almost certainly is overdone. Uses of names should be subtle and almost subliminal. If they’re too obviously above the statistical norm then you’ve got a problem. Also, since you guys are creating scripts to be read, not produced, you should be aware of what I mentioned earlier. You’ve got your characters’ names already splashed all over your pages, so be careful. We know that’s House, so we don’t need to be hit with one.

Strike: I’m puzzled and a little upset by this piece posted yesterday on TV Guide online. It says that most of their reader responses are pro-studio — an earlier draft of the story, found here even implies that only 37 percent of their readers are pro-writer. On a site specifically for TV fans? Can that be right? (No. It can’t.) The piece even asks, “So, is everyone tired of the writers’ demands?” Well, either this reporter is somehow getting a skewed picture of the fans’ position, or I am. I discovered that it’s easy to register and leave comments and vote in polls at tvguide.com. Don’t you agree?

Lunch: scrambled eggs with fried tortilla pieces mixed in and lots of Sriracha sauce.

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »