A question I’m always asked is:
If I’m writing a spec script for an existing sitcom, should it be in a two-act or three-act format.
Some backstory. For years sitcoms followed the two-act formula. There was a big commercial break in the middle. Then some networks decided it would easier to retain the audience if they sprinkled the commercials throughout. Thus there were two breaks during the body of the show, not one. And thus the three-act format was born (or hatched).
This is important information because it means that the template was changed not so that stories could be better told but because of commerce.
My feeling always was that if I did my job and constructed an act break strong enough, it would hold the viewer through the commercials. The great Carl Reiner had an expression when he ran THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW. He wanted his act breaks to be “Hey, Maes!” The husband is watching the show in the living room and the act break is so compelling he yells out to his wife who’s in another room, “Hey, Mae! You gotta get out here and see this!”
The two-act structure is clearly better for storytelling in such a brief period of time. Plays can be three-acts, but they can also be three hours. Sitcoms get about twenty minutes. The two-act format: In the first act you build to a peak problem. Then in the second you resolve it. Nice. Neat. Hopefully the animated promo for WHITNEY at the bottom of the screen is not too distracting and you can follow the storyline. In the three-act structure you work towards a problem in the first act, work towards a complication in the second, and then have only a few minutes to resolve it in the third. Sometimes the animated promos are as long as the acts.
So what do you do if you’re writing a spec for an existing sitcom and they employ the three-act model? First, I would always follow the format the show uses. Showing them how they could do their series better does not generally win points.
But I would hedge. I would make one of the act breaks very strong, preferably the first one. The second is a complication and I’d make it a funny one if possible. So you’re ending that act on a good laugh. This structure does have one advantage: It forces you to get right to your story and build to an act break quickly. Young writers often get lost meandering around at the beginning of their scripts, trying to find the voices of the characters and just get comfortable writing that show. This structure reduces that.
Here’s how I plot out sitcom episodes: I come up with premise, then decide the act break (or breaks), arrive at a conclusion, and then fill in from there. I don’t plot A to B to C to D. I plot A to D to F then fill in B, C, etc. And along the way I’m always looking for the funniest, cleverest, most surprising ways to tell that story.
One other point: You have to follow this three-act structure because that’s what your show uses. But agents are also going to ask you for original material. At that point it’s totally up to you. It’s your pilot. You set the format. See how the story works best for you. Or, if you write a one-act play, it can be one-act.
As always, best of luck. Someone has to break through. Why not you?
Note: Longtime readers of this blog know that whenever I can't find an appropriate photo I post one of Natalie Wood.
17 Haziran 2012 Pazar
Advice for young writers
I will be on a podcast
Today at 7 PM EDT/4 PM PDT I'll be Stu Shostak guest on his weekly podcast. We'll be talking MASH, television, and my new book THE ME GENERATION... BY ME. (Kindle version here. Paperback here.)
Anywho, here's the link to Stu's site. Should be fun. Hey, the man's had Betty White on his show. And from I hear, she's going to be really pissed if you don't buy my book. 
MAD MEN season 5 review
Okay, I gave you a few days to catch up on the MAD MEN finale. If you still haven’t seen it, then SPOILER ALERT. But if you have, or don’t care then read on.
I’m very curious as to your opinion of this season. A number of critics I admire and who analyze the shit out of the show every week took issue with the fact that this year they (and by they I mean Matt Weiner of course) spelled things out more than ever before. In the final episode Pete tells the new love of his life (who has no idea who he is after her recent shock treatment – there’s always some little complication between young lovers) everything that’s wrong with his life. And Don reveals to Peggy his fear that important people in his life always leave him. There are four or five other examples along the way.
The critics contend that these admissions are quite bald and very uncharacteristic of MAD MEN. The show (and by the show I mean Matt Weiner of course) always prided itself on its subtlety. The writing staff (and by writing staff I mean Matt Weiner, of course) seemed to give the audience more credit in the past – that they could figure out these attitudes and emotions themselves. They didn’t them to be spelled out. 
And that’s true. MAD MEN at its best uses behavior, originality, and surprising story turns to convey the most complex emotions and ideas. No explanations are needed. How the characters react to situations informs us of who they are and what they want. No one does that better than Matt Weiner (and by Matt Weiner I mean Matt Weiner of course).
But that subtlety comes with a price. The audience has to WANT TO put in the time and effort to gleam the themes and decipher the intended messages. When they do it’s great! You have real watercooler television. People taking the time to debate your show. It doesn’t get any better than that (except for awards and money and fame). But if the audience isn’t as invested or loses interest and doesn't want to play then there’s the danger of losing them completely.
For that reason I didn’t really mind the more overt explanations. I worry that the show may have a bigger problem. I wonder if fans are starting to get tired of these characters’ dilemmas. To me the common theme was that nobody was happy even though everybody should have been happy. Whatever they had wasn’t enough. After awhile you start feeling you’re watching THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OF MADISON AVENUE. As a writer, this has always been my test: If the audience might say, "I wish I had that problem" then construct a different problem.
If I could respectfully make one suggestion for next season it would be to make the characters’ plight more relatable and sympathetic. I think back to the first season. I even loved Betty.
That said, I thought there were some brilliant episodes and moments in this year’s shows. The Richard Speck installment was riveting. I love Ginsburg. Can’t get enough Sally. Roger on LSD should be his permanent state. Joan can do no wrong even when she does. You can’t punch Pete enough. And Peggy going all “Lou Pinella” on Don after the botched presentation was maybe the best scene of the year.
But the competition is getting tougher, it’s harder and harder to top yourself, and Matt Weiner has his work cut out for him (and by Matt Weiner I mean Don Draper, of course).
Is it worth it to go to film school?
Here are this week’s Friday Questions. What’s yours?
Gareth Wilson asks:
Actual working screenwriters seem very skeptical about the relevance of film school to screenwriting employment. I gather that a diploma from even the best film school is meaningless when trying to get work. So is it possible to design a course that actually teaches you to write salable scripts, and what would it look like?
It really all depends on who your teacher is. My partner, David Isaacs, teaches screenwriting at USC and is terrific. USC has a very prestigious program but if David were teaching at the DeVry Institute I would say go there instead.
To me the real value in going to a noted film school is that they provide better networking opportunities when you get out. The UCLA, USC, NYU, Yale, Harvard, Northwestern mafias do exist.
As for a class teaching you how to write salable scripts – at the end of the day you have to have the talent to write scripts anyone would buy. Courses can provide the guidelines but ultimately you’ve got to have the chops. 
If I may be immodest for a moment, I think the best single course for learning how to write sitcoms is my Sitcom Room seminar that I offer every fall. It’s the only course that really simulates what a working environment is like and gives you a chance to write for actors then see your work performed. To my knowledge it’s the only class like it. There’s only so much theory you can digest. You learn by being given a solid foundation and then asked to do it.
Ger Apeldoorn queries:
Joe Keenan once said, that although the farces were hammered out in the room just like any story, he preferred to take them home to work out the plot points. Are there any other things that are hard to do in a room?
Uh, yeah. EVERYTHING. Breaking stories is particularly tough. The good news about doing them in a room is you get different ideas. But the bad news is often times these ideas coming from every direction only creates more confusion.
For the same reason, it’s often hard in a room to write a detailed argument. Too many voices. Can you imagine room-writing an episode of WEST WING? Heads would explode.
From ao:
Who decides on which pilot to pick up? What happens to the ones that were not picked up? Just shove into the dark space of pilot black hole? And will TV networks ever air pilots that were never picked up for us (the audience)? At least show it online. I would love to see it.
Network top brass make the final decisions. You’d think they would simply pick up the best shows, but it’s much more complicated than that. Other factors include testing, commitments, whether they own the show or not, license fees, desire to be in business with a certain piece of talent, target demographics, need, time slot, compatibility with other shows, trends, etc. There’s a lot of horse trading that goes on behind-the-scenes.
It used to be if a pilot didn’t get picked up the network would gladly sell it to another network. They are then off the hook financially. But when NBC picked up THIRD ROCK FROM THE SUN after ABC passed and it became a big hit, ABC was very embarrassed. So for a long time if a network passed on a pilot they would rather just eat the cost then chance that someone else could turn it into a big hit.
But that was in a different economy. Today networks are again happy to have studios shop failed pilots around. Recouping their investment is worth more than possible embarrassment.
There was one case where David Frankel took his failed pilot, sold it as a short film and won an Oscar for it. And from time to time in LA, a small theater will stage failed pilots as if they were one act plays.
You’re welcome to come by the house and I’ll show you my failed pilots.
Liggie wants to know:
Friday question, professional advice edition. How do you prepare your voice for the long baseball broadcasts? I've started a job in the travel industry where I have to talk for four hours straight (ticket counter, line organizer, direction giver), and my throat's shot when I go home.
First, learn how to use your voice. Learn how to breathe and how to speak from your diaphragm and not your throat. The best vocal teacher in Los Angeles is Darlene Koldenhoven (I know. Great name, isn’t it?).
Protect your voice. Avoid loud rooms and clubs where you have to shout to be heard. Don’t have dairy products before a broadcast. It causes phlegm. So stay away from ice cream.
Air conditioning is also an enemy of the voice.
If possible, do some vocal exercises before your shift. Always have plenty of water. Stay hydrated. Keep your vocal chords lubricated. Hot tea and honey is also good. Alcohol is not.
Suck hard candy. That’s what Vin Scully does. 
And finally, relax. Tense voices are strained voices. Here again, breathing is key. Pace yourself, do the necessary preparations, breathe right, and you should be okay. Unless you’re calling hockey. How does Doc Emrick do it???
The Best of Batman
I imagine people are already getting in line for the opening of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, the new Batman movie that opens July 12th. As a way to climb on that batwagon and plug my book -- THE ME GENERATION... BY ME (GROWING UP IN THE '60s) I thought I would include the passageabout "our" Batman and feature some examples. The Kindle version is available now as is the paperback. There are no ads on this blog you'll notice. The way you can support this site is to buy my book. Hey, you'll get a lot more enjoyment out of it than a PBS tote bag. Here's where you go for the Kindle. And this link'll get you the paperback. Thanks so much!
...January 12, 1966
That’s the night Batman premiered.
It instantly became my new favorite show. Me and everyone else under 20. “Camp” and “kitsch” were the zeitgeist of the day and the Caped Crusader was its superhero. Fight scenes were punctuated with on-screen comic book words POW! BAM! ZONK! The Caped Crusader was played by an actor who had the agility of a hunchback. But Adam West’s goofy sincerity struck just the right chord and this tongue-in-cheek comedy was an instant smash (Sorry. I meant SMASH!).
You look back at those old Batman episodes and think, “What schlock!” And in fairness, by season two we thought that too. By the time Otto Preminger played a villain, we had moved on.
On this Father’s Day (the most sacred holiday of the year) I’d like to wish a happy one to my dad, who also happens to be my hero, mentor, and best friend.
Here are some pithy Father’s Day quotes:
“To be a successful father… there’s one absolute rule: when you have a kid, don’t look at it for the first two years.” -- Ernest Hemingway
“A man knows when he is growing old because he begins to look like his father.” -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
“If the new American father feels bewildered and even defeated, let him take comfort from the fact that whatever he does in any fathering situation has a fifty percent chance of being right.” -- Bill Cosby
“It is a wise father that knows his own child.” -- William Shakespeare (especially if the mother is Anna Nicole)
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." – Mark Twain
“By the time a man realizes that maybe his father was right, he usually has a son who thinks he's wrong.” -- Charles Wadsworth
And finally, a salute to Screaming Jay Hawkins. Screaming Jay was a r&b/blues singer. His big hit was “I Put a Spell on You” in which he came out of a coffin. The man was a crowd pleaser. And also a lady pleaser it seems. Upon his death when it was time to divvy up the estate it was discovered he had 57 children. Screaming Jay will not be saluted on Planned Parenthood day.
Happy Father's Day to all the dads out there. Note to wives and daughters: Dad wants copies of my new book, available in Kindle version and in paperback.
Disconnecting Nielsen
"Even though we represented 60,000 households of viewers, Jericho was still canceled. Moonlight was still canceled. I’m not convinced my Nielsen vote helped at all there. But I watched faithfully and always made sure Devoted Spouse and I were both logged in on the remote."
"Nielsen, the fumbling audience measurement company notorious for snapping up the competition instead of building a better product for market, is doing the print industry a favor and promising not to get involved in measuring its audience. Even though its new “anywhere/anytime” initiative promised to be able to measure all media consumption, David Calhoun’s band of incompetents won’t be treading on FAS-FAX territory.
Not only that: Nielsen is looking to get out of print entirely."