Grumpy Gus starts us off:
Ken, how might actors/showrunners feel when a potentially big show is relegated to a network's streaming channel? I'm sure publicly they'll say all the right things ("And thanks to Paramount for making this all happen...") but I can't imagine they wouldn't rather be on a regular network. Will & Grace's reboot got that chance. So did Murphy Brown. Are they supposed to be flattered that they're the jewel offering of this new channel? Wouldn't they rather their show be exposed to a million more eyeballs?
Streaming is the future. There’s also more freedom vis a vis content and language. As long as the network doesn’t slice your budget, there are advantages to being on a streaming service.
A good example is THE GOOD FIGHT on Paramount (formerly CBS All Access). It’s the spin-off of THE GOOD WIFE but with way more bite, way wilder subject matter, and top notch production values. CBS decided to air some of it on the broadcast network and had to completely declaw it.
I think it depends more of the show premise itself. If you have a very mainstream idea, then yes, a broadcast network offers the advantage of potentially more viewers. But if you want to do something a little edgy or off-beat, streaming should be your destination.
Michael wonders.
You have done so many podcasts that I don't recall - have you done any in which you interview a casting agent about their process and experiences?
I did a two-parter with casting director Sheila Guthrie back in July 2018. She was terrific. You'll learn a lot.
Here’s part one.
Here’s part two.
From Marka:
I wonder how shows evaluate themselves after a season. Is it like football coaches going over film game by game at the end of the year and talking about what worked and what didn't? If so is it like we need less of the diner scenes and more in the bus station? Less of this character and more of that? We should stop asking this actor to do this because they're not very good at it? We need to change the apartment set because it isn't working?
If this happens, is it internal or at the instigation and direction of the studio?
Certainly we do it internally, both at the end of the season and constantly during the season. As you suggested, we assess which shows worked, what our actors’ strengths and weaknesses are, what storylines worked, and what pitfalls to avoid in the future.
And we tend to be very objective and critical.
When studios and networks get involved it’s usually because the show is struggling. Then everybody has an opinion. It’s a pile-on.
Look, the truth is if you do 22 episodes a year, or even 13 — one will always be the worst. You just have to hope it’s only one and not six.
And finally, Daniel Kaufman:
How did Alan Alda become part of the creative team (writing and directing)? Was he a welcome addition by the other writers or was he seen as an interloper? I liked his work so I hope the former, but I could see it going either way.
I can’t say enough good things about Alan Alda and his involvement with the process.
His influence developed over time. Even in the first few years when Larry Gelbart was in charge he was writing scripts. He’s also a terrific director. As the series evolved, Alan’s involvement grew.
But I will say unequivocally, his participation was welcomed. Alan was always a cheerleader. He strove to make the show better. He was extremely respectful, appreciative, and generous. If someone pitched a joke in the writing room Alan was the one who laughed the loudest.
He contributed great ideas, terrific jokes, and always in the service of the integrity of the show. It was never about “star turns.” We always looked forward to having Alan in the room. And often he’d take us out to dinner after a rewrite. I love the guy!
What’s your FQ?
from By Ken Levine
Comments
Post a Comment