![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[First off - have a book to recommend, entitled CRAFTIVITY - you can get it at Amazon or Barnes and Noble. Great book. Well laid out with some good advice. It is basically about how to crochet, knit, build, sew, hand-make stuff. Worth a look-see. Also am sort of enjoying Chris Moore's "Lamb", funny book, not at all what I expected. Indirect satire, with a good solid and touching story at the heart. Sort of like Borat in that respect, albeit less offensive and crude, more subtle if slightly irreverent.]
Yesterday, read an interesting discussion in Entertainment Weekly with Stephen King and the producers of the TV show Lost which shed further light on the differences between writing a novel and creating a tv show. Here's a few quotes from the discussion:
JJ Abrams to Stephen King: "Do you ever make big shifts in your writing, Stephen? Or do you map out enough so you kind of know what you're going to be doing? Because in our show, Kate wasn't originally going to be "the convict", and Jack was supposed to die."
King: "I don't really map anything out. I just let it happen. But once it happens, it's always there. If it's laid, it's played. If I get to page 300 and it's not working, I junk it. But it's just paper; it's not like a TV network giving you millions of dollars [Lost costs approximately 1 million an episode]. But for you guys, you're at a point where it doesn't matter whether this jazzes you or not, you've got a responsibility to roll with this thing, right? To your fans, to the cast, to your network."
Abrams: "But it's also about the business. It has nothing to do with creativity."
King:"You are three of the most creative guys I know and you sit there and say, "It has nothing to do with creativity?!"[Yes, King apparently doesn't get out much.]
Abrams:"No, I'm saying that the reason they would want the show to continue isn't because they [meaning the network] care about the characters. It's because there's an economic model that says the show must go on for five years. Twin Peaks did not make them money. We love it because it was cool...
Cuse (Producer of Lost and cowriter): ...but it was a cult thing.
Abrams: And a cult doesn't pay for it.
[This is true by the way. Twin Peaks lost oodles of money. You need at least 100 episodes for someone to buy syndication rights. That's why TV shows hold huge celebrations, complete with cake, whenever they hit their hundredth episode. That episode landmark basically is akin to your boss telling you that your project worked, a publisher saying your book sold and they might want another, or a movie making a profit. Or say passing the finish line in a marathon. A hundred episodes means you can get the job done. And for most tv shows - a 100 episodes equals five years. There are a couple of shows, such as say Star Trek, which did not get 100 episodes but did make a lot of money, but they are rarities and usually have at some point passed "cult" status and entered mainstream. We love cult, but cult doesn't pay the bills. And is really hard to get made. Buffy was NOT cult. Nor was Angel. Firefly on the other hand is. And yep, it did NOT make money - which is why it is highly unlikely you will see a sequel. Oh sure it made money, but it did not make enough to justify the price-tag of a sequel. If that makes sense. Probably not. Hard to wrap one's mind around the amount of money it takes to make a movie or tv show. And no it's not the actors salaries or just the special effects. Those damn grips and people carrying the lighting cost a bundle.]
King: "Obviously, ABC wants it to go on forever, and at this point, it becomes a struggle for the soul of the show. And by transference, it becomes a struggle for your souls as artists of integrity. Obviously, it can go on forever - are you going to let that happen?"
Lindelof [co-creator and writer]: " It's a bit more complicated for us. An artist such as yourself, you basically have total control over your characters. But we don't own Lost. While the network is committed to the show creatively, their job is to develop shows and hope that they become hits and then support them so that they stay hits. When we pitched Lost, part of it was convincing ABC we could keep it on the air for as long as they wanted. If we told them we could only do the show if we ended it after 100 episodes, they never would've agreed to it. And who could blame them?"
Entertainment Weekly: Could they [the network] veto a script? Could they say they're just not going to produce it?
Lindelof: "Absolutely. We wrote a script last year called "Dave". It plays out a version of the idea that all of this is happening in Hurley's head. The original draft was a great cause of concern; ABC felt it was advancing an idea that offered an explanation for the entire show." [King responds on a bit regarding why he likes Lost and how the story is the boss - which you'll just have to go out and purchase EW to read.]
King: "However you end it, based on my experience with The Dark Tower, you will hear from thousands of people who f---ing hate it."
Cuse: "No question. There were many complaints about The X-Files, which in the minds of many faltered in its last two years and tainted the whole thing. That's a profound lesson for us."
[Earlier in the interview:]
Entertainment Weekly: How does not knowing when Lost could end affect your current storytelling choices?
Lindelof: "We're proceeding as if they are going to allow us to do what we plan, which is a four- or - five season arc with potentially a movie to wrap it up. My guess is they'll realize that the endgame is in play when major characters start getting bumped off."
King: "Unless, of course, you run into the kind of situation I had at this [August] event in New York with J.K. Rowling and John Irving. This kid said, 'You can't kill Harry [Potter]! We, the fans, don't want him to be dead!" You could run up against that too."
[LOL! This interview took place before the start of Lost this season by the way. ]
A novel writer has the luxurary (sp? - can't spell this word to save my life) of knowing how his book will end, when it will end, and ensuring it will end the way he wants it to. The novel writer who is not writing a frigging serial of novels, also has the luxury of killing off whomever he/she chooses without fans dictating not to do it. Not so, the TV show creator. First off, the TV show creator does not own the TV show - the network does. He/she is under contract to the network to deliver a product that will make money and last at least five seasons. Less then that, it does not make money. Twin Peaks for example may have been cool but made no money because only two seasons and cult doesn't make money. They were told by network to create a show about a bunch of plane crash survivors. They intended to kill Jack in the first episode, network head told them not to. They wrote an episode that revealed more about the island's secrets, network got nervous and told them to change it. If you start killing off too many characters - network starts to get nervous. Rightly so. Because as King reported - that would upset the fans of the books. This, by the way, annoys the bejeesus out of me. I think the author has the right to do whatever they damn well please to their characters - they are writing the book, we are reading or watching their story. If I wanted to read the frigging fans' version - I would read fanfic - I don't, well rarely, and mostly out of curiousity, boredom and oh alright, for the porn. In short, I think Rowlings should ignore her fans and write the story. Kill Harry, if it works for your story. Don't cater to fans. And in books and movies you can sort of get away with that. Used to get away with it with tv shows. Stupid internet has made that more difficult. Now we are hyper-aware of what everybody thinks about everything. Which wouldn't bug me if the people creating the product did not pay so much attention. Stephen King is right in the interview when he states - whatever you do, however you tell it, there will be thousands of people upset with you over it. Because it's NOT what they wanted. If you pay attention to the them - you might as well be writing a paint-by-numbers or by committee. Because the story isn't yours anymore. You aren't telling it. They are. And that is the death of your story. You've sold out. And when creators do that? I stop paying attention. What's the point?
Yesterday, read an interesting discussion in Entertainment Weekly with Stephen King and the producers of the TV show Lost which shed further light on the differences between writing a novel and creating a tv show. Here's a few quotes from the discussion:
JJ Abrams to Stephen King: "Do you ever make big shifts in your writing, Stephen? Or do you map out enough so you kind of know what you're going to be doing? Because in our show, Kate wasn't originally going to be "the convict", and Jack was supposed to die."
King: "I don't really map anything out. I just let it happen. But once it happens, it's always there. If it's laid, it's played. If I get to page 300 and it's not working, I junk it. But it's just paper; it's not like a TV network giving you millions of dollars [Lost costs approximately 1 million an episode]. But for you guys, you're at a point where it doesn't matter whether this jazzes you or not, you've got a responsibility to roll with this thing, right? To your fans, to the cast, to your network."
Abrams: "But it's also about the business. It has nothing to do with creativity."
King:"You are three of the most creative guys I know and you sit there and say, "It has nothing to do with creativity?!"[Yes, King apparently doesn't get out much.]
Abrams:"No, I'm saying that the reason they would want the show to continue isn't because they [meaning the network] care about the characters. It's because there's an economic model that says the show must go on for five years. Twin Peaks did not make them money. We love it because it was cool...
Cuse (Producer of Lost and cowriter): ...but it was a cult thing.
Abrams: And a cult doesn't pay for it.
[This is true by the way. Twin Peaks lost oodles of money. You need at least 100 episodes for someone to buy syndication rights. That's why TV shows hold huge celebrations, complete with cake, whenever they hit their hundredth episode. That episode landmark basically is akin to your boss telling you that your project worked, a publisher saying your book sold and they might want another, or a movie making a profit. Or say passing the finish line in a marathon. A hundred episodes means you can get the job done. And for most tv shows - a 100 episodes equals five years. There are a couple of shows, such as say Star Trek, which did not get 100 episodes but did make a lot of money, but they are rarities and usually have at some point passed "cult" status and entered mainstream. We love cult, but cult doesn't pay the bills. And is really hard to get made. Buffy was NOT cult. Nor was Angel. Firefly on the other hand is. And yep, it did NOT make money - which is why it is highly unlikely you will see a sequel. Oh sure it made money, but it did not make enough to justify the price-tag of a sequel. If that makes sense. Probably not. Hard to wrap one's mind around the amount of money it takes to make a movie or tv show. And no it's not the actors salaries or just the special effects. Those damn grips and people carrying the lighting cost a bundle.]
King: "Obviously, ABC wants it to go on forever, and at this point, it becomes a struggle for the soul of the show. And by transference, it becomes a struggle for your souls as artists of integrity. Obviously, it can go on forever - are you going to let that happen?"
Lindelof [co-creator and writer]: " It's a bit more complicated for us. An artist such as yourself, you basically have total control over your characters. But we don't own Lost. While the network is committed to the show creatively, their job is to develop shows and hope that they become hits and then support them so that they stay hits. When we pitched Lost, part of it was convincing ABC we could keep it on the air for as long as they wanted. If we told them we could only do the show if we ended it after 100 episodes, they never would've agreed to it. And who could blame them?"
Entertainment Weekly: Could they [the network] veto a script? Could they say they're just not going to produce it?
Lindelof: "Absolutely. We wrote a script last year called "Dave". It plays out a version of the idea that all of this is happening in Hurley's head. The original draft was a great cause of concern; ABC felt it was advancing an idea that offered an explanation for the entire show." [King responds on a bit regarding why he likes Lost and how the story is the boss - which you'll just have to go out and purchase EW to read.]
King: "However you end it, based on my experience with The Dark Tower, you will hear from thousands of people who f---ing hate it."
Cuse: "No question. There were many complaints about The X-Files, which in the minds of many faltered in its last two years and tainted the whole thing. That's a profound lesson for us."
[Earlier in the interview:]
Entertainment Weekly: How does not knowing when Lost could end affect your current storytelling choices?
Lindelof: "We're proceeding as if they are going to allow us to do what we plan, which is a four- or - five season arc with potentially a movie to wrap it up. My guess is they'll realize that the endgame is in play when major characters start getting bumped off."
King: "Unless, of course, you run into the kind of situation I had at this [August] event in New York with J.K. Rowling and John Irving. This kid said, 'You can't kill Harry [Potter]! We, the fans, don't want him to be dead!" You could run up against that too."
[LOL! This interview took place before the start of Lost this season by the way. ]
A novel writer has the luxurary (sp? - can't spell this word to save my life) of knowing how his book will end, when it will end, and ensuring it will end the way he wants it to. The novel writer who is not writing a frigging serial of novels, also has the luxury of killing off whomever he/she chooses without fans dictating not to do it. Not so, the TV show creator. First off, the TV show creator does not own the TV show - the network does. He/she is under contract to the network to deliver a product that will make money and last at least five seasons. Less then that, it does not make money. Twin Peaks for example may have been cool but made no money because only two seasons and cult doesn't make money. They were told by network to create a show about a bunch of plane crash survivors. They intended to kill Jack in the first episode, network head told them not to. They wrote an episode that revealed more about the island's secrets, network got nervous and told them to change it. If you start killing off too many characters - network starts to get nervous. Rightly so. Because as King reported - that would upset the fans of the books. This, by the way, annoys the bejeesus out of me. I think the author has the right to do whatever they damn well please to their characters - they are writing the book, we are reading or watching their story. If I wanted to read the frigging fans' version - I would read fanfic - I don't, well rarely, and mostly out of curiousity, boredom and oh alright, for the porn. In short, I think Rowlings should ignore her fans and write the story. Kill Harry, if it works for your story. Don't cater to fans. And in books and movies you can sort of get away with that. Used to get away with it with tv shows. Stupid internet has made that more difficult. Now we are hyper-aware of what everybody thinks about everything. Which wouldn't bug me if the people creating the product did not pay so much attention. Stephen King is right in the interview when he states - whatever you do, however you tell it, there will be thousands of people upset with you over it. Because it's NOT what they wanted. If you pay attention to the them - you might as well be writing a paint-by-numbers or by committee. Because the story isn't yours anymore. You aren't telling it. They are. And that is the death of your story. You've sold out. And when creators do that? I stop paying attention. What's the point?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 11:06 pm (UTC)u
Date: 2007-06-17 09:19 am (UTC). Much respect!