In this article at The Guardian website (yes, registration is required. but it's free, stop whining.) British TV Production Exec Jane Featherstone opines that the UK may finally have to move away from the six-pack... "We are going to have to start producing longer-running series," she says. "We are going to have to start the shift to US-style 26-part series..."
Here in Canada, of course, CBC is in love with the six-pack (cause, you know, that's what they do in the UK.) Featherstone's other point is that you have to make shows with broader appeal, that could sell overseas, even -- to make up the difference in budgets. That seems to be going in the opposite direction of CBC too, but who knows, now that a British person has suggested something different, things could change awfully quick here, too...
I think longer seasons are definitely better for building and maintaining writing careers, because as it stands, the UK is a lot like Canada in the sense that short runs of episodes tend to mean they only employ the writers who've created the shows. That's not good for training, and it's not good for building a larger community of professional writers. (I believe the situation, believe it or not, is actually a little better in the UK, since there is some support there for professional theatre. In Canada...not so much.)
How can building a series of sets, crewing up, and starting a whole production for six episodes really be economical, anyway? Your advertising costs for promotion are still pretty fixed -- what, other than raising the budget, is the downside of producing 13? Or 18? Or 22? Or hell, even 8?
I hope it happens. If the UK recognizes that short run series aren't the most viable model, then maybe the anglophiles here will finally be forced to wake up and smell the international market -- and not in the bad-old-days way of crappy industrial action-adventure stuff designed to ape a U.S. syndie market that went south years ago.
Everyone in Canada talks about a U.S. sale, and then goes out and makes product that would never in a million years sell there because of how completely it reeks of provinciality. Note to creators: Corner Gas is universal. Slings & Arrows is universal. Within its niche, so is Trailer Park Boys. But Eleventh Hour (the Canadian show, not the UK version) and Hatching, Matching & Dispatching aint. You can be specific to a place, and still be universal. But it means you have to think about the audience, and stop being quite so self-indulgent.
That being said, there are plenty of people, professional people, who get it here in the former British North America...So, UK Producers -- if you're going to make a go of this 22 episode thing, and if you need a co-production partner to make up some of those budgets, may I humbly suggest Canada? We're like the U.S.'s slutty little sister who likes to smoke pot and drink strong beer and hang out with married gay boys and dykes while we take our aspirin with codeine. We don't have to watch hockey. We just like to. But we can get past that. And look -- that's Queen Liz on our money, too! Yayyy!
Featherstone's production company, Kudos, is probably best known on this side of the pond for A&E's MI-5 (which shows in Canada on BBC Canada under its original British Title, Spooks.) If you've only seen the show on A&E, I'd highly advise picking up the DVD's of Season One and Two (and soon, Three) as A&E cut out up to fifteen minutes per episode for commercials.
I always liked Spooks/MI-5. I thought it was a bracing and refreshing look inside the world of Intelligence -- again, with a non-Amero-centric spin to it. Plus, the sexy American CIA Babe they had on the show, was, well...hot.
The Guardian article has a lot to say about the show that's quite illuminating. And one bit that flew right over my cultural head, but is remarkably cool -- and shows just how pressure cooker the TV game can be.
One of the favorite moments that made me sit up and take notice in MI-5 early on was a gruesome scene where someone was tortured using a deep fryer. It was raw and surprising as hell. What I didn't realize is that, if you were watching in the UK, it played as even more of a surprise, since the actress they killed was the biggest star in the cast...
The effect was spectacular: 334 viewers complained. Messageboards all over the BBC website continued to buzz even two weeks after the event. Some people thought Faulkner would return from the dead. Others suspected she had a twin sister. What seemed to have shocked them was not the brutality of the death - not especially graphic in the normal run of TV drama - but that Spooks did what television almost never does. It killed off one of its leads in the second episode of a long-running series. And in mainstream TV you just do not do that.There's two things that are really interesting there. First, the idea (that just didn't play here) that they killed off a big name (in the UK) in the episode made the show even more shocking for the home audience. I think that's brilliant. The American equivalent was probably the first episode of The Shield, where Vic Mackey's bonafides were forever established by the way he took out Reed Diamond -- a face who fans of the genre recognized from Homicide.
Jane Featherstone, joint managing director of Spooks production company Kudos,laughs and looks a tiny bit guilty. "The Lisa thing actually came about because David Wolstencroft was writing the outline for episode two and we just couldn't get it right," she admits. "We really needed the series to get the green light and the strongest story we had was in episode 13, where a woman got her head set on fire. We'd seen Lisa but we weren't sure we were going to cast her, the best story we had was the climax, we needed the commission, so what were we going to do? I said, let's move the most dramatic thing you've got to episode two and kill off the only actress the audience recognise and then you've got them hooked. We hoped ..."
The other interesting bit there, at least to me, is the way that the pressures of the medium constantly force you to move things up. The creator of 24 is on record as saying that in that initial season, they had every intention of having the assasination attempt on David Palmer happen in the finale. Instead, it wound up coming halfway through Season One.
I've said it before. Lord knows I'll say it again. TV is a beast. And the beast must be fed.
Great article. Great series. Thanks to Lee Thomson's blog for the tip.
8 comments:
I thoroughly enjoyed seasons one and two of MI-5 on A&E and look forward to season three, if the network intends to air it. I know huge chunks of content were edited out of the British version for airing in North America but I hope someday to get it on DVD and find out what I missed.
I only watch the show on DVD, which by the way are some of the finer sets around with insightful commentary and behind-the-scenes.
The six-pack is going to DVD. You heard it here first.
I think the six pack on DVD is actually a pretty good idea.
People do like watching shows on TV. The option to be able to watch one or three in a sitting is a great option.
It's less committment than a movie.
I think there could be a real future in this...be interesting to see if/how it takes off.
It also raises the intriguing possibility for different financing models, ie: it goes to network TV in Canada, but is designed for a straight-to-DVD sale in the USA.
Hmmmmmm.
The whole point to making a 26 episode season is to reach the magic number in order to syndicate. What will be really interesting to watch is if the DVD sales of a series becomes more important than the syndication sales. At that point it won't really matter how many episodes are in a series.
Full season orders in canada is an interesting idea. As A WRITER, it's exciting because it would give a lot of inexperienced, up and coming writers the chance to hone their craft... BUT, as A FAN, i like limited (6-13) run series, because it means there won't be any crappy "stand alone" episodes written by inexperienced up and coming writers.
oh, what to do. :)
But with a 22 episode (I don't think 26 is coming back for drama anywhere, anytime soon) season, the point is not that you have stand alones written by inexperienced writers -- the point is that you can have a larger writing staff with a spectrum of experience.
That episode by the new writer, presumably, will go through the hands of the competent showrunner who's come up through the ranks of working on other people's stuff, and therefore won't be so crappy.
As opposed to the way it is now in Canada where we shoot A LOT of FIRST DRAFTS. Shows that should have been rewritten, but there's only one or two writers and they haven't exactly been schooled either.
Most of the bigs admit that TV writing is a craft. But without developing staff and mentoring, how do you learn the craft? There's not a structure in place to do that. There's no opportunity to learn, so you either get a show of your own before you're ready, or -- here's the important thing -- you have no one to show you how to make it better.
If that's the alternative, then longer orders would be beneficial to the viewer -- because after too long, the shows would all be better and more entertaining.
It's a bit chicken and the egg. We need the very system you described to be put in place, but it's going to take a lot of failure before it works well, and it's going to be hard to convince the broadcasters that we need to fail.
What really scares me, is that... ahem, for example, in the mid 80's the CBC started up a sitcom department. They decided they were going to start making sitcoms and compete on a world scale. So they poured all their money into this ONE show, "Mosquito Lake" which failed miserably... And CBC shut the ENTIRE sitcom department down.
The broadcasters in this country need to learn that the only way to make a good product is to be ok with making a shitty product, because the best part of failing is learning from it.
So, in order for what your proposing to work, there needs to be a lot of room for trial and error.
I'm with you a hundred percent, I dream of the day where a Canadian show has an actual writers room... God, a staff of writers, a show runner, and junior writers?! That would be awesome.
You're right, we should be teaming up with the BBC, it makes total sense.
OOOOOH
The CBC Sitcom Department.
I remember that *well.*
Here's the thing, though. Like everything else ,that innovation was not ruled by reality so much as politics. The shows were bad (and there were 3 if I recall: Mosquito Lake, Not My Department, starring the then premier of Ontario's wife, Shelley Peterson -- I'm just going to let that sit without comment...and Material World, a failed show that underwent about three makeovers in its time.)
CBC has got to realize something. I call it, "Welcome to JAG." David James Elliot. JAG guy. He was the hunk on Street Legal. He was here. He left. He became a star on a hit show.
That's your industry.
We can pass. We can move. If you don't give the people work, they will go to the USA. I remember talking, in the CBC sitcom dept days, to someone who spoke about Seeing Things -- and who said that when that show ended (which was a success for CBC) everyone with experience scattered.
Why? There was nothing else to go to and they needed jobs. It's not hard math. Canadians, if they really want, can go to the states if they have talent and perseverance.
In the Case of the Late lamented Sitcom dept, look what they did. They did a couple of shows because a guy came in and did a raindance and had them put him in charge. Didn't work. You know who they had come up and direct eps of Mosquito Lake?
Burt Metcalfe.
That's right, muthafucka. Burt "I won Emmys directing MASH, you bastard" Metcalfe. And he trained the ADs and the costume guys, and the thises and the thats. And then, when the political winds changed at CBC and they hoofed the unmentioned executive, all the people who'd actually learned at that guy's hands scattered.
CBC has been doing this for three decades.
yes. people learn in increments. But in Canada we have a special challenge and it is this:
IT IS NOT HARD TO GET A GREEN CARD.
Not really.
When you mentor within a series, you prove that the show and the system can work. It can work. Give them lead time, pay the writers, hire the top people well and it CAN work.
and by the way, the top people are not people who bullshit you by saying, "Oh, I wrote for [show you never heard of] in LA." the top people are actually...you know...good."
I know who they are.
Strange that CBC doesnt'.
The six-pack was a great model. Once. When the UK only had two TV channels and there were no video recorders and the pace of life was such that six weeks went by like an ocean liner.
These days... a zillion channels, life far more hectic, most of our viewing timeshifted... six weeks is what it takes to become aware of a show, by which time it's over.
Right now the main obstacles to change here in the UK are the network schedulers, who are terrified at the size of the commitment involved in a 26-week run of standalone stories, and the producers, who baulk at the idea of stepping back while writers talk to each other.
The schedulers want someone to guarantee them that a show won't fail. Which can never happen. The US can meet this by making the shows just ahead of time so that cancellation only leaves you with a couple in the can.
The producers are used to micromanaging writers on a one-on-one basis and pretty much laying down what is and isn't going to play. In a roomful of writers, the non-writing producer is weakened. The US answer - structure the producing power within the room.
What the industry in the UK is hankering for right now is to make drama like HBO does it.
Post a Comment