Lee Goldberg

Life and Death

by

I saw the LIFE pilot on Tuesday. It was certainly the most interesting pilot I’ve seen so far this season, but the crime story/mystery was weak and it’s hard to connect with the lead character, a cop who was falsely imprisoned for a crime he didn’t commit. Now the cop is exonerated, rich, and back on the force. You’d think that would be a strong, emotional hook for viewers…but the hero behaves more like an alien visiting earth for the first time…which gets tiresome. I found the supporting characters, particularly his new partner, much more interesting than him. And although I liked the quasi-documentary gimmick of the people in his life being "interviewed," it tended to pull me out of the story (such as it was). Although I am tired of pilots that end with the troubled hero looking at the secret "evidence board" that he’s compiled, it’s the one new show that I might actually make an effort to watch again. It has some potential.

I gave up on THE REAPER about 30 or 40 minutes in. I was so dull and familiar. I felt like I’d already seen it before (wait a minute, I did. It was called CHUCK) and like so many shows this season about people getting superpowers, not a single character behaves remotely like a human being. I didn’t believe a second of it…or give a damn about anyone. I am so tired of seeing the slacker hero and his nerdier, slacker best friend, both of whom have dead end jobs at a big-box store. Considering that they got Kevin Smith to direct it, the show was surprisingly flat and listless. It had that dull,  made-on-the-cheap-in-Canada-for-first-run-syndication-in-1989 feel to it. The only real surprise I got out of the show was seeing Allison Hossack as the hero’s Mom. She was one of the stars of COBRA, a made-on-the-cheap-in-Canada-for-first-run-syndication series that I worked on about 12 years ago. I wondered how she could possibly be playing the mother of a 21 year old guy. I mean, she’s the same age as me and I — and then I had a horrifying realization: I am old enough to have children in their 20s. When did that happen?

As disappointing as the new fall shows are so far, it’s nice to see two actresses (Gretchen Egolf and Allison Hossack) who co-starred in two series I wrote & produced (MARTIAL LAW and COBRA) back as regulars in new series (JOURNEYMAN and REAPER). I just wish they were better shows.

In the Mix

by

I am leaving today for Germany, where I will be speaking at the Cologne Conference on Friday and then supervising the final sound mix on FAST TRACK, which should be fun. With luck, I will be back in Los Angeles by the end of next week.

I am chugging along on MR. MONK GOES TO GERMANY…which is due very soon…and actually visiting the place where the book is set again should give me a fresh jolt of inspiration. And then I want to jump back into my screenplay adaptation of GUN MONKEYS.

What Casting Directors Do

by

THE MIDDLEMAN pilot is a go, and my friend Javi is chronicling the experience of producing it on his blog. Today he begins with an excellent explanation of how the casting process begins for the key roles in the project.

the concept meeting is that moment when the show’s team decides on a common language for the types of actors who will play the roles. the sky is the limit: if saying that the perfect actor for a role is “a young rod steiger” gets everyone on the same page, then so be it — if only because it provides a guideline, for the ensuing search for talent, and it ensures that there is consensus as to the kind of actors on which to focus (it also allows anyone at the studio and network who thinks — hey, “young rod steiger” is wrong, how about a “young raymond burr” — to voice their opinion, which, of course, leads to the inevitable consensus of “ok, how about a young william conrad?”).

the casting agents — trained professionals that they are — inform these conceptual discussions (and bring them down to earth) by offering their own lists of actors whom they believe are right, who are available, and who may be disposed to doing the project.

understanding and respecting the artistry of a good casting agent is crucial to producing a series — their job is to not only find the agreed-upon type, but also to identify actors who are up to the challenges of the project, and to open up the producers’ eyes to talent that may not necessarily fit the concept but who bring other things to a role that are equally interesting.

There’s a reason why they are called "Casting Directors," because they are actually bringing their taste, experience, and unique creative pov to the project, the same way a director does. You aren’t hiring someone just to sift through pictures and resumes (I have worked with casting director like that…and it was hell). It also helps if you can establish a creative partnership with a casting director who understands how you think, how you view story, the acting styles you like, and your approach to character.

I’ve been fortunate to have worked for years with two of the best casting directors in the business — Victoria Burrows & Scot Boland (LORD OF THE RINGS, 21 JUMP STREET, CAST AWAY, the new RESIDENT EVIL movie) — on two TV series, several pilots, and most recently on the U.S. casting for the FAST TRACK pilot. Having a creative short-hand together makes things a lot easier. I can always count on them to bring in just the right people…but they will also bring in some unexpected actors who offer a very different take on the character than I had in mind. Some times those actors are interesting misfires, but more often than not, it’s those unexpected choices we end up going with.  It was Victoria and Scot who found Johnny Depp for 21 JUMP STREET, Kevin Spacey for WISE GUY, and Viggio Mortenson for LORD OF THE RINGS, so that should tell you something about their creative instincts.

For the lead in FAST TRACK, they brought in Erin Cahill. She was exactly the face, the voice, the attitude and the look I imagined when I was writing. Erin was so close to the picture in my head that it was a bit startling for me. I’m not surprised at all that Victoria and Scot found her. That’s why they are so good at what they do.

But I also remember a time on DIAGNOSIS MURDER, when they brought in an actor for a spin-off pilot who’s performance wasn’t what Bill Rabkin and I had in mind at all…but he was so compelling, so interesting, so unique, that we had to cast him. It was Neil McDonough, and he was by far the best thing about the pilot. He later did a multi-episode arc for us on MARTIAL LAW, then immediately went on to BAND OF BROTHERS, MINORITY REPORT and BOOMTOWN.

Who you hire as a casting director is, next to the director himself, the most important choice you will make when you begin your production.  If you don’t have the right actors, you don’t have a show…

The New Blah Season

by

I’ve caught up on a few of the season premieres and, if they are any indication of the TV season ahead, it’s going to be a dull one.

I was hugely disappointed with THE BIONIC WOMAN. It’s no BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, that’s for sure…even though they a bunch of actors from that show. The plotting was weak, jumpy and non-sensical. But that might have been okay if the lead actress wasn’t so dull and if I believed a single emotional reaction she had. She loses her legs, an arm, one eye and an ear and then screams in horror because…she can see and hear just fine and arms and legs look  just like her old ones. Instead of being thankful at being, essentially, rebuilt without a scratch, she freaks out and is full of resentment. Um, why? One faction of the secret organization responsible for her super powers wants her alive, the other wants her dead. The pilot ends with her telling the secret agency that she knows her powers now…and she is in charge.

That’s almost beat-for-beat the way CHUCK ends, too. He’s a nerd who also gets super powers, and he also doesn’t behave in any manner resembling actual human behavior…and at the end he, too, tells the secret organization that he knows his powers now…and he is in charge. This duplication wouldn’t be quite so painful if the shows weren’t on the same network. CHUCK  seems to be a one-joke show…and the joke wears thin before the pilot is over.

JOURNEYMAN is QUANTUM LEAP without the fun or the clear franchise. It’s also so "TV" that I wanted to throw a brick through my television set. The hero is a reporter, his brother is a cop, and his ex-girlfriend is an assistant D.A…of course. I’m surprised his wife isn’t a surgeon and his best friend isn’t a private eye. It’s never clear why he’s jumping back in time and his reaction to this stunning event is to mope around in a daze. You will, too, after watching this show. It’s a shame, because I like the guy from ROME and it’s nice to see Gretchen Egolf, one of our regulars on MARTIAL LAW, on a series again.

BACK TO YOU is, as one of my friends said, the best sitcom of 1987. It feels very familiar, very formulaic, and very competent. And also very dated. It’s clear that everybody involved with the show, on screen and off, are pros doing professional work. It was slick, it was well-made, and it was laughless. It reminded me of that Henry Winkler sitcom from last season — or your parents’ Cadillac sedan. Yeah, it’s classy, smart, comfortable and safe, and it feels nice while you are having a ride, but ultimately it’s bland and forgetable.

Coming up on CBS soon is MOONLIGHT, the werewolf cop. I think he should team up with NICK KNIGHT, the vampire cop, and become private eyes. (What’s funny is that CBS originally developed NICK KNIGHT with Rick Springfield and then let it go into first-run syndication…and, a few years back, they gave us WOLF LAKE, a werewolf series that immediately tanked. What is their fascination with supernatural cops and werewolves?)

Reasoning with Reasoner

by

Today Saddlebums interviews author James Reasoner, one of the hardest-working writer I know with 200 books to his credit under various nom-de-plumes. In the time it has taken me to write this post, he’s written half a western novel.

The actual writing process is pretty much the same for me regardless of what name is going on the book. I take a lot of pride in the work and I have to entertain myself as I’m writing, first and foremost. Everything else comes after that. There is a certain sense of freedom in writing a book when you know your name won’t be on it. You won’t get any of the blame if it’s terrible. But that’s balanced out by the fact that you don’t get any credit for the good ones, either. And I don’t want to write terrible books, anyway. I want them all to be as good as I can make them.

Blame Everyone But Yourself

by

Bestselling author Tess Gerritsen observes on her blog today that self-published authors love to blame the system for their failure rather than the vanity presses that suckered them.

They have signed up for a lesson in frustration and of course they feel rejected and angry, so they want to blame the “system”.  They should really be blaming those self-publishing companies who prey on their hopes and dreams, companies that lure them in with promises of fame and success and then take their money. But are these authors angry at the self-publishing companies who’ve victimized them?  No.  Instead, they’re angry at whoever points out the truth.

They are also unwilling to admit to themselves that their desperation and gullibility drove them to make a costly and embarrassing mistake. So they rail against the the publishing industry for being cruel, at published authors for being "elitist,"  at book stores for not selling their crappy-looking and non-returnable vanity titles, and at professional writers organizations like the MWA that won’t acknowledge them as "published authors."  What’s really sad is when these self-deluded writers defend the scammers and vanity presses as "up-and-coming small publishers" who deserve our support.

BookWise is BookStupid

by

Edgar Award-winning author Burl Barer, who also happens to be my Uncle, sent me this note about his encounter with a book biz get-rich-quick huckster:

I received the following email on MYSPACE…no doubt well intentioned, but it irked me. Here  it is.

"While reading your wonderful profile I could not help but notice that you have authored some books. If getting your  words out to a larger audience is something that has some interest to you…"
I continued reading this informative missive, and then the following paragraph hit me between the eyes:
"This is a great opportunity for you as a self-published author to have your book listed and distributed along with some of the greatest books ever written!"
Since when am I self-published? The next paragraph reinforced my "irk factor":
"BookWise is very supportive of the self-published author, and one of the perks of being a member is the Author’s Workshop coming up for all members this Oct 18,and 19th, 2007. And the 20th the first company convention-FREE TO ALL it’s members"
Well, that pushed me over the edge.  I wrote back:
"I am NOT Self-Published, subsidy published, or any other variation on vanity publishing. I am PAID to write by real publishers — I do not pay printers to print up my books and then have the nerve to call myself a published author.  In my opinion, calling yourself an author when you are self-published is like calling yourself a doctor because you purchased a stethoscope."
Okay, that may have been a bit harsh.
I heard back right away informing me that  Bookwise also features real authors published by real publishers. Good for them. I wrote back and wished them the best of luck on their charity endeavors. But why do people assume that we all self-publish? 
When I was recently introduced somewhere, and it was mentioned that I’ve written a dozen books, the first question was "Have any  of your books been published?"
"Yes. That’s why they are called books, not unpublished manuscripts. I also have unpublished manuscripts that are not yet books, or may never become books. And before you ask, I did not pay for the publication of my manuscripts – the publisher paid me."

Burl Barer…self flagellating, self-promoting, self-serving but NOT self-published

I’d never heard of Bookwise, so I visited their site and listened to their come-on. They bill themselves as "the most intelligent home-based business in the world." Basically, it’s a book club that makes their money from the books you buy and the other people you convince to join the club.

It works like this: you pay a $40 enrollment fee and $35-a-month to buy their books at a 40%discount. Most of the books are from name-brand authors from name-brand publishers, but I gather from the email my Uncle got that they will soon be opening their doors to the self-published, probably for a price.

You make your millions by either selling the books you buy directly to your friends and neighbors out of the trunk of your car…or by making a commission off the other suckers, er, people you convince to join the book club and become salesmen themselves.

But they also want you to feel like you are saving the world, one book and one commission at a time. One dollar of every book they sell and 10% of their corporate earnings will go to literary programs for children. Makes you all tear-eyed, doesn’t it?

So you aren’t just paying Bookwise $460 for the opportunity to buy their books…you are, as they proclaim, helping to "stop the dumbing down of America."

But that strikes me as a self-defeating goal for Bookwise…if we stop the dumbing down of America, who will be stupid enough to sign up for this scheme?

Update on MWA Rules for Membership

by

At the last board meeting, the Mystery Writers of America made some slight revisions/clarifications in the language for criteria for Active Membership status and publishers who wish to be on the Approved Publishers list.  They are as follows:

Rule 2 previously stated that to become Active members of MWA, book authors
must have received a minimum of $1,000 in royalties and/or advances, but there
was no specific language that required publishers to pay this amount. The new
Rule 2 corrects this: Your publisher, to be approved,
must have paid a minimum of $1,000 during the preceding year to at least five
authors with no financial or ownership interest in the company. (See Rule
7.)

Rule 5 (the "two-year" rule) was not changed in its basic intent, but the
language now makes explicit that "first book" refers only to an author with no
interest in the company: Your publisher must have been in
business for at least two years since publication of the first book by a person
with no financial or ownership interest in the company. (Exception: a new
imprint by an established publisher.)

Rule 7 was also changed with reference to authors with financial interests in
the publishing company: Your publisher, to be approved,
must publish at least five authors per year, other than those with a financial
or ownership interest in the company, such as an owner, business partner,
employee, or close relative of such person.

It is the intent of the Board to create rules that are both clear and fair,
to benefit all our members and to encourage good standards and practices in the
publishing industry.