Television

Is Flashpoint the Turning Point for Canadian TV?

by

Since we're talking about Canadian TV here lately…
During the writer's strike, CBS and NBC looked the the Great White North for replacement programming. CBS snagged the Canadian series FLASHPOINT and NBC grabbed THE LISTENER. 

FLASHPOINT did modestly well and is coming back for more episodes next month, THE LISTENER hasn't aired yet. But Globe & Mail TV critic John Doyle seems to think FLASHPOINT already marks a significant turning point for Canadian TV: 

FLASHPOINT changed everything. It benefited from the paucity of new shows available in the United States, thanks to the Writers Guild of America strike, but as soon as it became a hit, it brought the Canadian TV industry alive with hope and ideas. It also got better, episode by episode. And it showcased great Canadian actors to Hollywood and the world.

I think it may be too soon for the Canadians to assume FLASHPOINT is a major game-changer for their industry (or a certified hit on American TV).

It's certainly not the first time a Canadian show has been tried on U.S. primetime. CBS has toyed with Canadian content many times over the years…first with their "Crimetime After Primetime" latenight  schedule of Canadian shows (NIGHT HEAT, ADDERLY, DIAMONDS, etc) in the 1980s. They occasionally tried out the shows in primetime without success. And in 1994, CBS carried DUE SOUTH in primetime for a couple of seasons but it failed to spark a wave of home-grown Canadian programs on American airwaves (to be fair, it wasn't a true Canadian series, though. FLASHPOINT is set in Toronto….DUE SOUTH was a twist on McCLOUD, bringing a Canadian Mountie to Chicago).

Five or six years ago, UPN aired the popular Canadian series POWERPLAY…and cancelled it after just one disasterously low-rated airing. And, more recently, Lifetime briefly aired the Canadian vampire series BLOOD TIES to little notice.

It will be interesting to see if FLASHPOINT can hold its own now in a much more competitive environment than it faced during its initial airing…and if lives up to all the hopes the Canadian TV industry seems to be pinning on it

TV, eh?

by

Canadian TV writer Denis McGrath laments the current state of the TV biz up there:

The business model here — buy U.S. shows at dumped fire sale prices, and show 'em at the same time while you paste on your commercials — was always a far more fragile model than the one in the USA. But as the model that made their piggyback-industry possible crumbles, all the signs point toward the mandarins here taking in exactly the wrong lessons, and doubling down on a dying strategy.

As I have mentioned in past posts, Canada isn't particularly well-known for the quality of their home-grown, episodic dramas. But that doesn't mean they aren't producing a lot of them — the problem is, many are American shows that are merely shot in Canada for the tax breaks. Or, as blogger Will Dixon pointed out:

[…]as far as 'defining' us, service producing US programming is certainly high on the list of things we do as an industry…and the Stargates' definitely fall into that category (which is kind of an unfair rap against them because even though the vast majority of cast, crew, writers, showrunners are Canadian, it's primary investors and broadcasters have been American – MGM and US's Showtime and then SciFi channel). Thus, most people up here don't perceive them as distinctly 'Canadian' shows.

STARGATE, THE X FILES, THE COMMISH, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, PSYCH, and SMALLVILLE (and the first season of MONK) are just a few of the many American shows that have been out-sourced to Canada. Although the shows were shot entirely in Canada, and 95% of the cast and crew were Canadian, nobody considers them Canadian series…because they were created, developed, and financed in the United States, where they had their initial airings. 

The unfortunate truth is that without American out-sourcing of TV production to Canada, the TV industry up there would be hardly an industry at all…and that's not good for the future of Canadian TV.

Writers Write

by

Office
James Reasoner is one of the most prolific authors that I know…he's had hundreds of books published, mostly in the western genre. And yet very few people know who he is. Why? Because the majority of those books don't have his name on them (they were written under "house names" owned by the publisher or a literary estate).

For a lot of authors, the most important thing to them is seeing their name on the cover. But for James (pictured on the left hard at work), the most important thing is to make a living writing, something he loves to do and is very good at:

At one point in my career, I had published more than eighty books, only one of which (TEXAS WIND) had my name on it. People used to ask me how I could write a book knowing that my name wouldn’t be on it, and my stock answer was “I don’t care if my name is on the book as long as it’s on the check.”
Of course, that’s not exactly true now and wasn’t then. I’d love to be able to just write what I want, sell it, and have my name on it. But being able to keep writing, period, is more important to me.

It's a refreshing…and dare I say it, professional…attitude that you don't find much today. So many aspiring writers rush to self-publishing companies simply because they want the experience of seeing their name on a book cover, even if they have to spend thousands of dollars to do it. But James is different. He's a real writer and a true professional. I wish there were more like him:

There are dozens of books out there now with my name on them, and I’m thankful for Reasoner1
each and every one of them. I hope there’ll be more in the future. But as long as I can keep writing, one way or the other, I’ll be okay. That’s just me. I don’t really think that’s the only way to carve out a career – I’m sure every author has a different approach – but I feel like I’ve played the cards that were dealt to me and won more than I’ve lost.

I know how he feels. I think I may have told this story here before, but…a couple of years ago, it was down to Bill Rabkin & me against one other candidate for the co-exec producer job on a major hit series. The showrunner couldn't choose between the us and the other guy. So we met with the studio chief, who would be deciding who ultimately got the job. The interview was going great, and I was feeling real good about our chances, until the studio chief said:

"I only have on reservation about you two. Why don't you have sexier credits?"

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"Why haven't you ever worked on Law and Order or CSI?"

"Because we never had the opportunity, either because we were working on something else when they had openings or they weren't interested in hiring us when we were available," I said. "In the course of our career, we didn't have the luxury of picking and choosing our jobs as much as we would have liked. We have families and had to make a living so we took what came along and what interested us. But if you like us, our writing, our producing philosophy, and the way we tell stories, what difference does it make whether we worked on CSI or Diagnosis Murder?"

We might also have mentioned that our friend Terry Winter was working on SISTER SISTER when he got hired on the SOPRANOS, where he won Emmys and WGA Awards. His previous credits include THE NEW ADVENTURES OF FLIPPER and XENA. Not exactly the sexiest credits.

Well, it goes without saying that we didn't get the job. They hired someone with sexier credits. And fired him thirteen episodes later.

I like seeing my name in print and on the TV screen, but I consider myself first and foremost a working, professional writer. I write because I love it, but I also write to earn a living. Sometimes my creative or personal desires have to take a backseat to simply having a job. I don't think that Terry or I wrote for FLIPPER because we had a burning need to tells stories about a clever dolphin. We did it because writing is what we do and how we pay our bills.

UPDATE 12-20-2008: Bill Crider reviews James Reasoner's latest LONGARM novel (written under the house name "Tabor Evans.") And here's a Saddlebums review of one of Reasoner's 2007 LONGARM tales and an interview they did with him.

The Backlot

by

I've been surprised this season by how often shows are using the studio backlots instead of going on location. The familiar Warner Brothers backlot, and studio office buildings,  show up frequently on TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES and THE MENTALIST.  I haven't seen this much backlot shooting since the days of MANNIX and IT TAKES A THIEF. I wonder if this has something to do with the studio mandated budget cuts that are being impossed on showrunners. Then again, it can be cheaper sometimes to shoot on a city street than pay the studio overhead to use the backlot…

Are Canadian Showrunners an Endangered Species?

by

A bunch of Canadian showrunners sat down with the Globe & Mail newspaper and shared their worry that they are becoming a dying breed in the TV biz in the Great White North:

They see production companies and network executives interfering endlessly and pointlessly in the direction of certain shows. They say that a series might begin as a drama with occasional moments of comedy, and then, thanks to battles and conniptions in distant offices, by the fifth episode the series has morphed into a comedy.

They worry that hardly anybody in the industry, apart from themselves, understands what the term "showrunner" means (a senior writer with some executive responsibilities). They point out that the best television in recent years – The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men, The Shield and, in Canada, Intelligence, have been driven by writers who control almost every aspect of a production, but in Canada a writer is almost never allowed to follow through on a storytelling vision.

That may be why so much Canadian TV is — to be blunt — plodding and dull. Or, as a Canadian commentator put it back in 2003…

Why can't Canadians make a decent cop show? It's not as if they don't have examples to copy. You can't turn on the television without finding a cop show on somewhere. […]Like most Canadian TV dramas, Cold Squad is directed as if it were a stage play. The actors emote as if they were trying to make sure buddy in the back row can follow the play. To buddy on the couch, though, the overacting is just annoying.

[On Canadian cop shows] the characters are usually less than persuasive, for example. The characters on Blue Murder articulate as if they were playing Shakespeare.
[…]The actors of course are not helped by scripts which often seem to have been written by people who've been living in monasteries since birth – monasteries with vows of silence, too. The dialogue and situations are often artificial and beyond any help the actors can give them. Canadian scripts also tend to be short on action and plot twists, preferring long, long over-explained scenes. 

I couldn't agree more, at least based on the Canadian dramas that I've seen.

I've produced two U.S. series in Canada — COBRA in Vancouver and MISSING in Toronto — so I've watched a lot of Canadian TV while looking for directors, production designers, and actors. It's no secret why Canadian TV series aren't as marketable or popular worldwide as U.S. or U.K. crime dramas.  It's because they are bland, devoid of strong conflicts, sharply-drawn characters and compelling narrative drive. They just can't compete against U.S. or U.K. drama on any level.  

I know that's a broad and very unfair generalization, and that there may be Canadian shows that are terrific…but I haven't seen one yet.  On the other hand, I've seen a LOT of fantastic British crime dramas, though. It's not that Canada doesn't have the writing talent…it does…but I suspect that their best TV writers head to the U.S. as soon as they possibly can (at least that's what I've been told by my friends toiling in Canadian TV). The Globe & Mail worries about that, too:

What I take away is that they want to stay, to live and write on the
West Coast, and tell their stories there. Given their worries and
horror stories, I fear that, sooner rather than later many will be in
on the West Coast, but in Los Angeles, and they won't be telling
Canadian stories.

Back when I was a writer on MURPHY'S LAW, which we shot up in Vancouver in 1989, I endured some episodes of STREET LEGAL, a wanna-be L.A. LAW that was the "crown jewel" of Canadian TV at the time. It was a series that seemed utterly devoid of conflict. There were shampoo commercials with more gripping storylines and more at stake for their characters.  I couldn't understand how anyone could write a TV show that was so bland…or why anyone would want to watch it.

NIGHT HEAT, made around the same time, managed to make TJ HOOKER look like NYPD BLUE by comparison. MOM PI, TRADERS, DANGER BAY, NEON RIDER, NORTH OF 60, ENG, and DIAMONDS, while not all cop shows, I recall as being mind-numbingly dull.

I've been told many times that DAVINCI'S INQUEST is the best cop show ever made on Canadian TV. I've only seen some early episodes of the series, and one episode of the DAVINCI'S CITY HALL sequel series, and if that is the crown jewel of Canadian crime drama today, it's not saying much for the genre up there.

More recent Canadian cop shows like BLUE MURDER and COLD SQUAD were unbearably ponderous, musty and flat, not even remotely in the same league as U.S. or U.K. dramas. Simply compare COLD SQUAD to the similarly-themed U.S. series COLD CASE or the U.K's WAKING THE DEAD and you'll see what I mean…or compare the Canadian MURDOCK MYSTERIES to the U.K.'s INSPECTOR MORSE, REBUS, or LEWIS. The Canadian stuff feels desaturated, sanitized of color, emotion, drama and energy.

To be fair, I haven't seen INTELLIGENCE, FLASHPOINT or THE BORDER — but I have heard
very good things about them. They may represent a significant
turning point in Canadian episodic crime dramas. I certainly hope so.

Perhaps the problems with Canadian episodic drama all comes down an unwillingness by Canadian networks to commit to the showrunner system, to allow writers with a strong, consistent, artistic vision to run their series. If so, it's a damn shame.

Putting on your Comedy Hat

by

Earl Pomerantz has posted another wonderful anecdote from his days writing and producing Major Dad.

I meet with McRaney and his manager to discuss the problems McRaney’s having with the scripts. At some point in the discussion, McRaney’s manager, coincidentally a former Marine, says, “Now, putting on my ‘comedy hat’….”

I, internally, hit the roof, and bang my head against it a few hundred times. I’m not a Marine. I don’t claim, and never have claimed, to have a “Marine hat.” McRaney’s manager had never been involved in a comedy. Where the heck did he get a “comedy hat”!?

If you love tv, you should be reading Earl's blog.

Major Brilliant

by

Major_dad
I have been loving writer/producer Earl Pomerantz's brilliant and hilarious blog posts about the development of his sitcom MAJOR DAD. Here's an anecdote he shared about working on the pilot with then-CBS President Kim LeMasters:

Here’s something somebody told me I said once about how TV networks behave: “The first thing they say is the last thing they say.” What did I mean by that? I meant this.

During the “casting approval” process, the president of CBS, Kim (a man) had strongly objected to the casting of Shanna Reed as our leading lady. Universal insisted. We got Shanna Reed.

It is now the night before the filming. What is Kim’s primary “note”, besides that the show doesn’t “ring true” to the spirit of the Marine Corps?

“I can’t tell you what to do,” he began, before telling us what to do, “but if I were you, I would close down production and look for another leading lady.”

The Audience for Canadian Shows is Tiny

by

It doesn't take many viewers to make a show #1 on the CBC in Canada. The series THE BORDER was the highest rated "off-ice" Canadian series last week with 765,000 viewers. The guest appearance of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA's Grace Park is credited with the spike in viewership. According to the TV Feeds My Family blog, there are YouTube videos that are getting bigger audiences than most Canadian series.

The rest of CBC's week went like this: Air Farce Final Flight: 710,000, Dr. Who: 701,000, Rick Mercer Report (repeat): 637,000, Heartland: 625,000, The Tudors: 567,000, Fifth Estate: 526,000, Nature of Things 486,000, Little Mosque on the Prairie: 464,000, This Hour Has 22 Minutes (repeat): 428,000 and, dwindling well below sustainability, Sophie: 280,000.

Among the other Canadian-produced fare last week, CTV's So You Think You Can Dance Canada waltzed off with 1,160,000 viewers (another 888,000 watched the results show Thursday night). Next was ol' reliable Corner Gas at 1,066,000. Global's The Guard was down to 385,000. Well back, making Sophie look like CSI, was Degrassi: The Lost Generation at 222,000 viewers–across Canada. There are more people in Saskatoon!

UPDATE: The previous headline on this post ("The TV Audience in Canada is Tiny") was miss-leading so I have changed it to more accurately reflect what I was trying to say. American shows draw the lion's share of episodic TV viewers in Canada as they do in many European countries.

How NOT To Get People to Watch Your Show

by

Insulting your viewers probably isn't the best way to get them to watch your show. But that didn't stop HEROES showrunner Tim Kring from laying the blame for the ratings decline of his show on serialized storylines and the limited intelligence of his audience. 

The engine that drove [serialized TV] was you had to be in front of the TV [when it aired]. Now you can watch it when you want, where you want, how you want to watch it, and almost all of those ways are superior to watching it on air. So [watching it] on air is related to the saps and the dipshits who can't figure out how to watch it in a superior way." 

A superior way? Why is it "superior" to watch the show on your iPod or your computer instead of on TV? Isn't it a TV show? How does the medium you choose to watch HEROES with make the stories and characters any more or less compelling?

I'm sure that heavy serialization is part of the problem with HEROES. But the bigger problem is that the show is a confusing, uninvolving mess that isn't compelling or entertaining enough to get the viewer to make the necessary commitment. At least not this viewer, one of the "saps and dipshits."

I watched all of season the "superior way" on my iPod on plane flights while traveling back-and-forth to Europe. And I really liked it. I saw the first four or five episodes of season two on TV. And gave up on the show.  I guess if I'd watched the season two episodes on my iPod I would have liked them. (Or is he saying the opposite, that TV is the "superior way" and other platforms are for saps and dispshits? He's not too clear. Either way, it's the stories and characters that matter, not whether you watch it on TV, a computer, or a DVR).

Now Kring is planning to make his stories less serialized…or not serialized at all. That could work, but I'm not sure that he's attacking the real problem, or as Time Magazine TV critic James Poniewozik puts it:

Yes, you can blame technology for siphoning all the smart viewers away from your series. You could try revamping your show so that it becomes the complete opposite of what it was conceived as. Or you could try, you know, not sucking. A story arc or two that doesn't inspire ridicule could go a long way with the saps and dips***s, is all I'm saying. […]Whatever problems Heroes has, the fault lies not in its DVRs but in itself.


UPDATE 11-25-08: Poniewozik reports that Kring has apologized for his comments in an open letter to fans, which reads in part:

I was making the point that these platforms now offer a superior way to watch the show (without commercials, with extra content, commentary, at the audience's convenience, etc.) … It was a boneheaded attempt at being cute and making a point. Instead, it turned out to be just plain insulting and stupid. I know now how it sounded, but I truly never meant to suggest anything bad about our audience.