Today's TV musing is about writers. Now it can't have escaped your notice but fiction doesn't emerge fully formed from the sea onto our TV screens – there are these people called writers who create all the words and deeds depicted in dramas, comedies and even some 'reality' TV shows.
No two writers are the same, of course, each usually having their own 'voice' – a way of writing dialogue, a way of developing and introducing characters, a way of plotting that is unique to them. But on a TV show, that isn't always a good thing.
On a serial or long-running show, sometimes you don't want individual writers' scripts to stand out from the others; you want them all more or less the same because you have ongoing character arcs, back story, established forms of behaviour for the protagonists and so on. If a writer's script stands out, it's probably because it's inconsistent with the other episodes, which you don't usually want.
On many TV shows, there is a special role specifically for making sure scripts all mesh together nicely. In the UK, that's the script editor; in the US, it's usually the 'show runners' or exec producers – who unlike their film counterparts are typically writers who have ascended the career ladder.
Of course, there can be problems when the script editor/exec producer also writes scripts, because there's no one there to check their work for consistency and because they typically give themselves more latitude than they do to other writers. It's not always the case: you'd be hard-pressed to work out which Lost scripts are by Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, which Mad Men scripts are by Matthew Weiner.
But take The Unit, for example. One of the exec producers on that is David Mamet. Yes, the David Mamet – the award-winning playwright and screenwriter who wrote Glengarry Glen Ross, Speed-the-plow, The Verdict and Wag The Dog, to name but a few classics. Who's going to edit his stuff, let alone himself?
So whenever Mamet writes a script for The Unit, it's always massively at odds with all the other scripts and contains an overload of his usual obsessions (martial arts, con tricks, overly manly behaviour). Surprisingly, they're never as good as the scripts by the other producers, sister Lynn Mamet and Eric L Haney, on whose book the show was based.
Callan is another show that comes to mind. Creator James Mitchell resolutely refused to acknowledge there had been any character development in between his contributions to the four series, so whenever he wrote a script, every character immediately reverted back to the behaviours and relationships they'd exhibited in the original pilot play.
Yet there are some shows where different voices are tolerated and allowed. Take Doctor Who. Although show runner/exec producer Russell T Davies can rewrite up to 60% of a script created by one of the other writers, you can still usually tell when Gareth Roberts or Steven Moffat is writing the week's episode – or when it's one of his own. And that's actually a great delight.
So today's question: how much should individual writers' voices be heard on TV shows – does it depend on the type of show and is the reason it's tolerated on some shows because there are only a few decent writers on the show and we just notice when there are some good episodes for a change?
October 22, 2008 | Reply
Shows should always be consistent unless there is a device being used that means that it shouldn't.
I hate Dr Who - never watched a good one - but so many people tell me that I need to watch the ones written by... , surely that is a bad thing?
If characters dialogue or motives change because of the writer, then someone isn't doing their job properly.
Chris
October 22, 2008 | Reply
I'm not necessarily convinced by Chris's argument - why would advice to watch episodes by a particular writer be a bad thing? They may well be unrepresentative of the whole and the divergence of writers as a group, but how's that work?: to shut yourself off from everything about a show because you don't generally like it, even if some bits/episodes may potentially appeal, just because they are not consistent with your impression of the thing as a whole? That's almost like saying I hate bananas so I'm staying away from all fruit ("bananas are a good source of potassium!" - sorry, got distracted there)
I suppose, in my inept way, what I'm trying to say is that within a serial, should characters/portrayals be 'fully' consistent and linear in development, story arc or not? The Callan set up is perhaps more extreme, and perhaps the issue is about other writers and shows being able to accommodate the specific individual conceptions of the show.
Is the writer the most important person, or does it depend on the writer and/or the show as to the significant impact - for good or ill - they may have on the internal consistency of the show? And surely, humans prove that we can be inconsistent, fall back into old/former behaviours - and perhaps out again as swiftly - so why can't writers make use of that?
Both Buffy and the X-Files had writers whose stamp was all over their narratives: is it perhaps that certain genres can accommodate the individualistic writer's handling of things more easily - and that's why the hooby-horses of Mamet and the sticking to my template of Mitchell were more jarring?
October 22, 2008 | Reply
There should be a uniform style everyone on staff is aware of and can write towards, particularly regarding how characters behave, etc. But it kind of depends on what the show is...
X-Files or Star Trek benefited from having episodes with unique qualities that writers brought to the table (as long as the core characters stay true to themselves, those shows thrived off variety and different imaginations.)
But with shows like Dexter or Mad Men, it should be less obvious there are different minds involved in the process. You want a smoother ride with the latter shows, as it would destroy a sense of reality if they fluctuated in tone and style too much. Imagine how terrible 24 would be if the writers of episode 17 just ignored the tone of everything that went before?! :)
October 23, 2008 | Reply
Lisa,
For me it's about consistency. With Buffy, on the whole I felt it held together. I can pretty much drop in at any stage and enjoy the show. I can disagree with certain story arcs, but I never feel that a character is inconsistent week to week. Although we all have poetic licence to be inconsistent, and people develop over time, I think on the whole, most people will perform as you would expect them, based on how well you know them. When you invest time in a show, characters will perform with the consistency of their character. This is compounded when a certain writer is the one who always makes them inconsistent!
With Dr Who what I find odd with it is the number of times that fans have said - ah, you need to watch this writers episode instead. Now, that episode may be fantastic, and by all accounts Steven Moffat's fall in to that category - it just concerns me when fans of a show can readily admit that the writing is so inconsistent, that you might want to avoid certain episodes but watch others.
October 23, 2008 | Reply
I'm currently rewatching The West Wing and it's startling how different the scripts were during the years when Aaron Sorkin was writing almost every episode and later when the script production was following the more traditional model. Apparently when Sorkin left, producer John Wells decided that he would not even attempt to ape his style and do his own thing.
That led to Season 5. I've not spoken to anyone who likes Season 5.
The later seasons were all about the next election and ran away from actually being about the west wing. I now think that's because Wells et al had no clue how to deal with that aspect of the series, had Sorkin's shadow over them, and so eventually dumped it in favour of doing their own thing. In effect, The West Wing became its own series.
Basically Sorkin was writing about character. Wells likes plot.
I don't know if that answers the question but I do know this. The best episodes of any show are the ones written by the original writer/creator.
Name me one in which that isn't the case.
Doctor Who doesn't count, because it doesn't really have an original writer/creator and allows room for the Davies's and Moffat's to write it their own way.
October 23, 2008 | Reply
Wells apparently thought that Sorkin's West Wing was too divorced from real-world politics and Washington and tried to make it more authentic (ie duller).
I liked The Supremes in season five. Other than that, I hates it I do.
As for your challenge, generally I agree, but okay then: The Unit (best episodes by Lynn Mamet, created by David Mamet), Chuck (created by Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak, best episodes Allison Adler), Heroes (created by Tim Kring, best episodes: any by anyone other than Tim Kring), The Invisible Man (creator: Matt Greenberg, best episodes: Craig Silverstein).
October 23, 2008 | Reply
Also, going back a bit, Secret Army (creator: Gerald Glaister, best episodes: N J Crisp/John Brasen) and Survivors (creator: Terry Nation, best episodes: Jack Ronder).
October 23, 2008 | Reply
WW: That explains it then. Basically Wells nibbled the Capracorn off it.
Perhaps I should have said 'Name me one in which that isn't the case ... out of the shows *I've* seen.'
But I agree there are some rare exceptions. I think Drew Goddard could write for any series and make it look he was there at the beginning. And Jane Espenson. It's funny how many writers from the Whedon room went on to improve other programmes just by being there.
October 23, 2008 | Reply
Think you'll need to start by listing all the shows you've ever seen. We'll take it from there...
Jane Espenson I only found good on Buffy. I hate her sub-standard BSG scripts with a fiery passion.
October 23, 2008 | Reply
"it just concerns me when fans of a show can readily admit that the writing is so inconsistent, that you might want to avoid certain episodes but watch others."
I don't think it's about 'avoiding' - more a recommendation of 'well, generally you might not like this, but try this one as a way in'. Does it have to be that case that you like a whole series/show? can't it ever be legitimate to like some bits, or even one bit?
Re: The West Wing - I totally agree about Sorkin's eps being strongest. I love the show as a whole, but S5 isn't a compelling one overall. I still abide by my love for S1 and 2 which, inconsistencies and all, I probably can quote far too much from without really thinking.
The Whedonettes have proved an interesting bunch - not sure they've all lived up to the expectations set by their involvement with Joss but still.
October 23, 2008 | Reply
I think certain shows, like Doctor Who, actually benefit from a diverse range of voices. In truth, there's not that much variation in tone, but, given that the show's format lends itself perfectly to a different style adventure each week, different approaches (assuming the characters stay consistant) help keep things fresh.
October 23, 2008 | Reply
Stu: The best episodes of any show are the ones written by the original writer/creator.
Name me one in which that isn't the case.
Rob: The Unit (best episodes by Lynn Mamet, created by David Mamet), Chuck (created by Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak, best episodes Allison Adler), Heroes (created by Tim Kring, best episodes: any by anyone other than Tim Kring), The Invisible Man (creator: Matt Greenberg, best episodes: Craig Silverstein).
Stuart: Also, going back a bit, Secret Army (creator: Gerald Glaister, best episodes: N J Crisp/John Brasen) and Survivors (creator: Terry Nation, best episodes: Jack Ronder).
To add to the list: Charmed (created by Constance M. Burge, best episodes: Brad Kern, David Simkins - Burge left or was thrown off the show well before the end!), Quincy, M.E. (created by Glen A. Larson and Lou Shaw, best episodes: probably Michael Braverman), The Simpsons (created by Matt Groening, best episodes: George Meyer, John Swartzwelder, Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein, et al), MacGyver (created by Lee David Zlotoff, best episodes: Stephen Kandel), anything at all from Gerry Anderson...
It's funny how many writers from the Whedon room went on to improve other programmes just by being there.
I assume this doesn't include Marti Noxon. But I do agree about Jane Espenson (she was just as effective on Gilmore girls as she was for the Slayer).
October 23, 2008 | Reply
No Noxon's the exception. She didn't even have game *on* Buffy and Season 6 was the result. It's amazing how even the best series have bum seasons.
The exceptions to my rule suggest that my sweeping statement is based on my interest in series which can be considered to be specifically 'authored'. Though I also don't watch as much tv as I used to, so...
Though we've seen it in comics, I think one of the great lost experiments is seeing Joss write for a series he didn't create. He's directed, but he has such a specific voice, I wonder how it would have sounded being applied to something like Charmed or sweet jellybean Doctor Who. Have we news as to whether he's seen the new version yet?
October 24, 2008 | Reply
He started out in movie rewrites. I think he did a lot of work on Toy Story, for example, and X-Men (maybe). I don't think he's seen the new Doctor Who or at least he hasn't commented on it, as far as I'm aware.
As for Marti Noxon, I'm curious as to what she does on Mad Men, which isn't suffering for her presence in the producer credits.
October 24, 2008 | Reply
Whedon was Oscar-nominated for Toy Story, along with two co-writers. He also did a lot of work on Speed, which stayed in the film; most of his stuff for X-Men didn't make the cut. And he's probably still trying to forget about what Alien: Resurrection might have been like if they'd kept his script.
I'm pretty sure I remember Warren Ellis mentioning that he'd been discussing Doctor Who with Whedon on one of his visits to LA.
October 24, 2008 | Reply
Whedon got his big break writing for series 2 of 'Roseanne'. It's while since I saw them but he wrote the episode where Darlene wins a poetry prize and one where Roseanne works in a fast food place with a teenage boss and a couple of others I think.
October 24, 2008 | Reply
[this is good] To provide a little insight on why the scripts by show creators are sometimes at odds with the established tone of a series...
The creator pitches and sells an idea to a network. They promise him or her that they love the concept. But by the time the staff is hired and a half-dozen scripts (before production starts) have been rejected by the network (searching to put their imprint on the thing and justify their existence) the show has gone through some birthing pangs. Casting. Sets. Shooting schedule. Plots and characters mutate. Many things conspire to clip the creator's imaginative wings. The staff, hired to execute the creator/showrunner's now somewhat compromised vision, also know that they are working for the network. It's where their next job will come from. A subtle, subconscious shift takes place wherein the staff (their power and financial traction set lower than the creator/showrunner's) endeavors to keep their jobs and toe the network line while still trying to remain true and faithful to the creator/showrunner's original (but hobbled) concept and intent. A writing staff's hybridization of a network's needs with a creator's wants sometimes results in good material. But when the creator/showrunner steps up to bat with a script they can sometimes be retaining the original, pre-evolutionary notions that originally interested them in the concept. And, it's been known to happen, the creators take that opportunity to show the powers-that-be what the show was intended to be about. And it's different. It's not what the audience has come to know and love. But it does reflect the creator/showrunner's attempt to revisit what interested them in the first place about the idea... while also carrying that (hobbled) idea forward in a direction that no one expects or necessarily wants.
And there is this ... creator/showrunners are hammered constantly by studio and network demands. By production demands. When they take on a script that the staff (lower on the totem pole) can't edit or even rewrite, the script can suffer from a lack of narrative consistency. And there are executives at the network that aren't comfortable criticizing weak work so as not to offend the creator/showrunner lest egos are bruised or negotiations for further work are jeopardized.
It's a complex dynamic, to say the least.
October 24, 2008 | Reply
As for Marti Noxon, I'm curious as to what she does on Mad Men, which isn't suffering for her presence in the producer credits.
Maybe she was attached briefly a la Brothers and Sisters (already demoted by Channel 4 to late nights from Saturday afternoons. Ouch) and her name is there contractually, just like the first season of Dirty Sexy Money listed Bryan Singer as one of its several executive producers but he was rather less involved with it than with House, M.D. (at least I don't remember seeing the Bad Hat Harry logo).
October 28, 2008 | Reply
You seem to have navigated the problems very well – thanks for dropping by and good luck in future!